UFO Disclosure Thread

[WillBrink]

And all of those non-starters are prevalent all over the galaxy and probably universe. Now if every star system had an M class planet, you might have something. But the universe in INCREDIBLY hostile to intelligent life.

I think of the Drake equation, but run it backwards. The longer we go with out hearing or seeing evidence of intelligent life, the less likely it becomes. Every ticking second makes it less likely, or really reduces the number of intelligent lives out there.

Let's not go down a debate on belief/faith vs pure objectivist positions and go off the rails of this thread, but it's not even an exaggeration to use the analogy of someone taking a single glass of water from the ocean and concluding from that there's no higher life in the oceans of this planet. That's where we are times a million as it applies to what we have examined of our galaxy alone, much less the universe. We are in our total infancy in that area, and keep in mind as smart as we are and all that we know, the universe is made primarily of matter we know very little about powered by an energy source we know nothing about at all. Think about that a minute.

Very interesting to geeks like me, is, there may be a yet un identified neutron that may be the key to understanding at least some of that, so we are still discovering sub atomic particles, and lets not even mention quantum stuff.

That alone should really make us humble and keep our human-centric egos in check.

Me, I'm open to all possibilities but must ultimately have hard proof via data for it and will never do it on faith/belief alone.

[okie]

Rgr that, for me, this is an ongoing journey and I remain agnostic-ish. I really enjoy that channel as he explores all aspects of all the biggest Qs without pushing one POV over another. He interviews them all, lets them present their intel, and leaves it to us the viewers to decide.

I will stop derailing the thread now. I take this with a big grain of salt, but interesting:

https://thepulse.one/2021/10/21/eins...-craft-beings/

I'll admit, it's a fun mind game to play with yourself. I liked that little back and forth they had. Kinda made my head hurt, though.

[okie]

And all of those non-starters are prevalent all over the galaxy and probably universe. Now if every star system had an M class planet, you might have something. But the universe in INCREDIBLY hostile to intelligent life.

I think of the Drake equation, but run it backwards. The longer we go with out hearing or seeing evidence of intelligent life, the less likely it becomes. Every ticking second makes it less likely, or really reduces the number of intelligent lives out there.

Well, that's a big part of the mystery regarding the fine tuning of the universe is that we seem to be the only place in the known sum of all existence where life of any kind can take place.

So not only would we be in the only universe that could give rise to life, we're in the only galaxy and solar system, too. And I mean that's not even scratching the surface. The statistical probability of that level of fine tuning is mathematically impossible. It's like the equivalent of winning the lottery every day for four billion years or something like that.

The kicker for me was the whole eclipse thing. That's when I was like, whoa, okay yea that's not by chance. You know how game designers like to leave easter eggs? Well, the way the sun, earth, and moon interact with each other is an easter egg left by this game's creator. No other logical way to look at it really.

And even if it were by chance, what would be the odds that human life would just so happen to evolve in the infinitesimally small window of time where it happens? Especially considering this is the only known solar system in the known universe to have such a feature. We are beyond unique, in ways that are statistically impossible to be by chance, that go way beyond any explanation offered by survivorship bias.

[WillBrink]

Well, that's a big part of the mystery regarding the fine tuning of the universe is that we seem to be the only place in the known sum of all existence where life of any kind can take place.

So not only would we be in the only universe that could give rise to life, we're in the only galaxy and solar system, too. And I mean that's not even scratching the surface. The statistical probability of that level of fine tuning is mathematically impossible. It's like the equivalent of winning the lottery every day for four billion years or something like that.

The kicker for me was the whole eclipse thing. That's when I was like, whoa, okay yea that's not by chance. You know how game designers like to leave easter eggs? Well, the way the sun, earth, and moon interact with each other is an easter egg left by this game's creator. No other logical way to look at it really.

And even if it were by chance, what would be the odds that human life would just so happen to evolve in the infinitesimally small window of time where it happens? Especially considering this is the only known solar system in the known universe to have such a feature. We are beyond unique, in ways that are statistically impossible to be by chance, that go way beyond any explanation offered by survivorship bias.

If/when going down that route, it's the opinion of just about everyone in the game that it's close to statistically impossible we are the only life that exists, but of course we are still left to use statistical probabilities based on n = 1 example.

The fine tuning of the universe that obviously favored our existence is a truly mind bending and cool topic I'm fascinated by and is debated and discussed across the full spectrum of thinkers, be they scientists, theologians, philosophers, or those that are combinations there of.

I must say, I'm more open to the The strong anthropic principle (SAP) concept the more I learn/research the topic.

But, again, I'm also keenly aware that it's the nature of humans to assume everything revolves around us and formulate all our models, beliefs, etc with the pre assumption we are special and that clouds our thinking and always has. It's inherent to the species and may be our downfall ultimately.

[okie]

Let's not go down a debate on belief/faith vs pure objectivist positions and go off the rails of this thread, but it's not even an exaggeration to use the analogy of someone taking a single glass of water from the ocean and concluding from that there's no higher life in the oceans of this planet. That's where we are times a million as it applies to what we have examined of our galaxy alone, much less the universe. We are in our total infancy in that area, and keep in mind as smart as we are and all that we know, the universe is made primarily of matter we know very little about powered by an energy source we know nothing about at all. Think about that a minute.

Very interesting to geeks like me, is, there may be a yet un identified neutron that may be the key to understanding at least some of that, so we are still discovering sub atomic particles, and lets not even mention quantum stuff.

That alone should really make us humble and keep our human-centric egos in check.

Me, I'm open to all possibilities but must ultimately have hard proof via data for it and will never do it on faith/belief alone.

That's true in a way, but it's also true that it's statistically highly probable that we're alone in the universe, in the sense that there probably aren't other inhabited planets in our physical, spatial universe in this dimension. It's kind of like saying we're the only thing broadcasting on this frequency, though. Turn the tuner knob though and who knows what we might find broadcasting on the next station. Might not want to know and wish we hadn't when we eventually do!

[Adrenaline_6]

That's true in a way, but it's also true that it's statistically highly probable that we're alone in the universe, in the sense that there probably aren't other inhabited planets in our physical, spatial universe in this dimension. It's kind of like saying we're the only thing broadcasting on this frequency, though. Turn the tuner knob though and who knows what we might find broadcasting on the next station. Might not want to know and wish we hadn't when we eventually do!

All of those statistics on both sides of the for or against other life in the universe hinge on one thing...abiogenesis. If it's possible...then the statistics for probability go way up. If it isn't, the probability falls to absolutely zero.

[WillBrink]

All of those statistics on both sides of the for or against other life in the universe hinge on one thing...abiogenesis. If it's possible...then the statistics for probability go way up. If it isn't, the probability falls to absolutely zero.

I'm not aware of any stats against in any real sense, but why would it rely on abiogenesis per se?

Universe is consciousness/higher consciousness exists, X number of intelligent life exists elsewhere as he/she/it wills it and what ever other possible scenarios could exist to potentiate life elsewhere.

I do agree in that short of any evidence to the contrary, which does not exist, abiogenesis is the theory that is considered most likley by the scientific community.

Of course, whether abiogenesis is likely and common under the right set of circumstances, or extremely unlikely, the shear numbers suggest it's statistically very likely to happen more than once.

The human mind simply can't process those numbers and so for most, that reality escapes them.

[Adrenaline_6]

I'm not aware of any stats against in any real sense, but why would it rely on abiogenesis per se?

Universe is consciousness/higher consciousness exists, X number of intelligent life exists elsewhere as he/she/it wills it and what ever other possible scenarios could exist to potentiate life elsewhere.

I do agree in that short of any evidence to the contrary, which does not exist, abiogenesis is the theory that is considered most likley by the scientific community.

Of course, whether abiogenesis is likely and common under the right set of circumstances, or extremely unlikely, the shear numbers suggest it's statistically very likely to happen more than once.

The human mind simply can't process those numbers and so for most, that reality escapes them.

I guess a "God" could do it more than once...but that would be up to "him" and trying to to understand or guess what "he" would or would not do is beyond our control or possibly even our understanding.

As far as processing the huge numbers, the reality also escapes the odds of abiogenesis happening. This numbers are equally as huge if not bigger. The only good reason the scientific community considers this most likely is because there leaves nothing else that they can easily explain without a "higher being" coming into play, so that is what they have to roll with, no matter what the odds are against it.

[WillBrink]

I guess a "God" could do it more than once...but that would be up to "him" and trying to to understand or guess what "he" would or would not do is beyond our control or possibly even our understanding.

As far as processing the huge numbers, the reality also escapes the odds of abiogenesis happening. This numbers are equally as huge if not bigger.

Based on what?

The only good reason the scientific community considers this most likely is because there leaves nothing else that they can easily explain without a "higher being" coming into play, so that is what they have to roll with, no matter what the odds are against it.

With an n=1 example, the odds against can't be calculated at all. The odds for, can be, but there's a lot of variables that can't be plugged into say the Drake Equation or others so it's +/- a huge factor. But again, that would equal say millions of planets with life to a mere few thousand in our galaxy alone... I'm not aware of any odds/stats calculations against abiogenesis.

To say the stats against are equal to the stats for, if that's what you're saying, is a false equivalence far as I know.

To be sure, science is "stuck" with abiogenesis for obvious reasons.

[georgeib]

From what I read, abiogenesis seems like a near impossibility from a statistical standpoint. I will have to dig the numbers up, but I want to say it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 1x10^80 for a single complex protein to form. Let alone a self replicating organism. You then run into the essentially impossible to overcome problem of irreducible complexity. The chances of this happening once, in a single "perfect" environment are well beyond astronomical, the chances of it happening many times are simply inconceivable.

ETA: The chance of a protein forming by chance is 1x10^164. Yup. Insane. And that's for a single protein. The simplest living organism has over 300. And you still have the insurmountable problem of irreducible complexity.
For reference, the number of particles (to include all subatomic particles) in the entire observable universe is 3.28x10^80.