Exoplanets

[badger2]

#42: Then the contradiction surfaces at the point of complexity (GHz) and "basic understanding." There is a "post-media" world already in the background, an esoterica: even if the Skeptic were shown the B.C. Chinese star charts, the originals, of the asterism Jizu, ' group of soldiers' located in the Constellation Lupus, as Kristeva contends in This Incredible Need to Believe), the xian goes right on believing even when they don't. We see the pathology on not claiming enough rights for oneself, in particular, the right to contradict oneself.

Even if the Skeptic knows how to perform carbon dating, how will this be verified and disseminated to the rest of human DNA? Kistemaker, The Chinese Sky During the Han.

[PopeyesPappy]

@badger2

You need to learn to use the quote tags if you want to interact with the other members of this forum. It's just plain old rude of you to expect everyone reading your posts to go back and find a previous comment you are replying to because your only reference was a reply number. You have the ability to include the text of the post you are replying to with a single click.

Observations on AtheistForums.com etiquette. - Popeye's Pappy

[Cavebear]

A nice example, but unlikely that anyone would attack us for the planetary meat.  It is more likely that they would just want to kill off the space-faring threat.  If they came and killed us all off, the rest of the biosphere would likely thrive.  Lions would be no threat to "them".

[trdsf]

Of the 6 I see number 3 as the most likely. Advanced civilizations are probably rare, and we are probably the only one in our bubble of influence at this point in time.

That depends on how you define 'advanced'.  Compared to what else is most likely out there, what we had ten thousand years ago is 'advanced', even technological in its own way.

Still, I agree, sentient culture probably is rare.  Otherwise I think even with our relatively primitive technology and half-assed efforts so far, we would have heard something demonstrably of ETI origin.

Anyway, we already know item #1 is false, at least as far as automated probes go, since one of the Voyagers is now outside the heliopause and in interstellar space.

Item #2 is statistical only.  Due to the time and space constraints it's likely, but it's not necessary.

Item #3 is highly likely due to time and space constraints.  If (as I think likely) there are only a small number of sentient cultures in the galaxy at any particular time (I peg it at 4-6), the average distance between any two is thousands of light years and the time difference between any two having comparable levels of development is profoundly variable.

Item #4 pre-supposes that there is an über-sentience out there waiting to knock down all possible rivals.  Not impossible, but not bloody likely, I don't think.  A galaxy-wide sentient civilization cannot exist without leaving some detectable trace of itself, so #4 is probably unlikely enough to be discounted.

Item #5 is tautological if technological civilizations are rare in the first place.

Item #6 is entirely possible.  Assuming the principle of mediocrity forces us to assume we are not alone in the universe at a minimum, but there's no reason we can't be the first or the only.  I think 'the only' flies in the face of statistics, but that's not demonstrated.

[Hydra009]

@badger2

You need to learn to use the quote tags if you want to interact with the other members of this forum. It's just plain old rude of you to expect everyone reading your posts to go back and find a previous comment you are replying to because your only reference was a reply number. You have the ability to include the text of the post you are replying to with a single click.

Referring to the post number is how they reply on 4chan...soo...[implying]

[Hydra009]

Item #6 is entirely possible.  Assuming the principle of mediocrity forces us to assume we are not alone in the universe at a minimum, but there's no reason we can't be the first or the only.  I think 'the only' flies in the face of statistics, but that's not demonstrated.

It's also possible that we're not the only player out there, but that we're so far apart from most other spacefaring civilizations that we're #1 in our own little corner of the universe, but not necessarily the whole universe.  Not the first in absolute terms, but the first relative to our neighbors, if that makes sense.

[trdsf]

It's also possible that we're not the only player out there, but that we're so far apart from most other spacefaring civilizations that we're #1 in our own little corner of the universe, but not necessarily the whole universe.  Not the first in absolute terms, but the first relative to our neighbors, if that makes sense.

Oh, certainly.  We could easily be the first in our galaxy, or even the first (or only) within ten thousand light years in any direction.  We just can't extrapolate from a single data point.  We don't know how easily life arises, and how often it develops into intelligence.  All we can do at this point is assume the principle of mediocrity: that we're towards the middle of the bell curve, not extremely high or low.

[Baruch]

Oh, certainly.  We could easily be the first in our galaxy, or even the first (or only) within ten thousand light years in any direction.  We just can't extrapolate from a single data point.  We don't know how easily life arises, and how often it develops into intelligence.  All we can do at this point is assume the principle of mediocrity: that we're towards the middle of the bell curve, not extremely high or low.

Economists extrapolate from a single data point '=)

[SGOS]

I am either mathematician nor a statistician but with billions and billions of galaxies out there I think there is almost a certainty there are many planets capable of sustaining life. If there is life on this planet then the probability that there are many more is almost a certainty. It just doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be others. The non-statistician in me can't imagine only one planet sustaining life in the whole universe.

The more we look, the more Earth-like planets we will find. I doubt that any of these three that you mention have life on them, but I'm certain that there is at least one other planet in the universe that has life on it.

It's not like three goldilocks planets ups the odds that much over just one.  The odds are increased by a number that is best described using scientific notation.  One of three goldilocks planet must have life?  Nah, but one of billions?  The odds start going up pretty fast. 

Suppose we discover a closer goldilocks, and then technology advances to a point where we can actually rule out life on that planet?  I would expect that, even with a similar environment to Earth.  Much of Earth's past was spent in a lifeless humdrum, and when life did start, it was non-sentient.  With sentient life existing for but a thin sliver of time.

If we could speed up time by a factor of millions and watch the entire universe through a powerful telescope, we are bound to see billions and billions of lifeless goldilocks planets, but sentience popping into existence in speeded up time would not be seen as special planets being brightly illuminated by artificial light created by sentience.  What we would see would look more like flash bulbs popping and disappearing as sentience evolves and then goes extinct.  Most of those potential goldilocks planets would be seen as inert lumps of rock devoid of sentience, just as Earth has been for most of it's existence.  So at any given moment in time, the odds of there being life during the brief period of Earth's "sentience" go down again.

I don't think we are taking into account how vexing it is to figure out exactly how life got started on earth, the only known place. If we could duplicate the process I think we'd have a better grip on the odds of it developing elsewhere. As it is now, they seem to think if a planet has water and is in the same zone as our planet life will spontaneously occur.

The vexing aspect of the problem is irrelevant.  It's vexing to scientists as well, but not so much to mathematicians that deal with statistical odds.

[Cavebear]

If we could speed up time by a factor of millions and watch the entire universe through a powerful telescope, we are bound to see billions and billions of lifeless goldilocks planets, but sentience popping into existence in speeded up time would not be seen as special planets being brightly illuminated by artificial light created by sentience.  What we would see would look more like flash bulbs popping and disappearing as sentience evolves and then goes extinct.  Most of those potential goldilocks planets would be seen as inert lumps of rock devoid of sentience, just as Earth has been for most of it's existence.  So at any given moment in time, the odds of there being life during the brief period of Earth's "sentience" go down again.
The vexing aspect of the problem is irrelevant.  It's vexing to scientists as well, but not so much to mathematicians that deal with statistical odds.

We already have a time machine.  When we look at space through distance, we are seeing into the past.  I know you know that, just pointing it out. 

I suspect that, if we could reach distant planets, we would find microbial life abundant.  The universe might actually be filled with microbes.  The real question is if microbes routinely become more complex or not.  And whether any complex structures advance to technology.  And if they don't kill themselves off immediately. 

[trdsf]

We already have a time machine.  When we look at space through distance, we are seeing into the past.  I know you know that, just pointing it out. 

I suspect that, if we could reach distant planets, we would find microbial life abundant.  The universe might actually be filled with microbes.  The real question is if microbes routinely become more complex or not.  And whether any complex structures advance to technology.  And if they don't kill themselves off immediately.

I wouldn't rule out microbial life in this solar system -- we still need to get down into the Martian permafrost, and get a rover up to the polar regions, to say nothing of the water on/in Europa and Enceladus, and possibly Ganymede and Ceres.  And of course there's the unresolved question of where the acetylene on Titan is going.

The jackpot would be Titanian life.  Not only is biological transport between Earth and Titan virtually impossible, the environment there essentially requires a completely different kind of life to be able to operate at those temperatures, in that solvent.

[Cavebear]

Agree.

[Unbeliever]

I agree about the Goldilocks zone this is why they might find life on moons around Saturn and its relatively close to us.

The word faith has gotten a bad rap and become a pejorative term meaning belief in something with either no evidence or all the evidence against it. In the real world we put faith in things because they have been reliable. We have faith in chairs to support our weight precisely because for the most part they always do. Scientists have confidence in finding life because naturalism kind of demands it. According to naturalism all this is by chance and if it happened on earth then it should happen elsewhere.

You seem to like confusing the word "faith" and the word "confidence." Confidence is not the same as faith, I think. If I sit in a chair, it's because I have confidence that it will hold my weight. But my confidence is never a guarantee that I'm right - the chair could be broken.

[Cavebear]

You seem to like confusing the word "faith" and the word "confidence." Confidence is not the same as faith, I think. If I sit in a chair, it's because I have confidence that it will hold my weight. But my confidence is never a guarantee that I'm right - the chair could be broken.

I agree.  "Confidence" has to do with evidentially expected results from experience.  Like, I sat is that chair 50 times and it always held me.  Faith is (by definition) trust without evidence. 

[Drew_2017]

You seem to like confusing the word "faith" and the word "confidence." Confidence is not the same as faith, I think. If I sit in a chair, it's because I have confidence that it will hold my weight. But my confidence is never a guarantee that I'm right - the chair could be broken.

The confusion arises because the word faith has become synonymous with believing in something regardless of evidence or even if evidence is contrary to a notion. Why do you think the geyser at Yellowstone park is called old faithful?