UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

[4merper4mer]

On 2/11/2022 at 1:25 PM, Nextmanup said:

...and yet he never bothers to actually articulate whatever point he is trying to make.

 

Actually, "math" would suggest the universe is teeming with life.

 

Now, as to the Fermi Paradox, "where is it, why haven't we seen it?" well that's a different issue entirely.

 

There are plenty of interesting theories on why that should be, even if the universe is filled with life.

 

My current line of thinking is that highly intelligent/advanced life may not be nearly as common throughout the universe as we might think.  Like we might be the most advanced/only advanced civilization in our galaxy, perhaps.

 

If that's true throughout the universe, it could help explain why we haven't been visited.

 

The question is what is the broken link in the chain of the Drake Equation.

 

No one really knows, but it gives rise to interesting discussion.  

 

 

Math suggests nothing of the sort.  Sitcom interpretation of math and wishful thinking suggests the universe is teeming with life.  Actual math, partly referenced above with the mention of the Fermi paradox, suggests a far different picture.  Your next sentence attempts to refute it with vague nothingness but I’m the one not arguing points? How about one example of something viable that refutes the Fermi paradox?   Brownlee and Ward are hardly known.  Why is that?  Von Neumann anyone?  You can’t make bank on crappy sci fis and sitcoms unless you ignore math.

 

At least you recognize that we are alone in our own galaxy.  That’s a start.  Keep up the objectivity.  It is interesting to ponder the broken link in sitcom math but one of those numbers is a zero.

[LeGOATski]

On 2/11/2022 at 11:25 AM, Nextmanup said:

...and yet he never bothers to actually articulate whatever point he is trying to make.

 

Actually, "math" would suggest the universe is teeming with life.

 

Now, as to the Fermi Paradox, "where is it, why haven't we seen it?" well that's a different issue entirely.

 

There are plenty of interesting theories on why that should be, even if the universe is filled with life.

 

My current line of thinking is that highly intelligent/advanced life may not be nearly as common throughout the universe as we might think.  Like we might be the most advanced/only advanced civilization in our galaxy, perhaps.

 

If that's true throughout the universe, it could help explain why we haven't been visited.

 

The question is what is the broken link in the chain of the Drake Equation.

 

No one really knows, but it gives rise to interesting discussion.  

 

 

It's just like the development of life on earth. A bunch of tribes that know nothing about each other's existence until a breakthrough in technology allows them to bridge the gap.

[LeGOATski]

 

 

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

It's just like the development of life on earth. A bunch of tribes that know nothing about each other's existence until a breakthrough in technology allows them to bridge the gap.

Edited February 16, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Augie]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Math suggests nothing of the sort.  Sitcom interpretation of math and wishful thinking suggests the universe is teeming with life.  Actual math, partly referenced above with the mention of the Fermi paradox, suggests a far different picture.  Your next sentence attempts to refute it with vague nothingness but I’m the one not arguing points? How about one example of something viable that refutes the Fermi paradox?   Brownlee and Ward are hardly known.  Why is that?  Von Neumann anyone?  You can’t make bank on crappy sci fis and sitcoms unless you ignore math.

 

At least you recognize that we are alone in our own galaxy.  That’s a start.  Keep up the objectivity.  It is interesting to ponder the broken link in sitcom math but one of those numbers is a zero.

 

You say the bold like it was fact. Nobody can prove there is life elsewhere, but if you want to be so sure, you should provide some proof. Otherwise, you’re just guessing like everybody else. I’m just not so pompous to pretend that I’m the knower of all things, especially things we cannot know. 

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

You say the bold like it was fact. Nobody can prove there is life elsewhere, but if you want to be so sure, you should provide some proof. Otherwise, you’re just guessing like everybody else. I’m just not so pompous to pretend that I’m the knower of all things, especially things we cannot know. 

I can’t prove something doesn’t exist.  It just that everything points in that direction.  I was quoting the other poster acknowledgment of such.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I can’t prove something doesn’t exist.  It just that everything points in that direction.  I was quoting the other poster acknowledgment of such.

 

You’re right. You can’t prove it. But you speak as though you can. You say “you recognize that we are alone in our own galaxy”, like you can be certain of that. You’ve overstepped the boundary there. No wiggling out of that. Prove it, or admit it might be untrue. 

 

You can’t win if you say it’s factual. None of us know. 

 

Your position is indefensible. It’s simple logic. 

[LeGOATski]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, Augie said:

 

You’re right. You can’t prove it. But you speak as though you can. You say “you recognize that we are alone in our own galaxy”, like you can be certain of that. You’ve overstepped the boundary there. No wiggling out of that. Prove it, or admit it might be untrue. 

 

You can’t win if you say it’s factual. None of us know. 

 

Your position is indefensible. It’s simple logic. 

He said it.  I agreed.  Get all up in his business if you’re going to get up in mine.  

I’m also sure that there are no whales in the ocean that create billiard balls in their gills and shoot them into the corner pocket from their blowholes.  Is logic against me on that too?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

5 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

He said it.  I agreed.  Get all up in his business if you’re going to get up in mine.  

I’m also sure that there are no whales in the ocean that create billiard balls in their gills and shoot them into the corner pocket from their blowholes.  Is logic against me on that too?

Logic does not suggest that whales create billiard balls in their gills and do anything with them, simply because whales don't have gills.  Which would not change the entertainment value of responses from those who might not have appreciated that fact without reading this.

 

None of the above should be interpreted as indicating that I think you are wrong about why we have no evidence of other intelligent life in the universe.  Where you and I differ, however, is that I acknowledge that my opinion, that it is extremely unlikely that there is other intelligent life in the universe, could turn out to be wrong. 

 

I also think that many people's opinions that intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the universe are the product of wishful thinking.  If you're an astronomer, and therefore at least appear to have some indicia of credibility about such matters, it gives you more reason to believe that you are devoting your life's work to trying to discover something particularly important.

 

To the extent we have evidence about whether or not intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, I think that evidence supports the conclusion that no such intelligent life exists.  I view that as an opinion rather than fact, however, because there is still a great deal that we do not know about not only the distant parts of the universe, but even our own planet.

 

For example, I recently came across an interesting discussion of the "faint sun paradox" - - you can read about it here:

 

https://futurism.com/faint-young-sun-paradox-early-earth

 

Humans are often sure about what they supposedly "know," right up until they aren't.  Just ask my significant other.

 

Or invent a time machine, visit my younger self, and ask me if the lyric in the Beatles song everybody else apparently knew as "Paperback Writer" was actually, as I thought for an embarrassingly long time, "pay for that Chrysler."

 

We all have blind spots, including me.

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

Logic does not suggest that whales create billiard balls in their gills and do anything with them, simply because whales don't have gills.  Which would not change the entertainment value of responses from those who might not have appreciated that fact without reading this.

 

None of the above should be interpreted as indicating that I think you are wrong about why we have no evidence of other intelligent life in the universe.  Where you and I differ, however, is that I acknowledge that my opinion, that it is extremely unlikely that there is other intelligent life in the universe, could turn out to be wrong. 

 

I also think that many people's opinions that intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the universe are the product of wishful thinking.  If you're an astronomer, and therefore at least appear to have some indicia of credibility about such matters, it gives you more reason to believe that you are devoting your life's work to trying to discover something particularly important.

 

To the extent we have evidence about whether or not intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, I think that evidence supports the conclusion that no such intelligent life exists.  I view that as an opinion rather than fact, however, because there is still a great deal that we do not know about not only the distant parts of the universe, but even our own planet.

 

For example, I recently came across an interesting discussion of the "faint sun paradox" - - you can read about it here:

 

https://futurism.com/faint-young-sun-paradox-early-earth

 

Humans are often sure about what they supposedly "know," right up until they aren't.  Just ask my significant other.

 

Or invent a time machine, visit my younger self, and ask me if the lyric in the Beatles song everybody else apparently knew as "Paperback Writer" was actually, as I thought for an embarrassingly long time, "pay for that Chrysler."

 

We all have blind spots, including me.

Prove that some whales don’t have gills.  I did that on purpose btw but nice catch nonetheless.

 

There are things that are “literally zero” and others that are “effectively zero”.  Yes, there is a difference which is real but it is so immeasurably small that it isn’t worth considering.  

[Bad Things]

FFS, I knew it was just a matter of time before we found ourselves here again.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Bad Things

[Patrick Duffy]

On 8/24/2011 at 11:40 PM, ieatcrayonz said:

Any updates on this?

 

[Augie]

18 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Prove that some whales don’t have gills.  I did that on purpose btw but nice catch nonetheless.

 

There are things that are “literally zero” and others that are “effectively zero”.  Yes, there is a difference which is real but it is so immeasurably small that it isn’t worth considering.  

 

But…..is it as small as the universe is big?   🤷‍♂️

 

I don’t pretend to know, so I feel pretty confident I’m not wrong. 

[Patrick Duffy]

2 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

But…..is it as small as the universe is big?   🤷‍♂️

 

I don’t pretend to know, so I feel pretty confident I’m not wrong. 

 

Lol, can't argue with ya at all here...Just for sh ts and giggles, I was always one of those ppl that wondered how can one really be confident in the "math talk" with something in which is beyond the imagination of how large or how far it goes and continuing to expand, also unknown number of galaxies etc?

 

In other words, how can one attribute math to something which nothing is known about? 

[Augie]

8 minutes ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

 

Lol, can't argue with ya at all here...Just for sh ts and giggles, I was always one of those ppl that wondered how can one really be confident in the "math talk" with something in which is beyond the imagination of how large or how far it goes and continuing to expand, also unknown number of galaxies etc?

 

In other words, how can one attribute math to something which nothing is known about? 

 

You have to blame the sitcoms, I think.

 

(Not sure where that part came in.)

[Patrick Duffy]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

You have to blame the sitcoms, I think.

 

(Not sure where that part came in.)

 

 

Lol, but seriously though....when determining "formulas" etc, things like that are known, or can be known. Like how large something is, or how large it can be built or all that whatnot stuff etc. Lol, I'm trying to word this the best I can so sorry if frustrating you in any way...

 

But I mean, how can math prove anything 100% when there's an unimaginable amount that is and will likely always be unknown?

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

 

 

Lol, but seriously though....when determining "formulas" etc, things like that are known, or can be known. Like how large something is, or how large it can be built or all that whatnot stuff etc. Lol, I'm trying to word this the best I can so sorry if frustrating you in any way...

 

But I mean, how can math prove anything 100% when there's an unimaginable amount that is and will likely always be unknown?

 

I’m the last guy you want math answers from! Ask my (math major) wife!  

 

What I DO know is……we don’t know squat.

 

Think of what we “know” now that we didn’t know just a hundred years ago. Or a thousand years ago. Look at the acceleration of discovery and advancement, and then imagine what we might know a thousand years in the future. Heck, another decade  will present us with what I now consider unimaginable! When I was a kid we had party line phones. Now? Elementary school kids walk around with cell phones and most of the knowledge of mankind at their fingertips. I have no idea what might be possible in the future! 

On 2/16/2022 at 8:18 AM, 4merper4mer said:

He said it.  I agreed.  Get all up in his business if you’re going to get up in mine.  

I’m also sure that there are no whales in the ocean that create billiard balls in their gills and shoot them into the corner pocket from their blowholes.  Is logic against me on that too?

 

He may have said it, but you are leading the charge. I’m not getting up in anyone’s business, I’m just pointing out the obvious. I can’t “know” what is out there (or is not out there), and neither can you. 

[Bad Things]

The saddest, most frustrating thing about all of this is all of the money, time and effort being spent on searching for alien life.

Scientists around the world, working for many organizations are doing so as I type this.

 

It's a shame that our local know-it-all just doesn't contact them to let them know that they are all wasting their time.

So much wasted effort all because of sitcom math.  smh

 

[K-9]

44 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I’m the last guy you want math answers from! Ask my (math major) wife!  

 

What I DO know is……we don’t know squat.

 

Think of what we “know” now that we didn’t know just a hundred years ago. Or a thousand years ago. Look at the acceleration of discovery and advancement, and then imagine what we might know a thousand years in the future. Heck, another decade  will present us with what I now consider unimaginable! When I was a kid we had party line phones. Now? Elementary school kids walk around with cell phones and most of the knowledge of mankind at their fingertips. I have no idea what might be possible in the future! 

 

He may have said it, but you are leading the charge. I’m not getting up in anyone’s business, I’m just pointing out the obvious. I can’t “know” what is out there (or is not out there), and neither can you. 

I agree entirely that an untold number of things will be discovered and our knowledge base expanded as time goes on. 
 

But I have to take exception with the term “we don’t know squat.” We actually know a helluva lot. Across a multitude of disciplines. We are an amazing species. 
 

When we recognize it and unify around that belief. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by K-9