Why is ET such a magnet for loonatics?

[Jonathan Scott]

Whats more likely, aliens or time travelers? Both would seem to require breaking known physics, or atleast a loophole. So both would be just as likely?

I don't see a problem with aliens and the laws of physics (and neither did Carl Sagan). FTL would break laws of physics, but there's no need for them to use FTL. We can't visit the stars yet mainly because of our limited lifespan and the amount of resources we would have to take with us to survive. A practical method of extended "hibernation" might even enable us to get round those limitations. However, an alien being (or alien artificial lifeform) with unlimited lifetime would not have such problems and could go on an extended tour of the galaxy.

Another question might be why an alien would visit this particular star system out of billions, but it might well be possible to spot the signs of life (presence of oxygen and water) in the Earth's atmosphere from far away.

 

[Curious3141]

I still can't see no damn UFO.

And it's tough to type with one hand.

 

[jreelawg]

I always though that it would be more likely for an intelligent extra-solar race to send "un-aliened" missions. I think that when we launch a mission to another solar system, it would make more sense to send robots.

Would you define non-biological (robotic) E.T. visitation, as Aliens?

Being able to break some of the laws of physics might make it easier for E.T. biological entities to visit us from another solar system, but I don't think it is technically impossible for biological entities to reach us. I don't think anyone can come up with any logical reason why they can't.

Personally, even under a scenario in which modern physics theories are broken, I would not consider the reverse time travel hypothesis more likely true than the alien hypothesis. I think there is a logical contradiction preventing reverse time travel which would still hold. And, I don't think that the chances of modern physics theories being incorrect is 0.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I always though that it would be more likely for an intelligent extra-solar race to send "un-aliened" missions. I think that when we launch a mission to another solar system, it would make more sense to send robots.

Would you define non-biological (robotic) E.T. visitation, as Aliens?

Being able to break some of the laws of physics might make it easier for E.T. biological entities to visit us from another solar system, but I don't think it is technically impossible for biological entities to reach us. I don't think anyone can come up with any logical reason why they can't.

Personally, even under a scenario in which modern physics theories are broken, I would not consider the reverse time travel hypothesis more likely true than the alien hypothesis. I think there is a logical contradiction preventing reverse time travel which would still hold. And, I don't think that the chances of modern physics theories being incorrect is 0.

There is one published paper that addresses the point about robotic probes and even suggests where to look for them

INFLATION-THEORY IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION
J. Deardorff, B. Haisch, B. Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol 58, pp. 43-50, 2005.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

Generally, I think at least one obvious answer to the question in the op is this: If we have been or are one day visited, for better or for worse, it would be one of the most significant events in all of history. It is no wonder the idea fascinates people. And given the lack of definition and boundaries for such notions, esp for those without any scientific education, imaginations run wild virtually without limits. Hollywood helps provide a lot of fuel here, no doubt. But many of the UFO activists are the worst offenders. I have watched a fair number of people get into this and slowly develop more and more exotic beliefs as they fall victim to the nuttery surrounding the subject. Because of its potential significance, the idea of ET visitors can probably be as powerful as any religion.

I suggest that this thread has become far too speculative in regards to the what-ifs.

 

[fellupahill]

Please don't close the topic. I know its getting a little speculative, but in the name of knowledge and getting to see that picture every time I come to this thread I say it should be allowed to continue.

Which laws of physics do you think ET visitation would be in violation of?

I did say break laws, or loophole. Like someone said before. Wormholes and such could be a pipe dream, and given what we know about BH's already the task would be daunting. Tho now I'm personally thinking visitors from another planet would seem more likely than time travelers. Tho if time travel is possible, then long distance space travel would almost be a given.

What would the catholic and muslim churches stance be if we were indeed contacted? I doubt they would let even aliens shatter belief, evolution or BB Theory didn't do the job and they are both direct contradictions.

 

[Dotini]

Would you define non-biological (robotic) E.T. visitation, as Aliens?

Non-biological entities do not necessarily have to be robotic creations of biological ET's, nor do they have to be "alien", as in extraterrestrial.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=180020&highlight=plasma+life
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=180520

What would the catholic and muslim churches stance be if we were indeed contacted? I doubt they would let even aliens shatter belief, evolution or BB Theory didn't do the job and they are both direct contradictions.

I believe the Catholic Church have already announced, on the record, they are comfortable with the idea of extraterrestrial life. In Islam there is the tradition of the Djinn, which is a being of fire or smoke (dusty plasma?).

So, depending on the nature of the contact, it is not foreordained that these organized religions would evince any immediate, strong overt negative reactions.

But, as Ivan noted above, the ET belief has the capacity to threaten conventional organized religion. The Brookings Institution once reported out that contact within our solar system could threaten our currently established civilization, and it may well be true that the CIA and other government agencies monitor UFO/cult activities for signs of social unrest. At one time, I think >50% of "ufologists" were retired from the CIA or other military intelligence agencies.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[jreelawg]

I hope it's not too far off topic, but I have this book, "To The Red Planet" by Eric Burges. On page 19-21, the author talks about the possible Social Effects which discovering life on Mars would have. I think it's kind of interesting.

http://books.google.com/books?id=p2M6O5vFOPoC&pg=PA11&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[jreelawg]

Non-biological entities do not necessarily have to be robotic creations of biological ET's, nor do they have to be "alien", as in extraterrestrial.

No, but non-biological extraterrestrials must be extraterrestrial, otherwise they wouldn't be extraterrestrials.

 

[alt]

I simply don't believe in ET.

Were I to even seriously consider the possibility however, I would find the time distance insurmountable. What I mean is, if an ET civilization existed, as well as the inurmountable space distance, there would be the one of time, ie, their existence would have to be co-incident to our time frame of intelligent life, and given the billions upon billions of years of universe age, that may as well be like searching for a needle in a proverbial billion haystacks

 

[DaveC426913]

I simply don't believe in ET.

For that to be true, you would have to believe that, in all the half trillion stars in our galaxy, and the half trillion galaxies in our universe, our planet is unique. Even though it is made up of the 100 or so elements that virtually every other of those 10²³ star systems is made of.

I think I'd find the existence of a God more plausible than that implausible scenario.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

I think that when many people say they don't believe in extra-terrestrials, they really mean that they don't believe that there are any extra-terrestrials that could communicate/visit us.

I also think there are vast differences between the likelihood of one over the other.

 

[D H]

I simply don't believe in ET.

For that to be true, you would have to believe that, in all the half trillion stars in our galaxy, and the half trillion galaxies in our universe, our planet is unique. Even though it is made up of the 100 or so elements that virtually every other of those 10²³ star systems is made of.

You are, I think, reading too much into alt's post. alt did not say we are unique. There is a huge, huge gap between "we are alone" and "we are unique". Suppose intelligent life is rare, rare enough that only a few billions of planets in the observable universe harbor intelligent life. Being one out of a few billion means we far from unique. However, a few billions of intelligent species in the universe corresponds to one per 100 galaxies or so. It would put our nearest intelligent neighbor in the next galaxy cluster. That certainly would qualify as "all alone."

We don't know if life is common or rare, let alone whether intelligent life is common or rare. Extrapolating from a sample size of one is always a bad idea. That said, I side with alt. I don't believe in ET in the sense of visitations by ET to our planet, ancient or current. It is to me the easiest answer to the Fermi paradox.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are, I think, reading too much into alt's post. alt did not say we are unique. There is a huge, huge gap between "we are alone" and "we are unique".

Well I thought carefully about that before answering. He didn't say "I don't believe we've been visited", he said "I simply don't believe there are extra-terrestrials".

He explicitly follows up with the "but if I did ... too far away anyway" scenario, lending credence to the idea that his initial statement was intended to be unqualified.

 

[DaveC426913]

What would the catholic and muslim churches stance be if we were indeed contacted? I doubt they would let even aliens shatter belief, evolution or BB Theory didn't do the job and they are both direct contradictions.

Let's not go any further down this path but AFAIK aliens do not contradict anything in either religion.

 

[jreelawg]

Let's not go any further down this path but AFAIK aliens do not contradict anything in either religion.

Just one last post about this.

Politically, and religiously, however, there are problems of encountering extraterrestrial life, especially if it should prove to be intelligent. Russian and Chinese communism from the ideological standpoint, and Judeo-Christian theologies from the religious standpoint, claim a missionary primacy, making members the center of the universe. Such egocentric world views may not be able to accept other world intelligences greater than their own.

On this question of religious acceptance, an authority of of world religions at a major university doubted wether the discovery of life on Mars, or the discovery that there is no life on Mars, would have an immediate major impact: "In the short term the reaction will be to fit the discovery into the existing framework, saying that such and such a statement in the religious writing shows that the result was already forecast. But in the long term it must affect the adjustment in perspective that the world's religions are facing today.

http://books.google.com/books?id=p2M6O5vFOPoC&pg=PA11&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[alt]

For that to be true, you would have to believe that, in all the half trillion stars in our galaxy, and the half trillion galaxies in our universe, our planet is unique. Even though it is made up of the 100 or so elements that virtually every other of those 10²³ star systems is made of.

I think I'd find the existence of a God more plausible than that implausible scenario.

DaveC, I see a rather serendipitous aspect to the point you made which I've underlined above.

It just made me think that if you believe in, or at least allow the possibility of ET, then you must also necessarily, allow the possibility of the existence of a God.

For if intelligent life exists elsewhere, who are we to prescribe that it must be within the ambit of our comprehension and/or of a magnitude familiar to us ?

In a (known) universe of the size you described (10²³ star systems) isn't it equally plausible to allow for the possibility that intelligence exists, of a magnitude way beyond ours, so as to be of god like proportions in its science, knowledge, powers and abilities, compared to ours ?

Certainly, such disparities exist all around us on this very planet (man vs. the amoeba for instance) so why not in the opposite direction, in an entire (and probably infinite) universe ?

(Edit - 2nd last paragraph altered)

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC, I see a rather serendipitous aspect to the point you made which I've underlined above.

It just made me think that if you believe in, or at least allow the possibility of ET, then you must also necessarily, allow the possibility of the existence of a God.

In a (known) universe of the size you described (10²³ star systems) isn't it equally plausible to allow for the possibility that intelligence exists, of a magnitude way beyond ours, so as to be of god like proportions in its science, knowledge, powers and abilities, compared to ours ?

There is a fundamental difference between "god-like" and "God".

god-like is simply a matter of extrapolation from our science, knowledge, powers and abilities. And even at that, it is an asymptotic curve (while we can allow the possibility of it, the actual likelihood of it (due to real-world constraints such as how long it might take as a fraction of the age of universe) is slim).

But God makes some statements about the whole universe - including our corner of it. That is a whole different ball of wax.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That said, I side with alt. I don't believe in ET in the sense of visitations by ET to our planet, ancient or current. It is to me the easiest answer to the Fermi paradox.

Isn't this circular logic; I don't accept any of the alleged evidence therefore Fermi's paradox is answered?

Perhaps I should have said that Fermi's paradox assumes there is no evidence in spite of thousands of years of alleged or potential historical accounts to the contrary. To me, this almost qualifies as a strawman. If Fermi was asking why we have no scientific evidence for such encounters, not just evidence, I can think of many possible answers to that question.

 

[alt]

There is a fundamental difference between "god-like" and "God".

god-like is simply a matter of extrapolation from our science, knowledge, powers and abilities. And even at that, it is an asymptotic curve (while we can allow the possibility of it, the actual likelihood of it (due to real-world constraints such as how long it might take as a fraction of the age of universe) is slim).

But God makes some statements about the whole universe - including our corner of it. That is a whole different ball of wax.

This post and my earlier post (46) is not for the purpose of discussing the existence God; it is to discuss further my idea that ..

if you believe in, or at least allow the possibility of ET, then you must also necessarily, allow the possibility of the existence of a God.

DaveC, I feel you are looking at it with a degree of anthropic bias. This fundamental difference that you posit between God and 'god like' .. the question is, if one or the other were the case, how indeed would you know ? It would be so far beyond your ken as to not be able to make such a distinction.

The universe is a large place - you could probably imagine better than I, how large. Indeed, it could well be infinite (many scientists believe it IS infinite). If there is room in it for ET, then I still think it is only logical to say there is equal room for an ET of God, or at least, god like proportions. The difference between God and god like would be moot.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

In my opinion: I agree with DaveC426913 that the probability that life is 100% unique to this one planet in the entire universe is totally bonkers.

However, when I consider the Fermi Paradox, it seems like that is an explanation to me that says: "Either there is a neigh insurmountable hurdle related to interstellar or intergalactic travel; or nobody wants to talk to us."

But, frankly, I think that I do not have enough data to be comfortable talking about this sort of thing. And I don't mean I haven't been doing readings, I mean that we haven't even gotten to the point where we can see for ourselves if it's even possible to travel from star to star. What if there's some sort of crazy obstacle out there that we just plain can't see?alt: when you say "an ET of God" do you mean life that got to that point? Or are you saying God? Because the God of Christianity is definitely something that was not originally life.

 

[jreelawg]

This post and my earlier post (46) is not for the purpose of discussing the existence God; it is to discuss further my idea that ..

if you believe in, or at least allow the possibility of ET, then you must also necessarily, allow the possibility of the existence of a God.

DaveC, I feel you are looking at it with a degree of anthropic bias. This fundamental difference that you posit between God and 'god like' .. the question is, if one or the other were the case, how indeed would you know ? It would be so far beyond your ken as to not be able to make such a distinction.

The universe is a large place - you could probably imagine better than I, how large. Indeed, it could well be infinite (many scientists believe it IS infinite). If there is room in it for ET, then I still think it is only logical to say there is equal room for an ET of God, or at least, god like proportions. The difference between God and god like would be moot.

And if any sort of god is possible, then literally anything is possible, because a god may be able to defy all of man kinds established laws.

So transitively, if you accept the possibility of extraterrestrial life existing, then you must accept the possibility of the moon being made of cheese as well.

And because the criteria that you've established for being forced to accept the existence of god, is that you accept the existence of something you do not know. Then if I accept the possibility that my car will start next morning, then I must also accept the possibility that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be so far beyond your ken as to not be able to make such a distinction.

The universe is a large place - you could probably imagine better than I, how large. Indeed, it could well be infinite

It may or may not be infinite in extent, but it is not infinite in time. Every one of those 10^23 stars has been around less than 13 billion years. A very large fraction of them (all the pop II and pop I's) have been around much less than that (And pop III's are hypothesized to be nearly extinct).

It took more than 1/3 of the age of the universe just to get to our level of sophistication. And there's no reason to believe that evolution happens at outrageously faster rates elsewhere, even with a sampling of 10^23.

So there are definitely some rate-limiting factors on how god-like any alien can get.

 

[jreelawg]

It may or may not be infinite in extent, but it is not infinite in time. Every one of those 10^23 stars has been around less than 13 billion years. A very large fraction of them (all the pop II and pop I's) have been around much less than that (And pop III's are hypothesized to be nearly extinct).

It took more than 1/3 of the age of the universe just to get to our level of sophistication. And there's no reason to believe that evolution happens at outrageously faster rates elsewhere, even with a sampling of 10^23.

So there are definitely some rate-limiting factors on how god-like any alien can get.

What does it even mean to be god like. Are you counting technology? If you count technology, then it could be the case that evolution toward god likeness could accelerate once certain breakthroughs take place.

The point we are at now is an example. Will technology soon make forms of immortality possible? It already allows us to fly, clone creatures, harness electricity, travel to the moon etc. Certainly, ancient man might have considered this god like.

How about the possibility that genetic engineering, nano technology, etc, make it possible for us to artificially evolve ourselves?

But I don't think we will ever be able to make ecosystems out of clay in seven days.

 

[DubaUe]

wouldn't there be a lot of compounds of the same as humans if there were? aliens are just living things. If so they exist.

 

[DaveC426913]

What does it even mean to be god like. Are you counting technology? If you count technology, then it could be the case that evolution toward god likeness could accelerate once certain breakthroughs take place.

The point we are at now is an example. Will technology soon make forms of immortality possible? It already allows us to fly, clone creatures, harness electricity, travel to the moon etc. Certainly, ancient man might have considered this god like.

How about the possibility that genetic engineering, nano technology, etc, make it possible for us to artificially evolve ourselves?

But I don't think we will ever be able to make ecosystems out of clay in seven days.

Again: God is qualitatively different from god-like.

Advanced as they are, with 10^23 possible chances at godliness, none of them brought the universe into existence with a flick of their mind.

 

[alt]

In my opinion: I agree with DaveC426913 that the probability that life is 100% unique to this one planet in the entire universe is totally bonkers.

However, when I consider the Fermi Paradox, it seems like that is an explanation to me that says: "Either there is a neigh insurmountable hurdle related to interstellar or intergalactic travel; or nobody wants to talk to us."

But, frankly, I think that I do not have enough data to be comfortable talking about this sort of thing. And I don't mean I haven't been doing readings, I mean that we haven't even gotten to the point where we can see for ourselves if it's even possible to travel from star to star. What if there's some sort of crazy obstacle out there that we just plain can't see?


alt: when you say "an ET of God" do you mean life that got to that point? Or are you saying God? Because the God of Christianity is definitely something that was not originally life.

No, I am certainly not talking about the God of Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - or any other religion for that matter.

Nor am I saying a ET of God. I am simply saying that in an infinite universe (I believe it's infinite) if you allow the possibility of ET and also overcome anthropic bias, then you have to also allow the possibility of such an ET existing, that might be so vastly different to us, in scale, phase, intelligence, etc, as to be considered God, or at least 'god like' by our standards.

 

[alt]

It may or may not be infinite in extent, but it is not infinite in time. Every one of those 10^23 stars has been around less than 13 billion years. A very large fraction of them (all the pop II and pop I's) have been around much less than that (And pop III's are hypothesized to be nearly extinct).

It took more than 1/3 of the age of the universe just to get to our level of sophistication. And there's no reason to believe that evolution happens at outrageously faster rates elsewhere, even with a sampling of 10^23.

So there are definitely some rate-limiting factors on how god-like any alien can get.

Yet it's taken us barely 150 years to get from the horse & carriage, to the International Space Station. Who knows where we might be in another few hundred years.

Assume a race of ET's developed similar to us, but were, say, 100,000 years ahead (still, not even a blink in the eye of Buddha) - quite possible according to your above numbers. Also assume that they had managed not to blow themselves up, and had continued a steady (if not exponential) rate of technological progress. Where would you say they'd be in the scale of 'godliness' according to our perceptions ?

I must continue to state here, that I don't believe this to be the case - I don't believe in ET at all, and am at most, ambivalent about the big G question. I am merely following your logic, and still believe if one is possible, so is the other.

 

[alt]

And if any sort of god is possible, then literally anything is possible, because a god may be able to defy all of man kinds established laws.

So transitively, if you accept the possibility of extraterrestrial life existing, then you must accept the possibility of the moon being made of cheese as well.

And because the criteria that you've established for being forced to accept the existence of god, is that you accept the existence of something you do not know. Then if I accept the possibility that my car will start next morning, then I must also accept the possibility that the moon is made of cheese.

I am not saying anything is possible, nor am I forcing you to believe in anything. I am simply saying that if you allow for the possibility ...

(please see above posts)

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, I think it is safe to say that, considering the breadth of the universe, and accepting the possibility of ET, one must allow for the possibility of god-like creatures.

But note:

It is also safe to say that, considering the breadth of the universe, and not believing in ET, one must still allow for the possibility of god-like creatures.

i.e. Alt, you must allow for the possibility too, despite your beliefs to the contrary. Because, frankly your argument that there are no ETs (and therefore no possibility that any might be god-like) is indefensible. It's the diff between what you think is probably true, and what you must still allow the possibility for.

 

[nucl34rgg]

It would be wrong to claim with certainty that there is no life elsewhere in the universe considering how vast the universe is. There is a good possibility that life exists elsewhere, but it likely is very different from anything we have here on earth. It is entirely feasible that there exist advanced intelligent lifeforms out there, but they would still be constrained by the same physical laws that apply to us. People often forget this crucial limitation. Technological advancement can only get you so far so to speak...