/sci/ - Science & Math

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>9477869
But it is. If evidence for aliens is possible then its absence is evidence against aliens.

>>9477867
Space is big, stars are far apart, interstellar flight will be expensive (in terms of required resources even if aliens don't use money.)

Aside from knowledge, there's nothing worth transporting between stars. Heck, even if there were gold bars lying free for the taking on the surface of the Moon, it wouldn't pay to go and collect them. Hauling something from the stars is a billion times harder.
The Unobtanium in "Avatar" is just a McGuffin to drive the plot. If your world was entirely lacking in essential element X, it would be cheaper to make it by nuclear transmutation than to import it.

>>9477867
dark forest

>>9477872
what do you mean by evidence 'being possible'? possible refers to acts, not objects (it doesn't make sense to say a dog is possible)

>>9477878
How are we gonna make oil when we run out faggot?

>>9477869
the absence of evidence is not a proof of absence

>>9477899
>How are we gonna make oil when we run out faggot?
Why the homophobia?

the absence of the proof of evidence of absence of absence of proof evidence proves proof of evidence of proof-abscence continuum

>>9477902
>the absence of evidence is not a proof of absence
Of course, since it isn't even evidence of absence then it's certainly not proof of absence either.

>>9477899
Make it from coal

THEY'RE ALREADY HERE

OPEN YOUR MINDS!

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/12/19/ufo-department-of-defense-orig-lon-ak.cnn

If they existed they would need a good reason. Maybe they have nothing to gain from us as we could be viewed as an inferior species on an intellectual level and therefore not waste time with us but rather wait as we develop and are able to develop extraterestrial relationships. The only thing we are capable at is sending signals, observing the universe in a rather small distance. Maybe there are quite a lot of civilisations such as ours and also what if they just do not want to interfere and let us develop on our own thanks to some intergalactical alliance having some deal to not interfere because of some intergalactical rights act or some crazy shit. We may never know.

They could be around and we are not able to detect them. They could also deliberately avoid contact with us because it might fuck us over in some way, knowing there is a way more advanced civilization out there. It would immediately become the absolute center of our exietence.

>>9477945
The stupid part of the UFO movement is the business about coming all this way just to play peek-a-boo with isolated drivers. If you had technology to travel between stars, then if you didn't want to be seen you wouldn't be seen.

Notice that the incidence of "it circled my car but I didn't have a camera so I can't back up my story" has gone WAY down since everyone began carrying smartphones?
It's getting really hard to offer reasonable excuses. (Of course, the "I want to believe" types will accept unreasonable excuses.)

>>9477878
You need to read up on what the Fermi paradox really is. What you see as a problem is already discussed in the premise.

>>9477867
Realising that number of variables that have to be meet in precise order is like 500 thus making "Fermi paradox" into "Fermi sad reality of lonely universe"

>>9477981
I know exactly what Fermi said.
If Earth isn't unique (and he could see no reason we are) then aliens OUGHT to exist on at least some worlds. Matter of statistics.
The paradox is "why aren't they here?"

Many many possibilities. Frank Drake tried to reduce it to an equation, though even he admitted many of the quantities were stabs-in-the-dark. Life may be rare. Intelligent life even rarer. Technical civilizations short-lived. We don't know.

I offered my take. However many technically advanced aliens there may or may not be, very few will find it worthwhile to go traveling.
What do you think "I see as a problem which was already discussed in the premise?"

There are still way too many retards here for first contact. I mean imagine tomorrow an interstellar ship landing on earth and some super advanced creatures walking out. All the religious people (and there are billions of them on earth) would lose their shit and probably think judgement day is coming. All stock markets would crash because nobody would know what the world would look like a week from now. In that chaos some governments might panic and start preemptive wars. All in all, contact with an Alien civilization would probably spark chaos on earth and thats why they wre hiding until we are in a stage of development where contact will not kill us.

>>9477977
>muh cameraphone argument
Actually UFO photos have increased but nobody will take any seriously anymore because so has the ability to fake them.

>>9477922
The absence does rule some things out though.
We can rule out those aliens that satisfy the following 2 conditions:
1) They are capable of revealing unmistakable evidence of their existence to us.
2) They wish to do 1)

Let us do a proof by contradiction.
0) We do not have any unmistakable evidence of the existence of aliens.
If aliens that satisfy conditions 1) and 2) existed, by condition 2), they would perform 1). If they performed 1), we would have unmistakable evidence of their existence. This contradicts 0).
Therefore, aliens that satisfy conditions 1) and 2) do not exist.

The absence of evidence is evidence of some aliens' absence.

>>9477996
>very few will find it worthwhile to go traveling
Far enough to meet us, they can have a shitload of colonies around their homeworld.

>>9477867
There is no paradox. We don't know how rare technological civilisations or life in general are. We might very well be all alone in the galaxy

>>9477899
>using exajoules of energy to transport kilojoules of petroleum
Nice bait.

>>9477890
The chance of such evidence being found is nonzero.

>>9478020
Titan has a tiny gravity well you mongoloid.

>>9478025
>The chance of such evidence being found is nonzero.
then the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>9477867
I don't think we've even been looking hard enough. We've only barely started to be able to detect exoplanets orbiting nearby stars within the last couple of decades. And SETI just looks at radio signals within an arbitrary and narrow frequency band. Alien civilizations probably wouldn't even use primitive broadcast radio technology to communicate.

And we can barely resolve much detail about these planets other than basic parameters like orbital period, orbital radius, mass, diameter. Maybe some crude spectral analysis of the atmospheres of some of the nearer planets.

If you looked at earth from 100 ly away using the same instruments and techniques that we're currently using, then you wouldn't even be able to tell that there's a civilization on earth. We would just look like a fuzzy speck.

So I don't think we've collected enough detailed data to rule out the possibility of life or civilizations around nearby stars. Once we are able to build giant telescope arrays in space that can actually resolve clear images of continents and oceans on exoplanets, THEN maybe we can start to collect meaningful data.

the great filter is so obviously nuclear fission (and resulting fusion in thermonuclear weapons).
think about the fact that shit holes like pakistan and india figured out how to make a nuke (and america did it in the fucking 1940s).
50 years from now, the average high school student will be capable of making a 100mt bomb in his bedroom.

>>9477867
Aliens dont exists, or if they do, they brainlets that can't get to us.
My choice: the dont exist or are like animals but not intelligent

>>9478039
>thinking that once we have advanced spaceships capable of hauling billions of tons of mass around the solar system, we'd still be using petroleum as our energy source and not solar + nuclear

>>9478039
If there is a chance of evidence being found and increasing the probability of aliens existing, then it not being found decreases that probability. Simple Bayesian probability.

>>9478013
Could be.
But habitable planets may be rare. Interstellar colonies won't relieve population pressure and they won't provide any economic benefit to the homeworld. Not much incentive for colonizing once you've gotten past the point of ensuring a single catastrophe won't wipe out your species. (Well, a gamma ray burster might still sterilize a swathe of the galaxy, but I'm thinking asteroid impact. Something limited to a single planet.)

And the galaxy is big. Even if we build starships someday, we may never run into someone else's "sphere of influence".

Fermi knew there HAS been sufficient time to one species to have colonized the galaxy, colony by colony, even if limited to a small fraction of lightspeed. The "paradox" (which is a misnomer since it does not involve a logical contradiction) is simply a question of why it hasn't happened. He didn't know and, despite having discovered many exoplanets, we don't know either.

>>9478058
>>thinking that once we have advanced spaceships capable of hauling billions of tons of mass around the solar system, we'd still be using petroleum as our energy source and not solar + nuclear
Who are you quoting?

>>9478068
Whoops. Meant to reply to
>>9478029

>>9478068
not him, but obviously>>9478058 was meant for>>9477899

>>9478061
>If there is a chance of evidence being found and increasing the probability of aliens existing, then it not being found decreases that probability.
Proof?

>>9478039
you can never "prove" something doesnt exist, but you can prove that hiipothetical thing is not affecting you, or not present in certain area

>>9478020
One of the WORST, most insane SF stories I ever read involved importing oil from Titan in chemical-powered rockets. Probably in "If" or "Galaxy"; the editors didn't care much about technical feasibility. Wish I could find it again, if only as a horrid example of bad SF.

Oh, the plot? There's an accident, of course, and oil spills over everything. That's all I remember.

>>9478083
>you can never "prove" something doesnt exist
There's no rational representation of sqrt(2).

>>9477867
Every species sufficiently intelligent to build complex technology eventually builds waifu simulators and succumbs to their own autism. If there is any future for the species, it is with the war-like gigachads that will end the world with nukes.

>>9478063
It's pointless to go for a naturally habitable planet, if it's star gonna burn out in a few billion years. Red dwarfs are more valuable, even if some terraforming is needed.

>>9477867
"yeah we could waste a lot of resources, but what would we gain from having other people elsewhere?"

>>9478084
I don't get the problem, the first flight will cost you but the rest you can just use the free fuel.

>>9478086
>formal sciences are natural sciences

>>9478111
I like this new turtle-man wojak. Is it OC? Do you mind if I download it?

>>9478111
>>formal sciences are natural sciences
Who are you quoting?

I actually think that intelligent civilizations simply don't colonize.

We know one smart species, and that is us, so judging from our behaviour I don't think we will ever travel to distant solar systems. We already have the technology with which we could reach every planet in our solar system, and it would be relatively cheap to do so. Earth has a GDP of 80 trillion, visiting all the planets would cost like 200 billion a year, tops. That's 0,25% of our income, and yet we are not doing it.

I highly doubt this will change in the future. We have the technology, we could easily afford it, and yet we aren't doing it.

We are probably going to stay on this planet and, even if are still around when our sun is going to die, and we HAVE TO leave earth, we will probably only going to colonize only one new planet and leave it with that.

>>9478112
do it

>>9478098
This bait right?

>>9478114
you, faggot. You are comparing biology proofs to math proofs

>>9478078
Let E be evidence for X such that

P(X|E) > P(X)

P(~X|E) < P(~X)

If P(E) > 0, by Bayes' Theorem we have

P(E|~X) < P(E)

P(~E|~X) > P(~E)

Again utilizing Bayes' Theorem

P(~X|~E) > P(~X)

Thus by the definition of evidence that was our starting premise, ~E is evidence for ~X. In other words, the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X.

>>9478126
>you, faggot.
Why the homophobia?

>>9478124
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS-VPyLaJFM

>>9478018
>There is no paradox. We don't know how rare technological civilisations or life in general are. We might very well be all alone in the galaxy
Us being alone in the galaxy would make us special which does conflict with the standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) because it's premised on the generalized Copernican principle that we aren't special.

>>9478126
>You are comparing biology proofs to math proofs
Where did I do that? You said "you can never "prove" something doesnt exist" and I proved you wrong.

>>9478128
>In other words, the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X.
This is a non-sequitur.

>>9478138
>the sqrt(2) is a thing, not an idea

>>9477869
If you have literally no evidence of something then it’s not true. Accept that.

Things can be incredibly likely, like the existence of extraterrestrial life, but until you have proof it’s still just a shot in the dark.

>>9478150
>If you have literally no evidence of something then it’s not true. Accept that.
I don't accept that.

>>9478143
>>the sqrt(2) is a thing, not an idea
Platonists are not welcome here.

>>9478153
this boarda is for sci/ence not sup/erstition

>>9478165
>this boarda is for sci/ence not sup/erstition
You're the one making divine leaps of faith in claiming something is false based on "literally no evidence".

I see this discussion has devolved into pedantry and bickering. Carry on.

>>9477867
If civilizations colonize, then every galaxy will have just one civilization, and the is the first that develops. All others will sooner or later be colonized, and since they are thousands or millions of years behind in technological development, they have no chance to resist colonisation. Since there is no sign of colonisers in the milky way, we can safely assume that we are the first civilization here.

Colonisation between galaxies is probably impossible, because ever for faster-than-light travel these distances are too big.

>>9478107
Oil alone isn't rocket fuel. You need an oxidizer to burn it in.
And what are the economics of a cargo transport which expends 99.999 percent of its mass? Compare the size of a Saturn 5 to the box of rocks they brought back. A Titan shuttle would be FAR worse.
Not to mention capital costs, interest, salaries, etc.

>>9478048
Most sane comment in the thread.

>>9478134
>pop science

>>9478169
nobody said we are sure. But we asume they dont exist, just like ghosts, god, gnomes, etc
>inb4 fedora
>>9478158
do you think maths has the same method as fisics? It doesn't, lad

>>9478105
This is the most autistic reasoning ever. It’s like saying why ever leave your house when you can just jack off, eat the bugs that live in your woodwork and drink faucet water.

>>9478192
>do you think maths has the same method as fisics? It doesn't, lad
What do you mean by "method"?

There is evidence in both maths and physics.

>>9478192
>nobody said we are sure.
see >>9478150
>If you have literally no evidence of something then it’s not true

>>9477867
Didnt the United States government recently (like December recently) admit that they have footage of an aircraft of unknown origin, or UFO if you prefer, defying the laws of physics as we know them? Isnt that some kind of proof? I mean it was measured from two separate radar facilities traveling over 7000mph and making instant 90 degree turns. Is it unreasonable to think this is beyond our technological ability to the point of ruling out a secret military project?

I would cite a source but literally every major news outlet on the planet ran a story about it and nobody seems to care.

>>9478194
But that's what I do.

>>9478142
Then why demand proof? >>9478078

>>9478169
Provide me with one scrap of evidence showing for a fact that intelligent life exists out there. I’m not saying it doesn’t, nor that the possibility is nonexistent, but until you can prove it it’ll only be just that- a possibility.

>>9478205
>Then why demand proof?
Extraordinary claims such as "If there is a chance of evidence being found and increasing the probability of aliens existing, then it not being found decreases that probability" require something to back them up.

However, I don't see why me pointing out your non-sequitur has anything to do with why I asked.

>>9478208
>I’m not saying it doesn’t, nor that the possibility is nonexistent
Which is why I said I didn't accept that "it's not true" based on "literally no evidence".

>>9478198
no my but he is not that wrong. Anyways it is a retarded discusion, like god existance goes nowhere since nobody can prove aything.

>>9478211
Because there is no point to demanding period for a claim you believe to be a non sequitur. Fact is, it's not a non-sequitur since it destroys your argument that the Fermi paradox can be explained by"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" since this cannot be applied to a case like the Fermi paradox where evidence is expected.

>>9478197
My point is you cant prove the non existence of things like in math because thing are not done by completely known logical rules like math.

>>9478202
Can someone address this? Why is the Fermi paradox even being discussed? It seems like its been answered and we are not alone.

>>9478203
Hence why I said autistic.

>>9478222
>Because there is no point to demanding period for a claim you believe to be a non sequitur.
I don't know what you mean by this. If you could provide a proof without including what you're trying to prove as a non-sequitur then it would be fine (that's what I was hoping for when I asked for proof).

>>9478213
If there's no evidence, it's not true. This is grade school-level application of logic, anon.

>>9478234
>If there's no evidence, it's not true. This is grade school-level application of logic, anon.
Proof?

>>9478235
You're asking me for proof on how proof works?

>>9478239
>You're asking me for proof on how proof works?
No I'm asking for a proof of "If there's no evidence, it's not true."

>>9478241
>"If there's no evidence, it's not true."

That is proof. You need to prove something is true with evidence.

>>9478232
>If you could provide a proof without including what you're trying to prove as a non-sequitur
I proved what you asked me to prove, so how is it a non sequitur? A proof obviously contains what you're trying to prove as the conclusion.

>>9478247
>That is proof.
No, that's a claim. As you said yourself "You need to prove something is true with evidence." So what is your evidence that "If there's no evidence, it's not true."?

>>9478259
Wouldn't me not having evidence just prove my point?

>>9478264
>Wouldn't me not having evidence just prove my point?
No, because as you said "You need to prove something is true with evidence."

>>9478252
>I proved what you asked me to prove, so how is it a non sequitur?
Because what you we're meant to prove did not follow from the preceding lines.

>>9478136
Ok, then we are special in our own galaxy. There are still trillions of other galaxies

>>9478092
good post

>>9478270
I think you might actually be retarded.

>>9478279
>I think you might actually be retarded.
If "You need to prove something is true with evidence" then claiming "If there's no evidence, it's not true." is true without evidence is not a proof.

>>9478229
>>9478202
that video is fake as fuck, just seen it
https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

>>9478309
>released by the US government
>US government fully admits its a UFO
>several “eye” witnesses, some watching on radar, and several seeing it in person
>most witnesses are trained military personnel familiar with flying craft

>fake
For what purpose? Who benefits from faking this? What would it take to convince you? Is it possible that the technology displayed in the video is so advanced to the point that it seems fake to you because you cant comprehend the mechanisms at work?

>>9478309
it's not fake, but it's not an ufo either

>>9478271
How so?

>>9478379
>How so?
"In other words, the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X." does not follow from "Let E be evidence for X such that

P(X|E) > P(X)

P(~X|E) < P(~X)

If P(E) > 0, by Bayes' Theorem we have

P(E|~X) < P(E)

P(~E|~X) > P(~E)

Again utilizing Bayes' Theorem

P(~X|~E) > P(~X)

Thus by the definition of evidence that was our starting premise, ~E is evidence for ~X."

>>9478194
>This is the most autistic reasoning ever.
"resources are finite, let's not blow a significant amount on memes"

>>9477867
Sufficiently advanced civilizations don't use energy or matter for their doings, so we can't detect them.

The speed of light is a hard limit for the movement of matter through space, and building generation ships is a neigh impossible feat.

>>9478381
I'm asking how it doesn't follow.

>>9478416
>I'm asking how it doesn't follow.
I'm not sure what you mean, there's simply nothing connecting it to the other part of the post.

>>9478448
>~E is evidence for ~X.
>the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X.
These are clearly connected, they're the same thing. Stop avoiding the question. What does ~E and ~X mean in this context?

>>9478397
>building generation ships is a neigh impossible feat
... Insulate and use a rectifying antenna

>>9478454
>These are clearly connected, they're the same thing.
No, that would be begging the question.

>What does ~E and ~X mean in this context?
As you showed, ~E is evidence for ~X.

>>9478360
Then what is it? By the literal definition of UFO, it is a UFO.

>>9478460
>No, that would be begging the question.
Conclusion following an argument is not begging the question.

>As you showed, ~E is evidence for ~X.
That doesn't answer the question you're responding to. You are avoiding the question because you have no justification for your claim.

>>9478202
This. Fermi paradox solved.

/thread

>>9478468
>Conclusion following an argument is not begging the question.
The non-sequitur does not follow (by definition). Your argument is invalid because you assumed that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (which is what you were meant to prove).

>That doesn't answer the question you're responding to.
What part of the answer is unsatisfactory? You asked what ~E and ~X mean in this context and I told you.

>>9477867
Rare earth hypothesis. The universe is only 14 billion years old. That may sound like a lot but the average metallicity of a star is still very very low. Population I stars only got started about 3-4 billion years ago with our sun being oddly metal rich which makes developing life prior to planets such as ours nearly impossible. Population I stars like our sun are only 2% of all stars in the universe and just try making a rocky planet suitable for life without one.

Give it time, the universe is still in its infancy.

>>9478476
>The non-sequitur does not follow (by definition).
This is a circular argument.

>Your argument is invalid because you assumed that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (which is what you were meant to prove).
No I didn't. I assumed that a) the chance of having evidence for X is nonzero and b) evidence for X increases the chance of X existing.

>What part of the answer is unsatisfactory?
There is no answer. I asked what ~E and ~X mean in order to find your disagreement with how I interpreted them. You did not provide an interpretation, just what I proved about them. If you wish to say that they are not what I interpreted, provide an alternative interpretation. But we already know you can't, since you are being evasive. It is clear that the complement of having evidence for X is evidence for X being absent.

>>9478492
>This is a circular argument.
No, that wasn't an argument. A non-sequitur (by definition) is a claim that does not follow.

Either sentient alien life is rare, or interstellar space travel is impossible.

>>9478492
>I assumed that a) the chance of having evidence for X is nonzero and b) evidence for X increases the chance of X existing.
You also assumed that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (which is what you were meant to prove).

>>9478492
>There is no answer.
What was " ~E is evidence for ~X"?

>>9478492
>You did not provide an interpretation, just what I proved about them.
That's all they mean in this context.

>>9478494
You haven't shown how it is a non sequitur, so saying it doesn't follow is a circular argument.

>>9477912
why the assumption that it's fear?
why the assumption that it's irrational?

>>9478498
No I didn't. Where does the proof use that assumption?

>>9478505
>why the assumption that it's fear?
"Faggot" is a homophobic slur.

>>9478499
A non sequitur.

>>9478504
>You haven't shown how it is a non sequitur, so saying it doesn't follow is a circular argument.
You seem confused, "it doesn't follow" is not an argument, it's a claim.

If you attempted to represent your argument symbolically, you will see that the final claim can not follow from the rest of the "proof" provided.

>>9478508
That's certainly a nice assertion there faggot.

>>9478511
>A non sequitur.
In what argument?

>>9478514
>That's certainly a nice assertion there faggot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Homophobic_slurs

>>9478507
>Where does the proof use that assumption?
Your "proof" uses that assumption (which is what you were meant to prove) to connect "~E is evidence for ~X" to "the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X".

>>9478501
Wrong. They mean absence of E and absence of X.

What if there IS sentient, intelligent life out there, they KNOW we are here and they HAVE the means to travel all the way here but they don't want to because they are afraid of what could happen?

Just think about it, if we discovered a developed civilization somewhere relatively 'close', would we actually WANT to go there? They could be hostile, the biosphere in their planet could be poisonous/fatal to us, they could be actually pacific but misinterpret our intentions and strike preemptively.

There's no reason to think an advanced alien species would not consider all of these hypothesis about us if they discovered us first.

>>9478520
No it doesn't. The only thing one needs to connect "~E is evidence for ~X" to "the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X" is that ~E = absence of evidence for X and ~X = absence of X. This is far less than assuming the proposition itself. Stop lying.

>>9478515
The argument that you have answered the question.

>>9478528
>The only thing one needs to connect "~E is evidence for ~X" to "the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X" is that ~E = absence of evidence for X and ~X = absence of X.
>~E = absence of evidence
Right, which is what you were meant to prove.

>>9478532
>The argument that you have answered the question.
Which argument do you mean? I don't think I made any such argument.

Maybe they just haven't found us yet.

Something being likely to happen is not necessarily a guarantee.

>>9478513
>You seem confused, "it doesn't follow" is not an argument, it's a claim.
It's both.

>If you attempted to represent your argument symbolically, you will see that the final claim can not follow from the rest of the "proof" provided.
A symbolic argument requires interpretations of the symbols. I provided an interpretation and I am still waiting for your argument as to how that interpretation is false. If the complement of having evidence for X is not it being absent, then what is the complement?

>>9478538
>It's both.
Wrong.

>>9478538
>If the complement of having evidence for X is not it being absent, then what is the complement?
As you proved, the complement of E is evidence for ~X.

>>9478538
>A symbolic argument requires interpretations of the symbols.
Wrong. (True) Symbolic arguments are true regardless of interpretation. In fact this is one of the greatest benefits of symbolic arguments.

>>9478533
>Right, which is what you were meant to prove.
It's proven by the fact that the complement of having evidence of X is not having evidence of X, meaning the evidence is absent. It's proven by the plain meaning of the words used. Claiming that this can only be proven by assuming the proposition is nothing but a desperate lie.

finding aliens

>>9478534
This is a rhetorical argument:
>>There is no answer.
>What was " ~E is evidence for ~X"?

>>9478541
See >>9478541

>>9478548
>It's proven by the fact that the complement of having evidence of X is not having evidence of X, meaning the evidence is absent. It's proven by the plain meaning of the words used.
I suggest you represent your argument symbolically, since it seems very muddled

>>9478552
That's a question, not a rhetorical argument.

>>9478542
That doesn't contradict the fact that ~E is the absence of evidence for X.

>>9478558
>That doesn't contradict the fact that ~E is the absence of evidence for X.
That "fact" has not been proven.

>>9477977 >>9478007
aliens don't have the ability to block cellphone vids?

The dumbest program ever is the one where they sent signals out trying to get the attention of aliens. If they really believe there are ET civilizations out there, they would rename the program "Dinner Bell, come eat us" or "Slaves for Free, come get us" or "Annihilate us now before we become a threat, because we'd do the same to you if given a chance"

>>9478545
>Wrong. (True) Symbolic arguments are true regardless of interpretation.
This is a non sequitur. I did not say it requires interpretation to be true. If we want to connect the symbolic argument to a non-symbolic phrase such as "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" then this requires interpretation.

>>9478558
>That doesn't contradict the fact that ~E is the absence of evidence for X.
You need to show that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, not that evidence of absence is absence of evidence.

>>9478557
A question can be a rhetorical argument and is in this case. The point of the question is to contradict the statement preceding it. Just as I asked you for an interpretation to contradict my own.

>>9478115
its because our solar system is shit, there are only 2 habitable planets.

>>9478570
>A question can be a rhetorical argument and is in this case.
This is a non-sequitur.

>>9478555
The argument is clearly presented. Contradict it or concede.

>>9478559
That doesn't respond to the argument you're quoting. Again, your proposed interpretation doesn't contradict mine, so it doesn't help you.

>>9478178
ok

railgun the oil back to earth.

>>9478566
I did that already. See >>9478128

>>9478575
You claimed it's a question, not a rhetorical argument. But this makes no sense, since a question can be a rhetorical argument.

>>9478576
>The argument is clearly presented.
It's certainly not. If such a short argument were able to be represented symbolically (in a valid form) you likely would have already instead of continuing to rehash the same debunked claims.

>>9478562
Ah, you've been reading Damon Knight. Or saw the episode of The Twilight Zone.
If I'm right, and interstellar travel usually isn't worth the cost, the BEMS can't do anything to us.
Probably the worst that can happen (in a few centuries or millennia) is we get a signal back. Which would, at least, answer Fermi's question.

>>9478586
Which part is unclear? Which part do you disagree with?

1. the complement of having evidence of X is not having evidence of X

2. not having evidence of X is it being absent

>>9478585
>You claimed it's a question, not a rhetorical argument. But this makes no sense, since a question can be a rhetorical argument.
"Can be" does not mean "is necessarily". My claim remains true since the category of rhetorical arguments is not equivalent to the category of questions.

>>9478590
>Which part is unclear? Which part do you disagree with?
see >>9478381

>>9478591
>"Can be" does not mean "is necessarily".
Non-sequitur. Only "cannot be" would warrant the claim "that's a question, not a rhetorical argument."

>My claim remains true since the category of rhetorical arguments is not equivalent to the category of questions.
Whether your claim is true is irrelevant towards whether the argument for it is valid. "That's a question, not a rhetorical argument" is invalid.

>>9478595
>Only "cannot be" would warrant the claim "that's a question, not a rhetorical argument."
Wrong. Your claim remains untrue since the category of rhetorical arguments is not equivalent to the category of questions.

>>9478592
That's doesn't answer the question you're responding to, yet again. Your continuous evasion indicates you have lost the argument. Good night.

>>9478596
>Your claim remains untrue since the category of rhetorical arguments is not equivalent to the category of questions.
That's irrelevant towards the validity of your argument, yet again.

>>9478597
>That's doesn't answer the question you're responding to, yet again.
You asked what part of the argument is unclear, and I linked to a post specifying the single implication which is not logically valid. If you remain confused, I suggest you represent your argument symbolically, since it seems very muddled

>>9478599
>That's irrelevant towards the validity of your argument, yet again.
The category of rhetorical arguments is not equivalent to the category of questions. Therefore my question need not be a rhetorical argument.

>>9478584
>I did that already. See >>9478128
No, if you had done that then you would have had to start with absence of evidence and concluded that you have evidence of absence, not started with evidence of absence and concluded to have absence of evidence.

>>9478480
This, we are just very early and very very lucky

>>9478039
>>9478025
>>9477996
>>9477922
>>9477916
>>9477912
>>9477902
You dumb faggots need to stop making arguments based in semantics and linguistic confusions fucking kys.

>>9477867
Actual ayys are too advanced for our primitive shit to even detect.

>>9478600
You ignored the argument presented here >>9478590 and backtracked. I showed it's validity, and you did not respond, meaning you lost the argument.

>>9478601
See >>9478601

>>9478603
I didn't "start" with either whatever you think that means. I showed that the definition of evidence for X implies that its absence is evidence against X. Your post is just gibberish.

>>9478276
>Ok, then we are special in our own galaxy. There are still trillions of other galaxies
We're probably not special either in our own galaxy or in the universe in general is the point. There's evidence of extraterrestrial water even within the very small scope of our own solar system, and all of the conditions believed to be involved in life on Earth are available in plenty of other non-Earth locations, so it probably isn't a very good guess that we're the sole bastion of life in the entire Milky Way.

>>9478784
>You ignored the argument presented here >>9478590 and backtracked.
There's no argument in that post.

>>9478784
>I didn't "start" with either whatever you think that means. I showed that the definition of evidence for X implies that its absence is evidence against X. Your post is just gibberish.
I suggest you represent your argument symbolically, since it seems very muddled

>>9478150
why do you assume that if the evidence exists, that we would be able to uncover it?

Extraterrestrial life may exist, but it wouldn't be as evolved as mankind. There are millions of species on earth and we're the only ones capable of creating a civilization. Why would extraterrestrial life act like us when we're clearly the outlier here ?

>>9477942
>If they existed they would need a good reason.
The Fermi Paradox is not "Why aren't they here?" It's "Why have we seen no evidence for them anywhere?"

We see no evidence of alien megastructure construction anywhere, even though they've had billions of years to do it. We see no stars blinking out as they are encircled by dyson swarms. No cold spots that were completely mined away. No radio transmissions. No exoplanets with atmospheres that are unexplainable by natural geology. And just saying "aliens like to hide for reason x, y, or z" doesn't work because it assumes every alien civilization has the same goals and ethics. Worse, it even assumes that every member of every civilization wants to hide. This is absurd.

>>9478849
Because there are 500 billion stars in our galaxy, and 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. It is exceedingly unlikely we are the only intelligent life in the universe, especially when you consider many of these stars are 3rd generation; some of these solar systems have a ~9 billion year head start on us.

>>9477867
Since this universe is cruel and uncaring I suspect something just kills most/all sentient life.

>>9477878
Iridium and other platinum group metals are worth getting.

>>9478480
>tfw humans are actually the old precursor race

>>9478907
Great Filter

>>9478913
No they're not. Not even close. Not between stars, certainly.
Most optimistic scenario possible. Transport costs no more than the energy required. No ship, no rockets, no insane mass-ratio. Huge mass driver on planet X accelerates your ingots to 10 percent of lightspeed. COD in 43 years, at a minimum.
Each kilogram now has 0.5*30,000,000^2 = 4.5e14 joules of energy. 4.4e15 watt-seconds. 1.25e8 kilowatt-hours. Electricity costs 12 cents per kilowatt hour. $15,000,000 per kilo.
Platinum is currently $32,411.17 per kilo.

>>9478913
With sufficient technology, any element can be produced in a lab.We could be 10, 100, or 1000 years away from it, but that's nothing.

>>9478945
On the moon or local asteroids.

He3 from the moon also makes sense

>>9477867
They’re an octave up on the quantospectramic scale so although our 5th dimensional anchor earth casts through a 4th dimensional lens many 3rd dimensional shadow earths from Light. The sky is actually Absolutely littered with ships and stations and even space elevators from the ground, they’re just right out of your frequency my friend. With tuning however, you may perceive these beings

>>9477867
Intelligent life is extremely rare, thus there are few technological civilizations

>>9477867
We just haven't found them yet, because our technology is not good enough. They would probably use directed radio to save energy and there's nothing indicating that they might just try to contact random planets in search of life.

Also, I have a suspicion that the long, thin, rapidly rotating asteroid that entered our Solar System on a slingshot trajectory may be a form of alien spacecraft; rapidly rotating suggests it could be generating artificial gravity, and it's not extremely likely for a random chunk of space rock to put itself in a trajectory like that. It's probably nothing, but we can at least hope.

>>9477867
>>9477880
This. See https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Dark-Forest-Theory-of-the-cosmos-which-is-a-response-to-the-Fermi-Paradox..

We interact with a relatively small sphere of the universe, and even so long as FTL travel is impossible, there is is practical limit to the size of our sphere. Presumbably, all orher life is confined to their own sphere, and sparsely placed enough that we don't overlap.

>>9478792
>>9478795
I'm not the anon you've been arguing with but I constructed an example where the absence of evidence is evidence of some absence.
See >>9478010

>>9479056
It's like being on the outside of the surface of a balloon, there's a size limit but there's no edge

>>9479044
> to save energy
If there were greatly more technologically advanced than us I don;t see a need to save energy

>>9479056
> FTL travel is impossible
interstellar travel over great distances is still possible without FTL, when Fermi did the initial back of the envelope calculation that estimated that the galaxy could be colonized in maybe a million or so years he was assuming sub-light travel

>>9479050
I think the second axiom is questionable.

Is there actually a need to constantly expand? I don't think there is. Survival doesn't depend on constant expansion, although constant expansion is a potential avenue for survival.

>>9477867
FTL is impossible and interstellar travel is too high a barrier for entry.

Also the Fermi paradox is not a paradox.

>>9478792
There is. The fact that you feel the need to lie and deflect to this extent means you've lost. Thank you for conceding defeat.

>>9478508
I doubt the people you characterize as "homophobes" are actually scared of homos, just find them lesser. I'm not scared of cockroaches but I still don't want to live with them.

>>9477912
Also is it literally your very first day here?

>>9478050
The problem is sourcing and processing the raw materials.

>>9479151
I'm pretty scared of Turks myself.

>>9479119
> why not save energy
Every little helps, and that surplus could be used for a more powerful transmitter, which may be necessary over light-years. Plus, it reduces radio noise.

>>9477912

>>9479136
nigger, something like project Orion could actually travel interstellar distances in relatively short time, and its based around using nukes as propulsion

I think there's a great filter ahead of us that wiped many civilisations before.
That's why we've never heard of aliens: they're extinct.
>inb4 mass effect reapers

>>9479245
frankly I think most of the big filters are behind us, getting to where we are now is probably the hard part, and most don't even get half as far as we have

>>9478227
>physical sciences don't follow logic

I think the great filter is real and its just the exhaustion of your solar system.

Fermi argued that in a couple million years you could colonize the whole galaxy at conventional sublight speeds, so if there were advanced civilizations, they would have come along and done that already, so there must not be any.

I doubt we would ever get that far and I doubt any other civilization would either.

The colony efforts would be one way trips and you would never know if they succeeded or failed. Presumably they would fail since the chances of these missions arriving at any given system and finding a planet they can survive on are infinitely small... They would be immensely resource expensive. Can you think of a scenario where humanity would commit to this kind of thing when it isn't necessary? Sending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to their almost certain death, at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars... Why would we?

And by the time it were necessary, would we even have the ability to do it? IE: Once our solar system is exhausted and we have no other choice if our species hopes to survive. By that point it would be too late.

>>9479289
We still don't know for sure, and if we even come to find simple life elsewhere it will be some very bad news, for it will confirm the great filter ahead

>>9479368
Exactly my point

>>9479368
>>9479368
>one way trips and you would never know if they succeeded or failed
why do you assume that they wouldn't be radio contact for the duration of the journey even with light lag?
an investment that big isn't just something that you cut communications for, even if it did take centuries

> finding a planet they can survive on are infinitely small
if you're building interstellar ships that can travel across the starts, you're probably not as interested in building on planets as much as you would be interested in using them for raw materials for rotating habitats. What's stopping them from mining some asteroids or small moons for the materials to build your new home instead of looking a planet with the right conditions?
You don't really need habitable words.

>They would be immensely resource expensive
true, buts that only compared to the resources available to humanity now. Even if we just had a rather thick Dyson swarm around the sun the industry to build interstellar craft already exist, and you probably have enough resources build craft to fly to other stars. A true K2 civilization would have more energy at hand and a larger population than most stellar empires we typically see in science fiction, that merely colonize the habitable worlds in a galaxy

> Why would we?
If we've already expanded a great deal into the solar system we probably a have a system population several orders of magnitude bigger than the current human population.
It wouldn't be hard to find a tiny minority of volunteers that numbers in the trillions that would be willing to go to other stars

most likely solution is distance.

>>9479393
1. Assuming anyone was listening centuries later, not to mention beyond a certain point, even with immensely powerful focused signals, the inverse square law can't be reconciled. So we could potentially communicate with ships within our stellar neighborhood (which itself would still take hundreds of years), but not with ships thousands of lightyears away, which would also take thousands of years.

2. That seems extremely optimistic that we could fit what would essentially be a fully functioning society on a single colony ship that could function in space when it got there... And that they just need to get there and harvest the resources to fuel it. How long would that last, where would they expand to? Remember we are talking about a goal of long term human propagation, the continuation of the species... How would anymore than a few thousand people ever subsist in such a habitat?

3. And like I said, at the peak of our civilization, why would we ever bother with these kinds of missions? What state, company, individual, would have those kind of resources and throw them away on something of no utility to themselves? They wouldn't profit, they personally would gain nothing. Getting volunteers isn't the issue, I am sure millions of people would volunteer tomorrow for a one way trip to Alpha Centari even if you told them there was a 99% chance they would die. The only motivator that would make us want to do this would be desperation, a mission of last resort to save our species... And by that point it would be too late.

4. Overpopulation is highly unlikely. Hell a hundred years from now when the third world finally catches up our population is probably going to start declining.

>>9477880
why is he such an unattractive man? I can't put my finger on it

>>9479151
>I doubt the people you characterize as "homophobes" are actually scared of homos
I always thought it had more to do with fear of their own homosexual proclivities clashing with societal indoctrination. I remember when I was batting for the other team, my partner and I would remark that the only thing not thoroughly good about this was everyone else, not us

>>9479415

What sort of fantasy world do you live in? Third world catch up? Dude its becasue we can exploit the cheap labor and resources of other countries that we enjoy living in a first world nation. When the third world "catches up" we are all going to be living in Brazil 2.0

>>9478229
>>9478202
>>9478471

>>9479425
Not to mention the tendency for third-wolders to drag a piece of home with them, namely the violence. I have but a life of anecdotal evidence, and I'm not /pol/, but there is no question about the true measure of man. Blacks in my hometown were living under the same conditions I was, but aside from poor and under-educated, they were and are insanely violent. I'm no more a sociologist than I am a geneticist, but something is different, and it seems to extend down to the core

please don't delete, I'm just being honest and probably wrong

>>9479415
>the inverse square law can't be reconciled
Colonies set up around other stars can act as relay stations, you don't need a direct line to earth


> functioning society on a single colony ship
>few thousand people ever subsist in such a habitat
first a few thousand people is enough for an interstellar colony ship by a wide margin to permit enough specialization and genetic diversity, and there's nothing stopping you from building bigger and get a largre population if needed. And depending on where they go or what they're trying to do, they don't even need a traditional earth like planet, just to mine whatever planets and asteroids a system may have and build their bases out of said resources

>why would we ever bother with these kinds of missions
If we've already built up our presence in though out the solar system, it doesn't take much effort to put some method of propulsion on existing orbiting habitats, and accelerating it to a decent fraction of the speed of light. Because if you've already colonized much the solar system the cost to do this isn't prohibitive

>Overpopulation
im not talking about overpopulation, the living space inside of a dyson swarm would have a astronomically large living space compared to what currently exists on earth
and those numbers would be the result of population growth from the inital people to inhabit the rotating habitats

There might be other, more efficient ways for a species to survive long term, than colonizing the whole universe, ways we don't know about yet. Maybe all species choose that path instead.

That being said, space tourism can still be a thing. A super high-advanced civilization is obviously able to visit earth without us noticing, if they don't want us to notice. As to why they wouldn't want us to notice, there are countless plausible explanations to that.

Anyone who thinks Fermi Paradox is about resources doesn't undestand how economies work after AI is discovered.

Anyone who thinks Fermi Paradox is about the great distances doesn't understand what von Neumann probes are.

The most likely reason we don't see anyone is because there is no one to see. The closest other intelligent life is a billion universes away in some other part of the multiverse and you can't travel between universes.

>Kurzgesagt makes video
>faggots come out of the woodwork and start talking about pop sci as if it means anything.

>>9477878
What's to stop them contacting us atleast?

>>9478881
don't forget light from far away takes time to reach us. if a civilization billions of light years away finished the construction of a mega structure around now it'll take billions of years for us to be visible

>>9479542
>faggots
Why the homophobia?

>>9479559
>phobia

Nobody's afraid of the queers.

>>9479368
>Why would we?
because there's stuff to discover out there? i'd rather ask why we would stay and rot on earth.

a future where earth life doesn't spread around space is ridiculous. there is no point in staying here.

>>9479559
Thanks for proving >>9479542 right, newfag

>>9479146
>There is.
Could you represent your argument symbolically? It seems very muddled

>>9478579
>That doesn't respond to the argument you're quoting.
Of course it does, if the "fact" has not been proven then there's no way it can be taken any further.

>>9479151
>I doubt the people you characterize as "homophobes" are actually scared of homos, just find them lesser.
Then they shouldn't use homophobic slurs.

>>9479154
>Also is it literally your very first day here?
No.

>>9478010
>The absence of evidence is evidence of some aliens' absence.
This is a non-sequitur.

>>9478625
>You dumb faggots need to stop making arguments based in semantics and linguistic confusions fucking kys.
I asked for a symbolic argument several times yet have yet to be provided one, likely because the person making the argument either does not how to represent an argument symbolically, or has attempted and realize the error in their ways.

>>9478952
He from the moon might be worth is. If we had fusion reactors to burn it in. If we had fusion, some other projects become economically feasible.
But not between stars. Which is what I addressed because (in case anyone's forgotten by now) this thread started out discussing the Fermi Paradox. We're certainly alone in our own solar system. Dejah Thoris isn't waiting for her Hero.

So, assuming aliens exist, the question comes down to "Is it possible to communicate or travel between suns? And, if so, why or why not would anyone do it?"

Intelligent life is rare. Intelligent life with the ability to harness technology is rarer. Detecting such life is hard as hell.

The paradox only describes why there isn't a hyper-aggressive civilization that is colonising all solar systems at all costs without showing any consideration for smaller, less developed civilizations.

I'd say the great filter is declining birth rates with increasing wealth, education and techological development. If your population is shrinking, you don't really need to go out and conquer the stars. You might still go there, but rather as a cautios observer, than as a violent mass-coloniser.

>>9479623
Why would not every single intelligent entity and civilization be concerned about staying alive?

It makes sense to "attack" (eliminate or contain) every primitive civilization out there before they become a threat to you. Why risk it? You gain nothing by not paying attention to this matter and you lose nothing by doing it.

>>9479625
If you are a couple of million years ahead, they are probably never going to be a threat to you, anyways.

Declining birth rates though is a phenomena that can be observed across all cultures and continents. Japan, China, western Europe, USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Latin America, etc. all countries no matter what culture or politics see declining birth rates with an increasing wealth and technological development. If human population doesn't grow, there is also no need to start colonising. Let alone for the fact that there wouldn't be enough colonisers, to begin with.

>Dark forest
>inb4 humans are the only ones who think this way
>inb4 we become the scourge of the galaxy

>>9479629
Never? Why are you assuming that technology keeps on developing into more and more advanced state for an eternity?

It's more like you get AI and then a few billions computers will develop technology to it's final state in a very short time period (geologically speaking).

Two interstellar civilizations are going to be on the same level no matter what.

>>9479659
Species that are too violent and aggressive will probably have self-destroyed themselves with technologies before they reach type 1 civilization. So it is probable that most highly-advanced civilizations out there are rather peaceful. And those few violent ones could be kept in check by the peaceful majority.

>>9477912
Lemme get the source for your bot bro.

>>9478881
You're saying that like it dosen't take billions of years for even simple life to evolve.

>>9479629
Colonies and population growth rates has nothing to do with this conversation. Mapping galaxies does.

Every single civilization will need to have a 0 % population growth rate in the long term. Even something as small as 0.1 % growth per annum is not going to cut it. Even at that small growth rate Earth's current population would turn into 25 billion people for every solar system in our galaxy (assuming 200 billion solar systems) before a single probe has had time to travel half-way across our galaxy even at 0.99 light speed (around 50 000 years). (A population of 37925841815752966484226627426278 people)

And you can't possibly think human population growth has anything to do with alien growth rates.

>>9479673
Killing (or simply containing) every other life out there is not "too violent". It's the reasonable thing to do. Even humans should do it and I bet they will if given the chance.

>>9478886
Wouldn't older solar systems have less heavy elements thus making life less likely or impossible?

>>9479678
>Lemme get the source for your bot bro.
What do you mean by "bot"?

>>9479680
What is this incoherrent bullshit supposed to mean?

>>9479683
That's like saying we should kill off native tribes before they become nuclear powers.

>>9479685
>actually doing this by yourself
Respect

>>9479686
It means that there is no reason for colonizing the galaxy due to population growth. No amount of planets is going to be able to sustain any actual growth over the long term.

>>9479721
Well, a huge population growth would at least be a plausible reason why a civilization would mass-colonise the galaxy. Studying, mapping, visiting/sightseeing the galaxy can all be done without colonisation.

>>9479688
That is what we did.

>>9478785
It may be that life in general is common but given how many billions of years it took for humans to arrive and evolve to this point technological civilizations are probably very rare

There doesn't need to be one. The revised drake equation now predicts there should only be 1 technologically communicating civilization in the Milky Way, so that solves that. The bigger problem is Andromeda, its twice the size of the Milky Way and shows absolutely no signs of space faring civilizations.

>>9479750
>The revised drake equation now predicts there should only be 1 technologically communicating civilization in the Milky Way, so that solves that.
Source? I Googled revised Drake Equation and the results don't agree with what you're saying here.

>>9477867
Mega structures and dyson swarms are shit ideas. The advanced species have evolved past using light to communicate. And the ones still at our level are wondering the same thing. Species that excessively mine out other systems are combated by species that don't want all their shit mined.

Hell, if they were trying to communicate with us right now. We might not understand that it's communication or even make it public that et is calling us.

~2008 we realized it's possible to entirely hide something from all spectrums of EM radiation
we face-palmed because after we realized it was possible we thought we were idiots for thinking it was ever not possible.
This discovery was well before we will ever achieve interstellar travel.
There are a lot of Aliens. The vast majority of them are smart enough to not broadcast their position with radio waves, etc. and they move about invisibly, especially since there is a hostile alien group that quickly exterminates any other alien life it can detect. Since we've started blasting radio waves into space, it's only a matter of time until the aggressive alien race picks up that signal and moves to exterminate us as quickly as possible.

>>9477912
Best meme of 2018 right here

ayyy lmao

>>9479601
You were provided a symbolic argument, which you had no objection to. What you objected to was the interpretation of the symbols in the conclusion. Obviously an interpretation of symbols cannot be represented symbolically without referring to further interpretation. You were provided an explanation of why this interpretation is correct, but you ignored it. Since you won't provide a counterargument, you concede defeat.

>>9477869
I see zero evidence that there are any sperm whales in my living room. Since a sperm whale in the living room would produce ample evidence (smell, noise, floor collapsing, visually able to notice a big fucking ass sperm whale even if it's behind the couch) the absence of any such evidence seems good evidence that there is no sperm whale there.

This is not strictly applicable to the search for ET and his little squashy buddies, where the evidence would be a bit more subtle, unless they land in the living room and start fucking about with my stuff.

But if a hypothesis holkds that space is swarming with life, and life would tend to give rise to intelligence, ad intelligent life would tend to do a given set of noticeable things, but we can;t find any evidence of that, it begins to call some portion of the hypothesis into question.

>>9477890
>2018
>Not thinking dogs are possible.

The absolute state of /sci/

>>9480100
>You were provided a symbolic argument
Where?

>>9480177
See >>9478128

>>9480235
That's not a symbolic argument, I suggest you read what a symbolic argument is before making such absurd claims.

>>9480244
That is a symbolic argument. You are probably confused because you believe the phrase "symbolic argument" can only refer to symbolic classical logic. But this is false. Further probability theory subsumes and extends classical logic into the quantitative, allowing us to contend with "evidence" rather than "proof."

>>9480286
>you believe the phrase "symbolic argument" can only refer to symbolic classical logic.
I don't know what you are trying to imply by this, but I doubt you will find any definition of "symbolic argument" that includes the dishonest rhetoric you're trying to peddle.

>>9480298
So you are asking me for a probabilistic argument in symbolic classical logic. Thank you for admitting you made a nonsensical demand. Since you have no valid demands or counterarguments, you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.

>>9477867
The solution to the Fermi paradox is quite simple: niggers. Intelligent aliens, if they exist, will never come to a planet infested with niggers.

>>9480339
>So you are asking me for a probabilistic argument in symbolic classical logic.
No, I asked for a symbolic argument.

>>9478277
kek

>>9478092
Hence the name, The Great Waifu Filter.

>>9478158
Mathematical realists are more than welcome. Nominalists have no place on this board.

>>9480351
See >>9480100

>>9479529
how can von Nuemann probes get built if the technology required to build them is more difficult than waifu simulators and nukes?

>>9480543
Waifu simulators are far more dangerous than nukes imo.

In every civilization, either the beta cucks start dominating the species in which case the civilization doesn't want to interfere with alien civilizations because of >muh responsibilities or the alpha chads start dominating in which case the civilization will whipe itself out as soon as it gathers technologies that are capable to do so. Either way, no alien contact for us.

>>9480342

>>9479550
Would you contact us?

>>9480637
Why the grey aliens in the movies never abduct blacks?

>>9477867

>>9479128
Constant expansion is tied with a constant need for new resources. A species that stays put will invariably run out of resources and die off.

>>9480647
Who do you think the grey's work for?

>>9480650

>>9477996
>What do you think "I see as a problem which was already discussed in the premise?"
Ity was your statement
>Space is big, stars are far apart, interstellar flight will be expensive (in terms of required resources even if aliens don't use money.)
that I cannot agree with.
The Universe is about 13 billion years old so statistically an older civilisation can easily be several billion years older than ours and in less than 1 billion years you can at least send probes to every single star system within the galaxy. And at this tech level "expensive" is probably just a guess and an unlikely one at that.

>>9480650
That's actually bullshit, the most developed and powerful human civilizations were quite peaceful. Rome didn't kill anything in sight, neither did China nor Great Britain or US.

>>9480687
Haha.

>>9478050
>nuclear fission
Actually fusion. A current global nuclear war wouldn't wipe humanity. It wouldn't even stall scientific progress that much or directly/indirectly kill more than several hundred million. But when pure fusion bombs become feasible, everyone and their mother will be able to build Mt/Gt-scale behemoths and things will become very very interesting.

>>9480695
It's true though. The UK never fought a major war in its rise to the world biggest empire ever.

>>9479638
>inb4 we become the scourge of the galaxy
I remember some sci fi story where it turns out humanity, being persistence hunters by nature, turn out to be literal terminators in the eyes of the other races of the galaxy who developed from different life forms. Even aliens that came from apex predators were just unable to compete.

>>9479555
>>9478881

I've never understood the logic behind the "why" of mega-structure construction, outside of intergalactic dick-waving. that's a valid reason, don't get me wrong, but for any sufficiently advanced and pragmatic species it seems like a waste of time. IMO it's what less advanced species think more advanced spaces do because size is the only indication less advanced species understand to correspond to "advanced" technology - bigger spaceships, bigger buildings, so on and so forth. the whole fully-harnessing-a-star justification just doesn't really jive with me I guess.

given what little we already know as a species, it just seems like engineering in the opposite direction - subtle control over the small - is arguably more impressive and far more useful in the long run.

>>9480548
see >>9478092 , having both ends your civilization.

>>9480704
The british empire was quite benign compared to the assyrians, arabs, mongols, romans etc.

>>9480720
none of these were real top dogs except for the romans, and they were a republic too in the beginning.

>>9480720
U wot m8 They mowed down millions of natives with maxim guns.

>>9480720
>eternal anglo whataboutism
So morally speaking its cool if I rape people so long as I don't rape the most people?

>>9480722
Mongols definitely were top dogs.

>>9480729
Imagine if the arabs had that technology. Africa would be an empty continent. They would enslave and kill all niggers.

There is probably and endless list.

For one, as In a Nutshell's video points out, the stages from simple to complex life are big hurdles. I believe the hurdle from intelligence to being able to manipulate your environment is much larger, however. How many animals can we consider intelligence on earth, but cannot use tools due to evolution? Dolphins, elephants, etc.

Another problem is nature does not care about intelligence. No environment on earth selects for it, so it is rare. Ours was a fluke that let us circumvent nature.

Another is economics. Why go to other planets at all, when you can stay at home? People talk about terraforming other planets, but if we had that power we could just remake earth however we wanted to as well.

As for interstellar travel, I already posted another comment in this thread about it. The speed of light is probably a hard limit on the movement of matter set by nature. If we wanted to go to another star it would take too long. Also, to that end, if we could make a ship that could last long enough to get to anther star without outside support, why even go to a star? At that point we could hypothetically live permanently in space. Given that, and the fact it takes so long to reach anywhere, and that there are probably not that many habitable planets nearby, there would little reason for humans to travel to the stars endlessly for no reason when we could stay here.

>>9480731
Are seriously comparing the british with the arabs and mongols?

>>9480737
....But the Arabs did invade Africa, they conquered half of it and didn't genocide anyone.

>>9480729
This is how the persians and arabs saw the niggers. Now imagine these guys with machine guns.

>>9479151
stop using that offensive term, you bigot. they prefer to be called hex-legged brethren.

when we decode the signals, it says "surprise m-f'ers! we've sent a planet killer through a portal into the distant past, and it will be there shortly"

>>9479529
welcome folks to season 9999 of "those crazy earth people", the most popular reality show in the galaxy!

>>9480742
You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/arab-slave-trade-in-africa.html

>>9480742
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion
I could post links for hours. The arabs also always castrated the nigger slaves to avoid any miscigenation and they treated their slaves far worse than the whites in the Americas.

>>9480746
They enslaved Europeans too, it wasn't organized genocide it was opportunistic.

>>9479154
>Also is it literally your very first day here?
Seems like its yours, to get baited by this shitty meme

>>9480748
The term in arab for "black people" is abeed, which also means "slave"

>>9480748
>enter a thread to discuss aliens
>arguing with white supremacists yet again
im done with this board.

>>9480752
Sure, but they considered europeans humans. Infidels, but humans. Niggers were not considered humans by the persians and arabs.

>>9480743
>Nasirs "Two Times" al-din al tusi
>Who got that nickname because he said everything twice

>>9480650
If you build a huge, kilometres-wide telescope in space you could watch a civilization thousands of light years away turn on their lights at night. Hiding is not really an option, anyway. A super-advanced civilization probably knows every inch of its galaxy.

>>9480767
There is also Ibn Khaldun and many others

>>9480776

>>9480770
>you could watch a civilization thousands of light years away turn on their lights at night.
That's supposing you know where to look in the first place. And even then in space there's still plenty of things between us and distant systems to obscure a really fine resolution like that.

>>9480117
Nigga what kinda huge ass couch you have that would make a sperm whale in your living room less noticeable?

>>9478886
For a species to create civilisation, it would need several qualities which only humans are known to posess. The odds of it happening could be 1/10^16 for all you know.

>>9477867
Faster than light travel simply isn't possible, and thus we will never be able to practically leave our solar system and contact alien civilizations, nor will they be able to do the same to us.

>>9478886
Yes but if there's about 50 or so barriers for life that need, and they all had about coin fip odds of happening (not that this is realistic), you would expect 1 civilization like ours per ever few thousand galaxies, the point being is that getting to technological civilization is hard

>>9477931
THE ELDER SCROLLS TOLD OF THEIR RETURN

>>9481180
>Faster than light travel simply isn't possible
Not with an attitude like that.

>>9482119

>>9477867
>What do you think the solution to the fermi paradox is?

Everyone uses optical cables and directional lasers instead of radios.

>>9477867
the distances are too big.
Civ's whose technological level is high enough that the distances are easy game have no desire to interfere with low level Civ's because they think that the level of technology must be achieved alone.
Also to be a high tech civ you must be peaceful which is only possible with nihilism so these civ's have no desire to contact less developed civ's.

>>9479679
It took life on Earth ~4 billion years to get where it is today. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Some alien civilization out there could have a 9 billion year head start.

>>9482218
It's not just about interference though. We should see evidence of these aliens. Like imagine if some unexplored island in the Pacific had a native tribe that was never contacted. If they invented binoculars, they could see passenger jets fly overhead and deduce that they were not alone on Earth. The people on those jets don't need to land and talk with the islanders for their presence to be detected.

Why do we see no stars disappearing behind dyson swarms? Why do we see no cold spots indicative of an area being strip mined? Why do we hear no errant, unexplained radio transmissions? Why do we see no exoplanets with unexplained atmospheric compositions, like one containing chlorofluorocarbons, which would be indicative of industrial processes?

The paradox is not "If aliens are so common, why haven't flying saucers landed here?" It's "If aliens are so common, why haven't we seen any evidence for them anywhere?"

>>9480406
This would be a good dissertation in philosophy.

Nice thread

>>9482756
>chlorofluorocarbons
that is one sexy word. We are already living in the technological singularity.

>>9478111
is this turtle?