opti.. listen to mustang.. if we go by elroch definition.. it just like changing the title to..
“Random sequences as defined by our ability to predict them.”
think thats cool? its like he dont want the Q. "does TR exist" to be asked in the first place. funny! : )
I’m open to “other worlds”
Just not outside our own.
Perhaps other worlds exist, but only within the one we see.
"What's the best way to avoid the "maybe's" and the "no's?"
the best way is too read the situation correctly. heres a quote i like.. think you will too.
"Even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
This finding has enormous implications for negotiation professionals. People who believe they can build a case for their side using logic alone are doomed to be poor negotiators"
Right you are. Chapter 5 of Robert Cialdini's book 'Influence' reminds me of your quote.
" Liking: The Friendly Thief"
It's a weapon of influence of course. Cialdini notes that this liking rule is then professionally exploited in many ways. Interpersonal relationships etc.. Was going to insert an lol here but nah..
I’m open to “other worlds”
Just not outside our own.
Perhaps other worlds exist, but only within the one we see.
Why? As vast as the universe is there are no other planets capable of supporting life?
How old are you anyway?
I suggest Axel making yourself aware of the Multi-verse concept. MV or MW - Many Worlds
Before shouting your mouth off about how old am I . The MW has nothing to do with whether or not other planets can support life. Geez people here ready at the trigger. Simple references get easily abused. Since when does “other worlds “ mean “life on other planets “? An assumption ready made to go in the attack. These people are boring and tiresome. Waste of energy here.
Same show as Opti who can only respond in a singular fashion.... as he’s convinced I’m an ID’er despite my dozens of explanations to the contrary. There can be no honest discussion with such, so mistakenly misguided and judgemental continuing to provide false info.
Oh stop with the horse **** and answer the question.
I'll be back shortly, and try to clear things up for you.
Playing games now are we Axel?
Sandbox stuff, deleting posts, reposting - childish stuff
Texting and driving are a big no no out here Mustang Sally. Now, I believe this came up before in one of our previous discussions, and you never answered quite satisfactory.
Quick interruption though, I can still clearly see that you are the same liar now as you were back then. Flat out bold faced liar not even worth developing a rapore with.
But I'm in this far so here is the question again.. Life in this universe, this one got it? No? Life in this one?
Do you want to ask if aliens exists or not?
I definitely can see Axels logic. I’m a bold face liar yet he comes to me for an answers. On about something or other. Why be asking me about life on other planets? The answer is no - No lie. There remains to be any evidence. I don’t believe things are possible/not possible based on probabilities.
If your asking me, I would say let's start with plant and animal life first and see where that takes us.
But really, I've dealt with this guy before and would just like to get a straight answer out of him for once. Scratch that, I think my evaluation of him is done now. (UNHEALTHY).
If we see for probability I can surely alien exists. Do I need to explain?
Please enumerate. And don’t forget to include the part where we’re told the proof lies in the maths. It’s comforting to know we are not the only ones. I’ll rest better tonight. Won’t be feeling so lonely.
Ok let's see how one second on earth goes like—
9003 tweets
2918134 Emails sent
84387 YouTube videos viewed
83377 Google searches
740,000 WhatsApp messages
So this was internet data of one second. You can ask me the source
Now let's talk life—
1.80 humans dies in a sec.
4.3 births per second.
Why I m talking about this? What's the connection?
Well this shows what actually we do is not only done by us. Most of the time every action is simultaneously done by more than a person. This all happens on a single planet of land area 510.1 million kilometers square.
More than a hundred life ends and starts in a minute.
This earth is even less than a size of a cell for a body called universe.
Now you expect that all those figures above happens only on this negligible size planet.
You can expect water sources in a 200 km range in a desert but can't expect to have two or more water sources in a 1×10³⁰+ km range in universe?
This means life exists . Not only on a micron sized dot called earth but maybe on a trillion planets. We're not only one to send a mail at any instant in this dot. Then how can it be that only we live in a place containing centillions of such dots. Still it can't be conformed that alien exists. But probability tells that we are not alone to have eyes and ears in this whole universe....
Try to understand I m not a philosopher but don't believe in complete randomness....any questions?
You'd probably be surprised at the proportion of Physics PhD candidates that believe or accept Many Worlds as a likely interpretation of QM. I suspect about 7% actually claim to believe it's the most likely interpretation.
I'm not sure what "the most likely interpretation" means. What is likely?
Like you imply, it makes their humdrum existence more fun. It can't possibly affect real physics and it can't possibly be tested for, so they're free to follow it and it makes them interesting to others, apparently. A bit like a politics student growing a beard and saying he's a Marxist?
It is an elegant interpretation, a particularly simple one (simplicity and size of the state space are very different things. Mathematically simple things can be very small or very large. eg, in a sense the hierarchy of sets is simple, because it is defined by a small number of simple rules).
The MWI became attractive to me because of Feynman's descriptions of its origins: his sum of all possible paths interpretation. It is beautiful that if you consider a particle to take all possible paths and then add all of them in a precise way, you get exactly the same predictions as quantum mechanics. Some may feel that a theoretical wave function travelling through space and then suddenly vanishing in the wave function collapse is more satisfying, but I am not one of them and find this less suggestive of underlying truth (whatever that might mean).
opti.. listen to mustang.. if we go by elroch definition.. it just like changing the title to..
“Random sequences as defined by our ability to predict them.”
think thats cool? its like he dont want the Q. "does TR exist" to be asked in the first place. funny! : )
Randomness is uncertainty in predictions. That's the definition. This discussion is mostly about carts leading horses by disagreeing about what concept the phrase "true randomness" should apply to. But this should surely be agreed: true randomness has to be based on randomness.
It's worth pondering how misguided it would be to have a discussion about what squidleplook should mean, but until there is an agreed definition of "true randomness", this discussion is exactly as misguided.
The numbers all sound spot on. Chances are good the aliens will confirm such speculation.
Just wondering- if there were only 1x10 to the 20th water sources and not the 30th as predicted, does this lower the chances life exists on other planets? Just when do the odds become low enough to exclude possibility? If large numbers in probabilistic form indicate certainty of other life, very low probabilistic numbers mean what ?
I’m perfectly fine with you holding a scientific seminar titled “Random sequences as defined by our ability to predict them.” Discussion would center about specific observations. Debate over exotic events being random or not. All well and good in keeping with the original definition.
The problem arises when the interpretation of the seminar subsequently gets understood as confirmation for the existence of randomness in the universe. That it was discovered events happened by chance.
Way too much info filled with complications.
Because a reason is not found to explain the origin of something - it should not be assumed things happpen by chance/random.
A good example of an assumption made that lacks any empirical evidence. With a created/designed universe it’s assumed the universe to be of a deterministic nature. A natural conclusion. If it’s believed the universe began by chance only following its own physical laws - it’s assumed events in that universe happen by chance. A natural conclusion. But none of it actually proves it’s existence. Only that stuff looks like it by your definitions.
After all if everything were found to be predetermined then a Reason for our existence would exist. No right scientist would permit such a thought 🙃