Given the possibilities of an alien spacecraft observed on Earth violating the known laws of physics, or some error on the part of the observer, I'm going with the latter every time.
First, prove that everything we know about physics is wrong at a fundamental, irreconcilable level. Then explain why our completely wrong models of physics still work as well as they do. Then explain the Fermi Paradox in light of the apparent existence of easy faster than light/antigravity technology and confirmation of the existence of other technologically advanced civilizations in the universe. Then I'll be willing to concede the still practically nil chance of any of those aliens actually being here given the vast size of the observable universe as being likely enough to consider.
Don't get me wrong, I want it to be true. I desperately want it to be true. I've been fascinated by UFOlogy and sightings and the related folklore for decades. I want some fate for humanity other than us slowly choking to death on our own poison, alone on this island in the midst of vast seas of infinity. It's just that the bar for proving any other possibility is higher than a third-hand account of someone seeing a light in the sky that moved really fast.
> Given the possibilities of an alien spacecraft observed on Earth violating the known laws of physics, or some error on the part of the observer, I'm going with the latter every time.
You know, it isn't (physically) necessary to choose anything.
> First, prove that everything we know about physics is wrong at a fundamental, irreconcilable level.
Why does everything have to be wrong, in an irreconcilable manner?
> Don't get me wrong, I want it to be true.
I dunno man, the opposite seems to be the case - are you not at least suffering from motivated reasoning, to some degree?
> I want some fate for humanity other than us slowly choking to death on our own poison, alone on this island in the midst of vast seas of infinity.
Me too!! Consider this idea: our cultural tendency to form beliefs absent of proof (therefore: faith based, which is usually considered a big no no) causes substantial harm, and our tendency to write it off as "that's just people" or (begrudgingly) as "well, of course I'm only expressing my opinion, that's what everyone is always doing" are not proper common sense and reasonableness, but rather are emergent behaviors that cause humanity to be permanently stuck in a local maxima (on certain dimensions, while ongoing successes in specific domains like science, engineering, computing, etc make it appear like we have our shit substantially together comprehensively).
Of course, this is speculation - but what if it is actually true to a non-trivial degree?
>You know, it isn't (physically) necessary to choose anything.
Sure, but we're here on a discussion forum so not committing to any point of view seems counterproductive.
>Why does everything have to be wrong, in an irreconcilable manner?
Because the laws of physics as we understand them, even quantum mechanics, don't allow for things like antigravity or faster than light travel or propagation of information. Theoretical warp-drive models like the Alcubierre drive, or wormholes, or other solutions either require different spacetimes or exotic matter or negative energy or some kind of fudge factor that makes it not work within our universe. Special relativity says it's impossible. Quantum mechanics says it's impossible.
If it turns out that FTL travel is possible, it means we live in a universe without causality, where the relationship between cause and effect is arbitrary. If it turns out to be not only possible but also trivial, to the point that you can fit a warp drive onto something the size of a plane, Then E=MC^2 turns out to be meaningless. Since everything we observe about the universe, at every scale, suggests causality exists and that E=MC^2 holds, we can't be wrong about those without being wrong about everything.
But hey, maybe we are. Great. Show me some equations then. That's all I'm asking. Prove it's wrong, first. Show me a working anti-gravity drive or a warp drive, built by humans, or something that can be tested independently, peer reviewed and verified. Faster than light teleportation. Something.
But all I'm expected to hang my hat on is rumors, folklore and videos for which mundane explanations exist.
>I dunno man, the opposite seems to be the case - are you not at least suffering from motivated reasoning, to some degree?
Everyone suffers from motivated reasoning, that's how reason works. I'm just saying my personal bar for proof is higher than those willing to accept that we simply don't understand anything about physics as a prior to making the UFO argument semantically trivial.
Rather than believe that we're exactly as ignorant now - even though we can measure gravitational waves and the cosmic microwave background and use quantum tunneling in our microchips and GPS has to take relativistic time dilation into account - as we were thousands of years ago when we believed the stars were inscribed on crystal spheres, I believe our models of the universe have become more accurate over time, and that as a result, fundamental paradigm shifts become less and less likely.
That doesn't mean I don't want to believe, it just means I don't also believe in magical thinking. And I'm far from the only skeptic who wants to believe out there. Eyewitness testimony is interesting, video is interesting, but it isn't enough. At least not for me.
> Sure, but we're here on a discussion forum so not committing to any point of view seems counterproductive.
But if you think of it from the perspective of what is actually true, what do you come up with?
Also: assuming you're a programmer/techie type: is this the same epistemic methodology you use when writing code?
Given the possibilities of an alien spacecraft observed on Earth violating the known laws of physics, or some error on the part of the observer, I'm going with the latter every time.
>>> First, prove that everything we know about physics is wrong at a fundamental, irreconcilable level.
>> Why does everything[!] have to be wrong, in an irreconcilable manner?
> Because the laws of physics as we understand them, even quantum mechanics, don't allow for things like antigravity or faster than light travel or propagation of information. Theoretical warp-drive models like the Alcubierre drive, or wormholes, or other solutions either require different spacetimes or exotic matter or negative energy or some kind of fudge factor that makes it not work within our universe. Special relativity says it's impossible.
Here you are only describing that some things that we believe would have to be incorrect, and you do not even attempt to substantiate the "irreconcilable" part, as far as I can tell.
> Quantum mechanics says it's impossible.
Saying something is true does not necessarily mean it is true, but it certainly often causes it to appear true.
> If it turns out that FTL travel is possible, it means we live in a universe without causality, where the relationship between cause and effect is arbitrary.
Why?
> If it turns out to be not only possible but also trivial, to the point that you can fit a warp drive onto something the size of a plane, Then E=MC^2 turns out to be meaningless. Since everything we observe about the universe, at every scale, suggests causality exists and that E=MC^2 holds, we can't be wrong about those without being wrong about everything.
Why (in general, and also specifically related to everything having to be wrong)?
> But hey, maybe we are. Great. Show me some equations then.
The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.
> Prove it's wrong, first. Show me a working anti-gravity drive or a warp drive, built by humans, or something that can be tested independently, peer reviewed and verified. Faster than light teleportation. Something.
First: prove to me, and yourself, that you are correct.
> But all I'm expected to hang my hat on is rumors, folklore and videos for which mundane explanations exist.
Who is it that is expecting you to do that here, and how did you acquire that knowledge?
> Everyone suffers from motivated reasoning...
Do all people suffer from it, always? And where people do suffer from it, do they suffer from it equally?
Also: where have you acquired this comprehensive knowledge?
> that's how reason works.
Not really.
> I'm just saying my personal bar for proof is higher than those willing to accept that we simply don't understand anything about physics as a prior to making the UFO argument semantically trivial.
To me, your personal bar for proof seems essentially/abstractly identical to most people's: if it seems true, it is true.
Also: how sure are you of "those willing to accept that we simply don't understand anything about physics"? (Emphasis mine.)
> Rather than believe that we're exactly as ignorant now - even though we can measure gravitational waves and the cosmic microwave background and use quantum tunneling in our microchips and GPS has to take relativistic time dilation into account - as we were thousands of years ago when we believed the stars were inscribed on crystal spheres, I believe our models of the universe have become more accurate over time, and that as a result, fundamental paradigm shifts become less and less likely.
How about a third option: the second option from your false dichotomy, combined with believing that despite our substantial accomplishments, we remain substantially ignorant. I mean, is this not fairly obvious if one just looks around at the world? Do you think that what we have going on is all that we could have accomplished, had we been paying closer attention and trying harder?
> That doesn't mean I don't want to believe, it just means I don't also believe in magical thinking.
Do you believe that not believing in magical thinking makes one invulnerable to it?
> And I'm far from the only skeptic who wants to believe out there. Eyewitness testimony is interesting, video is interesting, but it isn't enough. At least not for me.
Tautologically, what is enough for you (and everyone else) is what's enough. A way to think about it: are our individual and collective epistemic & logical standards adequate? I am extremely concerned that they are not, and for evidence I would open with climate change (as the first card I'd play, from a infinite deck).
To be fair though, I am kinda picking on you. You are surely a very nice and well-intentioned person, a product of the environment you were raised in. Though, conflating causality with justification is also a risky maneuver, especially when practiced at massive scale....but then, now I'm kinda doing it again lol. Also, I'm partially joking.
