Maybe you could explain what you mean by "prior probability"?
Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?
- Thread starter Fudbucker
- Start date
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "prior probability"?
I suspected you intended to try this gambit. This is why I prefer to talk about probabilities, not abstract philosophical definitions. The possibility of extraterrestrial life is much higher than ESP because the former fits both known science and the one example we do have, Earth; the latter fits neither.
I too noticed that the title of this thread includes the world "advanced" whereas the original discussion did it. Not a big deal for me: it may reduce the probability compared to that of any form of life, and leaves open what "advanced" means, but okay if you would rather.
slyjoe
Illuminator
The null hypothesis is assumed to be true until evidence shows otherwise.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Let me try it like this:
The idea of life elsewhere in the universe has the prior probability of life existing here on Earth. Life in the universe is an empirically established fact, it may perhaps exist in other locations as well.
ESP or any mechanism for it have never been empirically established to exist in any way, so it lacks prior probability.
Which means that the estimated possibilities for ESP and life elsewhere in the universe are not the same.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Imagine a planet being found with only apes on it and scientists saying meh they're just apes, planet is not interesting.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Of course "things that are proven to exist" exist. That's tautologically true and has no bearing on the discussion. Alien life certainly hasn't been "proven to exist".
No, we assume they possibly exist, unless proven otherwise.
Are you claiming that in all the universe, there are no pink horse-shaped quadrupeds with a single horn growing out of their forehead? Please explain how you came by this knowledge, seeing as how we've surveyed the life on exactly one planet in the universe so far.
This is indeed about probabilities, but I don't know what you mean by "one proof". There are several scientific reasons for why life might not be possible elsewhere:
- The habitable zone for life may be so narrow that literally only one planet in the universe exists in it.
- The odds of abiogenesis may be so rare as to conclude that it's only occurred on one planet in the universe.
- The odds of multicelled organisms arising from single-celled organisms might be so remote as to conclude there aren't enough planets in the universe to make it plausible to believe it happened anywhere but here.
Any one of those three scenarios is certainly possible, and all three are totally science-based.
We have zero proof that aliens exist. All we know is that alien life is possible. Remember, thirty years ago, we had no scientific reason to suspect that dark matter existed. The lack of a scientific reason for the existence of something does not mean it does not exist. Dark matter and energy certainly existed before we discovered their existence. Quarks existed before we discovered them. The principle that X does not exist until it's scientifically discovered is absurd.
One is one higher than zero (zero + 1).
Indeed, but that doesn't mean anything unless you know the probability of life arising on a given planet in a given location. Are you claiming to know that?
Last edited:
slyjoe
Illuminator
Of course "things that are proven to exist" exist. That's tautologically true and has no bearing on the discussion. Alien life certainly hasn't been "proven to exist".
No, we assume they possibly exist, unless proven otherwise.
Not getting the whole null hypothesis thing I see.
Or probabilities I see.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
That would be highly irrational.
What do you think the null hypothesis is for the existence of alien life?
slyjoe
Illuminator
Depends on the claims you make.
There is life in the universe. The null would be "there is no life in the universe".
ESP exists. The null would be "ESP does not exist".
Other claim: There is life not on earth. The null would be "there is no life not on earth".
There is life in the universe. The null would be "there is no life in the universe".
ESP exists. The null would be "ESP does not exist".
Other claim: There is life not on earth. The null would be "there is no life not on earth".
Daylight, is there any evidence that a wandering black hole will intersect the solar system in the next ten years?
Does the complete lack of evidence make such an event possible or impossible?
Hmm....
Daylightstar
Philosopher
The null hypothesis for ESP and life elsewhere in the universe are the same.
The probabilities however are different.
You also make the mistake of classifying 'alien life' as a separate or isolated entity.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
I knew you were going to say that.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
The null hypothesis says that lack of current data on such an event means that such an event is not known to be occurring in the next ten years.
If you had data which says otherwise, you should share that data
That's all that can be meaningfuly said about your proposed event, limited to the confines of your event statements.
What is ESP referring to in your opening post? It can't be the usual definition as that has been disproved both theoretically and emperically,
The null hypothesis says that lack of current data on such an event means that such an event is not known to be occurring in the next ten years.
If you had data which says otherwise, you should share that data
That's all that can be meaningfuly said about your proposed event, limited to the confines of your event statements.
That's not what I asked you:
Is it possible a wandering black hole will intersect the solar system? If so, what is your evidence?