Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

[Biomega]

As for multiverse. No idea, i dont know enough about quantum physics to have an opinion.

Time travel? Nah, thats purely scifi for me.

Scientifically, they're not all that different, actually.

They both rely on the interpretation of certain mathematical solutions to established models; how many additional assumptions need to be made for those solutions to be valid varies with the specific manifestation of the concept in question (there's a number of them for both the multiverse and time travel).

Neither is experimentally confirmed or proven, and in fact most models in our current understanding of them probably COULDN'T be proven experimentally as they'd require other mechanisms that are similarly unproven (e.g. exotic matter with negative energy density and so on).

They're plausible insofar as the math, in most cases, does not necessarily preclude them. But that's not that uncommon for frameworks of sufficient complexity, and just because the math supports it doesn't necessarily mean it's real. One popular example of this is the fact that mathematically there is no special reason time would progress the way we experience it rather than the opposite way round (i.e. simply changing the mathematical sign) but it clearly does not seem to be the case; even if most of our models of reality would work perfectly fine, mathematically, if time was flowing "backwards" (from our perspective).

This is the biggest problem of something like String Theory - it makes mathematical sense, the models work fairly well (again, depending on which flavor of model as there's many) and run into no obvious contradictions, however we find it exceedingly difficult to determine if they're actually REAL. In part because some propositions are probably untestable (at least given current knowledge), while others are testable in principle but entirely impractical to verify (requiring e.g. a particle accelerator of a size on the order of the distance between the earth and the moon). Which is really why it should be called String Hypothesis, but that's neither here nor there.

TL;DR: scientific "plausibility" is often not a rigorous barrier, as many things can be plausibly made to work with our current understanding of reality; however, merely being plausible isn't enough to believe something, and evidence is required - which is where many otherwise plausible propositions fall short.

[Adamas102]

Actually, we don't have free will. We have the illusion of it.

I know there’s no real point to getting into a philosophical discussion with someone who believe they have psychic dreams, but that’s a pretty terrible and nihilistic outlook on life

[Dch48]

I know there’s no real point to getting into a philosophical discussion with someone who believe they have psychic dreams, but that’s a pretty terrible and nihilistic outlook on life

It's not a belief. It's absolute knowledge. Now, it hasn't happened for a while now. It's been at least 15 years since the last experience. During the "height" of it. From about 1973 to 2005, it happened maybe 10 times or so. As to free will, we have it for trivial things like what we're going to eat for dinner, or what TV show we're going to watch. For the big things like where we live, who we live with, whether or not we will have children, what job we will have, and our place in life, those are all pre-ordained. We think we are making the choices but we are actually being guided down a path. It can be a good path or it can be a bad one. Either way, it's preset. Thankfully we are unaware of that, otherwise life would be boring if we knew everything that was coming. We can only get infrequent glimpses of things and usually don't even realize it has happened.

We are NOT in control. Lose your human arrogance and accept that and things will be better.

[Adamas102]

It's not a belief. It's absolute knowledge. Now, it hasn't happened for a while now. It's been at least 15 years since the last experience. During the "height" of it. From about 1973 to 2005, it happened maybe 10 times or so. As to free will, we have it for trivial things like what we're going to eat for dinner, or what TV show we're going to watch. For the big things like where we live, who we live with, whether or not we will have children, what job we will have, and our place in life, those are all pre-ordained. We think we are making the choices but we are actually being guided down a path. It can be a good path or it can be a bad one. Either way, it's preset. Thankfully we are unaware of that, otherwise life would be boring if we knew everything that was coming. We can only get infrequent glimpses of things and usually don't even realize it has happened.

We are NOT in control. Lose your human arrogance and accept that and things will be better.

Like I said before, there's no point in having a discussion with someone who's so deep into their own paranormal fantasy that they think it constitutes "absolute knowledge". But hey, if going through life thinking no one is responsible for anything they do then have at it.

[Dch48]

Okay, explain this then. The most vivid one of the experiences. In 1985, my daughter was a year old. I had a disturbing dream where she was older but lying on a bed in sort of a coma. There was another child there. A light haired boy 3 or 4 years old. He asked if she was going to be okay and I told him she was going to come out of it and not to worry. The dog hadn't bitten her that badly. She did suddenly just wake up. Now, my son hadn't even been born at that time. About 4 years later, My daughter was sitting on our sofa and she suddenly just completely spaced out and fell over in a seizure of some kind. She had been bitten on the eyebrow by my brother's dog a couple of days previously. When I was in the process of calling the ambulance, the dream flashed back on me and it gave me a strangely peaceful feeling. She had come out of it in the dream so I knew she would then. She woke up in the ambulance and at the hospital scans showed a swelling of her brain right behind where the dog's tooth had actually entered her skull.

Now you tell me. If something like this had happened to you, would you believe in dreams being able to show future events? I think you would. There is no fantasy. It happened along with 8 or 9 others that were far more trivial events. Psychic ability exists whether you believe it does or not. Can it be harnessed and used on demand? I don't know. Governments have tried, with some success I might add. Have you ever read about the phenomenon known as remote viewing? Our Government and the Soviets carried out experiments that yielded results approaching 80% in accuracy. That was deemed to be not good enough and the programs were dumped. People say psychic ability has never been shown or documented but that is not true. There are many documented instances.

[Shadowferal]

Okay, explain this then. The most vivid one of the experiences.

It's always a personal deal.

[Darththeo]

No to Psychics.
Yes to time travel and ETs. At least forward time travel is.
Parallel universes are possible, but I can't say I fully believe they are real.

[Osmeric]

statistically speaking, it’s incredibly likely there are other species out there on other planets,

We don't know enough to say this. And, no, the fact that there's a very large number of stars and planets out there does not do the trick.

[starstationprofm]

The existence of extraterrestrial life is pretty much guaranteed

- - - Updated - - -

No to Psychics.
Yes to time travel and ETs. At least forward time travel is.
Parallel universes are possible, but I can't say I fully believe they are real.

How can time travel be possible? You need to be faster than the speed of light, meaning your mass would have to be below 0.

[Darththeo]

How can time travel be possible? You need to be faster than the speed of light, meaning your mass would have to be below 0.

Forward time travel is essentially proven to be possible.
Traveling at or near the speed of light travels you forward in time.

Existing in high gravity slows your experience of time as well, and time travels faster elsewhere.

[Shadowferal]

We don't know enough to say this. And, no, the fact that there's a very large number of stars and planets out there does not do the trick.

As put forth, weve barely scratched the surface in knowing our own galaxy. And considering that we're uncertain as to the amount of stars in our galaxy (100 billion at least), as well as the possibility of a giant black hole in the middle, it's statistically likely that that there's life in some form...even maybe other civilizations in the 2 trillion or so galaxies that is posited to exist. To be fair, I'd say we'll be long dead before we ever find out.

[Darththeo]

We don't know enough to say this. And, no, the fact that there's a very large number of stars and planets out there does not do the trick.

Even with conservative estimates using life having to be like us, it is near absolutely certain odds life is out there.
It is statistically improbable even restricting things by the most we can that there isn't other life out there.

We understand so little about what actually is life. That is why there is such a debate on "are viruses alive?"

The more we study space, the more we find planets are the norm and not the exception for stars and we are finding ourselves able to find small rocky planets and can confirm in some cases if they are in the habitable zone of the star. We have proven under the right circumstances organic compounds can form.

[Osmeric]

it's statistically likely that that there's life in some form...

We do not know enough to say this. I see this argument a lot, and it is mathematically illiterate bullshit.

Let N be the number of stars in the observable universe around which life might originate, and p the probability that life will originate around any particular star. The argument you are making is that there is some N such that N p is much greater than 1, without knowing what p is.

And this is obviously wrong. If p = 1 / 100N (for example), then N p = 1/100, and almost certainly there is no other life we could ever see.

The point here is that we have no useful lower bound on p, the chance life arises around a star. So while N may be very large, p may be extremely close to 0, and we cannot derive any useful bound on N p.

- - - Updated - - -

Even with conservative estimates using life having to be like us, it is near absolutely certain odds life is out there.

You are wrong, for the reason I just gave.

[Darththeo]

We do not know enough to say this. I see this argument a lot, and it is mathematically illiterate bullshit.

Let N be the number of stars in the observable universe around which life might originate, and p the probability that life will originate around any particular star. The argument you are making is that there is some N such that N p is much greater than 1, without knowing what p is.

And this is obviously wrong. If p = 1 / 100N (for example), then N p = 1/100, and almost certainly there is no other life we could ever see.

The point here is that we have no useful lower bound on p, the chance life arises around a star. So while N may be very large, p may be extremely close to 0, and we cannot derive any useful bound on N p.

- - - Updated - - -



You are wrong, for the reason I just gave.

I am not because you clearly don't understand the subject.

The scale we are talking about here. Even if the odds of life being on another planet is 1 in a billion, it would be statistically improbable life doesn't exist. We aren't saying they are next door coming over for sugar, but the numbers we are dealing here you need to have a functionally zero odds for life not to exist elsewhere in the universe.

You are saying we are wrong because you are arbitrary choosing a functionally zero. Essentially doing the same thing in the opposite direction you are accusing us of doing.

[Osmeric]

I am not because you clearly don't understand the subject.

The scale we are talking about here. Even if the odds of life being on another planet is 1 in a billion, it would be statistically improbable life doesn't exist.

No, I fully understand your argument. It is a bullshit argument that I have already refuted. The chance of life could be vastly smaller than 1 in a billion. We have no good lower bound on that chance. It could be much smaller than 1 / # of stars in the universe.

The reason the chance of life could be this small is there's an enormous complexity barrier between nonliving matter and the simplest living organism we can current imagine (which would contain billions of atoms). If there is any step in Origin of Life that involves a very rare process of assembling a complex thing with many parts by chance, the probability of that could be exponentially small in the size of the thing. It's possible there's some Royal Road to Life that avoids the barrier, but if so we don't know what it is or how much it would help.

[Darththeo]

No, I fully understand your argument. It is a bullshit argument that I have already refuted. The chance of life could be vastly smaller than 1 in a billion. We have no good lower bound on that chance. It could be much smaller than 1 / # of stars in the universe.

The reason the chance of life could be this small is there's an enormous complexity barrier between nonliving matter and the simplest living organism we can current imagine (which would contain billions of atoms). If there is any step in Origin of Life that involves a very rare process of assembling a complex thing with many parts by chance, the probability of that could be exponentially small in the size of the thing. It's possible there's some Royal Road to Life that avoids the barrier, but if so we don't know what it is or how much it would help.

You haven't refuted it, you basically did what you claim we are doing except rather that assuming 1 you are assuming 0.
You went "there is a chance the odds could be so small it wouldn't happen, therefore it is bullshit" that is not a refutation of the claim.

So no, you don't understand the argument at all. You think you do but you do not.

No one who believe ETs are statistically certain denies it is possible there are none, it is just highly unlikely that is the case. And just because we cannot encounter them doesn't change that fact. I am sorry, I am going to accept the belief of scientists who study this for a profession over some rando on the internet.

[Stumps]

“if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say”

[Osmeric]

You haven't refuted it, you basically did what you claim we are doing except rather that assuming 1 you are assuming 0.
You went "there is a chance the odds could be so small it wouldn't happen, therefore it is bullshit" that is not a refutation of the claim.

So no, you don't understand the argument at all. You think you do but you do not.
.

I did refute it. I showed that when phrased mathematically, your argument was logically incorrect. You are doing the equivalent of insisting that 1 + 1 = 3.

It is just highly unlikely that is the case.

This is a lie. Please stop lying.

And scientists who say life is likely... how the fuck could they know that? Did someone win a Nobel Prize for figuring out how life originates when I wasn't looking? Absent that understanding, and absent detection of ET life, they and we cannot know the odds life would arise anywhere, or say anything about whether life elsewhere is likely or not.

[Moozart]

I have Giorgio Tsoukalos posters all over my home.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Can we go back to saying how silly psychics are