UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Unlike 4merper4mer, I don't claim to have absolute certainty that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.  That's why I'm open to considering anybody's logical explanation for the Fermi paradox.  But it's disingenuous to pejoratively call the Fermi paradox a "rabbit hole."  IF life hypothetically somehow forms from the right mix of non-living chemicals when the circumstances of temperature, pressure, etc are just right, then given the vast number of other planets in the universe, those conditions statistically would be expected to exist and have caused life to form in numerous locations.  So where is everybody?  If they ain't around, and we currently have no evidence that they have ever existed anywhere , then maybe the hypothesis that life will form from the right mix of non-living chemicals under specific but currently unknown conditions is simply wrong.

 

If you think the hypothesis is correct, where is everybody?

 

Of course, you can always avoid the logic of the analysis by calling the Fermi paradox a "rabbit hole" that isn't worthy of your consideration.  

[LeGOATski]

The US shot down a 4th unknown aerial vehicle over Lake Huron yesterday...

 

We're being invaded.

[4merper4mer]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:20 PM, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

Unlike 4merper4mer, I don't claim to have absolute certainty that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.  That's why I'm open to considering anybody's logical explanation for the Fermi paradox.  But it's disingenuous to pejoratively call the Fermi paradox a "rabbit hole."  IF life hypothetically somehow forms from the right mix of non-living chemicals when the circumstances of temperature, pressure, etc are just right, then given the vast number of other planets in the universe, those conditions statistically would be expected to exist and have caused life to form in numerous locations.  So where is everybody?  If they ain't around, and we currently have no evidence that they have ever existed anywhere , then maybe the hypothesis that life will form from the right mix of non-living chemicals under specific but currently unknown conditions is simply wrong.

 

If you think the hypothesis is correct, where is everybody?

 

Of course, you can always avoid the logic of the analysis by calling the Fermi paradox a "rabbit hole" that isn't worthy of your consideration.  

@LeGOATski down thread a few posts you linked a study and eventually asked me what I thought of it and/or to disprove it.  I told you I had essentially already done that and you could scroll up a bit.  For unknown reasons, you didn’t bother.  Perhaps it was to avoid wear and tear on your scrolling finger so here is your silver platter.  After you read this and before you reflexively post that either I didn’t refute your study or refuted it poorly please stop and think for a minute.  Just give it a minute but actually think with logic, not alien wishfulness.  If you still feel the same way, please explain why.

The portion below is unedited from Feb 13.

 

I appreciate you refraining from calling me a troll for irrational reasons as others have.  It’s like I took their lollipop because I don’t agree with their illogical conclusions that sound like a stoner saying whoa dude what if blue was really red and red was really blue.  Augie is an exception to this but sells short what we actually do know about the universe and life, which while incomplete, is considerable.

 

I have explained many mathematical facets within this thread which lead to and overwhelming set of odds that intelligent communicative life beyond Earth is extraordinarily unlikely to the point of being beyond our comprehension.  The counter has consistently been the “argument” based on the sitcom math known as the Drake equation pointing out that many stars exist.  Now a new twist is that we’ll someday be exploring beyond the observable universe because some appear to be coming to grips with the notion that the observable universe, while immense, isn’t big enough.
 

I won’t review everything in this reply but I will highlight a few in appreciation of your thoughtful post.  They are not meant to be seen as proof of anything on their own, but they do add up.  There are many.  I’ll use just two.

 

1. Factorials and large numbers.  You may have heard the at first unbelievable fact that it is highly unlikely that in the history of the world two decks of playing cards have EVER been shuffled in the same sequence.  There is stuff about this all over the internet, feel free to look it up.  The number of ways a deck can be shuffled is 52! Which which 52*51*50………*3*2*1.  At first blush everyone realizes that produces a large number, but the true scope is hard to grasp.  One Illustration I still find astonishing is that there are more ways to shuffle a decks of cards than there are ATOMS on planet Earth.  Amazing right?  Well, when you look at something called the Rubisco function, it connects amino acids in a way that enable photosynthesis.  For this to happen, sequencing of the acids, and the way they fold together, as far as is known to us, have to happen in ONE specific way from a number of possibilities that far exceeds 52!.  No one knows the exact number of possibilities but it is something along the lines of 250! or more.  That is a number that is beyond inconceivable.  I posted a video about this not very far up this thread.  That is one component of real math that no one refuted beyond calling me a troll because they reeeeeeeeeeally are hoping for aliens.  The Emperor’s New Clothes in a nutshell.

 

2. Von Neumann probes.  Mathematician John von Neumann understood a lot more about math than anyone on this board as well as anyone named Sheldon on any sitcom ever made.  At one point, in a Fermi paradox sort of way, he observed that despite the difficulties of living intelligent beings traveling through space, an intelligent society or even an intelligent individual could design and deploy self replicating robots capable of surveying the entirety of a galaxy the size of ours in an expedition that would take roughly 250k years.  We are arguably 50-ish years away from being able to create this ourselves.  The Earth is 4 billion years old.  The universe, roughly 14.  If life were so prevalent, why no VN probes, ever?  
 

There are many more factors that point away from, not toward life.  The rare Earth hypothesis, the prevalence of flare prone red giants, quasars rendering entire galaxies lifeless, detection of exactly zero evidence of alien signals or signatures during our admittedly brief era of space exploration and on and on.  I just chose two of my favorites for this post.

 

I think what this boils down to is humans inability to understand large numbers.  The people who want aliens to be there inevitably point at the imperceptibly high number of stars and make assumptions from there.  But that is only the beginnings of a numerator.  The denominator, as we learn more and more, gets inconceivably higher.  It would be easier to understand if each number got a lot lower.  If I were to play a shell game with you and there were a thousand shells, then asked you to lift one…..there is a pea under it.  Would you assume there were more peas under some of the remaining 999?  Probably.  Then if I told you that the pea had spontaneously spawned and that the odds of a pea being under any given shell were 500 trillion to one, would you still think one of the 999 shells MUST have a pea under it?   In this thread no one has come to grips with that………math.  Just the Sheldon stuff.

 

  

Edited March 12, 2023 by 4merper4mer

[Augie]

17 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

Unlike 4merper4mer, I don't claim to have absolute certainty that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.  That's why I'm open to considering anybody's logical explanation for the Fermi paradox.  But it's disingenuous to pejoratively call the Fermi paradox a "rabbit hole."  IF life hypothetically somehow forms from the right mix of non-living chemicals when the circumstances of temperature, pressure, etc are just right, then given the vast number of other planets in the universe, those conditions statistically would be expected to exist and have caused life to form in numerous locations.  So where is everybody?  If they ain't around, and we currently have no evidence that they have ever existed anywhere , then maybe the hypothesis that life will form from the right mix of non-living chemicals under specific but currently unknown conditions is simply wrong.

 

If you think the hypothesis is correct, where is everybody?

 

Of course, you can always avoid the logic of the analysis by calling the Fermi paradox a "rabbit hole" that isn't worthy of your consideration.  

 

I appreciate your unwillingness to say anything with 100% certainty. THAT is my main point. We can not know.

 

I’m NOT saying anything is out there, but it could be just as simple as they are not interested in visiting?  Maybe they are out there and very advanced, but the travel is in fact still not possible for them?  Or, if they didn’t want us to be aware of them, I’m sure we wouldn’t. Because I can’t see them does not mean they are not there.  I just don’t think we are as smart as we think we are. We study species all over the world who have no real knowledge of our civilization while living here on the same planet. 

 

If they exist why don’t we know about them? Maybe because they like it that way? This sounds like I’m pushing something, but that’s not the case. I just don’t think Fermi’s Paradox is all that convincing of anything. In the big picture, there is very little we DO know. We’ve only had television broadcasts for less than a 100 years, for heavens sake. We are just here for a blink of an eye, who am I to say what is or isn’t out there after billions of years. 

 

I don’t know, because we cannot know. That applies to all of us. 

 

EDIT: Oh, and @4merper4mer, I don’t think of you as a troll at all. I find this to be interesting topic, but it’s one where we can’t be certain about much. 

 

 

.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Augie

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

I appreciate your unwillingness to say anything with 100% certainty. THAT is my main point. We can not know.

 

I’m NOT saying anything is out there, but it could be just as simple as they are not interested in visiting?  Maybe they are out there and very advanced, but the travel is in fact still not possible for them?  Or, if they didn’t want us to be aware of them, I’m sure we wouldn’t. Because I can’t see them does not mean they are not there.  I just don’t think we are as smart as we think we are. We study species all over the world who have no real knowledge of our civilization while living here on the same planet. 

 

If they exist why don’t we know about them? Maybe because they like it that way? This sounds like I’m pushing something, but that’s not the case. I just don’t think Fermi’s Paradox is all that convincing of anything. In the big picture, there is very little we DO know. We’ve only had television broadcasts for less than a 100 years, for heavens sake. We are just here for a blink of an eye, who am I to say what is or isn’t out there after billions of years. 

 

I don’t know, because we cannot know. That applies to all of us. 

 

EDIT: Oh, and @4merper4mer, I don’t think of you as a troll at all. I find this to be interesting topic, but it’s one where we can’t be certain about much. 

 

 

.

I think where we disagree with what level of certainty exists,  I will grant that nothing that ever has 100% certainty.  Look at local weather predictions as an example.  With that said, there are things that APPROACH 100%.  You don’t need to know everything to draw conclusions.  For instance, I don’t need to know the lottery numbers for the next 6 drawings to be veeeeeeeeeeeeeery close to 100% certainty that the same numbers I play every week aren’t going to hit 6 times in a row.  Those are the type of odds we’re looking at with intelligent alien life existing.  And this is based on relevant known factors.  Math.  On top of that, almost all of the new things we learn point away from life, not toward it.

 

Yes, the Sheldon’s of the world disagree, but they are demonstrably wrong.

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I think where we disagree with what level of certainty exists,  I will grant that nothing that ever has 100% certainty.  Look at local weather predictions as an example.  With that said, there are things that APPROACH 100%.  You don’t need to know everything to draw conclusions.  For instance, I don’t need to know the lottery numbers for the next 6 drawings to be veeeeeeeeeeeeeery close to 100% certainty that the same numbers I play every week aren’t going to hit 6 times in a row.  Those are the type of odds we’re looking at with intelligent alien life existing.  And this is based on relevant known factors.  Math.  On top of that, almost all of the new things we learn point away from life, not toward it.

 

Yes, the Sheldon’s of the world disagree, but they are demonstrably wrong.

I’m fine with PowerBall odds (or higher). People win that all the time. It eventually hits.  Your numbers will come up soon!   😋

 

Yes, I think our big sticking point is certainty. There can be none. 

 

If I had to guess, some form of life is all over the place, including places on this planet you wouldn’t think possible. Does intelligent life have to develop from that? My experience on TSW tells me intelligent life is far more difficult to find.  😂 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

33 minutes ago, Augie said:

I’m fine with PowerBall odds (or higher). People win that all the time. It eventually hits.  Your numbers will come up soon!   😋

 

Yes, I think our big sticking point is certainty. There can be none. 

 

If I had to guess, some form of life is all over the place, including places on this planet you wouldn’t think possible. Does intelligent life have to develop from that? My experience on TSW tells me intelligent life is far more difficult to find.  😂 

 

 

.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is close enough to certainty.

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is close enough to certainty.

 

You may have exaggerated, and the universe is a REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYYYY big place. 

[4merper4mer]

12 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

You may have exaggerated, and the universe is a REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYYYY big place. 

And 250! Is bigger.

[Warcodered]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

1. Factorials and large numbers.  You may have heard the at first unbelievable fact that it is highly unlikely that in the history of the world two decks of playing cards have EVER been shuffled in the same sequence.  There is stuff about this all over the internet, feel free to look it up.  The number of ways a deck can be shuffled is 52! Which which 52*51*50………*3*2*1.  At first blush everyone realizes that produces a large number, but the true scope is hard to grasp.  One Illustration I still find astonishing is that there are more ways to shuffle a decks of cards than there are ATOMS on planet Earth.  Amazing right?  Well, when you look at something called the Rubisco function, it connects amino acids in a way that enable photosynthesis.  For this to happen, sequencing of the acids, and the way they fold together, as far as is known to us, have to happen in ONE specific way from a number of possibilities that far exceeds 52!.  No one knows the exact number of possibilities but it is something along the lines of 250! or more.  That is a number that is beyond inconceivable.  I posted a video about this not very far up this thread.  That is one component of real math that no one refuted beyond calling me a troll because they reeeeeeeeeeally are hoping for aliens.  The Emperor’s New Clothes in a nutshell.

So alien plants like ours would be difficult? Then again with enough time maybe not.

 

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

2. Von Neumann probes.  Mathematician John von Neumann understood a lot more about math than anyone on this board as well as anyone named Sheldon on any sitcom ever made.  At one point, in a Fermi paradox sort of way, he observed that despite the difficulties of living intelligent beings traveling through space, an intelligent society or even an intelligent individual could design and deploy self replicating robots capable of surveying the entirety of a galaxy the size of ours in an expedition that would take roughly 250k years.  We are arguably 50-ish years away from being able to create this ourselves.  The Earth is 4 billion years old.  The universe, roughly 14.  If life were so prevalent, why no VN probes, ever?  

Us being able to send one in 50-ish years wow, I mean lets just ignore how terrible an idea that is I guess. Seriously lets send a self replicating asteroid/moon eating AI out to spread across the universe there's no way that's a ***** terrible idea. I mean by being self replicating it invites the very real likelihood of AI evolution not to mention the idea of there being no issues with data integrity over such long periods of time not to mention all the radiation it's going to get blasted with. But no this seems like a very sound plan. 🙄

[4merper4mer]

11 hours ago, Warcodered said:

 

Us being able to send one in 50-ish years wow, I mean lets just ignore how terrible an idea that is I guess. Seriously lets send a self replicating asteroid/moon eating AI out to spread across the universe there's no way that's a ***** terrible idea. I mean by being self replicating it invites the very real likelihood of AI evolution not to mention the idea of there being no issues with data integrity over such long periods of time not to mention all the radiation it's going to get blasted with. But no this seems like a very sound plan. 🙄

But sending living beings that require thousands of times more resources makes complete sense to you?  No radiation issues there?  Any concerns with bone density on a trip to Alpha Centauri? 
 

And it’s not “my plan” or anyone else’s at this point, at least not the self replicating part.  With that said, why do you think there are multiple go carts and even a helicopter on Mars, and talk of solar sail tiny probes to a neighboring star, but no people going?  If you set your irrational fear of The Matrix and V-Ger aside and logically follow the progression of technology and the reasoning of Von Neumann, you’ll deduce that it has a high degree of likelihood to be the best path for galactic exploration.  And yet none are there to be seen.  And they’ve had 14 billion years to get here.  Hmmmm.

Edited February 14, 2023 by 4merper4mer

[4merper4mer]

Any updates on this?

[4merper4mer]

Any updates on this?

[LeGOATski]

On 3/9/2023 at 6:25 AM, 4merper4mer said:

Any updates on this?

Kind of a click-bait headline, but a recent Pentagon report talks about possibilities

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2023/03/09/pentagon-ufo-chief-says-alien-mothership-in-our-solar-system-possible/

 

The actual report posted through Harvard: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Kind of a click-bait headline, but a recent Pentagon report talks about possibilities

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2023/03/09/pentagon-ufo-chief-says-alien-mothership-in-our-solar-system-possible/

 

The actual report posted through Harvard: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf

So a guy, looking for funding, who once called a rock an alien ship, now says a mother ship might be shooting out probes. Sure.  And his butt might be shooting out monkeys. This is but one example of how charlatans monetize people’s desire for aliens to exist despite math’s objection.  
 

 

[LeGOATski]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

So a guy, looking for funding, who once called a rock an alien ship, now says a mother ship might be shooting out probes. Sure.  And his butt might be shooting out monkeys. This is but one example of how charlatans monetize people’s desire for aliens to exist despite math’s objection.  
 

 

What's wrong with the math in their study?

[4merper4mer]

34 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

What's wrong with the math in their study?

You cited the study.  Why not explain what is right about it.  Then I’ll go, because there is plenty.

 

Abridged version:  math.

[LeGOATski]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You cited the study.  Why not explain what is right about it.  Then I’ll go, because there is plenty.

 

Abridged version:  math.

Lol, you sarcastically asked for the update like always, then you're the one that challenged said update, and now you want someone else to do the work for you....

 

Abridged version: typical.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Lol, you sarcastically asked for the update like always, then you're the one that challenged said update, and now you want someone else to do the work for you....

 

Abridged version: typical.

 

 

Post a link from charlatans and don’t say why you agree, it’s just on me to explain?  Scroll up a few posts and tell me what I missed with my explanation.  I notice no one even tried.

[LeGOATski]

5 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Post a link from charlatans and don’t say why you agree, it’s just on me to explain?  Scroll up a few posts and tell me what I missed with my explanation.  I notice no one even tried.

The paper describes the math involved with the detection of interstellar objects and the potential implementation of AI probes for interstellar research. What are you objecting to? Your "explanation" is just condemnation of the search for aliens, which is not actually an explanation of anything, but just a vaguely related complaint.