Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scotty99

  1. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    If that's the case, this shouldn't be in science news.  Furthermore, you haven't drawn anything from the paper, other than the abstract. You want to discuss it, then discuss it, but leave your agenda out of it. 

    Then move it to the correct section? Its a paper that has gained traction and was picked up by numerous websites, where exactly is the right spot to post it.

  2. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    I very clearly said I was citing the article. If you did not wish the article to be discussed, you should not have linked to it.

    I'm not sure what I should be ashamed of here.

    Is that a rhetorical question or are you trolling? The only reason i linked the article is because this is the "news" section of the forums on which ive seen the paper pop up on various sites so i just randomly picked that one. If you are trying to make some sort of point by reading a synopsis by a brain dead beat writer on some unknown website to make a point, i think you know what you are to be ashamed of.

  3. 6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    No, it's not saying that. 

    Oh, really? Guess my reading comprehension is lacking these days:



    When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it.


    Are you reading the actual paper or just quoting the news article? Pretty sure ive seen you do this multiple times on this forum, shame shame moderator.

  4. 4 minutes ago, swansont said:

    That's not what the article said (emphasis added)

    And even that conclusion is debatable, as the article admits.  

    Not sure what you are getting at, the article is clearly stating we are in a very special spot in the cosmos, i never said anything different.

  5. 4 minutes ago, Strange said:

    But that is so bizarre: on the one hand, you criticise science and say it doesn't have the answer while on the other you grab any bit of science you can twist to support your faith and say "See, science!". This is new level of cognitive dissonance.


    Oh i love to use science, but im also not attatched to it at the hip like yourself. To get to the big questions (surprising you dont know what i mean by this one) we as a people are going to need to invoke science, philosophy, history, and just well common sense to come to some truths.

  6. 34 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Maybe you need to find a forum where you will get a better reception. One that is not populated by smart people. A Creationist forum perhaps. Or the Flat Earth society - your approach has a lot in common. And I'm sure that the the Geocentrists have their own forum.

    You might have to get used to being attacked for not being religious enough, but that might be a pleasant change for you! :)

    I actually dont care about any of the conspiracy theorist nutjobs that you speak of. Like i said i posted here originally to see if smart people did exist on the internet, i mean this is the science forum after all surely there has to be a few right lol? You are really good at forum debating but i wouldnt necessarily deem you a smart guy, my guess is you were really good at debate club in college and after finding nothing you were good at in life just settled down here. Dont get it twisted you have the best chance of doing anything on this forum, everyone else ive ran into here are lost in the sauce and unfixable. 

  7. As noted above science has limits my strange internet forum goer. If we want to answer the big questions you gotta invoke the gut, this i am 100% certain of and no one on this planet could convince me otherwise.

    Its basically relativity in a nutshell, what an absolutely friggin delicious sinister theory that one is.

  8. 5 minutes ago, Strange said:

    The scientific method is used because IT WORKS, not because people have some sort of blind faith. It is tested and changed over time. This is almost the exact opposite of your faith-based approach.

    But it is  absolutely expected that the religious will, ignorantly, accuse science of being a religion. We hear it all the time from people who share your beliefs, from Creationists and various other fundamentalists.

    I dont take quotes from other people i only write down genuine thoughts, i truly see science no different to religion in the sense it is something you hold tight to your chest and will not let go. I gave example of this above which you apparently missed, influenced as a child has a lot to do with this on either side. I was lucky enough to avoid any influence, well at least for the things i am attempting to solve.

  9. 1 minute ago, Strange said:

    (*) If I had been a scientist, I would have been the one doing the same experiment for my entire career just to improve the accuracy of the results.And getting absolutely no credit at all!

    It takes a real man to do good work without recognition, maybe we arent so different after all.

  10. 3 minutes ago, Strange said:

    WTF does that gibberish mean? You seem to have degenerated from unsupported beliefs to some sort of aphasia.

    Is that not the goal of every scientist? To get their name somewhere on a plaque claiming they did something world changing? 



    19 minutes ago, Strange said:

    The irony of this from a religious person is unbelievable. Someone described science as the process of being continuously wrong. (Almost the exact opposite of your rigid faith-based beliefs.)

    Actually surprised you didnt get this part. The scientific method is limiting, but you will follow it to the grave because you are so tied to it. It is your religion, far more than anything ive ever tied myself too.


    Crazy how you dont get that.

  11. The only reason i originally posted on this forum was to see if i could find an intellectual equal, in that process ive found that its not about being smart its about figuring out who has the right questions. We are all semi on the same level, but what takes actual brain power is figuring out where to spend it on. I think science gets bogged down in the details a bit too much, important for somethings to be sure but others its a real hinderance.

  12. Science can only get you so far my dude. I dont know strange or any of the other regular posters here but id fare a wager they were seduced by science at an early age, maybe the beauty of numbers or the fibonacci sequence and how it replicates itself so perfectly in nature. But that is the problem, people get to close to something and they just cant let go, it is now an all or nothing situation. I am odd bird in the sense that i am a true free thinker, and trust me when i say this has more negatives than positives. But what i does allow me to do is distance myself from any sort of bond or preconception i would have as a normal human being. Normal human beings are not intended to figure out the inner workings of the universe, only weirdos like myself are privy. 

  13. 16 minutes ago, beecee said:

    No, relativity denotes an excellent verified observation. Scientific theory aint interested in your truths, reality, or myths.

    So we can agree its a very well drawn out observance of possibilities?


    I just care about being right for some reason, have my whole life. I think to get there you gotta initiate the gut, that is where i feel science took a left at albuquerque.

  14. You still confuse me as a religious person, kind of incredible lol. Every ounce of what i feel to be real is based on cosmological/scientific studies, the part where i disagree with people is the intuition part. Relativity denotes a possibility, not a truth.

  15. 32 minutes ago, Strange said:

    But when there are a range of possible outcomes, some people will use that to confirm their beliefs (whatever they are).

    I dont think thats the takeaway here strange, merely that we are incredibly special. Even if its the observable universe, thats an unfathomable amount of real estate.

  16. https://www.sciencealert.com/three-of-the-world-s-greatest-minds-just-published-a-disheartening-take-on-the-fermi-paradox


    Well well would you look at that, people are starting to come around. For many years i was certain there had to be other life in the universe, but the more i studied our reality the more i realize how special of a circumstance we are likely in. Obviously this isnt some conclusive study but it is very interesting to see papers such as this coming out from the mainstream, i am impressed.


  17. There are logical explanations as to how our universe is laid out that would befit a viewpoint as such i have. And yes i do have a fairly unique standpoint here, but it does not come from a place of wanting to be a snowflake. We have the best answer possible right now, its just going to take a bit of time before it gets accepted on a mainstream level. It likely wont be in my lifetime but it is inevitable, people just need to exercise their imaginations first.

  18. 14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    If "most logical" meant "makes the most sense to me".

    No i mean logical, that is where the intellect part comes into play.


    Im just going to make this edit, because i dont think like most people do. I don't base my faith on anything other than logic, including the best guess we have to the reality of our existence based on factual findings. We know enough about our existence to come to a best guess scenario, the problem is most people are unwilling to go there because they are too vested in an idea that was entrenched in their mind at an early age. I mean from both sides btw.


    9 minutes ago, Strange said:

    The only things I have read by him are when he gets quoted on science forums by people promoting crackpot ideas. I get the impression he is one of those people more interested in making impressive sounding statements than communicating science accurately. (Michio Kaku appears to be similar.)

    He is a good guy to be fair, just confused like many.

    I know you guys disdain videos around here, but here is a debate about a simulated universe from the 2016 asimov where he was the moderator:


  20. Well here is a video where he talks about his thoughts on it, not sure if they line up with your own:



    Im too stupid to know how to delete the first link, but the second video is better.


    13 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said:

    The culture I stated. Not recent American culture. I am waiting to see words as clearly stated as I have written from any such people... please.

    Noting, that the idea of a simulated universe is as old as the hills. The logical conclusion that a theory of everything is a theory of nothing is what I want to see in writing from another source, please.

    Im not even sure what you are talking about, it seems to me that you may suffer from snowflake syndrome. This is not an insult btw, its fairly common for people to try and come up with something that no one else has thought of in human history, the problem is that statistics are working against you.

  21. Just now, Jack Egerton said:

    I have never read anything written or said by either of those people on any such subject. So you guess incorrectly.

    You have never heard anything said by elon musk or neil degrasse tyson, you live where exactly? BTW elon musk is the inventor of paypal, tesla motor co, and space-x and he is a major proponent of the "simulated universe". I am not saying i dont believe you, just that when you say culture being a major influence i have to question who else could have had such an impact on you.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.