Achums Razor

File: 42 KB, 484x700, 1522528301634.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Achums Razor Anonymous Tue May 22 22:13:20 2018 No.9760643 [Reply] [Original]

Which is more likely?

>Aliens don't exist
>Aliens are assholes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:20:32 2018 No.9760657 >>Aliens don't exist The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:21:13 2018 No.9760658 >>9760643 Which is more likely? >This thread is good >I saged this post

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:27:13 2018 No.9760665 >anthropic principle In this universe we are the only sapient life forms. If we ever meet aliens, they'll literally be from another universe.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:55:57 2018 No.9760699 File: 50 KB, 645x729, 1515194851321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760657 >The absence of a check mark next to my name on the attendance list is not evidence that I was absent.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:57:29 2018 No.9760701 File: 35 KB, 478x540, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760699 >an attendance list is not evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:58:19 2018 No.9760704 >>9760699 >The absence of a check mark next to my name on the attendance list is not evidence that I was absent. This analogy is dumb in a multitude of ways.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:58:46 2018 No.9760705 File: 56 KB, 645x729, d27.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760701 >The SETI program is not evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 22:59:50 2018 No.9760706 >>9760704 How so?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:00:07 2018 No.9760708 >>9760643 Almost all animals are mostly assholes to us (the ones we bred to be retarded don't count), so it only goes to figure intelligent life from other places is gonna be a dick too.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:01:04 2018 No.9760711 File: 57 KB, 600x600, 1508729826113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >ITT: post brainlet wojak and repeat the last post in a sardonic way this thread is going great

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:01:22 2018 No.9760713 >>9760705 SETI does not stand for Search for Absence of Extraterrestrial Intelligence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:02:03 2018 No.9760716 File: 49 KB, 645x729, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760705 >a program is evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:02:25 2018 No.9760717 File: 418 KB, 640x411, S O Y.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760711 >sardonic

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:03:16 2018 No.9760721 File: 6 KB, 211x239, 1506999742274.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760713 >An attendance list does not indicate your absence, it is only evidence for your presence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:04:20 2018 No.9760724 File: 75 KB, 403x448, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760721 >an attendance list is not evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:04:39 2018 No.9760725 >>9760713 Any test which fails to find evidence for something is evidence against that thing. Learn2BayesianProbability

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:05:41 2018 No.9760730 >>9760724 See >>9760705

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:06:20 2018 No.9760731 File: 11 KB, 220x285, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760730 >an attendance list is not evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:06:20 2018 No.9760732 >>9760721 Attendance list == Evidence of absence, not absence of evidence. >>9760725 Kek, but it should be noted that SETI has not failed because it's not done.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:06:43 2018 No.9760734 >>9760731 See >>9760730

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:07:23 2018 No.9760736 File: 21 KB, 600x647, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760734 >an attendance list is not evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:07:28 2018 No.9760737 >>9760734 >he ran out of brainlet wojack pictures back to /pol/ you go, newfag

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:08:03 2018 No.9760740 File: 58 KB, 541x800, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760725 >a test is not evidence

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:13:06 2018 No.9760748

>>9760732
>Attendance list == Evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
No, it's the lack of a check mark next to your name which is evidence of your absence and an absence of evidence that you were present, at the same time. There cannot be both an absence of evidence that aliens exist and absence of evidence that aliens don't exist, because the absence of one implies that the other is present. If there is some probability of having evidence that aliens exist given that they exist (for example, SETI could have been successful) then the absence of that evidence increases the probability that the condition is false.

>>9760732
>Kek, but it should be noted that SETI has not failed because it's not done.
SETI failing to find alien life at any point in time is evidence against alien life.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:14:08 2018 No.9760751 >>9760736 See >>9760734 >>9760737 Never been to /pol/ >>9760740 Learn how to read.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:14:43 2018 No.9760752 >>9760748 >which is evidence of your absence and an absence of evidence So is it evidence or not?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:15:20 2018 No.9760753 >>9760751 >Learn how to read. If you were implying that a test is evidence, then what does it have to do with an absence of evidence?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:15:37 2018 No.9760754 >>9760752 >So is it evidence or not? Evidence of what? Everything is evidence of something and a lack of evidence of something else.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:15:51 2018 No.9760757 >>9760751 see >>9760701

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:16:22 2018 No.9760758 >>9760751 >Never been to /pol/ There's an absence of evidence regarding this claim (note that this is not evidence of absence).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:16:38 2018 No.9760759 >>9760753 >If you were implying that a test is evidence, then what does it have to do with an absence of evidence? A test result which supports a hypothesis is an absence of evidence against the hypothesis.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:16:53 2018 No.9760760 >>9760754 >Everything is evidence of something [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:17:39 2018 No.9760766 File: 56 KB, 621x702, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760759 >a test is not evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:17:40 2018 No.9760767 >>9760757 See >>9760751

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:18:42 2018 No.9760769 >>9760760 Any event is evidence of itself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:18:59 2018 No.9760770 >>9760769 >Any event is evidence of itself. [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:19:44 2018 No.9760772 >>9760766 See >>9760751

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:20:29 2018 No.9760774 >>9760754 >Evidence of what? What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:20:58 2018 No.9760775 >>9760769 E\|E = 1 > 0 = E\|~E

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:21:00 2018 No.9760776 >>9760772 If you were implying that a test is evidence, then what does it have to do with an absence of evidence?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:22:07 2018 No.9760779 >>9760774 See >>9760772

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:22:23 2018 No.9760781 >>9760775 >E\|E = 1 This is not true for every event. What did you mean to say?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:22:55 2018 No.9760783 >>9760779 Are you implying a test is not evidence?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:23:23 2018 No.9760784 >>9760776 See >>9760754

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:23:46 2018 No.9760786 >>9760784 I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. Is a test evidence or not?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:24:25 2018 No.9760787 >>9760781 It's true for any event in the real world.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:25:27 2018 No.9760790 >>9760783 See >>9760784

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:26:24 2018 No.9760793 >>9760787 >It's true for any event in the real world. Can you be more specific? What exactly is the set of "real world events"? It doesn't sound very well-defined.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:26:29 2018 No.9760794 >>9760786 See >>9760790

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:26:39 2018 No.9760795 asshole aliens exist

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:27:45 2018 No.9760798 >>9760794 I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. If you're implying a test is evidence then it doesn't have anything to do with an absence of evidence, and if you're implying a test is not evidence, then you're implying an absurdity.

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:28:40 2018 No.9760800

>>9760706
An attendance list is made knowing the people who could attend and after communicating with them about the event.
In school you must take the active step of enrolling to appear on the attendance list.
You can't RSVP to a party where they don't send out invitations.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:28:44 2018 No.9760801 >>9760793 Any events to which the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" would be applied to.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:29:46 2018 No.9760803 >>9760798 See >>9760794

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:31:37 2018 No.9760809

>>9760800
>An attendance list is made knowing the people who could attend and after communicating with them about the event.
So what? As long as a check mark is evidence of your attendance, the lack of a check mark is evidence that you were absent. As long as something is evidence of aliens, the lack of that thing is evidence that aliens are absent.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:33:17 2018 No.9760814 >>9760809 If your name isn't on the attendance sheet there can be no empty check mark box.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:33:55 2018 No.9760817 >>9760801 >Any events to which the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" would be applied to. But then every event is in the set of real world events, so what distinction are you making exactly?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:34:39 2018 No.9760819 >>9760643 Neither and the most frightening. The universe is so vast and life so rare that we wont ever meet even if we try

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:34:47 2018 No.9760820 >>9760809 >the lack of that thing is evidence that aliens are absent. So what does it have to do with an absence of evidence?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:38:09 2018 No.9760830 >>9760814 If your name isn't even on the attendance list then it's even more likely you are absent.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:38:58 2018 No.9760832 >>9760787 >It's true for any event in the real world. What are you using mathematical and statistical terms for if you're just going to resort to meaningless terms such as "real world"?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:39:39 2018 No.9760833 >>9760817 What event can the phrase be applied to that is not evidence of itself?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:40:00 2018 No.9760835 >>9760830 This is why I don't believe in the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon didn't show up to that party I was having so clearly he never existed.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:40:37 2018 No.9760836 >>9760833 >What event can the phrase be applied to that is not evidence of itself? Any event which is not evidence of itself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:40:41 2018 No.9760838 >>9760820 See >>9760803

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:42:27 2018 No.9760840 File: 2.34 MB, 1919x2227, Fermi-Paradox-Solutions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760643

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:44:43 2018 No.9760845 What is more likely God doesn't exist God exists but you're a brainlet who argues against and denies the objective truthful evidence for god's existence

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:45:01 2018 No.9760846 >>9760835 That would be dumb, since a belief can only be supported by the totality of evidence, not just some weak evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:46:04 2018 No.9760850 >>9760846 He hasn't come to any of the parties I throw and I've never seen him in school.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:46:05 2018 No.9760851 >>9760836 Can you show me that such an event exists and can be applied?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:47:00 2018 No.9760852 File: 218 KB, 1080x905, richod_dokkins-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760845 A

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:47:19 2018 No.9760853 >>9760845 Which god?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:48:01 2018 No.9760855 >>9760853 The black one.

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:48:04 2018 No.9760856
File: 139 KB, 555x414, Theodore_Kaczynski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9760643
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.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:48:28 2018 No.9760857 >>9760850 So? That's very weak evidence. Did you consider historical evidence?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 22 23:50:00 2018 No.9760861 >>9760857 Historical evidence? You mean those fucking books? Harry potter never came to my parties either. It's all bullshit.

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:50:53 2018 No.9760863

>>9760856
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.

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:52:42 2018 No.9760864

>>9760863
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.

Anonymous Tue May 22 23:56:54 2018 No.9760868
File: 128 KB, 555x414, tedkaczynskigloweyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9760864
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.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 00:13:32 2018 No.9760886 >>9760853 There is only one god.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 00:27:00 2018 No.9760901 >>9760861 >equating the bible to Harry Potter It's easily verifiable the legitimacy of Harry Potter and no one claims otherwise

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 00:31:30 2018 No.9760913 >>9760901 >equating the bible to Harry Potter Follow the chain. I'm equating "historic accounts" of the Napoleonic Wars to harry potter.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 01:31:41 2018 No.9761018 >>9760851 >Can you show me that such an event exists and can be applied? Any event such that E\|E = 1.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 01:32:12 2018 No.9761019 >>9761018 >E\|E = 1 E\|E != 1 *

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 01:32:44 2018 No.9761020 >>9760857 >weak evidence define "weak evidence"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 02:23:58 2018 No.9761133 >>9761020 evidence that is weak

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 02:25:41 2018 No.9761137 >>9761133 >evidence that is weak In what sense?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:00:24 2018 No.9761214 >>9761137 in that it is weak and it is evidence

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:02:42 2018 No.9761218 >>9761214 >weak In what sense?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:04:13 2018 No.9761220 >>9761218 in that it is not strong

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:05:08 2018 No.9761221 >>9761220 >strong In what sense?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:06:06 2018 No.9761224 >>9761221 in that it has strength

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:06:20 2018 No.9761225 >>9760643 >Achums Razor not science or math

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 03:32:33 2018 No.9761265 >>9760643 >Achums kek fucking hell learn to english. It's Occam.

Anonymous Wed May 23 06:31:37 2018 No.9761492
File: 87 KB, 664x833, dad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9760643
Most likely humans ARE aliens. If the civilization is billion years old all they do is seed the habitable planets with their own species, wait few millions years, then 'update' the result and/or merge technology. If our nearby stars are also seeded we will not know about their existence because they are at the same tech level as we are.

Anonymous Wed May 23 07:19:32 2018 No.9761543

>>9760643
As far as we know, 100% of the planets that hold liquid water, also hold a technological civilization. To assume we are the only planet in the universe that has liquid water is a bit of a stretch. So they most probably exist. Them not contacting us actually also hints at us not being anything special. There are probably thousands of civilizations out there, so a civilization that is aware of so many wouldn't find us particularly interesting probably.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:20:56 2018 No.9761712 >>9761221 The scientist presenting the evidence must do so while benching more than 250 lbs.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:48:54 2018 No.9761761 >>9761018 The only time this is not true is when P(E) = 0, in which case the phraseis not applicable.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:51:24 2018 No.9761769 >>9761761 >in which case the phraseis not applicable. [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:56:45 2018 No.9761779 >>9761020 Strength of evidence is determined by the Bayesian likelihood ratio.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:57:13 2018 No.9761780 >>9761779 >Strength of evidence is determined by the Bayesian likelihood ratio. define "weak evidence"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:58:05 2018 No.9761782 >>9761769 See >>9760851

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:58:43 2018 No.9761785 >>9761782 What part of that post shows that the phrase is not applicable?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:59:07 2018 No.9761786 >>9761780 Low likelihood ratio.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 09:59:26 2018 No.9761789 >>9761786 >Low likelihood ratio. define "Low likelihood ratio"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:01:59 2018 No.9761793 >>9761785 What part of this >>9761018 shows such an event can exist and is applicable?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:03:18 2018 No.9761800 >>9761789 Between 10^0 and 10^0.5

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:04:34 2018 No.9761804 >>9761793 At least one such event exists in all probability spaces (follows trivially from the definition). The phrase is always applicable since if it was not, that would imply that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (an absurdity).

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:08:53 2018 No.9761809 >>9761804 That's not a demonstration, try again.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:10:30 2018 No.9761813 >>9761809 >That's not a demonstration, try again. Not a demonstration of what? Are you not familiar with probability spaces? Here, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:21:25 2018 No.9761831 >>9761813 So then it should be a piece of cake to give an example.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:22:26 2018 No.9761832 >>9761831 >So then it should be a piece of cake to give an example. You already have, see >>9761761

Anonymous Wed May 23 10:24:04 2018 No.9761835

>>9760643
If the statement "Aliens don't exist" is true then the statement "Aliens are assholes" is vacuously true. Therefore the only scenario in which "Aliens are assholes" is false is when "Aliens don't exist" os false and "Aliens are assholes" is true.

So it is unlikely that "Aliens are assholes" is true.

Anonymous Wed May 23 10:24:23 2018 No.9761837
File: 166 KB, 584x624, A neighbor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9760643
Just because an alien thinks differently than you due to wildly different evolutionary pressures of their home environment, it doesn't make them an asshole. I encourage you to be a little less anthropocentric and appreciate the potentiality inherent in the diversity of all sentient beings.

Won't you be my galactic neighbor?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:38:13 2018 No.9761867 >>9761832 That's not applicable, because the event already has probability 1 of being absent.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 10:40:26 2018 No.9761871 >>9761867 >That's not applicable, because the event already has probability 1 of being absent. So the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 11:18:14 2018 No.9761924 >>9761871 Evidence of absence is unnecessary in that case since absence is already guaranteed. If that is the only case where the phrase is "applicable" then the phrase is useless.

Anonymous Wed May 23 11:22:52 2018 No.9761928

>>9761924
>Evidence of absence is unnecessary in that case since absence is already guaranteed.
A probability zero event can still occur, so this is false.

>If that is the only case where the phrase is "applicable" then the phrase is useless.
The phrase applies universally, whether P(E|E)=1 or P(E|E)!=1.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 11:28:59 2018 No.9761939 WTF is this shitfest of a thread??!?!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 11:30:08 2018 No.9761940 >>9761939 >WTF is this shitfest of a thread??!?! What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 11:41:34 2018 No.9761954 >>9761928 Then why can't you give a single example of it applying to a normal event?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 11:45:33 2018 No.9761959 >>9761954 >Then why can't you give a single example of it applying to a normal event? It applies to all events, what do you mean by "normal event"? I'm not familiar with the terminology.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 12:04:35 2018 No.9761981 >>9761959 Why can't you give me an example of an event with P(E\|E) = 1 where it applies?

Anonymous Wed May 23 13:45:31 2018 No.9762138

>>9760643
We have found 1 planet with life on it.
Life is very rare.
tool using intelligence is rare - a handful of species out of billions.
One planet in a billion has life. One in a billion of those has multicellular life. One in a billion has tool using intelligence. So perhaps we have as many as 1 intelligent species per galaxy.
Most humans are assholes and asshats.
Any intelligent alien species will be subject to competitive pressures and convergent evolutionary drives similar to humans on Earth.
Aliens will be assholes and asshats.

Anonymous Wed May 23 14:34:16 2018 No.9762242
File: 13 KB, 800x800, shit thread - srs reply.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9760643
>>9760840
We're closer to biological immortality (or at least extreme longevity) than we are to interstellar space travel. This will eventually entail a population cap, and likely similar genetic engineering to maintain said and eliminate the desire to break it.

Once you have a population cap, you've also capped your resource usage, and, depending on how small that cap is, your power requirements may not leave much of a footprint - certainly none that we could possibly see in our limited scope even in the nearest star system - hell, we could miss such a civilization in our own solar system.

These immortals might colonize two or three distant solar systems to prevent sudden extinction of their civilization via various cosmic disasters, but beyond that, they'd have no motive to go further, and each of those colonies would be equally capped and efficient to the point where they'd be invisible to us.

As for exploration, eventually your technology and augmented intelligence is going to be such as to eliminate the need. Four forces and a handful of particles can only result in so many combinations, and eventually, exploring the universe is going to be like exploring Minecraft - repetitions of the same blocks gets boring after awhile. You might create virtual ones of greater complexity and explore those instead.

It may also be that we're living in a false vacuum, and every civilization that reaches a certain height realizes this, and thus in one fashion or another, exits the universe (either by creating its own more stable one, or by biding its time inside a large event horizon until it can find a solution.)

We're out in the boonies and can't see more than a few inches in front of us - if there's anything going on, it's probably closer to the galactic center. Not that it isn't more likely intelligent life is just rare as fuck, and thus any other instances of it are likely among those red-shifted galaxies, thus we are destined to never encounter each other.

Anonymous Wed May 23 14:36:25 2018 No.9762249

>>9762242
>Not that it isn't more likely intelligent life is just rare as fuck, and thus any other instances of it are likely among those red-shifted galaxies, thus we are destined to never encounter each other.
Probably a good thing, as they're probably assholes.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 15:02:32 2018 No.9762293 >>9760643 Since we exist then aliens must exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 15:17:58 2018 No.9762314 >>9762293 I counter your argument with the anthropic principle. Since we exist, aliens must not exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 15:20:44 2018 No.9762319 >>9760658 This is a good thread

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 15:30:54 2018 No.9762341 File: 1.03 MB, 1920x1340, atlantis tie fighter pod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9760643 Yes, I would like to fuck a alien's asshole. Why are you asking OP?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 15:36:01 2018 No.9762351 >>9760643 I'm not even sure if there is intelligent life on earth

Anonymous Wed May 23 18:16:32 2018 No.9762817

>>9761981
>Why can't you give me an example of an event with P(E|E) = 1 where it applies?
Any event with P(E) != 0 satisfies P(E|E)=1. Are you not familiar with probability spaces? There's always at least one event which satisfies P(E)!=0 (by definition).

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 18:24:12 2018 No.9762851 >>9760643 False dichotomy, space is massive and takes a ridiculous amount of time to circumnavigate.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 22:54:40 2018 No.9763419 this whole thread is evidence of abstinence

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 23:01:07 2018 No.9763428 >>9760657 >The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. define "evidence"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 23 23:04:46 2018 No.9763432 >>9763428 >define "evidence" see any of https://brilliant.org/wiki/bayes-theorem/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Formal_explanation https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/probability_puzzles/bayes_theorem.html

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 00:20:57 2018 No.9763521 >>9760643 >stupid aliens

Anonymous Thu May 24 02:08:27 2018 No.9763667

The universe is rather large. There has to be other sentient life forms inside of it. The two things that people (I feel) don't truly understand is the whole 'universe is fucking massive" and the less talked about is technological limitation. I'm not saying we're at the limit already, but maybe we're kinda in the end game. Though I feel the whole "universe is big" thing is the main aspect.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 02:29:35 2018 No.9763708 >>9760699 >>The absence of a check mark next to my name on tomorrow's attendance list is evidence I will be absent.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 02:33:16 2018 No.9763715 >>9760853 God.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 02:34:18 2018 No.9763716 >>9760853 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 02:35:18 2018 No.9763717 >>9762351 Evidence: This thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 02:44:00 2018 No.9763736 File: 29 KB, 640x519, 1436886710897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9762351 >>9763717 Does this thread constitute evidence of absence or absence of evidence for intelligent life on Earth?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 04:36:25 2018 No.9763914 >>9763736 maybe the absence of absence? is that a paradox?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 11:09:17 2018 No.9764345 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/71783/evidence-of-absence-absence-of-evidence

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 11:23:38 2018 No.9764375 >>9760657 But it is. Absence of evidence is what you'd expect in the actual absence of the suspected cause. It merely isn't conclusive, but it helps building a case nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 11:25:25 2018 No.9764378 >>9764375 >Absence of evidence is what you'd expect in the actual absence of the suspected cause. No, evidence of absence is what you'd expect in the actual absence of the suspected cause.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 24 11:31:54 2018 No.9764389 >>9760643 Mmore likely? Aliens are exist Aliens don't assholes

Anonymous Thu May 24 13:22:42 2018 No.9764530

>>9764375
The fact that we're here, and beyond that there doesn't seem to be anything else unique about this solar system or galaxy, and there's trillions upon trillions of them, just in our observable universe, which seems to be about 1/250th of the total, and physics seem consistent amongst it all, is more than evidence enough.

Whether there's any we can meet, and whether they are assholes, is another question.

>>	Carbon Fri May 25 00:07:11 2018 No.9765505 >>9760643 Insufficient data /thread

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 00:52:42 2018 No.9765552 >>9760699 >anon didn't show up to class so he doesn't exist at all

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 00:57:01 2018 No.9765567 >>9761837 What's that concept called? The one where because they exist so far removed from everything we know as humans, they could operate with a logic that we would consider absurd?

Anonymous Fri May 25 01:14:45 2018 No.9765600

Why is /sci/ so fucking stupid? This thread is pure garbage.

Whether absence of evidence for X counts as evidence of absence for X is simple: Would you *expect* to see evidence for the presence of X, if X were truly present?

That's it. It's so simple a toddler could understand it. Here's a simple example for you idiots: You walk into a room and take a look around. It's empty.

Case 1: This is absence of evidence for an elephant in a room. Is it evidence of absence? Yes.

Case 2: This is absence of evidence for a flea in the room. Is it evidence of absence? No.

Now stop derailing the discussion, you fucking morons.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 01:56:33 2018 No.9765657 >>9765600 I don't understand your post, you're presenting an argument for neither side hers.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 02:22:31 2018 No.9765686 >>9765600 it depends on how close your look is

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 03:02:38 2018 No.9765717 ASSHOLIANS from planet ASS

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 04:42:00 2018 No.9765802 >>9765717 zozzle

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 05:26:37 2018 No.9765833 >>9765600 >Case 1: This is absence of evidence for an elephant in a room. Is it evidence of absence? Yes. Incorrect. >Case 2: This is absence of evidence for a flea in the room. Is it evidence of absence? No. Correct.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 25 10:26:00 2018 No.9766215 >>9765657 That's because both "sides" are idiots. Whether absence of evidence counts as evidence of absence depends on the situation. >>9765686 Yes. >>9765833 Elaborate, fool.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math