Engineering

PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Aviator, diver, ETH maxi, nexialist | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

I really have fun in this kind of discussion, so let me jump in with this:

I have another option for you (and I'm just half joking): these are console.log().
Let me explain. Some serious theories explored the idea of us living in a simulation. Let's take it for granted we are in a simulation, just for the sake of the thought experiment.
1/n

Interesting theory, great discussion

h/t @nicom @aviationdoctor.eth

Aviator, diver, Etherean, nexialist, PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

creating and destroying; built flying cars & autonomous vehicles, now building /faust, more here: /july, web: july.rocks

The whole thing doesn’t sit well with me.

If we accept the premise (that there are incontrovertible observational data of physical objects with mass performing intentional maneuvers that defy our understanding of gravity), then it necessarily makes the agnostic position (“we can say this w/o knowing who they are”) rather untenable.

Because again, if we accept that premise, then they’re either alien craft or breakthrough human mil craft; there really isn’t any other physical phenomena that fit the data (such as meteorological events, weather balloons, sightings of Venus, etc).

The alternative is to reject the premise, and question the data as either fabricated (e.g., psyop), erroneous (e.g., sensor artefacts), or misinterpreted (e.g., human error).

So I think it boils down to: have we reached such a critical mass of independently-collected data that consistently cross-validate each other, and whose chain of custody is undisputable, that we must accept the premise? 1/n

The threat that kicked it off:

https://warpcast.com/aviationdoctor.eth/0x19c2fc53