Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[HoughMade]

Mr. Universe- 1973-1974

Case closed.

 

[jamil]

Doesn't it sort of depend on how you build the model of your reality T.Lex? If being the only intelligent life form on the only planet with life, which is in the middle of the universe around which all the heavens rotate, and continue to rotate since the beginning 6,000 years ago....

...well, there's a lot of butthurt potential there. Or denial.

And, perhaps more unfortunate, we allow these people to make decisions affecting others.

I guess my only issue with this is the last part. Many people were fine with electing a man who thinks nonsense like that health care and education is a right. I guess I'm okay with people believing all sorts of nonsense as long as they don't force nonsense upon me. That's a reason why I favor smaller, less powerful government.

I'll have you know, that I'm considered VERY funny by single-celled individuals. Lawyers love my humor.

I am entertained. I can't say for sure that I'm sentientertained though.

BTW, ATM, I like that word. I hope you don't mind if I use it from time to time.

Please don't clump those all together; it's a textbook straw man argument.

Two of those three have been rather easily disproved; the other is merely conjectured to be false through probability based on the current theory of the origin of life.

I don't think that's the point. It doesn't really matter if it's been disproved.

 

[Alpo]

Please don't clump those all together; it's a textbook straw man argument.

Two of those three have been rather easily disproved; the other is merely conjectured to be false through probability based on the current theory of the origin of life.

So, you build your reality with only one of the three. Use as much straw as you wish.

Certainly, there is much we don't understand, but it has become more apparent over time that the organization of particles into larger and more complex forms is the way of the universe. Sub-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules or crystal lattices, to amino acids, to proteins, to cells to organisms. Earth is not unique.

 

[T.Lex]

Earth is not unique.

So far, it is, to the maximal extent of our ability to observe.

It isn't enough that earth was formed an appropriate distance from the sun, or that something knocked a huge amount of mass out of the earth, which then coalesced into a moon at an appropriate distance to influence tides, but not succumb to the combined gravity, and not have its own rotation, but keep the same "face" toward the earth at all times, in a circular (rather than elliptical) orbit, etc.

The organization of planets/moons had to come before the organization of particles, compounds, etc.

Now, to be clear, I am not advocating (here) Intelligent Design. I am simply saying that Earth is observably unique, to us. It may not be that way forever, but when quantifying the odds, it is important to capture all the variables.

 

[Alpo]

So far, it is, to the maximal extent of our ability to observe.

I take back that Internet Win prize. Observation may provide proof, but proof is not limited to observation.

The organization of planets/moons had to come before the organization of particles, compounds, etc.

No. That is just plain wrong.

 

[JettaKnight]

So, you build your reality with only one of the three. Use as much straw as you wish.

Certainly, there is much we don't understand, but it has become more apparent over time that the organization of particles into larger and more complex forms is the way of the universe. Sub-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules or crystal lattices, to amino acids, to proteins, to cells to organisms. Earth is not unique.

The reality is:
Geocentrism was disproved long ago.
The earth is widely known to be older than 10,000 years.
No life has been found outside of Earth.


I'll stick to observations, you keep the straw - you'll need it for your conjectures.

 

[Alpo]

I'll stick with the organization of matter...and ideas.

 

[actaeon277]

Sometimes I wonder if we'll find intelligent life on earth.

 

[JettaKnight]

So, you build your reality with only one of the three. Use as much straw as you wish.

Certainly, there is much we don't understand, but it has become more apparent over time that the organization of particles into larger and more complex forms is the way of the universe. Sub-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules or crystal lattices, to amino acids, to proteins, to cells to organisms. Earth is not unique.

The reality is:
(A) Geocentrism has been disproved ~500 years ago.
(B) The earth is widely believed to over 10,000 years old.
(C) To date, no evidence for ET life has been found.

Keep your straw - you'll need it for your conjectures; I'll stick with observations.


Actually, Alpo, you might have more in common with the young earth movement than I. You see, my position can easily be disproved - ET needs only phone home. You, on the other hand, can't be dissuaded nearly as easily. Similarly, the YE movement can't be dissuaded from their theory with any amount of observation or evidence.

Here's a question: what bit (or pile) of evidence would lead you say, "we're alone."?

 

[jamil]

The reality is:
(A) Geocentrism has been disproved ~500 years ago.
(B) The earth is widely believed to over 10,000 years old.
(C) To date, no evidence for ET life has been found.

Keep your straw - you'll need it for your conjectures; I'll stick with observations.


Actually, Alpo, you might have more in common with the young earth movement than I. You see, my position can easily be disproved - ET needs only phone home. You, on the other hand, can't be dissuaded nearly as easily. Similarly, the YE movement can't be dissuaded from their theory with any amount of observation or evidence.

Here's a question: what bit (or pile) of evidence would lead you say, "we're alone."?

You can only prove a negative in a known universe of discourse. I wouldn't make any declarative statements other than to declare I don't know, or the probability seems likely or unlikely. Until other such beings are discovered it is logically as problematic to say there is no other intelligent life in the universe as it is to say there is no god in the universe. I'm content to say I don't know, and say likely or not likely for either.

 

[ATM]

I take back that Internet Win prize. Observation may provide proof, but proof is not limited to observation...

I'll decide who gets the Internet Win prizes and who is authorized to award them.

He called out the lack of basis for your claim, your lack of evidence. You have a long way to go in presenting a case that Earth is not unique, and you haven't even begun.

 

[jamil]

I'll decide who gets the Internet Win prizes and who is authorized to award them.

He called out the lack of basis for your claim, your lack of evidence. You have a long way to go in presenting a case that Earth is not unique, and you haven't even begun.

You have a long way to go in presenting a case that the earth IS unique.

 

[ATM]

You have a long way to go in presenting a case that the earth IS unique.

...if I'd made that claim.

 

[jamil]

It's as I said earlier. Declaring either is impossible at this point. At most we can assert probabilities. But. Alpo has the easier route to proving not unique. All he needs is one counter exaple. Those who claim the earth is unique have everywhere to search to find no counter examples.

 

[ATM]

It's as I said earlier. Declaring either is impossible at this point. At most we can assert probabilities. But. Alpo has the easier route to proving not unique. All he needs is one counter exaple. Those who claim the earth is unique have everywhere to search to find no counter examples.

Thus, the Internet Win is to be held in trust by T.Lex for his correct assessment of Alpo's hasty and unsupported claim.

I have spoken.

 

[Alpo]

I'll decide who gets the Internet Win prizes and who is authorized to award them.

He called out the lack of basis for your claim, your lack of evidence. You have a long way to go in presenting a case that Earth is not unique, and you haven't even begun.

It was so much quieter while you were on vacation. No pie fights. Ego's in check.

When will you leave again?

 

[ATM]

It was so much quieter while you were on vacation. No pie fights. Ego's in check.

Your ego continued to be checked in my absence, I'm not the only one around here who provides that service.

When will you leave again?

When there's nothing left that I wish to respond to.

 

[T.Lex]

I take back that Internet Win prize. Observation may provide proof, but proof is not limited to observation.

My friend, I don't disagree. But, I learned on INGO that beliefs without observation were faith/religion/superstition.

No. That is just plain wrong.

That was in reference my comment about how environments were necessary for compounds that lead to life. What about that is wrong. I suspect we can come to an agreement on a certain order for things.

Are you simply saying I'm wrong because the compounds exist on comets or asteroids?

You can only prove a negative in a known universe of discourse. I wouldn't make any declarative statements other than to declare I don't know, or the probability seems likely or unlikely. Until other such beings are discovered it is logically as problematic to say there is no other intelligent life in the universe as it is to say there is no god in the universe. I'm content to say I don't know, and say likely or not likely for either.

So where do you come down?

Does "life" (however you want to define it) exist beyond our world (and if you think so, please define what level of life you believe is likely).

It's as I said earlier. Declaring either is impossible at this point. At most we can assert probabilities. But. Alpo has the easier route to proving not unique. All he needs is one counter exaple. Those who claim the earth is unique have everywhere to search to find no counter examples.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree.

The problem is that if you accept observations as the lynchpin of science - the differentiator between the world of "known" and the world of "faith" - then we have observed no other world that actually contains life.

Now, if we define "life" in a primordial ooze of amino acids and procreation, then ok. I'll admit THAT kind of life is more probable. But, that kind of "life" does not really impact people of faith.* If we're talking sentientertaining (which will hopefully be more entertaining than network TV), then the hurdle for proof is higher, right?

So of course - those suggesting life DOES exist on other planets have it relatively easy. They only need 1. The problem is, at this timeslice of this multiverse, that 1 does not appear to exist. And, the more we learn, the more our observations suggest that the chaos that resulted in our world has not happened in the same way, anywhere else.

That means unique.

* I continue to believe God, in his infinite power and wisdom, can create other life. In fact, for those who believe in the Bible, He already has.

 

[T.Lex]

Timely article.
Probing the Atmospheres of Exoplanets for Signs of Life

We've found ~5k planets, with ~3k that have detectable atmospheres.

There's a short list of about a dozen planets that scientists refer to as "Earth-like," though nothing we've found so far even comes close to the serendipitous combination of surface liquid, a protective atmosphere, and the correct distance from a star that created our world.
...
Dr. Victoria Meadows is a professor of astronomy and Director of the Astrobiology Program at the University of Washington working to find biomarkers at places like Proxima b. "Depending on Proxima's evolutionary history, it could have a temperature range of anywhere between 254 Kelvin, too cold for life, up to 640 Kelvin, which is more of a Venus," says Meadows. "This is a planet in a habitable zone. What happens to the planet matters in its evolution. Potentially habitable, and a 'great place for life,' might not be the best place for the 'origin of life.'" Or in other words, just because conditions are good for life to exist now doesn't necessarily mean that the conditions were ever right for life to spark in the first place.

 

[Alpo]

If we start with an agreement that the universe "began" (and it is not totally agreed among the theoreticians that that is so), then fundamental forces were thought to have been fixed in the earliest phase of the universe. Although we don't always think of organization as a fundamental force it appears to be so. Usually, entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is used as the determinant, but organization does not violate entropy as the energy used in organization leads to greater entropy of the system as a whole.

Having said that, energy was rapidly organized into sub-atomic mesons, leptons, et. al, then further organized into protons and neutrons. Hydrogen formed. The first organized atom. Fusion formed larger atoms. Supernovae created more elements. I think you see where this might be headed: the universe became more organized in its multi-billion year life, entropy notwithstanding. Planetary systems, galaxies, clusters, etc.

All that could be explained by the fundamental forces along with energy. Chemistry with a little gravity thrown in. And it is no wonder that atoms formed molecules and amino acids (glycine has been detected in the dust clouds of our galaxy).

The next step, cellular structure and replication, is a huge step. But it happened here with all the cosmic forces and energy at work. It's not feasible that our planet is the only place it can occur or has occurred.

As to what has been discovered to date....well, we've just begun to look and only in our neighborhood. Most observations have been within 400 parsecs (the galaxy is approx 30 kiloparsecs in diameter and the furthest galactic star is about 40 kparsecs away) That same article states that there could be as many as 40 BILLION earth-size planets in our galaxy, and there are over 300 billion galaxies.

The numbers are just too large to think that we are the only ones.