UFO's and extra-terrestrial life

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

No, your statement is an argument that the universe is finite. If the universe is truely infinte then every possiblity no matter how small must be otherwise it would be impossible and not part of the equation.

In an infinte universe an exact copy of you is (or will or has been) trying to convince a copy of me that the universe is infinite and I've just told you that your logic is flawed. Even if there is a 1 in infinity chance of it happening then it will.

Put it another way, your argument is the same as saying that if A is possible, then A must be true. But this is obviously nonsense - possible existence does not mean the same as necessary existence. Possible existence implies the possibility of non-existence. So given that you have derived a contradiction, you either have a false premise or have made a false step of logic (or both!)

We find the mistake easily: if you take some estimated finite probability of, say, life on another planet, or clones of us having this argument on another planet, and multiply by infinity, the answer is not one, but infinity. And an infinite probability has no meaning - a probability cannot exceed 1.

You can only get 1 in your argument by assuming that the probability is 1/infinity to get the equation 1/infinity X infinity/1 = 1 which is trivial.

If you want to have a universe where all sorts of bizarre things are happening you would be better of believing that the universe is not infinite, but very very large, since you can then multiply your prior probability by a large number and then at least get a meaninful answer.

If you like thinking about these sorts of things you might consider reading up about the Bayesian concept of probability, which focuses on probability as the subjective assessment of available evidence, rather than the objectivist concept you appear to use.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

Put it another way, your argument is the same as saying that if A is possible, then A must be true.

If it doesn't then we are in a finite universe as Charvel has stated, not an infinite one.

What I would like to know is if infinity doesn't exist why would you as a mathematician multiply something by it?

Originally Posted by unreasonable

If you want ....If you like

You are funny! Where in any of my posts have I stated that I want or I would like or I believe I live in an infinite universe? (I'll leave that up to one of my or your selves! )

We can only know what we can observe; I doubt that neither you nor I will live long enough to find out the answer.

There are men called scientist that are much more intelligent than either me or yourselves that think about how the universe is made. Some of these BIG thinkers are as we type having the same debate, neither group will determine the answer, neither will we with any certainty!

Cheers!

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

If it doesn't then we are in a finite universe as Charvel has stated, not an infinite one.

What I would like to know is if infinity doesn't exist why would you as a mathematician multiply something by it?


You are funny! Where in any of my posts have I stated that I want or I would like or I believe I live in an infinite universe? (I'll leave that up to one of my or your selves! )

We can only know what we can observe; I doubt that neither you nor I will live long enough to find out the answer.

There are men called scientist that are much more intelligent than either me or yourselves that think about how the universe is made. Some of these BIG thinkers are as we type having the same debate, neither group will determine the answer, neither will we with any certainty!

Cheers!

Actually I agree with what you say about observation - I am simply pointing out that an infinite universe does NOT imply that every possibility is actualised. This just incorrect logic and mathematics.

(Which I think I might be able to demonstrate in another way which avoids having to multiply be infinity....

Suppose that we agree that, if we go to any other single solar system, the probability of finding "unreasonable" and "Skoshi Toger" debating the universe is less than 1.00 - lets say it is 0.10

Then we go to the first solar system we come to and look. The probability of NOT finding the debaters is 0.90 so let us assume we do not find them.

We go to the next planet - the probability is again 0.90

So from the beginning the probability of NOT finding the debaters on any planet of the first two is 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.81

We can continue this process infinitely - 0.90x0.90x0.90 etc

The point is that while the product approaches zero, it never actually reaches zero. So we can never be 100% certain that we will find the debaters. So the argument that an infinite universe must necessarily contain every possibility fails.)

As for the BIG THINKERS - I went to university with many of these scientists (in fact I started out as one myself) and I can assure you that hardly any of them are much more intelligent than you or I, and even the best of them are just as prone to poor reasoning and category mistakes as anyone else when they step away from their narrow fields of enquiry. Stephen Hawking for instance is a famously lousy philospher despite having a brain the size of a planet. He is wasted on physics - we should kidnap him and put him to work on CloD's AI!

[Wolf_Rider]

All you've done there is explain logic as...

At this moment:
Are you at the front door? - no
Are you in the kitchen? - no
If you aren't in the kitchen or at the front door, you must be somewhere else(?) - yes
If you are somewhere else, you cannot be at your computer reading this.


there is, as you offer, a 0.1 chance of finding and an equal 0.9 chance of not finding... in that moment, you have two posbilities... there in, there is a universe in which you do find and equally existant is a universe in which you do not find, and that is just for the planet you chose to look on first, in the solar system you chose to look in first = a multitude of parallel universes just involvolving; will I find?

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

All you've done there is explain logic as...

At this moment:
Are you at the front door? - no
Are you in the kitchen? - no
If you aren't in the kitchen or at the front door, you must be somewhere else(?) - yes
If you are somewhere else, you cannot be at your computer reading this.


there is, as you offer, a 0.1 chance of finding and an equal 0.9 chance of not finding... in that moment, you have two posbilities... there in, there is a universe in which you do find and equally existant is a universe in which you do not find, and that is just for the planet you chose to look on first, in the solar system you chose to look in first = a multitude of parallel universes just involvolving; will I find?

Now this is mixing up multiple possible observations of a single actual universe (finite or not) with the actual possibility of observing multiple universes

The mistake here is your phrase "equally existent". The possibilities only exist as logical objects, they are not actual. The actual outcome is there whether or not we look, the looking just finds out what is already there. It is just a fluke of language that we can use the word "exists" about logical objects and physical objects, it really does not mean the same thing in the two cases.

This is for classical objects like flight simmers, BTW

[Wolf_Rider]

no... all possiblities from a choice exist equally at the same moment up until the choice is made to proceed along one branch... at which point that branch taken becomes the focus and the other possibilites fall into disfocus - yet they still exist. (the same as the other 2 forward paths extending from a 4 way intersection still exist, with only one forward, the third, path being travelled on)
Its not mixing up the possibilites of a single univers... the "single universe", is the one which is in "focus" - "logic" has nothing to do with it, as there is nothing logical about choice. At the moment of a choice, all possibilities extending from that choice exist equally.

[unreasonable]

No, no, no no... I am sounding like "David Hayward"!

What you are saying implies that you think you exist in some solopsistic world in which your choices define not only your own universe but that of everyone else.

I know some people do actually believe this sort of stuff, even after medication, but it does make discussing reality with other sentient beings a little difficult.