8 ms·
Would anybody with even an ounce of critical thinking faculty believe this even if they explicitly came out and said "yep, we've got aliums, folks"? There's li
by boringuser2 3y ago
Would anybody with even an ounce of critical thinking faculty believe this even if they explicitly came out and said "yep, we've got aliums, folks"?
There's literally no level of evidence I would accept because the premise is contrary to numerous, basic logical inferences.
- notJim 3y agoAlliums are delicious and their flowers are quite nice as well.
- bsaul 3y agoWhat would those logical inferences be ? I’m not sure i got your point right
- boringuser2 3y agoI'm willing to put aside literally every mechanical interpretation of probability here, ignoring really poignant questions, in favor of one overarching question: Do you really, really think a species capable of interstellar travel would have vehicles or crafts that we could recognize as such? That feels more like a technology 100-200 years ahead of us, akin to science fiction, than the reality of a species hundreds of thousands or MILLIONS of years ahead of us technologically, whose existences would simply be fucking incomprehensible to the human eye or mind. The conception that such entities are travelling the galaxy in dinky little craft is completely absurd. They could probably scan our fucking souls and create replicas of our qualia with technology from the interstellar equivalent of a Walgreens. Or, more likely, they simply have technologies that we can in no capacity conceive of or understand at all.
- bartislartfast 3y ago> That feels more like a technology 100-200 years ahead of us, akin to science fiction So my theory is in about 150 years, DJI will release a drone with a time-travel capability, and the UFOs we see now are people in 2170 trolling us.
- ethanbond 3y agoThe fundamental issue is that people really have no intuition as to how unfathomably gigantic space is. Traveling Mars to Earth would require some decent tech. Traveling from the next star over requires some mind-bending tech. An entity traveling from the next galaxy over would necessarily be in possession of just some truly incomprehensible technology and would probably exist on spatial and temporal scales that just cannot be loaded into our ape brains via our sensory organs.
- boringuser2 3y agoNow, imagine their dinky little arts and crafts UFOs are "crashing" due to something trivial like gravity.
- Solvency 3y agoJust playing devils advocate though: okay, but couldn't they also just have really high-tech ships in a primitive shape (like a sphere, for aesthetic reasons) with really fast engines and really strong hulls, too? Maybe we're simply too limited in our naive essence to understand the technology behind such a simple premise.
- boringuser2 3y ago"Ships" feels really really anthropomorphic.
- ethanbond 3y agoI mean, sure, the odds are not zero. But they seem very, very, very, very close to zero (to me). And then the odds go down further that they have tech that can move them 10,000+ light years in a palatable amount of time/energy for them to visit Earth. Then the odds go down further by the fact that, if they exist with that broad a view of the universe, Earth is almost certainly not worth visiting. Then the odds go down further by the fact that we have allegedly detected and recovered them? Not zero but it really is astronomically low, even if you have high conviction the universe is actually teeming with life.
- 3y ago
- bsaul 3y agoI think a modern jet is similar enough to a bird that animals created millions of years ago (prehistoric birds) can have some basic understanding on how it behaves. What makes you think just because it’s millions of years more evolved we wouldn’t be able to get the general gist of what it does ? (not how it does it, of course)
- boringuser2 3y agoApologies: This comment is a terrible analogy. Try explaining quantum physics to Aristotle. That's a mere 2-3000 years of technology with large periods of stagnation. Give Churhill/Stalin/Hitler an iPhone. They now have access to a device of unparalleled ability compared to anything they could have conceived of, and they will simply be completely incapable of understanding or utilizing it outside of performing basic tasks. That's 60 years of the accelerated age of technology we live in.
- thatjoeoverthr 3y agoI'd be happy to explain any of this to Aristotle. "It's a picture that draws its itself. Here, touch it." We do this every day with children. Ten thousand years o development and you're caught up in five. It's fine!
- boringuser2 3y agoMy point is that our relative distance in time and technology is basically zero, yet we're already seeing massive gaps in capability. Yes, Aristotle would likely be able to pick up on the new monke uptake given that he was a unparallelled mind. That was a pretty weak analogy given it didn't impart the information that I intended.
- incrudible 3y agoYou can give an infant an ipad and they will figure out how to use it pretty quickly. They will have an understanding of its purpose. You merely extrapolate from our advances of 5000 years that there must be technology that is inconceivably advanced. Though he did not believe in it, Aristotle was aware of the concept of atoms (that he had no hope of observing). I am sure he would have gotten the gist of quantum physics too.
- andrewflnr 3y ago> Do you really, really think a species capable of interstellar travel would have vehicles or crafts that we could recognize as such? Yes. That is, they almost certainly use objects made out of actual atoms to travel it or whatever the hell. There are almost no hints, with the possible exception of dark matter, in even the most speculative of well -grounded physics, of anything else they could be using. So that's the the null hypothesis. And the mere presence of that object in an interaction is enough to recognize it with high confidence as a vehicle. People get too obsessed with the idea of technology indistinguishable from magic. Physics is still real, still imposes hard constraints on technology, and our tech is already sufficiently shaped by those constraints that other things within those constraints will at least be recognizable with some effort. We may not know how it works right away, but that's a very different question.
- boringuser2 3y agoQuick question for you. Have you heard of a really smart guy named "Isaac Newton"? Well, his ideas are only ~300 solar years established and observations in quantum mechanics have opened a realm of complete impossibility to a Newtonian worldview.
- baja_blast 3y agoYes, but Isaac Newton would be able to see an F-35 and iPhone and would be able to understand how these things work once explained.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Karunamon 3y agoBut, you are giving Newton an affordance that makes this an unfair comparison: "once explained". How do you think he would do with rare visual glimpses and hearsay only?
- 3y ago
- Beldin 3y agoWhile I completely agree with you on interstellar travel, I'd like to add the nuance that you seem to assume that there is no life in the Solar system other than on Earth. That could very well be true... but we're not even confident ruling out life on Mars completely, and we landed there and took soil samples and explored. Honestly, if there are extraterrestrials on Earth, I'd wager my hat that they're from somewhere in the Solar system. Just because the alternative is even more unlikely -- as you rightly argue.
- boringuser2 3y agoNo, that can't be it. No local drones or Dyson spheres, but we're cohabitating with a species capable of intra-solar travel? Seems highly suspect. They'd need to be at roughly our level of technological development, which, if true, would be more likely to believe in a concept of "God" engineering that outcome than any kind of organic alien life.
- jallen_dot_dev 3y agoNot only that, but when they're here on Earth they get from point A to point B by actually traveling the distance through the air. Slow enough for us to see. You'd think these aliens with FTL technology would just appear to us as popping in and out of existence when they change position. They seem a little too domestic. It reminds me of how ancient people thought the Sun rode across the sky in a chariot. Because how else would the Sun get around but the same way we do?
- shrimpx 3y agoAnd after they fly across the universe for millions of light years, they immediately crash for Uncle Sam to retrieve them. Or no, actually Uncle Sam immediately shoots them down with his pew pew rockets that travel at infinitesimally low speeds.
- LandR 3y agoThis is why I dont understand why people expect UFOs to have lights on them. Or when they see lights they go to UFO. Why ? Why would external lights be helpful when travelling interstellar distances. Then if you have the technology to travel these vast distances so quickly, why would you need lights when darting about at "slow" terrestrial speeds, the technology you must have to navigate and avoid things must be so beyond just lights... You almost certainly aren't navigating in anything that remotely resembles looking out your craft ? It just makes no sense to me. IT's why I assume if anyone mentions a UFO when talking about lights in the sky I'm totally convinced it's terrestrial in nature.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y agoGiven the enormity of the universe and the seeming[0] impossibility of FTL travel, plus the complete absence of astronomical observation of extraterrestrial civilization, and the incredibly tiny (on astronomical scales) window of time in which we have data, any other explanation for pretty much any phenomena we care to observe will be more likely than "aliens did it". [0] extremely well supported
- paulddraper 3y agoEven without FTL, time dilation makes travel conceivable, no? You can get halfway across the galaxy in less than 50,000 years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- axxto 3y agoHere are some things that were, at some point, long considered to be physically impossible: -Deep sea exploration -DNA sequencing and cloning -Flight -Long-range electric power -Microbes -Organ transplants -Solar panels I understand the enormity of the proposition of things such as FTL travel. But just saying "it doesn't have a fit within our current framework of understanding, so it's impossible and a moot point" seems a little...conceited, given all the historical precedents of exactly the opposite becoming true, eventually, given enough public interest.
- rngname22 3y agoEven if we pretended aliens wouldn't be able to surpass FTL, Von Neumann probes only take half a million years to spread across an entire galaxy, which is a grain of sand of time in cosmological timescales. "Let's take a look at one of John von Neumann's most fascinating contributions to science: the Von Neumann probe. Simply put, a Von Neumann probe is a self-replicating device that could, one day, be used to explore every facet of the Milky Way in a relatively small window of time. The general idea is to build a device out of materials that are readily available and easily accessible out in space, like on rocky planets or small moons. Once it finds a suitable destination, it lands and mines the material it needs to build even more devices, which, in turn, land on other planets and moons and build even more. The system is very effective, and by some estimates, it would take around half a million years to dispatch millions of probes across our galaxy, assuming each one travels at approximately 1/10th the speed of light, or 18,640 miles (30,000 km) per second (though the real number could be closer to ten million years, which is still no time at all in the grand scheme of things)."
- birdyrooster 3y agoConsidering the grift between DoD and Skinwalker Ranch, I am sure we can expect similar fraud throughout. New York Post did a 4 part expose that uncovers this. I highly suggest it. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwfaAz9kxcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwfaAz9kxcc Basically Federal agents became "convinced" that paranormal stuff is happening at Skinwalker ranch, but that is/was because of significant conflict of interest where they earn income from entertainment enterprises (like History Channel) by leaking information to them -- even information which is completely falsified.
- TechBro8615 3y agoThe paradox of ufology is that we can't trust the government because they've been covering up aliens for 70 years, but now we know aliens are real because the government says so. The only fact I know for certain is that the federal government and military industrial complex has a history of lying and waging information warfare on American citizens. If they tell me aliens are here, there's no way I will believe them. As much as I want to believe, I simply can't, unless I personally have some experience with an alien. And remember... no matter what happens, no matter what the government or the "aliens" tell you... do not get on the ships!
- RajT88 3y agoI think the best evidence against Aliens is if the government had any, they would have been trotted out for a rally by now by the last guy.
- unethical_ban 3y agoEver watch Independence Day? "Plausible deniability"
- adventured 3y agoIt's exceptionally likely Trump was kept away from as much intel as they could reasonably keep him from. We know that from things that leaked out after the fact, eg by how General Milley behaved (gave orders to disobey nuclear launch commands coming from Trump).
- somekyle2 3y agoIf they brought in some trustworthy skeptical folks with some tools and enough background to know what compelling nothing looks like, and they came out saying, "Oh man. oh wow. I'm trying to come up with another explanation, but it really seems like they have it." I'd start taking it seriously. "Guy who seems trustworthy said it's real and he saw the proof" is so very normal, for aliens, ghosts, various religious phenomena. "Someone was convinced" isn't compelling to me. "The specific trustworthy non-believers who were given access to the evidence were convinced" would shake me. That moves it from "might be a delusion or hoax" to "if it's a hoax/fraud, it's a very good one". Although, "specific physical / recorded evidence made publicly available for study" would be even better if the evidence is strong. Once you're at "if it's a hoax/fraud, the perpetrator has advanced science we don't" it's a world-changing thing; maybe it's not an alien, but whatever it is it's amazing.
- teawrecks 3y agoNothing remotely close to that will ever happen, because the people who care about this don't care. In the same way that you want extraordinary evidence to back up these extraordinary claims, they are prepared to disregard any and all evidence to the contrary in order to continue believing all of those same claims. If you haven't, I recommend watching the YT minidoc "In Search of a Flat Earth" by Folding Ideas. It's not about the aliens, it's not about the earth being flat, it's about the conspiracy and who is behind it. If you dig deep enough, it's always rooted in some racist or antisemitic world view.
- boringuser2 3y agoReally great post, really terrible conclusion.
- viraptor 3y ago> There's literally no level of evidence I would accept because the premise is contrary to numerous, basic logical inferences Sounds like you'd accept something that breaks the basic known science then. If they could demonstrate any tech which does not exist, or is wildly outside of the current limits, would that convince you? For example energy use allowing interplanetary travel in a vehicle of unreasonably small size.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago"yep, we've got aliums, folks"? And now I'm trying to imagine aliens that look like members of the onion family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion
- api 3y agoHow is it fundamentally illogical? I mean I'm skeptical as hell, but one possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that there is no paradox because there are aliens here.
- yeeeloit 3y agoYou are correct. The reactionary and emotional comments in here are extraordinary. Sit back and enjoy the ride.
- paulddraper 3y ago> the premise is contrary to numerous, basic logical inferences How so? The argument for no aliens is lack of evidence, not evidence of their lack.
- Sharlin 3y agoAbsence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence. Like the absence of evidence of an invisible dragon in your garage.
- paulddraper 3y agoIf there were a large animal in my garage, I would hear it. Is there were a large animal in my garage, I would see droppings. If there were aliens, we would......what exactly? Every day we see new stuff in the universe that we didn't see before. The difference between my garage and the universe is immense.
- kelnos 3y agoThe absence of evidence of an invisible dragon in my garage absolutely is not evidence if its absence. It may very well be there. I strongly suspect it isn't, but that's not the same as evidence.
- wokwokwok 3y agoYes, but when you go and search your garage you don’t find anything. You walk through your garage with a camera and when you play back the video, there’s a strange orb on the video! Must be dragons! It’s stupid. When you look very hard for something and you dont find it, sure, it’s not evidence it doesn’t exist. …but it does increase the probability that it doesn’t exist. It eliminates a category of possible “it existing” cases. Everyone on the planet has a high resolution camera in their pocket, and can share photos and videos instantly online. Yet, miraculously, paranormal phenomena is somehow covered up by the government… 50 years ago, the possibility of an alien crash coverup seems plausible. Today, it beggars belief it could happen and not be noticed and commented on. That is not proof nothing “weird” exists; but if you think it doesn’t eliminate a broad category of things from existing, you’re delusional. Humans are good at believing in things that don’t exist. What we see isn’t “reality”, its just our interpretation of the input from our senses. We see things that don’t exist. That doesn’t make them exist.