Are We Alone?

...but having committed to argue that the first abuse contained all the verbage of the second abuse, there is no further point to reading the third abuse.

TNTC:"Let's go with your 'God in your heart' premise. Why? ...and why that God? There are plenty of examples that show that God to be a very poor model for decent behavior. Why have something that vengeful and jealous in your heart?"

"...the above appears to be a complaint found in the arguments room. Please move down the corridor one room." - transliteration from Monty Python sketch about arguments service.

If you make a statement about the statement made by the first responder, who was merely replying to your earlier stated statement, when does it rise to the point of being stated statements about statemented states about statements?

I would like to inform you that I have called the skit cops, but they were all playing on their hand-held devices.

Me too, as my original comments are mildly tongue in cheek.

I already am fully aware of and sensitive to TNTC's disdain for anything Christian, or for that matter anything religious.

The only sacrosanct thought in his mind is that his disdain must not be poked or prodded in any way, then the rattling and wild striking out at anything moving in his field of infrared takes place. (A joke).

So yeah, boring, predictable, and a faux pas on my part to poke the snake.

James, I am fairly predictable, but apparently you haven't observed closely enough to grasp the pattern. I harbor no ill will towards the make-believe, what I oppose is the insistence that it be treated as something other than make-believe.

You may be too close to the subject to easily see it well. Let's use Disney as a metaphor. I don't harbor any ill will towards Disney stories or characters. Mickey is a swell imaginary chap.

Hypothetically, I could have problems with what Disney Corporation is doing that significantly effects people in the real world. This could even include messages in the stories if some of the real world effects were strongly negative.

If there was a push to have people testify to their belief in a real flesh and blood Mickey to which they owed an unpayable debt of gratitude for all the entertainment, ever (even entertainment before they were born, that they would never experience, i.e. original entertainment).....and this platform was used to supplant logic and sound reason with dogma in wide effect public policy decisions....then I would have problems with that.

Look. Disney World is enjoyable. So is Christmas. The songs and decorations and food and comradery are excellent and worth partaking. But don't lose your mind. There is no reason to insist it is factual rather than fictional. We get it, you like it. Just go to the costume party and have a good time being Zorro, or the back half of the donkey costume....just don't show up tomorrow for work still in your costume insisting people take you seriously.

.

Anyway, prod away if you care to. Here is the deal: When I come across misrepresentations or distortions that seem important in a public format, I am likely going to respond, pointing out what I see as fallacious/incorrect/erroneous.

If you are the one who put forth the flawed assertion, try to keep in mind, my rebuttal is of what you wrote, not of your person.

You may find attempting to provide rebuttals to my points of argument (as opposed to going straight away at denigrating my person but ignoring the points in my argument) will likely garner more respect (self?) and provide far more opportunity to actually learn something from the exchange.

You are entitled to your delusion, however, if you insist on infecting me with it, there may be antibiotics involved. Just sayin'.

Strange that the Prince Phillip Movement gets lumped in with cargo cults. Has anyone tested the Royal Consort to see if he is divine?

Collectively alone.

Say goodbye to my massive friend.

Well said.

"... could we recognize what our own technology might evolve into in the next hundred years?"

If 'they' are out there, it is conceivable we could detect their communications if only we knew what to look for.

Sticking just to the realm of radio communications, could someone using 1940s radio technology - a mere 70 years old - recognise the presence of certain forms of modern spread-spectrum radio signals? As some are practically indistinguishable from background noise, highly unlikely (which makes SSR quite popular for secure communications; if you don't even know it's there, not much chance you're going to decode it).

As an aside for my reply, in regard to question one, for those who may be interested, I highly recommend the book Genesis, The Scientific Quest For Life's Origin By Dr. Robert M Hazen (2005). While he gives no answers, he presents a good description of the state of current research including his own.

There are 2 reasons why I think life must exist elsewhere in the universe:

1) The unimaginable numbers of stars that exist that will have planets, some/many of which have the right physical & chemical conditions (temperature, pressure, low radiation levels, reasonable gravity, presence of light elements & water) for the carbon-based compounds of life to form. Given the right conditions, life will evolve naturally over millions of years without any interference from outside or "divine intervention." They may be very rare, but "very rare" X trillions = certainty.

2) The second reason is purely philosophical. I am not a religious person, yet the concept of an almost infinite, sterile universe with no-one there to live in it, experience it & observe it (apart from us) seems absurd. Just think of all those billions of galaxies out there with nothing present to experience it and wonder. As Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) in "Contact" said to her schoolchildren: "I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right? "

I personally think the universe is very populated, but the distances between us could make contact very unlikely. On the other hand Alpha Centauri is only 4.3 light years away ...............

Considering the vast number of galaxies in the known Universe, along with the innumerable solar systems, logic and the laws of chance would suggest that there is at least one other life form most likely identical to our species.

On the other hand I, nor anyone I know has personally experienced extraterrestrial life form of any intelligence as judged by human standards.

The very terminology "as judged by human standards" indicates that there is a possibility that "life" exists elsewhere in the Universe.

If said life forms are identical to those on Earth, it is entirely possible that they are encountering the same limitations as we concerning interstellar travel. It's also possible that they were already here and found no signs of "life".

I personally believe that this is a situation where as the OP noted "There are no right or wrong answers..."

This, in spirit, answered my original post, and I would have given a G.A. as I have done with both opinions except it is posted Anonymously. It was a valid answer to my query. Why not use your anonymous CR4 name?

Better than posthumously, I suppose, though given some of the replies I've seen here today I think they should add a checkbox for that.

Most definitely, and I might be in line as a potential recipient. I would rather have a post humidity award, though.

Composthumously?

Please, stop, I will rip my pants, laughing!

Good enough, I gave you a G.A. You answered my original question. This tread has gone many directions, like a hydra. It's been fun though, hope I get a few more to answers my original post.

Einstien's Law of general relativity increase our odds of bumping with another life forms on galaxies traveling close to speed of light. Or may be those constellations are just slower lot less than speed of light than us.

Who knows, another galaxy or universe just like a size of specle traveling close to speed of light in the universe. Its likely there is.

General relativity is about how gravity warps spacetime. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually an algorithm (bot) that is just repeating apparently relevant jargon.

No. That level of ignorance even surpasses me.

No machine could be that perniciously stupid.

No machine could exquisitely twist knowledge into something as brown and stinky as that.

No machine could take a pure fountain of wisdom and turn it into a torrent of urine as yellow as yellow can be.

"Einstien's Law of general relativity increase our odds of bumping with another life forms on galaxies traveling close to speed of light."

Not just any ol' life forms, btw, but one's high-velocity kinsmen. His other law, Special Relativity, refers specifically to those wot are especially endearing or have odd quarks the family would rather not discuss in public.

Not to mention those bosons who insist on traveling with the circus.

Best to just bid them godspeed.

_{^{'Godspeed', that's DMT, right?}}

_{^{How effective is wishing it to someone?}}

Wow, so many great responses. energyconversion was going to ask "if this is the longest CR4 thread yet?" I don't think so, but it is the longest one in awhile. It certainly exceeded my expectations. Yes, it did go in many directions but somebody always brings it back to my original topic.

I am not sure if anybody touched on this, but imagine if we are not alone and discover it. What would that mean for us as a society? I would imagine that many people would not know how to deal with it. What would that knowledge do to the highly religious? The fanatics? Would the countries of the world stop worrying about each other because there is something bigger to worry about?

The implications are mind boggling.

Not to worry! Trump won't let any Space Aliens visit here.

Dome alone?

Well, for starters, there would be an urgent effort to save the alien species, introduce them to the concept of original guilt sin, and instruct them in various postures of obeisance and prayer.

....and then if the aliens are sensible, our economies will be going gang busters manufacturing the weapons for the first true Worlds War.

Sorry, this is a bit of a segue: has anyone ever written a sci-fi story about alien visitor who are missionaries?

That was our main excuse reason for invading most of the world, and, quite a lot of the missionaries were genuine.

What if their offering was more convincing than any of our existing religions?

That's a pretty low bar.

More convincing, you say? Well, then it wouldn't be religion. To be more convincing, there would need to be some tangible evidence that supports demonstrable proof. Any falsifiable theories could be tested.

If religion were believable, it would just be called history. Religion has to be unbelievable so that there is certainty that people who say they believe are fully in the club, allowing the reality they accept to be governed more by what they are told than what they experience first hand (either that or demonstrate the ability to lie very consistently about core beliefs for the cohesion of the group).... and not just well versed historians.

I'm sure there are a few out there, especially when you remove the religious veneer from missionary work and look at the message again: "I come from a place different from your own, and I want you to change your entire way of life to match that of the place where I come from."

Missionary work is, once you remove the 'God has told me to do this' motive, just another flavor of Colonialism.

Many sci-fi stories either remove religion or marginalize it, so as to be more 'accessable' to the masses, which is a fancy way of saying 'we don't want to piss of the Christians/Jews/Hindus/Rastafarians/etc. so all the heroes will be 'men of science' who do not discuss or otherwise reveal their belief system.' Some, however, bring religion right into the forefront, where not only are the characters religious, the society is OPENLY religious, even if it's a religion we may not recognize at first glance. For the latter example, may I suggest Frank Herbert's Dune series. Fair warning, the first book can get a bit try at points, there's a whole galaxy-spanning empire to world-build. The first book comes with an appendix that includes history lessons on the origin of the Orange Bible and on the Butleran Jihad, among other things. One of the interesting things about the Dune series, to tie this back into the original topic, is that in that universe, humanity *IS* alone. All the characters, baring the 'dumb beasts,' are human, and can trace their lineage all the way back to Earth if they wanted to.

Greg Bear wrote a brilliant (IMHO) science fiction trilogy of novels that starts with the novel "Eon". The third novel, "The Way of all Ghosts", involves a world with Lamarckian evolution. Sometimes an accidental missionary can wreak havoc.

Thank you, that is a question I already asked in this thread when it starting going religious. Is the "supreme being", possibly and literally, a supreme being? If an advanced race visited our ancestors, could that not be the basis of all religion? I'm not saying this is what I think, but it is thought that has crossed my mind. If I went back and met a Neanderthal, he saw me create fire from a lighter, fly in a plane, kill game at 300 yards with a loud boom, perform CPR and breath life into a drowned pal of his, what would he think I was??? A God???

G.A. from me for trying to bring the thread back on topic.

So are you all blaming me for the religious overtones? I get tired of TNTC and his atheistic rants. I am tired of putting up with that crap.

Yup. That is exactly what was happening. In fact, just before you came in, everyone was blaming you for religious overtones. Worse yet, consensus has it you get the blame for religious partials, harmonicsnand inharmonicity, too, in addition to the overtone. No one seems to blame you for the fundamentals.

Yeah, everyone has United against you in blame. Everyone said they aren't going to let you sit at their table at lunch, too. Rumor has it no on is going to pick you for dodgeball or any other teams, though the rumored flushie you will likely receive will keep you from being bored in gym.

.

Seriously though, you do realize most of what you view as my 'athiest rant' is a response to (at times outrageous) claims you make.

I understand why would 'you get tired'. It would be so much easier for you if no one checked you on you sheit.

At least I know where I stand now. You won't see me for a while after this week, so enjoy your vacation.

Maybe I will reload my fact devoid rants with some real ammo while I am gone, or not. I don't care. I think I have done a really poor job showing you or anyone what and why I believe in what I believe. It really is not my job to show you the way, I am not responsible for your insanity. You are.

You will be missed. Looking forward to your return.

Are we done talking about the possibilities of intelligent extraterrestrial life? Or have I scorned the thought of religion with the thought of e.t. life?

I gave you a G.A. because that was the first on topic reply in many posts.

That is about the only "almost" GA I have had in a long time, I think.

I just gave you my vote, and for the same reason as the OP, so now you should have a GA.

Awww...thank you.

In some ways this question seems like the ultimate conceit. How could we be more narcissistic than to go on the premise that our understanding of intelligence might be usefully generalized universally, AND that we might be able to recognize organisms substantially different from ourselves on scales of time and dimension.

Sure we might be smart in the ways that we are smart, but in the ways we are not smart, it is hard to notice, much less judge other intelligence. Of course we may be very smart or very stupid in ways that might only become apparent upon meeting something vastly different.

Great link. Thanks.

I am happy to stand beside, behind, or even in front of Winston Churchill on any subject. He was the most amazing individual (IMHO) of the past 100 years.

I salute Winston Churchill, and all those who believe that we will look back on Britain during the World War II, and simply state: "This was their finest hour."

This is not to say that many fine hours will not be played out in the future. Maybe even some of the better ones, but who can top Fortress Britain during World War II?

A good Churchill quote

"..."How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."..."

Yes, I was at least vaguely aware of that quote, and the most masterful summary of the ill effects of Islam.

NO argument to be found there at all. I do wish all religions success in finding the truth, but not everything is rooted in nor does it grow up in truth.

Still it does remain that religions are part of the fabric and glue that binds culture together, just as intimacy is the glue of marriage.

Of course we are not alone. One must keep in mind that if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and they are significantly advanced to have mastered FTL travel I seriously doubt they would have anything to do with such a dangerous child race as humans. Perhaps in a millennia or two...

IMHO they have already had something to do with me, personally, but a hard bump on the head may have also done the same.

Actually, I believe an odd dream I had as a child was in fact an EOTTK. Or maybe an EOTFK, because it involved extensive space travel at a very rapid clip. The strange energy creature (certainly non-biological) was standing holding the doorknob to my bedroom upon my awakening. I blinked and it was gone. Scary I know, but it has stayed with me all these years.

Wow, a personal experience.

Even so, it might well be viewed as a "religious" experience for as a 10 year old boy, I had to way to document it in photographs, data recordings, or the like, so did it really happen? To me, it did happen. The rest of the world can remain as skeptics, viewing my experience with a jaundiced eye. I do not care. My encounter with the "energy man" has led me down this long road I am on.

Please don't think that I am skeptic, my remark was one of surprise, that you shared that experience here. Whether it was religious, or alien, or whatever, I am not one to tell you it didn't happen. I have seen and experienced several things in my life that I can not explain scientifically or logically.

Thanks for sharing.

Great links, thanks. I had all but given up on an on topic post. The Fermi paradox says we should have already been visited given the amount of civilizations that could be out there that could be much older than us. Many people think we have in fact been visited in the past. Who knows, if a race that is a billion years older than us may have visited us a 100 million years ago and thought of this planet as a novelty.

I never heard of the Fermi Paradox, so I checked your link. Good stuff there! I really liked reading the section titled Hypothetical explanations for the paradox. It seems to cover all the bases.

In contrast, the Drake equation uses too many estimates - things that there's no way for us to know. The equation makes sense, but as stated, the usefulness is not very high.

I also liked reading about the Fermi problem. The example about the piano tuners in Chicago was excellent. As I read through the analysis, it's just how I would've done it. When the number came to 225, I guessed it would be about 50% higher, due to imperfect efficiency (each tuner would not tune as many pianos as estimated). 225 + 50% is 338. The actual number being 290 is pretty close.

I think what I liked is how my thought process is similar to the person who solved the problem. Simple math with a correction for a margin of error. The sad thing is that many people (general public) wouldn't have a clue how to solve the problem. That's really a bad mark against the level of math taught to our students.

Thanks for sharing - really good stuff!

You've missed my point about the Kepler telescope. Previously only one of the seven variables, R^*, identified in the Drake equation were based on direct observation. Two of the seven variables, f_c & L, can be based on our history. Kepler will eventually provide another measurement of two variables, f_p & n_e. Five of the seven variables of the Drake equation will be from measured data and not speculation.

I don't see it as you do. The variables are based on a tiny sampling of measured data. Yes, you could use statistical analysis to conclude that the hypothesis is correct, but remember that the accuracy is based on sample size. Since we're only sampling a miniscule amount of data, then there's a very good chance that the sample is not a "normal" sample when looking at the entire universe.

A great example: remember in probability and statistics that you could come up with a reasonably good hypothesis of the outcome of a number of fair coin tosses. For instance if you ran 100 samples of a tossing a coin 10 times, you could come up with a pretty good statistical analysis of how many heads and tails you'd have if you tossed a coin 10 times.

So, what I'm saying is if we're using the coin toss as an example, we don't have enough data to determine if our current data is a fair coin toss - in other words, it cannot be assumed that the minute part of the galaxy that we can see is a good sample of what the entire universe looks like - it's not a fair coin toss.

True enough, but it could cut in more than just one way.

Really!?

I guess I should've known. You are going to cling to ignorance with a death grip, again.

The obvious reason for applying statistical analysis to make a conclusion is that the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox are probability analyses.

Choosing the near infinite quantity of "the entire universe" in your rebuttal just proves that you refuse to let your visions be altered, regardless of data.

While your probability analysis would be reasonable for a limited system, when attempting to answer the question "Are we alone?" requires that the near infinite quantity of "the entire universe" be considered in attempting to answer that question, since any form of what we consider intelligent life could originate anywhere in that universe.

Statistical analysis could not be properly applied to this problem since the data utilized would be insufficient.

Possibly the best example of this would be the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001.

Even though the designers of the buildings allowed for the possibility of a collision by a fully loaded 707(the largest airliner at the time), they could have never foreseen that planes would be purposely flown into the buildings at maximum speed.

But wouldn't life out of reach still agree with us being alone. Isn't a prisoner in solitary alone. Wasn't Tom Hank's character in Castaway alone. Can't a person at a bar in the middle of Manhattan on a Friday night be sadly alone.

As to using using statistics and probability in the real world (universe) I get just under 14 million results in 0.7 seconds. I think they are related.

Are we alone in the Universe? Definitely, most definitely not. Probability analysis proves well enough that the probability of another intelligent life form coexisting within our time line is near unity. Beyond that, The Bible tells me about the "Hosts of Heaven". That alone is a definitive statement or certainty. They are out there. They may be avoiding us as one might avoid "the bad part of town".

".... That alone is a definitive statement or certainty...."

I guess you intended to write 'of' instead of the 'or'. If that is indeed the case, it is more clear, yet still puzzling as to overall intention.

Definitive statements of certainty are not in short supply. Moreover, since two definitive statements of certainty can be formulated with direct contradiction, these are of little value for discerning truth.

.

Welcome back. How was your vacation?

Not bad, although I spent much of it in Arduino data logging, curly bracketing hell.

Can tell you more later. Wifey not doing well bad couple of diagnoses. Surgery tomorrow, surgery more on other part(s) next week.

I hope she makes a speedy recovery.

Thanks and a hug, more of a manly hug.

Hope all turns out well. For both of you.

James, I also wish your wife well.

Turns out her surgery for last Friday was postponed due to communications blunder(s) from Dr. Office. Go figure, we would get the only Gastroenterology doctor in Lubbock, that (1) is not a surgeon, and (2) is also a freaking lawyer. LOL.

No one is alone who walks hand in hand with those around him/her. One can find souls needing some form of assistance or another on any given day. If you have love in your heart, there is no alone. I can be removed far from anyone I know, and still strike up a conversation. I also can rest within my mind at peace. I can also remember those dear to me (family and friends) who have passed on to the other side of eternity, and know that I can still feel their spirit with me, urging me to do what is good, what is right, and what is profitable not just for me, but for humanity.

The ones who are alone are those trapped by negativity in their minds whom believe that no one endures what they do, no one sees their pain, no one has ever gone through this before. In actual fact someone has gone through it all before.

If an ax head flies off its handle and lands in the river, who can find it and lift it? The one that has simple faith that it is still there where it fell in is the one. If a man knows where he is, puts on a blindfold, spins around thrice, can he still find his way to safety (equipment)? You bet he can. He only has to believe it is still there.

I agree that life existing outside the communication horizon of the cosmos should not be considered in the Fermi Paradox. A prisoner in solitary is not alone if he still has one friend he can believe in. Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) was not alone on the island, or at sea, there was always something or some creature there to remind him, even a shark. Wilson played a role. That person at the end of the bar on Manhattan island Friday night might be waiting for someone to show up, could be on travel, could be a lot of things. Assuming they are "alone", might not be appropriate.

Please don't take this wrong. I had to take graduate classes in Probability and Statistics, so I remember the concept pretty well. Also, I recently had to run a statistical analysis for a local problem in our community, so I gave myself a refresher.

Using statistics and probability in the real world is a great google search topic. 14M results in less than a second - that 's a lot of data. I clicked your link and all of the topics on the first page (9 sites) are related to real world things such as do you take an umbrella to work, coin tosses or things that happen in every day life.

To correctly use probability and statistics, you need to have a "good" sample.

Are you saying that I must prove to you that the Kepler telescope acquired a "good" sample. I won't waste my time. You obviously have an irrational bias against trying to determine if life exists off of this planet.

Let me try this a different way.

1. Let's say you take a sample of material under 100 house foundations within 1 mile radius of your house - We can agree it's a "local" sample, correct?

2. Let's say the test results show a normal distribution of radon gas.

3. You could then use statistical analysis to show that houses in your area have Radon gas underneath them.

4. Based on your Kepler telescope argument about what qualifies as a "good" sample, we follow the logic that since your "local" sample showed radon gas underneath homes, then ANY house will have a high probability of having radon gas underneath.

I hope I illustrated why you can't use our knowledge (or lack of it) to determine the chance that life exists somewhere else other than earth.

I don't know if life exists outside of earth; it may or may not. I lean toward life not existing.

I don't think you can't use an equation with unknowns to determine the likelihood of life outside of earth. I hope you understand that any telescope we have can only see a miniscule fraction of the universe and due to this, how can anyone reasonably make a claim about something we know so little about?