User Controls
Can you get your head around the vastness of nothing?
-
2020-01-18 at 1:32 PM UTCThey do when the couple has a fat fetish
-
2020-01-18 at 1:53 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 2:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Why wouldn’t they? What we can see from here is blurry blips of light billions of years old from across the universe. Which is a little different than sending a probe with sophisticated measurement equipment to study interstellar phenomena up close and relay that information back. Obviously you would have no real-time communication with the drones, you would just send them out by the trillions with onboard intelligence so each one could carry out its mission independently.
Intelligent life is like a virus, or maybe more like mold overtaking a ripe fruit - look how humans spread across this entire planet within a few thousand years. And even you concede that probably very soon we will do the same thing to our solar system. And if you take that reasoning a step further, there seems to be no reason why we wouldn’t try to spread our influence beyond that, across the galaxy and then the entire universe, given the means. There are a few things that would stop us along the way, such as a planet wide extinction event or whatever. But out of thousands, or potentially even millions of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe since the beginning of time, they can’t all have been hit by an asteroid or nuked themselves into oblivion. There must have been at least one that could have done it. Unless of course once a civilization reaches the level of technological advancement to do so, they would also have the technological means to abandon this reality like I said.
Other than that, the only explanation for the Fermi Paradox that makes sense to me is maybe the rare earth hypothesis. Maybe intelligent life really is just so uncommon that we’re actually the first or one of the first to ever reach this stage.
But the theory that interstellar travel is just “too hard” doesn’t really hold much water. We literally have the technology to do it right now, in fact we’ve already started albeit in an extremely rudimentary way. The Voyager 1 probe has already left the solar system and will reach a distance equivalent to the nearest star sometime within the next 50,000 years or so. And that’s on 1970’s technology, within the next century we will be able to send things out much further and faster, although it would still take probably over a million years to explore even our own galaxy due to the light speed barrier. What we DONT have right now is the will or foresight as a society to see through a 50,000-year project, let alone a million-year one. But once humanity evolves to be able to think on these kind of timescales, rather than just within the frame of reference of one modern day lifetime, what’s stopping us? People are already looking into this kind of thing even today, like project Starshot for example.
I mean obviously it’s an extremely difficult problem, but if a highly advanced civilization had billions of years to figure it out? They could eventually accomplish literally anything within the bounds of physics.
And yes the universe is still relatively in its infancy, but still, out of the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe, and if life isn’t just some infinitesimally unlikely event, there’s been plenty of time for other civilizations to evolve before us. So again, I find the rare earth hypothesis far more likely than the “too darn hard :(” hypothesis.
I do like the triple post though, you seem to be upset with me after learning who I am. Did I really hurt you that bad before? Why don’t you go buy a private jet with all your millions and fuck off lol
They wouldn't because there are 99999999999999999999 googillion x better uses of all stated resources than your retarded anime fantasy, dogfucker
If we wanted to resolve more detail, we would build bigger, better telescopes... Here. We will develop better telemetry... Here. We will manipulate signals with AI to glean out beautiful high resolution data... Here.
What you are proposing is that we send a mass bearing probe out millions of LIGHTYEARS I.E. LOTS OF REAL YEARS TO GET THERE, wait for it to get there, then we are completely blind as to any data gathering it does, any issues we might need to correct, it's just operating absurdly blind.... And then pray that we can find a way to get signals back? How? Do you know the sheer amount of power an EM wave needs to get all the way to us bearing any significant amount of energy? No you don't. You don't even know what the inverse square law is let alone how that affects signal propagation.
You don't understand the basics of spacetime geometry so you are just writing retarded fanfics that could never even be useful to a civilisation nor coordinated on a massively multigenerational (literally millions of years) level.
This doesn't make sense on any level. But a moron will remain a moron. And so you stand. -
2020-01-18 at 2:34 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 2:36 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 2:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE You don't know what Occam's razor is, how it works, or how it applies to this situation.
Pro tip: I am giving the most parsimonious account thus far. Prove otherwise.
Occam's Razor would dictate the simpler solution, that everything was created as intelligent design by an intelligent being. It wouldn't suggest great leaps of belief in billions of one-in-a-billion coincidences. -
2020-01-18 at 2:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Occam's Razor would dictate the simpler solution, that everything was created as intelligent design by an intelligent being. It wouldn't suggest great leaps of belief in billions of one-in-a-billion coincidences.
That's not the simplest solution because it is not simple and it's not even a solution, as it poses a more complex explanation than the thing needing to be explained and offers no useful purchase over the world. -
2020-01-18 at 2:52 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 2:53 PM UTCThe tumbling of tumbleweeds is all that exists and may exist. The self is only a fabrication which ties the rest together.
-
2020-01-18 at 2:53 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 2:54 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 2:56 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 3 PM UTCIf we assume an intelligent being created everything, then everything else makes perfect sense. For example, if you were walking through the woods and saw a mansion standing there, the simplest solution is that some intelligent person built it, not that the wood and stone just accidentally all came together just that way after millions or billions of years. Occam's Razor would be only to glad to validate it was created by someone, over the idea that the mansion just formed itself by coincidence. Every nail in every board would have to be just an accident.
-
2020-01-18 at 3:05 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 3:18 PM UTCI haven't met many people more stupid than an evolutionist. The things they want you to accept are akin to believing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real.
-
2020-01-18 at 3:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL If we assume an intelligent being created everything, then everything else makes perfect sense. For example, if you were walking through the woods and saw a mansion standing there, the simplest solution is that some intelligent person built it, not that the wood and stone just accidentally all came together just that way after millions or billions of years. Occam's Razor would be only to glad to validate it was created by someone, over the idea that the mansion just formed itself by coincidence. Every nail in every board would have to be just an accident.
Nope.
We are trying to explain the designer of the house.
If your only explanation for a designer is another designer then by extension you must use the same explanation for the next designer in the sequence. So your god is just the lowest level god in a chain of gods and there's no real explanation possible. This is what the Mormons believe and introduces info ite entities.
But what you WANT to say is the next designer needed no designer. That there is some original designer that came about without needing another one to make him.
And that's precisely what we are trying to explain, how that works. That was Darwin's great inversion of reasoning: how can design emerge from uncomprehending processes? It is the metaphysical junction where chemistry turns into biology.
We are the intelligent designers who came by uncomprehending processes. There is great physical evidence to this effect. But it is also the most parsimonious assertion because we arrive at the same end result (trying to explain how an intelligent designer can come to be) but minus one unnecessary additional entity.
Occam's razor is specifically; don't multiply entities beyond necessity.
Therefore Occam's razor favours my explanation, while shaving away yours like a scrap of rancid fat. Similar to your physiology.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-01-18 at 3:24 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 3:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Nope.
We are trying to explain the designer of the house.
If your only explanation for a designer is another designer then by extension you must use the same explanation for the next designer in the sequence. So your god is just the lowest level god in a chain of gods and there's no real explanation possible. This is what the Mormons believe and introduces info ite entities.
But what you WANT to say is the next designer needed no designer. That there is some original designer that came about without needing another one to make him.
And that's precisely what we are trying to explain, how that works. That was Darwin's great inversion of reasoning: how can design emerge from uncomprehending processes? It is the metaphysical junction where chemistry turns into biology.
We are the intelligent designers who came by uncomprehending processes. There is great physical evidence to this effect. But it is also the most parsimonious assertion because we arrive at the same end result (trying to explain how an intelligent designer can come to be) but minus one unnecessary additional entity.
Occam's razor is specifically; don't multiply entities beyond necessity.
Therefore Occam's razor favours my explanation, while shaving away yours like a scrap of rancid fat. Similar to your physiology.
You are missing the point. On the one hand, we have a billion billion-in-one coincidences, and on the other hand we have an intelligent designer we can't see who created it all. Which is more plausible? -
2020-01-18 at 3:32 PM UTC
-
2020-01-18 at 3:35 PM UTC
