Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Craig B]

We have no prior for "alien life" either. Life on Earth does not allow us to assign a probability to the existence of alien life. It only confirms what we already know- the probability of alien life is non-zero, but that's trivially true, since alien life isn't a logical contradiction. The fact that there's life on Earth doesn't allow is to assign any number to Pr(H), where (H) is "alien life exists". If you have a number in mind for Pr(H), what is it? How do did you come by it?

That is utterly ridiculous. To suggest that there exists a valid a category of "alien" life, such that the existence of life here is no evidence that life may exist elsewhere (because life here isn't "alien") is mere wordplay. Then to argue that as neither "alien life" nor ESP (anywhere) is excluded by logical considerations, they are equiprobable, verges on the preposterous.

What about "alien ESP"? If we find ESP here, will there be a category of "alien ESP" for the existence of which its occurrence here provides no evidence? Then why are we not asking: is alien ESP more probable than alien life? But of course we can't, because before ESP can exist life must exist.

Is it not evident that this consideration alone means that alien life must be at least as probable as alien ESP, and indeed more so, unless ESP is ubiquitous, which it manifestly isn't?

But then, if that is true of "alien life" and "alien ESP" it is surely also true of "all life" and "all ESP".

This evident conclusion is of course unnecessarily obfuscated when we compare "alien life" with "all ESP" - a ridiculous exercise, as I have tried to show.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

So on one hand, I agree that the existence of ESP would be more surprising than the existence of alien life (which would mean the existence of ESP would have a lower probability than alien life). On the other hand, I think this is a case of unjustified incredulity on our parts, since when you really try to pin down the odds of the existence of either, you come up with question marks (at least in the case of alien life existing).

Hope that explained my position!
....

Does this now mean that you have changed your position with regards to:

.... I'm going to argue that the existence of both is equally probable.
...
TLDR version: ... The existence of one is as equally likely as the existence of the other.
...

?

 

[jt512]

In the context of Bayesian probability, yes the probability of ESP is currently zero.

"The probability . . . is currently zero." There are two problems with that sentence. The first is the word the. When you speak of Bayesian probabilities, you need to speak for yourself. Bayesian probabilities are subjective; they quantify beliefs. And since your beliefs may be different from mine, there is no "the probability" to talk about; only "my probability."

The second problem with your sentence concerns the words "currently zero." If your probability is currently zero, then it will always be zero, no matter what evidence may eventually be found. In other words, if your probability for something is 0, no amount of evidence that might come to light can ever influence your belief.

If you could even come up with a hypothesis where ESP is even possible within the known laws of physics, I could accept a non-zero result.

Even the "known" laws of physics are only known up to a probability. That probability might be extraordinarily high, but strictly speaking, it is still less than 1. So, one way that ESP could be possible is that the laws of physics that preclude it are wrong. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has commented on this possibility on his blog, writing that the probability that there are any psi phenomena is at most 1 in a million. Personally, I think that that estimate is too generous—but regardless, it's greater than 0.

 

[rocketdodger]

Regarding life elsewhere -- there is a high probability that by the time the universe dies of heat death, it will feature life in numerous places. That will either be the evolution of species like our own, or independently formed life. The probability that *currently* life exists in other places is hard to quantify but I would certainly say it is nonzero. The way the laws of physics work favors life forming if the requisite conditions are met -- it *will* happen, given enough time.

The "sole ancestor" claim is probably irrelevant -- if there was only one actual abiogenesis event ( which seems silly, given how fragile the molecules would have been at the time it happened -- seems more likely that it happened a number of times before it "took" ), it is most likely just our perception given the relative time frames. If life from one source spread fast enough to cover most of the planet before any other abiogenesis events "took," it would appear as if it only happened once when in reality it *could* have happened a ton of times.

As for ESP -- no. Maybe people can learn to sense changes in their non-sensory neural systems, for example if a chemical is in their bloodstream or if their brain is in some kind of electrical field, but that doesn't qualify as ESP in my opinion. Nobody can "perceive" the number on the other side of a card. The probability is zero.

 

[rocketdodger]

Even the "known" laws of physics are only known up to a probability. That probability might be extraordinarily high, but strictly speaking, it is still less than 1.

Erm, not if we're in a classically defined universe. If you assume that the laws of physics are laws, then you aren't required to exhaustively test every implication of the law.

There are other options where I would agree with you:

-- A multiverse where each instance is merely a random collection of events, and the sequence of events in certain instances is such that from an external standpoint all the events appear consistent. In that case, there would also be sequences where the consistency held in most cases but not all -- such as a fraction of the people being able to just "know" the numbers written on the other side of cards. BUT there would also be many more similar instances where those people thought they had guessed right, but didn't.

--A simulation, where for whatever reason some inhabitants are fed information the rest of the inhabitants aren't.

 

[Fudbucker]

Erm, not if we're in a classically defined universe. If you assume that the laws of physics are laws, then you aren't required to exhaustively test every implication of the law.

There are other options where I would agree with you:

-- A multiverse where each instance is merely a random collection of events, and the sequence of events in certain instances is such that from an external standpoint all the events appear consistent. In that case, there would also be sequences where the consistency held in most cases but not all -- such as a fraction of the people being able to just "know" the numbers written on the other side of cards. BUT there would also be many more similar instances where those people thought they had guessed right, but didn't.

--A simulation, where for whatever reason some inhabitants are fed information the rest of the inhabitants aren't.

Jt is right. Science is inductive. The probability of all inductive claims is between zero and 1. The probability that the Earth goes around the sun is not 1. It has a lot of 9's in it, but it's not 1.

For any observation, there are always competing theories to explain it, and only the logically impossible/incoherent explanations can be a priori ruled out.

 

[jt512]

Erm, not if we're in a classically defined universe. If you assume that the laws of physics are laws, then you aren't required to exhaustively test every implication of the law.

I am assuming that the laws of physics are laws. But the theories of physics that underly those laws were confirmed by experiments that have a non-zero probability of being wrong. The Higgs boson experiments, for example, had a false positive probability (ie, a Type I error probability) of about 10^-6. That's tiny, but it's not 0.

 

[Daylightstar]

Jt is right. Science is inductive. The probability of all inductive claims is between zero and 1. ...

Could you show what an inductive claim for ESP would look like?

 

[jaydeehess]

I cannot understand how this thread is so many pages long.

1) It is established that in this universe it is 100% possible that conditions amenable to life and advanced life do exist.
2) There is no reason to suspect that these conditions can only arise once.
3) There is no established existence of ESP

Thus when comparing probabilities , ESP is something NEVER established as having occurred anywhere or at any time, whereas advanced life has been established as having developed in at least one location. Life wins!

 

[Daylightstar]

Nor is there any mechanism or part thereof which could induce or facilitate ESP. Not even a valid reason to think there is such a mechanism, considering the lack of phenomenon.
Round and round we go

 

[tsig]

I am assuming that the laws of physics are laws. But the theories of physics that underly those laws were confirmed by experiments that have a non-zero probability of being wrong. The Higgs boson experiments, for example, had a false positive probability (ie, a Type I error probability) of about 10^-6. That's tiny, but it's not 0.

Since there is a possibility that every word you posted has been changed in some fashion why should I read your posts?

 

[jt512]

Since there is a possibility that every word you posted has been changed in some fashion why should I read your posts?

What a strange question. Perhaps it is your words that were changed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

"The probability . . . is currently zero." There are two problems with that sentence. The first is the word the. When you speak of Bayesian probabilities, you need to speak for yourself. Bayesian probabilities are subjective; they quantify beliefs. And since your beliefs may be different from mine, there is no "the probability" to talk about; only "my probability."

The second problem with your sentence concerns the words "currently zero." If your probability is currently zero, then it will always be zero, no matter what evidence may eventually be found. In other words, if your probability for something is 0, no amount of evidence that might come to light can ever influence your belief.

Not exactly correct. The whole point of Bayesian probabilities is that they are calculated as information and knowledge become available and they change as the same information and knowledge become available. Currently zero means at current knowledge and information levels of humanity, there is no ESP, nor any way to calculate its probability. There is no set, and there is no hypothesis where ESP can exist based on our knowledge currently. Some day in the future that possibly may change. But possibly isn't the same as a probability. There is no probability for ESP, although there is a remote possibility.

Although it has been many years since I studied probabilities, I am pretty sure I am correct here. I thought about it for a while, and I suppose instead of zero it may be better to say undefined, either way there is no calculated probability for ESP. Alien life though has a set and many good hypotheses that can work within the known laws of physics. This allows us to easily calculate a Bayesian probability but the accuracy of the calculation is still pretty poor without more precise information. Give us time.

 

[jaydeehess]

I am assuming that the laws of physics are laws. But the theories of physics that underly those laws were confirmed by experiments that have a non-zero probability of being wrong. The Higgs boson experiments, for example, had a false positive probability (ie, a Type I error probability) of about 10^-6. That's tiny, but it's not 0.

There's also a degree of uncertainty concerning those laws of physics. Is momentum conserved absolutely or simply confirmed to the degree to which it can be reliably measured?

Newton thought that velocity equaled distance travelled divided by distance but in relativity that was found to not be precise. Are Newtonian physics a law that was revised or a theory?

 

[jaydeehess]

I cannot understand how this thread is so many pages long.

1) It is established that in this universe it is 100% possible that conditions amenable to life and advanced life do exist.
2) There is no reason to suspect that these conditions can only arise once.
3) There is no established existence of ESP

Thus when comparing probabilities , ESP is something NEVER established as having occurred anywhere or at any time, whereas advanced life has been established as having developed in at least one location. Life wins!

Nor is there any mechanism or part thereof which could induce or facilitate ESP. Not even a valid reason to think there is such a mechanism, considering the lack of phenomenon.

Dang, yep, should have included that as 4)

 

[jaydeehess]

,,,, and new information keeps coming in.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30705517
Goldilocks zone planets

Now these are what it is possible to find using present technology. Given that even at this early stage of being able to detect such planets we now have a total of 8 in that zone, one of which is only 12% bigger than Earth, this is new information in the path of increasing the probability of life, and thus advanced life, existing elsewhere in the universe.

 

[jt512]

"The probability . . . is currently zero." There are two problems with that sentence. The first is the word the. When you speak of Bayesian probabilities, you need to speak for yourself. Bayesian probabilities are subjective; they quantify beliefs. And since your beliefs may be different from mine, there is no "the probability" to talk about; only "my probability."

The second problem with your sentence concerns the words "currently zero." If your probability is currently zero, then it will always be zero, no matter what evidence may eventually be found. In other words, if your probability for something is 0, no amount of evidence that might come to light can ever influence your belief.

Not exactly correct. The whole point of Bayesian probabilities is that they are calculated as information and knowledge become available and they change as the same information and knowledge become available.

Yes, but in Bayesian inference, data update the prior multiplicatively (through the likelihood function). So, if L(x) is the value of the likelihood function, given some new data x, and your prior probability is 0, that data cannot change your probability, since 0 × L(x) = 0. In other words, if your prior probability is 0, no amount of evidence can ever change your mind; your opinion is immune to evidence.

Currently zero means at current knowledge and information levels of humanity, there is no ESP, nor any way to calculate its probability.

No. First of all your statement is self-contradictory: if there is no way to calculate a probability, then how can you say that the probability is 0? You can't, if you can't calculate it; and if you claim that it is 0, then you've just calculated it. Make up your mind!

Furthermore, a Bayesian probability of 0 for a hypothesis H means that you think H is absolutely impossible; not just impossible given current knowledge. If you hold a probability of 0 for H you are essentially saying that not only does current knowledge exclude H, but that there can never be any knowledge that permits H. And again, it's just your probability, your belief. There is no one Bayesian probability of any hypothesis. Bayesian probabilities are people's subjective judgments about plausibilities, conveniently stated on a continuous scale from 0 to 1.

There is no set, and there is no hypothesis where ESP can exist based on our knowledge currently. Some day in the future that possibly may change.

If you believe that some day there could possibly be evidence supporting ESP, then your probability of ESP is not 0, whether you think it is or not.

But possibly isn't the same as a probability. There is no probability for ESP, although there is a remote possibility.

Look, if there is a possibility that something may be true, then there is a Bayesian probability that it is true, since all a Bayesian probability is is a quantitative statement about one's certainty that the thing is true. For ESP, my Bayesian probability is about 10^-7. YMMV.

Although it has been many years since I studied probabilities, I am pretty sure I am correct here. I thought about it for a while, and I suppose instead of zero it may be better to say undefined, either way there is no calculated probability for ESP. Alien life though has a set and many good hypotheses that can work within the known laws of physics. This allows us to easily calculate a Bayesian probability but the accuracy of the calculation is still pretty poor without more precise information. Give us time.

You misunderstand the nature of Bayesian probability. I've tried to correct that a couple times now. The first time, you completely missed the point. Perhaps that was partly my fault for not explaining it better. Hopefully, I have done a better job this time.

 

[jsfisher]

...
Right, and the Bayesian probability for alien life is Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / Pr(E)

(H) here is the hypothesis "alien life exists".

Let me ask you then, what is (E), the "relevant evidence" ? It has to be life here on Earth.

No, it doesn't. I would claim, for example, that the discovery of the chemical precursors for life-forms on extra-terrestrial bodies makes the existence of alien life-forms more likely.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, it doesn't. I would claim, for example, that the discovery of the chemical precursors for life-forms on extra-terrestrial bodies makes the existence of alien life-forms more likely.

Exactly, if precursors to life are known to exist on bodies other than Earth and other planets in the so called Goldilocks zone are known to exist, and a location in universe where life and advanced life is known to exist
AND
There is no known physical condition that can allow for ESP and no known incidence of it being known to exist....

How in the name of Bayes can the later be considered equally probable as the former?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Certainly it can be determined:

It is possible a wandering black hole can intersect the solar system. Are you claiming it's impossible???

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all.​

Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law (1964)