Why Fundyism is Irrational (page 8)

OldSoul

[tips hat to g.f as he enters discussion] Hola, Brother Less-than-significant Blue-green Algae! How goes the hunt? I am enjoying this discussion, too.

(ASIDE: Wouldn't "Brother Less-than-significant Blue-green Algae" be a cool name for one of the characters in a Bible drama titled, "Creation: How Did He Do It?")

tetrapod.sapien: but i think that just being aware of probabilities can change peoples lives. ; if the probability favours the possibility of other life out there in the universe, it could drastically change the way we view ourselves, the universe, and ourselves in the universe.

I had not considered this benefit. I suppose I have to adjust my view of this formula. There. Done. Now it reads, "Mostly Harmless." LOL

I have come to believe, through the laws of probability, that I am very likely to find Lime Jello gelatin between the walls of my home. I know it exists, that I can empirically prove. It is made of matter, the molecules of which are formed by groupings of atoms, there is an incredible number of atoms in the universe...this logic could be used to turn nearly any possiblity into a probability approaching 1.

I obviously doubt I will find very much Lime Jello between the walls of my home, but there remains the possiblity. The chances of doing so are complicated by the variable of the number of contractors who worked on my home in the mid-70s that preferred Lime Jello, and of those the number that actually brought some to the site, and of those the number who would have dropped some somewhere between the walls of my home, but since there are so many atoms the probability is still near 1.

However, if I attempted to prove my belief to be true, it could be costly in terms of resources diverted to the pursuit. These funds could be better directed toward things like a much needed new roof, adding on an addition to the home, replacing worn fixtures, etc. In my opinion, the existence of a possibility of Lime Jello between the walls does not justify spending a single dime or the required time and energy in terms of human production looking for it. If I found it, what then? How did I profit from finding it?

I hope my analogy sufficiently stands up to scrutiny. It was developed in the few minutes it took to write this post. I'm throwing it to the ravenous beasts, for whatever it's worth.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

jgnat

LOL. Ravenous beasts...I'm a pussycat! I have no reason to back this up, call it gut instinct. I think human beings must explore to grow. Now that we have discovered the heavens, we gotta go as far as we can.

Gerard

Why Fundysm is Irrational

Religions are irrational. They are based and function on fear, hope and desire.

OldSoul

I didn't mean I was throwing it to you, jgnat.

I was calling t.s and Caedes the "ravenous beasts." Haven't you ever seen the gi-normous incisors on a large sample of cyanophyta? lol

Seriously, though: I know you are right, jgnat. I just wish we would not invent pseudo-scientific bases for doing exploration. You wanna try pinging planets with a hope that a carbon based critter across that great expanse would recognize it as a sign of intelligence? Go right ahead.

Just don't try and pretend that it is anything more than an exercise in wishful thinking that might pay off in the extremely remote chance that (1) there is life on another/other planet(s), (2) this life exists in some form we could identify as life, (3) the life is intelligent, (4) the lifeform's technology has advanced at least to the point where they can get our signal, (5) the life can understand its significance as indicative of intelligence, (6) the life can get funding from its government to start a SETI program to respond to us, (7) the life can figure out a way to make us know they received the message and are responding, (8) and that we receive the message they send.

I think I have stated the probable necessary steps. For all of man's existence, there has only been about a 100 year window in which we could have received a signal indicating life. We would not only have to reach them, we would have reach them at the right time in their technological advancement. Suppose we are being signalled right now by a means we haven't even developed the technology to detect, we would never even know. How do we know there aren't encoded messages in the rays of light from distant stars? I'm not saying I think that there are, but how would we ever interpret them? But for all we know, that could be a standard means of communication for another lifeform.

I see the odds of this succeeding as incredibly low, well below the realm of practically possible. I would expect rational people to avoid spending large amounts of time and heavy resources on the pursuit. However, some very brilliant minds are bent to the task with feverish intensity. And they will, however much I piss and moan about it.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Caedes

Old soul, a very agreeable discussion.

However I must point out that in the Old Soul equation (guaranteed to show the exact quantity of Lime green jelly in your walls!) the magnitude of the number of molecules (not atoms) is simply not high enough to make your answer approach 1. The distinction is important since it gives a difference of several orders of magnitude on one side of your equation, however I will take your point should you look at the chance of there being some lime green jelly in your walls and expand your search to include every molecule in every wall in the world then yes your answer would start to approach 1 (thinking about it someone somewhere must have dropped some jelly into a wall accidently at some point in time or decided to see how large a wall could be built out of jelly)

If you confine your search to your own walls and the probability of them being made entirely of jelly then the answer would approach zero given the relatively low number of molecules in your walls as compared with the extremely low probability that even the most cack-handed amateur builder would have built your walls entirely from lime green jelly. All of this would of course assume that you are not taking into account the fact that nobody has ever built the walls of a residential home out of jelly (a not unreasonable assumption) , if you included this then obviously you could own all the walls in the world but multiplying by zero will still give an absolute answer on the matter.

All the variables in drakes equation have a non-zero probability (as evidenced by our own existence)

Anyway I think I will rest my case on the low chance of any builder using lime green jelly when as we all know they prefer blackcurrant jelly!

OldSoul

I am enjoying this, too.

Firstly, please note that the allegory was of Lime Jello (a brand name in the U.S.) gelatin. For some reason there are a variety of occasions on which and circumstances under which Americans consume the stuff although, I confess, I have never enjoyed the experience. Further, said gelatin need only be somewhere within my walls. There is some in my refrigerator , so I know it exists.

Aside from an estimate of the number of stars (probably a low estimate) and a definite of less than 20 planets known for sure to orbit any stars, every other variable has a known value of one.

If I injected the gelatin into ONE wall, then claimed that there was also gelatin somewhere else within the walls I would have produced the needed allegory to match Drake's Equation perfectly. In the gelatin allegory, if I knew it was inside at least one wall, then every tad bit of space down to the size of a Jello atom (inside joke, "wood atoms" lol) between the sheetrock making up the internal walls of my home could correspond to the number of stars, the number of wall segments could correspond to the planets (we empirically know it is in one wall, because we put it there). It is still just as unlikely that there is gelatin in another place within my walls as it was before I injected it. I have a value of one for all variable in the equation except for the weighty estimation of the total space within the walls where one Lime Jello atom (Hah! I kill me!) might be found.

At this stage in the game of our development as a species, it seems silly to me for us to try to make contact. Given that the 8 steps laid out for jgnat are reasonably well representative of what we would expect to occur before we could state that we had successfully made contact (unless they pop down uninvited for a nip of biscuit and tea) I would say it is not possible withing the next billion lifetimes for us to make contact with a civilization at approximately, in terms of geologic time, our stage of development. The very fact that it would not have been possible to make long distance contact with us some 110 years ago should obviously decrease the likelihood considerably. But, as I stated before in the voice of Marvin (Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy), "Some very brilliant minds are bent to the task with feverish intensity. And they will continue, however much I piss and moan about it."

Respectfully,
OldSoul

OldSoul

In my opinion the upshot is, it is bad science to start loading 1s into the equation. To get an accurate measure of probability we should start by measuring the probability that life would occur on any planet, excluding the one we know of. Then, as we find planets capable of supporting life (ours being 1), the odds of finding another should decrease progressively. The way the formula is presented now, if we find three other inhabited planets it becomes incredibly likely there is life on Jupiter (statistically speaking). That has to be false premise.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

{Gosh, you wouldn't think I'd screw up that much in such a short post...the capacity of man is astounding}

Why Fundyism is Irrational

Share this