Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Earth 2.0? (Read 20056 times)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
Or maybe even anywhere...

- a) We are alone.
- b) We aren't.
- b) it's not more probable than a)
- of course it is.
- why?
- erh... because there are many planets.
- and so what?
- erh...

I like monologues.

I would guess that's all you are----Heeeeeere's Frager!!   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #26 –
 :knight:  :cheers:
Quote from: Syav on
What are your thoughts? Any chance of alien civilization on that solar system?

Life (and I mean intelligent life), is out there.  It's just that the odds of your examples are in the 10s of billions to ones.  We are just beginning to scratch the surface Syav, so don't get excited friend--we have a long, long way to go.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #27 –
All calculations involving probabilities in order to calculate the possibility of life's existence in the universe are flawed right from the beginning.
Life it's not a matter of probability, in fact it's the least probable thing to happen. It needs much more than just chance, the size of the universe, the number of planets being totally indifferent.

That reasoning it's a consequence of the wrong idea that life appears wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup" - just a matter of time and voilá -there's life. Nope.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
All calculations involving probabilities in order to calculate the possibility of life's existence in the universe are flawed right from the beginning.
This I can agree with!
Quote from: Belfrager on
Life it's not a matter of probability, in fact it's the least probable thing to happen.
But then the poster says this silly thing!
Quote from: Belfrager on
That reasoning it's a consequence of the wrong idea that life appears wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup" - just a matter of time and voilá -there's life. Nope.
And you'd refute that — how? :)
(Jump up and down and stomp your feet! Maybe burn some people at the stake… That's what you do, isn't it?)

But until we have more evidence we don't know… (Is it not knowing that makes you so angry? :) ) Are there other intelligent peoples (…I know I'm probably the only one here who'd use this term…) as yet beyond our rockets and electromagnetic communications' range?
There may be. There may not… Be patient. (I know I'd be asking too much if I asked you to be reasonable.)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

the size of the universe, the number of planets being totally indifferent.

Don't dare to belittle His six days of hard work. :angel:

Quote from: Belfrager on

That reasoning it's a consequence of the wrong idea that life appears wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup"

Wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup" - all around there is also a "cosy primordial" cook  :)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
And you'd refute that — how?  :)
(Jump up and down and stomp your feet! Maybe burn some people at the stake… That's what you do, isn't it?)

But until we have more evidence we don't know… (Is it not knowing that makes you so angry?  :)  ) Are there other intelligent peoples (…I know I'm probably the only one here who'd use this term…) as yet beyond our rockets and electromagnetic communications' range?
There may be. There may not… Be patient. (I know I'd be asking too much if I asked you to be reasonable.

This one now believes in life's spontaneous generation... he must be at the materialist phase. Soon, he'll jump to the solipsist state, arguing with some hallucinogenic inner mental state that it's supposed to explain all the entire existence...

Interesting to note that you classify the possibility of "alien" existence exactly the same way you deny the existence to climatic alterations. Because Oakdale wants to, aliens may exist, because Oakdale wants not, climate alterations don't exist - the solipsist phase.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #32 –
Jimbro Scots Broth is the answer.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
All calculations involving probabilities in order to calculate the possibility of life's existence in the universe are flawed right from the beginning. Life it's not a matter of probability, in fact it's the least probable thing to happen. It needs much more than just chance, the size of the universe, the number of planets being totally indifferent.

Outside of your religious beliefs, how do you, Belfrager, personally know that life is 'the least probable thing to happen'?  I've never read this anywhere.  The 'right conditions' don't necessarily lead to intelligent life--I will grant you that--but with perhaps around 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 (50 quintillion) potentially habitable planets in the universe (in the goldilocks zone as estimated by the Kepler mission), there are huge odds for intelligent life being out there.  You ever been to a casino?   With these kinds of odds one could expect a very near perfect twin of Earth so many times over as to make it absurd to think intelligent life such as ours doesn't exist elsewhere. 

If you are using a philosophical reasoning to say that just because abiogenesis occurred here on Earth doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere, then you are simply overlooking the inconvenient fact that just "ONE" other incidence of "any" kind of microbial life arising independently of our lineage (solar system), would provide sufficient evidence to show that abiogenesis is not extremely rare in this universe (the odds again ya see?).  Do you wish to take the bet that we won't ever discover a single speck of life anywhere else in this universe for the duration of human existence in this universe?  Bad bet my friend. 

Did Drake get it right?   Not very likely, but it is a start, we will get better numbers for the parameters, we may eliminate some, add others, maybe come up with totally different ways of thinking about this.  But just how pessimistic would one have to be to believe that life hasn't developed on any of those other 50 quintillion planets in the habitable zone?  It is of course a slam sunk just using logic--intuitively, it is even more of a certainty.  You are a fundamentalist creationist and so you will ignore statistics/mathematics in any and every way you can--not surprising at all, or as Ersi would say "very predictable of you".    :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
This one now believes in life's spontaneous generation...

...while others believe in gods who have always existed. Doing what? Nobody knows. Ah! The mystery of it.
=========================
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
You are a fundamentalist creationist and so you will ignore statistics/mathematics in any and every way you can--not surprising at all, or as Ersi would say "very predictable of you".     :knight:    :cheers:

He hears voices and thinks they're from god.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
If you are using a philosophical reasoning to say that just because abiogenesis occurred here on Earth doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere, then you are simply overlooking the inconvenient fact that just "ONE" other incidence of "any" kind of microbial life arising independently of our lineage (solar system), would provide sufficient evidence to show that abiogenesis is not extremely rare in this universe (the odds again ya see?).  Do you wish to take the bet that we won't ever discover a single speck of life anywhere else in this universe for the duration of human existence in this universe?  Bad bet my friend.
Since we have yet to discover such a "ONE" and we have only wishful thinking to say that we know what circumstances caused this ONE event here on Earth, it is you, James, who is being silly — with statistical games that you don't understand!
Don't feel too bad: Big numbers cause a lot of ridiculous thinking…

I'd certainly like for there to be other intelligent life in the universe. And I'd like them to get in touch with us, sooner than later! But the "arguments" for such happening are mere pipe-dreams.

BTW: When you say "the odds" you must mean what most gamblers mean! No? :) My advice: Don't bet the farm, not even on a "sure thing" — you're not being rational, if you do!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
Outside of your religious beliefs, how do you, Belfrager, personally know that life is 'the least probable thing to happen'?

Because I'm aware of the required complexity to the most simple form of life to exist.
Tell me something, how does your chance or hazard system knows when to stop making random alterations? How does it "knows" that's the "right working form of life"? what a mystery indeed...
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
You are a fundamentalist creationist and so you will ignore statistics/mathematics in any and every way you can--not surprising at all, or as Ersi would say "very predictable of you".

Go travel the world instead making such ridiculous statements. Maintain your mouth shut while you travel, that's a good advice. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #38 –
The simple truth is that we don't know. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, the answer remains we don't know.

We now know that a lot of stars have planets. We conjecture that some planets may be like our own. On those planets like our own, it is possible-- whether by evolution or by creation-- that life as we know it and can understand it-- fleshly life-- exists.

It is also possible that, in the entire universe comprising untold galaxies and stars in those galaxies-- that we're it. It could be that there is no life on any planet save this one.

We don't know.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
We don't know.

We do.

We know that not only it's irrelevant the number of planets and the size of the universe to the occurrence of life but we also do know that life it's not the result of a random success and failure process.

The idea that an horde of monkeys, each with a typewriting machine, would, just by mere chance, to a certain point, write the entire text of Hamlet it's no more than a stupidity. The entire universe would not be big enough to hold the amount of paper full with the nonsense monkeys would type... and yet that's at the very base of the idea of life appearing "naturally" from some cozy primordial soup.

It must be a magic soup, the primordial one.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #40 –
In an infinite universe, everything is not only possible but inevitable.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: tt92 on
In an infinite universe, everything is not only possible but inevitable.

Another monkey typewriting Hamlet...
Intellectual pollution.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #42 –
Faith is just your measure of probability. The term insinuates the lack of concrete evidence for direction.

The exploration of the cosmos isn't so different. Drowning in possibility one has to measure their own probability.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
Faith is just your measure of probability. The term insinuates the lack of concrete evidence for direction.

Deep...
:lol:

You have to do better than that.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #44 –
In terms you understand...

I have faith there is life out there. Nothing you can say will change that.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
I have faith there is life out there. Nothing you can say will change that.

That I accept.
No pseudo science. Sorry if I didn't understood.

Sometimes I also do...
What's deep inside human beings has to be true. We need company.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #47 –
Sorry, we won't find any. The distances are mind boggling. Anything that looks suggestive will only lead to guesswork.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
Sorry, we won't find any. The distances are mind boggling. Anything that looks suggestive will only lead to guesswork.


I haven't given up on some form of life closer to home. Short of little green men of course. After you think of moons of Jupiter and Saturn that can have earth like temperatures and conditions as well as that Mars could support life beneath the surface and Venus in the upper atmosphere, you still haven't considered life may not be bound by our idea of it. Life that exists in oceans of what we think of as frozen gas and where water is to them a rock or crystal may be possible. Seems unfair to just say meh and not look first.

As far as distances... I've no idea what's possible. I may miss the truth of that. Given my cell phone would be Satan's Voodoo Box to a nineteenth and early twentieth century human, I'll assume more is possible than I know of.

Re: Earth 2.0?

Reply #49 –
I'm reminded of a short story by Alfred Bester: Time is the Traitor!
Psychopathology drives a perverse view of probability…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)