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

[Chadow]

Press [X] to Doubt.

You have all the reason in the world to doubt me.
Specially because ive been in mental institution for several week "vacation"
So...take it with a huge pile of salt instead of a grain.

[Darththeo]

Visions of the future (premonition/ clairvoyance / clairaudient experience / Deja Vu) are a thing.
Personally many weird things of that nature happened to me.
Even with my drawings as a kid.

As a grown ass 30y old adult...i researched all my drawings as a kid and i was watching happenings of my grown self in those drawings.
Weird as fuck.
Can i control it? FUCKING NO.

But who is to say no more weird shit like that is out there?

How many experiences do you have a day, a week, a month, a year, or in a lifetime?
Now think how many people exist on the world. Every day, dreaming, thinking, etc ...

Every night people dream even if you don't remember it.

The fact someone out there has things that line up from two different time periods in their lives is expected, and in fact, given the numbers we are talking about and the limited number of things people can do and the average length of our lives ... it is possible even all of us have something like this.

This isn't evidence of psychic power because just saying event X happened and I drew it has a kid is meaningless. I recall a dream I had as a kid where I was being lectured by a teacher ... that dream came true in High School, my Junior year. Nope, because I was already familiar with school, teachers, and being lectured. My mind just had put the pieces of things together in the dream and it just happened to line up in my life.

[Surfd]

How many experiences do you have a day, a week, a month, a year, or in a lifetime?
Now think how many people exist on the world. Every day, dreaming, thinking, etc ...

Every night people dream even if you don't remember it.

The fact someone out there has things that line up from two different time periods in their lives is expected, and in fact, given the numbers we are talking about and the limited number of things people can do and the average length of our lives ... it is possible even all of us have something like this.

This isn't evidence of psychic power because just saying event X happened and I drew it has a kid is meaningless. I recall a dream I had as a kid where I was being lectured by a teacher ... that dream came true in High School, my Junior year. Nope, because I was already familiar with school, teachers, and being lectured. My mind just had put the pieces of things together in the dream and it just happened to line up in my life.

It's also entirely possible that such phenomenon are just manifestations of quantum mechanics fucking with us, and not actually "supernatural" at all. Considering how very, very little we currently understand about quantum behavior most types of "psychic vision" events could simply be our brains brushing up against weird quantum background noise and being completely unable to properly process wtf just happened, resulting in all the crap people experience along those lines.

[Darththeo]

It's also entirely possible that such phenomenon are just manifestations of quantum mechanics fucking with us, and not actually "supernatural" at all. Considering how very, very little we currently understand about quantum behavior most types of "psychic vision" events could simply be our brains brushing up against weird quantum background noise and being completely unable to properly process wtf just happened, resulting in all the crap people experience along those lines.

Essentially, yes.

All we get is "This is a neat piece of data" ... nothing beyond that.

[Yarathir]

Psychics - Nay. Seems mostly like a con.

Extraterrestrial life - I couldn't conceive of a reason why it wouldn't exist; why Earth, out of billions of solar systems and even more planets, would be the only planet to host sapient life.

Time travel - Don't think it'll ever be possible in the way we tend to describe it in pop culture.

Other universes - Quite sure those exist, that our universe is just one bubble of many, just as there are more solar systems and more galaxies beyond our own.

[Osmeric]

Extraterrestrial life - I couldn't conceive of a reason why it wouldn't exist; why Earth, out of billions of solar systems and even more planets, would be the only planet to host sapient life.

The feeling you're having there is why many people think, unjustifiably, that life must be out there. It neglects to take into account observer selection bias. You consider ourselves to be nothing special, even though if intelligent life were rare any particular occurrence of it would have to be special. You are basically assuming the conclusion.

Similar bogus Copernicanism led people in the 18th century to think all the planets in our solar system must have intelligent life on them.

[Yarathir]

The feeling you're having there is why many people think, unjustifiably, that life must be out there. It neglects to take into account observer selection bias. You consider ourselves to be nothing special, even though if intelligent life were rare any particular occurrence of it would have to be special. You are basically assuming the conclusion.

Similar bogus Copernicanism led people in the 18th century to think all the planets in our solar system must have intelligent life on them.

I'm not stating it as fact, it's simply why I feel this way.

I'm not going to claim I know the truth regarding extraterrestrial (sapient) life, and no one should- considering no one has that knowledge. But for the time being, I would have to ask myself why a relatively small planet in an unassuming solar system on a somewhat nice but in no way exceptional planet would be the only one in two trillion (and that's just the observable universe alone) galaxies where life would bloom and evolve in a manner similar to ours that it would grow intelligent enough to perceive itself and question its own life.

For me, it would be more sensible to default to "Life is out there, we just haven't found it because we literally can't get much further than our little pond" than to rationalize our odds and try to explain why a single planet in a backwater solar system on the inner edge of the Orion Arm would be the only one to house intelligent life.

[Darththeo]

The feeling you're having there is why many people think, unjustifiably, that life must be out there. It neglects to take into account observer selection bias. You consider ourselves to be nothing special, even though if intelligent life were rare any particular occurrence of it would have to be special. You are basically assuming the conclusion.

Similar bogus Copernicanism led people in the 18th century to think all the planets in our solar system must have intelligent life on them.

You do know that this same argument can be made by people making the arguments that life isn't possible or could be unlikely right? In fact, your posts arguing against the belief that non-earth life is likely is literally an example of observer selection bias per your own source as it is akin to underestimating the risk of impact events.

I know you claim you aren't actually arguing that life isn't possible or isn't unlikely, just that we cannot assume it is. But, functionally, that is what you are doing. And how is that any less arguing from "selection bias", you have no reason to assume that the odds of life could be that low. Just because you can argue it is possible to be that low doesn't mean we have reason to assume it will be that low or even consider that it could be.

You use selection bias when it suits you therefore you do not have a standing to tell other they "neglect it."

[Lollis]

No, as I said, I never know they're prophetic when I have them. I get a flash like "I've seen this before" when the event happens and then the dream comes back. I believe other people experience it and call it Deja Vu.

So yeah, it is just deja vu, something which many people including myself have experienced. You aren't dreaming the future.

What is actually happening is that your brain 'rewires' the moment an event happens and so it makes you believe that either: 1. "This has happened before". or 2. "I remember expecting this to happen". I've experienced both these situations and am under no illusions, I've not been seeing the future.

[Osmeric]

You do know that this same argument can be made by people making the arguments that life isn't possible or could be unlikely right? In fact, your posts arguing against the belief that non-earth life is likely is literally an example of observer selection bias per your own source as it is akin to underestimating the risk of impact events.

You continue to make the same mistake. Post after post, even after I correct you, you keep making it. Let's try again.

You are confusing "X is true" and "the evidence would compel a rational observer to admit X is likely to be true". These are different statements!

It could be that life is common in the universe, and at the same time the evidence we have insufficient to compel one to believe or disbelieve that.

In this thread, I have been telling you the second point (that the evidence is insufficient). I have not been telling you the first (that life is uncommon.)

Can you see the difference between these points? If not, you're hopelessly confused, and this conversation is at a dead end.

I know you claim you aren't actually arguing that life isn't possible or isn't unlikely, just that we cannot assume it is. But, functionally, that is what you are doing.

No, that is NOT functionally what I am doing. The two statements are quite different. Your thinking that they are the same is the root of your confusion.

And how is that any less arguing from "selection bias", you have no reason to assume that the odds of life could be that low.

Which is fine, since that is not what I was doing. Your confusion of "X is true" and "the evidence is enough to compel someone to believe X" is making you mistakenly think I was doing that. But that's a non sequitur of your own creation.

[Darththeo]

You continue to make the same mistake. Post after post, even after I correct you, you keep making it. Let's try again.

You are confusing "X is true" and "the evidence would compel a rational observer to admit X is likely to be true". These are different statements!

Yes, they are different, but irrelevant for the rest of the point I made.

It could be that life is common in the universe, and at the same time the evidence we have insufficient to compel one to believe or disbelieve that.

That is unproven assertion. That is what you feel to be true, not what is true. You do not know if we have insufficient evidence because your claim is built on that "There could be something rare we don't know." or that "There could be so step that is extremely rare." That is literally an argument based on selection bias, to make it you are selecting data that could exist that we don't have.

By doing so you are ignoring or using it to lessen the evidence we do have. For example decades ago, our knowledge was that liquid water was required, that the star had to be a certain size, etc ... most of our assumptions on limits to life have been shown that we were too restrictive because of selection bias (ie looking for Earth like life, rather than what could be life.)

No, that is NOT functionally what I am doing. The two statements are quite different. Your thinking that they are the same is the root of your confusion.

Except you are. See above.

Which is fine, since that is not what I was doing. Your confusion of "X is true" and "the evidence is enough to compel someone to believe X" is making you mistakenly think I was doing that. But that's a non sequitur of your own creation.

Using different words does not change actions.

[Osmeric]

That is unproven assertion. That is what you feel to be true, not what is true. You do not know if we have insufficient evidence because your claim is built on that "There could be something rare we don't know." That is literally an argument based on selection bias, to make it you are selecting data that could be unknown.

NO! My argument is that there is lack of evidence. When I bring up the possibility that they are rare, it's to demonstrate that the evidence we have is compatible with that scenario, not to say that that scenario is true.

You seem to have thought that I was saying that we should believe that scenario, when what I was saying is that we are not compelled to disbelieve that scenario.

Understand now?

[Darththeo]

NO! My argument is that there is lack of evidence. When I bring up the possibility that they are rare, it's to demonstrate that the evidence we have is compatible with that scenario, not to say that that scenario is true.

You seem to have thought that I was saying that we should believe that scenario, when what I was saying is that we are not compelled to disbelieve that scenario.

Understand now?

Changing words does not change actions or meaning.

You are arguing against the assertion life is likely because for example it is possible something could be rare ... that argument is built on bias whether you accept that or not. It doesn't discount it at all despite what you think. You are arguing against bias with bias.

You assert lack of evidence because something could be possible without any additional evidence to that possibility even being possible? Why can't you see that is an argument using your own bias? There is no reason to assume the odds of life existing elsewhere are as remote as that outside it is a mathematically possibility. No other justification besides the possibility it could be true based on math and math alone.

No other data is put in, it is just a "But this." That's an argument from bias.

[Orange Joe]

I find it odd that you would throw in "the possibility of extraterrestrial life" and "multiverses" together with psychics and time travel.

Its like if i would ask, do you believe in Living on mars, God, veganism and China. Its like... completely different things :P


But yeah, the drake equation is kinda of convincing in saying that it would be really fucking odd if Earth were the only planet in the universe with life on it. Infact, it would be terrifyingly odd. So for the Extraterrestial life existing? A big yes, As for them having visited us, highly unlikely.

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

Time travel? Nah, thats purely scifi for me.

Psychics? Thats a very lucrative and for some fucking reason legal way for ppl to scam desperate people of their money. Its just another one of those "wtf is wrong with murica" things.

This depends on what kinda of time travel yo are talking about. Time is relative. It's possible that time for 1 person moves at a faster rate for another person. enough that 1 person could experience years while the other only days

[Darththeo]

This depends on what kinda of time travel yo are talking about. Time is relative. It's possible that time for 1 person moves at a faster rate for another person. enough that 1 person could experience years while the other only days

When people hear time travel, they often assume they mean traveling through time similar to how we travel up-down, left-right, and forward-back.

[Yarathir]

I am willing to concede that life is rare. I'm definitely not claiming I'm thinking every solar system has at least one planet that harbors life. But we're speaking trillions here. The odds of that are like winning a million lotteries while standing on your head making a perfect Rembrandt-level painting through urination against a wall.

[Orange Joe]

I'm saying the argument is wrong, not the conclusion is wrong. We cannot know right now if there is life elsewhere or not, nor do we know enough to estimate the probability of life elsewhere. The claim that it's highly likely that there is life elsewhere is not justified by the evidence at this point.

No offense, but there are people much much much smarter than you making that argument. I'll take their word over yours.

[Osmeric]

Changing words does not change actions or meaning.

You are arguing against the assertion life is likely because it is possible something could be rare ... that argument is built on bias whether you accept that or not. It doesn't discount it at all despite what you think. You are arguing against bias with bias.

You assert lack of evidence because something could be possible without any additional evidence to that possibility even being possible? Why can't you see that is an argument using your own bias? There is no reason to assume the odds of life existing elsewhere are as remote as that outside it is a mathematically possibility. No other justification besides the possibility it could be true based on math and math alone.

No other data is put in, it is just a "But this." That's an argument from bias.

Ok, I think we have now confirmed my diagnosis of where your mental train went off the rails.

Changing words does change meanings, if the statements have different meanings. You think that "I believe X is true" and "I don't believe X is false" mean the same thing. But they do not: the second is a strictly weaker statement that the first. It is possible to not believe either "X is true" or that "X is false". One may simply not know.

Perhaps you had the (illegitimate) axiom of "belief excluded middle": for any statement X, believe(X) or believe(not X). But a little thought will show this can't be correct. There are many things on which you don't, and can't, have any (justified) belief.

- - - Updated - - -

No offense, but there are people much much much smarter than you making that argument. I'll take their word over yours.

I'm willing to hear their argument. I have never seen more than handwaving on this point ("there are lots of stars, so life must be there!")

The closest I've seen is this argument: life must not be too hard to get started, because it began on Earth soon after the planet formed (and that would imply life is common in the universe). But that inference is only valid if the conditions under which life could arise would persist, rather than just be present soon after the formation of the solar system. And we don't know that: life might have required ammonia in the atmosphere to form (and ammonia is unstable under UV radiation), or it might have arisen in the large number of small moist asteroids that were sufficiently warm for a short period after the solar system formed.

[Darththeo]

Ok, I think we have now confirmed my diagnosis of where your mental train went off the rails.

Changing words does change meanings, if the statements have different meanings. You think that "I believe X is true" and "I don't believe X is false" mean the same thing. But they do not: the second is a strictly weaker statement that the first. It is possible to not believe either "X is true" or that "X is false". One may simply not know.

Perhaps you had the (illegitimate) axiom of "belief excluded middle": for any statement X, believe(X) or believe(not X). But a little thought will show this can't be correct. There are many things on which you don't, and can't, have any (justified) belief.

Swing and a miss. Try again.

Are you or are you not arguing against the assertion/argument that life is likely?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm willing to hear their argument. I have never seen more than handwaving on this point ("there are lots of stars, so life must be there!")

Then you haven't seen enough or stopped looking at it in the 1980s. Because they go into far more detail on that on what we know is required for life and how common those elements are and how commonly those elements seem to be found together.

The rest of that post is garbage and proves that you haven't really looked into what is known on the subject and shows that you are focused on people looking for EARTH LIKE LIFE and not LIFE. We have no reason to assume life will be exactly or even close to how it is here.

[Orange Joe]

snip