Lake found on Mars

[brett05]

It's more ego driven. I just simply refuse to believe* that we are the only game in town.


* Not that I believe, in any form or fashion, that we've actually been visited. I'm of the belief that no world, ours or theirs, has the technology to find out.

and entitled to believe that you are, just don't call it science.

 

[Ares]

Not exactly how statistical probability works.

I do tip my hat to modo admitting we can't prove or disprove at this point.

Did I start my post with "This is how statistical probability works..."?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

and entitled to believe that you are, just don't call it science.

Where have I said that I'm basing that belief on science? It's just an opinion. It's obviously completely unable to be proven.

 

[remydat]

The problem with theoretical science is really dependent on a good understanding of what leads up to conclusions. The theory of black holes was based from very solid understanding of the math that led to those conclusions.

With life outside of what we can observe there is no solid foundation of math to draw specific conclusions. We are missing a lot of information, and there are potentially valid competing theories such as RNA, Peptide-RNA, RNA-DNA , and several others that could change our outlook on it in the long run. Then you can factor other things such as the possibility of panspermia which opens up another can of worms.

This doesn't mean that scientists shouldn't look for it. But to say that their (probably) is or isn't life outside Earth is a bit early in the science.

If life does exist outside Earth we may find it before we understand the origin of life as we understand it. And that would still leave a shit ton of questions left to be answered.

Hence why it is theoretical. The scale of the universe and the nature of the probability is such that finding life in one part of the universe (ie Earth) means that the probability of life elsewhere is not zero. If we had a good understanding of all the ins and outs of that then it wouldn't be theoretical science.

The fact we exist in a universe this massive and that there are a **** ton of planets out there in habitable zones dictates that the probability of life outside of Earth is non zero. That is what the math and probability tell us. Period.

So not sure how you can conclude that is not science. Again, observational science is different than theoretical science. To explain that difference, it is not scientific to say God exists because we have no actual basis to make such an assertion since we have never observed an actual instance of God. We have observed an actual instance of life because we exist.

 

[Enasic]

Hence why it is theoretical. The scale of the universe and the nature of the probability is such that finding life in one part of the universe (ie Earth) means that the probability of life elsewhere is not zero. If we had a good understanding of all the ins and outs of that then it wouldn't be theoretical science.

The fact we exist in a universe this massive and that there are a **** ton of planets out there in habitable zones dictates that life outside of Earth is non zero. That is what the math and probability tell us. Period.

So not sure how you can conclude that is not science. Again, observational science is different than theoretical science. To explain that difference, it is not scientific to say God exists because we have no actual basis to make such an assertion since we have never observed an actual instance of God. We have observe an actual instance of life because we exist.

Exactly this.

And I’m still curious to hear modos opinions. The only thing I’m certain of along those lines is that science hasn’t proved life in the universe yet so we can’t make conclusions. Well...duh. Conclusions and opinions are vastly different.

 

[remydat]

The probability of a civilization developing on a potentially habitable alien planet would have to be less than one in 10 billion trillion — or one part in 10 to the 22nd power — for humanity to be the first technologically advanced species the cosmos has ever known, according to the study.

"To me, this implies that other intelligent, technology-producing species very likely have evolved before us," said lead author Adam Frank, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester in New York.

"Think of it this way: Before our result, you’d be considered a pessimist if you imagined the probability of evolving a civilization on a habitable planet was, say, one in a trillion," Frank said in a statement. "But even that guess — one chance in a trillion — implies that what has happened here on Earth with humanity has in fact happened about 10 billion other times over cosmic history."

https://www.space.com/32793-intelligent-alien-life-probability-high.html

Is this proof? No. But again the scale of the universe and simple probability is such that it is more likely that life exists somewhere else than it doesn't.

There is no basis really to try and equate a guy like Brett claiming life does not exist elsewhere as equal to someone claiming life does exist elsewhere. It would be akin to claiming that the chances I win the lottery is equal to the chance I don't win as if one doesn't understand probability.

Imagine if I had the same number 6 numbers entered into 10 billion billion billion lotteries across the universe. The chances of me hitting those 6 numbers in a single lottery is astronomically small. However, the chances of me hitting those 6 numbers in one of the 10 billion billion billion lotteries acorss the universe is higher. And so it is with life.

 

[modo]

Hence why it is theoretical. The scale of the universe and the nature of the probability is such that finding life in one part of the universe (ie Earth) means that the probability of life elsewhere is not zero. If we had a good understanding of all the ins and outs of that then it wouldn't be theoretical science.

The fact we exist in a universe this massive and that there are a **** ton of planets out there in habitable zones dictates that life outside of Earth is non zero. That is what the math and probability tell us. Period.

So not sure how you can conclude that is not science. Again, observational science is different than theoretical science. To explain that difference, it is not scientific to say God exists because we have no actual basis to make such an assertion since we have never observed an actual instance of God. We have observed an actual instance of life because we exist.

This isn't true...if this were mathematically true then we could say for certainty that there is alien life. We don't know the math on this because we don't understand enough of what we believe to be abiogenesis to say with any mathematical certainty. Its completely false to say we have enough evidence to say that mathematically life exists outside Earth. Whether the chance is non-zero or not.

What we can say is that there is enough evidence to support the theory that there is degree of probability that the Universe could support life outside of Earth but not that life does exist outside of Earth....that is a big and important distinction.

I have previously stated why the belief that life exists outside of Earth is more based on hope. Having a (sp)habitable area of the Universe is part of the equation. The other part is actual creation of life itself.

Until we understand enough of the process of creation of life itself we have no idea how important or not important the size of what we believe the habitable zone is. We don't know if the existence of life is a singular process or a near infinite process that has happened everywhere. Even in places we could not imagine.

So until we better understand the actual formation of life itself, the size and scope of the Universe is an unknowable part of the equation.

 

[remydat]

No again it is not hope. I posted the article with the probability. less than 1 to the power of 10 billion trillion is not hope. It is a statistically small chance that life does not exist. And that is for their to be advanced alien life. Thus the probability of simple alien leaf is not existing is much much much much smaller. Probability is not hope. It is math.

As for the statement you bolded, it should have read The fact we exist in a universe this massive and that there are a **** ton of planets out there in habitable zones dictates that the probability of life outside of Earth is non zero, as I was just reiterating what I already said in the first paragraph.

 

[modo]

No again it is not hope. I posted the article with the probability. less than 1 to the power of 10 billion trillion is not hope. It is a statistically small chance. And that is for their to be advanced alien life. Thus the probability of simple alien leaf is even more likely.

As for the statement you bolded, it should have read The fact we exist in a universe this massive and that there are a **** ton of planets out there in habitable zones dictates that the probability of life outside of Earth is non zero, as I was just reiterating what I already said in the first paragraph.

And the probability is meaningless. It is not taking into consideration the realistic understanding of the creation of life. We don't know what the odds are of a planet or some part of the Universe forming life. We know that is has formed, but not how. The how part throws off every single calculation of planets with life in the universe from somewhere between 1 and all of them.

The size of the Universe is pointless unless we can frame the calculation of the formation of life.

 

[xer0h0ur]

Conditions in our solar system on Earth led to carbon-based life evolving.

Conditions drastically different are required elsewhere for non-carbon-based life evolving, this is how I see it.

The Universe is huge, personally I find it childish to think we're the only life of any kind that exists.

I don't know if childish is the word. Probably more like egotistical.

 

[Ares]

I don't know if childish is the word. Probably more like egotistical.

I find it to be a childish mentality.

Children have a narrow experience of the world that leads them to form views that they are adamant about regardless of how uninformed they are.

I find the notion that life on Earth is the only life in the Universe to be childish.... uninformed... simple minded.

 

[xer0h0ur]

I find it to be a childish mentality.

Children have a narrow experience of the world that leads them to form views that they are adamant about regardless of how uninformed they are.

I find the notion that life on Earth is the only life in the Universe to be childish.... uninformed... simple minded.

Fair enough, under that definition I agree with you.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

I kind of hope we don't find life on Mars, just because of the "Great Filter" thought that goes through my head. If life(e.g. likely extremophiles) exist in Mars' salt lakes, then it means life probably forms pretty easily. In that case, the universe should be teeming with life. But, at least from our perspective, it isn't.

Is that because of our limitations currently? Is it incredibly rare for species to develop higher level thinking like humans? Are we just looking at it wrong?

And think about the fact that amount of time it took for us to go from banging rocks to make fire to going to the moon is almost nothing on the cosmic scale. There are already thoughts out there about to how to colonize galaxies. We might be hundreds, thousands of years away from that, but that,again, is nothing cosmically speaking.Also, Earth was far from the first planet to develop, so some places may have very well gotten a head start.

On the whole carbon-based thing, I think what makes carbon so crucial here is having four valence electrons so it can form four bonds with other atoms, and it's ability to not only form those bonds but form it with a number of different elements. There aren't a lot of elements that can do that, from what I know. Silicon, I think, would be another good base element.

I don't see a lot of non-silicon or carbon life forms existing. With that said, I'm no biochemist, and we don't really know how life can develop in other environments besides Earth. We don't fully understand how life came upon here on Earth in the first place.

 

[xer0h0ur]

Caveat, known elements.

 

[modo]

I kind of hope we don't find life on Mars, just because of the "Great Filter" thought that goes through my head. If life(e.g. likely extremophiles) exist in Mars' salt lakes, then it means life probably forms pretty easily. In that case, the universe should be teeming with life. But, at least from our perspective, it isn't.

Is that because of our limitations currently? Is it incredibly rare for species to develop higher level thinking like humans? Are we just looking at it wrong?

And think about the fact that amount of time it took for us to go from banging rocks to make fire to going to the moon is almost nothing on the cosmic scale. There are already thoughts out there about to how to colonize galaxies. We might be hundreds, thousands of years away from that, but that,again, is nothing cosmically speaking.Also, Earth was far from the first planet to develop, so some places may have very well gotten a head start.

On the whole carbon-based thing, I think what makes carbon so crucial here is having four valence electrons so it can form four bonds with other atoms, and it's ability to not only form those bonds but form it with a number of different elements. There aren't a lot of elements that can do that, from what I know. Silicon, I think, would be another good base element.

I don't see a lot of non-silicon or carbon life forms existing. With that said, I'm no biochemist, and we don't really know how life can develop in other environments besides Earth. We don't fully understand how life came upon here on Earth in the first place.

You have the whole odds of forming intelligent life vs non-intelligent.

If we find life on Mars it still doesn't tell the big picture. If creation is based on a panspermia event then it is possible that event only happened in our neck of the woods on some unknowable scale. If life can pop up purely based on the events of planet formation, then life could be ridiculously abundant.

Still you have the odds of intelligent life occurring.

To know all this we'd have to get more of an inkling of why it happened....

If we find life should be abundant and can realistically calculate the odds of intelligent life.......then you can fear the great filter.....

the only hope beyond the great filter on that is that the entire galactic community have all chosen to ignore us on purpose and have the technology to keep us from seeing them.....

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Caveat, known elements.

Fair, I guess, but I'm curious what elements have yet to be discovered that spontaneously exist in the universe. We've found the elements that have x number of protons up to like 120 something I think. And the most recent ones we discover are really just synthetic.

 

[remydat]

And the probability is meaningless. It is not taking into consideration the realistic understanding of the creation of life. We don't know what the odds are of a planet or some part of the Universe forming life. We know that is has formed, but not how. The how part throws off every single calculation of planets with life in the universe from somewhere between 1 and all of them.

The size of the Universe is pointless unless we can frame the calculation of the formation of life.

Lol that is just your subjective and ignorant opinion. It is ignorant because you don't have enough information so you have no basis to conclude on how meaningful or meaningless it is.

Reality happens whether you understand it or not and reality by its very nature is probabilistic because it arises from subatomic particles that are probabilistic in nature.

In short, you can't claim something is meaningless unless you completely understand it and you already admitted you don't understand it enough. You are a cave man ignorant of your own ignorance.

By contrast I make no claims regarding the probability being meaningful or meaningless. I am just telling you what the probability is which is that it is statistically improbable for life to not exist elsewhere. That is a factual statement compared to your ignorant opinion as to its meaningless.

It is like you are upset that the probability is on the side of life existing.

 

[modo]

Fair, I guess, but I'm curious what elements have yet to be discovered that spontaneously exist in the universe. We've found the elements that have x number of protons up to like 120 something I think. And the most recent ones we discover are really just synthetic.

well if we knew that they wouldn't be unknown........jk


It is possible that an unknown element could be the catalyst for life......could be some function at the quantum level......could be right in front of us in some unseen as of yet process.

 

[modo]

Lol no it is not meaningless. That is just your subjective and ignorant opinion. It is ignorant because you don't have enough information so you have no basis to conclude on how meaningful it is.

Reality happens whether you understand it or not and reality by its very nature is probabilistic because it arises from subatomic particles that are probabilistic in nature.

In short, you can't claim something is meaningless unless you completely understand it and you already admitted you don't understand it enough. You are a cave man ignorant of your own ignorant making claims you can't support.

By contrast I make no claims regarding the probability being meaningful or meaningless. I am just tell you the reality which is that it is statistically improbable for life to not exist elsewhere. It is what it is.

see the bolded part......that is my whole point.


we as a species don't understand it...not just me

 

[LordKOTL]

I'll stick with Bill Watterson's view of this: "The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it hasn't tried to contact us."

Seriously though--we even have to define life 1st, and we haven't yet. The jury is out on prions and virii.