Fermi's Paradox
-
An interesting look into why we have not encountered other life yet. Part I is also available from Part II. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
-
An interesting look into why we have not encountered other life yet. Part I is also available from Part II. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
-
An interesting look into why we have not encountered other life yet. Part I is also available from Part II. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
-
An interesting look into why we have not encountered other life yet. Part I is also available from Part II. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Yeah but cosmos exploration will be surely achieved by AI Von Neuron machines if we work on it. However with the sheer semi incomprehensible vastness of galactic dimensions, total cosmos exploration is limited to the deflation of said cosmos. -Wow what a mouthfull :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
An interesting look into why we have not encountered other life yet. Part I is also available from Part II. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Great link!!! Thank you, Paul Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
Nish is a BIG fan of Goran Ivanisevic -
An interesting look into why we have not encountered other life yet. Part I is also available from Part II. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html The simplest explanation of why we have not heard a peep from any other civilization - they ain't there. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
-
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html The simplest explanation of why we have not heard a peep from any other civilization - they ain't there. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
Occam's Razor, I think most of us developers and software companies should take heed of it :-D You are such a cynic re: the whole alien existence idea :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
-
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html The simplest explanation of why we have not heard a peep from any other civilization - they ain't there. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
The simplest explanation of why we have not heard a peep from any other civilization - they ain't there. I haven't heard a peep from God, therefore he ain't there. I have not been shot yet, therefore there are no guns. I have never seen an Indonesian, therefore Indonesia is not there. I have not died yet, therefore I an immortal. David Wulff, Founder of The BLA dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com [100.9977:Dave] New's flash - Bob caught in kitchen incident.
-
The simplest explanation of why we have not heard a peep from any other civilization - they ain't there. I haven't heard a peep from God, therefore he ain't there. I have not been shot yet, therefore there are no guns. I have never seen an Indonesian, therefore Indonesia is not there. I have not died yet, therefore I an immortal. David Wulff, Founder of The BLA dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com [100.9977:Dave] New's flash - Bob caught in kitchen incident.
Sorry, but none of those follow from any application of Occam's Razor. :) "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
-
Occam's Razor, I think most of us developers and software companies should take heed of it :-D You are such a cynic re: the whole alien existence idea :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Nah, I'm not cynical. I'm would be perfectly happy to accept the existence of other intelligent species. But I think it would be a less interesting universe if we did encounter them. It will simply be much more fun to do the exploring ourselves than to simply be left with reading the "Encyclopedia Galatica" or something. I for one want to *do* the exploring not read about some older civilizations explorations. Therefore, I hope they don't exist. And I *do* believe that Occam's Razor does apply to the absence of clearly apparent evidence of any other civilization. BTW, a very good book relating to this subject is "Rare Earth: Why complex life is uncommon in the Universe" by Ward and Brwonlee. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
-
Sorry, but none of those follow from any application of Occam's Razor. :) "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
Sorry, but yes they do. You were 'applying' it to mean that because we have no proof of alien civilisations, that there aren't any. All of my examples fit in that same template. I'm told Guns and Indonesians exist, just like I'm told that God exists, and just like I'm told that I will die sooner or later, but I have no firsthand proof of this. I see churches and rifle clubs everywhere, but that doesn't mean God and Guns exist, as I also see alien museums and people who are just as fanatical about aliens as the strongest religious fanatic you could name. So, why is it true in one case and not in another? I can understand why the principle of simplicity is needed in order for us to be able to understand and define anything in the universe around us, but you would be naïve to rule out the possibility altogether - scientific principles and theories are constantly being modified as our understanding increases. They once believed the world to be flat. David Wulff, Founder of The BLA dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com [100.9977:Dave] New's flash - Bob caught in kitchen incident.
-
Sorry, but yes they do. You were 'applying' it to mean that because we have no proof of alien civilisations, that there aren't any. All of my examples fit in that same template. I'm told Guns and Indonesians exist, just like I'm told that God exists, and just like I'm told that I will die sooner or later, but I have no firsthand proof of this. I see churches and rifle clubs everywhere, but that doesn't mean God and Guns exist, as I also see alien museums and people who are just as fanatical about aliens as the strongest religious fanatic you could name. So, why is it true in one case and not in another? I can understand why the principle of simplicity is needed in order for us to be able to understand and define anything in the universe around us, but you would be naïve to rule out the possibility altogether - scientific principles and theories are constantly being modified as our understanding increases. They once believed the world to be flat. David Wulff, Founder of The BLA dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com [100.9977:Dave] New's flash - Bob caught in kitchen incident.
You couldn't be more abysmally (sp?) illogical. :-D I'm only saying that the "simplest" not the "only" explanation for the lack or readily apparent evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence is that they don't exist, at least in significant enough numbers for it to make a difference. And I'm certainly not saying that we should not look. Hell, I have SETI@home running on my machines at home. There are any number of plausible reasons why we don't see or hear them, but the most obvious is that they don't exist, at least any where near our galatic neighborhood. Logically, the larger the probability of intelligent life the larger the probability that at least some of them would be making some kind of "noise". As it is readily apparent that nothing that we can recognize as intelligent noise exist beyond our home world, we must proceed with the assumption that all those stars are belong to us.:) That the universe is ours to make of what we will. Your examples are invalid because: God is an example of one, not of many. There is no way you can simplify the arguments "God does not exist" vs. "God does exist". Occam's Razor simply does not apply. It is not an argument that can be settled by evidence one way or the other. If someone believe in God, than they believe it, end of argument. Guns and Indonesians? This is invalid because it would be somewhat simple to affirm that they do in fact exist. Just because you have not looked for the evidence does not invalidate their existence. You have built up no body of evidence against which Occam's Razor can even be applied. If you used every feasible method at your disposal to affirm their existence, and failed, *then* you might have an argument. Immortality? I'll leave that up to your testing methods. Please keep us infomred of your progress. Hmmm, I think I would have made a good Vulcan. :rose: "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
-
You couldn't be more abysmally (sp?) illogical. :-D I'm only saying that the "simplest" not the "only" explanation for the lack or readily apparent evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence is that they don't exist, at least in significant enough numbers for it to make a difference. And I'm certainly not saying that we should not look. Hell, I have SETI@home running on my machines at home. There are any number of plausible reasons why we don't see or hear them, but the most obvious is that they don't exist, at least any where near our galatic neighborhood. Logically, the larger the probability of intelligent life the larger the probability that at least some of them would be making some kind of "noise". As it is readily apparent that nothing that we can recognize as intelligent noise exist beyond our home world, we must proceed with the assumption that all those stars are belong to us.:) That the universe is ours to make of what we will. Your examples are invalid because: God is an example of one, not of many. There is no way you can simplify the arguments "God does not exist" vs. "God does exist". Occam's Razor simply does not apply. It is not an argument that can be settled by evidence one way or the other. If someone believe in God, than they believe it, end of argument. Guns and Indonesians? This is invalid because it would be somewhat simple to affirm that they do in fact exist. Just because you have not looked for the evidence does not invalidate their existence. You have built up no body of evidence against which Occam's Razor can even be applied. If you used every feasible method at your disposal to affirm their existence, and failed, *then* you might have an argument. Immortality? I'll leave that up to your testing methods. Please keep us infomred of your progress. Hmmm, I think I would have made a good Vulcan. :rose: "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
Stan, You're probably right to not try and apply Occam's Razor to a straight "god does exist" versus "god does not exist" proposition. However, Occam's razor is quite happily applied (very successfully, as far as I'm concerned) to a great many religious (christian) issues. The Flood of Noah, for example (no, I'm not trying to get that debate started again!). ----------------------------- "I leave no turn un-stoned." - John Simmons, Nov 6 2001 -----------------------------
-
You couldn't be more abysmally (sp?) illogical. :-D I'm only saying that the "simplest" not the "only" explanation for the lack or readily apparent evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence is that they don't exist, at least in significant enough numbers for it to make a difference. And I'm certainly not saying that we should not look. Hell, I have SETI@home running on my machines at home. There are any number of plausible reasons why we don't see or hear them, but the most obvious is that they don't exist, at least any where near our galatic neighborhood. Logically, the larger the probability of intelligent life the larger the probability that at least some of them would be making some kind of "noise". As it is readily apparent that nothing that we can recognize as intelligent noise exist beyond our home world, we must proceed with the assumption that all those stars are belong to us.:) That the universe is ours to make of what we will. Your examples are invalid because: God is an example of one, not of many. There is no way you can simplify the arguments "God does not exist" vs. "God does exist". Occam's Razor simply does not apply. It is not an argument that can be settled by evidence one way or the other. If someone believe in God, than they believe it, end of argument. Guns and Indonesians? This is invalid because it would be somewhat simple to affirm that they do in fact exist. Just because you have not looked for the evidence does not invalidate their existence. You have built up no body of evidence against which Occam's Razor can even be applied. If you used every feasible method at your disposal to affirm their existence, and failed, *then* you might have an argument. Immortality? I'll leave that up to your testing methods. Please keep us infomred of your progress. Hmmm, I think I would have made a good Vulcan. :rose: "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
I stand down and bow my head to you, Stan. I almost managed to blag my way though yet another argument I knew nothing about. :-o ;) David Wulff, Founder of The BLA dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com [100.9977:Dave] New's flash - Bob caught in kitchen incident.
-
I stand down and bow my head to you, Stan. I almost managed to blag my way though yet another argument I knew nothing about. :-o ;) David Wulff, Founder of The BLA dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com [100.9977:Dave] New's flash - Bob caught in kitchen incident.
Hey, if you spent more time hanging out with red neck,trailor trash, gun nuts in Oklahoma, you'd know this stuff. :-D "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01