I think therefore they are [?] On Sep 17, 2010, at 5:35 AM, Mark Ford wrote:
> > Point is we can INFER there is a PROBABLILITY of OTHER life, but we > cannot say there is. There is a big difference. many people 'believe' in > all sorts of things, this doesn't make it true. > > That said, however much we think science is black and white, science is > only really a glorified democracy, evidence only is evidence if enough > people 'believe' it. But it's all we've got, and it sort of works, as > soon as we say there's got to be aliens out there 'because we are here', > then all logic breaks down and we will be in a right mess. > > We haven't seen aliens, we cannot infer their presence from ANY > observation - therefore at present we are alone in the universe. > > Remember 'Statistically' we shouldn't be here at all! So scientifically > speaking Statistics is disproven as a method! > > Mark > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Meteorites USA > Sent: 17 September 2010 05:56 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT: Listening To Fermi > > Hi Phil, I agree completely with your sentiment, and respect your > belief. However I sincerely disagree that your conclusion that > intelligent extra terrestrial life does NOT exist is based on evidenced > fact. There is only a lack of evidence, and the best argument to the > contrary is us. Humans are the biggest single evidence in this universe > that the development of intelligent life forms is possible. (though the > intelligent part is arguable) > > I know you believe we're the only intelligent lifeform, and I know you > think it's based on evidence, but it's actually lack of evidence to the > contrary that you are basing your belief on. > > You're merely repeating Fermi's "Where are they?" question. Saying show > me... I've already given an analogy that very simply shows Fermi's > Paradox is not a paradox at all because we haven't the information to > quantify the question to begin with. > > Lack of evidence is not evidence. > > You'll be surprised to know, I don't "believe" in extraterrestrials. > However I can conclude they "most probably" exist because we are "here", > > and the chances of them not being "there" (wherever there is) are so > minute it's statistically impossible considering the vastness and the > age of the universe. > > We could also phrase this as "when" they were. Or how we "will" be in > 1000 years, or 10,000 years. At the rate of technological advancement > (if we don't destroy ourselves first) where will we be in 1000 years? > That is curiously and seriously what I would like to know! > > Even so, one can still safely use statistics and numbers to figure the > probability. No, I'm not hanging my alien hat on the Drake equation. I > wouldn't know how to read it any more than I could read War & Peace in > one sitting. I'm saying One must take into account ALL the variables > possible to form a conclusion. Still, probability won't make it so. We > may never know, or we might find ET tomorrow. > > I'll agree with Richard in that I believe that the universe is teaming > with life. Intelligent life however is probably extremely rare. > > But even that, like time itself is probably relative. > > Regards, > Eric > > > > On 9/16/2010 9:19 PM, JoshuaTreeMuseum wrote: >> Hi Richard; >> That's an excellent argument for cancelling the silly SETI project. >> The key word in your argument is "believe". You believe in the >> existence of exo-life without any supporting evidence, I don't. So we >> can agree to disagree. >> >> If life never existed on Mars, I can't see it existing anywhere else. >> But, my beliefs are evidence based, I'll change them in a minute if >> someone will just show me the money. >> >> ----------------------------------- >> >> Phil Whitmer >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - >> Actually Phil, I'd disagree with that statement, even though I believe > >> that the universe is filled to the brim with life, I think that >> intelligent life is exceedingly rare. >> >> Personally I think that SETI is never going to find a signal, not >> because there is no life out there, but that the circumstances >> required to find a signal is exceedingly small. The analogy put forth >> by others in this thread of a child looking out a window for >> 32/1000ths of a second is a good one. >> >> Use ourselves as an example. Radio technology on earth is barely a >> century old and we are already rapidly moving away from high powered >> transmitters to low powered devices for communications. Our most >> efficient long distance communications are already moving via fiber >> optics, so require no radio transmissions whatsoever. >> >> Ask yourself what are/or were the most powerful transmitters used? >> The answer is Early Warning defense radar systems. In fact at those >> frequencies Earth was brighter than the Sun. As the Cold War wound >> down, and the technology improved, lower power transmitters could do >> the same job. For about 40 years, Earth shined exceedingly brightly in > >> microwaves, with a peak radiance about 1/3 through that period. So you > >> can imagine a shell of microwaves 40 light years in thickness >> traveling out from our solar system, expanding at the speed of light. >> (I'm sure I'll be corrected here, but that's OK. I welcome it.) >> >> Say a intelligent civilization, only a century behind us in technology > >> (Almost statistically impossible) 50 light years away from us will >> develop the technology to detect radio waves of that frequency. Our >> microwaves from the early warning systems have been reaching them for >> more than a decade already, but they won't develop the technology to >> detect this radiation for another 30 years or so. >> >> In other words, just as they gain the ability to detect our unintended > >> signal to them just as it has completely passed them by. Even if they >> point their radio telescope directly at earth, they wouldn't hear us >> as our signal drops again below the background noise. >> >> And so it goes planet after planet as the signal extends out into >> space in an ever expanding shell, growing ever weaker. If we continue >> our trend to become more radio silent in other frequencies too, our >> civilization could become radio dark again as far as the universe is >> concerned in the next hundred years or so. >> >> Expand this problem by a more realistic estimate that civilizations >> become technologically capable thousands or millions of years apart, >> not mere decades apart... >> >> Now reverse the situation. For SETI to work you have to be listening >> at the precise moment the signals are passing our region of space. >> Miss it by a century, a decade, a year, a day, and its too late. The >> signal is no longer detectable. It may literally take many millenia >> before the right combination of circumstances allow us to detect >> another civilization through just their radio communications, intended > >> or otherwise. >> >> Ironically, I think that SETI is an experiment that should not be >> abandoned, because you'll never know if there is a detectable signal >> if you don't look. I just think it will never yield a positive result. > >> However, I do believe that the canceled Terrestrial Planet Finder >> mission had a much better chance to find habitable, and planets that >> have abundant life. >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> Visit the Archives at >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not > the intended recipient, please notify us. Email [email protected]. You should > not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose > their contents to any other person. > > GENERAL STATEMENT: > > Southern Scientific Ltd's computer systems may be monitored and > communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of > the system and for other lawful purposes. > > Registered address Rectory Farm Rd, Sompting, Lancing, W Sussex BN15 0DP. > Company No 1800317 > > > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
