Current Events > You are one of 7 billion people, on one of 8 planets...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Those 8 planets, plus dwarf planets, comets, asteroids etc. orbit one star (Sol) that makes out our solar system. Our solar system is one of 200 to 400 BILLION in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy is one of 100 to 200 BILLION galaxies all with planets and sun's.

You are literally insignificant. And if you think we are the only intelligent life out there, you're ridiculous.
---

god thinks Im special
---

Turtlebread posted...

god thinks Im special

Oh. Well.... carry on then.
---

No mate, when I got to underground metal shows the bouncers let me in without paying. Maybe you're insignificant, but I'm not.
---

There are nine planets, you piece of shit.
---

"we are a speck of dust, and the universe hinges upon us."

Nothing matters unless it matters to you, in which which case it cannot matter more.
---

100-200 billion was the old estimate. It's now 2 trillion.
---

Of course on the other hand I'm a Veteran of CE. Your move, universe.
---

DoctorVader posted...

100-200 billion was the old estimate. It's now 2 trillion.

I can't handle this.
---

pegusus123456 posted...

There are nine planets, you piece of shit.

There are more than a hundred.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

There are nine planets, you piece of shit.

There are more than a hundred.

Only nine are important.
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

You are literally insignificant.

You, maybe.
---

and all of that is only 4% of whats in the universe

dark energy and matter is the other 96%
---

I am significant because I am made out of particles that were present during the Big Bang
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

Those 8 planets, plus dwarf planets, comets, asteroids etc. orbit one star (Sol) that makes out our solar system. Our solar system is one of 200 to 400 BILLION in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy is one of 100 to 200 BILLION galaxies all with planets and sun's.

You are literally insignificant. And if you think we are the only intelligent life out there, you're ridiculous.

all this does is show that YOU have a big lack of self respect... being a small part of the universe does not mean I dont have value...
---

The worlds only like 6OO years old.
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

You are literally insignificant

Duh. But let's not pretend we care about any planet except this one.
---

It's a great big universe
And we're all really puny
We're just tiny little specks
About the size of Mickey Rooney
---

TC imma steal this when I argue against an entitled millennial or old person.
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

TC imma steal this when I argue against an entitled millennial or old person.

Just make sure you change the number of galaxies to 2 trillion.
---

We're alone in dis universe
---

ssj3vegeta2 posted...

We're alone in dis universe

Well the universe isn't really that big.
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

And if you think we are the only intelligent life out there, you're ridiculous.

So believing something without empirical evidence because of an appeal to an argumentative notion of a person's character is better than waiting for a scientific proof?
---

If you think intelligent life from other planets has visited Earth, you're even more ridiculous
---

The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, the only thing we know of which ascribes value to anything. Most if not all of your precious space is dead matter following simple laws of physics. So how about you fuck off with your nihilism while the rest of us actually accomplish things?
---

On_The_Edge posted...

The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe,

That's a bold statement.
---

Saying something is ridiculous isn't an appeal to logic and reason.

It is an emotional appeal to a persuasive argument. In other words, not science.

The same goes for saying they are egoists. I read a NASA article saying if you don't believe in intelligent life out there somewhere, you are an egoist.

Guess what? That isn't a scientific claim. That is a moral argument to persuade someone to agree or get their character flamed.

If you do this, you aren't acting like a scientist. You are acting like someone who can't prove their stance and irrationally attacks people who make good arguments about your lack of evidence.

In other words, you are the one being ridiculous because you scientifically have no leg to stand on.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe,

That's a bold statement.

No, it's not. It's not even controversial.
---

On_The_Edge posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe,

That's a bold statement.

No, it's not. It's not even controversial.

its debatable, but certainly not bold or controversial
---

On_The_Edge posted...

The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, the only thing we know of which ascribes value to anything. Most if not all of your precious space is dead matter following simple laws of physics. So how about you fuck off with your nihilism while the rest of us actually accomplish things?

oops, didnt see the rest of this..... its just a shitpost huh?
---

How is it a shitpost? What did I say that was in any way controversial?
---

I'm not saying we have been visited.

I think there is life out there that we will never see, meet, or hear. (Plus smell and touch)
---

On_The_Edge posted...

What did I say that was in any way controversial?

nothing.... it just reads like uppity garbage

darkphoenix181 posted...

Guess what? That isn't a scientific claim. That is a moral argument to persuade someone to agree or get their character flamed.

the problem here, you are applying rules about science where there was no science to begin with

if someone claims "if you dont even think that there is intelligent life (meaning something on par with us humans here on earth) outside of the earth in ALL of the universe, than you are an egoist" there is no scientific claim in that quote

A scientist does not change brain function once they are given a degree or title with prevents them from ever thinking "unscientifically"
---

zado19 posted...

the problem here, you are applying rules about science where there was no science to begin with

if someone claims "if you dont even think that there is intelligent life (meaning something on par with us humans here on earth) outside of the earth in ALL of the universe, than you are an egoist" there is no scientific claim in that quote

A scientist does not change brain function once they are given a degree or title with prevents them from ever thinking "unscientifically"

The rules of science is to test claims. Assuming intelligent life exists because of the vast size of the universe is not testing a claim. It is unscientific.
And no, you can use probability to disprove this as people attempt to do.
Fyi, they aren't mad at people who say "there is absolutely no intelligent life out there" but strangely the people saying "maybe but there is no proof so I won't believe."
Probably because the first won't be convinced and they assume the second can be persuaded by rhetoric rather than science and party are ashamed someone who understands science wouldn't agree with them.

Now, I get what you are trying to say. They aren't making a scientific claim but one outside of being a scientist. Except that NASA and Stephen Hawking write articles of science containing these opinions. It basically is given as if it was science.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I think there is life out there that we will never see, meet, or hear. (Plus smell and touch)

Based on what evidence?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

zado19 posted...

the problem here, you are applying rules about science where there was no science to begin with

if someone claims "if you dont even think that there is intelligent life (meaning something on par with us humans here on earth) outside of the earth in ALL of the universe, than you are an egoist" there is no scientific claim in that quote

A scientist does not change brain function once they are given a degree or title with prevents them from ever thinking "unscientifically"

The rules of science is to test claims. Assuming intelligent life exists because of the vast size of the universe is not testing a claim. It is unscientific.
And no, you can use probability to disprove this as people attempt to do.
Fyi, they aren't mad at people who say "there is absolutely no intelligent life out there" but strangely the people saying "maybe but there is no proof so I won't believe."
Probably because the first won't be convinced and they assume the second can be persuaded by rhetoric rather than science and party are ashamed someone who understands science wouldn't agree with them.

Now, I get what you are trying to say. They aren't making a scientific claim but one outside of being a scientist. Except that NASA and Stephen Hawking write articles of science containing these opinions. It basically is given as if it was science.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I think there is life out there that we will never see, meet, or hear. (Plus smell and touch)

Based on what evidence?

This:

With at least 200 billion galaxies out there (and possibly even more), were very likely talking about a Universe filled with around 10(to the)24 planets, or, for those of you who like it written out, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe.

So we happen to be the one planet that has intelligent life on it? No way.
---

I haven't used this as a source or anything but it's a fun read:

https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

And if you think we are the only intelligent life out there, you're ridiculous.

So believing something without empirical evidence because of an appeal to an argumentative notion of a person's character is better than waiting for a scientific proof?

There's no such thing as scientific proof. Stop trying to use difficult words to sound smart.
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

So we happen to be the one planet that has intelligent life on it? No way.

So your argument is because you seen it happen once, it must happen elsewhere?

That is actually an egocentric view; not from a human standpoint, but from a life standpoint.
The idea that my experience as an organism must be universal. It is akin to how a little kid sees what happens in his town and thinks the rest of the world must be the same way. Because everyone around him speaks English, across the world in rural China, they must speak English. When he grows up he realizes that was childish to assume.

That is kinda ironic to be quite honest. We went from the egoism of believing the universe revolves around us to believing what we are is a fundamental development of the universe. Perhaps there is something else besides "intelligent life" out there that we can't even imagine that is more significant anyways.
---

You are one of 7 billion people, on one of 8 planets...

7 of which don't currently have intelligent life on them.
---

I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm saying it's likely.

3 billion years ago there was all the stuff needed for life on Mars. Life as we know it anyways. We don't know if there was life or not. We may find out there was. It's a possibility that isn't 0.

That's the next planet over.

We haven't had the ability to check the other planets yet. So what I'm saying is in the 13 (or so) billion years that the universe has been around we have life here. Right next to us we have the possibility of past life.... it's stupid to think that it hasn't happened in the 10000000000000000000000000 other planets out there that we can't hope to visit or explore in our lifetime, and probably our children's lifetime.
---

pegusus123456 posted...

There are nine planets, you piece of shit.

Pluto
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

it's stupid to think that it hasn't happened in the 10000000000000000000000000 other planets out there that we can't hope to visit or explore in our lifetime, and probably our children's lifetime.

Calling waiting for a scientific hypothesis to be tested is not stupid.
See that is why when you say:

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm saying it's likely.

You are being disingenuous. If it is not a fact, only likely, then there is nothing stupid about having reservations.
---

There's an equation for estimating (if even that) the number of intelligent alien civilizations out there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

@darkphoenix181 your argument reeks of the anthropic principle to me <_<
---

I disagree. I'm going to to with the classic "gravity is only a theory" here.

You would say it's stupid however to not believe in gravity.
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I disagree. I'm going to to with the classic "gravity is only a theory" here.

You would say it's stupid however to not believe in gravity.

To play devil's advocate

"Theory" in science is not a "theory" in the colloquial usage of the word

Theories in science have been tested and found to be "not yet false".
---

teepan95 posted...

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I disagree. I'm going to to with the classic "gravity is only a theory" here.

You would say it's stupid however to not believe in gravity.

To play devil's advocate

"Theory" in science is not a "theory" in the colloquial usage of the word

I mean this in a total-100 percent - non dickhead way-

Am I wrong?
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I disagree. I'm going to to with the classic "gravity is only a theory" here.

You would say it's stupid however to not believe in gravity.

Gravity is testable.

Lmao

@teepan95 posted...

darkphoenix181 your argument reeks of the anthropic principle to me <_<

My argument is simply that you cannot say intelligent life must be out there until science actually proves it.
How is that Anthropic? Can you explain?
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

teepan95 posted...

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I disagree. I'm going to to with the classic "gravity is only a theory" here.

You would say it's stupid however to not believe in gravity.

To play devil's advocate

"Theory" in science is not a "theory" in the colloquial usage of the word

I mean this in a total-100 percent - non dickhead way-

Am I wrong?

The argument in the quoted post is wrong.

You're using the word 'theory' to mean 'something we think may be true, but have not yet tested'. In science, this is known as a 'hypothesis'.

A 'theory' in science, on the other hand, has been tested. Nothing can be proved to be true in science, but a theory hasn't (yet) been proven false.

Also, Newtonian gravity has been superseded by general relativity <_<
---

The anthropic principle, in a nutshell, claims that the universe exists because we exist to observe it, and are 'special' in that regard. You can dissect it into various forms, but that's the gist (as I understand).

You're claiming something similar, saying that just cause we exist it doesn't mean other life has to exist. We could be 'special'. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, your usage of the word "prove" is wrong, but that's a separate issue.

@darkphoenix181
---

teepan95 posted...

The anthropic principle, in a nutshell, claims that the universe exists because we exist to observe it, and are 'special' in that regard. You can dissect it into various forms, but that's the gist (as I understand).

You're claiming something similar, saying that just cause we exist it doesn't mean other life has to exist. We could be 'special'. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, your usage of the word "prove" is wrong, but that's a separate issue.

@darkphoenix181

I never said we are special. As such, calling this Anthropic is a strawman.

Even if we are the only intelligent life in the universe, that doesn't make us special. It might by an elementary definition of uniqueness, but as I said above, there might be other forms in the universe that we cannot imagine.

As such, it could very well be that uniqueness is attributed to many things making it not special.

But fundamentally I am not arguing philosophy but absence of science.

I do not care whether man is special or unique. I only care if he can prove that there is other life. If he cannot, then he needs to stop acting as if it was scientific fact.
My rhetoric was to show why the counter rhetoric doesn't work, not to make a statement.

That is, you might say it is egosim to say man is alone in the universe. I wouldn't disagree, but I would say it is biological egoism to assume our form of life is a fundamental formation of the universe's materials.

The universe is so large and yet for some reason we assume one pattern to be the be-all-end-all? How does that make more sense than the man who thinks he is special?

But again, none of that is important. What it boils down to is there could be life out there, but you can't prove or test it yet. Go ahead and attempt to do so. But don't act morally superior or as if you are intelligent for assuming it does. Don't call it science unless you can actually give a scientific proof.
---