Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

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

  • Originally posted by Knight View Post
    So... we can put Johhny down as a vote for intelligent life.
    Indeed I noted this earlier, but it's a busy thread.

    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    You will have to take that up with ThePhy and SUTG who have both convincingly argued that the random signal (if it was random) could have just as easily happened on day one as on day 10,000
    I don't disagree with them. Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. The probability of receiving the signal at any given instance within a period of time does not change. It is just as likely today as it was 10,000 years ago. However, the probability of receiving a signal at some point within a 10,000 year period is greater than the probability of receiving a signal at some point within a 1 year period. I don't think they would disagree.
    “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Johnny View Post
      I don't disagree with them. Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. The probability of receiving the signal at any given instance within a period of time does not change. It is just as likely today as it was 10,000 years ago. However, the probability of receiving a signal at some point within a 10,000 year period is greater than the probability of receiving a signal at some point within a 1 year period. I don't think they would disagree.
      Exactly!

      Therefore the argument "gee... I would believe this was a random signal but since not enough time has elapsed, I guess I will have to go with intelligent life." is not a valid argument.
      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 DoogieTalons View Post
        aaah but maybe it has when we were not listening, who knows what radio probabilities existed at the big bang.
        Maybe so.

        And good point.

        Therefore, how can you determine that this particular signal particular is the product of random chance or the product of intelligent life?

        And why has every single person on this thread without exception sided with intelligence yet at the same time acknowledged that the signal didn't necessarily have to have an intelligent source? Said in short... everyone agrees that the signal could be a product of random chance but they all reject that in favor of intelligent origin.

        Why?
        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 Knight
          Therefore the argument "gee... I would believe this was a random signal but since not enough time has elapsed, I guess I will have to go with intelligent life." is not a valid argument.
          Of course it's a valid argument. Imagine a man who is rolling a dice with 1000 sides. You know this man rolls the dice once a month. Now, two months pass by and your friend asks, "Knight, do you think he has rolled a 500 yet?" Knowing that the man only rolls the dice once a month, you know that he has only rolled the dice two times. Knowing that the dice has 1000 sides, you reasonably tell your friend "It's very unlikely that he has rolled a 500 because he has only rolled the dice two times". Now imagine 100 years have passed. Your friend asks the question again. Knowing that the man has now rolled the dice 1200 times, you reasonably respond, "It's more probable that at some time in the past 1200 rolls the man has rolled a 500 than it was when the man had rolled only twice." This is the essence of what's being argued. You can simulate this very easily with a simple computer program.
          “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Knight View Post

            And why has every single person on this thread without exception sided with intelligence yet at the same time acknowledged that the signal didn't necessarily have to have an intelligent source? Said in short... everyone agrees that the signal could be a product of random chance but they all reject that in favor of intelligent origin.

            Why?
            As I said earlier, the answer is because at some level we all make the judgment call that it is more likely there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe beaming us a signal than it is that the signal was randomly generated without any sort of selection mechanism in place.
            “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

            Comment


            • Originally posted by chickenman View Post
              Well, perhaps I misunderstood you then. It was apparent to me that you were saying that probability over time would increase. But speaking in terms of life forming from a reaction of inorganic materials, then there's no "over time". There's only a whole bunch of "one shots" to get the job done. So long-term probability is 100% irrelevant. There are only a whole bunch of independent rolls of the dice. If I understood you correctly, then your atheistic faith would be your bias. If I misunderstood you, then please forgive my oversight.
              There you go mixing apples and oranges again. You and Knight obviously didn't understand my discussion of degrees of freedom either. Per event probability for stochastic processes is stable. The chances of getting heads on the millionth flip doesn't matter what happened before or after. We agree on that. But conjoint probabilities depend the number of events - generally a function of time if the events keep occurring through time.

              Now let's assume you flip a coin every second from now on, for billions of years if you like. What is the probability that you will flip 10, 100, or 100 billion heads in a row in the future? If you really understand statistics as you say you do you should be able to easily answer the following basic questions:

              1. How long with it take before there is a 95% chance you will row 10 heads in a row? How long for a 99% chance. How long for a 99.99999999% chance?

              2. Now do the same thing for 100 and 100 billion heads in a row.

              What you should know simply by common sense is that the more random events have to occur simultaneously "just right", e.g., the longer you have to wait. Likewise, the higher a level of certainty you require also requires you wait longer.

              Are you still following me? OK, let's hope so. Now do the same thing for Knight's space message. Use whatever signal encoding method you like for each letter (like ascii) and make whatever assumptions you like about what density of signals/sec SETI is capable of reading. Now compute the conjoint probabilities of all those letter-signals being observed to come together into that one unified message randomly. For example what is the expectation time you need to expect to receive such a message with 99% certainty? I don't have to sit down and do such calculations to know that the time it would take is unimaginably longer than the universe is old - 14 billion years.

              So the likelyhood of Knight's message occuring by chance does increase as you integrate conjoint probability over time - every day as long as there are new signals being monitored. But without any mechanism to select particular random signals, letters, or words in a non-random manner, like evolution does (acting upon each separate or conjoint random mutation through natural selection) the chances of conjoint occurance increases extremely slowly over time relative to a deterministic process like evolution. Such discrepancies arise and grow exponentially the more complexity you insist be embodied into one event. If scientists said that in order for evolution to work a large number of different mutations all had to occur simulateously without any natural selection process in-between I would agree that the theory was nuts. But that ain't the theory.

              If you and Knight thought this was all some ingenious trap to catch those of us who understand and accept evolution then you've just been hoisted by your own petard. I didn't need any "atheistic faith" (LOL) to do it either - just reason and logic and a little bit of intelligence.

              Originally posted by chickenman View Post
              True, but probabilistic thinking in no way affects reality.
              LOL - really? If you agree we all believe via probabilistic reasoning then that enables our beleifs to influence our actions and perceptions, that, in turn, affect outcomes and history.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                Are you saying you would like to change your answer? By all means, don't let me stop you.

                Is there a span of time that is necessary to produce the signal from space?

                You have already acknowledged the signal could have been generated on day one so I really have no idea why you would want to further argue this dead point.
                Change my answer? Not at all. But you would be well-advised to change yours.

                I think you feel you are on firm logical ground with your stance. I am comfortable in my position. I want to see if we can see where we part company.

                I am proposing a simplification of your MM scenario as a starting point. Your requirement is that every pixel on the TV have the hue and intensity of the desired picture. A too-dark pixel on her nose would look like a zit – not permitted. Not even one fly speck on the backdrop behind her, or chipped piece of fingernail polish permitted. Your are a harder taskmaster than Leona Helmsly.

                I am suggesting that the simplified test be that we start with the same picture, but only require that the pixel in the top left corner be perfect. Kind of a “one pixel” picture. That pixel can be varied over a range of hues and intensities, but only the exact hue and intensity of that pixel in the original pic will be accepted.

                Is this logically different from your MM scenario in any way other than the number of pixels involved?

                Comment


                • Given that communication is based on protocols, there are a few layers of compliance the signal must adhere to, unguided/random or designed/engineered. Here's a few I would consider significant.

                  The data portion would have been modulated within a carrier.

                  The carrier would fall within the bands being monitored of a strength sufficient to be detected, given the random 'noise' generated by natural events that's an easy one (Low Noise Amplifiers detect signals at around -140db)

                  The data portion is where things get funky. Once the demodulator strips the data signal at any given freq, though we might generally use 70 or 700 mhz we can assume SETIs using a range of intermediate freqs(IF).

                  Now within this IF is our actual data. I can think of two possibilities.
                  One, it's a straight up sinusoidal audio signal conforming to our audio range, human language syntax and semantics.
                  Two, its encoded in a binary based human encoding scheme (ASCII, UNICODE) which can be decoded by a preset algorithm on the receiving end.

                  Could it be a statistical probability of random events, sure I'll play your silly game. However I, as a reasonable man, would not only assume intelligence behind it but that said intelligence has intimate and privileged knowledge pertaining to us.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Edmond_Dantes View Post
                    Given that communication is based on protocols, there are a few layers of compliance the signal must adhere to, unguided/random or designed/engineered. Here's a few I would consider significant.

                    The data portion would have been modulated within a carrier.

                    The carrier would fall within the bands being monitored of a strength sufficient to be detected, given the random 'noise' generated by natural events that's an easy one (Low Noise Amplifiers detect signals at around -140db)

                    The data portion is where things get funky. Once the demodulator strips the data signal at any given freq, though we might generally use 70 or 700 mhz we can assume SETIs using a range of intermediate freqs(IF).

                    Now within this IF is our actual data. I can think of two possibilities.
                    One, it's a straight up sinusoidal audio signal conforming to our audio range, human language syntax and semantics.
                    Two, its encoded in a binary based human encoding scheme (ASCII, UNICODE) which can be decoded by a preset algorithm on the receiving end.

                    Could it be a statistical probability of random events, sure I'll play your silly game. However I, as a reasonable man, would not only assume intelligence behind it but that said intelligence has intimate and privileged knowledge pertaining to us.
                    Yes. If it were in ascii english and all the other factors you mentioned were in range and they didn't have any prior knowledge of us then it would be far more probable that it was the monkey-typewriter-shakespeare pure chance sort of thing.

                    One other possibility that I think unlikely is that God's plan required that the two of us get together. Could be.

                    None of this in any way has anything to offer in disproving abiogenesis or evolution.

                    In my opinion those two things are God's plan.

                    I'll edit this to say that if the above was true that I would buy God's plan as an explanation rather than random chance.

                    Comment


                    • Knight,

                      In many scientific fields they use 'confidence levels'. That is, in areas where statistical analysis of data is needed, often one cannot say ' I am 100% sure that this is correct'. One can say 'based on the data, I am 95% sure that this is correct'.

                      Now, as has been pointed out here already, evolution isn't a pure probability issue, since the results are sorted after each 'toss of the dice'.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FedUpWithFaith View Post
                        There you go mixing apples and oranges again. You and Knight obviously didn't understand my discussion of degrees of freedom either. Per event probability for stochastic processes is stable. The chances of getting heads on the millionth flip doesn't matter what happened before or after. We agree on that. But conjoint probabilities depend the number of events - generally a function of time if the events keep occurring through time.

                        Now let's assume you flip a coin every second from now on, for billions of years if you like. What is the probability that you will flip 10, 100, or 100 billion heads in a row in the future? If you really understand statistics as you say you do you should be able to easily answer the following basic questions:

                        1. How long with it take before there is a 95% chance you will row 10 heads in a row? How long for a 99% chance. How long for a 99.99999999% chance?

                        2. Now do the same thing for 100 and 100 billion heads in a row.

                        What you should know simply by common sense is that the more random events have to occur simultaneously "just right", e.g., the longer you have to wait. Likewise, the higher a level of certainty you require also requires you wait longer.

                        Are you still following me? OK, let's hope so. Now do the same thing for Knight's space message. Use whatever signal encoding method you like for each letter (like ascii) and make whatever assumptions you like about what density of signals/sec SETI is capable of reading. Now compute the conjoint probabilities of all those letter-signals being observed to come together into that one unified message randomly. For example what is the expectation time you need to expect to receive such a message with 99% certainty? I don't have to sit down and do such calculations to know that the time it would take is unimaginably longer than the universe is old - 14 billion years.

                        So the likelyhood of Knight's message occuring by chance does increase as you integrate conjoint probability over time - every day as long as there are new signals being monitored. But without any mechanism to select particular random signals, letters, or words in a non-random manner, like evolution does (acting upon each separate or conjoint random mutation through natural selection) the chances of conjoint occurance increases extremely slowly over time relative to a deterministic process like evolution. Such discrepancies arise and grow exponentially the more complexity you insist be embodied into one event. If scientists said that in order for evolution to work a large number of different mutations all had to occur simulateously without any natural selection process in-between I would agree that the theory was nuts. But that ain't the theory.

                        If you and Knight thought this was all some ingenious trap to catch those of us who understand and accept evolution then you've just been hoisted by your own petard. I didn't need any "atheistic faith" (LOL) to do it either - just reason and logic and a little bit of intelligence.
                        I PROMISE you I know exactly what you're trying to say. I just don't agree since you have different (perhaps countless) variables with each toss. Nevertheless, we are obviously not going to get on the same page. Perhaps tomorrow will bring fresh insights.

                        By the way, I've never hoisted a petard. But I was forced to hoist a leotard in fifth grade when I played Clarence from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That was a long time ago, but it's still painful memory. Thanks for haunting me with a similar sounding phrase. I may not sleep for a week.

                        Have a good night.

                        cm
                        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


                        • Originally posted by Johnny View Post
                          Of course it's a valid argument. Imagine a man who is rolling a dice with 1000 sides. You know this man rolls the dice once a month. Now, two months pass by and your friend asks, "Knight, do you think he has rolled a 500 yet?" Knowing that the man only rolls the dice once a month, you know that he has only rolled the dice two times. Knowing that the dice has 1000 sides, you reasonably tell your friend "It's very unlikely that he has rolled a 500 because he has only rolled the dice two times". Now imagine 100 years have passed. Your friend asks the question again. Knowing that the man has now rolled the dice 1200 times, you reasonably respond, "It's more probable that at some time in the past 1200 rolls the man has rolled a 500 than it was when the man had rolled only twice." This is the essence of what's being argued. You can simulate this very easily with a simple computer program.
                          Johnny, you just don't get it do you?

                          If it's theoretically possible to get the desired roll of the dice on the first try then its theoretically possibly we could get the signal from space in our life times.

                          Unless you can up with a logical reason that would preclude such an event (I am all ears!). If not, you are simply obfuscating.
                          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 chair View Post
                            Now, as has been pointed out here already, evolution isn't a pure probability issue, since the results are sorted after each 'toss of the dice'.
                            This "sorting" is it done intelligently or randomly?
                            Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                            TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                            Comment


                            • And why has every single person on this thread without exception sided with intelligence yet at the same time acknowledged that the signal didn't necessarily have to have an intelligent source? Said in short... everyone agrees that the signal could be a product of random chance but they all reject that in favor of intelligent origin.
                              count me out of the 'every single person'. I will say has an intelligent life source and I welcome it. I am more than ready for a change; perhaps some higher alien people would be able to make me healthy. I would take the risk and fly away.
                              So, what?

                              believe it!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                                I PROMISE you I know exactly what you're trying to say. I just don't agree since you have different (perhaps countless) variables with each toss. Nevertheless, we are obviously not going to get on the same page. Perhaps tomorrow will bring fresh insights.
                                Well, if you understand statistics and really understand my argument (let's exclude evolution for a minute) then, frankly, you have to agree or you're simply wrong. This is proven logic and math - it's not an atheist thing. Any Christian statistician worth his or her salt would agree with me. I'm highly trained in this stuff and I've successfully used these and far more difficult concepts in my scientific and commercial R&D to significant success.

                                Now perhaps I haven't been clear enough so if you can give concrete examples like I did to illustrate what you disagree with maybe I can help you see the light. We'll see. And just so you know, there's no trap waiting for you when you realize you are wrong. If you do see the light it won't mean God doesn't exist. It does have significant implications for at least part of what appears to be your rationale against evolution. But truth is truth whether we like it or not.

                                Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                                By the way, I've never hoisted a petard. But I was forced to hoist a leotard in fifth grade when I played Clarence from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That was a long time ago, but it's still painful memory. Thanks for haunting me with a similar sounding phrase. I may not sleep for a week.

                                Have a good night.

                                cm
                                I'm sure you were adorable with the leotard. If you care to see the origin and meaning of the expression "Hoisted by one's own petard" you can find it here:
                                http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/h...%20petard.html

                                Good night chickenman. Hope you get a good night's rest and have a clear and eager mind tomorrow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X