We have already determined the signal is no hoax.
The signal is either.... the product of intelligent life OR the product of random chance.
ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
The signal is either.... the product of intelligent life OR the product of random chance.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
The conclusion that the signal is artificial in origin is the most committment you'll get out of me. Until more data becomes available, I will go no further.
Well then... your fired.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
I can only draw conclusions from the available data. :hammer:Well then... your fired.
I leave "thinking outside the box" to philosophers.
(You are aware that "philosopher" comes from a Greek word meaning "one who lacks the chops to find a real job", yes...?)
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.
True, but probabilistic thinking in no way affects reality. For instance, I think there is a very low probability that you will recognize the validity of Jesus Christ having died for you and then came back to life. But my believing that does not preclude the possibility of you actually determining to believe that one day. If that day ever comes, I will be thrilled to have been wrong. Really.
Gerald for sale:
Loves longs walks on the beach, prefers red wine and collects interpretive jazz music. Enjoys clever, cutting sarcastic dialog. In near mint condition! Does not work well with hypotheticals. Only serious offers wanted.
That was actually pretty funny. :chuckle:
Even funnier. :rotfl:
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Yuck! A lot you know!
Walks on the beach? Romantic drivel! Give me the streets of a smog-enshrouded city any day of the week!
Red wine? Good only for cleaning paint brushes and toilets! Irish whiskey is what Real Men™ drink!
Interpretive jazz? What sort of over-groomed nancy-boy do you take me for? Industrial death metal For The Win!
This concludes today's episode of Internet Tough Guy™.
:devil:
:rotfl:
You've wrote a long post saying that you can't appeal to probability, but really all you've said is that long term probabilities are completely irrelevant on each independent roll. I don't think anyone denies this.
They do, Johnny, in the sense that they say given enough time, life will eventually form from non-life. But there can't be lessons learned or multiple stabs at it. While the idea of a fish eventually becoming a human is absolutely stupid and utterly impossible, at least one could figure out a way to argue that since the fish is organic, then various mutations of it could eventually happen upon the right one to support the next stage (which would be AquaMan, I suppose). But from non-life to life, there could be no process. There could only be a reaction that sparks life...suddenly. So no trial-and-error over time. Therefore probabilities are irrelevant. Therefore, there are only googilians of independent rolls of the dice.
Resident bookie...out for the day. :wave:
cm :chicken:
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.Knight said:
As a side note, the "need for time" issue is not put to bed -- the probability of achieving x event in a series of instances increases as with series length. But in my opinion that doesn't really need to be explored right now for you to make your point (if you're going where I think you're going).
So... we can put Johhny down as a vote for intelligent life.
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
aaah but maybe it has when we were not listening, who knows what radio probabilities existed at the big bang.
Indeed
I noted this earlier, but it's a busy thread.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.
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?
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.Knight said:
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.