Wow!
In case you care, “googolplex” is the number, whereas “Googleplex” is Google’s headquarters.
Brazil hasn’t ‘banned’ anyone in a few days. He seems to be missing his ‘fix’.
lol that’s such a loaded question it doesn’t even merit an answer
You should be capable of figuring that out for yourself.
Yes, but if we can’t recognize it as life, then why does it deserve to be called “life” anyway?
If we go by your route then how do we know that aluminum cans and clouds and quartz crystals and sunspots and electrons aren’t alive? If we can’t recognize extraterrestrial life that isn’t exactly like our sort of life, then do we have good reason to say that terrestrial forks aren’t alive? I mean, we think they aren’t alive, but how would we know?
On the one hand this is arguing about semantics. We come up with a definition of life, and then see if forks meet that definition, and if so then we declare that forks are alive. But on the other hand, we can also declare that while sunspot patterns are interesting they’re not what we mean when we say “life”. And if we find out that sunspots have some interesting properties we don’t have to declare that sunspots are or are not life, we can assign them to a category of their own.
Why not? You seem to be emphasizing that you “believe” in life on other planets as if to imply that you think there is a significant chance your belief is wrong. I’m simply asking you to quantify your belief.
I’m not, since my impression is that your real objection is that I have been pointing out the flaw in your argument.
But please educate me. What would be a non-obnoxious way to make my point?
Again my questions from before:
- Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me?
No, I’m not insinuating that there is a significant chance that I’m wrong. A true belief is inherently 100% certain. The reason I don’t say I “know” is because that implies that I have proof.
Not at all. I have no problem with you pointing things out. You could have simply said, "That still does not sufficiently prove the existence of life in the Universe. True proof cannot be achieved without the knowledge of “n.” Then, at that point, you do not have to ask me to show you the math, because that would be redundant/rude/obnoxious.
So just so we are clear, you are 100% confident that there is life on other worlds?
And when you say that you lack proof, you mean that you do not have sufficient evidence from which other people should reasonably conclude that it is 100% certain?
That’s not quite my point. The point is that if you are going to make a mathematical argument, then you need to show the math. You are unable to do that because you don’t have the necessary data. Therefore your argument is flawed.
Is that sufficiently non-obnoxious for you?
Also, please answer my questions from before:
- Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me?
This topic is of sufficient interest to me that I click this thread now and then. Yet I only see something like
I’m surprised the Mods haven’t asked you gentlemen to continue your subthread in the Pit.
Meanwhile, the question arises: Can some of the probabilities of the happenstances that led to life on Earth be estimated?
-
A chemical bath led to RNA() which somehow got trapped within a membrane. The use of proteins and then DNA were evolved; organelles were captured; sexual reproduction evolved; and so on. ( - RNA itself may have been preceded by self-reproducing PNA.) Since several organelle captures were necessary for the development of advanced life, such captures might not be awfully rare. (There need to be “Goldilocks” conditions, but as a cooling planet passes through a range of parameters, chancing on a Goldilocks state might be the norm.)
-
The development of eukaryotes was followed by evolution to high-tech humans, ants, etc.
How likely were the various coincidences along the way? I don’t know, but one might try to exploit internal evidence. For example, the fact that arthropods developed into fantastic ants, while vertebrates led to humans, among many examples of life’s diversity might suggest that such evolution is likely, once eukaryotes and sex have developed. Or does it? Insects, fruit (and even worms?) need each other, and were needed for humans to develop. Could Earth’s rich panoply be a huge combination of coincidences? Perhaps; I just don’t know.
So what are the odds a star taken at random (there are about a septillion stars in the observable universe – easy for me to remember) will have a planet with life? As good as 1 in a billion? If so, there’s about a quadrillion living planets, with several dozen just in our own galaxy. If the odds are much poorer, say 1 in a quintillion, then there might be only a million living planets in the whole universe. If the odds are only a googol-to-one, than Earth is indeed an amazing one-of-a-kind item.
What are the odds? I don’t know. YoungKusher’s hunch might very well be correct, but I just don’t know.
To me it seems possible for other life to exist, but to go through the same evolution that went on earth make it sound very difficult to turn out the same way.
Oh shit. I actually think I agree with brazil here. Blake once argued with me about this, and his argument was similar to Brazil’s. Basically, the idea is, because we have no idea what makes life happen in the first place, we have no way of estimating a probability that there is life out there. For all we know, the probability is high, and for all we know, it’s so low that we are, in fact, almost certainly the only living planet in the universe. There’s just no way to tell right now.
For all we know right now, the development of life on our planet was due to an utterly incomprehensibly improbable event, some arrangement of, not just chemicals, but particular molecules just so that even given a quintillion planets chemically like ours, still would probably never happen.
And for all we know right now, the development of life on our planet just required carbon to be mixed in with phosphorus for an appropriately long amount of time. (Well, that’s probably not true, but hopefully you get the idea. For all we know it’s simple to make life happen.)
This is all premised, though, on the idea that we have “no idea how life started in the first place.” Maybe that’s overstating it. I don’t really know.
It’s a cookbook!
Well I think the problem though is that one gets the impression that we are reduced to an Aristotelian position and if it makes sense that the probabilities are not good to support the idea that there is life out there, that then we should not look for it. Of course that is not the intention but it does sound like it.
So, it is like the historical movie I saw of Galileo pointing out the Aristotelian idea to assume that bigger objects fall faster than smaller ones. He pointed out at his guests that if we follow Aristotle then we should leave a grape and the orange in the fruit bowl and not check if Aristotle was correct, but “what if we pick the fruit and let them fall at the same time?”
The look in the face of the cardinal at the other side of the table was not one of pleasure when he saw the results.
I think the point is good, the evidence is not there yet, but I do think that there is a curious rejection that there is an increase in the probability that there is life out there when compounds related to life that appear in many places in the universe and that then we found many planets in locations that would support life as we know it.
IIUC the next generation of orbital telescopes will look for the types of atmosphere many of those planets have, should we leave the fruit in the bowl?
Yupp, do you have a point?
All I did was provide what you asked for: an example of a non-obnoxious statement. I wasn’t trying to encapsulate your entire point for you.
I really don’t care at this point. You’ve become fixated on a petty detail of the discussion.
Yes of course. But first I wanted to make sure I understand your position.
Anyway, if you are 100% certain of something but you don’t have evidence which would similarly convince other people, then all you are doing is proclaiming your faith.
So congratulations on your faith.
That’s not what I asked for. I asked for this:
Please do not strawman me.
:shrug: You are the one who brought it up. But since you don’t care anymore, I will continue to make the point as before.
:shrug: You are the one who brought it up.
Also, please answer my questions from before:
- Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me?
Well, that last post really sounds like if the Cardinal had replied to Galileo. 
You know the answer to that question already. Let’s just hope they’re lizards like us.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/
Many years ago Carl Sagan talked about a fourth dimension and if there were beings existing in it we’d not be able to see them - at least that’s what I remember he said. So aliens or even “homies” could be all around us and we wouldn’t know.
Actually, the evidence I have provided does similarly convince other people:
50% of Americans share my belief and only 33% share your stance on the matter.
Also, in a documentary series, the renowned astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, argued that it is ‘perfectly rational’ to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. You should contact him and let him know that it’s not “perfectly rational” and is really just an educated guess, or better yet, just blind faith.
And I’m still not sure what your point is. Are you trying to alienate me in my belief by saying it’s nothing more than “proclaiming my faith?” I have already clearly defined my belief on this matter, so I’m not sure how telling me I’m just “proclaiming my faith” is really a valid point at this stage in the discussion. It seems more like an attempt to belittle my stance on the matter.
You say that as if you bear zero responsibility in the matter; as if you weren’t the one asking me to help you understand. Just to be clear, YOU are the one who brought up the current point of the meta-discussion. The meta-discussion’s true origin point is when you arrogantly assumed the meaning of one of my statements. Also, just to be clear, I said I don’t care because there is no reason for you to “make your point” anymore, it has already been made. Which means it would still be inappropriate for you to continue spouting the question “show me the math” here in this discussion.
Excuses are like assholes, everybody’s got one and they all stink…
You still haven’t answered my question, “Why are you dragging this out?,” you just responded to it by saying I have to answer your questions first… For some reason, in your universe, other people are required to explain themselves to you first. Even though the meta-discussion originated from a assumption of yours.
Sure, I’ll humor you.
-
It was never my “wish” to have a meta-discussion(I made that very clear several posts back so the fact that you keep asking your questions is again, obnoxious), you turned it into one when you attempted to compare my form of argument to yours. Ever since that point I have found myself, for the most part, simply responding to your comments and defending the tactics I used in the main discussion. Now that it already underway, my essential goal of the meta-discussion is to preserve the true meaning of my statements. It is disconcerting to leave someone with an inaccurate notion of what has transpired after spending a significant amount of time discussing a matter.
-
I have not been arguing with you in regards to the meta-discussion up until this post. I have essentially just been entertaining your queries and clarifying where I feel necessary or where you need it.
I think I am arguing as of this post, and my reason is, I felt obligated to make sure the subjects of the meta-discussion are clear in meaning.
I am not here to teach you the finer points of how not to be obnoxious during a discussion. That should be self-evident to anyone with common sense.
And that’s not even the point. The more important aspect of this meta-discussion is that you could have simply said, “I apologize. I wasn’t trying to be obnoxious. I was just trying to make my point.” Instead, you misinterpreted my statement and then later you chose to use an argumentative statement(also the statement that initiated the meta-discussion), by claiming I am the obnoxious one. So, rather than just cater to my peeved emotional state and continue on with the main discussion, you chose to divert guilt from you to me in a petty, defensive manner.
Of course, a lot of this is subjective. Including both of our stances in the main discussion. I just hope I have made my positions at least a little bit more clear.