Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

...
This thread belongs in a different forum.

Like jaydeehess said:

...Fudbucker suggested the Philosophy section, ...

indeed:

This really should have gone in the philosophy forum, because it's essentially an epistemology question. I'll go over it briefly:
...

 

[Daylightstar]

This is why I gave up on this thread so many times.

You really didn't:

Infinite is likely too strong put, but you have or will make a lot of time to express your belief. ...

 

[Daylightstar]

Do you agree we can't assign a probability to the existence of alien life?

There is prior probability for life in the universe.

 

[Daylightstar]

Well, I agreed, but I thought these problems would show up.

Still, I doubt we have many professional philosophers posting in the philosophy forum, so the outcome probably would have been the same.

That's most likely not the criterium this website uses.

 

[Daylightstar]

Nor was it meant to. Just that both are logically possible (i.e., both have a non-zero chance of happening).

They are not, but most importantly, it is also invalid for your op probability comparison between 'alien life' and 'ESP'.

 

[Daylightstar]

Agreed, but it was asserted that it was logically impossible (not just highly improbable) for a two-headed coin to land tails. That's obviously not true. There are many far-fetched scenarios for how a two-headed coin could land tails. I wouldn't bet on any of them happening, but they are still possible.

Unfortunately you have not adequately shown how, without use of pure fantasy.

 

[Aridas]

Oh, I thought you said you could assign a probability to the existence of alien life.

Anyway:

1. The probability of the existence of alien life (Pr(X)) cannot be determined to any degree (other than some number between zero and one) as there are too many missing variables: Pr(X) = ?

2. The probability that ESP exists (Pr(Y)) is between zero and one.

3. Pr(X) can only be considered lower than Pr(Y) if Pr(X) is assigned an arbitrary value. Likewise, Pr(X) can only be considered higher than Pr(Y) if Pr(X) is assigned an arbitrary value.

4. If Pr(X) cannot be greater or lower than Pr(Y) without being assigned an arbitrary value, then Pr(X) cannot be considered to be greater or lower than Pr(Y).

5. Pr(X) can only be considered to be greater, lower, or equal to Pr(Y).

6. If Pr(X) cannot be considered to be greater or lower than Pr(Y), Pr(X) must be considered to be equal to Pr(Y).

You may as well agree that the chances of an arbitrary person greeting their parents during the next day is equal to the chances of ESP and alien life existing, then. After all, based on those standards, there are too many unknowns, such as whether the person's parents are able to be contacted in the first place. You may as well also concede that the probability, based on your arguments, that advanced alien life or some kind of god will make themselves known to people on Earth during the next day is between 0 and 1, therefore, it is also equally likely to the chances that a person will greet their parents, that ESP exists, and that advanced alien life exists.

 

[Daylightstar]

What is the probability?

Or rather, what is the prior probability?

 

[jaydeehess]

I sense that this argument has much in common with some creationist arguments.
I have been Rolf that since science cannot explain the genesis of life on Earth, that creationism is equally probable as evolution.
In possibly similar fashion, I have been told that creationism is more probable due to Occam's Razor since it is simpler than evolution.

 

[Daylightstar]

There's prior probability and data for life in the universe.
None of each for ESP.

 

[Daylightstar]

I sense that this argument has much in common with some creationist arguments.
I have been Rolf that since science cannot explain the genesis of life on Earth, that creationism is equally probable as evolution.
In possibly similar fashion, I have been told that creationism is more probable due to Occam's Razor since it is simpler than evolution.

Which leads me to ask the question I wanted to ask for awhile now:
Fudbucker, are you a creationist or similar?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Unfortunately you have not adequately show how, without use of pure fantasy.

Nor has it been shown to be physically possible for a "two-headed coin" to land with a "tails" showing.

If a "tails" is showing, the coin is not a "coin-with-two-heads"; nor can it be.

 

[Daylightstar]

Nor has it been shown to be physically possible for a "two-headed coin" to land with a "tails" showing.

If a "tails" is showing, the coin is not a "coin-with-two-heads"; nor can it be.

Exactly.

 

[Daylightstar]

With my Nano Quantum Zapper Rearranger I can change an elephant into a delicious ready cooked pizza

E.T.A.: In mid air too.

 

[Daylightstar]

Or should that be my Nano Quantum Zapper Rredefiner?

 

[tsig]

Or, if you haven't proven that you can not, it is possible. Not logically possible or physically possible, just possible.

Like it's possible to flip a coin and have a bowl of hot chicken soup land.

Must be hard to operate in possible land you never know if the weather will be a raging blizzard or a 110 degree summer day depending on what door you open.

In fact if you jump you might land as a Purple Pumpkin.

Facts do not matter and mere Chaos is unleashed on the world.


(all for the sake of sneaking in a little woo)

 

[tsig]

Because the future was the past and is still the same past, just only slightly different.

When the past was the future we were past the past so the future becomes the now and the now becomes the past so by knowing the now we know the future of the past and can therefore state authoritatively That the Pabst is a blue ribbon beer.

Q. E. Deliriums.

 

[Fudbucker]

Agreed, but it was asserted that it was logically impossible (not just highly improbable) for a two-headed coin to land tails. That's obviously not true. There are many far-fetched scenarios for how a two-headed coin could land tails. I wouldn't bet on any of them happening, but they are still possible.

Unfortunately you have not adequately shown how, without use of pure fantasy.

Fantastical scenarios are still possible. Slow's claim is that there is NO scenario (fantastical or otherwise) that would result in a two-headed coin landing tails.

I totally agree with you that if I use "pure fantasy" I can prove my point.

 

[Daylightstar]

Like it's possible to flip a coin and have a bowl of hot chicken soup land.

Must be hard to operate in possible land you never know if the weather will be a raging blizzard or a 110 degree summer day depending on what door you open.

In fact if you jump you might land as a Purple Pumpkin.

Facts do not matter and mere Chaos is unleashed on the world.


(all for the sake of sneaking in a little woo)

Perhaps in Possible land one can simply redefine their possibilities to suit.
It's quite possible since everything is possible, even if they are logically impossible or physically impossible.
They are still technically possible

 

[Fudbucker]

Nor has it been shown to be physically possible for a "two-headed coin" to land with a "tails" showing.

If a "tails" is showing, the coin is not a "coin-with-two-heads"; nor can it be.

Physically impossible is different than logically impossible.

But anyway, we keep going round and round. A few other people have pointed out you're wrong (Aridas, I think).