If you are looking for an awesome channel that covers this kind of stuff in a non-fantastical, very logical manner, this guy is incredible (John Michael Godier). The Fermi paradox is one of his best topics he covers.....
The only issue, is this guy has such a relaxing voice, it's almost impossible to not nod off if you listen in bed. He's like the Bob Ross of astronomy. He has his main channel:
So if there is life out there, but we have no way of detecting it or communicating with it, effectively we will be alone. Like if a tree falls in the forest merged with Schrodinger's cat, it is then a philosophical question. We can't ever know, and if that is the assumption, does it matter?
Its a constraint that is generally not placed on the Drake equation as we assume eventually tech develops to have FLT communication or travel. Putting a speed limit on Drake and asking the question of is there life in the universe that we would interact with if the speed light cannot be exceeded definitely reduces the odds.
Effectively the Brief Window hypothesis as outlined by Lanny above.
Last edited by GGG; 08-02-2022 at 02:24 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
His point is fine, that if aliens or future travelers are here to observe and not disturb, why are they so bad at staying out of sight? If they don't care, then why so evasive? If they do care, surely with advanced tech they wouldn't be so obvious to us.
His point is fine, that if aliens or future travelers are here to observe and not disturb, why are they so bad at staying out of sight? If they don't care, then why so evasive? If they do care, surely with advanced tech they wouldn't be so obvious to us.
Yeah but if you bring basic logic into it someone just pipes up with something about how alien life could defy our understanding of logic or go beyond human intellectual capacity.
“Why do they leave the lights on?”
“You wouldn’t get it… nay, you couldn’t get it even if you wanted to.”
My personal belief is that aliens are little green or grey men and fly around in little saucer or pill shaped flying vehicles because people have witnessed that and witnesses are infallible as long as they promise to be honest.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Call me when the reported lights on spaceships look like lightning bolts or sparking electrical fields.
Hell of a reach there pal.
It was actually a display of how a plasma field generates light radiation as a by-product of ionization around the exterior of the shell, explaining "why the lights are on." A reach? No, 8th or 9th grade physics. Has to do with excitation and electrical fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Yeah but if you bring basic logic into it someone just pipes up with something about how alien life could defy our understanding of logic or go beyond human intellectual capacity.
Basic logic? Go on. Love to hear you thoughts on such topics, especially what is "basic." There is little doubt that human intellectual capacity is greatly limited considering just the incompleteness of the rules we believe govern the universe. You speak of logic, but look at what we are doing to this planet and our own species and then talk about logic and human intellectual capacity.
Quote:
“Why do they leave the lights on?”
“You wouldn’t get it… nay, you couldn’t get it even if you wanted to.”
It seems that is accurate. The issue of residual light has been explained multiple times, but someone still doesn't seem to understand it. Even when presented with a very easy to understand video displaying the phenomena and explaining how it works, it's "but lightning bolts..."
Quote:
My personal belief is that aliens are little green or grey men and fly around in little saucer or pill shaped flying vehicles because people have witnessed that and witnesses are infallible as long as they promise to be honest.
Always love your smarmy comments. Especially when you conflate two very different issues to try and deflect from the topic and make yourself seem superior. Very transparent. Could you please try and discuss the topic for a change? Please?
Basic logic? Go on. Love to hear you thoughts on such topics, especially what is "basic." There is little doubt that human intellectual capacity is greatly limited considering just the incompleteness of the rules we believe govern the universe. You speak of logic, but look at what we are doing to this planet and our own species and then talk about logic and human intellectual capacity.
Logic, as in… logic… I don’t know how else to make clear what I mean. Basic deductive and inductive logic equations. Foundational stuff. If x is always y and y is always z then x is always z. Go read a book about it, but the point being that there are arguments against it or in question of it that are very simple and logically sound. Basic logic. It’s not something that’s failing more complex logical reasoning, it’s failing basic stuff.
And you can’t say there’s “little doubt” that human intellectual capacity is greatly limited. Your example isn’t meaningful or an example of limited capacity, it’s an example of limited understanding. The truth is, we could very well be the most intellectual, advanced life form on any planet in any universe, and our intellectual capacity could be at 100% of what’s possible, period. That wouldn’t mean we know everything there is to know, but it would mean we are capable of understanding everything that can be understood, which includes the rules by which other life forms exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
It seems that is accurate. The issue of residual light has been explained multiple times, but someone still doesn't seem to understand it. Even when presented with a very easy to understand video displaying the phenomena and explaining how it works, it's "but lightning bolts..."
This is not a good example of what I’m talking about. I think you missed the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Always love your smarmy comments. Especially when you conflate two very different issues to try and deflect from the topic and make yourself seem superior. Very transparent. Could you please try and discuss the topic for a change? Please?
I am discussing the topic. Instead of awkwardly explaining how “I always love your smarmy comments” and “…make yourself seem superior” are discussing the topic, perhaps you could just save us all time, pipe down, and actually be an example of sticking to the topic at hand. See if you can.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
A fourth is that the universe is too large and intelligent life rare enough and the constraints of the universe fixed that communication between civilizations is not possible.
A fifth is that nothing with mass cannot travel faster than light in a vacuum. It breaks down causality and leads to paradoxes. Despite being pretty primitive in technology compared to out future selves, this could be something we got right.
Yeah but if you bring basic logic into it someone just pipes up with something about how alien life could defy our understanding of logic or go beyond human intellectual capacity.
“Why do they leave the lights on?”
“You wouldn’t get it… nay, you couldn’t get it even if you wanted to.”
My personal belief is that aliens are little green or grey men and fly around in little saucer or pill shaped flying vehicles because people have witnessed that and witnesses are infallible as long as they promise to be honest.
My personal belief is that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. There is no possibility of other dimensions or universes and definitely no possibility of travel between such impossible things. We understand everything there is to know about everything. Faster than light travel is impossible or we would have figured it out by now and therefore, because of the distances between stuff, we're not going to see stuff from there or go there ourselves ever. Everyone that has ever seen or experienced something of this nature is mistaken or lying, 100%. I don't believe deathbed confessions from such people either, they're obviously motivated by money. I don't believe "experts" in aviation when they say they "witnessed" something like the Tic tac. I don't believe their sensors either. Nothing important or extraordinary was observed that day, just a bunch of simultaneously malfunctioning sensors and mistaken "experts".
Another fun interview to watch is immunologist, Stanford professor of Pathology and AATIP contractor Dr. Garry Nolan who recently did an interview on Tucker Carlson Today (yes, I am aware of the lunatic that Carlson is on most things, but he is at least open to the idea of discussing UAPs).
Nolan covers a range of his thoughts on his research, the phenomena, and the government activity lately on the subject. He has an appealing, even-keeled delivery on the topic IMO.
If nothing else, it's awesome that the topic is being discussed more liberally and with larger platforms. There's some great podcasts that Nolan and others in the community have been having great conversations on, including Lex Friedman's Podcast, Theory of Everything with Curt Jaimungal, and even Joe Rogan.
Logic, as in… logic… I don’t know how else to make clear what I mean. Basic deductive and inductive logic equations. Foundational stuff. If x is always y and y is always z then x is always z. Go read a book about it, but the point being that there are arguments against it or in question of it that are very simple and logically sound. Basic logic. It’s not something that’s failing more complex logical reasoning, it’s failing basic stuff.
Awesome stuff. You just created a strawman fallacy in your explanation of logic. Might want to go back and re-read that book you're recommending and refer back to argumentation, premises, inferences, and conclusions. You seem to get stuck in deductive reasoning as being the basis of everything where scientific study is more entrenched in inductive reasoning and reliance on ampliative inferences to expand our understanding of the universe around us. You're presenting a position that we know everything there is to know and our logic is based on that knowledge. The logic of science is really based on continual testing and challenging what we think we know and using ampliative inference to challenge our "truth." It is more logical to acknowledge we don't know than take the position we do know, because we continue to find new truths information and facts each and every day.
Quote:
And you can’t say there’s “little doubt” that human intellectual capacity is greatly limited. Your example isn’t meaningful or an example of limited capacity, it’s an example of limited understanding.
I'll give you this one. Capacity was indeed the wrong term. We have untapped capacity we can leverage. Our understanding and hubris is what is limiting. To suggest we know everything we need to know about our environment, the universe around us, or what rules apply to either, is extremely arrogant and bordering on stupid. All you have to do is look at how the world has changed, how our understanding of things have evolved, in just the past 100 years, and you should be able to see the failure in your approach to this subject. We haven't even left our planet, but we are the masters of the universe? We don't even have complete understanding or mastery of ourselves let alone our own biosphere. We have so much more to learn.
Quote:
The truth is, we could very well be the most intellectual, advanced life form on any planet in any universe, and our intellectual capacity could be at 100% of what’s possible, period. That wouldn’t mean we know everything there is to know, but it would mean we are capable of understanding everything that can be understood, which includes the rules by which other life forms exist.
This may be your truth, but not THE truth. This is not consistent with what cosmologists believe. It is not consistent with what biologists, let alone astrobiologists believe. You're making a hasty generalization, which is another logic trap. We don't know what rules apply when it comes to forms of life. Our earthly understanding is that everything is carbon based and reliant on liquid water as a solvent. But there is still potential for other forms of life reliant on other elements, like silicon, and other solvents like ammonia or methane. We continue to find life thriving on this planet in conditions we did not think life were possible to exist. And why is that? Because we don't know. We continue to learn and expand our understanding and knowledgebase every day. To suggest we capable of making these absolute judgments is illogical.
This may be your truth, but not THE truth. This is not consistent with what cosmologists believe. It is not consistent with what biologists, let alone astrobiologists believe. You're making a hasty generalization, which is another logic trap. We don't know what rules apply when it comes to forms of life. Our earthly understanding is that everything is carbon based and reliant on liquid water as a solvent. But there is still potential for other forms of life reliant on other elements, like silicon, and other solvents like ammonia or methane. We continue to find life thriving on this planet in conditions we did not think life were possible to exist. And why is that? Because we don't know. We continue to learn and expand our understanding and knowledgebase every day. To suggest we capable of making these absolute judgments is illogical.
It looks like you misunderstood what Pepsi was saying. it's not that we know everything, it's that we have the ability to, one day, understand everything. There is nothing in the universe so fantastically unimaginable that one day our brains won't be able to learn about, dissect, expand our knowledge of, and understand. I'd file things like real, true ghosts in that category. Fantastically unbelievable, but also non-existent. Our brains can't puzzle it out becuase they don't exist in the universe.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
It looks like you misunderstood what Pepsi was saying. it's not that we know everything, it's that we have the ability to, one day, understand everything. There is nothing in the universe so fantastically unimaginable that one day our brains won't be able to learn about, dissect, expand our knowledge of, and understand. I'd file things like real, true ghosts in that category. Fantastically unbelievable, but also non-existent. Our brains can't puzzle it out becuase they don't exist in the universe.
Yeah, I didn't get that and I don't think it was broadly understood that way either. It's also really silly to suggest that. To know everything is to become God. When we learn the answer to one problem, we come up with two new questions. We will never know everything because there is just too much to know. I suspect our species will die out before that possibility has potential to play out. I don't think we take into consideration the knowledge loss we will experience as well. I don't think people are aware just how much knowledge we have lost during the rise and fall of civilizations. This cycle will continue meaning knowing everything is unlikely.
I think we grossly overplay what we think we know and where we are technologically. You do realize it has only been 10 years since the UK converted to fully digital television service and the US only an additional six years. We still have analog telephone services in place in many countries, including the US! We have been broadcasting very weak radio signals for just over 125 years, commercial strength broadcasts for less than a century. Those signals have yet to reach even the boundary of the intermediate arm of our spiral galaxy, or not even 1/3 of the way to center of the galaxy. That should be sobering to consider. Our tech is not strong and our knowledge is in its infancy when measured on the galactic scale. Until we understand our own planet I don't see any hope of understanding the complexities of the universe.
