Let hear them conjects

        • @Denjin@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          I think you’re referring to the Drake Equation, but that’s more of a thought experiment, there’s no way to calculate any of the required probabilities inputted to the equation to be able to calculate the output.

      • @Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        106 months ago

        If you take standard cosmological assumptions (the universe is infinite and homogeonous) then the odds are 100% as everything that is physically possible happens infinite times.

        unless you mean the observable universe, in which case we dont know, but given the vast scale of it is likely very close to 1. We cant calculate it without knowing how likely life is to form in the first place.

      • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        We don’t have enough data about the frequency of life to say for sure, since we only have one data point (our planet). If we knew more about how life can arise originally, then perhaps we could make a prediction.

      • Rhynoplaz
        link
        fedilink
        76 months ago

        I’m not sure exactly how else you might calculate it, but, we know life is possible, so in an infinitely large universe, containing infinite stars with infinite planets existing for an infinite amount of time, the odds of life existing on another planet can’t be less than 100%.

        • @Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          86 months ago

          The Drake Equation is a probabilistic formula meant to derive the number of civilizations which humans could potentially communicate with.

          The fermi paradox does challenge the formula though, as it implies fi and/or fc are very small or zero.

            • @cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Please subtract the assumptions and respond to specific claim. Life is a lottery. What are the equivalent chances of that in coinflips analogy and then give the response in the approximate amount of times that could happen over an eternity or minimally the “death of our galaxy or universe” context

              • Rhynoplaz
                link
                fedilink
                96 months ago

                I’ll break it down further.

                We know life is possible, because we’re here.

                Nobody knows the exact odds of life being created, but we know it’s >0. One in a billion? Trillion?

                So imagine a trillion sided die. If you roll a 1, life is created.

                If you get only one chance, you probably aren’t creating life, but if you are allowed to roll the die constantly from the instant of the big bang, until the end of time, you WILL roll a one. Now, imagine an infinite number of planets rolling an infinite number of trillion sided dice for billions of years.

                Sure, it’s very unlikely for any individual roll to be 1, but it’s downright IMPOSSIBLE for NONE of them to EVER roll it.

                Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that there are aliens flying around and probing people. I don’t believe that’s true at all. But there is life out there. Maybe it’s just plants or bacteria, or some form of living rock that we’ve never encountered before, but it’s out there.

                I say it’s arrogant because Earth is a tiny insignificant speck in the universe, and assuming that only YOUR planet can randomly produce life is a very self centered point of view.

            • @khannie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              26 months ago

              For life in general I would agree but for human level intelligence I’m not so sure, in our galaxy anyway. The number of things that had to line up for us to be the dominant lifeform on the planet is enormous.

              Goldilocks zone. Life. Large outer gas giants. Complex life (someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this has only happened once in 4B years / all complex lifeforms have a common ancestor) Oxygen tolerant life. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Multiple mass extinctions. Planet habitable for enormously long periods. Evolution of large brains for the first time. Etc

            • @AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Don’t be too sure about that. If you look around online, you should be able to find chemistry predictions for intelligent life. While not assuming any compatible chemistry, we can look at some of the basic types of reactions needed to support a life form and the type of environment we assume. Apparently carbon and oxygen based chemistry is most favorable

            • @cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Do we already have that with the crazy anerobic volcano or the high-temperature deep sea vent dwelling microorganisms or something?

    • @Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Tied to this, I believe there is no intelligent life close enough to ever reach us physically (short of freezing themselves and traveling millions of years, but we really aren’t worth that trip lol) I don’t believe faster than light travel will ever exist.

      • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -56 months ago

        I believe the opposite.

        I think there’s so much evidence of intelligent alien life visiting us that it takes a massive act of denial and self-delusion to ignore it.

        In fact, I think the idea that alien evidence is all faked is a massively unbelievable conspiracy theory. The alien hoax would require a level of secret conspiracy that puts chemtrails or CIA mind control conspiracy theories to shame.

        The organization necessary to produce the constant stream of alien evidence would dwarf the Manhattan Project.

        • @Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          In the same respect the level of organization and silence required to hide such evidence is extraordinary. It’s every government of every country that would have to keep what they know under wraps. The more people involved in a conspiracy the more likely it is for the silence to be broken. It’s not that every bit of “evidence” is faked, it’s that the majority of it that comes from a government source is misinterpreted from someone who wants it to be aliens as opposed to having an independent expert in whatever field study it.

          As far as we can tell, other than people looking to sell books, all the “evidence” we have of visitations/technology has been disproven by either independent analysis of footage, or the eventual release of government documentation that shows it was an experiment “we” conducted. Those kinds of things are kept confidential for a certain amount of time in case they are connected to potential military research.

          There is absolutely nothing from what we currently understand about physics that would allow for traveling the kinds of distances necessary. The vast majority of what is left to understand about how “physics” works is in relation to the types of energy/particles that don’t interact with matter as we currently understand it so it couldn’t carry anything “physical” with it, unless we’re now talking about “dark matter” aliens, but if that were the case then we’d have no evidence of their existence because we can’t observe that as it doesn’t interact with the matter we have access to. A camera cant capture a “dark matter” substance.

          I say all of this as someone who WANTS aliens to exist and be able to visit us. It’s very upsetting to me to think it isn’t possible lol

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        46 months ago

        Yeah, I’ve lost my interest in their being other intelligent life in the universe. It’s pretty clear we’ll never be able to meet and quite likely never be able to even see the evidence for their existence. So, how does it matter?

  • SharkEatingBreakfast
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The reason for the common cold being so prevalent in cold weather is because of the cold.

    My theory is that cold temperatures best suit the incubation of the germs. You are especially susceptible at night, when you can’t control your breath enough to keep your nose/nostrils warm. Warm face/nose at night = you won’t catch a cold.

    I’m absolutely convinced of this theory. I’ve tested ways to keep my face/nose warm at night, and it seems to test very solidly (and I get sick very very easily). Once my room gets too chilly, I’ll inevitably wake up with a cold.

    EDIT: let me have the smallest conspiracy theory in the world, thank you.

    • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      I might believe this. Temperature is an important part of our environment and I’d be surprised if it had no effect on any diseases that may be floating around

    • xapr [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36 months ago

      Hmmm, not sure why you’re getting the downvotes, but your idea is not far-fetched. There have been multiple studies showing things like viruses living longer and traveling farther in cold dry air than in warm humid air, and also about the cold having immediate negative effects on certain aspects of immunity. The studies I’ve seen have usually been about the flu virus instead of cold virus, but some of it would transfer over, like the ones about immunity.

      What’s weird is that for years (decades?) doctors / public health / scientists etc swore up and down that it was a myth that cold temperatures had anything to do with cold infections. It doesn’t surprise me now, after seeing the uphill battle it was to get the scientific community to finally, grudgingly accept that COVID is transmitted by floating around the air, sometimes over long distances. Many so-called “scientists” still don’t seem to accept this, despite having aerosol engineers break it down for them.

  • @Akareth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26 months ago

    That humans are apex predators, and we have been so for upwards of 2.5 million years. Following from this, I believe that most chronic illnesses that we have today (e.g. obesity, diabetes, mental illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, arthritis, PCOS, etc.) are caused by us straying from eating diets with lots of fatty meat.

  • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    -66 months ago

    When people are left to enter deals and economic arrangements as they see fit, it produces the most overall wealth, both for those at the top and those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy.

  • @JayleneSlide@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    186 months ago

    My BS, unprovable hypothesis: The Golden Age of Piracy was actually a successful Socialist movement, with Nassau being a disruptively successful enclave of Socialism in action. The pirates deeply threatened the budding power structures in the US (not conjecture) and the entrenched powers in Europe. While some powers, most notably royalty, were willing to use pirates as mercenaries (privateers), there was an excess of democracy and human concern (somewhat my conjecture) among the Nassau pirates. The Nassau pirates had pensions, a form of worker’s comp, disability, democratic command structures at sea, and healthcare (such as it was given the era). According to the historical texts on the Nassau pirates, there were almost no written records, which strikes me as especially odd since they had so many long-running financial and governing processes.

      • HubertManne
        link
        fedilink
        76 months ago

        I mean its hard because if I had an example of an absolute truth then that would be proof of it. I could make an argument for existence but still hard to say I would meet the absolute requirement of it.

        • @cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          What led you to use the example of absolute truth in the first place?

          Its sort of more or an abstract noun rather than a specific case example one can engage with, no?

          • HubertManne
            link
            fedilink
            46 months ago

            Just that is was the answer to the question posed. Im sorta obsessed with truth and believe there is absolute truth but can’t prove it.

              • HubertManne
                link
                fedilink
                26 months ago

                I mean I see what your getting at. The concept holds regardless of the existence of X but its rather meta. Im looking for something more about our reality. I mean absolute truth exists in terms of the words absolute and truth exist and can be put together as the concept but not with any basis in reality. Is it really a truth then? Superman exists as a concept for the writer and in the readers imagination but the character certainly fictional in our experiences. So you can say he is a truth in that he exists in concept but he certainly is not real.

                • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 months ago

                  So you’re looking for absolute truths about our physical reality? You’re right that it’s impossible then, other than tautological or trivial truths like the above that rely on a conditional (“if that box really exists, then it really exists”). The possibility of reality being simulated, Boltzmann brains, Last Wednesdayism, etc. preclude unqualified absolute truths about our physical reality because our observations cannot be truly verified.

  • bizarroland
    link
    fedilink
    206 months ago

    I believe that the reason why so many people are going crazy in America at least is because they are approaching the end of their life and they have been told the whole time they’ve been alive that they would be living through the end of times, and if it becomes true then their lives have not been wasted but if it is not true or if it doesn’t happen until after they die then their lives have been wasted and it’s driving them crazy.

    • ivanafterall ☑️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      126 months ago

      “Christianity is a death cult,” essentially. Why bother to make it better here when paradise is guaranteed?

      • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        116 months ago

        I heard “the moment you start praying is the moment you’ve given up trying” the other night. I almost spat my tea.

  • SmokeyDope
    link
    fedilink
    English
    66 months ago

    I believe that there are metaphysical aspects of reality and unfalsifiable truths science and mathematics will never be able to prove.

  • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    76 months ago

    Most of my moral convictions aren’t provable because the most basic ideas are simply axioms. “You should be a good person” cannot be justified in a way that’s non-circular, and defining “good” is also similarly arbitrary. The only true “evidence” is that people tend to agree on vague definitions in theory. Which is certainly a good thing, imo, but it’s not actually provable that what we consider “good” is actually the correct way to act.

    I have started creating a moral framework, though. I’ve been identifying and classifying particular behaviors and organizing them in a hierarchy. So far it’s going pretty well. At least my arbitrariness can be well-defined!

    • @okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I think it is easy enough to argue without making it circular. As for “good”, I don’t think an objective absolute and universal definition is necessary.

      The argument would be to consider it an optimization problem, and the interesting part, what the fitness function is. If we want to maximise happiness and freedom, any pair of people is transient. If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them. Kinda like the “do unto others”, except less prone to a masochist going around hurting people.

      • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If we want to maximise happiness and freedom

        But that’s what I’m saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it’s a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You’re choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.

        If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them

        Only if you believe that everyone fundamentally deserves the same treatment. It’s easy to overlook an axiom like that because it seems so obvious, but it is something that we have chosen to believe.

        • @okamiueru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          16 months ago

          But that’s what I’m saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it’s a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You’re choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.

          I’m not really arguing against this tho (perhaps the choosing part, but I’ll get to it). I’m saying that a goal post of “axiomaric universal good” isn’t all that interesting, because, as you say, there is likely no such thing. The goal shouldn’t therefore be to find the global maximum, but to have a heuristic that is “universal enough”. That’s what I tried to make a point of, in that the golden rule would, at face value, suggests that a masochistic should go around and inflict pain onto others.

          It shouldn’t be any particular person’s understanding, but a collectively agreed understanding. Which is in a way how it works, as this understanding is a part of culture, and differs from one to the other. Some things considered polite in the US is rude in Scandinavia, and vice versa. But, regardless, there will be some fundamentals that are universal enough, and we can consider that the criteria for what to maximise.

    • @Lux18@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      46 months ago

      You should watch The Good Place and/or read the book How to be Perfect by Michael Schur. He made the show too.

      He starts from the same standpoint as you and then explores moral philosophy to find answers.

  • ivanafterall ☑️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    96 months ago

    I’ve mentioned them before and they’re semi-related, in a broad sense:

    I believe the Congressional baseball game shooting was likely intended to benefit Trump.

    I believe it’s likely that the Russian government has knowingly promoted interracial cuck porn, in some capacity.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26 months ago

    The reason my memory seems to be fuzzy at times, even for some things that happened recently, comes down to the fact that I was put under for surgery back in 2011 and was under for longer than they expected due to finding something they didn’t expect.

  • @jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    16 months ago

    I believe in the afterlife.

    I also believe that humans have the unconscious ability to influence their relative perception of time. Think of all the times that seemed to “fly by,” or moments that “last forever.” I think you do this unknowingly, and it’s usually connected to a heightened emotional state, which means you have an increased level of some neurochemical. I don’t think there’s a specific one responsible for altering our perception of time, just that they correlate.

    That we have the ability to alter our perception of time is what allows us to have an “afterlife.”

    What I believe, without evidence, is that when you die, your brain does a massive dump of all of it’s dopamine and serotonin, as well everything else, that let’s your final moment be one of peace and acceptance. Additionally, you will stretch your final moments till it seems a lifetime, all while hallucinating massively because of this huge dump of neurochemicals into your neocortex.

    So during your final moments, whether you believe you’re going to a heaven or a hell, you’re right. Because that’s exactly where you’ll imagine yourself. If you think you’ll bounce around a field of billowy clouds while visiting loved ones with all your pets by your side, then you will. If you think you deserve to drown in a river of hellfire while the world laughs, then you will.

    As an athiest, it kinda gives me something to look forward to. One final hurrah before nothingness.