UFO's real or not?

[zangatangring]

Of course.

The "artist" is the same, i.e the elementary particles that build everything, however life and its evolution is shaped by its environment. The possibilities in the universe are endless as the "laws of reality" are endless. Currently we only know one "reality" that is the one here. We have no samples of other beings, we know nothing about them. Assuming all life is hostile is as bad as assume all life is friendly.

War has shaped our planet but that is purely due to our evolutionary path which could well be unique ( most likely it is unique)

Peace can exist without war..

"however life and its evolution is shaped by its environment."

You must've misunderstood my statement, as this proves my point unequivocally.

In a universe (I.E. the 'environment) that adheres to laws such as "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", the water the universe contains will always take it's shape, because it's a liquid. For Life to exist as we define it (ya know, reproduction, growth sentiency etc...), it has to be in this universe. Therefore, life will always assume the shape of the universe. This shape was sculpted by the same artist. The laws of reality. Life will always mirror the laws of reality and hence, reflect the laws of entropy (I.E. there's an opposite to every extremity).

It's not a coincidence that every single entity humans have encountered adhere to these truths.

The universe is a liquid?

The environment on earth is unique. You will not find another planet with the exact same environment, thus the chances of intelligent beings thinking and acting like us is very slim. War as far we know is a unique trait for beings on this earth.

I don't know why you've assumed i was talking about another universe...

No, although the message in my text is convoluted, it's there and it's valid.

I'm stating that you're notions could only exist in an alternate universe because your notions don't adhere to the rules of this universe.

We're definitely getting somewhere. Planets that are able to harbour life are homogeneous because they have to accommodate for the laws of the universe. So, although a planet that is able to harbour life may not be directly analogous to earth, it will have the intrinsic essential traits that earth has (E.g. a source of nutrition). This is because, by the law of the universe, such must be (I.E. all living things require energy etc...). From here on in, it couldn't be more explicit, since it's known and proven that planets who harbour live must possess these homogeneous traits, it follows that all living things possess homogeneous traits that reflect the planet's life harbouring traits. In essence, the life harbouring traits were shaped by the laws of reality (such as entropy). So it follows that it's implausible for life to form without possessing these traits.

Ask any unbiased and intelligent party to adjudicate this argument and I promise you I'll be proved right. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants with this argument (Isaac Newton especially).

I repeat, It's not a coincidence that every single entity humans have encountered adhere to these truths.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Is there intelligent life out there? Almost certainly.


Have they visited Earth? Almost certainly not.

 

[zangatangring]

Is there intelligent life out there? Almost certainly.


Have they visited Earth? Almost certainly not.

Yeah, I completely agree. It seems this thread has posed a new question (look earlier on if you wish to).

 

[BulgarianPride]

"however life and its evolution is shaped by its environment."

You must've misunderstood my statement, as this proves my point unequivocally.

In a universe (I.E. the 'environment) that adheres to laws such as "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", the water the universe contains will always take it's shape, because it's a liquid. For Life to exist as we define it (ya know, reproduction, growth sentiency etc...), it has to be in this universe. Therefore, life will always assume the shape of the universe. This shape was sculpted by the same artist. The laws of reality. Life will always mirror the laws of reality and hence, reflect the laws of entropy (I.E. there's an opposite to every extremity).

It's not a coincidence that every single entity humans have encountered adhere to these truths.

The universe is a liquid?

The environment on earth is unique. You will not find another planet with the exact same environment, thus the chances of intelligent beings thinking and acting like us is very slim. War as far we know is a unique trait for beings on this earth.

I don't know why you've assumed i was talking about another universe...

No, although the message in my text is convoluted, it's there and it's valid.

I'm stating that you're notions could only exist in an alternate universe because your notions don't adhere to the rules of this universe.

We're definitely getting somewhere. Planets that are able to harbour life are homogeneous because they have to accommodate for the laws of the universe. So, although a planet that is able to harbour life may not be directly analogous to earth, it will have the intrinsic essential traits that earth has (E.g. a source of nutrition). This is because, by the law of the universe, such must be (I.E. all living things require energy etc...). From here on in, it couldn't be more explicit, since it's known and proven that planets who harbour live must possess these homogeneous traits, it follows that all living things possess homogeneous traits that reflect the planet's life harbouring traits. In essence, the life harbouring traits were shaped by the laws of reality (such as entropy). So it follows that it's implausible for life to form without possessing these traits.

Ask any unbiased and intelligent party to adjudicate this argument and I promise you I'll be proved right. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants with this argument (Isaac Newton especially).

Yes life needs energy, it's energy source is other life, however that life may not be animals. Here we've evolved to eat others because that provided the most nutrition that was required by the earthly animals. Again the evolutionary path of every animal here on earth is unique.

The nutritional required led us to eat others, when you can prove to me that every life in the universe has the same nutritional requirements than i would agree.

I repeat, It's not a coincidence that every single entity humans have encountered adhere to these truths.

and what is the common "denominator"? They've all evolved on this planet with our "unique" environment.

 

[zangatangring]

The universe is a liquid?

The environment on earth is unique. You will not find another planet with the exact same environment, thus the chances of intelligent beings thinking and acting like us is very slim. War as far we know is a unique trait for beings on this earth.

I don't know why you've assumed i was talking about another universe...

No, although the message in my text is convoluted, it's there and it's valid.

I'm stating that you're notions could only exist in an alternate universe because your notions don't adhere to the rules of this universe.

We're definitely getting somewhere. Planets that are able to harbour life are homogeneous because they have to accommodate for the laws of the universe. So, although a planet that is able to harbour life may not be directly analogous to earth, it will have the intrinsic essential traits that earth has (E.g. a source of nutrition). This is because, by the law of the universe, such must be (I.E. all living things require energy etc...). From here on in, it couldn't be more explicit, since it's known and proven that planets who harbour live must possess these homogeneous traits, it follows that all living things possess homogeneous traits that reflect the planet's life harbouring traits. In essence, the life harbouring traits were shaped by the laws of reality (such as entropy). So it follows that it's implausible for life to form without possessing these traits.

Ask any unbiased and intelligent party to adjudicate this argument and I promise you I'll be proved right. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants with this argument (Isaac Newton especially).

Yes life needs energy, it's energy source is other life, however that life may not be animals. Here we've evolved to eat others because that provided the most nutrition that was required by the earthly animals. Again the evolutionary path of every animal here on earth is unique.

The nutritional required led us to eat others, when you can prove to me that every life in the universe has the same nutritional requirements than i would agree.

Did you not read my whole argument? I can't keep repeating myself because you can't or refuse to understand my argument. You keep completely missing the point.

 

[BulgarianPride]

No, although the message in my text is convoluted, it's there and it's valid.

I'm stating that you're notions could only exist in an alternate universe because your notions don't adhere to the rules of this universe.

We're definitely getting somewhere. Planets that are able to harbour life are homogeneous because they have to accommodate for the laws of the universe. So, although a planet that is able to harbour life may not be directly analogous to earth, it will have the intrinsic essential traits that earth has (E.g. a source of nutrition). This is because, by the law of the universe, such must be (I.E. all living things require energy etc...). From here on in, it couldn't be more explicit, since it's known and proven that planets who harbour live must possess these homogeneous traits, it follows that all living things possess homogeneous traits that reflect the planet's life harbouring traits. In essence, the life harbouring traits were shaped by the laws of reality (such as entropy). So it follows that it's implausible for life to form without possessing these traits.

Ask any unbiased and intelligent party to adjudicate this argument and I promise you I'll be proved right. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants with this argument (Isaac Newton especially).

Yes life needs energy, it's energy source is other life, however that life may not be animals. Here we've evolved to eat others because that provided the most nutrition that was required by the earthly animals. Again the evolutionary path of every animal here on earth is unique.

The nutritional required led us to eat others, when you can prove to me that every life in the universe has the same nutritional requirements than i would agree.

Did you not read my whole argument? I can't keep repeating myself because you can't or refuse to understand my argument. You keep completely missing the point.

Look. Your argument is based on observations that have all evolved on this planet. That is my point. We have only 1 observation, only 1 sample space with only 1 sample, we can't make any intelligent assumptions about life else where.

For fucks sake scientists are even questioning if aliens would contain DNA and we are here arguing that all life forms share the same trains...

You've also made the assumption in thinking all life forms share the same biochemistry as we do. There could as well be silicon life forms out there, what would their nutritional requirement me?

What would their "homogeneous" trait be? Would it have anything in commen with us Carbon based lifeforms?

 

[zangatangring]

Yes life needs energy, it's energy source is other life, however that life may not be animals. Here we've evolved to eat others because that provided the most nutrition that was required by the earthly animals. Again the evolutionary path of every animal here on earth is unique.

The nutritional required led us to eat others, when you can prove to me that every life in the universe has the same nutritional requirements than i would agree.

Did you not read my whole argument? I can't keep repeating myself because you can't or refuse to understand my argument. You keep completely missing the point.

Look. Your argument is based on observations that have all evolved on this planet. That is my point. We have only 1 observation, only 1 sample space with only 1 sample, we can't make any intelligent assumptions about life else where.

For fucks sake scientists are even questioning if aliens would contain DNA and we are here arguing that all life forms share the same trains...

No, it isn't you've misunderstood my argument. Basically, I'm saying that scientists have made convictions about the laws of reality in this UNIVERSE. Every living thing lives in THIS UNIVERSE and hence must adhere to the laws of THIS UNIVERSE. How much more simply could it be?

 

[BulgarianPride]

Did you not read my whole argument? I can't keep repeating myself because you can't or refuse to understand my argument. You keep completely missing the point.

Look. Your argument is based on observations that have all evolved on this planet. That is my point. We have only 1 observation, only 1 sample space with only 1 sample, we can't make any intelligent assumptions about life else where.

For fucks sake scientists are even questioning if aliens would contain DNA and we are here arguing that all life forms share the same trains...

No, it isn't you've misunderstood my argument. Basically, I'm saying that scientists have made convictions about the laws of reality in this UNIVERSE. Every living thing lives in THIS UNIVERSE and hence must adhere to the laws of THIS UNIVERSE. How much more simply could it be?

Look mate. I understand far more than you give me credit, and such, i can tell you your simplistic argument does not hold.

Our biochemistry here governs our "laws of reality". This universe has infinity many possibilities it provides infinitively many variations of life forms. Assuming they are all like us is too simplistic. They are not all like us, they could not even be made out of the same atoms we are. Like I said in my above post, it is assumed silicon can support life just like carbon does on earth. A silicon life form does not have anything in common with us, it's "laws of reality" would be totally different.

Yes it will have gravity to shape it, it will need energy but that is pretty much it.

Again why do you assume i am talking about a different universe? The "laws" of the universe are constant through out, however the possibles are endless.

I am not even addressing the biggest fault in your argument that is there is no such thing as "laws of reality".

 

[zangatangring]

Look mate. I understand far more than you give me credit, and such, i can tell you your simplistic argument does not hold.

Our biochemistry here governs our "laws of reality". This universe has infinity many possibilities it provides infinitively many variations of life forms. Assuming they are all like us is too simplistic. They are not all like us, they could not even be made out of the same atoms we are. Like I said in my above post, it is assumed silicon can support life just like carbon does on earth. A silicon life form does not have anything in common with us, it's "laws of reality" would be totally different.

Yes it will have gravity to shape it, it will need energy but that is pretty much it.

Again why do you assume i am talking about a different universe? The "laws" of the universe are constant through out, however the possibles are endless.

I am not even addressing the biggest fault in your argument that is there is no such thing as "laws of reality".

Oh. my. god.

You've done it again. You've completely misunderstood. I'm sorry, but you have. I'm not going to reply until you assimilate what I've presented to you.

 

[ElanJo]

There's probably thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of "Earths" out there.
Kepler took a look at the tiniest of portions of the sky and found dozens of planets in the "Habitable zone", half a dozen of which are Earth sized.

There are estimated to be around 300-600 sextillion planets in the observable universe alone.

A sextillion is this many zeros:
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

There's obviously life out there. Has it visited earth? who knows? maybe. I don't think it's crazy to think that it's possible. Is there good evidence that they have? not really.