2 ms·

>we're alive, aren't we? So the odds can't be much less than 1/(number of planets in the universe) That argument takes for granted that the probability space c

by asdflkj 19y ago

>we're alive, aren't we? So the odds can't be much less than 1/(number of planets in the universe) That argument takes for granted that the probability space comprises only the things in our observable universe. In other words, it claims that there doesn't exist anything that we don't already know about. That's a false premise. re: singularity. I think we are already part-cyborgs. For all practical purposes, Internet is a part of me--it's a sense organ. Ask yourself, what would you rather lose: your sense of hearing, or the technologies of the last 100 years? For me, it's the former, any day of the week. What it means to be human changes continuously, and has been changing since before we were officially human. Now it's changing faster than ever before, but it changed faster than ever before at almost every point in human history.

DanielBMarkham 19y ago
"In other words, it claims that there doesn't exist anything that we don't already know about." -- that's not a false premise, that's the basis for science. I can only deal with things I can observe. If you put 4 black balls and one white ball into a bag and ask me the chances of drawing a white ball, it's 1/5. If you then say, "hey -- but I really put 9 black balls in there. Your math is wrong" that's not much in the way of an argument. We measure and calculate those things we can observe. Yes, one could speculate on non-observable things. But that's a game that has no end. We are conceptually part cyborgs. I think there will be a line that is crossed, perhaps in our lifetime, where the average person will be physically part cyborg. No matter how you measure it, that's a change of a different nature than simple discovery and invention. I think you are muddling the point a bit. One of the reasons the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation are so interesting to me is that they rely on speculation. While I think the minimum is 1/(number of planets), who knows what that number is? And for all the other terms in the Drake Equation, you're just pulling numbers out of the air. It's as much a religion as science. Fascinating stuff, both from a science angle and as an observation of human nature.
- asdflkj 19y ago
  "Words break if you push them too far" -PG I think we are at that point now--at least I am, when I try to reason using the terms of our previous discussion. (I just realized that this is an excellent copout when you lose an argument about abstract things! Still, I don't think that's the case here). Let's approach this from a different direction. Is it within the scope of the theory of probability, and its accepted models in physics, to deal with cases where the observer is determining the probability of existence of a property that only he possesses? I think the answer is "no", though I'd really like to know the view of someone more knowledgeable than me. But this means I was wrong in my original post, when I claimed that the probability was possibly very small. It made no sense to talk of probability at all. I wish I had the mathematical chops to formalize all of this. Oh well, I'm still young. P.S.: re: singularity. I think what I'm doing is exposing the muddle that is already there. To me, being a cyborg physically doesn't seem very remarkable. (By the way, doesn't the word "cyborg" already mean "part-robot"? "Part" in "part-cyborg" is redundant). It wouldn't even be the biggest change to ever occur in humanity. Perhaps forfeiture of individuality would fit the bill, but I don't think even the most ardent singularity nuts are very excited about that.
  - Retric 19y ago
    You are making assumptions about the number of life forms in the universe. Let's say there are 100 billion stars per galaxy and a 100 billion galaxy that will last for 100 billion years. At this point we think life could be on 1 to 3 locations in our solar system. But we know nothing about the total numbers. I expect there is some form of life around 3 - 5 million stars in the milky way and life at 10 ^ 15 stars in the universe. I could be a lot higher or lower than that but life is a fairly simple chemical reaction so it seems odd to think it's going to be rare. Now who knows how many civilizations are out there but there is no reason to expect to see signs of life in the next galaxy or on the other side of ours. The best way to think of this is how far away do you think we could detect life on earth?

by asdflkj 19y ago

DanielBMarkham 19y ago

"In other words, it claims that there doesn't exist anything that we don't already know about." -- that's not a false premise, that's the basis for science. I can only deal with things I can observe. If you put 4 black balls and one white ball into a bag and ask me the chances of drawing a white ball, it's 1/5. If you then say, "hey -- but I really put 9 black balls in there. Your math is wrong" that's not much in the way of an argument. We measure and calculate those things we can observe. Yes, one could speculate on non-observable things. But that's a game that has no end. We are conceptually part cyborgs. I think there will be a line that is crossed, perhaps in our lifetime, where the average person will be physically part cyborg. No matter how you measure it, that's a change of a different nature than simple discovery and invention. I think you are muddling the point a bit. One of the reasons the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation are so interesting to me is that they rely on speculation. While I think the minimum is 1/(number of planets), who knows what that number is? And for all the other terms in the Drake Equation, you're just pulling numbers out of the air. It's as much a religion as science. Fascinating stuff, both from a science angle and as an observation of human nature.

asdflkj 19y ago
"Words break if you push them too far" -PG I think we are at that point now--at least I am, when I try to reason using the terms of our previous discussion. (I just realized that this is an excellent copout when you lose an argument about abstract things! Still, I don't think that's the case here). Let's approach this from a different direction. Is it within the scope of the theory of probability, and its accepted models in physics, to deal with cases where the observer is determining the probability of existence of a property that only he possesses? I think the answer is "no", though I'd really like to know the view of someone more knowledgeable than me. But this means I was wrong in my original post, when I claimed that the probability was possibly very small. It made no sense to talk of probability at all. I wish I had the mathematical chops to formalize all of this. Oh well, I'm still young. P.S.: re: singularity. I think what I'm doing is exposing the muddle that is already there. To me, being a cyborg physically doesn't seem very remarkable. (By the way, doesn't the word "cyborg" already mean "part-robot"? "Part" in "part-cyborg" is redundant). It wouldn't even be the biggest change to ever occur in humanity. Perhaps forfeiture of individuality would fit the bill, but I don't think even the most ardent singularity nuts are very excited about that.
- Retric 19y ago
  You are making assumptions about the number of life forms in the universe. Let's say there are 100 billion stars per galaxy and a 100 billion galaxy that will last for 100 billion years. At this point we think life could be on 1 to 3 locations in our solar system. But we know nothing about the total numbers. I expect there is some form of life around 3 - 5 million stars in the milky way and life at 10 ^ 15 stars in the universe. I could be a lot higher or lower than that but life is a fairly simple chemical reaction so it seems odd to think it's going to be rare. Now who knows how many civilizations are out there but there is no reason to expect to see signs of life in the next galaxy or on the other side of ours. The best way to think of this is how far away do you think we could detect life on earth?