Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Aridas]

Which doesn't actually change anything. They are still demonstrable, detectable, and measurable. It's just difficult.

And this is you failing to address the actual point being made, again.

You have not shown even one.

Because there aren't any. If it exists, it must by definition be detectable.

I've invoked a number of easy examples of things that would prevent things from being detectable, actually. You've tried to hand wave them away by by basically saying "If we just ignore all the reasons why something cannot be done, it can be done!" Unfortunately for your argument, it's not just difficult if one or more of the things required to do it in the first place are impossible to accomplish. Also unfortunately for your argument, they were just easy examples to wrap one's head around that, while relevant to the statements you were making, were also made to try to get you to stop pushing for others to accept that the objective is dependent upon the subjective. Either way, it's actually fairly easy to engage in speculation and come up with reasons why something might not actually be detectable without invoking magic. Frankly, I'm getting rather bored with your inability to make any valid and relevant arguments though, but let's see what else you've got.

If you like. Or, more accurately, any theory in which the necessary instruments for detecting it is available.

I don't like. Why don't I like it? Because you're trying to use it as part of a refutation of a statement that was dealing with potential limits on what even can be done, given the nature of reality. In other words, you're trying to sneak in a major change in the premises and then just referring back to your change as a way to try to proclaim 'victory,' without ever validly addressing the original point in the first place.

Nothing that is not demonstrable in some manner can be said to exist in any meaningful fashion.

If it can, you can answer Daylightstar's question.

By us, if we were making statements of fact that something does or does not exist. Also Daylightstar's questions tend not to be hard. They just tend to show that he's rather lost, though. Seemingly intentionally, much of the time, especially given the way he actively refuses to pay attention to what's actually been said. If he started actually adding or even asking something of value, I'd consider responding to him again, either way. I rather doubt that that's going to happen, though, given his record.

You're still confusing practical and theoretical limits.

That would be you, for two reasons. 1) "Practical" limits were what was in question, from the start. 2) You're trying to conflate different kinds of theoretical limits and effectively claiming that theoretical just means ignoring reality's limitations completely.

Yes, it does. If there is an effect, then the universe is necessarily different from how it would be if that effect were not present. These differences can, by definition, be detected. If they can't, then there is no meaningful way to say "there is a difference", which means that there is no effect.

We've been over this multiple times. This chain of logic is not true, except when you can do certain impossible things. Given that doing the impossible, is, well, impossible to do, your argument fails. You've already repeatedly refused to accept that your seemingly intended arguments are fine, when it comes to dealing with what we can honestly say and know, rather than whether something actually is the case, or I'd cut you a bit more slack. Either way, this is getting boring, since you've made it beyond clear that you don't really have a meaningful argument. With that said, feel free to point out why we should consider the objective to be dependent on the subjective, because that's exactly what you've been arguing we should do and, in fact, confirmed when you said -

This is not actually a separate way from the first. It is, rather, a follow-up to it.

Given that your argument is built and inextricable from the objective being dependent on the subjective, rather than the objective being independent of the subjective, feel free to offer your arguments for that. Without convincing others of that, your arguments really just fall apart.

 

[Aridas]

Moreover, you have repeatedly cited paleontology as a science that doesn't use probabilities and statistics—the bone is either there or it isn't—or however it is you like to put it.

False. I brought it up as a science that recognizes the necessity to not over-state accuracy and for qualitative evaluations.

Thank you for responding to that before I had the chance to do it, so that I no longer feel the need to do so. I think that I'll limit my response to confirming that you were indeed doing as you say, as far as I could tell.

 

[jt512]

Thank you for responding to that before I had the chance to do it, so that I no longer feel the need to do so. I think that I'll limit my response to confirming that you were indeed doing as you say, as far as I could tell.

My comment was not meant to be limited to posts by Dinwar in just this thread. Perhaps that was bad Netiquette on my part.

 

[Daylightstar]

... Also Daylightstar's questions tend not to be hard.
...

But apparently hard enough that you have trouble answering those questions .....

Edited by Agatha: 

Deleted moderated content and response to same

..... but no answer to the questions you say are not hard.

I'd like you to be clear and specific, hence the clear and specific questions you say are not hard. However, you appear to want to be as elaborately non-specific as possible.
Which I think is why you emotionally avoid clear and specific questions .....

 

[jt512]

Okay, hot shot. You tell me: In a PFYC Class 4a sediment, what are the odds of finding a bone in each 100 yd^3? I look forward to seeing your calculations. I've discussed this with dozens of paleontologists, ranging from grad students to folks who've been doing this for 40 years, and they all say it's impossible to calculate. That's the official statement we make to the clients and regulators, by the way--there are literally hundreds of thousands of dollars riding on this. If you could give me that equation you'd save me all kinds of headaches.

After 40 years of research is there no data on this? Has no one ever conducted a study to see if there are bones in Class 4a sediment?

I have basically no knowledge of the subject matter, just as I had no knowledge of grues. So, in the absence of relevant data, I have no reason to believe any probability is more likely than any other. So, just like in the grue problem, my beliefs are represented by a uniform distribution over the space of possibilities. In other words I put equal probability on each possibility. In the grue problem there were only two possibilities—there was a grue or there was not—so each possibility gets half the total probability: 0.5 each. To the question of what is the probability of finding a bone in a certain volume of class 4a sediment, there are an infinite number of possibilities—all the real numbers between 0 and 1—so the total probability gets spread over that interval. Hopefully, you can see that I'm doing the same thing in both cases: representing total ignorance of the subject matter by using a uniform distribution. If I get data on the question, I can use that data to update my beliefs, which would be expressed as a more peaked distribution centered on the most likely estimates of the probability in question.

 

[Nonpareil]

I've invoked a number of easy examples of things that would prevent things from being detectable, actually.

No, you actually haven't.

The uncertainty principle is not an example of things being undetectable. It is an example of two different measurements being incompatible, so attempting to measure them both at the same time requires sacrificing precision.

The observer effect does not make things undetectable.

You've tried to hand wave them away by by basically saying "If we just ignore all the reasons why something cannot be done, it can be done!"

No, I haven't. I have given very simple reasons why it necessarily can be done.

Unfortunately for your argument, it's not just difficult if one or more of the things required to do it in the first place are impossible to accomplish.

If it is impossible to detect something, ever, then there is no meaningful definition of the word "real" that can be applied to it.

Either way, it's actually fairly easy to engage in speculation and come up with reasons why something might not actually be detectable without invoking magic.

You've yet to give any examples.

By us, if we were making statements of fact that something does or does not exist.

By anyone. Otherwise, the means of detecting it exists, in which case there is no conflict.

That would be you, for two reasons. 1) "Practical" limits were what was in question, from the start.

No, they aren't. You are failing to understand what is being said to you.

2) You're trying to conflate different kinds of theoretical limits and effectively claiming that theoretical just means ignoring reality's limitations completely.

No, I'm saying that theoretical limits are reality's limits.

Given that your argument is built and inextricable from the objective being dependent on the subjective

This remains untrue.

 

[Dancing David]

I am interested. How does one prove that another person is experiencing occasional auditory hallucinations? I suffer from tinnitus but have never had a doctor do any test to prove the veracity of my complaint.

The best way is to spend time with them the responses to internal stimuli can be apparent or once they trust you they will tell you.

 

[Dancing David]

I thought you might just be being stubborn, but I now I think you're just not getting this.

In any case, the bolded part is about wrong as you can get.

Your second claim is also incorrrect. Multiverse theory can be indirectly proven in different ways besides other universes directly effecting our universe. For example, if inflation theory entails other universes exist (or makes the existence of other universes highly probable), and inflation theory is confirmed to a high degree, then "identifying the effects of those other universes on our own" won't be necessary to rationally conclude other universes exist. Evidence of inflation theory alone could be sufficient.

Also, if every interpretation of QM is eventually discredited, and MWI is the only one left standing, then that would be sufficient grounds to believe in the existence of other universes, even without having any direct evidence that these other universes exist.

No, the evidence for inflation is not evidence for multiverses, it may hint at the possibility of them.

 

[Dancing David]

Let's see. It's 2010. Would you say the probability of the Higgs boson existing is at least 50%?

No, when more conclusive signatures come in, maybe.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, the evidence for inflation is not evidence for multiverses, it may hint at the possibility of them.

No. If theory X implies Y, and X is confirmed, then Y also receives confirmation.

In other words, if inflation is proven to be true, multiverse theory will be the default position. It's too explanatory to not be.

 

[Darat]

No. If theory X implies Y, and X is confirmed, then Y also receives confirmation.

In other words, if inflation is proven to be true, multiverse theory will be the default position. It's too explanatory to not be.

Or someone comes up with a Y1.

 

[Dancing David]

No. If theory X implies Y, and X is confirmed, then Y also receives confirmation.

In other words, if inflation is proven to be true, multiverse theory will be the default position. It's too explanatory to not be.

And where exactly did someone show that a multiverse has to follow on inflation?

Please show where someone other than a pop science web page demonstrates it. It is a possibility but not a determined result.

 

[Fudbucker]

And where exactly did someone show that a multiverse has to follow on inflation?

Please show where someone other than a pop science web page demonstrates it. It is a possibility but not a determined result.

"Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble."

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

 

[Dancing David]

No pop science articles without proof or attribution of statements.

 

[barehl]

1. The probability of abiogenesis occurring anywhere other than Earth is unknown.

The probability of organic molecules seems to be 100%. They seem to form everywhere they can. The span of time from habitable planet to first life is very short (Eoarchaen Era) . So, this too seems to be a high probability if the conditions are similar.

2. The "narrowness" of the "goldilocks zone" is unknown.

The Earth is either just barely inside the habitable zone or a little outside of it. It extends out to about Mars. That's pretty much it.

3. The probability of intelligent life arising on planets that have primitive life is unknown.

You skipped a step. After life formed it took about 3 billion years to become more complex around the precambrian. Apparently this is a lot harder than just having single celled bacteria. It seems to be related to oxygen levels and probably to an ozone layer. Once you finally get complex life, the process was pretty fast. It appears that the reason we didn't end up with really smart dinosaurs is that the egg environment is not robust enough to support early brain development. Once you have primates, the high intelligence pattern becomes common and it only takes 60 million years to get humans. Complex life seems to be the toughest part.

Is ESP possible? Yes. The default position is that a thing is possible until it's been proven impossible.

No, ESP is not possible. If it were possible then a number of animals would exhibit it since it would be a definite survival advantage. None do. So then we are in the ridiculous position of trying to explain why only humans would have it. That isn't very logical.

From a theoretical perspective in terms of information and communication it is not possible. Understand that I'm saying that it is impossible even if you could find some type of transmission medium. People don't have built-in radios so you would need some way of getting information from one person to another. And, there is no evidence that such a thing exists. I can say without hesitation that ESP does not exist just as I can say that having an intelligence made up of a large number of bacteria is not possible although this has been the basis of a number of science fiction stories.

 

[Fudbucker]

No pop science articles without proof or attribution of statements.

Paul Steinhardt is professor of physics at Princeton University.

Let me anticipate your next ridiculous qualifier: no professors from universites starting with the letter P.

 

[jaydeehess]

The probability of organic molecules seems to be 100%. They seem to form everywhere they can. The span of time from habitable planet to first life is very short (Eoarchaen Era) . So, this too seems to be a high probability if the conditions are similar.



The Earth is either just barely inside the habitable zone or a little outside of it. It extends out to about Mars. That's pretty much it.



You skipped a step. After life formed it took about 3 billion years to become more complex around the precambrian. Apparently this is a lot harder than just having single celled bacteria. It seems to be related to oxygen levels and probably to an ozone layer. Once you finally get complex life, the process was pretty fast. It appears that the reason we didn't end up with really smart dinosaurs is that the egg environment is not robust enough to support early brain development. Once you have primates, the high intelligence pattern becomes common and it only takes 60 million years to get humans. Complex life seems to be the toughest part.

Not sure why Fudbucker continues to insist that we carve out a subset of this universe. The experiment has been proven successful at least once. It hasn't been shown to be reproducible, yet, but the fact of the one instance must suggest it can be. If the LHC determines that the Higgs boson exists that would imply that another collider would get the same result even it it were built on the Moon rather than in Europe.

No, ESP is not possible. If it were possible then a number of animals would exhibit it since it would be a definite survival advantage. None do. So then we are in the ridiculous position of trying to explain why only humans would have it. That isn't very logical.

From a theoretical perspective in terms of information and communication it is not possible. Understand that I'm saying that it is impossible even if you could find some type of transmission medium. People don't have built-in radios so you would need some way of getting information from one person to another. And, there is no evidence that such a thing exists. I can say without hesitation that ESP does not exist just as I can say that having an intelligence made up of a large number of bacteria is not possible although this has been the basis of a number of science fiction stories.

,,, and therein lies the problem. Not only has even one definitive instance of ESP not been shown to exist, there isn't even a demonstrated existence of a mechanism by which it could come about. There is for the development of advanced life forms, we know that because we exist.
I also brought up the advantage of telekinetic ability or remote viewing in a hunter-gatherer society. I don't recall that it got addressed.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Paul Steinhardt is professor of physics at Princeton University.
...

Which is a bare appeal to authority, apparently unsuited to the topic of this thread as well.

 

[Dancing David]

Paul Steinhardt is professor of physics at Princeton University.

Let me anticipate your next ridiculous qualifier: no professors from universites starting with the letter P.

Right so where did he publish it as a formal paper where he demonstrated that inflation dictates that multiverses occur.

Oh let me guess you can be sarcastic but you don't know how to engage in a discussion about science.

No where does it appear as a given in that paper, now does it?

Where does the author say 'this inflation' necessitates a 'multiverse'.

Is that written in clear enough language for you that you won't resort to sarcasm when asked a question you don't like?

 

[CapelDodger]

Vegas bookies give the pale horse 100:1 odds in favour of winning. What do they give the dark horse?

Amphetamines, after backing it with New York bookies.