The Religion of Aliens

RichieC

I love the idea that this all could be a virtual world.

imagine its creators faces when they see CERN.

"Check this out flargal..I think this virus is on to us"

mconigol

RichieC wrote: »

I sure hope the ID proponents on hear are yanks...depressing to think I have country mates that dull

A bunch of people having what seems to me to be a very mature conversation about the nature of the universe and its relationship to religion? Yeah very dull.

Carter P Fly

The universe is infinate but our maths cant work with infinates so we talk crap like the universe is expanding when its not.

Seachmall

mconigol wrote: »

Well we could be in a locally expanding bubble of "something" in an infinite universe.

But even if we're expanding locally that must be caused by an expansion elsewhere, mustn't it? Something must be pulling the at the perimeter of our bubble, which means there must be a larger bubble around ours with a larger bubble around that ad infinitum.

Which brings us back to the issue, if the universe is infinite what is it expanding into?

seamus

Yahew wrote: »

Too far away to hear their signals? Would a galactic sized empire not create obvious alien artefacts which we couldn't explain normally?

You're assuming that a galactic empire could ever exist. If anything, our poking around in the stars has shown that while there's lots of interesting stuff out there, many solar systems are effectively dead. For a galactic empire, these may be useful places to gather resources, but not somewhere that you would have a permanent colony.
The effort of travelling to another solar system is huge - you would try to travel to the most hospitable place you can, rather than go somewhere to collect resources but which require massive resources to do so.
Any concept of a galactic empire underestimates the scale of the galaxy, never mind the universe. It's not like taking over a country or colonising a continent.

As for "obvious alien artefacts", I'm not sure what you mean. The distances are so ridiculously massive, that the odds of an alient artefact randomly straying within a few hundred thousand km of earth (and during a period that earth is capable of monitoring the skies) are unfathomably tiny.

It would be like dropping a paperclip in the ocean in Florida and expecting that it will arrive in Cork at exactly the time that someone else happens to be standing on the beach looking in the ocean for paperclips.

So cleary there are no large civilisations out there

This is impossible to say. We have been able to receive electromagnetic communications for all of 100 years. A tiny instant in the vastness of time. In order to pick up a transmission from another civilisation, they would need to have sent the transmission thousands of years before we would be able to pick it up. One of the main candidates to hold life at the moment is around 600ly away. In order for us to have detected a civilisation on that planet, the civilisation would have had to have sent a transmission in our direction (taking the distance, time and movement into account), back in the 1400's, when were all riding around on horseback, living in wattle cottages and killing eachother.

Likewise we've only been using electromagnetic communications for 100 years-ish. So even if these are picked up by another civilisation, it will be thousands of years (at best) before we get any kind of response.

It's not a simple matter of, "Hey look, there's some clever people, let's talk to them".

I think Fermi's paradox poses a valid question, but when you take the vastness of the galaxy into account, it very adequately explains why we've seen and heard nothing.

mconigol

Seachmall wrote: »

But even if we're expanding locally that must be caused by an expansion elsewhere, mustn't it? Something must be pulling the at the perimeter of our bubble, which means there must be a larger bubble around ours with a larger bubble around that ad infinitum.

Which brings us back to the issue, if the universe is infinite what is it expanding into?

The current understanding is that the observable universe isn't a bubble though. That's how we visualise it because we're unable to see it any other way but in fact everything is moving away from everything else. "This" is all there is. It's not known if we're expanding into anything because we can't see that far.

I realise I'm explaining myself very badly, mainly because I haven't thought about this **** in a few years!

RichieC

mconigol wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

I sure hope the ID proponents on hear are yanks...depressing to think I have country mates that dull

A bunch of people having what seems to me to be a very mature conversation about the nature of the universe and its relationship to religion? Yeah very dull.

There's nothing mature about "because god" imo

conor.hogan.2

We can not "hear" the other side of this galaxy nor can we see most of the universe.

Relatively speaking there could be intergalactic wars raging and we would not know of them.

Similarly if there is life what is to say they do not have internal struggles like we have and possibly destroy themselves before they travel further than their solar system?

jester77

I'm awaiting the day that all religions meet, join forces and create the one religion to rule them all. The aliens won't stand a chance!

Mickeroo

Yahew wrote: »

Science told me. the universe is finite but unbounded.

( if it is measurable - trillions of stars, and has a start and end, it cant be infinite).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090428092123AASNZFv

( This is one universe though - there is a theory of multiple multi-verses, which are infinite, but they run parallel to this one. Lets stick to the one we are in).

They actually started the first quantifiable testing for the multiverse earlier this year afaik. Maybe its a load of toss though

I reckon there is probably intelligent life out there somewhere, but the universe is far too vast for us to ever find them I'm afraid, plus interstellar space travel is more or less against the laws of physics(for now anyway).

Having said that, the odds of finding some sort of life in our own solar system aren't as low as one might think. Europa and Enceladus being the most promising places as scientists are pretty certain there's liquid water on both of those, there was also evidence of liquid water on Mars earlier this year too. Exciting time to be alive.

mconigol

RichieC wrote: »

There's nothing mature about "because god" imo

All I've seen is people having an intelligent, respectful conversation.

Then you get the usual religion bashers coming on who have no interest in anything other than undermining anyone who discusses a god or god no matter in what context. That's what's not mature.

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

But you're separating out a supreme being from the rest of the universe, while I think intelligence is a property of the universe itself.

Of course i am. I'm working off the information that is currently available to me.

If it wasn't random and it wasn't chance that would imply some degree of intelligence behind the process, wouldn't it?

Nope, you are missing my point.

Yahew

seamus wrote: »

You're assuming that a galactic empire could ever exist.

No I was assuming the opposite. Thats the whole point of agreeing with the Fermi paradox.

If anything, our poking around in the stars has shown that while there's lots of interesting stuff out there, many solar systems are effectively dead. For a galactic empire, these may be useful places to gather resources, but not somewhere that you would have a permanent colony.
The effort of travelling to another solar system is huge - you would try to travel to the most hospitable place you can, rather than go somewhere to collect resources but which require massive resources to do so.
Any concept of a galactic empire underestimates the scale of the galaxy, never mind the universe. It's not like taking over a country or colonising a continent.

A civilization 1 billion years older than Earth would have done this though, with generational travel through the stars. Even just for sh*ts and giggles.

As for "obvious alien artefacts", I'm not sure what you mean. The distances are so ridiculously massive, that the odds of an alient artefact randomly straying within a few hundred thousand km of earth (and during a period that earth is capable of monitoring the skies) are unfathomably tiny.

I mean clear large manipulation of their local area - i.e. a Dyson sphere.

It would be like dropping a paperclip in the ocean in Florida and expecting that it will arrive in Cork at exactly the time that someone else happens to be standing on the beach looking in the ocean for paperclips.

Not for a large Galactic, or interstellar Empire. That should leave obvious traces. And according to the plenty of life theorists there should be hundreds, if not thousands, of civilisations older than us in the local galaxy.

This is impossible to say. We have been able to receive electromagnetic communications for all of 100 years. A tiny instant in the vastness of time. In order to pick up a transmission from another civilisation, they would need to have sent the transmission thousands of years before we would be able to pick it up. One of the main candidates to hold life at the moment is around 600ly away. In order for us to have detected a civilisation on that planet, the civilisation would have had to have sent a transmission in our direction (taking the distance, time and movement into account), back in the 1400's, when were all riding around on horseback, living in wattle cottages and killing eachother.

What does it matter what we were doing? The universe is 20 billion years old, and civilisations should have - if they are as common as the pro argument says - being transmitting across it for a billion or so years. Why would they stop in our 100 year window, ( unless they are rare)?

Likewise we've only been using electromagnetic communications for 100 years-ish. So even if these are picked up by another civilisation, it will be thousands of years (at best) before we get any kind of response.

Thats irrelevent to what we see.

It's not a simple matter of, "Hey look, there's some clever people, let's talk to them".

who said it was?

I think Fermi's paradox poses a valid question, but when you take the vastness of the galaxy into account, it very adequately explains why we've seen and heard nothing.

It doesn't, the only solution is life is less certain than the pro group argues.

The universe is 15-20 billion years old. The earth is 4 billion years old. Even if life can only have formed in the last 5-6 billion years, then there must be earth type planets which are 1-2 billion years older than earth, and where evolution started 1-2 billion years before the Earth. Given where we are now, with similar evolution and the inevitability of intelligent life(according to the pro-intelligent life group) and taking into account the size of the Galaxy (lets just stick with the local area), then intelligent life should be way ahead of us and being producing signals for billions of years. Note: this isn't my point, but he point I am refuting, thats the nature of presenting a paradox.

Whenever Fermi's paradox is presented, someone refutes it with reasons why there might be some flaw in the paradox's original logic, but that is what the paradox assumes.. So there is no point in taking part of my last paragraph and saying that I might be wrong about the 5-6 Billion years where life was possible, or that the centre of the galaxy is inhospitable to life. I agree. The pro-group needs to explain why the paradox isn't a paradox. The people who gave lots of stats as to why there would be lots of life, need to explain why we haven;t seen it.

Standman

Carter P Fly wrote: »

The universe is infinate but our maths cant work with infinates so we talk crap like the universe is expanding when its not.

I presume you have your own thoroughly researched hypothesis which led you to that conclusion?

Wattle

We're here so I don't see a reason why 'they' can't be somewhere but we'll probably never find them as space is too vast.

RichieC

Standman wrote: »

Carter P Fly wrote: »

The universe is infinate but our maths cant work with infinates so we talk crap like the universe is expanding when its not.

I presume you have your own thoroughly researched hypothesis which led you to that conclusion?

sure look at the sky at night...doesnt look expanding to me :pac:

niall_h

FrostyJack wrote: »

There was a BBC Horizon episode about time travel that came to the conclusion it is statisical probability we are programmes running around in a Matrix type environment.

Found it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfEnyxxSu4c

Duckworth_Luas

RichieC wrote: »

sure look at the sky at night...doesnt look expanding to me :pac:

The Sky at Night you say.

1957

Today

You have to admit, there has been some expansion!

TeddyTedson

I have proof of the existence of aliens but as for God who knows. There will never be a way of proving she does or doesn't. All I know is a lot of people who go mad on drugs always end up finding Jesus, WT+F is that about? I often have hallucinations but I know it's just noise, not an image sent from the big man up top or anything like that.

DublinWriter

NiallSparky wrote: »

Anyone who claims to be certain there is no God is just as wrong as anyone who claims they're certain there is one.

Well, you just as might say the sun won't come up in the morning.

I prefer empirical research methods rather than the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" approach, which to my mind, is basically speculation.

seamus

Yahew wrote: »

Whenever Fermi's paradox is presented, someone refutes it with reasons why there might be some flaw in the paradox's original logic, but that is what the paradox assumes..
...
The pro-group needs to explain why the paradox isn't a paradox. The people who gave lots of stats as to why there would be lots of life, need to explain why we haven;t seen it.

But isn't that the point? That Fermi's paradox makes a lot of assumptions?

It's a paradox insofar as, "If a, b, c, d, x, y & z are all correct then m must also be correct".

As far as I'm concerned, it's an interesting question, but based on too many assumptions to say that, "Fermi's Paradox proves that there is very little life in the universe". If just one of the assumptions of the paradox are false, then there is no paradox.

For example, there is no reason to assume that a civilisation would be billions of years old, or have constructed a dyson sphere.

I understand it the paradox, I accept it as a valid contention, however it's all based on far too many postulates to consider it a compelling argument, IMO.

RichieC

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I have proof of the existence of aliens but as for God who knows. There will never be a way of proving she does or doesn't. All I know is a lot of people who go mad on drugs always end up finding Jesus, WT+F is that about? I often have hallucinations but I know it's just noise, not an image sent from the big man up top or anything like that.

Indoctrinated children, nanas and ex drug/drunks are the churches bread and butter.

Mickeroo

Yahew wrote: »

What does it matter what we were doing? The universe is 20 billion years old, and civilisations should have - if they are as common as the pro argument says - being transmitting across it for a billion or so years. Why would they stop in our 100 year window, ( unless they are rare)?



The universe is 15-20 billion years old. The earth is 4 billion years old. Even if life can only have formed in the last 5-6 billion years, then there must be earth type planets which are 1-2 billion years older than earth, and where evolution started 1-2 billion years before the Earth. Given where we are now, with similar evolution and the inevitability of intelligent life(according to the pro-intelligent life group) and taking into account the size of the Galaxy (lets just stick with the local area), then intelligent life should be way ahead of us and being producing signals for billions of years. Note: this isn't my point, but he point I am refuting, thats the nature of presenting a paradox.

Just curious. Where are you getting this figure? As far as anyone is concerned I though the universe was regarded as being 13.75 billion years old?

TeddyTedson

RichieC wrote: »

Indoctrinated children, nanas and ex drug/drunks are the churches bread and butter.

I love religion, I love the history, art and magic of it all. It's absolutely fascinating. I remember my mother would tell me about guardian angles as a child, I could swear to this day that I sometimes saw them:eek:
But that was as a child, your mind play all sorts of tricks with you.

Yahew

Mickeroo wrote: »

Just curious. Where are you getting this figure? As far as anyone is concerned I though the universe was regarded as being 13.75 billion years old?

You are right. The last cosmology book I read gave 15-20B, it seems to be agreed at about 13.75 B now, with very small deviations. Good catch.

Not sure how this affects my argument. I assumed that life could not exist anywhere until the last 5-6 B anyway.

Mickeroo

Yahew wrote: »

You are right. The last cosmology book I read gave 15-20B, it seems to be agreed at about 13.75 B now, with very small deviations. Good catch.

Not sure how this affects my argument. I assumed that life could not exist anywhere until the last 5-6 B anyway.

Doesn't affect your argument at all, was genuinely curious

Yahew

seamus wrote: »

For example, there is no reason to assume that a civilisation would be billions of years old, or have constructed a dyson sphere.

I understand it the paradox, I accept it as a valid contention, however it's all based on far too many postulates to consider it a compelling argument, IMO.

its based on the same argument as the pro-(lots of) intelligent Aliens group, and then presents the paradox - where are they?

If you refute the idea that a civilisation would be billions of years old then you are not refuting fermi's paradox but agreeing with it. The paradox means ( like all paradoxes) that the initial terms were incorrect. It predicted A, but it got B. Which term is incorrect is not for the Paradox to determine. All might be. One is definitely incorrect ( approaching zero in probability).

This is a common mathematical trick.

specifically:

The claim that life would originate on Earth-like planets at a high frequency would assume that some planets would have intelligent life which is billions of years older than us, since some of these planets are billions of years older than the Earth. If your response to that is that life probably didn't originate anywhere before the Earth, then you are arguing against - not the Fermi paradox - but the claims of the believers in large scale alien intelligence.

Fermi merely takes the terms of the pro intelligent alien arguments and responds with the paradox - the empirical evidence proves this wrong? Where are they?

Refuting the terms of the Femri paradox does not refute the paradox, quite the opposite. The paradox is saying some, or all, of those criteria are wrong, or the high probability assumed is wrong; and at least one term is highly improbable, in fact close to zero in probability.

But you cant refute the paradox by contesting the terms of the paradox, the paradox already does that.

Birroc

NiallSparky wrote: »

Anyone who claims to be certain there is no God is just as wrong as anyone who claims they're certain there is one.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof

Batsy

starbelgrade wrote: »

It strikes me as quite odd that some are absolutely certain that there is no God, but seem to be very open to the fact (or totally believe that) aliens exist.

I mean there is no proof that either exist. The retort that there "must be more intelligent life" is as convincing to me as "there must be a God".

So is the belief in aliens just like a religion for the science fiction enthusiasts or is there more to it than that?

Aliens almost certainly exist.

Of all the trillions of planets that exist in our own galaxy, never mind the quadrillions of planets that exist in the billions of other galaxies that make up the universe, the chances that Earth is the only one with life is almost nil.

And the belief that humans are the only intelligent life in this vast universe is also very arrogant.

Fighting Irish

in for later