To be more precise, we don’t have the slightest clue what x is, beyond the fact that our presence means it’s non-zero.
Exactly. It’s non-zero. That’s all the information we need to presume it can and should happen somewhere else in the universe.
To say otherwise is to suggest, using my “strawman,” that our existence is completely unique in a universe of trillions of planets. The fallacy of human-centric thinking.
So, your saying that without language, we would be reduced to the capacity of great apes or some other animal? Because in regards to my point, I think that we would still thrive beyond any other current species even without language.
I didn’t say we would be just as well off as we are now either. The extent I took it to, just on a side-point, is that I think we would still be capable of civilization without language.
Well that’s because you don’t need to imagine, but over time, I think our minds would invent a different way to communicate. Humans can be wildly intelligent and tenacious. Think of Helen Keller, she was the first blind, deaf person to graduate college.
This serves to validate my main point on the matter. If we are capable of transferring more complex knowledge than any other animal from one generation to the next, then we are better off than them. Not equal to them.
The only debatable topic here, is whether or not we could create civilization (primitive) without language and I think we could.
While my biases, along with many other peoples’, are all over this thread, I want to add that I did provide as much of the unbiased raw information/numbers as I could.
Yes, I did acknowledge in my OP that life may exist in ways that we do not comprehend. We are limited to discovering life that we can actually recognize, so like you said, chemistry based life does seem to be the biggie from where we sit.
It is very interesting to think about the universe and life in it in an abstract manner or “sci-fi” like you said.
Not to start a debate, lol, but Stephen Hawking has argued that it is “perfectly rational” to assume intelligent life is out there.
Also, Brazil84 did say what he thought, although not directly. He said he “pretty much agrees with Lemur866,” referring to post #52.
Lol, I can’t imagine why anyone would not want to argue with him.
Intelligence is overrated.
Vertebrate species: 64,000
Beetle species: 350,000
But we could carve a smiley face on the moon, so I guess that makes us better.
“I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.”
- Emo Philips
Unless we assume that the universe is infinite, your assertion is inaccurate.
No, to say “we don’t know” is mathematically accurate, not human-centric. To say either “yes” or “no” requires making assumptions.
I guess it means what you mean by “civilization”, I suppose. I can’t imagine it ever getting above a very small clan level without language - not particularly above a troop of monkeys. While a lot of knowledge can be passed through just watching someone do it, it is very easily lost if that’s the only way to pass knowledge.
So shear numbers is your benchmark? In that case being multicellular is over rated.
If the observable universe has a trillion planets, and the odds of life forming on any one planet are 1 in a quadrillion, then it is very likely that Earth is the only planet with life in the observable universe. I’m using “observable universe” to mean the parts of the universe where a photon emitted from one point could eventually be absorbed by another point. Our universe might or might not be infinite, but it is certainly larger than a photon can travel across since it is expanding at greater than light speed.
So the parts of the universe we humans can experience–even if we could travel at light speed–is finite, there’s no point in worrying about what other parts of the universe or multiverse (if there is such a thing) might be like.
In that case, we’re not talking about an infinite number of planets, we’re talking about some really really large but finite number. Call it a trillion if you like. Now, consider the number y, where y=1,000,000,000,000/x. How big is y? Is it a trillion? A million? A billionth? Without a good estimate for x we have no idea what range of numbers y should be. And we absolutely do not have a good estimate for x.
The only good way to get a good estimate for x is to survey nearby exoplanets that are within the liquid water zone and see if we can detect free oxygen. This is something that we can really do within the next decade or two, and does not require the invention of new physics or 100 trillion dollar interstellar probes. Of course, if we don’t detect any free oxygen that just means that, if there is life on those planets, it is not the sort of life that generates free oxygen. But we don’t know of any geologic processes that would maintain free oxygen in an atmosphere except life, so if we do detect oxygen then it’s pretty certain that the planet would have life on it.
So then we can start getting a handle on x, which could be large or small. Maybe x is close to 1, or maybe it’s really really small. But we can’t use the presence of life on Earth to argue that x is large. That would be like an astronaut who visits Ganymede, samples the air in his space capsule, and confidently declares that he has detected life on Ganymede.
It’s nonsense to declare that since we don’t know what x is that means we believe there’s no point in trying to detect life on other planets. No, the fact that we don’t know what x is means that we have to try to detect life on other planets to get some idea of what x is.
It used to be completely unknown whether there were planets around other stars. One theory was that planets were the rare result of a near-collision between stars that resulted in the ejection of matter that clumped into planets. Then we got a better idea of how stars formed, out of nebula, and most people figured that meant planets would be very likely to form around every star. But we just didn’t know. Now with modern planet-finding techniques we are confident that planets are pretty much ubiquitous, and any star we haven’t detected planets around is just one where our current planet-finding techniques don’t work, not that the star doesn’t have planets. If we’re looking at the pole of the star rather than the equator it would be impossible to detect planets with our current methods.
But the point is, we can’t just exclaim that we know the answers when we don’t. Not knowing the answers means we should try to figure out a way to find the answer. But until we do we have to live with the ambiguity of not knowing the answer, and knowing that we don’t know the answer. That’s called science.
I will admit, if we’re the only sentient life in the universe, it does seem like quite a waste of space! But that wouldn’t be the first absurdity. The first absurdity is that there is anything at all. After that, anything else pales in comparison. So, I’m OK with the absurd.
Not really; you would have to rule out all abiotic processes that could conceivably produce an oxygen rich atmosphere - processes such as photodissociation of water. There may be numerous abiotic processes that produce free oxygen that we haven’t even thought of yet. To be certain of life it will probably to send probes to worlds that look like reasonable candidates - and even this might not work, because the chances of false positives and false negatives would probably both still be high.
Just pulling out the ‘MegaMillions’ thing I have to look at, the odds are 1:258,890,850, (assuming I read it correctly) to win. Someone (not me 
) keeps winning. 1 billion billion to one against (to use the words of the post I originally quoted) just means we won. Our existence just might be unique in a universe of trillions of planets. We have exactly zero data to decide that question. You are the one engaging in a logical fallacy, not me.
That’s not relevant, since you already admitted that your evidence is not sufficient for people to reasonably reach your conclusion. If people unreasonably reach your conclusion, why should anyone care?
Put another way, I am happy to concede that other people share your misplaced faith. So what?
I want to make sure that the weakness in your position is clear. You believe X. You admit that there is not sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude X. Therefore you are simply proclaiming your faith.
I’m not sure what difference it makes who is responsible. You claim that I made my point in a rude manner. Now you say you don’t care any more. Fine, I will continue to make my point in the same manner, if necessary.
No idea what your point is here. Do you deny that you started the discussion over whether it was rude for me to repeatedly ask you to show your math?
My rules of debate state as follows:
That’s how I do things; if you don’t like it you don’t have to engage with me. Alternatively, you could stop trying to change the subject.
What assumption is that?
No, you did by accusing me of being “obnoxious.”
Not true either. There are plenty of posts confirming this.
Can you quote the statement I misinterpreted?
Can you quote me where I did this?
Many people do, until they’re ‘banned’. The rest of us just mock him, since he’s really not worth engaging with in the first place.
Well, a prerequisite for civilization is having a system of writing. So, according to that, I’m wrong. I would think that a tribal village could be achieved because it’s not a civilization, and I still certainly think we would be far above a “troop of monkeys.” We could learn to build shelters, how to cook food, and hunt with bow and arrow in a way that no other creature does.
I also underestimated the vast definition of language. I was thinking it would be limited to the conventional version, but any form of recognizable communication is essentially language.
As a testament to human ingenuity I’ll add this:
Nicaraguan Sign Language - Wikipedia
It’s about a community of deaf people who spontaneously created a new sign-language. I guess with our level of intelligence, it impossible to not develop language at some point.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic, I can definitely see how people get banned. He purposely provokes people. I really thought I was debating with someone worth-while there for a minute. You know, I thought he was actually trying to enlighten me or make sure I knew what I was talking about, but then it turned out all he wants to do is cram his “I’m technically right” BS down your throat.
I am of two minds on the topic of extraterrestrial life.
- The argument that we are unique in the universe is part of that old line of geocentrism that has changed repeatedly throughout the ages because it always gets proven wrong. First Earth was all there was to the universe, with the sky a dome above it, the stars just holes poked in the dome through which God’s glory shone. Then Earth was part of a solar system, but we were in the middle of it and everything else, by which I mean the entire universe, rotated around Earth. Then Earth was a planet going around the sun, but the solar system was still the center of the universe.
Then the Earth was not at the center of the universe, but was the only one that was known to contain intelligent life, in fact, maybe the only planet, or one of a few very rare planets.
Then we found out there were LOTS of planets, in fact, they are common as dirt.
But perhaps planets that existed in the “Goldilocks zone” that allows life to evolve were very rare.
Well, no, now we’ve discovered that planets that are in the Goldilocks zone planets around Earthlike suns are downright commonplace.
Do you see where this is going? Geocentrism has a DISMAL track record, and the notion that we are the only intelligent life in the universe definitely fits in right along with the geocentrism. And while the race is not always to the swift and the battle is not always to the strong, that’s definitely the way to bet.
So I tend to doubt the notion that we are the only intelligent life in the universe because the argument that we are fits very comfortably with the geocentric ideas about Earth and its inhabitants, which have been proven completely wrong time and time again. This is probably just the latest iteration of geocentrism. It’s far more reasonable to suppose that life is not rare, and intelligent life, though perhaps rare, has happened often enough over the lifespan of the galaxy for it to be commonplace.
This does not constitute proof like a verifiable signal from outside the solar system, but in the absence of proof, I think it’s a pretty good reason for supposing intelligent life exists.
To my mind, the no intelligent life advocates have two powerful arguments in their camp.
One, the lack of evidence of intelligent life elsewhere. Surely some portion of intelligent life would use the radio band of the spectrum to communicate, just as we do. If intelligent life has evolved repeatedly on other worlds, why aren’t we awash in messages they’ve sent out over time? Just as our radio and TV broadcasts are now travelling to the stars at the speed of light, why shouldn’t theirs? Why are we not awash in alien TV series and talk radio programs? If not awash, why have there been absolutely no detectable alien emissions on any of the bandwidths SETI has scanned?
The fact that there are none is a strong indicator that intelligent life that can use technology is either extremely rare or nonexistent. Of course, there are a number of potential explanations for this issue, but still, it’s a serious problem that isn’t easily handwaved away.
Two, the fact that it took two billion years for multicellular life to evolve from unicellular life is another strong argument, given that life evolved almost as soon as conditions on Earth that could support life existed. Life had two billion years of swimming around in primordial seas to become multicellular but the most it could manage was large algal mats that were colonies of single celled organisms, not multicellular organisms. Considering that it took just half a billion years for multicellular organisms to colonize just about every available habitat on Earth, both in and out of water, with an incredible variety of plants and animals, it must mean that going from unicellular to multicellular must have been one HELL of jump. If it were at ALL possible, or even plausible, it should have taken one HELL of a lot less than 2 billion years to happen.
And maybe that difficulty is very rarely overcome on planets that could support intelligent life. Hence, intelligent life is exceedingly rare or nonexistent save for ourselves.
There are a lot of argument for and against all these difficulties, but in the absence of solid evidence from anywhere but Earth (except for the matter of the lack of alien signals, which is not positive evidence in itself, just lack of evidence where some evidence should definitely exist) we are all just speculating, pro alien life and anti alien life alike. And under those circumstances, I will go with the smart money and assume this latest aspect of geocentrism will get knocked on its ass just like all the others have.
Having failed on the substance; and then on the attempt to meta-debate, you now retreat to the refuge of personal attacks. Congratulations. :rolleyes:
Nicely said Evil Captor. YoungKusher you are correct on not minding that poster.
It’s conceivable that a planet could have oxygen in its atmosphere without life, since we know several icy moons have a tenuous oxygen atmosphere from photodissociation. I suppose electrodissociation from some natural fuel cell or thermodissociation from a natural nuclear reactor are plausible, but I’d be surprised if they put out enough energy on a planetary scale over geologic timescales to produce a detectable amount of oxygen. I’m having a hard time imagining how else you could generate free oxygen without either life or artificial technology of some sort.
Even in the case of photodissociation, I’m not sure that would give us terribly many false positives. Right now the only worlds we know to get a substantial fraction of their atmospheric oxygen from the photodissociation of water are icy moons in the outer solar system, which are radically different from the sort of world where we’d expect to find life. For one thing, they’re cold enough that most other elements want to be solid; oxygen has a lower melting point than nitrogen does, for example. For another, their gravity is low enough that they lose atmospheric gases rapidly over geologic time and surface ice is the only source of renewable gases. Third, there’s not much for the oxygen to react with, and it’s cold enough that it would react slowly in any case.
A large planet in the Goldilocks zone would have all sorts of gases in its atmosphere that would swamp out the oxygen from photodissociation, and there would be enough stuff to oxidize that it would get used up as quickly as it was generated. Finding an Earth-like planet in its atmosphere wouldn’t be PROOF of life without corroborating evidence, but it’d definitely be cause to break out the champagne.
A waterworld with an ice mantle would retain a photodissociated oxygen-rich atmosphere, since there would be no rocky crust to oxidise. Waterworlds may be very common - possibly more common than Earth-like planets. Even an Earth-like planet with few or no continents above sea level might retain a photodissociated oxygen atmosphere.
The only other gases in the atmosphere of a waterworld would likely to be nitrogen, carbon dioxide and argon, maybe some traces of other gases, but nothing that could readily remove oxygen.
There is a way to discriminate between and Earth-like terrestrial and a waterworld at interstellar distances by determining the density, but there is a certain amount of overlap. If waterworlds with Earth-like bulk density are common, we will get false positives. If, on the other hand, life-bearing worlds that retain an anoxygenic biosphere are common, we will get a lot of false negatives.
In short, oxygen is far from reliable as an indicator of life-bearing worlds.
My guess is that this determination would require incredibly high precision measurements, since the layer of water over the crust could be terribly thin (as it is on Earth, and would be even if we had enough water to be a water world.) I can imagine calculating the mass with great precision, but I can’t imagine observing the volume with nearly enough accuracy.
But I agree that the while the presence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere would be a strong indicator of the possibility of life, it would be far from conclusive.