5 ms·
> Occam’s Razor says it’s unlikely that the very first object we ever see from interstellar space just happens to be a spaceship. Well, isn't this kind of self
by Voloskaya 9y ago
> Occam’s Razor says it’s unlikely that the very first object we ever see from interstellar space just happens to be a spaceship.
Well, isn't this kind of self fulling thing?
Because we assume first that this is an interstellar asteroid, then the following statement is "proven":
> Researchers had long theorized that space should be full of comets and asteroids ejected from other solar systems during their early days. Their models showed that planetary formation is a messy business, with many small objects kicked out as big proto-planets form. `Oumuamua is the first proof that they were right
And at this point, yes, it appears very unlikely that the first interstellar object we meet would be artificial.
But if we start by saying we don't know what it is, then the above theory is just speculation, and might be false (what if planeraty formation is a clean process?).
If the theory above can be false, then it could make sense that the first interstellar object we encounter would be artificial, no?
It seems to me that Occam's Razor doesn't tell us much in this instance.
- nuclx 9y agoWhat I thought. The absence of a priori knowledge prohibits the application of Occam's Razor in this case.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- hyperpallium 9y agoUnfortunately, Occam's Razor can say whatever you want by fiddling the apriori probabilities. Here, the probability you need is how likely that theory is to be true - just because it could be false doesn't mean it's 50-50. If all the models show planet formation is messy, it seems reasonable to estimate its probability as much greater than 0.5 (note that even if it's 0.9999, they still could be wrong).
- Voloskaya 9y agoTotally agree. My point is just that I find it a bit weird/circular to use Oumuamua as the `first proof` for a theory that is subsequently used with Occam's Razor to demonstrate that Oumuamua is likely not something else.
- AdamJacobMuller 9y agoExactly what I was thinking reading this article. Perhaps Oumuamua is a piece of evidence that fits this theory, but, is it really the first one? If it is the first one, it hardly proves the theory. At this point (from what I can see) we have a sample size of 1 (Oumuamua). Now, we also haven't been watching for very long (10 years or so where we could track this sized object) and aren't watching too much of the sky, but, this still doesn't prove anything.