US Congress is nonpartisan when it comes to ... aliens?

[everything]

if we are the "goldfish" in this scenario, we probably don't even know we're in a "bowl". we think everything about "bowl physics" should apply inside our little bowl, but there is more "reality" "outside". The Tic Tac could just be some reflection 2-D glimpse of something in our bowl glass. It seems possible we're not intelligent enough or simply not "designed" to be able to understand 3-D or 4-D or 5-D or whatever else, just like we cannot hear on frequencies that dogs can (but beyond that).

[Steve James]

Yeah, but we're talking about ufo/uaps that people in our bowl actually experience. They 're unidentified because we can't explain their physics within our bowl. But, it's not like we've figured everything out in terms of our physics, and theirs work. They are observable because they've been observed. There's just no way to say what they are or where they've come from.

Much of the disbelief about the ufos is that they perform movements that shouldn't be possible. Those are often the opinions of the pilots who observe them. Otoh, what about unpiloted probes or "aliens" that are robots? How about unmanned vehicles of human origin?

[everything]

What I’m saying is their understanding of using physics far supersedes ours.

It might be a “fourth dimension” or “warping space time”… things we mathematically have conceived of but physically cannot understand.

Like the monkey seeing the magic trick.

So is the Tic Tac even there in our actual bowl? It doesn’t seem anything is known about it. Only that we deem that flight pattern to be impossible with our tech and understanding of “laws of physics”. So if it’s real, almost by definition it falls outside our understanding.

If it’s not real or if it’s real but actually of human origin, we should be able to understand and explain it if we get evidence.

[Steve James]

I think we do understand what you're saying. Gile's argument was "why not call it magic?" Iow, they're not using our physics: they're breaking our physical laws.

I get what you're saying. If someone saw an airplane 300 years ago, they'd call it witchcraft. But, it wouldn't break any physical laws.

[Giles]

Maybe the example of the airplane isn't quite so good. Someone in the year 1700 would be flabbergasted if they saw it in the air, but they would still see the congruence with a gliding bird, so in that sense it might be a little more 'understandable'. Maybe we can imagine someone in London around that time who witnesses, say, a Skype video call with someone else they know to be in Scotland at that moment. Conducted on an iPhone, in the middle of a park. This too from our perspective doesn't break any physical laws, assuming you've got the whole telecommunications infrastructure in place (in 1700). But for even a highly-educated person in 1700, this use of (as yet unknown) physical laws would be so far out of the box that "magic" ("sorcery","devilment" or indeed "angelic forces" etc.) would seem the only explanation. Even Isaac Newton (alive and kicking then) wouldn't have the frame of reference to explain how this could be achieved through "natural philosophy". (Although it might get him thinking, he was by all accounts quite clever...).
Our current observations of the universe and the derived suite of physical laws are probably not "wrong". Just like Newton's laws of physics are not "wrong" - but apply to only a certain segment of reality. As maybe the current laws of relativity, the laws of thermodynamics etc. also do...?

[Steve James]

Even Isaac Newton (alive and kicking then) wouldn't have the frame of reference to explain how this could be achieved through "natural philosophy". (Although it might get him thinking, he was by all accounts quite clever...).

Ok, the airplane would look like a big bird that doesn't flap its wings and makes noise. (Maybe I was thinking of the latest Indiana Jones movie, where Aristotle gets to see a plane). Afa Newton, though, he was an avowed alchemist, too. He looked for the Philosopher's Stone, not to mention he was really religious. If he'd seen a plane, he'd probably try to work out the physics. After all, Leonardo proposed flying machines. Afa a cellphone, though, it'd be seen as magic. My grandmother called the wired phone a "witch cord." It wasn't the phone; it was the voice coming from it.

[everything]

so if we've encountered advanced technology that seems like magic, which seems to be the claim, is it a threat? seems like that's what Congress asked, and the answer was "yes, but we cannot provide details", which makes the claims seem bogus, or should make people more worried, or if we are goldfish, maybe it seems mostly irrelevant since we cannot do anything about it (but why wouldn't everyone want to know more? why isn't it a bigger story? .... aside from the fact that our bowl is over-heating).

[Steve James]

Hawking thought it would be a mistake to contact an alien civilization -because they might be like us. If they are, and are that advanced to appear magical, they'd care for us as much as we care for other animals. We might make nice pets. So, yeah, that's a threat I'm worried about. Otoh, there's nothing here, including water, that isn't more plentiful elsewhere in the universe.

Afa security, yeah, I'd be more worried if the technology were terrestrial.

[everything]

if there were aliens "on safari" looking at us "wild animals" it'd be ok

[Giles]

Well, that's a good moment to cue a couple of "Predator" films .

...sorry for bringing down the tone of the discussion...

[everything]

hahahaha yeah true

[Dmitri]

I just read the other day that 7 out of 10 adults in the US believe in angels. What else is there to say... Humanity hasn't really changed all that much from several hundred years ago when we were burning witches and persecuting scientists for suggesting that earth might not (gasp!) be the center of the universe. Things did undoubtedly improve in many ways, but at the core, we're still the same "panicky, dangerous animals" (Agent K, Men In Black) We want conspiracies and mysteries. They're just too much fun to simply let go.

[everything]

yes it's interesting how humans (including me) love conspiracy theories. michio kaku has this theory on why:

I think that when we were in the forest that gene actually helped us because nine times out of ten that gene was wrong. Superstition didn’t work. But one time out of ten it saved your butt. That’s why the gene is still here. The gene for superstition and magic.

https://bigthink.com/questions/why-are- ... -theories/

[Steve James]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JTKxqvmn1Cs?feature=share[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JTKxqvmn ... ture=share

[yeniseri]

Reminds me of the rich man claiming he loves the god (aliens) he cannot see but hates his neighbours living next door to him!