Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[T.Lex]

We might as well call elections after the first person votes.

As long as I'm that person, I'm cool with that.

 

[T.Lex]

Mathematically, who is most likely to be right?

Me.

 

[JettaKnight]

Mathematically, who is most likely to be right?

I think that answer is obvious.

 

[jamil]

Mathematically, who is most likely to be right?

The serous answer is, I'm not a astrophysicist. If I were to take a swag, I kinda think the odds are in favor of other life. If life here is one in a billion chances, in our galaxy alone there would probably be 100 to 1 that there is. Multiply that by the other 100 billions of galaxies and, well, there you go.

As long as I'm that person, I'm cool with that.

Me.

I think that answer is obvious.

The not serious answer is Pepe. It's obvious he is right, especially now that he's a force ghost.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The serious answer is, I'm not a astrophysicist. If I were to take a swag, I kinda think the odds are in favor of other life. If life here is one in a billion chances, in our galaxy alone there would probably be 100 to 1 that there is. Multiply that by the other 100 billions of galaxies and, well, there you go.

This seems like the reasonable answer. It seems far more probable that life exists, or has existed, or may exist outside of Earth than not.

The not serious answer is Pepe. It's obvious he is right, especially now that he's a force ghost.

 

[T.Lex]

If life here is one in a billion chances, in our galaxy alone there would probably be 100 to 1 that there is. Multiply that by the other 100 billions of galaxies and, well, there you go.

So now we're dealing with numbers that are manageable.

The odds of life an earth are significantly more than 1 in a billion.

At least one (real) astrophycist estimates that Earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion event.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00690v1.pdf

That a 7 followed by 20 zeros.

I think it is a common estimate that there are 10^18 to 10^24 stars in the universe.

So, it is not too far out of the mathematical norm to suggest that Earth is "rarer" than the total number of stars.

Again, this is not "proof." This is odds-making.

 

[JettaKnight]

5K planets are a thimble compared to the pacific ocean. If you only find one tiny sea bug in that thimble, should we extrapolate that no other bugs could exist in the rest of the ocean?

Are you asking for each of those thimbles of ocean water to contain spontaneously created bugs?

 

[ATM]

Mathematically, who is most likely to be right?

The serous answer is, I'm not a astrophysicist. If I were to take a swag, I kinda think the odds are in favor of other life. If life here is one in a billion chances, in our galaxy alone there would probably be 100 to 1 that there is. Multiply that by the other 100 billions of galaxies and, well, there you go...

This seems like the reasonable answer. It seems far more probable that life exists, or has existed, or may exist outside of Earth than not.

It only seems reasonable to conclude that it becomes more probable as various multipliers are increased. I already addressed upthread how this is mathematically unsound reasoning. It is based upon an unsupported presupposition that none of the variables being multiplied may equal zero. It's an incredibly popular but flawed assumption, an unsupported belief masquerading as math.

Ha! While that is a formula, that's about all we can say for it. Do you have anything that doesn't contain variables that are SWAGs? I mean, if just one of those variables (fl, for instance) is actually zero, instead of some other assigned guess, it doesn't matter how many times or by what order of magnitude you increase all the others, N still = 0.

Well played, though.

 

[hog slayer]

a thought: the bible, to the Christians belief, is completely sufficient for us. I could accept that other life exists. However, since I'm not instructed on it in any way, I do not believe we'll ever make contact.

 

[HoughMade]

Mathematically, who is most likely to be right?

Until there is proof, statistics are pure speculation, especially since the creation of truly new life has never been observed, and thus what it would actually take to do so is also speculation. In other words, mathematics can't tell you reliable odds of something happening that you do not really know how to do. Beyond that, the truth is that there either is or is not and mathematics don't affect that one way or the other.

a thought: the bible, to the Christians belief, is completely sufficient for us. I could accept that other life exists. However, since I'm not instructed on it in any way, I do not believe we'll ever make contact.

I accept the Bible, but come to a slightly different conclusion. The Bible does not address life (sentient or not) anywhere other than on earth (other than the spiritual realm). From this, I reach no conclusions about life elsewhere other than to note that God is the same everywhere, but that does not necessarily mean He did everything the same everywhere.

 

[JettaKnight]

Life? Hard to believe that there wouldn't be. Intelligent Life? That's a whole different ballpark.

Why is it hard to believe? The only answer I ever hear is "probability". People's concept of probability is flawed - just go to Las Vegas to see that in action.



The thing is, there's not an infinite number of galaxies out there - the universe is finite. Therefore, the possibility of ET life is finite. We have this sense that life must be easy to generate from nothing, because, well, we're here right now, so... flawed concept of the probability of life.


Going off of T.Lex's numbers, 1 in 7x10^20 chance of any sort of life forming and 10^24 stars...

Let's assume that only 1 in 100 stars have a planet that's habitable...

that's 1x10^22 / 7x10^20 ...

so, there's a 15:1 chance that life forms anywhere in the universe... and it's already here, so... yeah, placed money on that bet any day of the week, but let's be honest, the numbers behind all this is conjectures and theories.

Anyone got another calculation? Admittedly, mine are quick and without a lot of basis.

 

[JettaKnight]

a thought: the bible, to the Christians belief, is completely sufficient for us. I could accept that other life exists. However, since I'm not instructed on it in any way, I do not believe we'll ever make contact.

I made a similar point upthread - I've made an assumption based on theological grounds as well as observations of the natural world. I can be proven wrong.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what fact or observation would lead a "there must be ET life" person to come to an understanding that their hypothesis is wrong. Without that, it borders on pseudoscience.

 

[HoughMade]

I...it borders on pseudoscience.

It doesn't border on pseudoscience. It is pseudoscience. Trying to figure the odds of something happening that people don't understand and have never observed is a fool's errand.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Until there is proof, statistics are pure speculation, especially since the creation of truly new life has never been observed, and thus what it would actually take to do so is also speculation. In other words, mathematics can't tell you reliable odds of something happening that you do not really know how to do. Beyond that, the truth is that there either is or is not and mathematics don't affect that one way or the other.



I accept the Bible, but come to a slightly different conclusion. The Bible does not address life (sentient or not) anywhere other than on earth (other than the spiritual realm). From this, I reach no conclusions about life elsewhere other than to note that God is the same everywhere, but that does not necessarily mean He did everything the same everywhere.

No one knows for sure, but just saying... it's more probable there is/was than not.

A betting man would err toward life outside earth.

 

[T.Lex]

Going off of T.Lex's numbers, 1 in 7x10^20 chance of any sort of life forming and 10^24 stars...

Let's assume that only 1 in 100 stars have a planet that's habitable...

that's 1x10^22 / 7x10^20 ...

so, there's a 15:1 chance that life forms anywhere in the universe... and it's already here, so... yeah, placed money on that bet any day of the week, but let's be honest, the numbers behind all this is conjectures and theories.

Anyone got another calculation? Admittedly, mine are quick and without a lot of basis.

Quick note on this - it doesn't really capture the probabilities associated with the evolutionary steps to get from primordial ooze to human existence. For that, you have to quantify not only the amino acid evolution multicellular, but things like the dinosaur kill-off which allowed for the rise of the mammals. Now, it doesn't have to allow for that specific event, but ostensibly it would take something like that.

Even if you tally that at 1x10^5 (which would be VERY conservative IMHO), it gets you to a number bigger than the estimated number of stars.

Another caveat: there may be other theoretical evolutionary paths, of course. But, we can't quantify those as we haven't seen them. (Nod to HoughMade.)

 

[jamil]

So now we're dealing with numbers that are manageable.

The odds of life an earth are significantly more than 1 in a billion.

At least one (real) astrophycist estimates that Earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion event.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00690v1.pdf

That a 7 followed by 20 zeros.

I think it is a common estimate that there are 10^18 to 10^24 stars in the universe.

So, it is not too far out of the mathematical norm to suggest that Earth is "rarer" than the total number of stars.

Again, this is not "proof." This is odds-making.

Of course it's not proof. When trying to evaluate the unknown it becomes an exercise in probabilities. But if it's proof you want, you'll have to search everywhere not to find it. I wouldn't bet the farm on the study.

"The model creates exoplanets based only on the ones we have discovered, which is an extremely small sample size that probably doesn’t provide a representative cross-section of all of the planets in existence."

Which is the whole point of the thimble analogy. The model is based upon the knowledge of the thimble we've sampled and limited to the extent we're capable of sampling it. It's obvious enough that an environment capable of supporting life is indeed rare. Rarity in itself does not imply uniqueness. Let's get a more representative sample, and then we can trust our models more.

Are you asking for each of those thimbles of ocean water to contain spontaneously created bugs?

No. Just like in the oceans we've explored, whatever life there is, it exists, however it got there. In the universe, at this point we're only trying to find it. In the vastness of the universe, we've only sampled a thimble. At some point the thimble we've sampled will have grown into a coffee mug. And then an oil tanker. And then a pond. And so on. And as our knowledge grows, we can develop a better understanding about the universe and the life in it, if Earth is the only home for life, or if there is other life out there.

 

[Alpo]

Zackrisson's paper is an excellent starting point for a discussion. However, for all of the commenters above that look askance at planets equal to Avogadro's number or mathematical models....

...Zackrisson's paper is about large numbers and a mathematical model. His model does not predict the existence of any Earth-like planetary conditions, INCLUDING Earth itself. So, having a model that is more dynamic than the Drake equation is useful, but it isn't T.Lex-certified "proof". It is just as likely that his results are orders of magnitude in error as it is that he might be right.

Models are being updated all the time on the size and density of the universe. The number of galaxies has evolved in the last 90 years from 1 to 10^4 to 10^12. The volume of the visible universe is now estimated at 4 * 10^80 m^3.

Further, it does not account for viability of life outside of Earth norms. If we find some form of life on Europa do we then start assembling a model of all of the planetary moons in a Goldilock's zone and what is a Goldilocks zone if Europa is found to harbor life?

And please don't bring the Bible into this discussion. You have your own thread for that. Most of us have avoided it, but that doesn't give you liberty to proselytize here (or use any book of fables as an authoritative source).

 

[eldirector]

Odds of life arising somewhere in the universe.... 100%.

The odds of it happening more than once are the debate.

 

[HoughMade]

No one knows for sure, but just saying... it's more probable there is/was than not.

A betting man would err toward life outside earth.

There is too much of a knowledge deficit to say one way or the other. Assuming a naturalistic inception, vastness is not enough to conclude that the conditions must have been right somewhere else....especially when what those conditions would had to have been is largely unknown.

The betting man shouldn't bet this one.

 

[jamil]

It doesn't border on pseudoscience. It is pseudoscience. Trying to figure the odds of something happening that people don't understand and have never observed is a fool's errand.

What you said in the previous post, I can say that's reasonable. But about "pseudoscience" I'll have to disagree. If science is about gaining knowledge through making guesses and then testing the guesses, it's okay if we start out knowing nothing, and then modifying the guesses as we know more. That's not pseudoscience. Now if they start making bold, declarative statements from all that, then yes. That would be pseudoscience.

But I think we're getting too wrapped up in probabilities. We're not all scientists. We're just trying to answer questions none of us are really qualified to answer. So my answer is only based on what I can surmise. Is there other life out there? I don't know. I don't know enough to declare either way. I lean towards that there likely is. But that question won't be answered in my lifetime.