The so called "Fermi Paradox" is an assumption. It's an
erroneous assumption and not a paradox.

If I assume you like broccoli and you don't like broccoli,
it's an erroneous assumption. Not a paradox.

Fermi assumed that aliens should be here. He looked around,
saw no aliens and concluded on there was a paradox. And he
was greatly mistaken. He had made an erroneous assumption.

STOP asking "Why aren't they here?" That's stupid.

A better, more reasonable, rational approach would be to
instead ask ourselves, "Why the F*** would they ever come
here in the first place?"

OCCAM'S RAZOR

Any answer to the reasonable question -- apart from "They
wouldn't" -- involves a mess of fantasies and assumptions
that Occam's Razor was created to avoid. For instance...

Let's pretend that a rational person might posit that aliens
would come here for our resources. Well that is a ridiculous
load of assumptions beginning with the round trip requiring
fewer resources than they might possibly collect. They'd
also have to know that those resources are here.

Many more assumptions, but you get the idea. I should hope.

The answer "The would come here to collect our resources"
would be dependent upon things which are not only NOT
true in our own case, but we have no idea how they might
ever become true. We don't know how to travel the vast
distances of space in anything that could be mistaken for
a reasonable amount of time without expanding VAST resources
on the vessel, planing and propulsion. So...

"Let's just assume that their lifespans are many thousands
of years."

Mmm... Occam's Razor.

We have to make ridiculous assumptions just to move resources
from here to there!

But the point, of course, is that these awkward contortions
are true regardless of what motivation we might attribute to
alien visitors. Except for one:

Seek and destroy.

The prospects aren't very pleasant there, are they?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:18:22 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>If I assume you like broccoli and you don't like broccoli,
>it's an erroneous assumption. Not a paradox.

A paradox follows an assumption with a logical conclusion based on
that assumption. To complete your example: If I assume you are
broccoli, then your comments would make more sense.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

>> If I assume you like broccoli and you don't like broccoli,
>> it's an erroneous assumption. Not a paradox.

> A paradox follows an assumption with a logical conclusion based on
> that assumption.

That wouldn't be true even if you nimrods were capable of
distinguishing "Logic" from "Makes sense to me!"

A "Paradox" is a premise which, if assumed to be true,
disproves or prevents itself. Take the famous Grandfather
Paradox:

Man goes back in time and kills his grandfather when he's
young. So the man is never born. So he never goes back in time
and kills his grandfather.

His actions exclude the possibility of his ever taking his
actions. BECAUSE he acted he didn't act.

"If we assume [A] is correct then [A] is wrong."

This is opposed to Fermi who made an incorrect assumption.

> To complete your example:

I think you have proven me right about you enough for one
day...week...month...lifetime.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM wrote :
> jillery wrote:
>
>
>>> If I assume you like broccoli and you don't like broccoli,
>>> it's an erroneous assumption. Not a paradox.
>
>> A paradox follows an assumption with a logical conclusion based on
>> that assumption.
>
> That wouldn't be true even if you nimrods were capable of
> distinguishing "Logic" from "Makes sense to me!"
>
> A "Paradox" is a premise which, if assumed to be true,
> disproves or prevents itself. Take the famous Grandfather
> Paradox:
>
> Man goes back in time

Anything can follow from a false premise.

FromTheRafters wrote:

> Anything can follow from a false premise.

You can throw anything into a pot of water and make soup.
But if you want chicken soup then you have to put in
chicken. We're distinguishing a paradox here, when you
replied.

A paradox is self cancelling. It prevents itself. Again,
the Grandfather Paradox where the action prevents the
action. By doing it you can't do it.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:27:38 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote yet
another self-parody:

>jillery wrote:
>
>
>>> If I assume you like broccoli and you don't like broccoli,
>>> it's an erroneous assumption. Not a paradox.
>
>> A paradox follows an assumption with a logical conclusion based on
>> that assumption.
>
>That wouldn't be true even if you nimrods were capable of
>distinguishing "Logic" from "Makes sense to me!"
>
>A "Paradox" is a premise which, if assumed to be true,
>disproves or prevents itself. Take the famous Grandfather
>Paradox:
>
>Man goes back in time and kills his grandfather when he's
>young. So the man is never born. So he never goes back in time
>and kills his grandfather.

Your last two sentences are conclusions based on your assumption.

>His actions exclude the possibility of his ever taking his
>actions. BECAUSE he acted he didn't act.
>
>"If we assume [A] is correct then [A] is wrong."
>
>This is opposed to Fermi who made an incorrect assumption.

My guess is you don't even know what is Fermi's Paradox.

>> To complete your example: If I assume you are
>> broccoli, then your comments would make more sense.

Since your comments make no sense, I conclude you are broccoli. QED.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote yet

>> A "Paradox" is a premise which, if assumed to be true,
>> disproves or prevents itself. Take the famous Grandfather
>> Paradox:
>>
>> Man goes back in time and kills his grandfather when he's
>> young. So the man is never born. So he never goes back in time
>> and kills his grandfather.

> Your last two sentences are conclusions based on your assumption.

Wow. You're retarded. Genuinely retarded.

We'll just stop here, at your first critical mistake, for reasons
which are obvious to those who understand what the word "Critical"
means.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM formulated on Sunday :
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Anything can follow from a false premise.
>
> You can throw anything into a pot of water and make soup.
> But if you want chicken soup then you have to put in
> chicken. We're distinguishing a paradox here, when you
> replied.
>
> A paradox is self cancelling. It prevents itself. Again,
> the Grandfather Paradox where the action prevents the
> action. By doing it you can't do it.

Like many so-called paradoxes, it is not a paradox. It is a 'would be'
paradox if we actually could travel back in time.

FromTheRafters wrote:

> JTEM formulated on Sunday :
>>   FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Anything can follow from a false premise.
>>
>> You can throw anything into a pot of water and make soup.
>> But if you want chicken soup then you have to put in
>> chicken. We're distinguishing a paradox here, when you
>> replied.
>>
>> A paradox is self cancelling. It prevents itself. Again,
>> the Grandfather Paradox where the action prevents the
>> action. By doing it you can't do it.

> Like many so-called paradoxes, it is not a paradox.

Nah. That's just your narcissism speaking.

Nothing wrong with that. Everyone is narcissistic at least
part of the time. You just abuse the privilege.

> It is a 'would be'
> paradox if we actually could travel back in time.

There's nothing that excludes the possibility. The paradox
is meant as "Proof" against it, but as we are all familiar
with concepts such as Simultaneity/the Multiverse we can't
write it off.

There are certainly theoretical means for time travel.

BACKWARDS time travel. We know how to advance forward in
time at accelerated rates. It's all about moving BACK
because then we get into the fun stuff: Causality!

BACKWARDS time travel, working off the top of my head,
always involves things like moving faster than light,
some type of exotic matter or employing wormholes.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

There is a theoretical means for sending INFORMATION
backwards in time which is plausible enough to warrant
the funding of research..right now.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

> The so called "Fermi Paradox" is an assumption. It's an
> erroneous assumption and not a paradox.

Of course not. It was a question:
"But where are they?"

The implication was that the assumption (by others)
that every civilisation must go on growing exponentially,
eventually filing the entire habitable universe, must be wrong.

A great many answers to the question have been proposed.

Pick your own,

Jan

--
"Interstellar distances are god's quarantine regulations"
(John Brunner, and my favourite answer)

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The so called "Fermi Paradox" is an assumption. It's an
>> erroneous assumption and not a paradox.
>
> Of course not. It was a question:
> "But where are they?"

Where are we? We're not on any alien worlds. Why assume
anyone should be here?

> The implication was that the assumption (by others)
> that every civilisation must go on growing exponentially,
> eventually filing the entire habitable universe, must be wrong.

Assumptions are just assumptions.

> A great many answers to the question have been proposed.

It's not a real question. It's an erroneous assumption.

Now turn it around. Ask instead: WHY would they ever bother
to come here?

Answer THAT question!

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:46:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's not a real question. It's an erroneous assumption.

Specify what is the assumption you assume is erroneous?

>Now turn it around. Ask instead: WHY would they ever bother
>to come here?

WHY would they ever bother to go into interstellar space in the first
place? Same reasons.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Specify what

Lol! Fuck off!

Damn. You're such a goddamn retard!

Who the fuck do you think you are, ordering me
to play with your brain turds?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

on 4/22/2024, JTEM supposed :
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> JTEM formulated on Sunday :
>>>   FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anything can follow from a false premise.
>>>
>>> You can throw anything into a pot of water and make soup.
>>> But if you want chicken soup then you have to put in
>>> chicken. We're distinguishing a paradox here, when you
>>> replied.
>>>
>>> A paradox is self cancelling. It prevents itself. Again,
>>> the Grandfather Paradox where the action prevents the
>>> action. By doing it you can't do it.
>
>> Like many so-called paradoxes, it is not a paradox.
>
> Nah. That's just your narcissism speaking.
>
> Nothing wrong with that. Everyone is narcissistic at least
> part of the time. You just abuse the privilege.
>
>> It is a 'would be' paradox if we actually could travel back in time.
>
> There's nothing that excludes the possibility. The paradox
> is meant as "Proof" against it, but as we are all familiar
> with concepts such as Simultaneity/the Multiverse we can't
> write it off.
>
> There are certainly theoretical means for time travel.
>
> BACKWARDS time travel. We know how to advance forward in
> time at accelerated rates. It's all about moving BACK
> because then we get into the fun stuff: Causality!
>
> BACKWARDS time travel, working off the top of my head,
> always involves things like moving faster than light,
> some type of exotic matter or employing wormholes.
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something.

Brain cells.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:07:33 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> posted yet
another self-parody:

>> Specify what
>
>Lol! Fuck off!
>
>Damn. You're such a goddamn retard!
>
>Who the fuck do you think you are, ordering me
>to play with your brain turds?

Ok, so you don't even know what you're talking about. Nothing new
here.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Ok, so you

Hey, retard; there is no such thing as the Fermi "Paradox."

Fermi didn't present a paradox.

What Fermi laid out does not in any way, shape or form align
with the concept of a paradox.

A paradox isn't merely self refuting -- like pretty much
every post you've ever made. No, it goes beyond that.

Fermi made an assumption. Fermi made a very bad assumption.

You COULD argue, as your disorder forces you to "Argue"
here, that Fermi did not technically make the assumption
but NOTED the assumption of others.

It's still an assumption. It's still not a paradox.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

FromTheRafters wrote:

> Brain

Again, you met expectations.

In your desperation to make yourself appear clever, you exposed
yourself as an emotionally disturbed fool.

Backwards time travel is theoretically possible. There doesn't
seem to be anything in physics that excludes it.

You're welcome. (get medicated)

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:22:03 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

You *still* don't say what you think Fermi said that got your knappies
twisted.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> You *still* don't say what you think Fermi said that

I understand that you're mentally ill, that amongst your
numerous and quite annoying disorders would be narcissism
but, go fuck yourself. Retard.

I said that there is no such thing as a Fermi Paradox.

It's up there in the subject line.

If you're having difficulty grasping what I said, feel
free to ask someone who cares.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:28:42 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> trolled:

>I said that there is no such thing as a Fermi Paradox.

Getting your knappies twisted over adjectives is stupid. What you
still do *not* say is what you think Fermi said. Since you *still*
have no idea what you're talking about, start with this:

<https://www.britannica.com/science/Fermi-paradox>
*****************************************
[Fermi identified a] contradiction between the seemingly high
likelihood for the emergence of extraterrestrial intelligence and the
lack of evidence for its existence. The paradox has two broad forms:
(1) Why has Earth not already been visited? and (2) Why is there no
evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence at all?

The Fermi paradox emerged from a conversation between physicists
Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Emil Konopinski, and Herbert York at Los
Alamos in the summer of 1950 about flying saucers and the likelihood
of faster-than-light interstellar travel. The conversation moved on to
other subjects, but Fermi brought the discussion back to aliens with,
as Teller put it, "the quite unexpected question ‘Where is
everybody?’"
*******************************************

Have a nice day.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Getting your knappies twisted over adjectives is stupid.

This is a science group. If accuracy doesn't matter to you,
if saying what you mean isn't important, you're in the
wrong group.

> What you
> still do *not* say is what you think Fermi said.

What answer could possibly alter the fact that the
so called "Fermi Paradox" isn't a paradox at all?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Wed, 1 May 2024 17:49:12 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Getting your knappies twisted over adjectives is stupid.
>
>This is a science group. If accuracy doesn't matter to you,
>if saying what you mean isn't important, you're in the
>wrong group.

Since you mention it, "This" isn't a lexicology group. Whoever named
the Fermi Paradox didn't consult me.

>> What you
>> still do *not* say is what you think Fermi said.
>
>What answer could possibly alter the fact that the
>so called "Fermi Paradox" isn't a paradox at all?

Twisting your knappies over labels is a great way to show your pride
in having no idea what you're talking about.

Whatever adjective you choose to call it, the Fermi Paradox is a good
way to initiate intelligent discussions about why we find no evidence
of Little Green Men visiting Earth.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Since you mention it

You're an emotionally disturbed 'tard so you'll never "Get
it," and you're incapable of admitting it, but at it's
heart this group is about science.

Saying stupid things like "The Fermi Paradox" is not just
inaccurate, it's dangerous to science. It's saying that
it's okay to say things that aren't true.

Language drives thinking. Period.

The idiotic "Man evolved from apes" causes -- creates --
the ridiculous linear model where Chimps and Gorillas
arose and then Homo came along. But where exactly Homo
truly starts is a matter of convention, not scientific
fact, and the LCA was an upright walker with a hand
that looked more like our own than a Chimp's.

Pretending there is a "Fermi Paradox" traps people into
stupid thinking. They're asking the wrong questions,
looking at life (or the potential thereof) entirely wrong.

If one takes the underlying assumptions of the so called
"Paradox" seriously, the only solution is that man is
alone in this galaxy.

The claim is that, if other civilizations arose, they
should all be here by now...

But even *This* base logic, this simplistic and
inevitable result escapes you, in your illness.

Congratulations.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Mon, 6 May 2024 02:25:39 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>The claim is that, if other civilizations arose, they
>should all be here by now...

Incorrect. The claim is if interstellar civilizations arose, they
should be here by now. The implication is there are no Empires, no
Foundations, no Dominions, no Borg to assimilate us and no Guardians
to rescue us; a Good News, Bad News thingie.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The claim is that, if other civilizations arose, they
>> should all be here by now...
>
>
> Incorrect. The claim is if interstellar civilizations arose, they
> should be here by now. The implication is there are no Empires, no
> Foundations, no Dominions, no Borg to assimilate us and no Guardians
> to rescue us; a Good News, Bad News thingie.

You have absolutely no frigging clue what a "Paradox" is,
do you? But you are a wretched narcissist and are incapable
of yielding a point, no matter how obvious, as you
demonstrate above. You're just running off at the mouth,
as usual, or the usenet equivalent thereof.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5