Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[CleverNickName]

Lifespans measured in millennia.

Without evidence of any millennia-long lifespans, that's as good an idea as any. (shrug)

 

[MoonSong]

I know right? It's essentially the same argument ("I can't explain it, therefore CrYpTiDs!") but I wager it would have very different poll results.

Not because of stronger evidence--or any evidence, really--but simply because space-traveling aliens + government conspiracy is the newer idea. It sounds more science-y.

As I mentioned above, Aliens are essentially the same supernatural idea just cosplaying under a different coat of paint that makes it seem more plausible on a glance, but once you get into it a bit rationally, you notice it is very much not plausible if not outright impossible. (Because by trying to ground it with seemingly plausible claims, the claims themselves are open to being disproved and they don't hold*)

Because of this, my view is completely the opposite when you switch ghost to aliens.

* Nothing can reach the speed of light and distances in outer space are way beyond what we can grasp intuitively. Visitants from the stars would need to be able to travel for the equivalent of several lifetimes. Not that they would know where to go because any sign of life in our planet won't visible to most of the stars in the galaxy for many million years more (provided it can even be detected from that distance). Radio signals? they have only reached a handful of the closest stars to the sun.

Now on intelligent alien life, I don't think it has to exist. Evolution is random and aimless, and intelligence is very costly to develop and maintain for a species. (As proof, we are dumber than our ancestors from before agriculture, and the advent of AI and other pocketable high technology is making us dumber. The moment we can afford to be less smart, the moment we lose mental ability. Intelligence is costly, even now). If there is complex life out there, it is very unlikely to have developed into intelligent life. If intelligent life exists, why would it be necessarily as advanced as us? (Why would it necessarily be more advanced than us? Why would they wield essentially magic?).

And no, in this regard I get lots of appeals to the unknown (but you can't know how life could be in other planets, it doesn't need to be based on carbon and water which are among most abundant and reactive elements in the cosmos, it can be based on other elements that are less common and less reactive! Oh no, but they can have other laws of physics).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Now on intelligent alien life, I don't think it has to exist. Evolution is random and aimless, and intelligence is very costly to develop and maintain for a species.

Disagree. Complex life on earth, especially macrofauna, has very slowly but steadily moved towards higher intelligence, bigger brains with better processing capabilities. It's clearly beneficial, especially in environments that are anything but lush.

As proof, we are dumber than our ancestors from before agriculture

There's nothing whatsoever in actual science to support this belief (though I have heard it before). This is at best wild and unsupported speculation, at worst, it's fantasy writing masquerading as science (often promoted by the very worst kinds of people with the worst intentions - I'm not saying you are, but generally white supremacist conspiracy theorists and the like are not great people to line up with). I am prepared to defend this position with specifics - it's something that's been of interest to me. Let's not start with nonsense like the CC'age of brains alone indicating intelligence. We know for a fact that it doesn't.

The moment we can afford to be less smart, the moment we lose mental ability.

Again, facts not in evidence.

the advent of AI and other pocketable high technology is making us dumber

Genetically? No. That's nonsensical. There hasn't remotely been time for that to have any genetic impact. And if it's not genetic, it's not actually being "dumber" or about "cost", it's just cultural and could turn around at any time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Without evidence of any millennia-long lifespans, that's as good an idea as any. (shrug)

Without any anything physical to prevent it - thermodynamics? Possible but not that I know of - then it must exist, many times over.

Mortality is a very human-centric concept.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Without any anything physical to prevent it - thermodynamics? Possible but not that I know of - then it must exist, many times over.

There's a ton which vitiates against it physically.

There's no biological pressure towards immortality and a ton against, and biological processes tend to error out and lack strong enough correction mechanisms such that, without regular maintenance, you'd probably not be actually living that long. Mechanical devices don't last decades without replacements, let alone centuries or millennia. Wear and tear and stress and heat and cold and chemical changes and so on just absolute destroy stuff. Electrical devices fail even sooner, especially chips and memory of all kinds, which are always living on borrowed time. Even if you managed to engineer yourself to live 4000 years, good luck building a spaceship that does! There's also the question of whether any conventional mind, human or alien or AI, could stay sane for hundreds or thousands of years - maybe - but maybe not.

You can't say just because we can't absolutely rule it out, it "must" exist. Being extremely unlikely is enough that it might never occur or never persist for long.

 

[CleverNickName]

Without any anything physical to prevent it - thermodynamics? Possible but not that I know of - then it must exist, many times over.

Now you're talking. Thermodynamics has laws (which are proven and repeatable, unlike theories), so they are much better than this maybe/probability/coulda/possibly stuff. I would run any and all "evidence of the paranormal" through the Laws of Thermodynamics as a first pass.

Until you have that evidence, though, you have no reason to believe it exists at all.

 

[Ryujin]

There's a ton which vitiates against it physically.

There's no biological pressure towards immortality and a ton against, and biological processes tend to error out and lack strong enough correction mechanisms such that, without regular maintenance, you'd probably not be actually living that long. Mechanical devices don't last decades without replacements, let alone centuries or millennia. Wear and tear and stress and heat and cold and chemical changes and so on just absolute destroy stuff. Electrical devices fail even sooner, especially chips and memory of all kinds, which are always living on borrowed time. Even if you managed to engineer yourself to live 4000 years, good luck building a spaceship that does! There's also the question of whether any conventional mind, human or alien or AI, could stay sane for hundreds or thousands of years - maybe - but maybe not.

You can't say just because we can't absolutely rule it out, it "must" exist. Being extremely unlikely is enough that it might never occur or never persist for long.

There are a few species on Earth that are effectively immortal, barring predation or incident, but I would tend to think that works against them developing sentience via evolution. At least it would seriously slow the process.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Now you're talking. Thermodynamics has laws (which are proven and repeatable, unlike theories), so they are much better than this maybe/probability/coulda/possibly stuff. I would run any and all "evidence of the paranormal" through the Laws of Thermodynamics as a first pass.

As already mentioned, you would have to have a prediction before you could test anything. What do you mean by paranormal? If you can test something, then it’s just normal.

And, the laws of thermodynamics are themselves subject to potential falsification*. The laws of Physics are only true until they aren’t. That’s what keeps physicists in work.

*they can certainly be bent, the standard model of particle physics depends on bending conservation of energy.

 

[CleverNickName]

And, the laws of thermodynamics are themselves subject to potential falsification*. The laws of Physics are only true until they aren’t. That’s what keeps physicists in work.

*they can certainly be bent, the standard model of particle physics depends on bending conservation of energy.

I'm going to have to defer to an actual physicist (or at least a physics major) on this one. I studied engineering, which doesn't dabble in stuff outside the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm going to have to defer to an actual physicist (or at least a physics major) on this one. I studied engineering, which doesn't dabble in stuff outside the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I mean, you don't need to go that far. He's right. They're science. They're subject to potential falsification. No ifs or buts. Otherwise they'd be some kind of immutable holy writ which would be beyond science.

And I say that as a huge fan of thermodynamics who manages to quote the laws of thermodynamics in conversation at least once every few weeks (even when my wife isn't winding me up about it by intentionally getting them wrong!).