You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
it is still faith since no data or mathematical modelling exists to support the hypothesis
Simplest mathematical modelling is this: we don't know what the probability of life occurring is, but we do know it is more than zero, so if the universe is infinite then that means there is an infinite number of life out there.
Of course, whether the universe [i]is[/i] infinite is also a matter of scientific debate and "faith". 😀
have you been following he developments with 'Tabby's Star'/'Boyajian Star'?
Yes its fascinating, bit early to say its a Dyson sphere though! It really is an interesting time for astronomy though, new techniques like direct imaging make the possibility of detecting the signatures of life on exoplanets a real possibility
IF!? there is life out there we'll find it this century, whether that's on a moon in our Solar System or on an exoplanet
It wouldn't change my view at all. It seems ludicrous to me given the size of the universe That we should cling onto the notion of only Earth supporting life.
It wouldn't change my view at all. It seems ludicrous to me given the size of the universe That we should clink onto the notion of only Earth supporting life.
OK but why? Explain the logic you use to arrive at that conclusion (not because I want to challenge it or think it's wrong but because the through process itself is revealing).
Consider this instead:
Let's suppose that life is common throughout the universe and is found at least once or twice in every galaxy that exists in the observable universe. That would mean there are billions of life forms in the universe.
But now consider that while there are billions of life forms, perhaps even civilisations, they only occur maybe once or twice in an entire galaxy. That would make the galaxy a very lonely place; you might even consider life to be exceptional rather than common.
Perhaps the most interesting philosophical idea I have (to me at least) is the notion that intelligent life, while not unique, is actually incredibly rare. That itself is monumental. If intelligent life is so very rare, and if intelligent life is defined as being the conscious thought to perpetuate, then that is the basis on which we can build universal moral absolutes without the need for messy theological ideas or doctrines.
If life is rare it is precious, and if life has an inbuilt need to sustain and perpetuate, then we are universally and morally obliged to behave or act in way that enables that to happen. That means not taking another life (the universe demands this, not 'god'), it means acting in a way that is supportive and sustaining of others; it means not screwing the planet up.
Universal morality without the need for religion is a compelling idea.
See [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ]The Drake Equation[/url]
See The Drake Equation
The Drake Equation is facile. Beyond step three in the equation we are dealing with nothing but complete speculation and guess work. The variables could, for all we know, be zero.
Now, I don't 'believe' that they are zero, much like you don't appear to believe they are zero either. But this then is my question to you; on what basis do you choose to believe that each variable after step three in the Drake Equation is greater than zero?
The variables could, for all we know, be zero.
But we know they are non-zero, because we are here.
we've never detected a Type II civilization (which should be fairly easy to spot with telescopes)
If it's sufficiently rare there could still be millions of them but they'd be so far away that their signals would still be in transit.
If it's sufficiently rare there could still be millions of them but they'd be so far away that their signals would still be in transit.
Or just lost against the general background noise.
But we know they are non-zero, because we are here.
OK, slightly pendantic post. For all we know, they could be no greater than one (rather than zero, if you're not going to count us in the equation), but I think you know that that's what I meant.
Again, I don't [i]believe[/i] that they are no greater than one, but the question is why don't I/you/we believe that?
So far we have not one iota of evidence for any kind of life anywhere other than on earth. So accepting that we cannot possible be the only genesis, that life must exist somewhere else, is based on faith.
But without proof, this isn't any different to any other unproven belief. A bit like religion really.
I think it's slightly disingenuous to suggest these are the same thing. We cannot prove that there is no life on other planets / moons any more than we can prove that there is no god; at that level they're analogous, sure.
However, the former is statistically likely, the latter statistically unlikely. From the web page I linked to earlier, it's estimated that there is a billion Earth-like planets in our own galaxy and "100 Earth-like planets for every grain of sand in the world" in the observable universe.
This is why we're open to the notion that it's possible to have extraterrestrial life (and of course, open to the idea that there isn't, too). I'm of the opinion that there probably is simply because of the numbers involved, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a belief though. More of a theory really. Actually out that there actually is like on another rock somewhere would be pretty awesome.
However, the former is statistically likely, the latter statistically unlikely
In an infinite universe, both a statistically [i]certain[/i].
Simplest mathematical modelling is this: we don't know what the probability of life occurring is, but we do know it is more than zero, so if the universe is infinite then that means there is an infinite number of life out there.
You'd have failed a maths exam with this straight away! You can't multiply anything by infinity, it's just an idea (and quite a complicated one).
You are also making the mistake of assuming a fixed non-zero probability of life, whilst allowing the assumed size of the universe to increase towards infinity.
In reality the "probability of life" would decrease as the size of the universe you assume increases (because there's only one example of Earth life distributed amongst the available planets) so in effect the two variables in your equation would cancel out and you've proved nothing.
Unless you assume there is more than one example of life... in which case you are into circular reasoning, assuming there is life on other planets to prove there is life on other planets.
I don't really see why this question is linked to religion. Seems a silly point scoring exercise to link the 2 in the first place, but ho hum..
Anyhow, is there life on other planets, imo, yes. Is there intellegent life, most likely yes, will we meet them? Most likely no, imo. The distances in the universe are too far even for communication, and I suspect evolution will take a bit more than 14 billion years to solve those issues.
I think the question moves on to space in a local sense, does it matter if these is life there, as really perhaps this is a bit of a self fulfilling question, humans have imagined life on other planets and systems, so therefore it'll happen eventually.
As I say I doubt we are alone, but in the local sense I think we may well be.
But should the question be, should we seed the universe, or at least our local bit? Start sending out capsules to inhabitable planets with life starter packs? I think that's a fairly interesting question.
HoratioHufnagel: It's a fairly abstract point, granted, but you can't have just one of something in infinity. If it is possible, no matter how remote that possibility is, then there are an infinite number of them.
(But as I said, all this presupposes that the universe is infinite, which we don't really know and seems unlikely).
I don't really see why this question is linked to religion.
Well one interesting point is that many religions, including Christianity, accept extra-terrestrial life as a key part of their belief system. It's just not labelled as such.
The Drake Equation is facile.
Well if you say so.
I'm genuinely surprised that so many people profess that they would regard the confirmation of microbial life somewhere other than earth to be a fairly lowly discovery
Largely because all it does is confirm what many people already suspect, that life if not unique to Earth. As others have said, statistics alone is enough basis for many people to be comfortable with that assumption. Is it proof? Nope but what does proving life actually do to progress mankind (over and above 1000's of more important discoveries that have been been)?
I certainly don't think it's a lowly discovery and yes it is a very important one but there are far more important discoveries that have been made and will be made than a extra-terrestrial microbial life form.
The Drake Equation is facile.
As a tool for predicting actual numbers of extraterrestrial civilisations, yes.
As a tool for helping us think about what it takes for a civilisation to form and develop to that level it is far from facile.
If life was common, we might expect it to have occurred spontaneously on earth more than once, but it hasn't as far as we know, implying life is rare.
Yeah non-DNA/RNA amino acid life might have existed and been outcompeted, but you'd expect some to hang on somewhere in rare niches. As it is, every form of life on earth is genetically linked with a common ancestor 1.3 or so bn years ago. We share 7% of our DNA with bacteria ffs.
So if life is rare, some argue that this makes our planet special and something to treasure. To be honest I think we should probably do this anyway. Whatever, I for one welcome our new microbial overlords.
If life was common, we might expect it to have occurred spontaneously on earth more than once, but it hasn't as far as we know, implying life is rare.
Not sure I understand. Once it has occurred, it has occurred hasn't it?
If life was common, we might expect it to have occurred spontaneously on earth more than once
Not necessarily. As soon as it happened it was able to spread all over the world pretty quickly, thereby consuming resources and preventing anything else from happening.
but we see blue-green algae (simplest life forms still common)and other procaryotes which evolved 3 bn years ago and are still about, in hypersaline/anaerobic environments etc. They've not been 'out evolved' and that's all there was for billions of years (I'm doing this without googling) with no evidence of other forms. It's the fact that every form of life around now had a common ancestor - you, me and a bowl of petunias - that seems surprising. this is consistent with (but certainly doesn't prove) the idea that life is rare.
In the other corner is that fact that life arouse pretty much as soon as the planet cooled enough for water. That would imply life is common. So let's have a look at Europa
If life was common, we might expect it to have occurred spontaneously on earth more than once, but it hasn't as far as we know, implying life is rare.
Two articles came up on newScientist...anyone got a subscription?
Theory seems to be that very simple life evolved many times prior to our universal common ancestor, but complex life evolved only once...
2010:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18734-why-complex-life-probably-evolved-only-once/
Well it's like the stereotypical Germans at the swimming pool. They turn up and nab all the sun loungers, the next group to arrive has nothing.
So if another chance occurence, lucky lightning strike etc created a new self replicating molecule 2bn years ago, it'd have been immediately eaten by the nearest amoeba and that would be that. In fact it might be happening all the time and the results being eaten by the teeming life forms that are now everywhere.
Logic does suggest to me if anything were able to survive the time necccessary to get here, likely it would have to be artificial mechanical some sort of android hopefully programmed to find out and report back and not to autodestruct. Then again whoever sent it might probably have self destructed in the time period.
Thanks for the NS links...
what we are talking about came long before animals or plants or even microbes. We are going right back to the start, when the only things fitting the description of “life” were little more than molecular machines. Even then, having stripped away bodies, organs and cells and reduced everything down to the essential reactions, things appear devilishly complex. At a bare minimum, life needs some kind of
Woohoo, this is getting good...
To continue reading this premium article, subscribe for unlimited access.Existing subscribers, please log in with your email address to link your account access.
APP + WEB
£29
FOR 12 ISSUES
Save 44%
Doh!
Doh!
It's worth every penny.
jimjam - Member
These "planets" are they flat, like earth?
Well, it's hypothesised that we are just one part of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, in which case there are an infinite number of options where anything is possible, so of course the universe in which you live has an earth that's flat, whereas ours obeys a set of natural laws of physics that dictate that all physical objects that form in space form into spheres, or spheroidal objects if their mass is high enough.
Does yours sit on the back of four elephants, that ride through space on the back of an enormous turtle?
unless of course we discover geothermal activity on these moons, which in itself creates problems with highly localised evolution
Isn't this already pretty well established, in that there are moons ejecting jets of sulphur and water into space, which proves they must have warm enough cores to keep these materials liquid, probably due to strong tidal effects from the extremely powerful gravitational pull of their parent planet?
Isn't this already pretty well established, in that there are moons ejecting jets of sulphur and water into space, which proves they must have warm enough cores to keep these materials liquid, probably due to strong tidal effects from the extremely powerful gravitational pull of their parent planet?
We know there must be a liquid sea beneath the ice on Europa because the cracks in the crust shift and change. That it is liquid is explained by the gravitational pull of Jupiter. I don't know what the explanation on Enceladus is but I have read that they've imaged water plumes being blasted into space.
johnx2 - Member
Never mind all that. Main thing is to get Liam Fox up there right away. Negotiating with simple unicellular extraterrestrial life but not as we know it, he might have a chance of striking some kind of deal. Or we could just send him anyway...
And since it's life-bearing, he won't need any kind of space suit or support system.
Win win.
The main sources of heat on Enceladus are thought to be a combination of tidal heating (gravitational pull of Saturn) and radioactive decay.