/sci/ - Science & Math

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>10812409
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>10812402
In our oceans

>>10812420
>wanting proof of negative claims is a reddit thing now

>>10812430
>The tooth fairy is real because we still haven’t found evidence for its existence

>>10812402
>Where the fuck are they /sci/?
they don't exist

>>10812437
>the opposite of "not proven to not exist" is "proven to exist"
Get over this ridiculous black and white thinking. The default position is that neither the positive nor negative is proven, and an absence of evidence on this scale is insufficient to prove anything meaningful.

>>10812402
>Where the fuck are they /sci/?

>>10812402
the galaxy has like 300 billion stars. Patience dude.

>>10812402
How the fuck would we be able to see them if the best resolution of exoplanets we have is small dips in a stars brightness

>>10812573
What if the universe is much older than that

>>10812585
This. Op implies aliens would be easily visible. Even if there were thousands or millions of planets in our galaxy with life, why should we assume any of the following:
>they are intelligent lifeforms
>they are at a level of technology where they can broadcast signals into space
>these signals are of a nature similar to ours
>these signals are detectable
>these signals have had time to reach us and have a signature different from that of a natural cause

>>10812612
>What if the universe is much older than that


You do not believe there was big bang?
This is pretty much universally agreed on by all those who examine the evidence.

Please explain why you ting universe is older and please give some actual evidence to back up your claim.

>>10812402
If there were a planet just like ours would they be able to detect us? We aren't exactly making a ton of noise in terms of space. It fades into the background radiation by the time it exits our solar system.

>>10812402
Attenuation is a real bitch.

>>10812402

>>10812648
all depends on available tech

>>10812402

Advanced life expands inward into smaller scales, not outward.

We condense into cities, stacked on top of eachother, to build smaller processors so we can upload our minds, all so that the human race can fit in a room sized server farm. And thats just the next 100 years.

You think Im joking.

Complex life gets small, not big. And with infinite depth to the Universe there is plenty of room inward to grow.

>>10812677
>all depends on available tech
They have our tech. I literally said a planet just like ours.

>>10812682
"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"
by Richard P. Feynman on December 29th 1959

https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html

>>10812696
Feynman was always based but I love this talk from him, so forward thinking. The dude basically predicted nanotech.

>>10812696

That is awesome! Thank you for sharing with me. I had not read that before.

>>10812720

Your welcome.

Richard P. Feynman was a true Genius.

I love threads about extraterrestrial life. They always prove how fucking stupid the average /sci/ user is.
>They must be out there.
100 years ago and you would have shat your own pants because mummy told you about good ol' jesus and bad evil hell.

>>10812402
>we wuz lizard kangz and shiet
>we came back to check on our first home planet
>and now it is time to take it back cracka'

>>10812682
>t. manlet

>>10812402
I have ZERO doubt that there are lots of intelligent species out there, BUT I am almost 100% certain none of them are technologically intelligent.

Neanderthal could create and control fire so they were definitely intelligent, but they were not a technologically intelligent species.

There could be super intelligent squid creatures son other planets but they would probably never reach the technological level of even fire making.

>>10812732
go to bed, Richard

>>10812766
>go to bed, Richard

I would be the smartest person on /sci/ if I was half as smart as him.

>>10812445
>>10812573
/thread

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

>>10812402
But once self-propagating systems have attained global scale, two crucial differences emerge. The first difference is in the number of individuals from among which the "fittest" are selected. Self-prop systems sufficiently big and powerful to be plausible contenders for global dominance will probably number in the dozens, or possibly in the hundreds; they certainly will not number in the millions. With so few individuals from among which to select the "fittest," it seems safe to say that the process of natural selection will be inefficient in promoting the fitness for survival of the dominant global self-prop systems. It should also be noted that among biological organisms, species that consist of a relatively small number of large individuals are more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals. Though the analogy between biological organisms and self-propagating systems of human beings is far from perfect, still the prospect for viability of a world-system based on the dominance of a few global self-prop systems does not look encouraging.

>>10812402
The second difference is that in the absence of rapid, worldwide transportation and communication, the breakdown or the destructive action of a small-scale self-prop system has only local repercussions. Outside the limited zone where such a self-prop system has been active there will be other self-prop systems among which the process of evolution through natural selection will continue. But where rapid, worldwide transportation and communication have led to the emergence of global self-prop systems, the breakdown or the destructive action of any one such system can shake the whole world-system. Consequently, in the process of trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, it is highly probable that after only a relatively small number of "trials" resulting in "errors," the world-system will break down or will be so severely disrupted that none of the world's larger or more complex self-prop systems will be able to survive. Thus, for such self-prop systems, the trial-and-error process comes to an end; evolution through natural selection cannot continue long enough to create global self-prop systems possessing the subtle and sophisticated mechanisms that prevent destructive internal competition within complex biological organisms.

>>10812402
Meanwhile, fierce competition among global self-prop systems will have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the Earth's climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of its oceans, and so forth, that the effect on the biosphere will be devastating. In Part IV of the present chapter we will carry this line of inquiry further: We will argue that if the development of the technological world-system is allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, then in all probability the Earth will be left a dead planet-a planet on which nothing will remain alive except, maybe, some of the simplest organisms-certain bacteria, algae, etc.-that are capable of surviving under extreme conditions.

>>10812682
based and inwardpilled

>>10812402
The theory we've outlined here provides a plausible explanation for the so-called Fermi Paradox. It is believed that there should be numerous planets on which technologically advanced civilizations have evolved, and which are not so remote from us that we could not by this time have detected their radio transmissions. The Fermi Paradox consists in the fact that our astronomers have never yet been able to detect any radio signals that seem to have originated from an intelligent extraterrestrial source.
According to Ray Kurzweil, one common explanation of the Fermi Paradox is "that a civilization may obliterate itself once it reaches radio capability." Kurzweil continues: "This explanation might be acceptable if we were talking about only a few such civilizations, but [if such civilizations have been numerous], it is not credible to believe that every one of them destroyed itself" Kurzweil would be right if the self-destruction of a civilization were merely a matter of chance. But there is nothing implausible about the foregoing explanation of the Fermi Paradox if there is a process common to all technologically advanced civilizations that consistently leads them to self-destruction. Here we've been arguing that there is such a process.

>>10812682
>And with infinite depth to the Universe there is plenty of room inward to grow.
>what are Planck lengths

>>10812831
define "no physical sense" in that context

>>10812813
Yet that poster has the audacity to use writing and digital photo editing techniques. Shameful.

>>10812682
This
Transcension hypothesis is the true answer

Dark Forest.

>>10812573
The problem with that is that there are already numerous stars older than ours by more years than it took for life to evolve on Earth. So unless life on Earth is in itself an outlier it is reasonable to assume life will exits elsewhere and be older than ours by billions of years.

>>10812402
>Where the fuck are they /sci/?
Area 51

>>10812402
>most meme meme ever memed nothing meme

what the fuck retard, looking for signals? lmfao,

aliens dont use signals retard, and also they are way further away than that

>>10812402
Search constraints:
An ideal instrument for a Dyson sphere study is an all sky survey covering a wide wavelength band centered in the 10 micron regime equivalent to 300 degrees Kelvin. These two requirements were satisfied by the mid-eighties IRAS satellite. A central mission for IRAS was to study cosmic dust, so there was no premium on resolution and the mirror had only a 0.6 m diameter. Still, the performance was satisfactory for a Dyson Sphere survey. The sensitivity was 1 Jansky while the angular resolution was 1 minute. Starting from a 250,000 source sample sources were discarded if the IRAS flux quality for the 12 and 25 μm filters only corresponded to an upper limit. This left 10982 sources. The search focused on a temperature range of 100 to 600 �K leaving about 6521 sources. No cut was made on proximity to other sources. By doing this partial Dyson spheres were not ruled out. As noted on the Dyson Sphere look-alike page there are several natural surrogates that are difficult to rule out. Several cuts were used on the LRS sample to focus in on a Dyson Sphere signature. These included temperature, classification, and visual scans in SIMBAD. This led to a sample of 17 weak and ambiguous candidates..

>>10812708
>>10812696
>>10812732
>Perhaps this doesn't excite you to do it, and only economics will do so. Then I want to do something; but I can't do it at the present moment, because I haven't prepared the ground. It is my intention to offer a prize of $1,000 to the first guy who can take the information on the page of a book and put it on an area 1/25,000 smaller in linear scale in such manner that it can be read by an electron microscope.

>And I want to offer another prize – if I can figure out how to phrase it so that I don't get into a mess of arguments about definitions – of another $1,000 to the first guy who makes an operating electric motor – a rotating electric motor which can be controlled from the outside and, not counting the lead-in wires, is only 1/64 inch cube.

>I do not expect that such prizes will have to wait very long for claimants.

Did they?

>>10812402
1327 out of 10^9 in our galaxy. Woah.

>>10812402
There’s over a hundred billion stars in the galaxy.
What the fuck are you expecting? What a godawful thread.

>>10812762
So you think a neanderthal type intelligence is quite reasonable, AND a squid super-intelligence, but somehow a mix of both is just way too out there?

>>10815800
There’s no evidence Neanderthals were less intelligent than sapiens.

>>10812633
shut up nerd

Seti is implausible, thanks to the inverse square law.

>>10812900

something about no interactions between anything can happen at a distance less than that

>>10812402
We can't even see the planets due to their stars and we can only guess what they're made of based on how light dims when the planet passes in front of the star. There are plans to make viewing planets possible already underway

>>10812402
come on its just US and god...

>>10812402
God made us to be alone in the universe, so it would seem.

>>10816503
There’s more evidence to believe in aliens than God.

>>10812402
There are no aliens up there nukka

>>10812409
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Just not proof positive of absence.

Just watched that Robert Lazar documentary on netflix - must have been recommended popped up because of the area 51 meme. I never care to look into alien shit for the same reason as any other conspiracy, though out of the most persisting/crazy ones the alien one always seemed to be the most plausible, not necessarily based on evidence but just in theory. I always make it a habit to look up why whatever conspiracy theory I'm watching could be bullshit but was pretty disappointed in the lack of resources refuting any of the claims. Normally it goes something like "x, y, and z happened, this can't _all_ be a coincidence/this vindicates the theory" and then you look it up to see they left out some huge over-arching detail that explains all of that - couldn't find much on him though. Not saying I believe him, but are there any actual good sources that can are at least somewhat convincing that he's lying?

>>10816574
my actual main take away is that he's believable but I'm still agnostic on it. the actual most substantiating fact, at least imo, wasn't even really touched on as much as it should have been in the film which is that his name was present on a phone record for alamo labs even after researches called them and they said they had no record of him being, seeming to imply someone was trying to cover that up.

We'll answer this question for good in 2025. The ELT is powerful enough to scan the surface of the planets for life for 40% of the Milky Way galaxy.

If we see that none of those planets have life we can just assume we're alone and that abiogenesis is basically impossible and we are the first species to ever evolve to this complexity.

We basically already have proof we are the only advanced species in the universe because stars are still visible which shouldn't be the case if there was an advanced species out there.

But if we don't see any life on planets surveyed by the ELT in 2025 then we can be sure that we're not only the most advanced species out there, but just the only life bearing planet in general.

>>10816706
>The ELT is powerful enough to scan the surface of the planets for life for 40% of the Milky Way galaxy.
Really, source?

>>10816706

Plot twist: stars ARE the most advanced species out there. Everyone always says, "maybe aliens will be so different that we wont recognize them as life" well no duh, a jellyfish or shrub are barely recognizable as DNA life but they are, and thats just Earth life. So what is the actual purpose of life: to fortify their existance, last a long ass time, reproduce and consume energy... so lets look at a star: cannot even get close to it let alone eat it, lasts billions of years, covers the visible Universe, devours so much energy that its end cycle is a black hole. Ding ding DING!!!! It is the arrogance of intelligence to think its form is superior. But we are weak, frail, and dwarfed by giants.

>>10816706
>We basically already have proof we are the only advanced species in the universe because stars are still visible which shouldn't be the case if there was an advanced species out there.
That's completely bullshit.
Even if their would be an advanced alien species they probably wouldn't just 'turn stars off' and even then certainly not every one. Additionally we wouldn't see that an alien species turned off the stars because the time the light need to cross the universe is way to high that we could expect to recognize such acts.

>>10812402
Good, free real estate

>>10816767
can you prove it?

>>10812402
>1327 stars
Oh so .00000000000001% of them. That's like going to the desert, scooping a teaspoon of sand, analyzing it and going "welp, life does not exist here guys"

>>10812682
Interesting thought

>>10812402
Which means that all these nearby stars are ours for the taking

>>10815103
> numerous stars older than ours by more years than it took for life to evolve on Earth.

I have no doubt that there is other intelligent life out there, but am almost 100% positive none of them are technologically advanced.

Neanderthal were able to create and control fire, but they never advanced technologically.
North and South Americans even had several rather advanced societies (they were VERY intelligent) but there they never even invented the wheel.
Technological intelligence is *NOT* something that automatically happens for intelligent species.
There may be SUPER intelligent squid creatures out there but they most likely would never even master fire.

>>10812402
would aliens looks that diferent from us?
I'm not an expert on biology but they would be red blooded creatures with their 5 senses as close to their brain as possible no? and they would also come in 2 shades, either black or white depending on how close their sun is to their planet right? or are these assumptions unfounded?

>>10815103
>and be older than ours by billions of years
Not enough metalicity in the universe before popullation one stars.

>>10817002
>or are these assumptions unfounded?
The problem is you're working with a sample size of exactly 1.
The reason you see convergent evolution happen so much on earth is because you inherit a basic body plan and biochemistry from your ancestors, and thats the lego set you have to solve all your problems.
Even red blood isn't common across all life. Some creatures use copper instead of iron to transport oxygen to their cells and so their blood is more green/yellow.
To be a technological species you could probably come to some basic assumptions like an ability to interact with the world around them, a method of communicating or time binding information, a way to ingest energy, and a way to excrete waste, and a means of sensing their environment. But that could mean arms and legs, or a bunch of dexterous tentacles that grow from its anus.
Its called the anthropomorphic paradox. Try as hard as you want and the most alien thing you can think of is still going to be a chimera of earth analogues.
Hell, theres even a debate about a dark sector of earths biology thats just so alien and weird we don't even know how to go about detecting it. Desert Varnish is the poster child for this dark sector.

>>10816951
What exactly?

>>10812402
Not using radio waves

>>10812402
I mean, is this not to be expected? 1300 stars isn't that big of a deal to start with, still interesting they've done it regardless.

>>10817005
>Not enough metalicity in the universe before popullation one stars.

Nope, early stars were big and heavy and burned fast. It took only few billions of years for metallicity to rise to near current levels, at least in some areas of the galaxy.

>>10817114
Most of the heavier elements on earth come from pop 2 supernova though.

>>10816706
>We basically already have proof we are the only advanced species in the universe because stars are still visible which shouldn't be the case if there was an advanced species out there.

You’re so retarded. Holy shit.

So, what I believe is that life is common in most of the universe. Conditions where life can evolve to higher tiers are not common. But it can and has happened many, many times.

Once emerging from their world for the first time instict makes demands. One of them is that the species becomes paranoid as they explore the space around them for the first time. Instinct demands that the species hide itself from the unknown.

It is a natural response of all higher life forms composed of a structure comparable to our own. With predator/prey environmental pressures influencing evolution.

We have been shouting radio signals into space for some time now. I hope the above is the situation and every species simply goes dark once emerging into space.

The alternative is that whenever any species makes lots of noise something happens to stop them from continuing to make it.

Tldr: Every emergent species probably only broadcasts radio signals for a very brief time before going into hiding. Before going dark and waiting, watching, listening. For some new species to make noise in their foolish youth.

>>10812437
>no evidence against X is the same as evidence for X
Based retard

>>10816720
Shit, this is retarded as fuck but also maybe true.

>>10816996
>but there they never even invented the wheel.
You are wrong on that. the wheel existed in mesoamerican civilizations and was used for toys, but there was no real use for them due to lack of horses and in the inca's case, rough terrain.

>>10816513
It's not a matter of evidence. Frankly in that sentence it was a figure of speech.

Though its funny, every one of you I've ever met has been unable to conjure thought outside the material. Ideal NPC slaves, you woke lot.

>>10817254
>u are wrong on that. the wheel existed in mesoamerican civilizations and was used for toys,

When we say discover the wheel we mean using it to transport objects. Using round thing for toys is NOT discovering the wheel, they completely failed to developed wheeled transportation. North American Natives were barely above the stone age and South American natives got up to almost ancient Egyptian level of technology.

>>10812573
> What is dark matter?

Well, maybe that's the answer to the missing mass, we like to call dark-matter and other mumbo-jumbo. We don't see this mass, because they are stars with Dyson spheres around them. The vast mass of galaxies is being harvested except for a few % of stars left open for auxiliary reasons.

>>10815800
There is some indications that hybridisation Homo Sapiens with Neanderthals had benefits relating to intelligence.

>>10815946
>We can't even see the planets
We expect we can in a few decades using star shades. Early tests are promising.

>>10816996
>I have no doubt that there is other intelligent life out there, but am almost 100% positive none of them are technologically advanced.
Why not? Use of powerful radios could be a short transition period in a civilisation. Some of the strongest sources on Earth were military radars and these are now using far less power and more increased sensitivity.

>>10817005
>Not enough metalicity in the universe before popullation one stars.
Is metallicity needed? After all, Earth is mainly silicates and much of the heavy elements sank to the core early on.

>>10817131
And most heavy elements are radioactive, toxic or both.

>>10816967
No sir no bacteria here sir ;)

>>10812402
>sample size: 1327 stars
>number of stars in the Milky Way: 250 million ± 150 million

Did not even sample 1 percent of the galaxy, are you retarded?

>>10817326
>Though its funny, every one of you I've ever met has been unable to conjure thought outside the material.

Please explain the schizo babble.

>>10812402
We have no reason to believe life exists elswhere

>>10817853
You’re retarded. Life existing at all is evidence of life elsewhere.

>>10812402
>>Most advanced SETI Analysis ever

still not looking for optical fiber civilizations, huh?

how odd.

>>10812573
The second part is completely wrong. The expected density of civilizations N years after the big bang has nothing to with the expected "active" lifetime of the universe.

>>10817348
Dyson spheres would still emit IR radiation.

>>10817560
In astronomy, metal means anything heavier than helium.

>>10817904
> what is a null hypothesis

>>10817240
I like this as a logical extreme because it shows how useless any argument is on aliens is. It's the whole ants under the highway argument. I might as well propose that we're part of advanced system produced by an ultra-intelligent species to power whatever it is they use.

>>10812682
We do not """condense into cities""". Big, dense cities tend to grow up around coastlines, because they become transportation hubs. There's money to be made there, and that money needs people to earn it, do the things that make the money come to them, and rather than have people commute long distances from their farms on horses or in carriages every single day, places to stay get built at these hubs so workers can stay close to their jobs. As civilization progressed and transportation became mechanized, commuting became easier, but the cities just got denser and denser, transportation still takes time, and it's just easier and more sensible to many people to stay in the cities, close to the things they need to do every day (like their employment). This continues and expands, and the cities grow and become more dense, expand upwards, and so on.

>upload our minds
never happen
>you think I'm joking
functionally speaking you may as well be
>complex life gets small not big
Says who?
Humans have gotten taller over the last couple hundred years or so.
Also life tends to *propagate* itself, move *outwards*. So really you must be kidding.

Now, this isn't necessarily to say that *all* sentient life/technological civilizations would expand outwards from their own homeworld. Their society, their system(s) of beliefs, economics, politics, might all preclude or even prohibit expansion outside their home planet.
What if they're super-paranoid, realize that their world 'leaking' electromagnetic radiation from communications might bring other beings to their world, and the thought terrifies them so much that they mandate everything be shielded and capped off such that nothing leaves their planet at all? Not so far-fetched, there's plenty of humans who think that way.

>>10812402
Imagine a species who thinks their baseline is absolute.

>>10815818
Poster I was replying to said they were "not a technologically intelligent species", so take it up with him.

>>10818073
Thanks anon.
On a side note: Can we stop letting astrophysicists name things?

>>10816706
>the there-are-no-Dyson-spheres-proves-there-are-no-aliens poster again
Fucking kys

>>10816967

That’s more or less what happened with the LR experiment.

>>10818272
Right now our homeworld is the equivalent of an electromagnetic lure. It wouldn't take much to push the noise below that of our sun. Just the destruction of all wireless devices.

I'm not sure our species is adaptable enough to change their behaviour to the point where they need to plug their mobile device into a port to be able to use it.

The most likely scenario is that we will continue to be a lure and eventually we will attract the attention of something. Otherwise where have all the other signals gone?

>>10818596
>Otherwise where have all the other signals gone?

Why would they ever be made dumbass? Why would we detect the electromagnetic signals of a species on the other side of the galaxy? It’d NEVER happen.

>>10812409
cute sayings are for faggots!

>>10817560
>>I have no doubt that there is other intelligent life out there, but am almost 100% positive none of them are technologically advanced.
>Why not?

Because in less than 500 years we will have settled the solar system, in less than one thousand years we will be an interstellar civilization, and in about one million years have settled the galaxy.

Once a civilization has fusion energy plants, for all practical purposes they are a Class 1 civilization and if they are willing to expand off their planet (like humans are) they will become a Class 2 civilization quickly.

If their were other technologically intelligent species we would see their signs everywhere.

The great silence (i.e. absence of SETI signals from alien civilizations) is perhaps the strongest indicator of all that high relativistic velocities are attainable and that everybody out there knows it.

The sobering truth is that relativistic civilizations are a potential nightmare to anyone living within range of them. The problem is that objects traveling at an appreciable fraction of light speed are never where you see them when you see them (i.e., light-speed lag). Relativistic rockets, if their owners turn out to be less than benevolent, are both totally unstoppable and totally destructive. A starship weighing in at 1,500 tons (approximately the weight of a fully fueled space shuttle sitting on the launchpad) impacting an earthlike planet at "only" 30 percent of lightspeed will release 1.5 million megatons of energy -- an explosive force equivalent to 150 times today's global nuclear arsenal...

The game plan is, in its simplest terms, the relativistic inverse to the golden rule: "Do unto the other fellow as he would do unto you and do it first."

Presumably there is some sort of inhibition against killing another member of our own species, because we have to work to overcome it.

But the rules do not apply to other species. Both humans and wolves lack inhibitions against killing chickens.

It's an entirely new situation, emerging from the physical possibilities that will face any species that can overcome the natural interstellar quarantine of its solar system. The choices seem unforgiving, and the mind struggles to imagine circumstances under which an interstellar species might make contact without triggering the realization that it can't afford to be proven wrong in its fears.

They won't come to get our resources or our knowledge or our women or even because they're just mean and want power over us. They'll come to destroy us to insure their survival, even if we're no apparent threat, because species death is just too much to risk, however remote the risk

>>10812682
Why not both?

>>10818917
The most humbling feature of the relativistic bomb is that even if you happen to see it coming, its exact motion and position can never be determined; and given a technology even a hundred orders of magnitude above our own, you cannot hope to intercept one of these weapons. It often happens, in these discussions, that an expression from the old west arises: "God made some men bigger and stronger than others, but Mr. Colt made all men equal." Variations on Mr. Colt's weapon are still popular today, even in a society that possesses hydrogen bombs. Similarly, no matter how advanced civilizations grow, the relativistic bomb is not likely to go away...

We ask that you try just one more thought experiment. Imagine yourself taking a stroll through Manhattan, somewhere north of 68th street, deep inside Central Park, late at night. It would be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know that the park is dangerous at night. That's when the monsters come out. There's always a strong undercurrent of drug dealings, muggings, and occasional homicides.

It is not easy to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. They dress alike, and the weapons are concealed. The only difference is intent, and you can't read minds.

Stay in the dark long enough and you may hear an occasional distance shriek or blunder across a body.

How do you survive the night? The last thing you want to do is shout, "I'm here!" The next to last thing you want to do is reply to someone who shouts, "I'm a friend!"

What you would like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make noise or move towards a light where you might be spotted, and it is difficult to find either a policeman or your way out without making yourself known. Your safest option is to hunker down and wait for daylight, then safely walk out.

There are, of course, a few obvious differences between Central Park and the universe.

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends

>>10818917
>>10818921
Just reposting from an older thread, seems relevant

IF life can come into existence from non-living matter, it's likely that life is extremely rare and intelligent life is magnitudes more rare. Add on top of that the immense time scales, and the chances of two intelligent civilizations making contact with each other while both still exist is unfathomably rare. Believing that that it's even remotely likely that contact/discovery would take place during your minuscule lifetime is beyond retarded. On top of that, given the vast difference between what we can imagine is possible to do with technology based on our current understanding of physics vs. what we actually can do, we can assume that we are very primitive. Which means that if contact were to take place, it almost certainly would be the aliens initiating it.

>>10812656

Cartoons for just when you think tard tier thinking could not get any worse.

We need to remember that there are many cretins who, although literate and capable of appearing intelligent, are in fact incapable of higher thought, especially in terms of grasping all but the most rudimentary concepts.

If you need convincing of this then just talk with any engineer.

>>10812656

Intelligent ants would immediately realize straight lines intersecting at 90 degree angles creating perfectly equal sized squares (the floor tiles) are NOT natural. Also the smooth surfaces the get regularly cleaned would also a sign of un-natural activity.

Ants would know that there is some intelligent species out there.

>>10818917
>>10818921
The problem with this theory is that any species capable of firing relativistic projectiles will also be able to build big-ass telescopes, capable of spotting the signs of life on other planets across broad swaths of galaxy. So merely staying quiet on the radio wouldn't help; any sufficiently paranoid species could throw projectiles at other life barring worlds.

>>10816513
That can't be right, since there are many proofs for the existence of God, and none for Aliens.

>>10819688
God breaks the laws of physics and thus isn't real.

>>10812402
In their own solar systems

Space is too large for organic life to colonize

>>10818921
I think eti species would judge us as we judge ourselves. Given the hypocritical nature of our society they could be forgiven for believing it was perfectly acceptable for them to mistreat us.

Just look at how we treat each other.

What logic can you use to tell an alien visitor that it's unacceptable for them to treat any of our species the way we treat each other. Logic doesn't work that way.

Most of our species is unfit to be taken to the stars. I don't want these people setting an unacceptable example of what behaviours are permissible in our society.

>>10819688
>Proofs based on Aristotle’s physics that have been wrong since Newton

>>10819829
That proof isn't based on the things that Aristotle was wrong about.
>>10819755
Why do you believe abiding by the laws of physics a prerequisite for existing? Do you think that those laws of physics spontaneously? The laws of physics owe their existence to pre-existing conditions.

>>10819688
>In my proposed model, the only thing that really exists, that causes every object and event and law and force and constant of physics, and has no other cause of its existence, is space-time. It is the ultimate actual thing, that actualizes all potentials; and which in turn is not actualized by anything else.
>Spacetime:
>It’s “incorporeal” (it is not itself a body, but by itself is the absence of all body).
>It’s “immaterial” (in the only sense Feser requires: it isn’t made of matter, nor does it exist “in” space or time).
>It’s “immutable” (space-time can change in quantity and shape, and thereby manifest different things, but every bit of it is always the same as every other bit of it; >its ultimate properties never change; just as God can think and feel and act, while his ultimate properties never change).
>It’s “one” (a continuum, a unity, unbroken, unbreakable).
> It’s “eternal” (you can shrink or squeeze it, but you can’t get rid of it; it could well have always existed; and there is no sense in which space or time is located “in” space or time; it just literally is all space and time together, requiring no further location).
>It’s “perfect” (in the sense Feser requires: every fundamental property of space-time is always and everywhere fully actualized).
>It’s “fully good” (by Feser’s definition, which contrary to his confusing use of the word “good” isn’t a value judgment, but simply the assertion that it has no unactualized features; it isn’t “broken” or “working below its potential”).
>And it’s “omnipotent” (in the only sense Feser requires: it can realize all things that can exist or happen, and therefore has all the power that it is possible for any entity to have; in fact no power can exist, but through it).

>So Feser is just arguing space-time is God. Mindless, valueless, merely physical space-time. That’s just atheism.

>>10819857
>That proof isn't based on the things that Aristotle was wrong about.

Yes it is. You won’t find the term “actualized potential” in any modern physics textbook.

>>10819896
11 is also just wrong. There’s no logical problem with a series with no first term.

>>10818982
Na thew tiles have been there for eons as far as they're concerned

>>10819896
>space-time can change in quantity and shape
>you can shrink or squeeze it,
Those are all actualizations of potentials, and those the thing you described as space-time cannot be purely actual, meaning it was created by God, who is purely actual.
>it just literally is all space and time together
You're claiming that everything created everything, and that everything is also purely actual, but the purely actual actualizer is by definition not created.

>>10819922
>Purely actual

You won’t find that term in any modern physics textbook either.

Aristotle’s physics are wrong.

>>10819912
Because modern physics textbooks are limited in their scope. That doesn't mean that the concepts of actual and potential aren't useful.
>>10819914
Feser address this point. A hierarchical series is different from a linear series, the former cannot regress infinitely. In a hierarchical series, the members of that series must ultimately derive their power to actualize potentials in a purely actual actualizer.

>>10819922
>>It’s “immutable” (space-time can change in quantity and shape, and thereby manifest different things, but every bit of it is always the same as every other bit of it; >its ultimate properties never change; just as God can think and feel and act, while his ultimate properties never change).

> It’s “eternal” (you can shrink or squeeze it, but you can’t get rid of it; it could well have always existed; and there is no sense in which space or time is located “in” space or time; it just literally is all space and time together, requiring no further location).

It's immutable and eternal therefore it's it's ultimate properties do not change therefore it is the actualizer of potential.
It's eternal therefore not created.

>>10819939
>but every bit of it is always the same as every other bit of it
The fact that it can be divided into parts, and those parts have unactualized potentials (some parts actualize only certain potentials while others actualize other potentials) means that space-time cannot be purely actual, and thus, it depends on a purely actual actualizer for the actualization of its potentials.

>>10819933
>That doesn't mean that the concepts of actual and potential aren't useful.

They aren’t, because Aristotle’s physics are wrong. No one talks like that anymore anywhere except for dumbass Christian apologists trying to make claims about reality based on physics from two thousand four hundred years ago. The Aristotlean notion that change in an object must be caused by some other object is extremely and quite literally antiquated, and Newton dispensed with such bizarre ideas centuries ago when he wrote that objects in motion will stay in motion and objects at rest will stay at rest all on their own, and an object in motion need not have ever actually been at rest.

>Those are all actualizations of potentials, and those the thing you described as space-time cannot be purely actual, meaning it was created by God, who is purely actual.

You literally just said the process of causation was caused. That’s a contradiction, and you’re a moron.

>>10819954
>>It’s “immutable” (space-time can change in quantity and shape, and thereby manifest different things, but every bit of it is always the same as every other bit of it; >its ultimate properties never change; just as God can think and feel and act, while his ultimate properties never change).
Its ultimate properties never change therefore it is never unactualsed just as God is never unactualized.

>>10819957
>The Aristotlean notion that change in an object must be caused by some other object is extremely and quite literally antiquated
>Newton dispensed with such bizarre ideas centuries ago when he wrote that objects in motion will stay in motion and objects at rest will stay at rest all on their own,
Newton didn't disprove Aristotle's claim, Newton described the behavior of objects after they were set in motion, or if they weren't set in motion, that isn't a claim that that motion isn't caused by something external to the object, or that the very existence of that object doesn't depend on it being created beforehand, either by human or natural processes. If you do have evidence that an uncaused object can exist, I would like to know of it.
>You literally just said the process of causation was caused
I didn't. Anything that isn't purely actual is ultimately created by the purely actual, and space-time isn't purely actual.
>Its ultimate properties never change
But its individual parts change. That is still an actualization of potential, and so space-time cannot be purely actual.

>>10819990
meant for >>10819964 as well

>>10819957 #
>The Aristotlean notion that change in an object must be caused by some other object is extremely and quite literally antiquated
>Newton dispensed with such bizarre ideas centuries ago when he wrote that objects in motion will stay in motion and objects at rest will stay at rest all on their own,
Newton didn't disprove Aristotle's claim, Newton described the behavior of objects after they were set in motion, or if they weren't set in motion, that isn't a claim that that motion isn't caused by something external to the object, or that the very existence of that object doesn't depend on it being created before, either by human or natural processes. If you do have evidence that an uncaused object can exist, I would like to know of it.
>You literally just said the process of causation was caused
I didn't. Anything that isn't purely actual is ultimately created by the purely actual, and space-time isn't purely actual.
>>10819964
>Its ultimate properties never change
But its individual parts change. That is still an actualization of potential, and so space-time cannot be purely actual

>>10818935
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect