Rare things that have been documented much better than UFOs

[Mendel]

I would set the prior of visiting, physical interdimensional beings rather smaller than visiting, physical aliens, but surely much bigger than Leprechauns, those being supernatural.

No times 12, and no.
Interdimensional beings are exactly as fictional as leprechauns, and their powers are exactly magic.
There is no science of interdimensional beings because they contradict established science, and there's zero evidence for them.

What is the probability of something I imagined in my head to exist in reality?
It's zero, because I did not follow the evidence. There are no observations that point to them possibly existing.

They sound more science-y than leprechauns, but they really aren't.

 

[Gary C]

Well, us finding them and them finding us is really the same problem, isn't it?

Not exactly.
If we find them, we will know about it. Alien detections =1
If they find us, we may or may not know about it depending on their level of technology and behavior. They may have the option of studying Earth remotely without revealing their presence. This is a behavioral factor that we cannot assign a probability to as we have no data on alien behavior.

edited for grammar

 

[Mauro]

No times 12, and no.
Interdimensional beings are exactly as fictional as leprechauns, and their powers are exactly magic.

I would distinguish among what is physical (even when purely fictional) and what is supernatural (which I think it's the case it's always fictional). Physical beings obey the laws of physics, even if in the fiction those laws can be much different from what we know: an eventuality to which I assign an abysmal probability of ever come true (*). Supernatural beings go beyond that: they are disembodied minds, minds existing just because they exist, with no physical support. And/or they can just will changes in the physical world without the need of a physical interaction, by 'magic': they just don't care about physical laws. This kind of beings gets an abysmal squared probability from me.

Where you put interdimensional beings depends on the fiction: are they a race whose physics is immensely advanced compared to ours and who can build machines which open passages between places in the multiverse? Then they are physical and they just get an abysmal probability (and much lower than regular aliens, who need to crack fewer physical barriers). Do you prefer interdimensional beings who teleport by just willing to be elsewhere? They're supernatural, abysmal squared. Your choice . Ultimately, it does not matter: both varieties are so improbable not to need to bother with.

(*) of course, in the sense of breaking fundamental limits such as conservation laws or the light speed limit, not in the sense that there will be no more discoveries

 

[Gary C]

Once again, the UFOlogists use sloppy sci-fi physics to obfuscate their lack of evidence and the repeated debunking of the evidence they claim to have.

The most cited source of dimensions beyond our 4D space-time is M-Theory, which subsumes the String Theories. These dimensions are needed to explain certain features of quantum mechanics as one goes down in size toward the Plank Scale. They are considered in the theories to be Compactified, essentially tiny tightly curled up spaces in which only the theorized strings can act. These are not "higher dimensions" from which beings with godlike abilities would pop in and out at will.

Importantly, these additional dimensions are distinct from the various hypotheses that posit a multiverse. The least complicated multiverse theories require no additional dimensions at all.

Casually invoking interdimensional beings as if they could visit our reality as easily as we take an elevator from one floor to the next is close enough to invoking fairies as to not have a meaningful difference.

/rant

 

[Mendel]

I would distinguish among what is physical (even when purely fictional) and what is supernatural (which I think it's the case it's always fictional). Physical beings obey the laws of physics, even if in the fiction those laws can be much different from what we know: an eventuality to which I assign an abysmal probability of ever come true (*). Supernatural beings go beyond that: they are disembodied minds, minds existing just because they exist, with no physical support. And/or they can just will changes in the physical world without the need of a physical interaction, by 'magic': they just don't care about physical laws. This kind of beings gets an abysmal squared probability from me.

Where you put interdimensional beings depends on the fiction: are they a race whose physics is immensely advanced compared to ours and who can build machines which open passages between places in the multiverse? Then they are physical

I would distinguish among what is physical (even when purely fictional) and what is interdimensional (which I think it's the case it's always fictional). Physical beings obey the laws of physics, even if in the fiction those laws can be much different from what we know: an eventuality to which I assign zero probability of ever come true (*). Interdimensional beings go beyond that: they are disembodied minds, minds existing just because they exist, with no physical support. And/or they can just will changes in the physical 3D world without the need of a physical interaction, by 'magic': they just don't care about physical laws. This kind of beings gets a zero squared probability from me.

Where you put interdimensional beings depends on the fiction: are they a race whose physics is immensely advanced compared to ours and who can build machines which open passages between places in the multiverse? Then they are magical.

 

[Mendel]

Not exactly.
If we find them, we will know about it. Alien detections =1
If they find us, we may or may not know about it depending on their level of technology and behavior. They may have the option of studying Earth remotely without revealing their presence. This is a behavioral factor that we cannot assign a probability to as we have no data on alien behavior.

edited for grammar

They must solve the same problem finding us here than we must solve finding them there.
One should not be substantially more unlikely than the other.

 

[John J.]

@Gary C made an important point in post #444, I think.
Additional dimensions are not the same as different universes.
Additional dimensions might exist in our universe, in the way Gary C describes; they are (at present) theoretical. They do not describe some sort of tenuous/ out of phase realm on the macroscopic scale from which visitors (or even, e.g., individual atoms) might emerge.

Different universes are entirely hypothetical. If they exist, none observably intersect our universe. It's hard to understand why anyone would think visitors from a different universe are somehow more likely than mere interstellar visitors, or why this explains anything about UFO reports.
Maybe the logic is that different universes might have different physical laws, therefore something from a different universe (if it could somehow reach ours, and remain intact) will be able to defy laws of physics here. I'm not sure this makes any sense even in theory.

Terms like "different dimension", "parallel universe" etc. etc. are common in science fiction (and to some degree horror fiction), they are a literary/ plot convention used to "explain" the arrival/ presence of unlikely creatures, artefacts or forces.
The relevant authors/ scriptwriters don't need to have any special knowledge of physics to invoke this trope.
Something can (at least for the purposes of storytelling) make narrative and grammatical sense without being in any way possible in the real world.

 

[Mendel]

Different universes are entirely hypothetical. If they exist, none observably intersect our universe. It's hard to understand why anyone would think visitors from a different universe are somehow more likely than mere interstellar visitors, or why this explains anything about UFO reports.

If it were possible for visitors to cross from one "universe" to another "universe", then that transfer of energy and matter would establish that these are in fact the same universe, and that there was only one universe all along.

 

[FatPhil]

No times 12, and no.

However, you are a frequentist, but Mauro and I are bayesian. We know you don't understand our stance, because if you did you would adopt it. You're only thinking in terms of probabilities, we're thinking in terms of probabilities of probabilities.

 

[Mauro]

I would distinguish among what is physical (even when purely fictional) and what is interdimensional (which I think it's the case it's always fictional).

That's also quite acceptable for me! Can I ask you where do you put supernatural entities on the probability scale?

 

[JMartJr]

They must solve the same problem finding us here than we must solve finding them there.
One should not be substantially more unlikely than the other.

It may be slightly easier to find us, given that we do in fact exist. (I do, anyway, and I am willing to give the rest if y'all the benefit of the doubt.) Trying to find them can be anything from easy to impossible, depending on if (and where) they exist.

Though come to think of it, it would be impossible for them to find us, if they don't exist, so I guess that cuts both ways.

 

[Mendel]

That's also quite acceptable for me! Can I ask you where do you put supernatural entities on the probability scale?

If their probability was greater than zero, they'd be natural entities.

 

[Harabeck]

If their probability was greater than zero, they'd be natural entities.

Right, the supernatural doesn't exist, by definition. Invoking the supernatural in a claim is not a logical position, it's a rhetorical one.

The distinction of natural vs supernatural is a real-world example of double-think. One asserts that a thing both exists in our universe (can interact with it and can thus be known), while simultaneously asserting that it is unknowable. It's just an attempt to be absolved of the burden of proof through pure rhetoric.

It's like when people say that they know a huge government conspiracy happened, but when asked for evidence, they laugh at you. Of course there's no evidence! The government covered it up! How silly of you to even ask.

In both cases, the one making the claim tries to throw the burden of proof (or disproof) on the skeptic. When on the offensive, the blurry photo proves ghosts exist. When on the defensive, "they're supernatural, of course I can't provide more/better evidence" is always there as a fallback option.

 

[Mauro]

Right, the supernatural doesn't exist, by definition.

Strictly speaking, I would not say that. That the supernatural does not exist is not an axiom, but a result of natural sciences.

Anything which is not logical forbidden is possible, supernatural included, but some things are so utterly improbable that we can be indeed 'sure' they don't exist, the supernatural being the topmost among them.

 

[Mendel]

@Mauro, what is the difference between "we can never be sure X exists" and "we can be sure X does not exist"?

X is the supernatural here.
The metaphysical is a different matter.

Metaphysics is about the structure of reality.
The Supernatural is about things that look real but aren't real when you try to find them.

To me, there's no difference between "impossible to find" and "does not exist".

 

[FatPhil]

Strictly speaking, I would not say that. That the supernatural does not exist is not an axiom, but a result of natural sciences.

I agree. I think saying that the supernatural does not exist by definition forces you to concede that the supernatural cannot even be coherently defined (c.f. atheist vs. igtheist). However, if you're conceding the latter, you are now forced to drop the former.

 

[Mauro]

@Mauro, what is the difference between "we can never be sure X exists" and "we can be sure X does not exist"?

X is the supernatural here.
The metaphysical is a different matter.

Metaphysics is about the structure of reality.
The Supernatural is about things that look real but aren't real when you try to find them.

To me, there's no difference between "impossible to find" and "does not exist".

This is a good question. But first: we (me included) have already abused this thread enough with a long off-topic, which is nonetheless interesting because it goes at the roots of how functional epistemologies work. May a moderator be so kind to move this discussion to another thread, in chit chat or somewhere? "The probability ladder" might be a good title? .

@Mendel: of course it does not make any difference from the practical point of view, like owning 10EXP-87 dollars does not make one any richer in practice than owning zero dollars. But there are differences, and even when irrelevant in practice they remain important conceptually.

We basically have two functional methods to acquire knowledge: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning means applying pure logic (if A then B): with this method it's very much possible to say something does not exist. A square with five sides does not exist, because it would be both a square and a not-square, against logic (A and non-A = false)

Deductive reasoning is very cool but it has a terrible flaw: one needs to start from somewhere (if A then...) And in general we cannot be sure A itself is true, except in some abstract cases as squares having four sides. So in practice we always use inductive reasoning instead: what better explains the observations, A or not-A? Inductive reasoning uses deductive logic as a tool, of course, but the conceptual difference is huge: now we can never be sure, we can only reach a probabilistic knowledge. We may be able to say the probability of something is 10EXP[minus Graham's number] but we can no more say "it surely does not exist": there always is a minuscule, practically zero chance it could instead (*).

(*) And I can't forget my probability theory university textbook even cautioned (in the continuos case) that "probability zero does not mean impossible, probability one does not mean certain"

 

[Ann K]

Anything which is not logical forbidden is possible

I take issue with that definition of "possible". If a thing has never been shown to exist, it cannot even be a candidate for an explanation for an observation, can it? I include the "supernatural" in all its supposed manifestations. There are things forbidden by physics, for example, that are not "logically" forbidden.

 

[Mauro]

I take issue with that definition of "possible". If a thing has never been shown to exist, it cannot even be a candidate for an explanation for an observation, can it?

Yes, it can. Just an example: neutrinos had never been shown to exist when Yukawa (iirc?) proposed them as an explanation for the missing momentum in beta decay.

I include the "supernatural" in all its supposed manifestations. There are things forbidden by physics, for example, that are not "logically" forbidden.

Of course Ann, but the laws of physics are not self-evident axioms: they are a result of observations. There is no formal-logic hard problem in hypothesizing, for instance, that we all live in a simulation and that physical laws are just what the simulation code produces, and that a software patch could change them. There are of course a lot of other problems which give this idea a probability of one zillionth in one (*), that is to say: it's false with probability '1'. This is in practice the same as "it does not exist", but philosophically (damn, I said the PH-word ) it's not the same as saying "A square has four sides, then it cannot have five". And I think it's important to keep this distinction in mind, not only for the sake of precision but also not to fall into a dogmatic position: "the supernatural does not exist by definition". The correct stance is "the supernatural might exist, but I'm ready to bet one googolplex dollars against one dollar it does not". One easy dollar gained.

(*) I'm getting short on words to represent infinitesimals. I already used trillionth, trillionth of trillionth, abysmal, 10EXP[minus Graham's number], now zillionth. I need help

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Yes, it can. Just an example: neutrinos had never been shown to exist when Yukawa (iirc?) proposed them as an explanation for the missing momentum in beta decay.


Of course Ann, but the laws of physics are not self-evident axioms: they are a result of observations. There is no formal-logic hard problem in hypothesizing, for instance, that we all live in a simulation and that physical laws are just what the simulation code produces, and that a software patch could change them. There are of course a lot of other problems which give this idea a probability of one zillionth in one (*), that is to say: it's false with probability '1'. This is in practice the same as "it does not exist", but philosophically (damn, I said the PH-word ) it's not the same as saying "A square has four sides, then it cannot have five". And I think it's important to keep this distinction in mind, not only for the sake of precision but also not to fall into a dogmatic position: "the supernatural does not exist by definition". The correct stance is "the supernatural might exist, but I'm ready to bet one googolplex dollars against one dollar it does not". One easy dollar gained.

(*) I'm getting short on words to represent infinitesimals. I already used trillionth, trillionth of trillionth, abysmal, 10EXP[minus Graham's number], now zillionth. I need help

But then let's say we discover that fairies are real, that would cease to be defined as "supernatural". It would be just a "natural" new phenomenon.

 

[Mauro]

But then let's say we discover that fairies are real, that would cease to be defined as "supernatural". It would be just a "natural" new phenomenon.

No, supernatural has a very specific definition: a disembodied mind which needs no physical support to exist (it just exists), and/or which can affect the physical world by just willing for it to change, whatever physical laws have to say about that (*). Not sure where to put fairies on the spectrum, honestly! , but when we finally catch one we'll be able to say for sure which category it belongs, I guess Deities instead go straight into the supernatural, while technologically savvy aliens go into the natural. Things such as telekinesis or fairies are a bit borderline and would need a deeper analysis, if it weren't we'd be in for a sex-of-the-angels debate

(*) Edit, sorry but I also have to say this: which looks to me very much like the world as perceived by a 2-5 years child. Throwing the magical ring into the Cracks of Doom is indeed hard.

 

[Ann K]

Of course Ann, but the laws of physics are not self-evident axioms: they are a result of observations.

Yes, I understand, but I now have to go out and chase away that squadron of pigs that just flew through my back yard.

 

[Mauro]

Yes, I understand, but I now have to go out and chase away that squadron of pigs that just flew through my back yard.

Oh gosh, what a chance you have! Try to ascertain if they fly by the lift of their wingbeats, or if they levitate by magical means, pleeeasee

 

[Mendel]

The point of this thread is to provide examples that even rare things are eventually documented well.
Impossible things, however often they're reported, are never documented well.
This distinction is important.

 

[Mauro]

This is a good question. But first: we (me included) have already abused this thread enough with a long off-topic, which is nonetheless interesting because it goes at the roots of how functional epistemologies work. May a moderator be so kind to move this discussion to another thread, in chit chat or somewhere? "The probability ladder" might be a good title? .

@Mendel: of course it does not make any difference from the practical point of view, like owning 10EXP-87 dollars does not make one any richer in practice than owning zero dollars. But there are differences, and even when irrelevant in practice they remain important conceptually.

We basically have two functional methods to acquire knowledge: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning means applying pure logic (if A then B): with this method it's very much possible to say something does not exist. A square with five sides does not exist, because it would be both a square and a not-square, against logic (A and non-A = false)

Deductive reasoning is very cool but it has a terrible flaw: one needs to start from somewhere (if A then...) And in general we cannot be sure A itself is true, except in some abstract cases as squares having four sides. So in practice we always use inductive reasoning instead: what better explains the observations, A or not-A? Inductive reasoning uses deductive logic as a tool, of course, but the conceptual difference is huge: now we can never be sure, we can only reach a probabilistic knowledge. We may be able to say the probability of something is 10EXP[minus Graham's number] but we can no more say "it surely does not exist": there always is a minuscule, practically zero chance it could instead (*).

(*) And I can't forget my probability theory university textbook even cautioned (in the continuos case) that "probability zero does not mean impossible, probability one does not mean certain"

@Mendel: I see you gave a 'Disagree' reaction to my post above. May I ask you what you disagree with, and why? By PM if you prefer, we're always off-topic here. :hides

 

[Mauro]

The point of this thread is to provide examples that even rare things are eventually documented well.
Impossible things, however often they're reported, are never documented well.
This distinction is important.

Indeed, we're off-topic, I said that many times. But this last discussion on the probability ladder has taken on a life of this own, it's no more connected to the rest of the thread. I agree 100% with what you said above, just it does not apply now to the discussion about supernatural.

@Landru (or other moderators) could this discussion be splitted to another thread? Thanks.

 

[Mendel]

@Mendel: I see you gave a 'Disagree' reaction to my post above. May I ask you what you disagree with, and why? By PM if you prefer, we're always off-topic here. :hides

You should've PMed this.
Also, if you can't see from my previous posts where we disagree, I doubt restating my points is going to help you understand my approach.

 

[Ann K]

Just an example: neutrinos had never been shown to exist when Yukawa (iirc?) proposed them as an explanation for the missing momentum in beta decay.

"Proposed", then confirmed. Hypotheses remain just that, until the evidence is produced.

No, supernatural has a very specific definition: a disembodied mind which needs no physical support to exist (it just exists), and/or which can affect the physical world by just willing for it to change, whatever physical laws have to say about that

I just looked up supernatural, and my several varied sources say nothing at all about "disembodied minds" or their ability to affect the physical world.

adjective

• 1.(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: "a supernatural being"
• 2.unnaturally or extraordinarily great:"a woman of supernatural beauty"

noun

• 1.manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts:"a frightening manifestation of the supernatural"

 

[Harabeck]

No, supernatural has a very specific definition: a disembodied mind which needs no physical support to exist (it just exists), and/or which can affect the physical world by just willing for it to change, whatever physical laws have to say about that

No, that's the definition for a soul or deity. Supernatural is far more broad: any phenomenon, force, being, or occurrence that exists outside or transcends the observable laws of nature and scientific explanation. My argument is that anything that fits that definition cannot, even in principle, be meaningful said to exist as anything but a concept.

There is no formal-logic hard problem in hypothesizing, for instance, that we all live in a simulation and that physical laws are just what the simulation code produces, and that a software patch could change them.

Ok, but that only create the illusion of violation of the physical laws. The simulated entities don't actually know the physical laws.

 

[JMartJr]

The point of this thread is to provide examples that even rare things are eventually documented well.
Impossible things, however often they're reported, are never documented well.
This distinction is important.

Question: Are you using "impossible" as a synonym for "nonexistent?" I'd think there may be things that are POSSIBLE, but nonetheless don't exist (but being possible MIGHT come to exist later or to have existed in the past.) So everything that is impossible also does not exist, but not everything that does not exist is impossible...

I don't guess the distinction is hyper-critical, just curious.

 

[Mauro]

"Proposed", then confirmed. Hypotheses reman just that, until the evidence is produced.

Noone doubts that. But when it was proposed it had never even been imagined before. So yes, things which are not known to actually exist can be proposed as explanations. Some turn out to be correct (ie. neutrinos) and some no (ie. transdimensional Bigfoots).

I just looked up supernatural, and my several varied sources say nothing at all about "disembodied minds" or their ability to affect the physical world.

• 1.(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: "a supernatural being"

"Manifestation or event" is the same as "effect on the physical world" and "beyond the laws of nature" is the same as what I said: "they just don't care about the laws of physics". A disembodied mind doesn't care about the laws of physics/nature just by existing: it's the quintessential supernatural being (and having a disembodied mind is a property of many, culturally important, supernatural creatures).

 

[Ann K]

and having a disembodied mind is a property of many, culturally important, supernatural creatures

"Supernatural creatures", whether they're "culturally important" or not, have never been shown to exist at all. Now you've gone all the way to describing their characteristics? Hey, I know it's the silly season of the year in the USA, what with Halloween and elections coming so close together, but please tell me I'm not going to encounter it in Metabunk!

...and I agree with moving this discussion off the page, but that'll take a moderator.
@Mick West @Landru @Trailblazer

 

[Mauro]

"Supernatural creatures", whether they're "culturally important" or not, have never been shown to exist at all.

I wholly agree! But this is not the point of the whole discussion.

Now you've gone all the way to describing their characteristics?

Well, I only said that many supernatural beings have been imagined as disembodied minds. Ie.: souls. And many of them are/have been culturally important. Why do you find this to be strange?

 

[Mendel]

Question: Are you using "impossible" as a synonym for "nonexistent?" I'd think there may be things that are POSSIBLE, but nonetheless don't exist (but being possible MIGHT come to exist later or to have existed in the past.) So everything that is impossible also does not exist, but not everything that does not exist is impossible...

I don't guess the distinction is hyper-critical, just curious.

Bigfoot is nonexistent.
Ghosts are impossible because they break the laws of thermodynamics.
"Interdimensional" visitors are impossible because they break the laws of thermodynamics.
The (my) definition of 'supernatural' is "breaks the laws of physics".

UFOs can be impossible, especially if you describe them via TTSA's "observables".