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

[Surfd]

No, you have a very distorted sense of reality if you truly believe that. That's like saying the whole world today would burn women alive on pyres if they revealed themselves to be witches, "because that is how it was done in the past." And I guarantee you it wouldn't happen. And guess what? Neither of us can make any guarantees.

White people still casually murder black people in the USA simply for being black in the wrong place literally RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Gay people all across the world still live with constant harassment, death threats, and persecution. And you think people with freaky unexplainable powers outing themselves is going to end well? You seriously need to step out of whatever sheltered bubble live you have been living and take a good hard look around you. Just because we moved on from burning innocent women at the stake doesn't mean we have become nearly as "enlightened" as a society as you might think. We've moved milimeters on the scale in the right direction. Not feet like you seem to think.

The guy had a rifle and acted just like a sniper. He wasn't just a "rando nobody", and nowadays important people don't just travel through cities on convertibles, but on full-on bullet proof cars, with very dark tinted windows and one or two cars that are exactly alike to make it harder to figure out which one the VIP is traveling in. Along with police/military escort.

And? Technology has improved over the years. There are probably a half a dozen easy ways someone could kill a famous person these days that didn't even exist back when JFK was shot. We have guns powerful enough to snipe people from kilometers away, and electronic scopes and measuring equipment that would let amateurs hit targets at that distance with near pinpoint accuracy. Hell, anyone with a moderate amount of tech savvy could probably figure out how to get a drone to drop an explosive charge ontop of a target at an outdoor speaking engagement in a weekend, and put together everything they need to get it done in a couple of hours on amazon. Unless you plan to live your entire life behind a bulletproof barrier, you will always be vulnerable.

Nope. It's a very relevant question. If you're going to say "famous people die because they're famous", then knowing how many die vs how many are still alive is very relevant information. Because it shows that, hey, famous people are not dying left and right because they're famous.

Nowhere have I ever implied that famous people are dropping like flies, or being assassinated at the drop of a hat. Literally the only argument I have made on this tangent is that Fame would make you a target, and Fame is also not going to protect you from someone sufficiently determined to do you harm. That's it. And the evidence bears this out, because Famous people do, infact, get killed. Frequency is not, and has never been, a factor here. It's a literally binary question: Do Famous people get killed because of their Fame. Yes or No.

[Ielenia]

White people still casually murder black people in the USA simply for being black in the wrong place literally RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Gay people all across the world still live with constant harassment, death threats, and persecution. And you think people with freaky unexplainable powers outing themselves is going to end well? You seriously need to step out of whatever sheltered bubble live you have been living and take a good hard look around you. Just because we moved on from burning innocent women at the stake doesn't mean we have become nearly as "enlightened" as a society as you might think. We've moved milimeters on the scale in the right direction. Not feet like you seem to think.

Really, now? Do all black people leave in fear of leaving their homes in fear of being immediately shot dead? Do all gay people fear exposing themselves in fear of being immediately shot dead? No. No, they don't. And that is how what it was for the women back in the dark ages: the moment you get accused of witchcraft, that's when your life ended. Figuratively and literally.

Are we in a perfect place, today? Hell no. Far from it. But we did improve by leaps and bounds since then.

And? Technology has improved over the years. There are probably a half a dozen easy ways someone could kill a famous person these days that didn't even exist back when JFK was shot. We have guns powerful enough to snipe people from kilometers away, and electronic scopes and measuring equipment that would let amateurs hit targets at that distance with near pinpoint accuracy. Hell, anyone with a moderate amount of tech savvy could probably figure out how to get a drone to drop an explosive charge ontop of a target at an outdoor speaking engagement in a weekend, and put together everything they need to get it done in a couple of hours on amazon. Unless you plan to live your entire life behind a bulletproof barrier, you will always be vulnerable.

And trained security would snipe that drone right off the air before it gets any closer to their VIP. It's not just the technology for the evil-doers that improved. Technology improved as a whole, which also means new ways to better protect others.

Nowhere have I ever implied that famous people are dropping like flies, or being assassinated at the drop of a hat. Literally the only argument I have made on this tangent is that Fame would make you a target, and Fame is also not going to protect you from someone sufficiently determined to do you harm. That's it. And the evidence bears this out, because Famous people do, infact, get killed. Frequency is not, and has never been, a factor here. It's a literally binary question: Do Famous people get killed because of their Fame. Yes or No.

No, evidence does not bear this out. Because the amount of famous people being assassinated is minimal. Famous people get protection. Even more so than your average Joe. That's a fact. And someone much more unique and therefore much more famous than them, because they have unique gifts such as supernatural powers? Those would likely get more protection. Hell, even more so than heads of state or the pope.

[Surfd]

And trained security would snipe that drone right off the air before it gets any closer to their VIP.

Do you have any idea what modern drones are capable of? A good quality drone for areal photography capable of carrying a half decent camera is about the size of a loaf of bread. They are capable of flight speeds of 40kmph, and some have operating ceilings between 3,500 and 10,000 METERS. You think the average Secret Service mook is going to be able to spot a properly painted loaf of bread from nearly 6 kilometers or more up in the sky, at, say early evening, and snipe it out of the air while it travels at almost 30 or 40 kmph?? Your "sniper" would literally need to be superhuman. Thing would be effectively invisible unless you knew exactly where to look for it.

No, evidence does not bear this out. Because the amount of famous people being assassinated is minimal. Famous people get protection. Even more so than your average Joe. That's a fact. And someone much more unique and therefore much more famous than them, because they have unique gifts such as supernatural powers? Those would likely get more protection. Hell, even more so than heads of state or the pope.

What part of "Murdered / Assassinated Famous people > 1 = It is possible" is escaping you? Because that is LITERALLY MY ASSERTION: If you are famous, the possibility exists that someone may eventually try to kill you. I have made no statements about frequency. Or likelyhood. Or literally anything other than: It can happen as a direct result of Fame / Infamy. And the evidence 100% supports this because at least 1 Famous person has been murdered because of their fame / infamy. Literally the only way you can contradict this statement is to argue that no famous person has ever been murdered. Which is literally not possible.

[Osmeric]

Literally you:

Want to try that again?

The "evidence" can not possibly be consistent with that suggestion when the "evidence" consists of a sample size so utterly minuscule as to be completely meaningless.

My god. You think these two statements mean the same thing:

"Life must be rare."

"The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare."

They are not the same thing AT ALL. The second is a much weaker statement, and does not imply the first. If you do not understand this, just slink away quietly, you are not smart enough to contribute anything to this discussion.

Your last sentence illustrates your mental fog. The weaker evidence is, the more it can be consistent with. "Is consistent with" means "does not rule out". If we had no evidence at all, that empty set of evidence would be consistent with anything that wasn't self-contradictory.

[Darththeo]

My god. You think these two statements mean the same thing:

"Life must be rare."

"The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare."

They are not the same thing AT ALL. The second is a much weaker statement, and does not imply the first. If you do not understand this, just slink away quietly, you are not smart enough to contribute anything to this discussion.

Your last sentence illustrates your mental fog. The weaker evidence is, the more it can be consistent with. "Is consistent with" means "does not rule out". If we had no evidence at all, that empty set of evidence would be consistent with anything that wasn't self-contradictory.

What's with you and not actually addressing the arguments? That isn't what they said.

Seriously, you strawmanned arguments, you misrepresented points, you don't understand the data we have, etc ... and yet you think the problem is with the other people in this argument?

[Ielenia]

Do you have any idea what modern drones are capable of? A good quality drone for areal photography capable of carrying a half decent camera is about the size of a loaf of bread. They are capable of flight speeds of 40kmph, and some have operating ceilings between 3,500 and 10,000 METERS. You think the average Secret Service mook is going to be able to spot a properly painted loaf of bread from nearly 6 kilometers or more up in the sky, at, say early evening, and snipe it out of the air while it travels at almost 30 or 40 kmph?? Your "sniper" would literally need to be superhuman. Thing would be effectively invisible unless you knew exactly where to look for it.

It's almost as if you don't know what today's security training is. Also, we wouldn't be talking with your rando "We purtektz u!" security agencies. We'd much more likely be talking about some of the best of the best security agencies, to protect one of the most unique and important people on the planet.

What part of "Murdered / Assassinated Famous people > 1 = It is possible" is escaping you? Because that is LITERALLY MY ASSERTION: If you are famous, the possibility exists that someone may eventually try to kill you.

And the answer for that is: so what? I never claimed fame is a 100% effective in deterring any and all kinds of assassination attempts and that famous people . I simply stated that it is a deterrent. Because famous people get security detail, and often, the more famous they are, the better the security.

[Shadowferal]

Have to say that this thread isn't really all that "fun."
I have some wild hairy beliefs...and that's what they are. I've no desire to share most of them because many here prefer pissing on that which I hold dear.
Logic should never replace imagination.

[Amarys]

I'm sorry but there is real math and real equations around this topic, made by real scientists.

Not sure if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about. Drake's equation is literally a multiplication of all the variables. If even 1 variable is unknown, the formula can't me solved and currently more than 1 of those variables is unknown so this isn't helpful at all. There is no more math behind this because you'd need at least a second sample of life that doesn't originate from Earth to get things started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[unbound]

Not sure if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about. Drake's equation is literally a multiplication of all the variables. If even 1 variable is unknown, the formula can't me solved and currently more than 1 of those variables is unknown so this isn't helpful at all. There is no more math behind this because you'd need at least a second sample of life that doesn't originate from Earth to get things started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Yep.

Furthermore, Drake's Equation is a mix of simple (rate of star formation) and complex (fraction of planets with life that develops intelligent life) numbers to calculate.

We don't have a clue if some of the Drake equation variables are in the ballpark of 1 in 100 or 1 in trillions. Various people have thrown in numbers that "seem right" to come to wide variety of conclusions.

[Darththeo]

Not sure if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about. Drake's equation is literally a multiplication of all the variables. If even 1 variable is unknown, the formula can't me solved and currently more than 1 of those variables is unknown so this isn't helpful at all. There is no more math behind this because you'd need at least a second sample of life that doesn't originate from Earth to get things started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

While an unknown variable is possible. A possible unknown factor is not enough to discount what we know.

The Drake equation is about a specific subset of intelligent life the could exist. Life is likely to exist =/= Detectable Intelligent Life is likely to exist. The Drake equation is interesting, but is misused. The topic is about extraterrestrial life in general as OP didn't single out intelligent life.

We know life happened early in Earth's life, we know complex carbon molecules are becoming more easily made as we improve our knowledge on the early earth, we know things like lipid bilayers are produced on their own if exposed to water, we know that liquid water can be in more places than just the Goldilocks zone, etc ... Every time a proposed limit on life has been tested, we find that said limit is more common than we thought. Therefore there is no logical reason that if there is another unknown factor would make life impossible or nearly impossible elsewhere.

It is far more likely that life is elsewhere in the universe than it is not. The evidence for this is life exists in the universe already and we have no evidence of true uniqueness in the universe. So, for life to be unique to Earth is not a rational position to hold and neither is holding onto that it is reasonable to assume that is a likely outcome.

The default position in science is that events that occur once can and often do occur again. It is the foundation of study. Arguing the default position is "Life is so rare, it maybe no where else" is an unscientific position.

[Amarys]

While an unknown variable is possible. A possible unknown factor is not enough to discount what we know.

The Drake equation is about a specific subset of intelligent life the could exist. Life is likely to exist =/= Detectable Intelligent Life is likely to exist. The Drake equation is interesting, but is misused. The topic is about extraterrestrial life in general as OP didn't single out intelligent life.

We know life happened early in Earth's life, we know complex carbon molecules are becoming more easily made as we improve our knowledge on the early earth, we know things like lipid bilayers are produced on their own if exposed to water, we know that liquid water can be in more places than just the Goldilocks zone, etc ... Every time a proposed limit on life has been tested, we find that said limit is more common than we thought. Therefore there is no logical reason that if there is another unknown factor would make life impossible or nearly impossible elsewhere.

It is far more likely that life is elsewhere in the universe than it is not. The evidence for this is life exists in the universe already and we have no evidence of true uniqueness in the universe. So, for life to be unique to Earth is not a rational position to hold and neither is holding onto that it is reasonable to assume that is a likely outcome.

The default position in science is that events that occur once can and often do occur again. It is the foundation of study. Arguing the default position is "Life is so rare, it maybe no where else" is an unscientific position.

The thing is, it's not more likely to exist. Thinking that is just subjective bias. Say life only happened once, then we must be it cause otherwise we couldn't observe ourselves and say we're alive. Not only that but the step from organic molecules to self replicating biological nanomachines is gargantuan and there is no real reason or law of nature why it should happen. Could just be a giant fluke. Even the simplest lifeforms must be able to keep themselves intact and separate from the environment, take in food, multiply and pass on the blueprint of their structure.

Another possible solution is that life does evolve but it's rare enough that it's maybe 1 example per billions of galaxies. In that case we also might as well just be alone as we can never get to it to observe it.

Earth being "unique" is absolutely a rational position because our conditions are somewhat unique as well. We have a yellow star with enough heavy elements which by itself is pretty rare. Most stars are red dwarves or smaller with tiny Goldilock zones that tidally lock planets. They're also more turbulent and likely to kill off any life that might emerge. Bigger stars on the other hand are usually metal poor and too short lived. We are also lucky to be far enough from the galactic center and away from star formation clusters, black holes, quasars etc. That also would sterilize any life that might form. Not only that but we get many other very narrow range condition that have to be right like temperatures for liquid water but not hot enough so it would evaporate or destroy proteins.

But then again likely or not likely doesn't matter. With no proof it could exist and it could not. The rest is just speculation. Belief in something without evidence is meaningless.

[Darththeo]

The thing is, it's not more likely to exist. Thinking that is just subjective bias. Say life only happened once, then we must be it cause otherwise we couldn't observe ourselves and say we're alive. Not only that but the step from organic molecules to self replicating biological nanomachines is gargantuan and there is no real reason or law of nature why it should happen. Could just be a giant fluke. Even the simplest lifeforms must be able to keep themselves intact and separate from the environment, take in food, multiply and pass on the blueprint of their structure.

Another possible solution is that life does evolve but it's rare enough that it's maybe 1 example per billions of galaxies. In that case we also might as well just be alone as we can never get to it to observe it.

Earth being "unique" is absolutely a rational position because our conditions are somewhat unique as well. We have a yellow star with enough heavy elements which by itself is pretty rare. Most stars are red dwarves or smaller with tiny Goldilock zones that tidally lock planets. They're also more turbulent and likely to kill off any life that might emerge. Bigger stars on the other hand are usually metal poor and too short lived. We are also lucky to be far enough from the galactic center and away from star formation clusters, black holes, quasars etc. That also would sterilize any life that might form. Not only that but we get many other very narrow range condition that have to be right like temperatures for liquid water but not hot enough so it would evaporate or destroy proteins.

But then again likely or not likely doesn't matter. With no proof it could exist and it could not. The rest is just speculation. Belief in something without evidence is meaningless.

It isn't subjective bias, it is literally based on what we know.

You cannot discount what we know is true because of your own personal bias.

The rest of what you are arguing just also isn't true. The sun isn't rare, at all. It is an average star. We also know that while the goldilocks zone is the best place to have liquid water, it isn't the only place it can exist (Enceladus has liquid water under its ice). We have similar reasons to doubt the galactic goldilocks zone as well. Also, we assume water is necessary for life and that is becoming doubtful as information about what other liquids could sustain the reactions necessary to produce the forerunners for life.

So, if everything we think is required for life is being shown as false or occurs more common than we thought. What logical reason is there to assume life isn't likely to be out there? There is none, everything we know is pointing that way. Yes, there could be something we don't know but we don't even know if such a thing is possible. We don't even know enough for your statement of organic molecules to self replicating biological nanomachines is a "gargantuan step."

The problem with the "Life is rare" hypothesis is that as it stands it is undefined and thus unfalsifiable. Therefore, has no place in science.

[DesmondCreighton]

I don't BeLiEvE in them but I BELIEVE in their POSSIBILITY, in orders of potential likelihood; this is the glory of agnosticism. I'd say the most obvious of your questions is "are there things in our reality which we cannot explain?" - to which I'd say, obviously. There are numerous phenomena we don't fully understand.. yet.

[Biomega]

Earth being "unique" is absolutely a rational position because our conditions are somewhat unique as well.

That's just patently false. We now know that most stars have planets, and the mechanics of planetary formation as we currently understand them also mean that the chances for planets within a reasonable temperature range for life (as we know it) aren't low at all. You also don't need main-sequence stars, the star's size/temperature simply shift habitability zones. IDK what you meant by Goldilocks zones "tidally locking planets", those are two different things. If anything, tidal mechanics actually increase the zone of habitability far beyond what we traditionally called the Goldilocks zone, as tidal heating can dramatically increase a planet's (or moon's) surface temperature even at considerable distance to the host star (or planet).

Is life possible on any ol' planet randomly picked? Probably not. But the number of star systems that fit the basic criteria for life as we know it to at least be potentially possible appears to be staggering - not uncommon at all.

Remember, exoplanetary research is only just beginning. I have the benefit of some inside information on the field, and they're discovering new exoplanets almost at a daily rate. There's far more than we might have thought only a few decades ago, and there's a corresponding variety of types of exoplanets as well - and as our detection methods improve, we'll find more and more of them, and more and more different ones. The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled for launch later this year and will supply a lot of data for that kind of research, so we'll have a lot more info forthcoming over the next years.

[Osmeric]

That's just patently false.

(respone removed because it was based on a misreading and hence was invalid. My apology!)

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with the "Life is rare" hypothesis is that as it stands it is undefined and thus unfalsifiable. Therefore, has no place in science.

LOL. You have this exactly backwards.

The "life is rare" hypothesis is EASILY falsified. Discovery a single instance of ET life anywhere nearby would falsify it. Hell, discovery of two separate kinds of life on Earth that don't have a common ancestor (implying OoL is easy) would falsify it.

What is not easily falsified is your proposal, that ET life exists somewhere else in the universe. And especially if your definition of "universe" includes parts that are (and forever will be) causally disconnected from us, so they can never be observed.

[Biomega]

Nope. You're completely wrong, for reasons that have been told to you all over and over in this thread. And here's another person telling you you're wrong. Maybe you should start thinking and listening now?

He said earth is "unique". I pointed out it's not. You can disagree all you like, but back it up with something. The vast majority of contemporary research on exoplanets and planetary formation agrees that Earth is not a special case.

We've told you why this is a bullshit inference. Have you considered not spouting already refuted bullshit? It just makes you look like a clown.

You've certainly SAID it's bullshit, you haven't actually demonstrated anything, or provided a coherent point. In fact, you've carefully avoided replying to most things I've said, focusing instead on replying to less substantive posts that wouldn't need something concrete to back up your point. All you've done so far all over this thread is claim 'well it's like this!' with little actual reasoning - in fact in several places (and I've pointed out some of them, to which you never replied) you've made elementary logical and/or mathematical errors.

Yes, yes, the rapid pace of discovery of new exoplanets is well known. The existence of lots of exoplanets doesn't imply life is common (or that we are not unique). It just means that "rare planets" would not be the reason extraterrestrial life is rare (or even exists.)

Another example of a logical error - I wasn't talking in any way about life, my reply was specifically about the claim that Earth is "unique". It's not. Whether or not that is in direct correlation to the emergence of life is a different argument. Although, incidentally, I would certainly argue that given what we know about the origin of life this does seem to suggest it wouldn't be as uncommon as some people say. And as I've asked previously in other posts: if you think you know what factor DOES make Earth special in the sense that it would be required for the emergence of life, please share with the rest of the class. It'd be a monumental breakthrough.

It's all well and good to say "okay it's not the planet", but what IS it then, and how do you know? Or at the very least, how do you know it's not just the planet/planetary conditions? We know preciously little about the origin of life, but we do know what it needs (or appears to need) and those things aren't rare. Do you know of something else it needs that IS rare? And if so, how do you know this?

Please provide something OF SUBSTANCE for once, rather than just railing on and on about how nobody gets it.

The "life is rare" hypothesis is EASILY falsified. Discovery a single instance of ET life anywhere nearby would falsify it.

I know this isn't in reply to my post, but this is a blatantly fallacious statement. Discovery of a single instance of life elsewhere wouldn't falsify a "life is rare" claim in any way. If there were two instances of life in the universe, say, life would STILL be phenomenally rare. What it WOULD falsify is a claim of "life is unique", but those are not the same. Not by a long shot.

You seem to either have no idea how actual scientific arguments work, or you're just being incredibly sloppy with your statements. It makes it really hard to take anything you say seriously.

[Osmeric]

He said earth is "unique".

Ok, the reason he gave for justifying that belief is bad (the conditions of Earth's formation are unusual, but not enough to justify an assertion of uniqueness), so I will remove the vituperative comment. This does not imply, however, that life must therefore exist elsewhere. It is not justifiable to assume that if conditions as on Earth were the be played out again, that life would again originate.

[HotSauce]

All except time travel. We have found micro organisms already

[Darththeo]

(respone removed because it was based on a misreading and hence was invalid. My apology!)

- - - Updated - - -



LOL. You have this exactly backwards.

The "life is rare" hypothesis is EASILY falsified. Discovery a single instance of ET life anywhere nearby would falsify it. Hell, discovery of two separate kinds of life on Earth that don't have a common ancestor (implying OoL is easy) would falsify it.

What is not easily falsified is your proposal, that ET life exists somewhere else in the universe. And especially if your definition of "universe" includes parts that are (and forever will be) causally disconnected from us, so they can never be observed.

Except neither of those examples actually would falsify the statement life is rare.

Even if we find life on Mars, all that would then imply is life is possible in our solar system, not the creation of life isn't rare. If you think finding one aspect of life somewhere would falsify the claim life is rare, then that is just more evidence for me that you don't understand this subject at all.

And the one about Life starting multiple times on Earth only proves Earth is capable of producing life and all of your same objections still apply. Life is rare is only falsified if life is insanely common in the universe.

And life being elsewhere in the universe is falsifiable. If you could prove your proposed odds are even physically possible rather than just mathematically possible.

[Osmeric]

Except neither of those examples actually would falsify the statement life is rare.

Well, it depends on what one means by "rare". But they'd put great strain on that theory, because (1) if we found life nearby, it would a huge coincidence if two rare events happened near each other, and (2) if OoL is easy, then rarity would have to be due to some property other than the one that could be exponentially unlikely. And then all the observations about planetary formation, occurrence of carbon, etc. would have more weight.

Even if we find life on Mars, all that would then imply is life is possible in our solar system, not the creation of life isn't rare.

I meant outside our solar system. If life exists elsewhere in the solar system, and is similar chemically to terrestrial life, it can be explained by transfer after impacts (panspermia). (If it is not similar chemically then it's evidence OoL is easy, just as if we had found that different kind of life here on Earth, where it might have been transfered from elsewhere.) Panspermia looks much less viable at interstellar distances. Of course this means we have to find life in other stellar systems, but that's not a huge stretch (look for oxygen in planetary atmosphere, perhaps.)

Compare this to the difficulty of the proposal "life is somewhere out there, in some galaxy". Talk about needles in haystacks. Falsifying that would require exhaustive examination of every planet in the universe.

I want to say that just because I think "we are unique" is a possibility, that doesn't mean the search for ET life or intelligence is a bad idea. In science we want to test theories.