There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here(fakenous.net)
fakenous.net
There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here
https://fakenous.net/?p=2365
105 comments
Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fDc6mG...
It is nice to see some more rational explanations for these videos (instead of the constant alien/ufo drivel from most media outlets). The thing that still confuses me, though, is how these videos became a thing in the first place. We are not talking about some random civilians with a Polaroid trying to get pics of a lake monster. The Navy has (presumably high-tech) equipment for finding and tracking airborne phenomena and it is operated by (presumably qualified) professionals. It seems mission-critical that this technology/personnel would be able to accurately distinguish between lens flare/parallax/etc and actual aircraft maneuvers.
I get that not everyone in the Navy has access to the same equipment/expertise, so maybe this is just a matter of some easily excitable folks ignoring the experts from the very beginning....
I get that not everyone in the Navy has access to the same equipment/expertise, so maybe this is just a matter of some easily excitable folks ignoring the experts from the very beginning....
I’ve always been more on the skeptic side, FWIW — but the two pilots on 60 Minutes came across as very credible. And they — and others — claimed to have seen these things with their own eyes. The one pilot described the object as being around the same size as their fighter jet. I’m not arguing it’s “aliens” — just saying that while we’ve only seen grainy weapons-tracking footage, there seems to be a decent number of pilots who have seen similar objects first-hand. Not sure we can dismiss it as equipment glitches.
> claimed to have seen these things with their own eyes
Human observations are the least reliable form of evidence. There are countless ways you can incorrectly interpret what you see.
For example, it's very hard to correctly estimate the distance or size of an object in the sky. Pilots are no better at this than anyone else. If you think something is closer than it actually is you'll also incorrectly interpret its speed and size.
Human observations are the least reliable form of evidence. There are countless ways you can incorrectly interpret what you see.
For example, it's very hard to correctly estimate the distance or size of an object in the sky. Pilots are no better at this than anyone else. If you think something is closer than it actually is you'll also incorrectly interpret its speed and size.
OP's point is in that situation the government should/would have data gathered from onboard sensors about the UFOs. A fighter jet costs hundreds of millions of dollars, so we'd expect there to be various sensors with recordings of these objects, rather than just pilot's eyesight and memory.
Why do you think they don't have more data on these events?
Luis Elizondo (which was at the time the senior official in the U.S. government responsible for the UAP program) explicitly said in a recent interview that there is actually more data “layers“ connected to the videos.
https://youtu.be/Eozxt_HnPu4 around 52min)
The issue is that the data is classified and it was not released yet, making it more difficult to independently prove those claims.
https://youtu.be/Eozxt_HnPu4 around 52min)
The issue is that the data is classified and it was not released yet, making it more difficult to independently prove those claims.
All the scenarios in my mind are bad. Either (1) we have actual aliens, which in bad inasmuch it is freaking crazy and novel; (2) the government is incompetent in identifying the physical effects manifesting in the sensors and is okay in exposing their incompetence; (3) a non-US nation-state has superior technology, which suggests a potential bad future geopolitical outcome; or (4) the government is running a psych-op on its people and deliberately pushing misleading information for some purpose, such as to subtly signal to other nation-states that they have advanced technology.
Judging by the way the UFO rhetoric was suddenly ratcheted up several years ago by the US Govt, I feel that #4 is probably the most likely. My gut is telling me something isn’t right.
I have this feeling too, not so much about the pilots testimony, as about the way the videos came to light.
If I put my conspiracy theorist hat, this "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science" smells to me to a "Intelligence Community" front.
If I put my conspiracy theorist hat, this "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science" smells to me to a "Intelligence Community" front.
For people with conspiracy theorist hats, any name can smells like an intelligence community front. Too weird and it's obviously fake, too normal and it just shows you that the intelligence community is Very Tricky Indeed and almost managed to fool us by choosing such a normal name. But luckily, due to our Advanced Conspiracy Theorist Hat Technology advantage we knew upfront that anything we look at is an intelligence community front and therefore they can never fool us with their devious naming choices.
Oh, but it's not the name what smells like a "intelligence community" front.
It's that if you check the founders they are related to the "intelligence community", and the way the video was "leaked" to the NYT feels kind of funny too. This guy Luís Elizondo (1) is clearly from the "community", what it's not so clear is that he was in charge of investigating UFOs as he is claiming. I don't know, maybe they just want to make money or they are legitimate and just want the truth.
Of course, this is just a "feeling" that I have, so, I'm not claiming is falsifiable or it's the true, for now it's only something to have an eye on that I wanted to share.
(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo
It's that if you check the founders they are related to the "intelligence community", and the way the video was "leaked" to the NYT feels kind of funny too. This guy Luís Elizondo (1) is clearly from the "community", what it's not so clear is that he was in charge of investigating UFOs as he is claiming. I don't know, maybe they just want to make money or they are legitimate and just want the truth.
Of course, this is just a "feeling" that I have, so, I'm not claiming is falsifiable or it's the true, for now it's only something to have an eye on that I wanted to share.
(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo
for whatever reason, over decades, it seems like Air Force or IC veterans tend to be more into UFOs than the average person. maybe because of rumors they hear, or maybe they get interested because most of the UFO sightings have some military connection. so it could just be that the people who are most into UFOs join organizations like TTSA or MUFON or what have you.
I've been partial to this theory posted on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21859896
tl;dr it is a "psyop" but the target is our servicemembers who were too scared to report weird phenomena.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21859896
tl;dr it is a "psyop" but the target is our servicemembers who were too scared to report weird phenomena.
Now that is an interesting theory. Makes a lot of sense.
I watched some interview with some congressman saying that the aliens explanation is not so bad, the problem is if they are Chinese or Russian.
I don't know if laughing or crying about that statement and what it says about humans.
I don't know if laughing or crying about that statement and what it says about humans.
Why is having aliens bad? If there really are extraterrestrial entities on earth, and they aren't making any acts of aggression, that seems like it could potentially be a good thing, although there is the big question of why they would hide from the general population but allow themselves to be seen by the occasional pilot...
One possible idea is that if they organize their civilization in any way then they may simply not have authorization to reveal themselves. The occasional pilot noticing them would be accidents.
As far as it being bad news — it’s never comforting to learn a different civilization has vastly superior technology, and may not share your values.
As far as it being bad news — it’s never comforting to learn a different civilization has vastly superior technology, and may not share your values.
Many "government approved" and "pentagon verified" videos have been consistently debunked and proven to be common visual phenomena and physical illusions. While steering clear of any hardcore conspiracies, I don't doubt that the government wheels this same package out time and time again when needed as a distraction or to provide a weak reason for additional defense funding seeing as it is always so effective in capturing attention.
There is radar data from the ships too. The reason they send the jets there in the first place is because they can't explain the radar data. So, we have radar data, a video and the testimony of several professionals. We don't have to believe in aliens to accept that something very surprising is going on.
The writer of the article is dismissing evidence to fit his theory. And the guy is a professor of epistemology.
The writer of the article is dismissing evidence to fit his theory. And the guy is a professor of epistemology.
Yes
The planes might also (I mean, yes, they have, but we don't know what it is exactly) classified capabilities and sensors. And "black boxes" (not exactly that, but more like FOQA probably).
It is also likely someone took data from those flights and tried to plot the possible object paths. Did any (unclassified) conclusion come from that?
The planes might also (I mean, yes, they have, but we don't know what it is exactly) classified capabilities and sensors. And "black boxes" (not exactly that, but more like FOQA probably).
It is also likely someone took data from those flights and tried to plot the possible object paths. Did any (unclassified) conclusion come from that?
I think the answer is the Law of Large Numbers. Think about the total number of air missions that the US military conducts on a daily basis. If only 1% of those are anomalous in a way that's difficult to explain, that's a lot of odd occurrences every year. No matter how high tech the equipment or how skilled the operators, there will always be events that sync up in a way that defies explanation. Even if it's only 1% of 1% that fall into this category, that's still several instances every few years.
I don't question the pilots or radar operators who report seeing things they believe to be extraterrestrial in origin. But with enough missions, sooner or later the radar data will synch up with human eyes in a way that seems to indicate almost anything.
I don't question the pilots or radar operators who report seeing things they believe to be extraterrestrial in origin. But with enough missions, sooner or later the radar data will synch up with human eyes in a way that seems to indicate almost anything.
You should check the interviews (there are several, including a 60 minutes) with the pilot David Fravor (1).
There are two pilots and two wizards that saw the same with their own eyes (even I have only see the other pilot confirming it). That's an UFO. That doesn't mean that it's extraterrestrial.
To say that it's extraterrestrial at this point, is, in my opinion, so ridiculous like to say that there is nothing to explain (like the author of the article seems to believe).
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E (this is a great interview interesting in its own right, even without the UFO part)
There are two pilots and two wizards that saw the same with their own eyes (even I have only see the other pilot confirming it). That's an UFO. That doesn't mean that it's extraterrestrial.
To say that it's extraterrestrial at this point, is, in my opinion, so ridiculous like to say that there is nothing to explain (like the author of the article seems to believe).
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E (this is a great interview interesting in its own right, even without the UFO part)
Judging by that video alone, there's just one guy telling a story.
He says there were others who saw the same thing, but this interview alone does not prove that.
Some other things that don't gel about his account:
1 - He says during his encounter he didn't turn on his helmet cam because he didn't think of it. Yet much of the rest of the interview is him talking about how highly trained he was (giving the impression that he's one of the best pilots the US has) and yet he made a critical mistake here exactly at the point where a video would be most useful in corroborating his testimony.
I'd also like to know under what circumstances he's been trained to turn that camera on. If he went against his training by keeping that camera off, that would be a red flag. But we just don't know and the interviewer didn't even ask.
There was also no discussion about whether the other person in the plane had a camera of his own, and if he did have one why he didn't turn it on, or if he did turn it on where that video is.
2 - No one on the ship or any of his commanding officers said anything about the anomaly or did anything about it, and neither did he. The pilot says this is because they were all too busy and because the object didn't have another country's flag on it, but that doesn't seem credible.
If you see something that seemingly defies physics and flies faster than any known technology, it seems very unlikely that no one investigated it or even talked about it... for 16 years.
He said he had debriefings and that's where they learn things. What was the debriefing for this mission like? Did they talk about this anomaly? If not, why not?
At the beginning of his story he said he was actually ordered to investigate the anomaly. You'd think there'd be some discussion afterwards at the briefing about what he and the other people he claims saw it actually saw, and the people who ordered him to check it out would want to hear about what he saw first hand. But he said no one talked about it.
Unbelievable.
He says there were others who saw the same thing, but this interview alone does not prove that.
Some other things that don't gel about his account:
1 - He says during his encounter he didn't turn on his helmet cam because he didn't think of it. Yet much of the rest of the interview is him talking about how highly trained he was (giving the impression that he's one of the best pilots the US has) and yet he made a critical mistake here exactly at the point where a video would be most useful in corroborating his testimony.
I'd also like to know under what circumstances he's been trained to turn that camera on. If he went against his training by keeping that camera off, that would be a red flag. But we just don't know and the interviewer didn't even ask.
There was also no discussion about whether the other person in the plane had a camera of his own, and if he did have one why he didn't turn it on, or if he did turn it on where that video is.
2 - No one on the ship or any of his commanding officers said anything about the anomaly or did anything about it, and neither did he. The pilot says this is because they were all too busy and because the object didn't have another country's flag on it, but that doesn't seem credible.
If you see something that seemingly defies physics and flies faster than any known technology, it seems very unlikely that no one investigated it or even talked about it... for 16 years.
He said he had debriefings and that's where they learn things. What was the debriefing for this mission like? Did they talk about this anomaly? If not, why not?
At the beginning of his story he said he was actually ordered to investigate the anomaly. You'd think there'd be some discussion afterwards at the briefing about what he and the other people he claims saw it actually saw, and the people who ordered him to check it out would want to hear about what he saw first hand. But he said no one talked about it.
Unbelievable.
It's not a UFO. If you don't know what something is, and equipment/sensors are a possible explanation, it makes more sense to say "UAP" (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) rather than "UFO".
This is not pedantry but an important distinction. What the pilots saw were images in their retinas that they interpreted as an object.
Claiming the unidentified phenomenon is an object is begging the question; we need to prove what the phenomenon is before we can rightly categorize it as an object.
This is not pedantry but an important distinction. What the pilots saw were images in their retinas that they interpreted as an object.
Claiming the unidentified phenomenon is an object is begging the question; we need to prove what the phenomenon is before we can rightly categorize it as an object.
How ridiculous the ET assumption is depends on the amount of plausible alternatives. And for the Nimitz encounter to be something mundane, several very different things must have glitched or been missinterpreted and one has to put how ridiculous THAT would be into perspective.
Yes, if it's aliens or a 1 in 10,000 glitch it's the glitch. But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens.
> But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens.
That's still not true. It's more likely to be one glitch you haven't thought of than three successive glitches that you have thought of.
That's still not true. It's more likely to be one glitch you haven't thought of than three successive glitches that you have thought of.
I don't feel like it can be much of a coincidence that there is a new branch of the US military with a currently low yearly expenditure compared to the other branches, which could potentially be the source of incredibly lucrative private contracts to corporations with former generals sitting on their boards.
Agreed. This is the most credible article on the subject I've seen to date. The last one I came across [1] was written by what looked like a smart and dedicated person going through some impressive mental gymnastics to arrive at this gem: "As derived above, UAPs create distortions in spacetime to create geodesics along which they move free of accelerations."
[1] https://www.uaptheory.com
[1] https://www.uaptheory.com
It takes a good bunch of a lifetime to simply get access to most of the equipment you mention, not to mention those are the most oversighted jobs in the world. Nobody wants crazy or unskilled people handling super powerful hardware with almost no countermeasure aside of taking them down with some similar hardware (ships, aircraft).
[deleted]
This article makes a familiar error in thinking that I routinely see when it comes to the subject of extraterrestrial life. It goes like this:
1) There exist billions and billions of stars, each of which can be thought of an independent Bernoulli trial with probability P as to whether intelligent life exists in that star system.
2) P must be a non-negligible quantity, because we ourselves exist
3) Therefore intelligent life "must" exist elsewhere in the universe due to the sheer number of trials.
This is an epistemological error that echoes the sort of error made by proponents of intelligent design. They conclude that the chance of thinking beings evolving is prodigiously unlikely, and therefore our existence is proof of a creator.
But in fact, you cannot post-hoc conclude that our existence says anything at all about P, because if we didn't exist, there would be no one to ask the question. Therefore the fact that we are wondering about the value of P means our existence is an implicit axiom of the logical system itself. One way to think of it is there could be infinitely many possible universes with no life at all, and by definition the question of P can only discussed in the one branch, in all that lifeless space of possibilities, where thinking beings actually exist. So P could, in fact, be made arbitrarily small, and Earth could indeed be the only place in the universe with intelligent life.
Note that this doesn't claim that extraterrestrial life _doesn't_ exist. It merely points out the truth in all of this P-hacking: that we have no evidentiary basis for believing one way or the other.
1) There exist billions and billions of stars, each of which can be thought of an independent Bernoulli trial with probability P as to whether intelligent life exists in that star system.
2) P must be a non-negligible quantity, because we ourselves exist
3) Therefore intelligent life "must" exist elsewhere in the universe due to the sheer number of trials.
This is an epistemological error that echoes the sort of error made by proponents of intelligent design. They conclude that the chance of thinking beings evolving is prodigiously unlikely, and therefore our existence is proof of a creator.
But in fact, you cannot post-hoc conclude that our existence says anything at all about P, because if we didn't exist, there would be no one to ask the question. Therefore the fact that we are wondering about the value of P means our existence is an implicit axiom of the logical system itself. One way to think of it is there could be infinitely many possible universes with no life at all, and by definition the question of P can only discussed in the one branch, in all that lifeless space of possibilities, where thinking beings actually exist. So P could, in fact, be made arbitrarily small, and Earth could indeed be the only place in the universe with intelligent life.
Note that this doesn't claim that extraterrestrial life _doesn't_ exist. It merely points out the truth in all of this P-hacking: that we have no evidentiary basis for believing one way or the other.
I'm not sure I can agree with this analysis.
Consider two hypothetical universes. In one, p = 10^-1000, but by a statistical miracle, here we are. We would certainly be alone in this universe, because the number of stars in the visible universe is inconsequential compared to this number.
In the second one, the universe is the same size, but p is such that there are 100 planets with intelligent life like ours.
If you cannot say "anything at all about P" from our existence, then we should be indifferent between these two hypotheses, on the basis of the evidence of our existence.
However, this is not the case. The evidence supports the second hypothesis much better than the first. If X occurred, and is more likely under hypothesis B than A, then X is evidence for hypothesis B, otherwise you don't have a consistent system of probability.
Now you can further imagine that God comes down from heaven and tells you that in fact both of these two universes actually exist, and they are the only two universes that exist, so you are definitely in one of the two, but doesn't tell you which one. Is your posterior probability now 50% between the two?
"God" here represents the anthropic principle leaning over and saying "psst, don't worry about the 10^-1000, because, well, here you are". But you still have to worry about the difference between 1 and 100. If N beings in universe A and 100 * N beings in universe B all face this same question, your only reasonable conclusion as one of them is that the odds are 100-to-1 in favor of you being in universe B.
So it's not the case that our existence tells us nothing about p. Of course, p is what it is, and only physics and chemistry and biology can actually reveal it, but the fact that we are here means that theories that make our existence much less likely are themselves much less likely.
Consider two hypothetical universes. In one, p = 10^-1000, but by a statistical miracle, here we are. We would certainly be alone in this universe, because the number of stars in the visible universe is inconsequential compared to this number.
In the second one, the universe is the same size, but p is such that there are 100 planets with intelligent life like ours.
If you cannot say "anything at all about P" from our existence, then we should be indifferent between these two hypotheses, on the basis of the evidence of our existence.
However, this is not the case. The evidence supports the second hypothesis much better than the first. If X occurred, and is more likely under hypothesis B than A, then X is evidence for hypothesis B, otherwise you don't have a consistent system of probability.
Now you can further imagine that God comes down from heaven and tells you that in fact both of these two universes actually exist, and they are the only two universes that exist, so you are definitely in one of the two, but doesn't tell you which one. Is your posterior probability now 50% between the two?
"God" here represents the anthropic principle leaning over and saying "psst, don't worry about the 10^-1000, because, well, here you are". But you still have to worry about the difference between 1 and 100. If N beings in universe A and 100 * N beings in universe B all face this same question, your only reasonable conclusion as one of them is that the odds are 100-to-1 in favor of you being in universe B.
So it's not the case that our existence tells us nothing about p. Of course, p is what it is, and only physics and chemistry and biology can actually reveal it, but the fact that we are here means that theories that make our existence much less likely are themselves much less likely.
This is a very thoughtful rejoinder, thanks.
> If X occurred, and is more likely under hypothesis B than A, then X is evidence for hypothesis B, otherwise you don't have a consistent system of probability.
The point is, this idea breaks down when neither hypothesis would exist if X had not occurred. This differs from other questions of probability because the conditional probability of an event is predicated on the ability of an observer to ask about it. We should indeed be indifferent between the two hypotheses, if our own existence is all we have to go on. (This might seem strange, if you think of hypothesis B as having 100x the prior probability, but the point here is that we really don't have a basis for a prior at all.)
> Now you can further imagine that God comes down from heaven and tells you that in fact both of these two universes actually exist, and they are the only two universes that exist, so you are definitely in one of the two, but doesn't tell you which one. Is your posterior probability now 50% between the two?
No, of course I would assume I was in universe B. This is a very different question. Instead of "what is the nature of our universe" the question is "of the two existing universes God has described, which do I occupy?"
> If X occurred, and is more likely under hypothesis B than A, then X is evidence for hypothesis B, otherwise you don't have a consistent system of probability.
The point is, this idea breaks down when neither hypothesis would exist if X had not occurred. This differs from other questions of probability because the conditional probability of an event is predicated on the ability of an observer to ask about it. We should indeed be indifferent between the two hypotheses, if our own existence is all we have to go on. (This might seem strange, if you think of hypothesis B as having 100x the prior probability, but the point here is that we really don't have a basis for a prior at all.)
> Now you can further imagine that God comes down from heaven and tells you that in fact both of these two universes actually exist, and they are the only two universes that exist, so you are definitely in one of the two, but doesn't tell you which one. Is your posterior probability now 50% between the two?
No, of course I would assume I was in universe B. This is a very different question. Instead of "what is the nature of our universe" the question is "of the two existing universes God has described, which do I occupy?"
Thanks for the reply.
The two scenarios don't seem all that different to me, because "there are two possible universes, and you're in one, but you don't know which" is how I think about probability and belief in general.
Here's a third scenario:
Instead of God and two universes, let's use an unknowable physical constant and one universe. In this scenario, we have solved physics, except for one fundamental physical constant that we know for a fact can take one of exactly two values, but for some reason we know that experimental evidence will never be able to distinguish between the two. From the physics side, it will always be a toss-up between values A and B. But, as before, we also know for some reason (maybe it has to do with conditions in the early universe that can never be reproduced) that if the value is A, then p is 10^-1000, and for B etc. as before. What would you say in this case?
In this case, all that's changed is that we don't say that both universes exist. Instead only one exists, but we don't know which one it is. We also said that from the physics side, A and B are equally likely, which means our state of knowledge about A and B are meant to be the same as in scenario two. Would you now say that we should be indifferent between A and B in this case?
A fourth scenario:
There's a multiverse, and universes exist with every possible value of p. The distribution over values of p is unknown to us. If it's uniform, then almost all the people asking themselves this question are in universes where p is high, because those universes are teeming with life. None of the people are in universes where p is 0, which is just the anthropic principle again. Where p is very low, most universes are completely unpopulated.
Chemistry and biology may give us arguments to say that p is low, so our prior over p certainly shouldn't be uniform. But whether you look at it as all the universes existing, or whether you look at it as a state of uncertainty about the universe, either way, as far as I can tell, the math has to work out the same way. If most reasoning beings are in the universes where reasoning beings are more likely, then we are justified in saying it is more likely that that's the kind of universe we're in.
> This differs from other questions of probability because the conditional probability of an event is predicated on the ability of an observer to ask about it.
I think this is the part of your argument that I don't follow. The physicists in the third scenario will report that either the physical constant is B, and we can start looking for the 100 other civilizations, or it is A, and a miracle occurred. Observers exist in both cases. Wouldn't we say that the case that requires a miracle to have occurred is less well supported by the evidence?
The two scenarios don't seem all that different to me, because "there are two possible universes, and you're in one, but you don't know which" is how I think about probability and belief in general.
Here's a third scenario:
Instead of God and two universes, let's use an unknowable physical constant and one universe. In this scenario, we have solved physics, except for one fundamental physical constant that we know for a fact can take one of exactly two values, but for some reason we know that experimental evidence will never be able to distinguish between the two. From the physics side, it will always be a toss-up between values A and B. But, as before, we also know for some reason (maybe it has to do with conditions in the early universe that can never be reproduced) that if the value is A, then p is 10^-1000, and for B etc. as before. What would you say in this case?
In this case, all that's changed is that we don't say that both universes exist. Instead only one exists, but we don't know which one it is. We also said that from the physics side, A and B are equally likely, which means our state of knowledge about A and B are meant to be the same as in scenario two. Would you now say that we should be indifferent between A and B in this case?
A fourth scenario:
There's a multiverse, and universes exist with every possible value of p. The distribution over values of p is unknown to us. If it's uniform, then almost all the people asking themselves this question are in universes where p is high, because those universes are teeming with life. None of the people are in universes where p is 0, which is just the anthropic principle again. Where p is very low, most universes are completely unpopulated.
Chemistry and biology may give us arguments to say that p is low, so our prior over p certainly shouldn't be uniform. But whether you look at it as all the universes existing, or whether you look at it as a state of uncertainty about the universe, either way, as far as I can tell, the math has to work out the same way. If most reasoning beings are in the universes where reasoning beings are more likely, then we are justified in saying it is more likely that that's the kind of universe we're in.
> This differs from other questions of probability because the conditional probability of an event is predicated on the ability of an observer to ask about it.
I think this is the part of your argument that I don't follow. The physicists in the third scenario will report that either the physical constant is B, and we can start looking for the 100 other civilizations, or it is A, and a miracle occurred. Observers exist in both cases. Wouldn't we say that the case that requires a miracle to have occurred is less well supported by the evidence?
The third scenario here is equivalent to the "God tells us we're in one of two universes" experiment. The only difference between the two scenarios is that, in the latter, the two universes "exist", but if God had said "there were two universes and I destroyed one; you inhabit the one which remains; which is it?" our answer wouldn't change.
The fourth scenario is more interesting because we've admitted the distribution of p is unknown to us. You note that if p is uniform, all intelligent lifeforms should conclude they live in a universe where p is high, but I'm not certain of that. It seems to me that this logic only works if you conclude there is _one_ universe for each possible value of p. But if, for each possible value of p, the multiverse contains universes for each possible outcome of a Bernoulli trial with probability p, then we can't conclude anything at all. To see this, notice that the number of Lucky universes (where p is high) is uncountably infinite, just as the number of Unlucky-Lucky universes (where p is low but a miracle has occurred) is uncountably infinite.
I haven't thought this next part through as deeply, but I believe this problem compounds given the unknown distribution of p. This is because subjectivist models of probability (e.g. Bayes' Theorem) are heavily influenced by the distribution of the prior when we have only observed one trial. And in cases like this one, where the only trials that _could_ be observed are successes, I believe it's all but entirely driven by the distribution of the prior. (You could imagine a hyperprior - a distribution of distributions of p, but I don't think we have any good reason for deciding what that would be either).
Anyway, thanks for this. I love geeking out about epistemology.
The fourth scenario is more interesting because we've admitted the distribution of p is unknown to us. You note that if p is uniform, all intelligent lifeforms should conclude they live in a universe where p is high, but I'm not certain of that. It seems to me that this logic only works if you conclude there is _one_ universe for each possible value of p. But if, for each possible value of p, the multiverse contains universes for each possible outcome of a Bernoulli trial with probability p, then we can't conclude anything at all. To see this, notice that the number of Lucky universes (where p is high) is uncountably infinite, just as the number of Unlucky-Lucky universes (where p is low but a miracle has occurred) is uncountably infinite.
I haven't thought this next part through as deeply, but I believe this problem compounds given the unknown distribution of p. This is because subjectivist models of probability (e.g. Bayes' Theorem) are heavily influenced by the distribution of the prior when we have only observed one trial. And in cases like this one, where the only trials that _could_ be observed are successes, I believe it's all but entirely driven by the distribution of the prior. (You could imagine a hyperprior - a distribution of distributions of p, but I don't think we have any good reason for deciding what that would be either).
Anyway, thanks for this. I love geeking out about epistemology.
I agree that scenarios two and three are equivalent. But then in three, the fact that we exist is allowed to influence our belief in what the value of a physical constant is. From this contrived example, can't we get to the argument being made in the original post?
The fourth scenario, to me, is the closest to our actual situation. The many universes correspond to our uncertainty about p. It doesn't matter whether they are actual universes and we are in one, or whether they are possible universes and we are in one.
I wasn't sure why you had the number of universes uncountably infinite. Is it because p is a real number? To make this argument, wouldn't you need to show that not only are they both uncountably infinite, but that they have equal measure? We can construct two sets that are both uncountably infinite, but one has measure 1 and the other measure 0.
If the Lucky and Unlucky-Lucky universes have equal measure, there's still more people in the Lucky ones. Only if the measure of Unlucky ones is much higher, then there would be more people in the Unlucky-Lucky universes.
We said we don't know anything about the distribution. But! In my opinion, we do have some idea about the distribution. It's just our prior, from whatever we know of chemistry, biology, etc, about p. We have some reasons to believe it's low. (The arguments the intelligent design folks make.) Then we update that with the observation that we exist. In other words, we start with a distribution over possible universes based on what we know about physics, and the complexity that's necessary for life, and we say that it's remarkable that we are here. But then we update by saying that, of all beings capable of reasoning through this, more of them would be in universes where it's less remarkable. So it doesn't tell us what p is, but it should shift our distribution over values of p to the right.
Eventually, we may get such a clear understanding of how life must have formed, that we could say exactly what steps had to happen and in what order, and how probable they all were, and could determine p exactly, and even simulate everything. Then this argument wouldn't buy us anything. Because the physics is what it is, and p is what it is. It's only because our prior over p is currently so vague, that the argument is interesting.
Anyway, it's an interesting discussion and you may be completely right. I'm certainly not certain of anything here :-)
The fourth scenario, to me, is the closest to our actual situation. The many universes correspond to our uncertainty about p. It doesn't matter whether they are actual universes and we are in one, or whether they are possible universes and we are in one.
I wasn't sure why you had the number of universes uncountably infinite. Is it because p is a real number? To make this argument, wouldn't you need to show that not only are they both uncountably infinite, but that they have equal measure? We can construct two sets that are both uncountably infinite, but one has measure 1 and the other measure 0.
If the Lucky and Unlucky-Lucky universes have equal measure, there's still more people in the Lucky ones. Only if the measure of Unlucky ones is much higher, then there would be more people in the Unlucky-Lucky universes.
We said we don't know anything about the distribution. But! In my opinion, we do have some idea about the distribution. It's just our prior, from whatever we know of chemistry, biology, etc, about p. We have some reasons to believe it's low. (The arguments the intelligent design folks make.) Then we update that with the observation that we exist. In other words, we start with a distribution over possible universes based on what we know about physics, and the complexity that's necessary for life, and we say that it's remarkable that we are here. But then we update by saying that, of all beings capable of reasoning through this, more of them would be in universes where it's less remarkable. So it doesn't tell us what p is, but it should shift our distribution over values of p to the right.
Eventually, we may get such a clear understanding of how life must have formed, that we could say exactly what steps had to happen and in what order, and how probable they all were, and could determine p exactly, and even simulate everything. Then this argument wouldn't buy us anything. Because the physics is what it is, and p is what it is. It's only because our prior over p is currently so vague, that the argument is interesting.
Anyway, it's an interesting discussion and you may be completely right. I'm certainly not certain of anything here :-)
I think instead of taking billions of stars we should look at the "alien life" from the aspect of chemistry and biology.
What is the basic chemistry and biology of life? Chemicals, heat, water, single celled organisms, multi cellular organisms, bacteria, viruses, genetic materials, gene transfers etc. All of that in the context of universe, stars and planets.
I would like to see a research from that point of view. If anybody knows of such research papers I would like to read them.
What is the basic chemistry and biology of life? Chemicals, heat, water, single celled organisms, multi cellular organisms, bacteria, viruses, genetic materials, gene transfers etc. All of that in the context of universe, stars and planets.
I would like to see a research from that point of view. If anybody knows of such research papers I would like to read them.
>I think instead of taking billions of stars we should look at the "alien life" from the aspect of chemistry and biology.
I _thought_ that was the underlying assumptions of all these probability figures including Drake's equation. I could be wrong...
I _thought_ that was the underlying assumptions of all these probability figures including Drake's equation. I could be wrong...
I tend to agree, on pragmatic bases.
However in alternative universes, with different underlying constants, chemistry and biology might differ somewhat, possibly in unexpected ways.
That said, in this particular Universe, I suspect life is reasonably likely. Intelligence may be impossible, however.
However in alternative universes, with different underlying constants, chemistry and biology might differ somewhat, possibly in unexpected ways.
That said, in this particular Universe, I suspect life is reasonably likely. Intelligence may be impossible, however.
The thing about those videos are not the videos themselves, but the testimonies that come with them and the additional information, specially the "tic tac" video.
I don't know what is really going on in those videos, but, in my opinion, this gentleman, that it seems is a professor of epistemology!, is not following the scientific method.
You don't start with the solution and then fix the evidence to it. It's very easy to explain the videos away if you don't hear what the people that was there, or the experts on how the cameras work, have to say.
I don't know what is really going on in those videos, but, in my opinion, this gentleman, that it seems is a professor of epistemology!, is not following the scientific method.
You don't start with the solution and then fix the evidence to it. It's very easy to explain the videos away if you don't hear what the people that was there, or the experts on how the cameras work, have to say.
Also, if the films could be so simply explained away (like IR of airplanes from far away) this would’ve been put down way earlier at multiple levels of the Navy, probably starting from the pilots themselves since they would see these things multiple times every day.
Mick West also has an incentive to come up with explanations to debunk these films since that’s his job, even if they’re low quality explanations since he has to… whereas it’s far more taboo and reputation-risking in the Navy for the pilots to come out and say what they saw.
Yes, obviously
I mean, if this is explainable phenomenon (let's say, atmospheric) it would be in the interest of the aviation community to know it.
Upper Atmospheric lightning is known at this point. No need for mystery or keeping things under wraps.
I mean, if this is explainable phenomenon (let's say, atmospheric) it would be in the interest of the aviation community to know it.
Upper Atmospheric lightning is known at this point. No need for mystery or keeping things under wraps.
> No need for mystery or keeping things under wraps.
The government may need if there is other implications beyond flight security.
The fact that they explicitly said that there's more classified data about it, clearly shows that concern.
The government may need if there is other implications beyond flight security.
The fact that they explicitly said that there's more classified data about it, clearly shows that concern.
Not so clear, I think.
Sometimes things remain classified not because of the findings, but because of what those findings would reveal about the capabilities of data collection.
Sometimes things remain classified not because of the findings, but because of what those findings would reveal about the capabilities of data collection.
"Too many redirects occurred trying to open “https://fakenous.net/?p=2365/wp-admin/install.php”. This might occur if you open a page that is redirected to open another page, which then is redirected to open the original page."
EDIT: I'd love to understand the downvote, considering as I write this the linked website is still presenting an open installer wizard for Wordpress!
EDIT: I'd love to understand the downvote, considering as I write this the linked website is still presenting an open installer wizard for Wordpress!
Also https://fakenous.net/ looks like someone's installing a new Wordpress. I've seen this situation before and was able to literally install Wordpress on someone's server.
Yes was coming here to comment. Went to root directory and was able to access Wordpress installation.
It's still there. All I can say, is that we're a nice bunch, as none of us have done anything with it (yet).
Time for me to sound crazy.
I won't comment on the debunking. I am sure there's a logical explanation but I am not qualified to make decisions using the evidence I have (which is often true of people on both sides of the discussion, here, generally).
I terms of "are they here", it isn't totally crazy to imagine an AI that can self replicate it's frame, and use this ability to explore the galaxy. When it finds places of interest or that are particularly useful for replication it might hang around.
I'm do not think that is what is going on but it is certainly a possibility. Very remote, of course.
I won't comment on the debunking. I am sure there's a logical explanation but I am not qualified to make decisions using the evidence I have (which is often true of people on both sides of the discussion, here, generally).
I terms of "are they here", it isn't totally crazy to imagine an AI that can self replicate it's frame, and use this ability to explore the galaxy. When it finds places of interest or that are particularly useful for replication it might hang around.
I'm do not think that is what is going on but it is certainly a possibility. Very remote, of course.
> I do not think that is what is going on but it is certainly a possibility. Very remote, of course.
I agree and put in Bayesian terms it seems to me that the prior for “aliens are here, and are hiding from us, but are hiding badly” should be non-zero but very low.
The kind of evidence we have seen should just our priors upward very slightly, but has too many other (more likely) potential explanations to have a significant impact for me.
I agree and put in Bayesian terms it seems to me that the prior for “aliens are here, and are hiding from us, but are hiding badly” should be non-zero but very low.
The kind of evidence we have seen should just our priors upward very slightly, but has too many other (more likely) potential explanations to have a significant impact for me.
Heh, hiding badly seems rather unlikely. A galaxy spanning race that can cross untold light years is not likely to make easy/simple/stupid mistakes often.
However, a self replicating probe might well be monitoring the earth, and watching for various milestones (fire, wheels, radio, spread spectrum, nuclear, fusion, stealth, inter planetary probes, plasma drives, etc). Certainly many things could be monitored passively, but occasional active monitoring might be justified.
Things like pestering military vehicles in relatively crowded seas (Off the coast of San Diego) to see what exactly we do when confronted with a unknown vehicle. What sensors do we use? How sophisticated are they? Do we risk the lives of fellow humans opening up on the unknown with multiple weapons?
However, a self replicating probe might well be monitoring the earth, and watching for various milestones (fire, wheels, radio, spread spectrum, nuclear, fusion, stealth, inter planetary probes, plasma drives, etc). Certainly many things could be monitored passively, but occasional active monitoring might be justified.
Things like pestering military vehicles in relatively crowded seas (Off the coast of San Diego) to see what exactly we do when confronted with a unknown vehicle. What sensors do we use? How sophisticated are they? Do we risk the lives of fellow humans opening up on the unknown with multiple weapons?
How do you come to the conclusion that they are hiding badly? Assuming they are there and they are in fact hiding, I think they are pretty good at it. Or do you have reliable photo or video evidence that suggests otherwise? :-)
They don't come to that conclusion. They think the chance that extraterrestrial life could both travel to earth and be rubbish at hiding is very, very low
I agree with you. An AI also seems much more likely because it doesn't suffer from the weaknesses of organic(as we know it) life. It takes 100k years to go to that star system? No problem just powerdown with a simple watchdog. Radiation? No problem just replace sensitive parts every x years. I mean if you accept that aliens with this level of advancement exist then it's almost certain they must also have created true AI.
Anyway I don't think intelligent aliens have visited us. I think the physics just makes it an improbability even if there is intelligent life in the universe.
Anyway I don't think intelligent aliens have visited us. I think the physics just makes it an improbability even if there is intelligent life in the universe.
> it isn't totally crazy to imagine an AI that can self replicate it's frame, and use this ability to explore the galaxy
tinfoil hat If your AI is directed enough to replicate itself and "explore the galaxy" for some reason, I think it's safe to say that there would be failures and it would understand the implications of it's technology being adopted (by another intelligence, AI or not).
tinfoil hat If your AI is directed enough to replicate itself and "explore the galaxy" for some reason, I think it's safe to say that there would be failures and it would understand the implications of it's technology being adopted (by another intelligence, AI or not).
And either not care, want this to happen, or protect against it. I left a measuring tape outside on the deck but I'm not concerned in the least that an insect might find it and learn how to measure things.
If you presume there are aliens in the galaxy it seems logical to assume we would find a deployed system to cut off risks (external to them) of galaxy-wide destruction or invasion.
That's a Von Neumann probe. Good idea, but to my knowledge there aren't any here.
The craft being observed (all over the world) are from a breakaway civilization. They were developed within the last century, possibly with the aid of extraterrestrials via an archeological finding or even direct communication, but that's an unknown for me.
I do however know the names of most of these craft, and once you know the names there is more detailed information out there including close-up images. They are quite cool, but to my knowledge are entirely terrestrial. The USG may try an alien false flag as a ploy for funding in the near future.
The craft being observed (all over the world) are from a breakaway civilization. They were developed within the last century, possibly with the aid of extraterrestrials via an archeological finding or even direct communication, but that's an unknown for me.
I do however know the names of most of these craft, and once you know the names there is more detailed information out there including close-up images. They are quite cool, but to my knowledge are entirely terrestrial. The USG may try an alien false flag as a ploy for funding in the near future.
Aliens are like angels and demons in 12 century Europe- they're everywhere but you'll never see them.
For better or worse, science has enjoyed 400+ years of arbitrarily ignoring phenomena that are simultaneously profound but also irreproducible, while agreeing by convention that those phenomena are the realm of theology.
Science has been an incredibly fruitful pursuit, but it has left itself utterly un-equipped to deal with aliens.
Science has been an incredibly fruitful pursuit, but it has left itself utterly un-equipped to deal with aliens.
Carl Sagan wrote a book based on this premise: The Demon-Haunted World.
The fact that the phenomenon has endured across centuries (and across cultures) either suggests that both demons and aliens are products of the human mind, or that demons and aliens are the same phenomenon, and they usually don't want to be seen.
A person without actual expertise dismisses numerous accounts by trained pilots who saw this first hand by Googling for YouTube explanations and calling these witnesses liars or incompetents.
Does this person happen to work in tech?
Does this person happen to work in tech?
The pilots are expert in flying and no doubt in-the-moment aerial observation; but its not clear why we need to take their opinion as final and impartial in post-event video analysis.
Yes, this “pilots are trained professionals and therefore they can accurately identify a meaningful anomaly” does not match my experience of being a pilot or the training I received. It is drilled into you that your senses basically can’t be trusted. Your eyes and your brain will try to make sense of what you are seeing and feeling and that’s fine but it’s up to your higher brain to remember that those systems are often wrong. Your eyes will trick you and you have to use other context to actually know what you are seeing — information that is not always available.
Exactly. Pilots are highly trained, but they are not experts in everything (physics, atmospheric science).
At the end of the day, everyone is fallible -- and even the experts are sometimes surprised.
These reports can only be treated as best efforts to fit observed phenomena into an existing framework of (inherently limited) understanding. When the phenomenon is adequately oddball, you have to expect an increased level of misinterpretation. See also: doctors, scientists, infosec practitioners, ...
Clearly, this is adequate justification for collection of additional data, but it's not enough to draw conclusions from.
At the end of the day, everyone is fallible -- and even the experts are sometimes surprised.
These reports can only be treated as best efforts to fit observed phenomena into an existing framework of (inherently limited) understanding. When the phenomenon is adequately oddball, you have to expect an increased level of misinterpretation. See also: doctors, scientists, infosec practitioners, ...
Clearly, this is adequate justification for collection of additional data, but it's not enough to draw conclusions from.
> The pilots are expert in flying and no doubt in-the-moment aerial observation;
And the pilots say it's something they can't explain, and have never seen before, on the record. More than one account.
The problem is the writer dismisses all of this, and takes the explanation of people who saw only the video. How dismissive the writer is of other's lived experience and expertise in their own domain is what I have trouble with.
And the pilots say it's something they can't explain, and have never seen before, on the record. More than one account.
The problem is the writer dismisses all of this, and takes the explanation of people who saw only the video. How dismissive the writer is of other's lived experience and expertise in their own domain is what I have trouble with.
If a pilot of a $1000 kite can manage to glue a Gopro on himself, perhaps a $millions fighter plane pilot on a training mission can do the same.
The author is a professor of philosophy at Colorado University, no he doesn't work in tech.
The people he is calling liars and incompetents are journalists and news media, not pilots.
The people he is calling liars and incompetents are journalists and news media, not pilots.
True, he doesn't even mention what the pilots say they saw, what is curious for the case that he is discussing.
I don't blame him for his anti-alien position, but his "there is nothing weird here" position is kind of unsustainable. If instead, he would say: "there is no reason to explain this with aliens" and stopped there that would be a perfect rational position.
But he solved the problem like this:
>>"Utter incompetence: It took me under an hour on the internet to find the above explanations. I looked for explanations on YouTube, and the first video I found referenced Mick West. I then looked up Mick West’s web site, which lists all his videos. That was my research."
That was his research. Mr. West also forgot to explain (in the Tic-Tac case) the pilots testimony and, if I remember correctly, the previous radar signatures from the ships.
So, a professor of epistemology solve the problem estimating his priors from how he feels about the issue, an argument from authority (because he didn't bother to check if Mr.West get his facts right) and selecting only the evidence that fits his theory. Wonderful.
I don't blame him for his anti-alien position, but his "there is nothing weird here" position is kind of unsustainable. If instead, he would say: "there is no reason to explain this with aliens" and stopped there that would be a perfect rational position.
But he solved the problem like this:
>>"Utter incompetence: It took me under an hour on the internet to find the above explanations. I looked for explanations on YouTube, and the first video I found referenced Mick West. I then looked up Mick West’s web site, which lists all his videos. That was my research."
That was his research. Mr. West also forgot to explain (in the Tic-Tac case) the pilots testimony and, if I remember correctly, the previous radar signatures from the ships.
So, a professor of epistemology solve the problem estimating his priors from how he feels about the issue, an argument from authority (because he didn't bother to check if Mr.West get his facts right) and selecting only the evidence that fits his theory. Wonderful.
> So, a professor of epistemology solve the problem estimating his priors from how he feels about the issue, an argument from authority (because he didn't bother to check if Mr.West get his facts right) and selecting only the evidence that fits his theory. Wonderful.
If there were alternative explanations that were plausible, sure. But they tend to invoke conspiracy theories, aliens, or alternative physics. Maybe other explanations will come around that are plausible, but it is reasonable to settle on the boring, seemingly plausible explanations for now. That's not an argument from authority.
If there were alternative explanations that were plausible, sure. But they tend to invoke conspiracy theories, aliens, or alternative physics. Maybe other explanations will come around that are plausible, but it is reasonable to settle on the boring, seemingly plausible explanations for now. That's not an argument from authority.
Well, the Pentagon sent us a video of a blurry dot. So it must have been an alien space ship moving 16,000 miles per hour through atmosphere but not heating the air at all
Not really, what you have is videos and testimonies of surprising things, not of aliens.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
Isaac Asimov
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
Isaac Asimov
The Pentagon didn't send or release anything. They confirmed the publication of an - at least perhaps initially - unidentified object to be a genuine recording.
It's also the video they had previously fumbled, and spooks are well known to fraudulently "leak" information to get it selectively picked up
1. Are you suggesting eyewitness testimony is reliable? If this is your position, then why shouldn't we take ghosts and supposed religious phenomena seriously?
2. Your supposed "experts" are relying on equipment they do not understand that regularly produce phenomena they do not understand.
Ironically, I think you've made a good case that philosophers (experts) should be the ones tackling this issue.
2. Your supposed "experts" are relying on equipment they do not understand that regularly produce phenomena they do not understand.
Ironically, I think you've made a good case that philosophers (experts) should be the ones tackling this issue.
I didn't see it mentioned here yet but this went by three days ago: "‘Something’s going on’: UFOs threaten national security, US politicians warn"
> Some members of Congress were given advanced details about Pentagon report, which is scheduled to be released before 25 June
> A group of senior American politicians have warned that UFOs pose “national security concerns” after getting a confidential briefing on a highly anticipated report on unidentified aerial phenomena that is set to be released later this month.
> Some members of Congress were given advanced details about the contents of the Pentagon report, which is scheduled to be released before 25 June, and several said they are deeply worried about the findings.
> “Clearly, something’s going on that we can’t handle,” Tim Burchett, a Republican congressman from Tennessee, told TMZ.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/17/ufos-us-repo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27542883
> Some members of Congress were given advanced details about Pentagon report, which is scheduled to be released before 25 June
> A group of senior American politicians have warned that UFOs pose “national security concerns” after getting a confidential briefing on a highly anticipated report on unidentified aerial phenomena that is set to be released later this month.
> Some members of Congress were given advanced details about the contents of the Pentagon report, which is scheduled to be released before 25 June, and several said they are deeply worried about the findings.
> “Clearly, something’s going on that we can’t handle,” Tim Burchett, a Republican congressman from Tennessee, told TMZ.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/17/ufos-us-repo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27542883
Corrupt governments pretend to have evidence of aliens in order to increase their legitimacy. At has always added up to this.
Interesting thought, but once we find Aliens, then we ourselves also become Aliens...too the other species.
Indeed if you look up the definition in dictionaries for the word "Alien" you get definitions all routed in `fear of the unknown`. For example Colins: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/alien
Makes you wonder how things can be interpreted and some extraterrestrial species did discover us, would they have the same fear of the unknown definition.
Indeed if you look up the definition in dictionaries for the word "Alien" you get definitions all routed in `fear of the unknown`. For example Colins: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/alien
Makes you wonder how things can be interpreted and some extraterrestrial species did discover us, would they have the same fear of the unknown definition.
I agree with nearly everything the professor says. Hell, it doesn't take a professor; it's not that hard. It seems very probable that there are aliens; and for most of them, it seems very improbable that they can get to us, or us to them.
I disagree with him when he proposes that (a) a civilisation founded a billion years ago might still exist; and (b) that such a billion-year-old civilisation would have overcome aging (and on a long journey, they'd have to overcome evolution too).
Further, my view is that our interest in aliens is something that has grown up in the last 200 years. Once it becomes clear to us that no aliens are close-enough to us to be reachable, or to reach us, we'll lose interest.
And we'll stop looking for their signals; we'll understand that after something in the order of 200 years of them discovering the universe, they'll have realised that there's no point in communicating with us.
My guess is that there's a pretty short window when a civilisation is interested in communicating with aliens.
I disagree with him when he proposes that (a) a civilisation founded a billion years ago might still exist; and (b) that such a billion-year-old civilisation would have overcome aging (and on a long journey, they'd have to overcome evolution too).
Further, my view is that our interest in aliens is something that has grown up in the last 200 years. Once it becomes clear to us that no aliens are close-enough to us to be reachable, or to reach us, we'll lose interest.
And we'll stop looking for their signals; we'll understand that after something in the order of 200 years of them discovering the universe, they'll have realised that there's no point in communicating with us.
My guess is that there's a pretty short window when a civilisation is interested in communicating with aliens.
Why do you disagree with the fact that a billion year old civilization will have overcome aging ? It does not seem all that far-fetched to me, there may be species out there that are composed completely different than any life we have here on earth.
It would cost a lot of money for Earthlings to send an occasional mission to the relatively nearby Moon or Mars. There must be a lot of really affluent civilizations in the universes.
One of my favorite sci-fi tropes is post scarcity
Once you have sufficiently advanced robots, doesn’t the cost of most goods dramatically reduce since the labor is taken out of the entire supply chain?
Usually, post-scarcity as an element deals with matter replicators/molecular assemblers that can build anything out of raw materials.
See Diamond Age, Accelerando, etc.
See Diamond Age, Accelerando, etc.
Resources are always scarce. Energy and raw materials will always be expensive, and the demand for energy and materials both increases as they become more available (keeping the price high).
I think the main issue with this argument isn't really whether it's a post scarcity civilization or not, but the implying that any alien civilization, especially an advanced one, would also develop into an almost exclusively capitalistic society like us. It's going way too much into anthropomorphizing territory.
I guess they're reasonable explanations if the sole piece of "evidence" was camera recordings - but they have numerous eyewitnesses for all of these events, including tracking on the associated carriers for some of them, validating the movements. Being outright dismissive because maybe it could be possibly a camera artifact but ignoring multiple trained eyewitnesses and confirmation from other electronic sources makes me think it is not just a camera artifact.
[deleted]
> Instead, what we’re seeing is ordinary phenomena, treated irresponsibly and incompetently by the news media.
This is journalism, the entire industry, in a single sentence.
This is journalism, the entire industry, in a single sentence.
Recall that "earthquake lights" were not recognized by science until recently. The sometimes giant balls of lights (proceeding an earthquake) were the source of many UFO sightings.
These Navy videos are not glitches, human error, or aliens.. or foreign tech. I think these are meteors with qualities yet to be undiscovered!
These Navy videos are not glitches, human error, or aliens.. or foreign tech. I think these are meteors with qualities yet to be undiscovered!
[deleted]
I'm going to pay careful attention to other news on the same day when the report drops.
I find these superficial debunkers even more tedious than the aliens are here crowd, since they selectively focus only on evidence that supports their POV whilst conveniently ignoring everything else.
Given eye-witness testimony by trained pilots there are two possibilities that I see:
+ Pilots are telling the truth, the phenomenon is real, the actors unknown (could be the US, foreign adversaries, ..)
+ Pilots are lying and this is some sort of prank or government propaganda / psychological operation.
What's not at all probable given the facts, are the explanations that fakenous.net put up.
Given eye-witness testimony by trained pilots there are two possibilities that I see:
+ Pilots are telling the truth, the phenomenon is real, the actors unknown (could be the US, foreign adversaries, ..)
+ Pilots are lying and this is some sort of prank or government propaganda / psychological operation.
What's not at all probable given the facts, are the explanations that fakenous.net put up.
> since they selectively focus only on evidence that supports their POV whilst conveniently ignoring everything else.
Sounds like the New York Times model. I think journalists basically feel the need, in fact it’s their job to do this because they think the narrative is paramount to everything else.
Sounds like the New York Times model. I think journalists basically feel the need, in fact it’s their job to do this because they think the narrative is paramount to everything else.
[deleted]