I don't understand why the burden of proof is on the people who believe in intelligent life. Since we cannot run experiments to test it's purely a matter of speculation and guessing based on the evidence we have. I don't see why either proposition should be favored. And considering the huge number of stars even in our own galaxy combined with the number of exoplanets we're finding I find it far more likely that life either did, does, or will exist out there somewhere. The Drake equation is pretty convincing to me despite our huge failure to estimate its parameters.
However there is an even more compelling argument for the existence of intelligent life. Most of the universes we know of are virtual: created on a computer. Aside from stuff like Norrath, there are thousands of simulations running all the time, Conway's game of life etc. If we extend that logic its far more likely that our universe is also virtual (especially since it appears quantized and computable). Which means there is something up the stack . . . if RnF is any guide, probably some zit-faced unemployed alien playing a computer game.
P.S. Hasbinbad, you really need to read 'Unskilled and Unaware of it'. You just don't understand what you are talking about, which is fine, but you are also unaware of it, which is poor.
P.P.S. I wonder why I'm always on the opposite side of Alarti on every position. I have a few theories: Alarti is wrong about everything; I'm wrong about everything; Alarti has a huge faith in the power of science while I am more Popperian; I don't believe in anything and can pick either side but I have a subconscious urge to just randomly pick the other side to taunt him. Probably the most likely is #3.
|