Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

Tesla was far ahead of his time....it would be why some less perceptive people would think he and others were 'zany'.....Bohr said this---------------"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” --- ------― Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge-------------what we think is real is not real....how zany of him....
 
zengirl said:
Tesla was far ahead of his time....it would be why some less perceptive people would think he and others were 'zany'.....Bohr said this---------------"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” --- ------― Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge-------------what we think is real is not real....how zany of him....
Click to expand...

Bohring.....
 
zengirl said:
Tesla was far ahead of his time....it would be why some less perceptive people would think he and others were 'zany'.....Bohr said this---------------"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” --- ------― Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge-------------what we think is real is not real....how zany of him....
Click to expand...

Cherry-picking. How droll.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
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.
[...]
Click to expand...

Fudbucker has made an equivalent claim, though I expect him to deny it, and deny the denial.

Wait for it . . .
 
zengirl said:
Tesla was far ahead of his time....it would be why some less perceptive people would think he and others were 'zany'.....Bohr said this---------------"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” --- ------― Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge-------------what we think is real is not real....how zany of him....
Click to expand...

Please learn to quote and cite properly. Extended dots is not evidence of correct science.

I have actually studied quantum mechanics, and solved the simplest Schroedinger wave equation in about 3 months.

Have you? I don't think you know enough QM to lecture other people.
 
jsfisher said:
It is jsfisher. Please stop with this other thing.
Click to expand...

At least they didn't think you were me, this time.

With regard to the topic, I feel that intelligent life in the universe is a mathematical certainty. We might not ever detect it, but the sheer number of planets and satellites out there makes even a trillion-to-one chance a sure thing on statistical grounds.

There's no hard evidence for ESP. There was an interesting speculation upthread about whether people might learn to communicate telepathically via Bluetooth, but without such technical intervention I don't believe that we'll ever be able to "read minds".
 
zengirl said:
Tesla was far ahead of his time....it would be why some less perceptive people would think he and others were 'zany'.....Bohr said this---------------"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” --- ------― Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge-------------what we think is real is not real....how zany of him....
Click to expand...

You think quantum physics is real, that's also not really real then?
 
jhunter1163 said:
There's no hard evidence for ESP.
Click to expand...


Indeed, there's hard evidence against it. Current understanding of the human body excludes any organ that can either transmit thought or receive it. We've diced everything down to the much finer than the celular level. There is nothing hiding in there that could do the job.
 
Jones, I have been out of body and have a far better understanding of our multiple dimensional existence than you have---which qm is slowly learning (science is very slow at learning what ancient mystics knew thousands of years ago....)
 
zengirl said:
Jones, I have been out of body and have a far better understanding of our multiple dimensional existence than you have---which qm is slowly learning (science is very slow at learning what ancient mystics knew thousands of years ago....)
Click to expand...

girl, your statements are not what a reasonable person would call credible. Given your willingness to cling to false quotations (even after it has been shown you that the people you pretend to be quoting repudiate the false quotes); your willingness to cherry-pick statements and completely ignore context; and your propensity for simply ignoring uncomfortable questions; your claim of OOBE stands just about on par with my first wife's claim to have danced a named role in All That Jazz. There is no creditable evidence of the mere existence of a "soul"; much less any indication by which a personlity might survive the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property.

It is nice that you believe your "experiences". You have yet, however, to even begin to attempt to explain why anyone else should also believe. Consider selecting a better-tailored audience.
 
zengirl said:
Jones, I have been out of body and have a far better understanding of our multiple dimensional existence than you have---which qm is slowly learning (science is very slow at learning what ancient mystics knew thousands of years ago....)
Click to expand...


Then you should have no problem demonstrating your superior understanding to our panel of educated skeptics.

Begin:
 
Being educated doesn't mean you have understanding...that comes from experience...
 
zengirl said:
Jones, I have been out of body and have a far better understanding of our multiple dimensional existence than you have---which qm is slowly learning (science is very slow at learning what ancient mystics knew thousands of years ago....)
Click to expand...

I think you mean out of mind. Disjointed assertions do not an argument make.
 
Cricket chirping

John Jones said:
Then you should have no problem demonstrating your superior understanding to our panel of educated skeptics.

Begin:
Click to expand...

The sound emitted by crickets is commonly referred to as chirping; the scientific name is stridulation. Usually only the male crickets chirp, however some female crickets do as well. The sound is emitted by the stridulatory organ, a large vein running along the bottom of each wing, covered with "teeth" (serration) much like a comb. The chirping sound is created by running the top of one wing along the teeth at the bottom of the other wing. As the male cricket does this, he also holds the wings up and open, so that the wing membranes can act as acoustical sails. It is a popular myth that the cricket chirps by rubbing its legs together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_(insect)#Cricket_chirping
 
Aridas said:
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.



1 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.
Click to expand...

I'm on a tablet so grammar will suffer

1 I'll stipulate that there are a huge number of planets in zones that appear habitable however appear is key word. Without knowing the necessary conditions for life we can't conclude whether any apparently habitable planet is actually habitable. And if a planet in a zone where life is possible we can't conclude whether angiogenesis occurred. So for any planet that appears habitable probability of life on that planet is still unknown. The more potential habitable plAnets we find the more the odds improve, but what do they improve to and by how much? It's a case where prob of alien life is x + y. If y is the existence of A billion planets with right necessary conditions x is confirmed, but without knowing how likely angiogenesis is amount of confirmation is unknown. If odds abiogen are trillion to 1 very little confirmation results. So prob of Alien life still undetermined.

...

If odds of alien life cannot be determined then odds esp don't need calculated so long as odds of esp are nonzero

If I stipulate odds of esp 1 in million or billion still cannot say esp is less or more likely than alien life since prob of alien life is undetermined. It's like claiming esp is less prob than finding a grid emerald. Impossible to determine as long as "grid" is undefined. "Grid" supposed to be "g r u e". Autospeller
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
If I stipulate odds of esp 1 in million or billion still cannot say esp is less or more likely than alien life since prob of alien life is undetermined. It's like claiming esp is less prob than finding a grid emerald. Impossible to determine as long as "grid" is undefined. "Grid" supposed to be "g r u e". Autospeller
Click to expand...
Don't need to define the odds. 1 in a million or 1 in a billion is still more than 0 in a million or 0 in a billion. In all cases the set where life evolves into advanced civilization is greater than the ESP set.

You are making the mistake of confusing possibility with probability. ESP may have a very small chance of being possible. Highly unlikely but we don't know everything. Advanced civilizations though are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. At least 1 exists, us.

So the probability of another advanced civilization evolving is always greater than the probability of discovering ESP. But here is the kicker. Given current knowledge. Probabilities will change as new information is added. Still for now, the probability of alien civilizations is greater. Find at least one case of ESP and then maybe we have a real discussion. Right now the discussion is going on and on about something already proven. 1 is always greater than 0. 1 divided by any positive number, no matter how large is also still greater than 0. Until you find at least 1 case of ESP, the probability of finding another alien civilization is always greater.

QED
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I'm on a tablet so grammar will suffer

1 I'll stipulate that there are a huge number of planets in zones that appear habitable however appear is key word. Without knowing the necessary conditions for life we can't conclude whether any apparently habitable planet is actually habitable. And if a planet in a zone where life is possible we can't conclude whether angiogenesis occurred. So for any planet that appears habitable probability of life on that planet is still unknown. The more potential habitable plAnets we find the more the odds improve, but what do they improve to and by how much? It's a case where prob of alien life is x + y. If y is the existence of A billion planets with right necessary conditions x is confirmed, but without knowing how likely angiogenesis is amount of confirmation is unknown. If odds abiogen are trillion to 1 very little confirmation results. So prob of Alien life still undetermined.

...

If odds of alien life cannot be determined then odds esp don't need calculated so long as odds of esp are nonzero

If I stipulate odds of esp 1 in million or billion still cannot say esp is less or more likely than alien life since prob of alien life is undetermined. It's like claiming esp is less prob than finding a grid emerald. Impossible to determine as long as "grid" is undefined. "Grid" supposed to be "g r u e". Autospeller
Click to expand...


Are you no longer claiming the two probabilities are equal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom