Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[jsfisher]

I was just about to make a note of that as well.

I accept JSF from friends and family.

 

[Fudbucker]

You already should know that I know because I have quoted it earlier. There appears to be no overlap but mostly philosophy.
Everything you write says philosophy.

You don't do evidence, you do fantasy.

In probability theory and statistics, Bayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule) relates current probability to prior probability. It is important in the mathematical manipulation of conditional probabilities.

So except for all the times I refer to Bayes Theorem and the epistemic values of hypotheses and evidence, yeah, it's totally philosophy.

Totally.

 

[jsfisher]

It is indeed. Like the fine-tuning thread, many of you have no idea when to use fallacies, how to apply probabilities, or even construct proper arguments.

It's just a bunch of sniping from the sidelines and irrelevant comments now. I'm sorry to see it turn into that.

..must...resist...temptation....

 

[Slowvehicle]

<simple snip>
Is there so little intellectual rigor left here that the words I'm using are too big?

...says a poster who can't be arsed to keep the difference between "is", and "was" straight.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is indeed. Like the fine-tuning thread, many of you have no idea when to use fallacies, how to apply probabilities, or even construct proper arguments.

It's just a bunch of sniping from the sidelines and irrelevant comments now. I'm sorry to see it turn into that.

Fud, most honest disputants do not "use fallacies" at all. Because they are, in fact, fallacious, in most situations they are to be avoided by those wishing to communicate.

Are you another one of the Disciples of Pirie?

 

[Aridas]

To get rid of a couple quick things, first, though it means going out of order...

Ah, so now you're changing your claim to something else. Now gods and zeus suddenly enter the scenario.

That originated with me, from one of the examples where I demonstrated that unknown probabilities are not necessarily reasonable to consider equal. I also brought it up again in this case.

Aridas calls your coin flip scenario doable in a few ways, without specifying how.

It's worth noting that, in a later post, I did give a couple general examples of some of the kinds of tricks that could be used to do so, though not all I thought up.

Later in that post, he mentions tricks although he says they were not part of your description.

More specifically, I pointed out that they were neither included nor excluded. If you want to take the implications of that further, it does grant Fudbucker a little leeway for that part of the discussion.

Then he states that it's not wrong to invoke the chances of something unexpected happening.

That would be the concept that Fudbucker was intending to invoke originally, given his statements, and seems to actually have invoked later. The actual concepts in question look like they shifted just a little bit as the examples changed, for that matter, and people went with them as they changed instead of calling that out. That led to objections when he was arguing just barely on the valid side of how it was presented.

Unexpected things can be so many things, there however is a clear difference between unexpected events with and without prior probability.

True, but that's not all that relevant when the point at issue is just the dichotomy of potentially possible and impossible. The difference between potentially possible and possible is the repeatedly cited stumbling block that he's tried to side step this whole time when dealing with his assessments of ESP and advanced alien life, but it's not applicable to whether it's reasonable to allow for the unexpected.

Did you not read the part where I WANTED this to go in the philosophy forum, and another member wanted it to be posted HERE, in Science?

You could always request that the mods move the thread. No shame in correcting what you view to be a mistake.


Now for something a bit more meaty.

Not ESP, because that may be shown to be improbable, but alien life, yes.

In short, you admit that alien life and ESP are not equally probable. Given how much you've argued otherwise previously, though, I'm not going to just let the matter rest there.

Since the probability of alien life existing can't be determined, it's simply a "question mark" (variable). It is equal to any logically possible claim (e.g., probability of meeting your parents). This follows from the fact that the probability of alien life cannot be considered greater than any claim or less than any claim unless you assign arbitrary values to the probability of alien life existing. Since we can't just assign arbitrary values to probabilities, there's only one possibility left: the probability is equal, until shown to be otherwise.

While partially true, we can look at the underlying probabilities that we can either reasonably find values for or, in cases like ESP and alien life, simply determine the general natures of the underlying probabilities in question. The likelihood of there being one or more planets in a unidentified star's Goldilocks Zone, for example, is significantly different in nature to the probability that something is the case when it has the feature of not being logically impossible, but also has the feature of being impossible under the most useful models of the way things work that we currently have and has not been reliably observed anywhere, given that, while one or more planets being in a unidentified star's Goldilocks Zone is also not logically impossible, it has been observed elsewhere and is entirely reasonable under the most useful models of reality that we have available. Not all logically possible claims can be reasonably considered equal, in other words. If all the underlying probabilities for advanced alien life can be shown to be not logically impossible, have solid evidence that they can occur, and are possible under the most useful models of the way things work that we have, while any of the required underlying probabilities for ESP can be demonstrated to be either logically impossible, lack solid evidence that they even can occur, or are impossible under the most useful models for the way things work, it can be reasonably concluded that the probability of ESP existing can be reasonably considered to be less than the probability of advanced alien life existing. This actually is the case, for that matter, as you've already effectively conceded.

I'm not even going to try to discuss further nuances, though, without you directly agreeing here.

There's a further possibility that a claim for which a probability value can't be determined can't be compared in any way to any other claim.

Potentially, much as that applies best to claims like "Thridges exist," when what a Thridge is is left undefined in the first place. There's no way to even determine what underlying probabilities there are in the first place in such cases. When what underlying probabilities there are can be determined, though, this particular option isn't usually viable.

Not ESP,

To keep hitting home this point, you're admitting again that ESP and advanced alien life are not equally probable.

but yes, it forces me to claim that the probability of alien life existing is equal to the probability of a god like Zeus coming down from some mountain to say hi to us. I can't say the probability of alien life is higher than a god appearing because there might not be any alien life at all. If that's the case, the god has a greater chance of appearing.

I can't say the probability of alien life existing is lower than a god appearing either. If there's any alien life in the universe, then obviously, the odds are higher than a god appearing.

If I can't say whether it's higher or lower, what else is there, other than equal? Is the answer to the OP "Is ESP More Probable Than Alien Life" simply "unknowable at this time"? I don't think that would sit well with a lot of people here.

And here, you're being logically inconsistent, at best. To summarize what you said, alien life might not exist, therefore it cannot be determined that a god appearing is more or less likely than alien life, but it can be determined that ESP is not equally probable. In short, you're misunderstanding the nature of probability calculations in your argument. Alien life may indeed not exist. However, it also may exist. Probability deals with, in short, the set of available possibilities as a whole. The calculated chance for an event indicates the size of the subset where something is the case divided by the size of the whole set of available possibilities. Adding to that a bit, the only way that you can validly limit the set being evaluated to the set without alien life existing is with knowledge or assumptions that are not validly part of the evaluation in the first place and are inconsistently applied on top of that. In short, you're arguing fallaciously from the start.

 

[Daylightstar]

To whomever might think that we can't calculate a higher probability for an alien civilization than for ESP. I haven't really ever seen you claim that, but the post you made asked the question.
...

It appears then that you are referring to Fudbucker.
The rest of your post was clear and well done

 

[Daylightstar]

In probability theory and statistics, Bayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule) relates current probability to prior probability. It is important in the mathematical manipulation of conditional probabilities.

So except for all the times I refer to Bayes Theorem and the epistemic values of hypotheses and evidence, yeah, it's totally philosophy.

Totally.

When you start throwing around philosophical papers to make some kind of point or argument, R&P would be a good place.

 

[Daylightstar]

To get rid of a couple quick things, first, though it means going out of order...



That originated with me, from one of the examples where I demonstrated that unknown probabilities are not necessarily reasonable to consider equal. I also brought it up again in this case.
...

That may be, however, Fudbucker uses gods or a zeus-god as a claim for the unlikeliness of alien life.

...
It's worth noting that, in a later post, I did give a couple general examples of some of the kinds of tricks that could be used to do so, though not all I thought up.



More specifically, I pointed out that they were neither included nor excluded. If you want to take the implications of that further, it does grant Fudbucker a little leeway for that part of the discussion.
...

I do not recall you pointing that out specifically, in the post Fudbucker stated as support.Not that this is a big problem, Fudbucker did not stipulate tricks, he talked about some atom rearanger. He effectively stated fantasy.

That would be the concept that Fudbucker was intending to invoke originally, given his statements, and seems to actually have invoked later. The actual concepts in question look like they shifted just a little bit as the examples changed, for that matter, and people went with them as they changed instead of calling that out. That led to objections when he was arguing just barely on the valid side of how it was presented.
...

Nevertheless, Fudbucker is talking magic and fantasy, he isn't talking about unexpected things for which there is prior probability, he talks about things for which there is no prior probability.
It's magic all the way with Fudbucker.
Unexpected does not correctly describe Fudbucker's event.

...
True, but that's not all that relevant when the point at issue is just the dichotomy of potentially possible and impossible. The difference between potentially possible and possible is the repeatedly cited stumbling block that he's tried to side step this whole time when dealing with his assessments of ESP and advanced alien life, but it's not applicable to whether it's reasonable to allow for the unexpected.
...

It is relevant since Fudbucker talks about an event (two headed coin landing tails) with no prior probability.
"Potentially possible" and "impossible" are terms Fudbucker uses to facilitate his irrational approach to his op question and the non existent coin event.

 

[Aridas]

That may be, however, Fudbucker uses gods or a zeus-god as a claim for the unlikeliness of alien life.

I grouped together the possibilities of either gods or advanced aliens announcing themselves in the next 24 hours as examples of highly improbable events, originally, while contrasting it with something significantly different. No need to try to pin that grouping on him.

I do not recall you pointing that out specifically, in the post Fudbucker stated as support.Not that this is a big problem, Fudbucker did not stipulate tricks, he talked about some atom rearanger. He effectively stated fantasy.

That was fairly certainly the point, though, without looking back at the specific post in question. Frankly, the "atom rearranger" can be regarded as a trick, regardless, though, given that it would be one for all practical purposes.

Unexpected does not correctly describe Fudbucker's event.

It does, however, seem to correctly describe the original intent for why he stated that something wasn't completely certain to be the case, originally.

It is relevant since Fudbucker talks about an event (two headed coin landing tails) with no prior probability.
"Potentially possible" and "impossible" are terms Fudbucker uses to facilitate his irrational approach to his op question and the non existent coin event.

They're terms that I used separately, because they fit the concepts being dealt with. Either way, which do you think is the more honest approach to assessing arguments? 1) Evaluating each argument on its own merits and considering its relevance to the topic(s) under discussion or 2) Evaluating the topic under discussion and either indiscriminately fighting or supporting the arguments made that you think undermine or support your position, respectively. I, personally, prefer 1. You're effectively demonstrating 2, though, much like you have in previous discussions that we've both been in.

 

[zengirl]

Fudbucker---"Everything you write says philosophy."-----------all of science evolved from philosophy and is returning to philosophy with quantum mechanics----qm is about sublte energies, multiple dimensions, non-physical bodies...-----similar to Vedic and Buddhist philosophy.....Tesla studied Vedic philosophy and communicated with Swamis.... which taught him about the energy all around us....

 

[Daylightstar]

I grouped together the possibilities of either gods or advanced aliens announcing themselves in the next 24 hours as examples of highly improbable events, originally, while contrasting it with something significantly different. No need to try to pin that grouping on him.
...

Fudbucker pinned that on himself by using it as I described.

...
That was fairly certainly the point, though, without looking back at the specific post in question. Frankly, the "atom rearranger" can be regarded as a trick, regardless, though, given that it would be one for all practical purposes.
...

It may be that you intended it as such but as I said it's not a big problem.
If you so easily regard Fudbucker's atom re-arranger as a trick, then almost everything 'can' be regarded as anything one wishes.
Fudbucker already does that.
There is no reason whatsoever to expect such an 'atom re-arranger trick' to be executable, therefore it remains pure fantasy.

...
It does, however, seem to correctly describe the original intent for why he stated that something wasn't completely certain to be the case, originally.
...

Not comprehensively as it sidesteps the lack of prior probability completely.

...
They're terms that I used separately, because they fit the concepts being dealt with. Either way, which do you think is the more honest approach to assessing arguments? 1) Evaluating each argument on its own merits and considering its relevance to the topic(s) under discussion or 2) Evaluating the topic under discussion and either indiscriminately fighting or supporting the arguments made that you think undermine or support your position, respectively. I, personally, prefer 1. You're effectively demonstrating 2, though, much like you have in previous discussions that we've both been in.

I was commenting on how Fudbucker uses those terms.

Evaluating a claim on it's own claimed merits, and testing the worth of such merits. When a claim is made, I'd like the claimant to be as specific as possible and support his/her claim with evidence/data.
If the claimant remains fuzzy, non-specific in it's claims and moves goal posts a lot, I'll happily point that out repeatedly and try to extract these specifics from the claimant.
Very often, claimants with irrational claims tend to avoid being specific and continue in their apparent need to express their non-specific fuzzy ideas in exactly the same manner.

Anyways, this exchange has it's origin in Fudbucker stating that a few others (including you) have pointed out that Slowvehicle was wrong.
Do you indeed feel that Slowvehicle was wrong?

 

[Fudbucker]

To get rid of a couple quick things, first, though it means going out of order...



That originated with me, from one of the examples where I demonstrated that unknown probabilities are not necessarily reasonable to consider equal. I also brought it up again in this case.



It's worth noting that, in a later post, I did give a couple general examples of some of the kinds of tricks that could be used to do so, though not all I thought up.



More specifically, I pointed out that they were neither included nor excluded. If you want to take the implications of that further, it does grant Fudbucker a little leeway for that part of the discussion.



That would be the concept that Fudbucker was intending to invoke originally, given his statements, and seems to actually have invoked later. The actual concepts in question look like they shifted just a little bit as the examples changed, for that matter, and people went with them as they changed instead of calling that out. That led to objections when he was arguing just barely on the valid side of how it was presented.



True, but that's not all that relevant when the point at issue is just the dichotomy of potentially possible and impossible. The difference between potentially possible and possible is the repeatedly cited stumbling block that he's tried to side step this whole time when dealing with his assessments of ESP and advanced alien life, but it's not applicable to whether it's reasonable to allow for the unexpected.



You could always request that the mods move the thread. No shame in correcting what you view to be a mistake.


Now for something a bit more meaty.



In short, you admit that alien life and ESP are not equally probable. Given how much you've argued otherwise previously, though, I'm not going to just let the matter rest there.



While partially true, we can look at the underlying probabilities that we can either reasonably find values for or, in cases like ESP and alien life, simply determine the general natures of the underlying probabilities in question. The likelihood of there being one or more planets in a unidentified star's Goldilocks Zone, for example, is significantly different in nature to the probability that something is the case when it has the feature of not being logically impossible, but also has the feature of being impossible under the most useful models of the way things work that we currently have and has not been reliably observed anywhere, given that, while one or more planets being in a unidentified star's Goldilocks Zone is also not logically impossible, it has been observed elsewhere and is entirely reasonable under the most useful models of reality that we have available. Not all logically possible claims can be reasonably considered equal, in other words. If all the underlying probabilities for advanced alien life can be shown to be not logically impossible, have solid evidence that they can occur, and are possible under the most useful models of the way things work that we have, while any of the required underlying probabilities for ESP can be demonstrated to be either logically impossible, lack solid evidence that they even can occur, or are impossible under the most useful models for the way things work, it can be reasonably concluded that the probability of ESP existing can be reasonably considered to be less than the probability of advanced alien life existing. This actually is the case, for that matter, as you've already effectively conceded.

I'm not even going to try to discuss further nuances, though, without you directly agreeing here.



Potentially, much as that applies best to claims like "Thridges exist," when what a Thridge is is left undefined in the first place. There's no way to even determine what underlying probabilities there are in the first place in such cases. When what underlying probabilities there are can be determined, though, this particular option isn't usually viable.





To keep hitting home this point, you're admitting again that ESP and advanced alien life are not equally probable.



And here, you're being logically inconsistent, at best. To summarize what you said, alien life might not exist, therefore it cannot be determined that a god appearing is more or less likely than alien life, but it can be determined that ESP is not equally probable. In short, you're misunderstanding the nature of probability calculations in your argument. Alien life may indeed not exist. However, it also may exist. Probability deals with, in short, the set of available possibilities as a whole. The calculated chance for an event indicates the size of the subset where something is the case divided by the size of the whole set of available possibilities. Adding to that a bit, the only way that you can validly limit the set being evaluated to the set without alien life existing is with knowledge or assumptions that are not validly part of the evaluation in the first place and are inconsistently applied on top of that. In short, you're arguing fallaciously from the start.

Gotta leave on a trip with the Mrs. soon. Will respond to your post when I can.

 

[Mudcat]

Forget null hypothesis.

No.

Is alien life impossible?

No. And considering that we have found organic molecules on a moon, an alien planet, and a comet at the very least, plus the fact that the elements necessary for terrestrial life is extremely common, we can assume that not only is alien life possible but that it's very likely that the universe is teaming with lifeforms.

Is ESP impossible?

Yes. Time doesn't exist as a dimension, it is only a frame of reference. You could no more sense future events then you could travel to them.

Edited to add:
It's also not possible to move things or set them on fire with your mind, doing so would violate the laws of physics. Specifically the laws of thermodynamics.

It's also not possible to read someone else's mind.

Therefore, ESP does not exist.

 

[Daylightstar]

Fudbucker---"Everything you write says philosophy."-----------all of science evolved from philosophy and is returning to philosophy with quantum mechanics----qm is about sublte energies, multiple dimensions, non-physical bodies...-----similar to Vedic and Buddhist philosophy.....Tesla studied Vedic philosophy and communicated with Swamis.... which taught him about the energy all around us....

Considering your posts and your signature, you might also want to visit the Skeptiko (with a k) forum, if you haven't already, of course.

It's perfect for you.

 

[The Norseman]

True, but that's not all that relevant when the point at issue is just the dichotomy of potentially possible and impossible. The difference between potentially possible and possible is the repeatedly cited stumbling block that he's tried to side step this whole time when dealing with his assessments of ESP and advanced alien life, but it's not applicable to whether it's reasonable to allow for the unexpected.

You could always request that the mods move the thread. No shame in correcting what you view to be a mistake.

Now for something a bit more meaty.

In short, you admit that alien life and ESP are not equally probable. Given how much you've argued otherwise previously, though, I'm not going to just let the matter rest there.

While partially true, we can look at the underlying probabilities that we can either reasonably find values for or, in cases like ESP and alien life, simply determine the general natures of the underlying probabilities in question. The likelihood of there being one or more planets in a unidentified star's Goldilocks Zone, for example, is significantly different in nature to the probability that something is the case when it has the feature of not being logically impossible, but also has the feature of being impossible under the most useful models of the way things work that we currently have and has not been reliably observed anywhere, given that, while one or more planets being in a unidentified star's Goldilocks Zone is also not logically impossible, it has been observed elsewhere and is entirely reasonable under the most useful models of reality that we have available. Not all logically possible claims can be reasonably considered equal, in other words. If all the underlying probabilities for advanced alien life can be shown to be not logically impossible, have solid evidence that they can occur, and are possible under the most useful models of the way things work that we have, while any of the required underlying probabilities for ESP can be demonstrated to be either logically impossible, lack solid evidence that they even can occur, or are impossible under the most useful models for the way things work, it can be reasonably concluded that the probability of ESP existing can be reasonably considered to be less than the probability of advanced alien life existing. This actually is the case, for that matter, as you've already effectively conceded.

I'm not even going to try to discuss further nuances, though, without you directly agreeing here.

Potentially, much as that applies best to claims like "Thridges exist," when what a Thridge is is left undefined in the first place. There's no way to even determine what underlying probabilities there are in the first place in such cases. When what underlying probabilities there are can be determined, though, this particular option isn't usually viable.

To keep hitting home this point, you're admitting again that ESP and advanced alien life are not equally probable.

And here, you're being logically inconsistent, at best. To summarize what you said, alien life might not exist, therefore it cannot be determined that a god appearing is more or less likely than alien life, but it can be determined that ESP is not equally probable. In short, you're misunderstanding the nature of probability calculations in your argument. Alien life may indeed not exist. However, it also may exist. Probability deals with, in short, the set of available possibilities as a whole. The calculated chance for an event indicates the size of the subset where something is the case divided by the size of the whole set of available possibilities. Adding to that a bit, the only way that you can validly limit the set being evaluated to the set without alien life existing is with knowledge or assumptions that are not validly part of the evaluation in the first place and are inconsistently applied on top of that. In short, you're arguing fallaciously from the start.

This is so much better than I ever could have argued so, for now, I'll just QFT.

 

[abaddon]

Fudbucker---"Everything you write says philosophy."-----------all of science evolved from philosophy and is returning to philosophy with quantum mechanics----qm is about sublte energies, multiple dimensions, non-physical bodies...-----similar to Vedic and Buddhist philosophy.....Tesla studied Vedic philosophy and communicated with Swamis.... which taught him about the energy all around us....

Your period key is broken.

Regardless, it is amusing that you invoke qm, the very thing which closes off the gaps you seek to exploit in service of your superstition.

 

[zengirl]

quantum mechanics IS proving that all is energy , matter is energy as Einstein and Tesla said........not superstition for those that are aware...

 

[Mudcat]

quantum mechanics IS proving that all is energy , matter is energy as Einstein and Tesla said........not superstition for those that are aware...

Which doesn't answer the question of what mechanics permit psi/ESP to exist and to allow biological lifeforms to tap into it.

 

[sackett]

Point of order: Tesla was an engineer and inventor, not a physicist. He never got the hang of Einsteinian physics. Apparently, he believed* to the end of his days that the speed of light was infinite -- well, at the earth's equator or something. Odd, the way a fine if limited man like Nikola Tesla has been coopted by the zanies.

*In the strict sense of "to believe,", i.e., to accept something as true in the absence of evidence.