How smart are SETI@homers?

"Rich" wrote ...
In infinite wisdom Paul Blay answered:
"Andrew Nowicki" wrote ...
If you are making a dent in the trunk, you can estimate
how much time it will take finish the chopping.

I posit that there are people who are sometimes absent minded enough
to put on only one sock in the morning. In order to test this I get
permission to put a camera at ankle height in a ticket machine in an
underground station that has a few thousand people pass through each
day. After analysing one day's results I have found no one-sock
wearing people.

Based on these results what is the estimated time until I find a one-sock
wearer?

[massive snip]

You've missed the point which is simply that there is no way to determine
the time to observation of X based solely on having had no previous
observations of X.

Actually that's not quite right - but the statistics involved don't really prove
anything. [e.g. You could say that, based solely on having looked for 60
years and not found anything, then the chance you'll find something in the
next year is 1%]

"Rich" wrote in message
...

Snip

Or is this like Economics where you can get everything wrong for your
entire professional career and still get paid. And if an economist does
get something right one sunny day, it's Nobel prize work for sure.


(While not 100% germane to the above discussion, I just can't resist this
opening)

And if you laid all the economists in the world, end-to end, head-to-toe,
they still couldn't reach a conclusion! :-)

(O.K. - Back on topic)
--
StratR

Rich wrote:

To make your analogy more similar to the situation with SETI you'd have
to use bigfoot or perhaps the Lock Ness Monster.

Now, no matter how many nessie photos are shown to be fake, no matter
how many sonar surveys come up empty, no matter how many fish surveys
show too few fish to feed a breeding population of animals of Nessie's
purported size, the searches continue, with better and better equipment,
and they continue to come up empty.

At what point would an intelligent observer call it quits?

With SETI, we seem doomed to a similar situation.

There is one more problem: microwave beams have to be narrow
to provide enough energy density for distant receivers.
Stars and planets are in constant motion, so unless the ET
aims the beam at us for a long time, we will hear only a few
beeps. It will be difficult to tell if this was a signal from
the ET or a sophisticated prank. Science cannot deal with such
erratic data -- it needs artifacts which can be studied in
many ways for a long time. Even if we get megabytes of data
from a single ET, we cannot determine its veracity and we
cannot ask questions unless they understand our language.

A reusable flyby probe is a more reliable SETI method. The
probe can explore extrasolar planets and tell us a lot about
evolution of extraterrestrial life. It flies at about 0.2% of
the speed of light and takes advantage of gravity assist.
It flies so close to a star that gravity deflects its
trajectory by a large angle and guides it towards next star
flyby.

"Rich" wrote ...
In infinite wisdom Paul Blay answered:
"Andrew Nowicki" wrote ...
If you are making a dent in the trunk, you can estimate
how much time it will take finish the chopping.

I posit that there are people who are sometimes absent minded enough
to put on only one sock in the morning. In order to test this I get
permission to put a camera at ankle height in a ticket machine in an
underground station that has a few thousand people pass through each
day. After analysing one day's results I have found no one-sock
wearing people.

Based on these results what is the estimated time until I find a one-sock
wearer?

[massive snip]

You've missed the point which is simply that there is no way to determine
the time to observation of X based solely on having had no previous
observations of X.

Actually that's not quite right - but the statistics involved don't really prove
anything. [e.g. You could say that, based solely on having looked for 60
years and not found anything, then the chance you'll find something in the
next year is 1%]

"Rich" wrote in message
...

Snip

Or is this like Economics where you can get everything wrong for your
entire professional career and still get paid. And if an economist does
get something right one sunny day, it's Nobel prize work for sure.


(While not 100% germane to the above discussion, I just can't resist this
opening)

And if you laid all the economists in the world, end-to end, head-to-toe,
they still couldn't reach a conclusion! :-)

(O.K. - Back on topic)
--
StratR

Rich wrote:

To make your analogy more similar to the situation with SETI you'd have
to use bigfoot or perhaps the Lock Ness Monster.

Now, no matter how many nessie photos are shown to be fake, no matter
how many sonar surveys come up empty, no matter how many fish surveys
show too few fish to feed a breeding population of animals of Nessie's
purported size, the searches continue, with better and better equipment,
and they continue to come up empty.

At what point would an intelligent observer call it quits?

With SETI, we seem doomed to a similar situation.

There is one more problem: microwave beams have to be narrow
to provide enough energy density for distant receivers.
Stars and planets are in constant motion, so unless the ET
aims the beam at us for a long time, we will hear only a few
beeps. It will be difficult to tell if this was a signal from
the ET or a sophisticated prank. Science cannot deal with such
erratic data -- it needs artifacts which can be studied in
many ways for a long time. Even if we get megabytes of data
from a single ET, we cannot determine its veracity and we
cannot ask questions unless they understand our language.

A reusable flyby probe is a more reliable SETI method. The
probe can explore extrasolar planets and tell us a lot about
evolution of extraterrestrial life. It flies at about 0.2% of
the speed of light and takes advantage of gravity assist.
It flies so close to a star that gravity deflects its
trajectory by a large angle and guides it towards next star
flyby.

In infinite wisdom Paul Blay answered:
"Andrew Nowicki" wrote ...

Harold Groot wrote:

HG So if I fail to chop down a tree with a single swing of an axe, by
HG your definition I would be an idiot to continue chopping? Sure, you
HG can argue that my 2nd and subsequent swings of the axe are not
HG identical to the first....

If you are making a dent in the trunk, you can estimate
how much time it will take finish the chopping.


I posit that there are people who are sometimes absent minded enough
to put on only one sock in the morning. In order to test this I get
permission to put a camera at ankle height in a ticket machine in an
underground station that has a few thousand people pass through each
day. After analysing one day's results I have found no one-sock
wearing people.

Based on these results what is the estimated time until I find a one-sock
wearer?

Unlike SETI, people wearing one sock have actually been observed. And
there are no a priori reasons to question either their existence or
their delectability should they exist. Where are you gonna put your
camera to detect ET?

To make your analogy more similar to the situation with SETI you'd have
to use bigfoot or perhaps the Lock Ness Monster.

Now, no matter how many nessie photos are shown to be fake, no matter
how many sonar surveys come up empty, no matter how many fish surveys
show too few fish to feed a breeding population of animals of Nessie's
purported size, the searches continue, with better and better equipment,
and they continue to come up empty.

At what point would an intelligent observer call it quits?

With SETI, we seem doomed to a similar situation.

How much energy and resources are called for? Is there an upper limit?
Or is this like Economics where you can get everything wrong for your
entire professional career and still get paid. And if an economist does
get something right one sunny day, it's Nobel prize work for sure.

Rich

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote ...
Harold Groot wrote:

HG So if I fail to chop down a tree with a single swing of an axe, by
HG your definition I would be an idiot to continue chopping? Sure, you
HG can argue that my 2nd and subsequent swings of the axe are not
HG identical to the first....

If you are making a dent in the trunk, you can estimate
how much time it will take finish the chopping.

I posit that there are people who are sometimes absent minded enough
to put on only one sock in the morning. In order to test this I get
permission to put a camera at ankle height in a ticket machine in an
underground station that has a few thousand people pass through each
day. After analysing one day's results I have found no one-sock
wearing people.

Based on these results what is the estimated time until I find a one-sock
wearer?

Harold Groot wrote:

HG So if I fail to chop down a tree with a single swing of an axe, by
HG your definition I would be an idiot to continue chopping? Sure, you
HG can argue that my 2nd and subsequent swings of the axe are not
HG identical to the first....

If you are making a dent in the trunk, you can estimate
how much time it will take finish the chopping.
SETI researchers made absolutely no progress --
no dent on the tree trunk after several decades
of chopping.

HG but then again the searches now being conducted by SETI@HOME are
HG not identical to earlier searches. Different numbers of frequencies,
HG different algorithms to detect artifical signals among the noise
HG and so on. The whole "shared computing power" concept, while not
HG unique to SETI, nonetheless got a huge boost from the SETI@HOME
HG project. Even if the SETI@HOME program never finds what it is hoping
HG for, it has been very valuable in pioneering the way for other
HG scientific projects that had been stalled for lack of adequate
HG computer power...

Joann Evans wrote:
JE At what point do you decide one has 'failed' at this sort of effort?
JE One doesn't cover the Universe in a few decades of modest searching.

I would describe the universe as a big pile of dangerous trash.
Most of our terrestrial species are parasites -- a sort of
biological trash. Some of you wonder why the other civilizations
have not transformed this trash into something of greater value,
for example manufactured objects or living things. The answer is
that all values are imaginary -- everything we care about does
not have greater value than the trash.

Biological species are driven by instincts rather than reason.
Some of them colonize outer space with the help of electronics.
Advanced electronics transforms their biological civilization
into an artificial intelligence civilization. The AI civilization
is ruled by a dictator which has a very big and very powerful
brain. The AI dictator has no interest in colonizing the outer
space because independent space colonists can challenge his
authority. All the AI dictator needs is slaves that worship him
like a god. He controls his slaves so thoroughly that his death,
serious injury, or addiction to virtual narcotics dooms his
civilization.

Radio and optical search for the ET makes as much sense as the
search for the perpetual motion machine. A reasonable person
living in the 21st century does not spend his entire lifetime
trying to invent the perpetual motion machine. It is high time
the SETI people draw conclusions similar to the energy
conservation laws.

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
...
When a reasonable person fails to attain his
goal, he either abandons the goal or tries
a different method of attaining the goal.
An idiot is usually defined as someone who
responds to failure by doubling his efforts.

NASA is an ossified bureaucracy, but they are
not idiots. When their big SETI program failed,
they abandoned it. SETI@homers ignore their
failures and have little if any interest in
modifying their search method. Worse yet, they
seem to believe that some extraterrestrial
civilizations have been sending powerful
microwave beams toward the Earth for millions
of years. Why would the extraterrestrial tax
payers support such an effort? If we ever
receive their message it will say something
like: "Life is absurd. Have a happy suicide."

If you feel SETI@HOME is a waste of time and an idiotic venture, remember
participation is voluntary... so happy trails to you my friend.

SC