Login or register


Last status update:
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:6/26/2016
Location:The Netherlands
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#527
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 60344 total,  70746 ,  10402
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 98.9% (989/1000)
Level 346 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 347 Comments: Sold Soul
Content Views:13072
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:10245
FJ Points:46872

latest user's comments

#4 - I personally also have no direct evidence there is water near …  [+] (31 new replies) 06/20/2016 on My favorite quote +47
User avatar
#5 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
You have plenty of evidence: you know water doesn't hover in midair, you know that the ocean is full of water. Also we have been to the bottom of the ocean, and it's pretty humid.

There's a huge difference between probability and reality. It's very probable that life exists, but it's not certain, and it's just as possible that we're the only life in the universe. Until we get some evidence the complete lack of evidence suggests that there is none.
#53 - anon (06/21/2016) [-]
same logic says there is life in the universe
User avatar
#20 - kyteflyer (06/20/2016) [-]
Just like we have plenty of evidence that the universe is ENORMOUS. Even if it isn't infinite, their is bound to be life out their somewhere..
#8 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
We know so little about all other planets and solar systems, the lack of evidence says nothing but that we just know very, very little.

The complete lack of evidence is completely meaningless in the vastness of space.

Do you have any idea about what approximate number of solar systems we're talking about? I sense you might be severely underestimating it.

Also we don't even know what the conditions for life may be, we just know our own carbon based life forms. Making an estimation based on only on what we know probably wouldn't do justice to the actual state of affairs.

User avatar
#10 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
Put simply; no. If there were sentient life elsewhere in the universe it would likely be sending out signals. We have not encountered any such signals, so sentient life is out. All the planets that we have tested for life have come back negative, so that's no use either.

Yeah, obviously there's a planet composed entirely of red skittles, because space is just so vast...

Your argument is based on a fallacy about probability; that if I increase the number of tries at an event (life existing) it will eventually reach certainty. This is false, even with a billion trillion planets in the universe it is entirely possible for there to be only one with life. There is no rule saying that life has to form just because it can.
User avatar
#33 - pineapplemanpingu (06/21/2016) [-]
Firstly, sentient life doesn't have to send out a signal, we don't. Secondly, we have only tested about two other planets besides our own, and that's only in our solar system, not to mention the fact that there may be evidence of bacteria on those planets.
#35 - platinumaltaria (06/21/2016) [-]
We send out signals across the electromagnetic spectrum, most of which are just accidental. Do you think someone put mirrors around the earth to bounce all the signals back or something?

Yes, and of the set of planets we have tested none has harboured life, so the statement "there's no life" seems rather more credible, don't you think?

there may be evidence of bacteria on those planets
You want us to make an assumption based on the possibility of evidence?
#59 - astatine (06/21/2016) [-]
of the set of planets we have tested none has harboured life, so the statement "there's no life" seems rather more credible, don't you think?

If there is life on other planets, it's most likely going to be on planets similar to Earth. The closest possibly habitable planet to Earth is 14 lightyears away. None of the planets we've tested have signs of life? That's because the planets most likely to contain life can't currently be tested.

As for signals being transmitted into space, look up inverse square law - by the time our radio signals reach anywhere near any habitable planets, they'll be indistinguishable from background noise.

I don't personally think there's any intelligent life out there, but when it comes to "the universe is so huge there must be something else out there" vs "we haven't found anything so it's unlikely," the first argument absolutely shatters yours. It's like saying "this blade of grass doesn't have an insect on it so there must be no insects on any other plant matter on Earth" multiplied by a magnitude
User avatar
#60 - platinumaltaria (06/21/2016) [-]
...they'll be indistinguishable from background noise.
Have you told SETI that? Because they seem dead set on ALL THE RECEIVERS.

tbh there's no intelligent life on earth either.
Joking aside, in the absence of evidence we take to be true the negative. This is logical, because in the same way that I can't disprove the existence of extraterrestrial life I can't disprove the existence of a unicorn living in the heart of the sun.
User avatar
#56 - thesovereigngrave (06/21/2016) [-]
Unless those signals are traveling faster than light, those civilizations would have to be awfully close by. And not all sentient species would even be giving off signals; don't think neanderthals were shooting off too many radio waves into space. And we've only been able to test a select few planets for life, which I imagine is rather insignificant from a statistical point of view.
User avatar
#58 - platinumaltaria (06/21/2016) [-]
Well there are two options:
1) The area we're in is a dead zone, and is not characteristic of the universe, or
2) The area around us is characteristic, and the universe is all but lifeless.
I don't think neanderthals are what we have in mind when we talk about sentient life.
Well sure, when the evidence points away from you it's insignificant, but if we find one bacterium on another rock the universe will have life coming out of every orifice.
User avatar
#63 - thesovereigngrave (06/21/2016) [-]
Even if it is characteristic of the galaxy, it doesn't mean the galaxy would be exceptionally lifeless. The galaxy is huge, and I don't think we've been spewing EM for very long in the grand course of our existence.

Ah, well when I hear talk of 'sentient life' I think of any kind of sentient life regardless of its level of development. If we're talking about an advanced civilization I'd usually specify, though that's just me. And you're putting words in my mouth; if we found extraterrestrial microbes I wouldn't think life was everywhere in the universe, it'd just proof that life can develop on other planets. Of course, I don't doubt there'd be other people out there trying to claim that, unfortunately.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that I know for a fact that aliens exist and it's an objective truth. Because saying that would be fucking retarded, since as you said there isn't any proof as of yet. I choose to believe that, statistically, there's probably some form of alien life out there but I still recognize the possibility that there isn't. If we got out into space and started looking at a shit-ton of planets and found nothing, I be a bit more convinced to think otherwise.
User avatar
#36 - pineapplemanpingu (06/21/2016) [-]
I love how you're going off the theory 'there's no evidence so obviously it doesn't exist'. There's also no evidence that there isn't life, does that mean there is? Going of your theory it would
User avatar
#37 - platinumaltaria (06/21/2016) [-]
No, I'm pretty sure that there's no reason to believe that it does.

One of the most basic foundations of logical thought is the inability to disprove a negative. There is no way for me to prove that there isn't life because I can't possibly search the entire universe for life. However that's still not evidence that there is.
User avatar
#24 - redeadhunter (06/21/2016) [-]
This also assumes that we are capable of recognizing any theoretical signal out there and that the sources are close enough for them to reach us yet. Humans only managed to figure out how to send information using EM waves just over a hundred years ago, and the closest civilization capable of this at roughly the same point could be a thousand or much, much more light years away in which case our signals aren't even close to so much as passing one another. So no, we can't even begin to rule out sentient life.
User avatar
#23 - Blackrain (06/20/2016) [-]
I'm actually a particle physics researcher, so I'll be happy to have a nice thought debate with you.

If you want to play by pure numbers, since the Universe is ever expanding and we can't even measure how big the Universe actually is, it is more likely there is other life than no other life.
#17 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
By the way, I'm not saying it is certain there is life. I was never claiming that.

I'm just debunking how utterly redundant and meaningless it is to state that that there's no evidence of life beyond earth, since it says next to nothing on whether there actually is life beyond earth.
User avatar
#18 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want to without evidence, however it is not scientifically accurate. There is no indication that life exists anywhere beyond earth, and so believing that no life exists beyond earth is the logical conclusion. Believing that life does exist beyond earth is baseless, as there is a complete lack of evidence towards that claim.
In fact, as one can observe with the fermi paradox, the conspicuous lack of evidence is actually evidence of absence, at least within the realm of sentient life.
User avatar
#29 - therealtjthemedic (06/21/2016) [-]
There's a difference between 'scientifically accurate' and empirically accurate.
We've never seen another star up close.
All our assumptions about the rest of the universe are from observing our own local area.
The probability of getting a signal from another sapient lifeform is so incredibly low, since for anyone to receive our signals, they'd have to be within about 100 light-years of us. In the scale of the entire universe, that is indescribably small.
#19 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
You're making one of the worst and most horrible mistakes in science, and even logic as a whole.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The only logical conclusion is that we don't know.

But we do know that life happened here. And out of the billions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions of other solar systems with countless oforbiting planets, why would it only be possible here?

I don't know where you base your opinion on, because we know next to nothing about anything beyond our own solar system. And our methods of gathering information for what's beyond is rather limited and inconsequential.
And we certainly have not "tested" even the tiniest speck of a significant number, in relation to the total number, of planets for life.
And that's even besides, questioning the validity of the interpretation of data and our conception of life.
#16 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
You're thinking way too much in our own limited perspective and understanding of life and the universe, you're making way too many assumptions that excludes all kinds of possibilities beyond your imagination.

For starters, you're assuming they can only use similar technology and send signals that are within the reach of our own instruments.
And you also assume that certain conditions for life must be the same everywhere.

This " testing for life" isn't much more than virtual meaningless interpretations of certain wave-frequences of the atmosphere of some far away ass planet they know shit about filtered through the our limited conception of what life is or may be.

#6 - anon (06/20/2016) [-]
It could be a liquid heavier than salt water though.
User avatar
#7 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
It could be mountain dew. But it isn't, it's water. (We can take samples you know).
#21 - vegasstoner (06/20/2016) [-]
wait...hold the fuck up...you were making some sense until you said there isn't mountain dew at the bottum of the sea. you know how we get mountain dew right? we havest that shit from the deep ocean
#27 - anon (06/21/2016) [-]
So its not dew from a mountain? Geezuz
#9 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
Personally I've never been to the bottom of the ocean.
User avatar
#11 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
I've never been to spain but I still know that it's warm there.
#12 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
Then you don't actually know.

But you trust on the information of others.
User avatar
#13 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
No, people can provide evidence that spain is warm... I don't have to physically be there to test the hypothesis.
#14 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
However you look at it, technically it still remains an assumption on your part.

But we're getting off-topic, there's no point for me to make here that contributes to the original topic.
User avatar
#15 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
Not really, I'm using the evidence to form a hypothesis.

Well it's hard to remain on topic when you're arguing for an indefensible lapse in reason.
#2 - Tits McGee 06/20/2016 on tick tock +18
#1 - Picture 06/20/2016 on Jon Bovi +5
#8 - Visions of but hole. 06/20/2016 on What can I do 0
#4 - This doesn't sound like a psychedelic hallucinogenic at all, m… 06/20/2016 on drugs +3
#18 - What is that weird round object? 06/19/2016 on Now that's how you package... +1
#35 - Don't talk to me or my kid ever again. 06/19/2016 on What Not To Do At A Stop Light +1
#2 - The sticky hood might seem like a good idea, until the car get… 06/19/2016 on future according to filed... 0
#9 - He just ragequit life. 06/19/2016 on Fuck you... +8
#15 - The best thing to do is just to accept that your face is melti… 06/19/2016 on Shrooms 0