Intoscience

True, though I wasn't referring directly to that specific sighting. But I guess its difficult to follow up without some data to analyse. Makes sense, no point in claiming a theory based on speculative science. Doesn't stop you from wondering though. You do get the impression that there is an air of arrogance towards those who pursue UFO claims. There are scientists who believe that our understanding of physics is absolute and anyone who suggests otherwise is a crackpot. This is the stigma attached to such discussions. It makes perfect sense to use the data & tools you have available to attempt to solve a problem. If the problem can't be solved then fine, but that problem maybe solved at a later date when better data & tools are available. We can't ignore that there are gaps in our scientific understanding of how the universe works at both the quantum and the cosmic scales. We don't understand how to consolidate gravity in our 2 best models, we have no clue what dark matter is, we have no clue what dark energy is. Basically we know far less about the vast majority of the universe than we do.

Astronaut and airline pilot sightings are quite abundant. But there never seems to be any particular investigative follow up by any leading experts (or so it appears). I'm quite amazed at how many sightings & sound for that matter have been witnessed by so many credible people. Including many from the space programs dating all the way back to the early 60's. I guess you can look at it 2 ways, all the sightings have been ignored, as nothing worth investigating. Or many if not most have been investigated and some of the information remains sensitive for one reason or another. I'm quite skeptical of alien visitations, but the more reports I see, especially those from very credible sources, then I do start to wonder a little. I don't think we can discount it just because we currently think its highly improbable. All our investigative resources are based on our current understanding of physics. But we all know, that as successful as our models are, there are gaps. The gaps may turn out to be very insignificant. All very speculative I know, but but one can't help but think - what if.

Well if you are going to use very brief,simple and undetailed descriptions, like these you have presented (to be fair to Sensei, they do sound rather childish, in that I would only use your similar descriptions whilst explaining to very young children), then for physics I probably say, (to paraphrase) - physics is the study of motion. Obviously there is much more to physics, and each field of science, but to a young child who is inquisitive and just starting to grasp the concept of science, then this may suffice. I liked this one. Ooh... maybe one for the philosophy section me thinks

It's my understanding that physics is the underlining science of all sciences.

I would like to do the same but there are so many potential hazards in doing so. Just have to check with dimreeper on what is allowed, my understanding was that you can wish for anything that is within the realms of real possibilities based on current mainstream science. So this may fall out outside of that criteria. If this is the case then I guess it makes sense, else we will all start coming up with really fanciful wishes that go way beyond real possibilities. For example, I'd wish that I had all the super powers of all the DC & Marvel characters rolled into one, in fact lets take it one step further and wish that I had the power of almighty god, end program.

Yeah, it's a great program, can't say I noticed but now you come to mention it...

I don't know why but the song "It's The Final Countdown" popped in my head whilst reading through this thread. I always suspected that I'm the only human on this forum. I have been fooled by all you bots for so long, but now, ah ah...,you have all been rumbled!

Then grant me the one winning ticket then end the lottery. I'll then use all the proceeds to help those in need. I used to, now I just think oh well its only a science forum where i'm discussing topics with people i'll very unlikely ever meet or who are very unlikely to have any impact on my life other than maybe my own sanity (if I let it). This said, I try to find the benefits of attending such forums, education, and use of language skills are definitely a bonus. I was going to add Knowledge, but can one trust all the knowledge one receives from these places? Why only in America and why only shootings? Why not just wish for no murder anywhere across the world? End all; wars, conflict, murder, bullying, oppression, non-equality... all doable

Ok thanks for clarifying. this is somewhat reassuring. Self awareness then?

I wish that I was financially secure enough to enable me to invest in making things better for people who need help, without having to sacrifice mine or my nearest and dearest's own wellbeing and current standard of living (which is modest and comfortable). Then the other 2 wishes can go to those that need them more than I do. Because I can't think of anything off hand that is possible within the realms of reality I could wish for. Because all my other wishes are fanciful fairy tale ideas not based on reality. Though I may change my mind as the thread progresses, I assume this is acceptable by the OP? I have just thought of one! I wish that threads on this science forum would not repeatedly turn into personal slanging matches, and that instead people would respect each others views and opinions with politeness, good decorum and dignity.

Ooh... now you are delving into deeper philosophical realms. Define intelligence.

Is there a potential that regardless of all mitigation, to ensure a good programme, and very good close control and management of the use. That the programme could become intelligent enough to re-write it original program, whether through self-awareness, self-learning or some other mechanism due to advanced A.I intelligence?

The only trouble is in the movies most of the time Batman wins, reality maybe a different matter.

Yes, so the threat may not necessarily be the genocidal armageddon as sensationalised by sci-fi movies. The threat to humans could be far more subtle but potentially just as devastating in the long run. The potential of multiple network failures that hold key positions for social structures. Then there is the potential to bug the system enough to get people and even nations to turn against each other. I don't think its a matter of for and against, it's more a matter of agreement on the level of the threat, the reality of such and when.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/29/1166896809/tech-leaders-urge-a-pause-in-the-out-of-control-artificial-intelligence-race#:~:text="We call on all AI,in and institute a moratorium." It appears there is some misinformation, some scepticism and probably over dramatization. So maybe not a big deal or even just a PR stunt. I often wonder about my phone, I certainly get advertisements come up on apps that have context based on my recently discussed subjects. 🤨🙃

I'm now wondering, there is a call from a few leading A.I development companies for a 6 month cull on A.I development. If there is no threat, then why the concern? Films like terminator sensationalise such threats making them dramatic etc... this puts a stigma and aids in ridicule. The potential threat comes when the A.I has the ability of self-awareness along within self-learning. At this juncture we may have no control, have no idea on it's thoughts, values, agendas...

Yes, agreed. I agree, this is all we have to go on that is rigorous. There are scientists who are considering hypothesis which sit outside the constraints of Relativity. Was it Eric Weinstein who said something along the lines of "Einstein's jail". Ok, we can all let our imaginations run wild and speculate on wormholes and warp drives and so on... this is all sci-fi, pseudo science and/or at best conjecture. So i'm in agreement that we should consider possibilities that fit within our current understanding of physical laws. Based on this both you and String Junky have very logical and valid points.

Again I agree and not arguing, I would form the same logical conclusion. But playing devils advocate, we are assuming detection within GR frame work. Ok so my point really is this, we would all agree that if its possible that aliens are capable of visiting us, then they are going to be far more advanced in physics and technology than we are, and possibly could currently imagine. At this point I'm not arguing against you, I'm in full agreement with your premise and would and do form the same logical conclusions based on our current known and verified physical models of reality. But I can't help thinking, we are struggling to consolidate quantum gravity models with GR models, just for one example. Both which we believe to be true based on data, math and experimental observation. So, if we are missing something here and now then what other possibilities are we yet to discover?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify please, so I don't misinterpret you. Thanks Fair enough, Assuming they are using radio signals to detect us, this is quite logical Thanks

Imagine, all the times you curse, even under your breath, "god... I wish..." all hell would break loose! Or the never ending nightmare.

Why not? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just intrigued as to why you don't think they are in our neighbourhood? Just trying to understand the logic. If you think the likelihood of aliens is pretty high, then by what factor do you draw the conclusion that they are not close by? Just playing devils advocate. This premise is based on the assumption that alien tech would pretty much follow our own. We can only really use our tech to find known tech of similar capability. A simple analogy would be where an island has a group of people who can only communicate by beating drums or using smoke signals. They would be looking for the same or similar methods from other islanders to discern whether they are alone. But if the other islands have discovered radio for communication they will still easily hear and see the drums and smoke, but if they themselves chose to, remain fairly undetected.

I didn't post this conspiracy to defend (i'm not advocating it). It was just angle to come from regarding "artificial population control". However, for those who are advocating it, if you believe certain governments or organisations are ruthless enough to commit mass genocide, and find a way to cover it up. Then what better than using a virus that can be disguised as natural and consistent with other similar historical pandemics. Regarding the economy, it was greatly affected by the pandemic. re-set? well that's another subject. One could argue that smaller population = less resource requirements = less consumer demands = reduced industry = reduction in energy, thus carbon emissions. Probably not as straight forward as this, but you could easily see the basic logic behind it.

Produce a virus and leak it, to kill off the vulnerable, reset economy, and divert attention, claiming it as a pandemic. I'm not advocating this, but I have heard such conspiracy theories doing the rounds. But it does get you thinking - Less humans = less carbon emissions? Does this equate?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out that when dealing with "what if's" / "lets say" things start to get a bit muddy. That just isn't true though for the Drake equation. Many the of the factors are unknown or at best rough approximations based on the data we do have. You can easily input approximations that are based on the current data, that are quite reasonable, and the equation will spew out a quite reasonable result that makes sense based on the best observations we have.

They don't like the idea of losing big sums of money that will affect their current wealth and/or status in order to mitigate a disaster that is (to most of them) far enough in the future that it's not likely to impact them personally. And if it does, they will just up sticks with along with their wedge of cash and find the highest hill to live on.