Will mankind destroy itself?

[JimC]

Math is not reality.

Neither are the words we type onto this forum reality. Nor are our ideas as presented any reality. These are all merely models of reality, which is what my maths are, also. The maths is just as relevant and as much a part of the discussion as any ideas you, or anyone else puts forward.

Very true.

Mind you, much of this has to do with perception, and how an assessment of risk may or may not change behaviour. BG is not denying that an asteroid impact is possible tomorrow, just looking carefully at past events to get a perspective. Whether his perfectly valid analysis of the probabilities involved is a useful datum for anybody considering such issues is up to them.

[Red Celt]

Math is not reality.

Neither are the words we type onto this forum reality. Nor are our ideas as presented any reality.

The words are represented by on-off states on a magnetised disk, wherever the site's server is located. In that sense, they have reality. Our thoughts are similarly stored in synaptic pathways. These things are real; they are part of reality.

[JimC]

Math is not reality.

Neither are the words we type onto this forum reality. Nor are our ideas as presented any reality.

The words are represented by on-off states on a magnetised disk, wherever the site's server is located. In that sense, they have reality. Our thoughts are similarly stored in synaptic pathways. These things are real; they are part of reality.

Whatever reality we can ascribe to thoughts and words can also be ascribed to mathematical symbols and models. Neither are infallible, and all need to be viewed with a little healthy scepticism, but mathematical models can assist when humans need to decide on a course of action.

[Red Celt]

Mind you, much of this has to do with perception, and how an assessment of risk may or may not change behaviour. BG is not denying that an asteroid impact is possible tomorrow, just looking carefully at past events to get a perspective. Whether his perfectly valid analysis of the probabilities involved is a useful datum for anybody considering such issues is up to them.

Funnily enough, I grew a lot less accommodating to BG's position when my words were described as "irrational bullshit".

This has nothing to do with maths (that we can calculate), nor probabilities. For all we know, one stray lump of rock could collide with a group of other rocks, causing erratic orbits which bring 2, 3 or 23 asteroids colliding with Earth at the same time. The past history of such events does not deny the possibility of that happening. The universe doesn't work that way.

Which isn't to say that such a thing is probable... or even likely... but stating (with confidence) that it won't happen, can't happen, or is extremely unlikely to happen based purely on past events... now that truly is irrational bullshit.

[Blind groper]

Thanks for the support, Jim.

It is true that anything we present cannot be more than mere models. But models are what science is based on, and science is the closest the human mind and perception can get to reality.

To Red

I have not said "stating (with confidence) that it won't happen, can't happen", but my suggestions of probabilities are not too far from the truth. As I said, they are based on an assumption, which can be questioned, but if that assumption is anywhere near correct, then the extreme unlikelihood of those events happening within the time frames being discussed is simply correct.

Let me add that the words "irrational bullshit" referred to something you said. I have not suggested you are somehow afflicted with that normally. For all I know, you may be a very, very smart person. But when someone tells me something that is so wrong, I will respond appropriately. And you guys have been trying to say that an event that has happened twice in 200 million years is likely to happen again soon. Doh!

[JimC]

Mind you, much of this has to do with perception, and how an assessment of risk may or may not change behaviour. BG is not denying that an asteroid impact is possible tomorrow, just looking carefully at past events to get a perspective. Whether his perfectly valid analysis of the probabilities involved is a useful datum for anybody considering such issues is up to them.

Funnily enough, I grew a lot less accommodating to BG's position when my words were described as "irrational bullshit".

This has nothing to do with maths (that we can calculate), nor probabilities. For all we know, one stray lump of rock could collide with a group of other rocks, causing erratic orbits which bring 2, 3 or 23 asteroids colliding with Earth at the same time. The past history of such events does not deny the possibility of that happening. The universe doesn't work that way.

Which isn't to say that such a thing is probable... or even likely... but stating (with confidence) that it won't happen, can't happen, or is extremely unlikely to happen based purely on past events... now that truly is irrational bullshit.

BG never said that it can't happen...

But "extremely unlikely to happen based purely on past events", as long as it is stated in the correct way, is absolutely rational. The caveat is that one must set it within a given time, i.e. "in the next hundred years" etc.

But the key point is what we do with this perfectly valid bit of information. I have the feeling that you and 'Zilla are suggesting that BG is therefore dismissing any need to worry about such events, or use the possibility of such events as motivation to get humanity into space. My reading of his statements does not contain this interpretation...

Improbable as such a collision may be, it is so potentially damaging that it is certainly a valid reason to invest in monitoring of asteroids, and eventually the technology to intervene...

[Red Celt]

And you guys have been trying to say that an event that has happened twice in 200 million years is likely to happen again soon. Doh!

Jesus fuck, that isn't what we've been saying.

We aren't certain.

You are.

Therein lies the disagreement.

[JimC]

And you guys have been trying to say that an event that has happened twice in 200 million years is likely to happen again soon. Doh!

Jesus fuck, that isn't what we've been saying.

We aren't certain.

You are.

Therein lies the disagreement.

Surely you don't mean that BG is certain it's not going to happen again soon?

Because that ain't what he (or I) is saying...

[Red Celt]

Surely you don't mean that BG is certain it's not going to happen again soon?

Because that ain't what he (or I) is saying...

Yes he is. He's been saying that the odds are multiple (different figures are given each time) billions to 1 that it won't happen in the next 1000 years.

[JimC]

Surely you don't mean that BG is certain it's not going to happen again soon?

Because that ain't what he (or I) is saying...

Yes he is. He's been saying that the odds are multiple (different figures are given each time) billions to 1 that it won't happen in the next 1000 years.

Well, then you simply haven't understood that statement. That is a finite probability, which means that the event, by definition, is not impossible. Ascribing numbers (whether as odds of probabilities) does not mean "not going to happen" unless one of the numbers is zero...

And the event he is referring to is a major collision, the sort that has only happened a few times on Earth since life began (not including the chaotic early years of the solar system)

From everything I've read, the numbers are in the right ballpark. How useful they are is another matter, and depends on what purpose one has in considering the possibility...

[Red Celt]

Surely you don't mean that BG is certain it's not going to happen again soon?

Because that ain't what he (or I) is saying...

Yes he is. He's been saying that the odds are multiple (different figures are given each time) billions to 1 that it won't happen in the next 1000 years.

Well, then you simply haven't understood that statement. That is a finite probability, which means that the event, by definition, is not impossible. Ascribing numbers (whether as odds of probabilities) does not mean "not going to happen" unless one of the numbers is zero...

And the event he is referring to is a major collision, the sort that has only happened a few times on Earth since life began (not including the chaotic early years of the solar system)

From everything I've read, the numbers are in the right ballpark. How useful they are is another matter, and depends on what purpose one has in considering the possibility...

The last event was 65 million years ago. Those who know their stuff when it comes to probabilities could argue that we're due one soon, meaning that huge gap reduces the probabilities, not increases. We're working with such slim data that the use of certainties is a nonsense.

[JimC]

Red Celt wrote:

Those who know their stuff when it comes to probabilities could argue that we're due one soon

Well, I could include myself there to a degree, given teaching probability is part of my job...

In most circumstances, this is a complete fallacy. If you are rolling dice, and get a string of sixes in a row, it doesn't alter the chance of rolling a six on your next throw...

There are exceptions in rather peculiar circumstances. At a stressed fault-line, with steady pressure from plate tectonics, not having a large quake for a considerable time may signify that pressure is building, and the chances of a quake in the next year may be x amount higher than they were 10 years ago...

However, this is a circumstance where there is a physical mechanism affecting the probabilities over time, and is the exception rather than the rule.

In the case of the asteroids and other bodies within the solar system, there is no equivalent mechanism "building the strain", and so being "due for a big one", however appealing it may be, is simply wrong...

[SteveB]

It was all bright and sunny outside a few seconds ago and suddenly it went dark. It's like a giant shadow spread across the whole city. I'm on the 78th floor of my apartment building and all I see is shadow and I think it's spreading. Anyone else getting this?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Math is not reality.

Neither are the words we type onto this forum reality. Nor are our ideas as presented any reality. These are all merely models of reality, which is what my maths are, also. The maths is just as relevant and as much a part of the discussion as any ideas you, or anyone else puts forward.

Very true.

Mind you, much of this has to do with perception, and how an assessment of risk may or may not change behaviour. BG is not denying that an asteroid impact is possible tomorrow, just looking carefully at past events to get a perspective. Whether his perfectly valid analysis of the probabilities involved is a useful datum for anybody considering such issues is up to them.

He is denying it won't happen soon. Which is bullshit.

[Blind groper]

He is denying it won't happen soon. Which is bullshit.

Gawdzilla

Everything I have said is based on probabilities. I am not denying that it will happen. I am arguing that the probability of it happening soon is very, very small.

As I said, the main weakness in my argument is the assumption of one such event every 100 million years. It could be one per 200 million years or 1 per 50 million years. However, those will not change the probability to any serious level.

Based on 1 event each 100 million years, the odds of it happening within the next 1000 years are 1 in 100,000, which is pretty damn improbable. The odds of it happening tomorrow is 1 in 36.5 billion, which is vanishingly small.

Either way, there are a lot more likely disasters to worry about than another 'dinosaur killer'.