"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Again, using different words doesn't change what you are doing.
I am going to the conclusion that data and evidence suggests, you are mistreating data and evidence because our knowledge on the subject is imperfect. There is nothing but the mere thought experiment that it is hypothetically possible that life could be so low it doesn't exist.
Again, you can't see how arrogant an argument that is, because you convinced yourself it was the right one.
Again, you haven't refuted the claim that life is likely to exist elsewhere, you dismissed it. Refutation requires reasons to support your statements made in dismissal. Because all it takes to equally refute is to use your own argument against you, what evidence do you have to support that the probability of the existence of life elsewhere could be so low?
Also, please stop using terms you don't fully understand. You accused NdGT of an ad hominem when he didn't make one, you throw out non sequitor because you can. Just stop.
Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-17 at 12:15 PM.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
Why? Never mentioned mind reading. I mentioned knowing the winning lottery numbers and knowing to play the stock market. But since this is the "fun" forum and gods knows most of us have read science fiction I'll play along; Or that "someone" would know pissing off people that will shoot you is a death sentence. Oh? The mechanism matters to you? It doesn't. Whether the person sees things in a dream, feels a tingle, listens to the ghost of dear departed loved one, or whatever, the results are what matters. But you want to argue superpowers and helping people. But if you want reality. Fine. As someone who has lived on the wrong side of the tracks there isn't a question as to whether you work for "others" at all. You will. Insults...great thank you for playing. If you don't want to play anymore there's the ignore function.
- - - Updated - - -
It gets a person a level of scrutiny that is creepy as hell. People of all stripes going through your whole life's history...and then there are the stalkers. The bigger celebrities have to travel with teams of security. And those celebrities who are such because of the wealth they have, such as Bezos, and Gates, have a small army of security... Omg yes..but this goes into a whole level of crazy that we probably don't want to explore. I have no probs going down the rabbit hole with Alice and trying a magic mushroom to see if it's really magic or the other kind of "magic." But umm...some holes...no. They kinda stink.
I agree. It's not. But there is a difference between "fame" and "infamy". "Fame" means the majority of the eyes that are on you are positive, meaning they like you and would like you to be well. Meaning that if something were to happen to you, there would be an uproar. Fame also means more reach, and more resources for yourself. You would be protected. I imagine it'd be a similar thing with the pope. Look how famous the guy is, and how many other people dislike him, especially from other religions. And yet he hasn't been killed yet.
I mean, lets be honest here: If, as you say, someone revealed themselves and PROVED they had a "real deal" supernatural power, how exactly do you think the global religious community (and by this I mean the combination of EVERY group of religious bodies on the planet) would react? 99% chance you end up with a fairly even split of largely two results: One group attempts to claim them as a religious prophet/messiah/evidence of god/etc, and another faction declares them spawn of the pit in need of immediate extermination. Literal crusades would be fought over this person. The whole world would go to hell in a hand basket as religion fought over them.
What about science? Why would science want to kill off someone with supernatural powers? Science thrives off new ideas and ways of thinking. Someone bringing a previously never-seen-before thing, like supernatural powers, would become a metaphorical gold mine for more studies and breakthroughs.And that's only "religion". That doesn't even touch on Science.
Why would the government want to kill someone with supernatural powers?Or government.
You really think rando Joe Shmoe with a gun would be able to kill a worldly famous, protected person? I imagine they wouldn't be able to even get near that person, much less have an opportunity to kill them.Or the general crazy/unstable element in society at large.
- - - Updated - - -
But for some reasons those "distractions, deniability" and other kind of nonsensical pseudo-reasons cannot be applied to those with supernatural powers, because....?
- - - Updated - - -
"Why" what? Would you kindly be more specific in your questions? Or at least more eloquent?
Your entire argument predicates on the person with supernatural powers become a "liability" and spread government secrets, especially since you compared them to whistleblowers.Never mentioned mind reading. I mentioned knowing the winning lottery numbers and knowing to play the stock market.
By the way? Knowing how to play the stock market doesn't require even an ounce of "supernatural powers". And the "CIA needing more funding therefore strongarm psychics" is a laughable example.
Again, how would "revealing themselves" piss someone off so much it "warrants a death sentence"?Or that "someone" would know pissing off people that will shoot you is a death sentence.
You're dodging the question. The entire point was the fact you made another claim without even a shred of evidence, that "their powers are telling them to remain in secrecy", all to support your "no true scotsman" fallacy from earlier.Oh? The mechanism matters to you? It doesn't. Whether the person sees things in a dream, feels a tingle, listens to the ghost of dear departed loved one, or whatever, the results are what matters.
"Helping people" is now something out of comic books? Okay. First: tell me the difference between "supernatural powers" and "superpowers".But you want to argue superpowers and helping people.
But if you want reality. Fine. As someone who has lived on the wrong side of the tracks there isn't a question as to whether you work for "others" at all. You will.
"Insults"? Where is the insults? I never, ever insulted you. Are you really this thin-skinned that me simply comparing your argument to something else insults you so?Insults...great thank you for playing. If you don't want to play anymore there's the ignore function.
And last, but not least: there is a key in your keyboard labeled "enter". Learn to use it. I mean, this is how your post looked for me when I pressed 'reply with quote':
I had to manually reformat the entire thing. Is this some kind of strategy to "win" by attrition? So you can declare "victory" because the other side has decided to stop responding to you because it's not worth the hassle of reformatting your posts to fit a more coherent form?Why? Never mentioned mind reading. I mentioned knowing the winning lottery numbers and knowing to play the stock market. But since this is the "fun" forum and gods knows most of us have read science fiction I'll play along; Or that "someone" would know pissing off people that will shoot you is a death sentence. Oh? The mechanism matters to you? It doesn't. Whether the person sees things in a dream, feels a tingle, listens to the ghost of dear departed loved one, or whatever, the results are what matters. But you want to argue superpowers and helping people. But if you want reality. Fine. As someone who has lived on the wrong side of the tracks there isn't a question as to whether you work for "others" at all. You will. Insults...great thank you for playing. If you don't want to play anymore there's the ignore function.
- - - Updated - - -
Dude, think about this: imagine you throw one hundred dice, and you write down the specific results: dice #1 rolled a 6, dice #2 rolled a 3, dice #3 rolled a 4, etc.
How many stars are there in the universe? I recall reading there are at least a billion stars. Now assuming there is at least one planet per star (a conservative estimate, IMO), grab those one hundred dice again, and throw them again one billion times more. My question to you is: is there a chance that you can get that exact same result rolled on the exact same dice again at least once?
I would say the chances are very high.
I am not making that argument they cannot or even would not, you asked a question and are now asking me to say something I am not saying.
Why would if the government need people with superpowers to even act as a distraction for something? If the government was using psychics to gain covert knowledge, the last thing they would want is it to be publicly confirmed psychics are real.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
You said "governments would kill to protect secrets" as a reason as to why the government would kill off people with supernatural powers. I asked why the same "willingness to go the extra mile" to protect secrets isn't applied to whistleblowers.
Related question: do you believe in "Area 51", government hiding aliens, aliens building pyramids, etc? Because all that sounds remarkably similar to the kind of stuff conspiracy theorists speak regarding aliens.Why would if the government need people with superpowers to even act as a distraction for something? If the government was using psychics to gain covert knowledge, the last thing they would want is it to be publicly confirmed psychics are real.
Just because government would kill to protect secrets doesn't mean they will kill everyone to protect secrets. That's why you are saying something I am NOT arguing for. You are asserting that if X is true, it must be true in all circumstances, I am not arguing for that.
The best conspiracy theories are ones with just enough truth to be reasonable, regardless of how ridiculous the theory is.
First off, I don't "believe" in Area 51, it is a real place that exists. Do I believe Area 51 has Aliens? No. Do I believe the government is using Area 51 as a cover to hide the fact they have aliens somewhere? Also no. Do I believe in aliens building pyramids? No, because more pyramids we know why and even how they were built. I am treating this conversation as a thought experiment, nothing more.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
That's an intuition many people have, but it's quite wrong. It would be interesting for you to introspect a bit and figure out why you think that's true.
To see that it's wrong, let's state the situation more formally (as I did earlier in these comments). Let N be the number of places in the universe (stellar systems, planets, whatever) where life could arise. Let p be the average probability over those places that life will arise at any particular one. Then, the expected number of places life arises at is the product of N and p. We can constrain p > 0 since we know life CAN arise (we're here, after all.)
Your statement there is: "if N is large enough, then for any p > 0 the product Np is greater than 1" (actually, much greater than 1, but let's be generous to you.)
But this is clearly false: for any N, there is some p for which Np < 1. Indeed, the product Np can be made equal to any positive number, including numbers arbitrarily close to zero.
I think your intuition stems from the notion that we can't be "too atypical". Life is here on Earth, so p must be pretty high, this idea goes. But that observation is wrong due to observer selection bias. We cannot constrain p just by observing ourselves, since that act of observation can only occur on a planets with observers; it's not on a planet randomly sampled from all the planets in the universe.
Seeing even a single instance of life around another star WOULD allow us to conclude p is not very small (assuming we could rule out panspermia, but that looks unlikely at interstellar distances, so I think it would be safe.) But we have no such observation. Observing another biosystem on Earth (life with a fundamentally different biochemstry that must have arisen separately) could also be evidence, as it would mean OoL is so likely it happened twice in the same system. We don't see that, either.
- - - Updated - - -
When I say you don't have evidence for your belief, I am not saying your belief is either true or false. What I am saying is that your belief is not justified by evidence. You are believing it as a matter of faith, not of reason.
You seem to be thinking that I am forced to commit to either beliving life exists elsewhere or believing that it does not. I am telling you the rational position at this time is to believe neither of those.
Last edited by Osmeric; 2021-10-17 at 04:16 PM.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
We can't rule it out. However, what we know suggests that it is a highly unlikely possibility that such a step exists in the creation of life.
You argument is built off the flawed stance of unless you have perfect knowledge on the subject, you cannot be certain of anything. No one holds this as a valid form of argument because you discount what we know because we may not know something else.
- - - Updated - - -
Osmeric holds on to the fact X could be possible that would disprove what we know therefore you cannot make a claim on it one way or another.
He ignores all the evidence we have in favor of a thought experiment.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
We can't, but it's not the default position. One of the premises of science is universality - that the laws of science hold true regardless of where you are in the universe. As such, in order to assume that something couldn't happen anywhere else you'd need a good reason: something that makes a situation unique in ways that can't be replicated elsewhere.
It's all well and good to postulate that the emergence of life is an "unlikely" event - but that says NOTHING about the actual probability, or about whether or not it occurred only once. Exponentially unlikely events happen all the time, and the universe is very, very big.
Even if the actual confluence of events leading to the formation of some kind of life is a rare event, the preconditions that would lead to such an event at least are not at all rare; in fact, they're quite common. Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon are among the most common elements in the universe. Water - if not required then at least highly useful for the emergence of life, being a polar solvent - seems to form fairly readily. Energy input from stars is ubiquitous. Planetary formation around those stars appears to be commonplace.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that given the relative ubiquity of all the elements needed for life to emerge, it would have happened elsewhere. Numerically speaking, the size of the universe allows for plenty of unlikely events to happen all the time. And so far, there hasn't really been ANY evidence that would give Earth special dispensation - some kind of factor that led to the emergence of life on this planet, but that is exceedingly rare on others.
That doesn't, of course, mean that life DID form somewhere else; neither does it mean it did not. We have no evidence for either, but we also have no evidence that Earth is special somehow; and given that we have all the building blocks, and given that physics and chemistry are likely to work the same anywhere in the universe, it doesn't seem unreasonable to postulate that the emergence of life may not be all that unlikely after all. Bearing in mind, of course, that given the right perspective ANYTHING is supremely unlikely; yet SOMETHING happens all the time.
We can't put a number on the probability of the emergence of life. Our lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is meaningless, because of our extremely limited ways of detecting it. To borrow a popular metaphor, taking a spoonful of seawater and concluding that because we did not find fish in there, they're a supremely rare thing in the oceans is pretty silly. We simply can't say one way or another - but we can say that the necessary ingredients, at least, are not very rare. And unless some kind of mechanism is provided as evidence for why given the abundance of ingredients the process that happened once wouldn't happen (at least) twice, I'm not sure it's reasonable at all to conclude that life is as rare as some people think it would be.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
My two cents:
Psychics - If we're talking about full blown Professor X or Akira style psychic abilities, then no. I don't believe that mind reading, telekinesis and mind control are a thing. Fortune telling and other stage style psychic stuff? Again, not really. I don't believe that people can look into a mystic ball to see the future or speak with the dearly departed.
What I do think may exist though, is people that are just naturally perceptive in a way that most people aren't. That they take in information in a unique way, that they may not even consciously realize. Something so rare, that we just don't have a grasp on it. This lets them know or understand things that seem almost impossible to the rest of us It's not magic or mystical, just a way that some people have rather unique abilities no different really than those that can see more colours or have near photographic memories.
Extraterrestrial Life - Do I believe in little green men from Mars that come here to shove probes up our asses? No, no I do not. Do I believe that we are utterly alone in the wide, wide universe? No. Whether there is life out there that we would immediately recognize as such or not is beyond me, but I believe that the universe is simply too big for the circumstances that allowed for life to happen on Earth to not have happened elsewhere as well.
I highly doubt we'll ever have a moment of alien life invading our planet and wiping us out. Rather, given our history, I'd say it's far more likely that one day we'd be doing that to other worlds.
Time Travel - Assuming we're talking about movie type Back to The Future shit here, then I just don't see how. Ignoring how the smallest of changes could be catastrophic to the future of those going back in time, I think the simple fact that we aren't regularly encountering time travellers from the future shows us that it's either not possible, or that our race doesn't survive long enough to ever discover it.
Other Universes - This one I have no idea, and frankly, I don't think my brain is really equipped to consider it. My understanding of time and space is, I think, too... linear, I guess, to really consider the possibility or implications.
What I do think is that if such a thing does exist, we would be hard pressed to be proud when comparing ourselves to what an alternate version of us has done and achieved. Because I don't know what's the scarrier thought: that some other Earth has done a considerably better job than we have and we learn truly how terrible we are, or that there could actually be a group out there worse than us, and what kind of society/world that would look like.
I wonder if that won't be a potential future.
Humans started cooperative hunting 1.8-1.6 million years ago. And while there are artifacts that show inventive behavior, true creativity didn't come about until the imagination evolved 50k-60k years ago. (Yea there was a blip 70k yrs ago when humanity went nearly extinct...)
Is there anyone that really believes that we're it? That we've reached the apex of human intellectual achievement? I recall a paleo-anthropologist writing that human thinking processes haven't changed since the stone age. He cited how primitive hunters used the same logic thinking to hunt prey that modern day detectives use to track down criminals.
I hope we'll do better...eventually. But the cynic in me says; "Nope!"
Psychics - Nope.
ET Life - Yes.
Time Travel - You can only move "forward" through time, like with speed and gravity. Not backward. - So, Halfway.
Universe(S) - No.
<~$~("The truth, is limitless in its range. If you drop a 'T' and look at it in reverse, it could hurt.")~$~> L.F.
<~$~("The most hopelessly stupid man is he who is not aware he is wise.")~$~> I.A.
We know nothing of the kind.
If p is sufficiently large (compared to 1/N) then we can say with high probability that there is life elsewhere.
But how can we conclude that p is that large? There is no way to put a probability distribution on possible sets of laws of physics, which are ultimately where p comes from.
So, no, you are just projecting your preferences and/or prejudices and dressing them up with a spurious assertion that life must be highly likely.
Nope. The argument I am making works even if we shade things with gradations in certainty. Our knowledge of the OoL process is so profoundly incomplete that we really can't say much of anything about how likely life is.You argument is built off the flawed stance of unless you have perfect knowledge on the subject, you cannot be certain of anything. No one holds this as a valid form of argument because you discount what we know because we may not know something else.
Scenarios like the ones I present are demonstrations that your strong universal claims are logically flawed. You needed to have ruled out such possibilities in order to have validly reached your conclusion.Osmeric holds on to the fact X could be possible that would disprove what we know therefore you cannot make a claim on it one way or another.
He ignores all the evidence we have in favor of a thought experiment.
All this is sourced back to you making grandiose claims without actually showing your work. You have consistently failed to explain in any logically valid way why we shouldn't just consider your statement airy bullshit.
- - - Updated - - -
Not only do we not know for sure, but we really don't know even a little bit. Our knowledge of how likely OoL is is profoundly incomplete. There is no useful lower bound we can determine on the chance life starts on a planet.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"