Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2015, 06:19 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 06:01 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 05:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  These are the conditions for «Earth life». They would be similar form of life to ours and easily recognisable. Why should we assume that all life must ressemble closely that found on Earth?


You may like this one -- I read this in Omni magazine back in the 90's ---

by Terry Bisson

http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

Thanks. A nice little short story. I think its been republished several times. It sounds familiar.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
09-07-2015, 06:21 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(08-07-2015 04:26 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  According to Stephen Hawking, there are about 200 conditions that need to be present in order for life to exist.

There is substantial evidence that life does indeed exist on the earth.

If you take a deck of cards, walk into a room, and throw them into the air: it is a 100% probability that they will land in a certain configuration. Let's say, that that configuration represents the configuration of natural elements needed to support life. As said above, obviously this is what occurred on the earth (over billions of years). In no way does this suggest that the configuration was designed to produce life, but, simply, that life developed as a result of this configuration being what it was.

This is, however, an argument against this particular configuration ever occurring again, in a finite universe (or multi-verse). Perhaps, this is why SETI (or Jodie Foster) failed in their efforts to contact extraterrestrials.

What sort of life are we suggesting here? Do we mean humanoid life? Conscious creatures very much like ourselves, with creative and rational abilities, able to make moral distinctions, etc...?

If so the chances are even slimmer than that, even on an evolutionary scale such a development is one-off.

Most predictions of such life existing on other planet, don't take into account the biological factors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
09-07-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 05:14 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I'm convinced that the "there's no other life out there" type probably don't believe there's actually other COUNTRIES out there, except where they live...................

It just doesn't fit into their narrow little view of life.

It probably also explains why they tend to be "devout" and believe there's a guy who created the entire universe, and they're close personal friends.

....

Egotistical fucks.

Kind of a God you can refer to as Bubba.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like 666wannabe's post
09-07-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 07:04 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 05:14 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I'm convinced that the "there's no other life out there" type probably don't believe there's actually other COUNTRIES out there, except where they live...................

It just doesn't fit into their narrow little view of life.

It probably also explains why they tend to be "devout" and believe there's a guy who created the entire universe, and they're close personal friends.

....

Egotistical fucks.

Kind of a God you can refer to as Bubba.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous are fairly common in the universe. There are multiple energy sources throughout the universe to power chemical reactions, so that's about all we can generalize about the probability of life.

The basic constituents are there and pervasive throughout the universe. The unanswered question is -how common would complex cellular life come from these processes, that just so happens to be a pretty big unanswered question.

A number of places in the solar system have the necessary elements and energy supplies for life to occur. Here's a list of six places in our solar system that could have life:

1.Enceladus

2. Titan

3. Mars

4. Europa

5. Venus

6. Callisto and Ganymede

Now the article doesn't mention Ceres or comets, these are places that are excellent prospects for life.

We might even be adding Pluto to the list as we are about to gain a much better understanding of it as the New Horizons spacecraft flies by it.

Our best bet is to get a sample return from Mars or a good microscope on a rover there.

The other prospect might be Ceres or flying a probe through an erupting geyser on Enceladus or Europa.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
09-07-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(08-07-2015 04:26 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  This is, however, an argument against this particular configuration ever occurring again, in a finite universe (or multi-verse). Perhaps, this is why SETI (or Jodie Foster) failed in their efforts to contact extraterrestrials.

I get the feeling you're confusing two separate issues. We have a particular configuration that gave rise to life. It's possible that extraterrestrials exist but neither Jodi nor SETI have been able to contact them.

But where does the 'again' dimension come in? We're stuck with the configuration we've got. If you look at a multiverse model, their will certainly be other configurations, some of which may give rise to life, some of which won't.

But this doesn't give much information as to whether extraterrestrials exist in OUR universe. Either they do or don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jockmcdock's post
09-07-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 07:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous are fairly common in the universe. There are multiple energy sources throughout the universe to power chemical reactions, so that's about all we can generalize about the probability of life.

The basic constituents are there and pervasive throughout the universe. The unanswered question is -how common would complex cellular life come from these processes, that just so happens to be a pretty big unanswered question.

A number of places in the solar system have the necessary elements and energy supplies for life to occur. Here's a list of six places in our solar system that could have life:

1.Enceladus

2. Titan

3. Mars

4. Europa

5. Venus

6. Callisto and Ganymede

Now the article doesn't mention Ceres or comets, these are places that are excellent prospects for life.

We might even be adding Pluto to the list as we are about to gain a much better understanding of it as the New Horizons spacecraft flies by it.

Our best bet is to get a sample return from Mars or a good microscope on a rover there.

The other prospect might be Ceres or flying a probe through an erupting geyser on Enceladus or Europa.

I don't think Venus should be on that list.

Quote:The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C).

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-07-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 04:26 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  According to Stephen Hawking, there are about 200 conditions that need to be present in order for life to exist.

There is substantial evidence that life does indeed exist on the earth.

If you take a deck of cards, walk into a room, and throw them into the air: it is a 100% probability that they will land in a certain configuration. Let's say, that that configuration represents the configuration of natural elements needed to support life. As said above, obviously this is what occurred on the earth (over billions of years). In no way does this suggest that the configuration was designed to produce life, but, simply, that life developed as a result of this configuration being what it was.

This is, however, an argument against this particular configuration ever occurring again, in a finite universe (or multi-verse). Perhaps, this is why SETI (or Jodie Foster) failed in their efforts to contact extraterrestrials.

What sort of life are we suggesting here? Do we mean humanoid life? Conscious creatures very much like ourselves, with creative and rational abilities, able to make moral distinctions, etc...?

If so the chances are even slimmer than that, even on an evolutionary scale such a development is one-off.

Most predictions of such life existing on other planet, don't take into account the biological factors.

When we talk about life in the universe, we usually refer to any kind of life - anything at all. If we are talking about other intelligent life, then we specifically say "intelligent life" so that there is no confusion.

The probability that life of some kind exists somewhere other than Earth is a near certainty given the number of possible places.

The probability that there is complex life elsewhere is lower as it is contingent on more factors.

The probability that there is intelligent life elsewhere is lower still as it is contingent on still more factors.

The probability that there is humanoid life elsewhere is vanishingly small as it is contingent on an enormously long chain of contingent events..

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
09-07-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 08:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 07:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous are fairly common in the universe. There are multiple energy sources throughout the universe to power chemical reactions, so that's about all we can generalize about the probability of life.

The basic constituents are there and pervasive throughout the universe. The unanswered question is -how common would complex cellular life come from these processes, that just so happens to be a pretty big unanswered question.

A number of places in the solar system have the necessary elements and energy supplies for life to occur. Here's a list of six places in our solar system that could have life:

1.Enceladus

2. Titan

3. Mars

4. Europa

5. Venus

6. Callisto and Ganymede

Now the article doesn't mention Ceres or comets, these are places that are excellent prospects for life.

We might even be adding Pluto to the list as we are about to gain a much better understanding of it as the New Horizons spacecraft flies by it.

Our best bet is to get a sample return from Mars or a good microscope on a rover there.

The other prospect might be Ceres or flying a probe through an erupting geyser on Enceladus or Europa.

I don't think Venus should be on that list.

Quote:The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C).

Yeah, I think that's the most speculative of all of them, though there are certain areas within the atmosphere that fall within the extreme environments of Earth where they have found life.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
09-07-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 08:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  When we talk about life in the universe, we usually refer to any kind of life - anything at all. If we are talking about other intelligent life, then we specifically say "intelligent life" so that there is no confusion.

The probability that life of some kind exists somewhere other than Earth is a near certainty given the number of possible places.

It can only be near certain, if we can gather what the probability of life arising at all would be. It could just as well be true all the conditions and factors for life of any sort, not only to be able to exist, but also arising on this planet is astronomically small, that all the possible places couldn't even compete with it. Most places are extremely hostile to life existing on it. And if there were some that weren't, that doesn't particularly mean that life would inevitably rise on it. I don't think we can be certain in any way shape of form about this. We can speculate that it's possible, but not with any real confidence one way or the other. Even if we're not speaking of humanoid life, which is far more unlikely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: