Are we alone in the universe? Poll

[Antonmb]

Originally Posted by IM3CPO

...Just like we and our planet are indeed unique...


...Other than the actual verifiable truth/reality telling you the exact opposite is true.



We are intentional, special, and unique.


Because the evidence (and therefor the truth) says we are indeed alone in the universe.

“Unique - 1. being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.”

The only evidence that would prove we are indeed unique is if we were able to explore every galaxy and solar system in the universe and found no other life like ours. Short of that, our uniqueness is only a theory with insufficient evidence to prove or disprove it.

[PHC1]

I also think we should concentrate more on the mysterious forces that are causing the acceleration of our expanding universe before we make such bold claims that we are the "ones and only", "supreme lucky", "deluxe lottery of life" winners on this spinning blue ball of basic universal elements and carbon based life... Our "telescopes" are not powerful or nearly long enough to stand in front of the mirror feeling so confident about ourselves being "unique" in the face of the reality of the vastness of the universe and countless other galaxies, stars and planets... Too many mysteries to be overly confident in our "galactic knowledge" infancy. Need to grow out of diapers first...

Luckily we have a member among us who is doing exactly that and ponders the wonders of the dark energy and dark matter daily.

[IM3CPO]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

“Unique - 1. being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.”

The only evidence that would prove we are indeed unique is if we were able to explore every galaxy and solar system in the universe and found no other life like ours. Short of that, our uniqueness is only a theory with insufficient evidence to prove or disprove it.

All the evidence we currently have proves we are unique. I agree there is still a lot of "evidence" to uncover, regardless of what proof that evidence supports, but to presume future evidence must support a conclusion that contradicts current evidence is not sound.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by IM3CPO

All the evidence we currently have proves we are unique. I agree there is still a lot of "evidence" to uncover, regardless of what proof that evidence supports, but to presume future evidence must support a conclusion that contradicts current evidence is not sound.

The only evidence we have is that they haven't yet landed on the White House Lawn and even that is debatable... So who put that monolith on Phobos??? Seriously... Just a rock that fell off the cliff as some claim? Really? Where is the cliff? When the Apollo astronaut is asking that question, makes one wonder....

[PHC1]

Good old Gordon Cooper, Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, they all must have gone bat shit crazy from their moon missions to be openly talking about aliens huh.... It's just that they were much closer to the facts than the rest of us... and that my good friends is all the empirical evidence I need.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Jacques, another point I wanted to mention about videos such as these and why they do not make much sense to me. All the words thrown around like "octilion", "septillion", "abiogenesis" all make for an entertaining listening for sure. Let's however simply consider the other side of those improbable odds...

Water, as is highly suggested by some scientists is not from this planet. Water does originate in the universe and not just on our planet and is present in various forms all throughout the universe. Carbon life, well, carbon life is also present for what seems to me the simple fact that as soon as our planet was able to accept the deliveries of those two elements, they were delivered. Our planet at its origin could not have harbored any life in those conditions as far as we know so we can only conclude that simple bacteria was delivered.

Now, we can debate as to the "delivery" method but let's just stick with a simple theory of asteroids, comets, etc... Scientists already know for a fact bacteria can survive cosmic trips and is quite good at it in fact.

Bacterial spores can survive cosmic trips, not viable bacterial.

[Puma Cat]

You guys should read the Millenial Hospitality series by Charles Hall. He talks about his time interacting with the Tall Whites when he was working near the Nellis Range in the southern California desert.

He recounts how the Tall Whites had spacecraft with instellar drives based on fiber optics that allowed them to travel at faster than light speeds, and when he mentioned Einstein's Theory of Relativity that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, they laughed comically among themselves, and stated Einstein was wrong in his understanding of the Universe.

[IM3CPO]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Saying that we are unique because we have no empirical evidence of any other life out there is akin to a man standing in the middle of the desert saying I don't see anyone else, therefore I must be the only one in existence when there is a city beyond his line of sight...

Well, no. Your example doesn't really work. A person doesn't automatically forget how to apply context or a "totality of circumstances" when formulating an opinion or analyzing their situation and drawing conclusions.

If you wanted to have the best shot at your example working like you intended, you would need to give more context. For example, if a person traveled by himself/herself to Mars and stood in the middle of a desert there and said "I don't see anyone else, therefore I must be the only one in existence [within the context of Mars]", then I suppose they would be correct and your example would work. But assuming there is no city is not accurate as they have nothing to do with each other. Technically that one person on Mars could have built the city they happen to not be able to see at the time, so again, you are falling into the same non sequitur traps as before. Here is another way to convey this. Someone could say "This horse has four legs. Therefore horses have four legs.", even if they have not seen every horse that exists, is still reasonable and based on facts. But saying "Horses have four legs. I saw an animal with four legs. It must be a horse." is not necessarily true, and is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by PHC1

We've only recently even glimpsed outside our own galaxy... It wasn't long ago we thought the Milky Way was the ONLY galaxy... Let's not jump to conclusions or get ahead of ourselves here? Just because we have not yet officially discovered other life also does not mean there is NO other life. It's all speculative at best. Odds are definitely in favor of other intelligent life out there.

I am not jumping to conclusions; My only point is there is no reason to assume there is other life. All evidence we have to this point supports this statement (no life outside Earth). Again, assuming the outcome of what future evidence will or will not support is dangerous as you will most likely miss or ignore important actual, empirical, evidence.

Originally Posted by PHC1

Unless of course you are implying that we are special or unique based on alternate theories of "creation" or "simulated reality"? Let's stick to the basics here without evoking those alternative theories.

OK

Originally Posted by PHC1

I would have to agree that we are "intentional" and some scientists have alluded to as much, saying that the chances of life happening by random chance is akin to a tornado going through a junkyard full of airplane parts and at the end there is a brand new Boeing 747 standing fully assembled...

This however always has to be resolved further and to resolve it further means asking the ultimate question of who created us? Depending on which way you look at it... If it was aliens, surely they were created by someone else, if we are living in a simulated reality, then who is the programmer, who created that programmer, etc until you ultimately get to the "supreme being". That however has religious overtones and perhaps that is the reality, we simply can not or at least do not yet have empirical evidence of that either.

I do see what you are saying here and while its the next logical step in the conversation of Aliens and life forms on other planets, its technically not something that needs to be addressed as long as the topic is limited to purely whether the life outside our planets exists. Where life came from or where we came from is out of scope.

Originally Posted by PHC1

As to your comments about parrots and various ages. We are living in a technological age, I think it is rather clear that at this point we have evolved and perhaps even have stopped evolving as far as our brains go but the level of technology we have achieved allows us to continue on with progress and new inventions with the help and aid of such things as computers, powerful software, running simulations that would have taken thousands to millions time slower to calculate by using our "intelligence" without machines.

I think its safe to say your opinion is rather short sighted. For example, modern day humans dont come close to utilizing 100% of their brain potential. Pick whatever person you think is the smartest that ever existed they they statistically didnt use more of their brain than anyone else either. To say people can't break this barrier at some point tends to oppose many of your other statements about the rapid rate of progress. Why cant the "machines" at some point enable us to unlock our true potential? Again, your statements are somewhat contradictory..

Originally Posted by PHC1

How about Artificial intelligence which clearly eventually be superior to us in every imaginable way? It will pave the way to further technological progress at an even more accelerated pace. Engineers are already blown away when using AI to help them design things and this is only the beginning...

I would not agree.. AI is clearly not superior to us in every way. AI has LOTS of issues. One easy example is up sampling a picture. NVidia GPU's have Tensor cores that are designed for AI applications. They have a feature where their video card can render an image at a lower resolution, then use the AI core to up sample the image to a higher resolution as a way to display the higher resolution image at a faster rate than what could be done natively. The problem is the AI cant get the images to look correct. NVidia even admitted it used hundreds of thousands of AI analyzing literally trillions of game footage images and the AI cant do what any average intelligence human being can do within seconds. Can they be used to solve certain problems? Yes.. And can they be used in some situations where they have advantages over humans? Yes. But they are far from perfect and there are countless situations where they will never be able to work. They are a tool, just like the other tools I mentioned last time.

Originally Posted by PHC1

Intelligence, education and applied skills are not all the same thing.

True...

Originally Posted by PHC1

A rocket scientist would not make a good surgeon, a surgeon would not make a good rocket scientists and neither could do a good enough of a welding job...

This is a big assumption. There is no way to prejudge whether someone is or would be good at something based on non-related skills. Just like it would not be not accurate to prejudge someone's ability based on race, gender, etc.

Originally Posted by PHC1

Linear or exponential measurement of technological progress? Let's see here... Depends on how you look at it. Going from basic stone age tools to the bronze age to the iron age to the rocket age??? Surely you have noticed that our progress has been a snail pace until approximately 150 years ago... We went from taking a bath once a month and using whale oil for light to exploring Mars....

But your statement overlooks the fact that we also went technologically backwards several times during human history. Like the Pyramids in Egypt or more generally, the seven wonders of the Ancient World. Or more recently, the devolution impact the black plague had on human development. Technology has regressed several times and some technologies have been lost entirely.

Originally Posted by PHC1

It would be logical to assume no matter the capacity of the brain of any intelligent life, at some point their technology also allows further progress at an accelerated pace and machines or other technology that far exceed the capability of any developed brain. Time actually IS essential here because as I have already mentioned, as soon as we hit the technological age of conductors, electricity, solid state devices, silicone chips, our progress skyrocketed. We are now looking into the quantum computing era! Imagine where we will be in another 1000 years. How about 10,000 or a Million years?? Surely any civilization that has achieved machines that expand on the capability of the brain such as our technology does today, the limit will only be that of the laws of physics and even those can probably be bent?

Logic would dictate other life forms would be affected the same way we are. Going through periods of advancement, and devolution. Its possible we could be on a brink of exponential technological gains, but its also possible we stagnate or go backwards over the next generations. Again, there is no reason to put limits on future facts or outcomes.

Originally Posted by PHC1

Let's not even go into other differences that might exist between us and extraterrestrial life and their unique abilities that could and probably would differ from ours. If life is so abundant and diverse on our planet, it would be logical to assume one would encounter a diversity on other inhabitable planets where abiogenesis occurred. If they look like reptiles instead of humanoid figures like we are accustomed to, why should that be surprising, that would be their evolution of species with the highest intelligence levels. If they don't walk and fly or swim instead? Who are we to judge if we evolved from chimps? Is that something to be proud of? What if alien life developed from a life form with 8 appendages and 100 fingers and also a tail to lean on for superior balance?

This gets to the crux of the initial question. There is no evidence of other life outside this planet. Period. And there is no information that supports this will change at any time in the future. I am not putting limits on what potential new evidence the future holds; only that nothing currently supports the notion any evidence in the future will be different than the evidence of the past.

Originally Posted by PHC1

Time is of essence in technological progress once the equivalent of "computing" age is reached. Would we want to bet that our computers today would be the equal of computers 100 years from now? Ridiculous. How about airplanes? No? Cars?What then? Nothing... everything will be superior. A civilization hundreds of thousands or millions of years ahead, given similar computing age achievements would be light years ahead of us across the board.

As stated earlier, technological changes are definitely occurring and will continue to occur. It doesnt have any bearing on life outside this planet though. Its simply not related.

Originally Posted by PHC1

The recent pilot testimony of witnessing a cube encased in a sphere flew that flew between their jet fighters? These objects were there daily for a period of time and present all day long just toying with the pilots? That's earthly technology? Of what country I wonder... Ours? Secret skunk works? Top secret technology? What are they doing taunting pilots to attract the inevitable attention" Me thinks NOT...

Well, I also happen to have some experience on this side of things too. And yes, sightings boil down to three groups: One is genuine atmospheric anomalies. Another is human technology. Lastly, people make stuff up or are simply wrong about what they perceived/witnessed/experienced. I suppose a forth category or maybe a subcategory of #3 is being in an altered state of mind (dreaming, hypnosis, drugs). But its not aliens...

[IM3CPO]

Originally Posted by PHC1

The only evidence we have is that they haven't yet landed on the White House Lawn and even that is debatable... So who put that monolith on Phobos??? Seriously... Just a rock that fell off the cliff as some claim? Really? Where is the cliff? When the Apollo astronaut is asking that question, makes one wonder....

From what information we have.. And I am going off recollection here from various sources... The monolith you reference is a natural formation. I agree it appears to be in a very peculiar shape in that photograph but it comes down to the light playing tricks and not having proper scale. Dont get me wrong, its very large and I would like to go see it in person, but best guess is its most likely a bedrock material that just happened to get stuck like that. If humans go there in person and find any evidence contrary to what I said, then so be it. But a rock standing up like that doesnt mean an alien put it there.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Bacterial spores can survive cosmic trips, not viable bacterial.

Panspermia is the only viable theory of how our hot mess of a planet was seeded. Of course the experiments did confirm that it is possible. https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040...040830-10.html