Ableton Forum

Homebelly wrote:

gjm wrote:
What I eventually wanted to propose was, if the thought process is the same, then there are only 2 options for the thinker.
1. You accept all three posibilities.
2. You deny all three possibilities.
Rationally there is no middle ground. Emotionally you will find yourself siding more with one or other, but all three require the same leaps of faith.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but what you have described here is essentially Pascals Wager.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager ... I'm not sure i'm totally on board with it as it makes a lot of cultural assumptions when applied to these kinds of topics..

Thanks. I was not aware Pascal wrote of similar ideas.

It is just a proposition. Its meant to scratch the surface of, and lead to other preparatory thoughts.

I essentially was trying to point out how, your conclusions can be shaped by the conditions you place on what you believe is true or not. Self deluded hypocrisy (not using the same conditions of evidence and thought) is very prevalent. Aliens and God require the same thinking processes. Therefore you must have an all or not conclusion. You can't have a leap of faith for God and not for Aliens or the other way round. Some people just have more 'personal evidence' to throw at one or the other.

gjm wrote:

Moody wrote:Very polar idea you have there.

I know. Its, as you pointed out, just an idea. It is however worth an honest look.

The process of 'coming to know what you know' is generally not discussed. People often make statements of fact (that are actually emotive conclusions) and wonder why they end up arguing with people.

Even more astounding is the number of people who make statements of 'Truth' without attempting to trace the thought process back to any sort of objective position.

An even more interesting question is 'how do I know what I know is universally true?'

Crowley has written on ideas very similar to what you have stated in both of these comments. He has talked about completely diving in with full belief to see what truth there may be and then completely dismissing all the beliefs and trying to reassemble just the truths.

Of course, follwing these actions may gain us some interesting titles as well.

gjm wrote:

Homebelly wrote:

gjm wrote:
What I eventually wanted to propose was, if the thought process is the same, then there are only 2 options for the thinker.
1. You accept all three posibilities.
2. You deny all three possibilities.
Rationally there is no middle ground. Emotionally you will find yourself siding more with one or other, but all three require the same leaps of faith.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but what you have described here is essentially Pascals Wager.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager ... I'm not sure i'm totally on board with it as it makes a lot of cultural assumptions when applied to these kinds of topics..

Thanks. I was not aware Pascal wrote of similar ideas.

It is just a proposition. Its meant to scratch the surface of, and lead to other preparatory thoughts.

I essentially was trying to point out how, your conclusions can be shaped by the conditions you place on what you believe is true or not. Self deluded hypocrisy (not using the same conditions of evidence and thought) is very prevalent. Aliens and God require the same thinking processes. Therefore you must have an all or not conclusion. You can't have a leap of faith for God and not for Aliens or the other way round. Some people just have more 'personal evidence' to throw at one or the other.

Funny how some choose which leaps of faith to cater too. Ah, good ole' conditioning.

gjm wrote: What I eventually wanted to propose was, if the thought process is the same, then there are only 2 options for the thinker.
1. You accept all three posibilities.
2. You deny all three possibilities.
Rationally there is no middle ground. Emotionally you will find yourself siding more with one or other, but all three require the same leaps of faith.

I believe in god because I see too much order and beauty for there not to be, this is my personal choice.

I believe in the existence of intelligent life outside of earth because the odds and probability, the mathematical break down of whats known about our universe point to this. Although its still my personal choice everything in this statement can be empirically proven. heres the break down by a person much smarter than me.


1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy.

Lets call it just 100 billion.

That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy.

3)The number of stars in the universe.

So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.

That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate.

4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in:

10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate.

5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in:

10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!

Homebelly wrote:

gjm wrote: This is the point I was trying to make. If you take the subject away, God, Aliens, Evolution, and examine the thinking process, you will see that they all require the thinker to admit large gaps of secure evidence,

This is just not true when it comes to Evolution.
The real issue is the misunderstanding of the meaning of the word THEORY in a scientific context. Most people substitute the word theory in place of the word Hypothesis, and so this is where every thing starts going off the rails.
In the scientific context Evolution is a well documented and established set of facts that point toward the continued development of the "theory of evolution".

Hmmm, I see your point, the difference between theory and hypothesis. Even more so is the confusion between recent adaption and the lineage from single celled snot to mankind. But its the 'Evolution' in the big sense of the word, that can cause a shadow to be cast over these sorts of thinking processes and conversations. And thats exactly my point. In a crude way, the thought process can lead a believer in God to despair because 'Evolution' has the possibility to deny God's existence (a possible black or white conclusion). A leap of faith has to be made to conclude this, just as equally to subscribe to creationism or Alien genetic modification.

I am trying to highlight the personal path to conclusions.

ThrowAway wrote:I believe in god because I see too much order and beauty for there not to be, this is my personal choice.

+ 1. A conclusion based on the gaps being filled with faith.

I believe in the existence of intelligent life outside of earth because the odds and probability, the mathematical break down of whats known about our universe point to this. Although its still my personal choice everything in this statement can be empirically proven. heres the break down by a person much smarter than me.

1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy.

Lets call it just 100 billion.

That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy.

3)The number of stars in the universe.

So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.

That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate.

4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in:

10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate.

5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in:

10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!

An excellent example of a leap of faith. You are just using some maths to support an idea you have no personal experiential evidence and objective confirmation to support.

Both are your personal and valid conclusions. They required the same thought process.

Now this is turning into the kind of discussion i like. I think the obvious theory i would most like to be true is the religious theory (providing i go to heaven) but i believe this about 32%

Evolution is the one i'm not arsed about either way and i believe about 32% again

The hole Atlantis thing is shit scary and i really don't want to believe it at all, and yet something deep in my conscious believes it minutely more than the other two.

I'm sure that says something weird about my personality. but as i said before, i like to read about all 3 and ponder on them. I'm hoping one day a theory will come along to explain all 3 and we really can start to fulfill our potential on this planet.

Emissary wrote:Now this is turning into the kind of discussion i like. I think the obvious theory i would most like to be true is the religious theory (providing i go to heaven) but i believe this about 32%

Evolution is the one i'm not arsed about either way and i believe about 32% again

The hole Atlantis thing is shit scary and i really don't want to believe it at all, and yet something deep in my conscious believes it minutely more than the other two.

I'm sure that says something weird about my personality. but as i said before, i like to read about all 3 and ponder on them. I'm hoping one day a theory will come along to explain all 3 and we really can start to fulfill our potential on this planet.

I thought there was physical evidence of Atlantis at this point? Obviously the stories about what went on there would be questionable but, I sure thought there was tangible physical proof about it now. Eh, what is proof really anyways?

Moody wrote:

Emissary wrote:Now this is turning into the kind of discussion i like. I think the obvious theory i would most like to be true is the religious theory (providing i go to heaven) but i believe this about 32%

Evolution is the one i'm not arsed about either way and i believe about 32% again

The hole Atlantis thing is shit scary and i really don't want to believe it at all, and yet something deep in my conscious believes it minutely more than the other two.

I'm sure that says something weird about my personality. but as i said before, i like to read about all 3 and ponder on them. I'm hoping one day a theory will come along to explain all 3 and we really can start to fulfill our potential on this planet.

I thought there was physical evidence of Atlantis at this point? Obviously the stories about what went on there would be questionable but, I sure thought there was tangible physical proof about it now. Eh, what is proof really anyways?

There are plenty of "Sunken cities", but we will never find Atlantis.
Atlantis was a Mythical device created by ( i think ) Plato to help describe a political process..
I think it was Frances Bacon that expanded on the idea, and his use of the Myth was what has become misunderstood to represent some lost Utopian civilization that had super powers and advanced technology..

The fantasy that surrounds all of this type of wishful speculation is interesting on an entertaining level, but when you really start to look into the history of philosophy, science, theology and culture the actual facts and how they all fit together is way more interesting..

gjm wrote:

ThrowAway wrote:I believe in god because I see too much order and beauty for there not to be, this is my personal choice.

+ 1. A conclusion based on the gaps being filled with faith.

I believe in the existence of intelligent life outside of earth because the odds and probability, the mathematical break down of whats known about our universe point to this. Although its still my personal choice everything in this statement can be empirically proven. heres the break down by a person much smarter than me.

1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy.

Lets call it just 100 billion.

That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy.

3)The number of stars in the universe.

So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.

That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate.

4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in:

10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate.

5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in:

10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!

An excellent example of a leap of faith. You are just using some maths to support an idea you have no personal experiential evidence and objective confirmation to support.

Both are your personal and valid conclusions. They required the same thought process.

I get your point now after thinking about it. I just dont feel personally they are the same types of "faith". I mean Ive seen "pictures" of earth like planets and Its a fact intelligent life exists. Believing in intelligent life else where is much easier for me than believing in god.

Ive heard the estimates of how many earth like planets there are and 10 billion is a low ball number. Lets say 5 billion planets. How much of leap of faith is it to believe if it happened once it happened again in 5 billion chances?

ThrowAway wrote:Its a fact that intelligent life exists.

you mean on Earth, not on other planets?


/bored at work.

Tone Deft wrote:

ThrowAway wrote:Its a fact that intelligent life exists.

you mean on Earth, not on other planets?


/bored at work.

Correct. intelligent life exists...fact
God..cant be proven.

ThrowAway wrote:I get your point now after thinking about it. I just dont feel personally they are the same types of "faith".

I think they are the same types of 'faith', just different amounts (meaning greater gaps being covered over). By type, I mean thought process. There is no physical quantity or quality, just a thought process that ends in a conclusion. My .02c

gjm wrote:

ThrowAway wrote:I get your point now after thinking about it. I just dont feel personally they are the same types of "faith".

I think they are the same types of 'faith', just different amounts (meaning greater gaps being covered over). By type, I mean thought process. There is no physical quantity or quality, just a thought process that ends in a conclusion. My .02c

except religion is very much a cultural thing. plenty of people are religious because they don't want to disappoint their parents, spouse, family, friends or community. also, you're not sent to UFO Church once a week to learn about aliens. etc. etc. etc. I was an atheist kid but there's no way I could tell that to my parents, I'd get the shit beat out of me.

it takes a thought process to believe in UFOs but most people are 'encouraged' by their parents at a young age to believe in a god.

UFO church would be cool.

Tone Deft wrote:... but most people are 'encouraged' by their parents at a young age to believe in a god.

Still involved a thought process that the individual (kid now adult) needs to take responsibility for. It sometimes takes a long time, if at all to own your decisions.

Agreed that it is hard as a kid to make your way through your parents beliefs and expectations. There are black sheep everywhere