Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Of course that's true and therefore the appeal to "time" is nothing more than obfuscation.
    I don't understand why you say this. Are you more likely to spin your number on the roulette wheel give 20 seconds of spinning or two hours? YES or NO?


    The VERY FIRST signal that SETI received in the 1960's could have been "hello world" and it could of (hypothetically) been produced by random chance.
    Yep.

    Yet each and every one of you atheists have appealed to intelligent design instead of random chance.
    So what do you conclude from this?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Knight View Post
      Well in 1977 SETI received a "wow" signal. The "wow" signal was a pattern that was abnormal compared to all the other patterns they received to date.

      Do you suppose that the "wow" signal was intelligently designed or a product of randomness?
      I would like very much for it to be a real intended communication. It was enticing, but it was far short of convincing. Not even a vague shadow of the scenario you hypothesized.

      WOW is here.

      And here.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by SUTG View Post
        I don't understand why you say this. Are you more likely to spin your number on the roulette wheel give 20 seconds of spinning or two hours? YES or NO?
        Maybe you aren't understanding what is going o here.

        Let me ask it like this.... would time help you determine when a desired result will occur in an experiment.

        Lets say you have 20 dice. And you want to roll all 20 dice at once. And the desired result is that you want all the dice to come up as a 1 on the same roll. 20 dice rolled, all landing on 1.

        Lets say some folks start rolling the dice on January 1st 2009 and they will roll until January 1st 2011.

        You would like to see the successful roll of the dice but you can't stay at the laboratory for the entire experiment, so when do you schedule your visit?

        Is there a time frame in that experiment that it's more probable you will get your result?
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by SUTG View Post
          I think your math is wrong here.
          The last person that called me wrong...well, he was right. But not this time.
          5 dice, each with 6 numbers. The possible combinations are 6x6x6x6x6 = 7,776. Take away 4 since you cannot roll a 1, 2, 3, or 4. 7,772 is the right answer.


          I agree with all of this. (except for the 1:7,772 odds)
          Refer to my brilliance (okay, so basic multiplication skills) above.


          Hmmmm....not sure if this is too good of a case. Of course, with rolling dice, the person rolling will eventually die, etc. Bouncing the dice off of rocks will not chance the probabilities at all. Then of course, dice can be lost, etc.
          Very true, all three points.

          But if you are using this to argus against abiogensis, then you have to consider that there can be more favorable conditions that arise along with the unfavorable conditions.
          Okeedokee. My whole case has been undone. Back to the drawing board.
          Funny how threads morph.


          For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


          "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

          __.._

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Knight View Post
            What does time have to do with it?

            After all, we aren't removing undesirable results. Every single randomly generated image has the exact same odds of being incomprehensible as the last frame.

            Can't we solve this once and for all by asking this one question....

            ThePhy, isn't it hypothetically possible that the picture of Marilyn Monroe will display on the very first try? YES or NO?
            Yes, the odds of the MM pic on the first frame is just as likely as on any one of the later frames.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Knight View Post
              This is a bit long, I apologize in advance for that but there is no way for me to ask this question any more brief than this.

              Imagine that you visiting your friend for the weekend and your friend works for the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), I am sure you are all familiar with them, they sit around all day, everyday for the last 48 years or so scanning the universe for signals that come from the darkness of space looking to see if any of these signals demonstrate the hallmarks of intelligence i.e., some type of pattern. Said in short... they search the heavens for intelligent life in the universe.

              And in all those years the SETI project has had really only one "wow" moment where a signal resembled something "other" than random noise. Now of course this "wow" moment didn't really amount to much other than a few characters lined up a tad more orderly than usual. I attached the "wow" signal below so you could see the minor order in the sea of randomness.

              But lets imagine that on the weekend you were visiting something much more than a "wow" moment occurred. Lets imagine that a signal was detected emanating from the depths of space that read.....

              "people of earth, we would like to introduce ourselves to you we are a race of intelligent creatures that lives in a galaxy far, far away and we want to communicate to you that you are not alone in the universe."

              Obviously, this message would be one of the most incredible discoveries in the history of mankind.

              But what would you believe? Would you believe it was actually sent from an intelligent life source from another galaxy? Or would you believe it was merely an amazing coincidence of chance that caused a random signal to just appear to have that amazing understandable order?

              What many of you have been arguing in another thread leads me to believe that you COULD NOT determine that the message was from an intelligent source and instead it was simply "bound to happen" sooner or later because of the probability of random things eventually looking ordered (by chance). In the thread I referenced ThePhy stated that a tennis ball if thrown against a brick wall enough times would occasionally "slip through" a solid brick wall every now and then simply because the atoms and molecules might line up just right. In fact, he argued that it would, and will, happen several times if the ball was thrown enough.

              Notice what thePhy stated on the other thread...
              Therefore ThePhy's argument is... "it's bound to happen!"

              Now, I am pretty sure that a signal coming from outer space that had 40 words in a comprehensible order... (i.e., "people of earth, we would like to introduce ourselves to you we are a race of intelligent creatures that lives in a galaxy far, far away and we want to communicate to you that you are not alone in the universe.") is still FAR, FAR, FAR, more likely to occur by chance than a tennis ball passing through a brick wall or a picture of Marilyn Monroe juggling fish, accidentally generated on a computer screen by random pixels.

              Therefore, I would love an honest answer from all of you to the following question.... (finally I get to my question)

              Would you be able to determine based on that signal from space that their was intelligent life in the universe, and they were trying to communicate with us? Or would you deny the existence of intelligent life and write off the message as being merely the product of random chance that was "bound to happen"?


              What would be your assumption and why?

              Thank you in advance for your honest answer.

              It could be the people from the space station playing around, but I don't really see any evidence for extraterrestrials. UFO's are just military experiment.

              But other life should be possible. Let's just hope these beings have 2 arms and 2 legs so we can disprove evolution.
              Lo, the angel of darkness did say to me: Nay, do not fear me, I am not the great liar, but am called the author of confusion; what of me is confusing? Is it mine logic or mine knowledge? Regard my logic, regard my knowledge; worship your God; I am not your god, but an angel. Fear me not.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
                I would like very much for it to be a real intended communication. It was enticing, but it was far short of convincing. Not even a vague shadow of the scenario you hypothesized.
                Exactly! "far short of convincing" You agree the "wow" signal was not specific enough and comprehensible enough and therefore has all the earmarks of merely random chance, not intelligence.

                Therefore the "wow" signal was promising even though the "wow" signal happened a long time ago (1977), yet now you tell me a more ordered "wow" signal couldn't possibly occur because there hasn't been enough time.

                What you are really acknowledging is that time really doesn't play a factor. Your appeal to time amounts to nothing more than obfuscation. After all the "wow" signal happened in the very EARLY stages of the SETI project. The "wow" signal could have happened on day one or on day 5,000. Similarly my hypothetical message from space could have happened on day one or on day 5,000.
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
                  Yes, the odds of the MM pic on the first frame is just as likely as on any one of the later frames.
                  Thank you.

                  Therefore the odds of the signal from space are just as likely now as they are into the future.

                  The "need for time" issue has now been officially put to bed.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    SUTG, Layla, ThePhy and the like.....

                    Now that we can rule out the "need for more" as the excuse that the signal from space isn't a product of random chance why do you folks still appeal to it being a product of intelligence and NOT random chance?
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Luckily you don't get banned for being stupid. If none of us know anything about probability why are you so certain?
                      I believe I said few of us not all of us. Nor did I say I was certain of anything. See how easy it easy to let probability games fool you?

                      BTW I don't know much but I've heard the numbers on this. If people were banned in order of stupidity from a group of say 100,000 then statistically I would likely be the last man standing. That utter lack of humility is hopefully helpful in your search for a shred of it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        Is there a time frame in that experiment that it's more probable you will get your result?
                        No.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                          Thank you.

                          Therefore the odds of the signal from space are just as likely now as they are into the future.

                          The "need for time" issue has now been officially put to bed.
                          Knight left hints in this thread that this was what his perception of probabilities was. I am not sure what it will take to dissuade him, or even if it is possible. But it is comforting for him to be willing make a pointed claim that flies in the face of one of the most established parts of mathematics.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                            Thank you.

                            Therefore the odds of the signal from space are just as likely now as they are into the future.

                            The "need for time" issue has now been officially put to bed.
                            You need to take a probability and statistics course Knight, you don't have a clue what you're talking about and/or your dogma is preventing you from understanding. Plenty of easy examples have been shown you that a 10 year old should have understood.

                            If I toss a coin what are the chances on the next throw that it will come up heads? What are the chances it will come up heads after I've tossed 10 heads in a row? Now what are the chances of me tossing 11 heads in a row?

                            The laws governing the probabilistic information/signal transmission were developed by Claude Shannon over 50 years ago. All of today's sophisticated telecommunication and encryption schemes owe their existence to him. If you really want to understand it's all out there for you. Billions have been spent developing encryption schemes that essentially try to make information look as random as possible. Without signal detection algorithms no encryption could ever be broken.

                            The algorithms needed to determine the chances that randomness can completely account for any given signal are well known. This isn't even an issue of debate anymore among people who have any understanding. Such algorithms can never "prove" a signal is non-random just as no atheist can prove there is no god (or for than matter you can prove there is one). But they can tell you the chances of a given signal are 1000:1, 10000000:1, or 10 to the 211 power. At would level of probability do you yourself decide to believe that the signal comes from intelligent aliens - 1000:1, 10000:1, etc.?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                              SUTG, Layla, ThePhy and the like.....

                              Now that we can rule out the "need for more" as the excuse that the signal from space isn't a product of random chance why do you folks still appeal to it being a product of intelligence and NOT random chance?
                              Because that would be the best guess in this scenario. If an earth full of life were not here one day and then a week later was here my best guess would have to be some kind of really intelligent (and impatient) thing created it. But I still wouldn't be 100% sure.

                              When in 7th grade art class I dropped a crayon on the floor. Three of us watched as this crayon, which had a 5% bevel, stood on end. It looked like a stop action movie. Very strange. We all decided that we should erect an alter around it. As we worshipped the craqon the art teacher came by and scooped it up and threw it back into the box.

                              I have a coupleof choices as to why this thing happened or why all three of us believe it happened. Intelligent intervention by god in this case would not be my first choice but it is possible.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                                No.
                                Bingo!

                                Therefore there should be no reason that anyone else should bring up anything like "there hasn't been enough to time to generate such a complex message" etc.

                                The "need for time" issue is dead.
                                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X