|
|
Post by swamprat on Jan 26, 2020 16:30:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jan 26, 2020 21:38:48 GMT
Sorry Michio. It don't work that way.
'Makes sense' is irrelevant.
There is (apologies to respected members who think otherwise) not one single example of there being anyone else out there;...NOT ONE.
There are, of course, a lot of wishful thinkers.
So, for such a revered personage to come out with that is...surprising.
If there was even one proven example then it would be reasonable to think there may be others. But there isn't.
HAL
|
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jan 27, 2020 23:16:38 GMT
Michio Kaku: "Do the math!"
Not to sound like a broken record, but......I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT!!
|
|
|
|
Post by purr on Jan 28, 2020 2:37:30 GMT
Sorry Michio. It don't work that way. 'Makes sense' is irrelevant. There is (apologies to respected members who think otherwise) not one single example of there being anyone else out there;...NOT ONE. There are, of course, a lot of wishful thinkers. So, for such a revered personage to come out with that is...surprising. If there was even one proven example then it would be reasonable to think there may be others. But there isn't. HAL HAL, isn't Earth's abiogenesis and subsequent evolution of life that one example from which we may extrapolate it must have happened on other Earthlike planets too? purr |
|
drwu
Full Member
Posts: 209
|
Post by drwu on Jan 28, 2020 17:47:39 GMT
I have to agree with Purr on this......the fact that evolution (or however ones wants to define it) happened here means it could happen elsewhere...so the odds are very good there is indeed life out there. As to it finding it's way here...that's another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jan 28, 2020 20:42:15 GMT
Purr,Dr wu,
One can only extrapolate so far. Then you need to produce evidence to back the assertions.
Looking at the vastness of the Universe (and the possibility there may be others) it is reasonable to say there is a 'possibility' of other life; even other intelligent life. Perhaps even intelligent human like life.
But that still doesn't get us any nearer finding out what and from where (or when ?)ufo is.
|
|
drwu
Full Member
Posts: 209
|
Post by drwu on Jan 29, 2020 0:07:04 GMT
Purr,Dr wu, One can only extrapolate so far. Then you need to produce evidence to back the assertions. Looking at the vastness of the Universe (and the possibility there may be others) it is reasonable to say there is a 'possibility' of other life; even other intelligent life. Perhaps even intelligent human like life. But that still doesn't get us any nearer finding out what and from where (or when ?)ufo is. I have no clear idea what all the ufos -past and present- represent, but I have no doubt at all that we are not alone in the Galaxy. For anyone to think that evolution only happened on one little backwater planet at the edge of the Milky Way is about as silly as it gets...imho. |
|
|
|
Post by purr on Jan 29, 2020 7:02:34 GMT
Purr,Dr wu, One can only extrapolate so far. Then you need to produce evidence to back the assertions. Looking at the vastness of the Universe (and the possibility there may be others) it is reasonable to say there is a 'possibility' of other life; even other intelligent life. Perhaps even intelligent human like life. But that still doesn't get us any nearer finding out what and from where (or when ?)ufo is. Glad we do seem to agree on a (yet to be precisely defined, but calling it a "possibility" covers it nicely!) extent to which we may extrapolate from our living planet: it is probable the same thing happened on other Earth-like planets. HAL, we might reverse the argument for clarity: If it happened nowhere else, because life beginning and evolving is not supported by our Universe's laws of physics, WHY DID IT ON EARTH?!! Can you spell 'God', engaged in divine 'Creation' or alternatively 'ET' genetically engineering all the lifeforms we descend from? Could Earth life be instead a cosmic fluke (this is no rhetorical question), and how probable is that? Where's that Occam guy playing with his razor when you really need him.... purr
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jan 29, 2020 21:01:23 GMT
Purr, I have always considered Occam's Razor to be a cop out. Made popular in recent times by Winston Churchill. And it isn't always correct. (God did it; really ?) No gods where I come from. We simply don't know. It amuses us to speculate, possibly not so amusing for the people who are killed for not believing in the correct god, for the part of the world they live in. HAL.  |
|
|
|
Post by plutronus on Jan 31, 2020 18:11:12 GMT
Sorry Michio. It don't work that way. 'Makes sense' is irrelevant. There is (apologies to respected members who think otherwise) not one single example of there being anyone else out there;...NOT ONE. There are, of course, a lot of wishful thinkers. So, for such a revered personage to come out with that is...surprising. If there was even one proven example then it would be reasonable to think there may be others. But there isn't. HAL
And apparently, it seems, derived from your skeptism, that you have not experienced any recognizable form of alien contact, unlike me.
plutronus |
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jan 31, 2020 19:16:33 GMT
.. And apparently, it seems, derived from your skeptism, that you have not experienced any recognizable form of alien contact, unlike me... You are correct. however, a skeptic is always open to revising his/her view depending upon the evidence presented. It looks like you are a member of a very small club. HAL |
|
|
|
Post by plutronus on Feb 13, 2020 19:38:14 GMT
.. And apparently, it seems, derived from your skeptism, that you have not experienced any recognizable form of alien contact, unlike me... You are correct. however, a skeptic is always open to revising his/her view depending upon the evidence presented. It looks like you are a member of a very small club. HAL Skeptics who have an open mind are indeed members of a very small club, so, welcome.
plutronus :))
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Feb 13, 2020 20:30:59 GMT
By definition a skeptic has to be open to change. If you're not, then you are a denier. Or, I suppose, a believer. But you are intransigent either way. A skeptic will say 'yes, I hear your argument, and while it doesn't seem likely to me, based on my current knowledge, I am prepared to consider it's merits. Maybe I will come to accept it. A believer isn't the same as someone who knows from personal experience. A believer doesn't need either proof or experience; I think it's called 'blind faith'. HAL |
|
