Zeta Reticuli

Ron-P

BRING ON THE LITTLE GREEN MEN! BRING EM ON! GRRRRRR GRRRRR!

No one can Micah, they simply do not exist.


Peace Out~:D

Systems

Well, Micah, I share your disdain for a lot of the mystical hucksters out there, but I really don't think that the US (or the "advanced countries of the West") has/have anything resembling a monopoly or near monopoly on this stuff. People will waste money if they're poor just as quickly as they'll waste it if they're rich. They just don't have as much to waste. A lot of countries that are poor & filled w/strife are also filled w/battles between religions. Example--rioting over Miss World pageant. They find time to riot over that, even though they have many practical, secular concerns of great urgency. In fact, sacrificing of potential secular progress due to excessive religiosity & mysticism are characteristics of many poor societies. This is really tough going at 5 pm (central). I'm ready for junk food & TV, which are valuable, enriching uses of my time.

Micah Cohen

How can you give "probable" another meaning? I gave the dictionary definition of it above.

By "aliens" I mean little green men.

Do I believe there are African Driver Ants? Yep. You know why? Because I learned of them from a scientific source I trust (David Attenbourgh, indeed). Is "Angkor Wat" the alien thing? Do I believe in it, not having seen it? Nope. Nothing scientific going on there. Do I believe in god? Nope. Nothing scientific going on there.

I think it's fun that we can have this kind of thread here. As long as we don't get nasty about it. Who needs message boards? We're all smart funny people here who can talk about this stuff. I love hearing about people who believe in fairy tales. (Whoops!)

>>
sacrificing of potential secular progress due to excessive religiosity & mysticism are characteristics of many poor societies.
<<

That's a really good point, and so is the rioting over the Miss World Pageant. This is not the same thing that I am speaking about, tho. I mean, the belief in little green men, per se, is pretty much absent in poverty stricken areas. Belief in god and stuff is a mainstay, the vatican (or, in this case, the Koran) has a stranglehold over these places. And I wouldn't characterize these beliefs as "silly." They are bonafide religious beliefs. But belief in aliens and other silly stuff is at a minimum in these societies. They just have other, more important stuff to think about. Only in America do you get Heaven's Gate cults and "Area 51" adherents who line the highway in Nevada with binoculars waiting to see flying saucers.

Has anyone read any of those books I mentioned above? Anyone? Bueller?

MC

HBombToo

Because there is an estimated billion stars in the Milky Way, a billion galaxies in the universe and depending on what expansion coefficient used an approximate age of the universe at 15 billion years the possibility of life is very probable and that probability approaches 1.

Is it possible and/or probable that both words, (possible and probable), be used in the same sentence?;)

Whats the next possible step in this thread? It is very probable that I am thoroughly amused?

HBomb

Micah Cohen

I'm probably amused, too.

Yeah, I believe in Thailand. I eat their noodles. And they have a website. Must be real.

And you know what? There probably IS life out in space, somewhere. Even Carl Sagan agreed to that. Is it something we will see or find, or that will find us? Probably NOT. Possibly, but not probably. (Guys... The two words are VERY different. And mean different things.) So, in essense, it's useless to talk about it as something that we will ever encounter.

>>
no harm results from it
<<

I personally believe that lots of harm comes from psuedo-science and nonsensical beliefs. When false learning gets in the way of actual reality it is harmful. See for example mormonism or scientology. Or Heaven's Gate, or the cult of UFOology. Teaching children this stuff is harmful.

Where do we go from here? PROOF! I need PROOF!

MC

hoosier21

Zap what Aliens?

HBombToo

All Cults aside...

I don't believe a scientific body, such as SETI, would expend the time or resource if the possibility of extraterrestrial life had a very high probablility of existing.

Two very different words at work for a common end.

Is it possible we are amused or probable we have the ability for esoteric thought? I hope the latter is the case.

HBomb

phuz

I've seen this debate before, and it goes nowhere. I'll just say this...

"Micah, I find your lack of faith in the force disturbing..."

-Yoda

(you know I'm just messin with ya man)

And for the record, yes I've read Sagan's stuff. As well as Hawking, Bohm, Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, and more.

HBombToo

Originally posted by phuz
Einstein, Schrodinger

Cool!

jrausch

ATC,


Maybe this has something to do with it.
http://www.oirishtimes.com/alien.htm

-Cheers

burdette

"Harm refers directly to extremism, which is harmfull no matter how you look at it, in regards to whatever you associate with it "

Disagree. Extremism is not harmful in and of itself. Taking the 'extreme' position on a particular topic may or may not be harmful, depending on how the person has interpreted the topic and the passion with which he feels change is necessary. And, the lengths he is willing to go to try to promote that change.


On the subject of 'possible' vs. 'probable'... seems a very safe and intellectually-unstimulating position to believe only in those things that are probable - by whatever measure you use. Seems an exercise in folly, as well. The difference today between possible and probable can be slight; indeed the difference may be nonexistent tomorrow. The perceived difference may be no more than a missing tidbit of information, a relationship not yet noticed, a reaction not yet understood. To rely only on that which is probable means that you have given over your beliefs to someone ELSE'S opinions and insight (or lack thereof). If someone else hasn't proven it probable, then you essentially erase if from consideration. I'm sure the astronauts are happy you aren't an engineer.

Our lives are constantly affected by possible yet improbable events occuring. You are correct that 'probable' and 'possible' have different meanings. Your reliance on probable, in my opinion, shows healthy and blissful ignorance of the nature of nature. I'd think it would be very boring, as well.


To quote Sir Conan Doyle writing as Sherlock Holmes in “The Beryl Coronet," “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

HBombToo

Originally posted by burdette
I'm sure the astronauts are happy you aren't an engineer.

Huh...

and who would you be referring to?

LiquidSound

Where life can be it will. From the equator, to the poles, to the cooling rods of nuclear reactors.

If you believe in evolution, think of how advanced a civilization would be if an insect were the dominant species. Spider, praying mantis, ant...et cetera. A creature with abilities and smarts far beyond a monkey/chimp/thing.
If I were a super intelligent being do you think I'd be showing my **** to a horribly violent *and nuclear capable* species?? Not just no...but Hell No. Sure you could blow em away, or cause em to blow themselves up..but maybe you'd have morals..or even other plans.

A long, long time ago.....in a galaxy..well, right here. Dust collected thanks to the glue that is gravity. Protoplanets were formed and several massive collisions ensued. Eventually, it all settled...yadda yadda yadda....Polk Audio.
But where did the dust come from?
When a star, several times the size of our sun dies....it does it in violent and glorious fashion. Supernova. Well, now you know where the dust came from..as well as where we came from. Now, all that jibba jabba means that we..as a whole..derived from a star. Which means that at one point in time, we all used to burn. We were nuclear on a scale that is far beyond our piddly little missle thingies. The clincher....right now.....out there...as dilluted as it may be....is light travelling that once..emitted..from us... *pardon the well deserved dramatics*
Food for thought peoples.

Micah Cohen

>>
Your reliance on probable, in my opinion, shows healthy and blissful ignorance of the nature of nature.
<<

Not at all. I don't "rely" on probable.

I simply say that "things" can fit this equation: "They may seem possible, but they are not probable." In other words, again, we can think up anything we like -- perpetual motion machines that defy the laws of physics, dinosaurs that may have survived the ages in some uncharted jungle, the arrival of little green men or even the existence of little green somewhere else -- and we can make those things seem possible. That's the easy part.

The tough part is making those same things probable. Possible demands no evidence. We can make anything possible. Probable demands some evidence, it implies an increased "probability."

Is it possible there are dinosaurs that have survived the ages in some uncharted jungle? Sure. Is it probable, in light of the facts that we've pretty much charted every inch of the planet and that the biosphere has changed over the millenia in such a way that extreme adaptation would have had to have been this particular dinosaur's strong point (a la alligators and sharks) and the fact that we've never found the remains of a recently living dinosaur (or yeti or bigfoot or whatever)? No, it is not probable that there are dinosaurs that have survived the ages in some uncharted jungle.

In observing nature, any knowledgable person can separate what's possible from what's probable.

Engineers and astronauts would love to have me. I need empirical evidence. I would never ask an astronaut to get into a rocket that might "possibly" work. It would have to "probably" work, for me to ask that. I'd have tested it, retested it, presented evidence and tested that evidence so that I could prove in all probability that the rocket would not simply explode with the astronaut in it.

>>
Where life can be it will.
<<

Very true. Life as we know it. Based on elements we know. Proven on our own little planet. But out in space... Where the simple fact of galactic radiation makes even manned spaceflight too hazardous for us to even contemplate? (That's why we're not going to Mars anytime soon, Space Rangers.) What would life be like out there? Not like anything we know, that's for sure. Is it possible? Maybe. Probable? Less likely.

The idea that the fact that the goverment would allow a program like SETI to exist "proves" that there MUST BE something worth exploring out there is a fallacy. It's not cause and effect. SETI is mostly privately funded anyway.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

EXCELLENT QUOTE! To paraphrase: possibility is not the same as probability!

Infuriating, ain't it?

MC

HBombToo

Originally posted by Micah
>>
Engineers and astronauts would love to have me. I need empirical evidence. I would never ask an astronaut to get into a rocket that might "possibly" work. It would have to "probably" work, for me to ask that. I'd have tested it, retested it, presented evidence and tested that evidence so that I could prove in all probability that the rocket would not simply explode with the astronaut in it.

MC

Well said!
Is it possible that I'm agreeing with a Marketeer??:rolleyes:

TroyD

As far as the comment "where life can be, it will", I don't know about that. Life as we know it exists in (on a grand scale) fairly limited parameters. I don't believe that life, as we know it, is as robust and hearty as we might think.

I could be wrong, just my .02

BDT

LiquidSound

100 feet down in glaciers is living bacteria. The cooling rods of nuclear reactors are home for a specialized bateria. I said nothing about robust and hearty. I said that where life can be, it will be...including those fairly limited parameters. Of course it's going to be fairly limited. Everything has to be just right.
Billions and billions of stars..many probably housing their own solar systems..multiplied by billions and billions of galaxies. Why, that's probably better odds than the lottery. heh. Probably.

burdette

Originally posted by HBombToo


Huh...

and who would you be referring to?

My point is.... if engineers, in designing .. hell.. just about ANYTHING.. worried only about probable problems, and didn't worry about POSSIBLE but improbable problems... we'd have a lot more rockets blowing up.... wasn't trying to confuse... just a reference to the importance of considering not only probable, but also possible.

Micah Cohen

>>
heh. Probably.
<<

See? It's catching. PROBABLY!