Do you believe in life elsewhere?

[BassyBill]

We can make very educated guesses about the probabilities of life on another planet. The math predicts that life, no matter what form it may take, is far from rare in the universe. .

No we can't, and no it doesn't.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

I think the assumption is that if we did encounter alien life, then it's more likely to be more advanced than us than less, just because we lack the capacity to establish such contact. That doesn't mean there couldn't be less advanced life out there as well, of course - just that it would be harder to detect. Asserting that any ET life exists with certainty, though, in whaever form, is totally unfounded.But just to speculate further...

The radio waves we've broadcast so far are still so local to us that they're not even really worth thinking about yet. They haven't even travelled a tiny fraction of the way across our own galaxy to date, and won't do so for many, many, many years.

I agree that it's interesting to reflect on the fact that it's not only distance that might isolate lifeforms, but also the vastness of time. The universe is about 14 billion years old or so, but was probably sterile for the first two-thirds of that time because the nucleogenesis of the atoms needed for the complex chemistry of self-replicating molecules wouldn't have been possible until the advent of 3rd generation star systems like our own. Still, as a species we're likely to be here for such a blink, cosmologically speaking, that expecting to see anything else briefly awake at the same time as us could be hopelessly optimistic.

Thats pretty much how i feel about the G word.


The reason why I state with rather certainty that there is life somewhere out there is that there have been bacteria like structures found in rocks on mars, i dont believe this was ever disproven or proven to be life, but that small possibility on a planet this close and then there is a huge number of planets makes is it rather hard to believe there is not a single living thing. A small bacteria cell is considered life and taking that into account i feel there is more of a chance of life then not.

I dont count life as a green blob that wants my reese pieces.

As you said we will be here so short that its really just timing, another species close to our own may flourish in the future , heck they may even come here and see our ruins or whatever, just the chance of us meeting in the same time and place is highly unlikely.

 

[Funky Ghost]

No we can't, and no it doesn't.

There are very smart people that disagree with your take on it

Taking into account the Fermi Paradox ( which seems to be what is pointed to in most of this thread either by chance or design ) The paradox is easily understood when distances between galaxies is allowed for.

Statistical math says the universe is teeming with not only life, but intelligent life.

 

[BassyBill]

There are very smart people that disagree with your take on it

Taking into account the Fermi Paradox ( which seems to be what is pointed to in most of this thread either by chance or design ) The paradox is easily understood when distances between galaxies is allowed for.

Statistical math says the universe is teeming with not only life, but intelligent life.

I'm curious - where are the stats? Genuine question, I'd like to find out more. I really would like to know how anyone can make a reliable estimate of the probability of life originating elsewhere based on one single case (our own, of course).

For example, say our planet is one a gazillion (forgive the terminology). And the probability of life arising on a planet is one in a gazillion trillion billion million. Man, we have won the lottery big time! On the other hand, if the probability of life is much higher, then the universe could get really crowded out at some point. But how do we know which scenario is right, based on a sample size of one (or thereabouts)?

 

[Gaius46]

I've read it. Good book, too, I've recommended it on here several times. The chapter "Tinkers to Evers to Chance" is the one you refer to and you have a different interpretation of that to my own. It's about Gould's view of contingency's role in the development of life here on Earth once it got under way, and says nothing at all about the repeatability or otherwise of the process elsewhere. How could it?

By the way, you need to understand that the universe is NOT infinite in order to understand the uncertainty of the Drake equation. There are lots of events you could describe that would be so improbable that you would be vanishingly unlikely to ever observe them in our tiny little universe. The origin of life could be in that category - almost.

Also, I'm not claiming equal probabilities - saying we don't know yet says nothing at all about such proportions, other than "we don't know". Why wouldn't have life arisen elsewhere? There's no answer to that at all. Regardless of probabilites, either it has, or it hasn't. The probabilites are unknown, and even if they were not, we still wouldn't know how they've played out.

All true. We don't know one way or the other and we probably can't ever know unless it turns out by chance, or because life is so ubiquitous, that we have some relatively nearby neighbors who are advanced enough for us to detect.

But considering that there are something like 10**23 stars out there (and possibly very many more) if I had to bet I'd bet that at some time and some place else in the universe life has a arisen.

 

[BassyBill]

All true. We don't know one way or the other and we probably can't ever know unless it turns out by chance, or because life is so ubiquitous, that we have some relatively nearby neighbors who are advanced enough for us to detect.

But considering that there are something like 10**23 stars out there (and possibly very many more) if I had to bet I'd bet that at some time and some place else in the universe life has a arisen.

10E23 stars - but what if the probability of life is say, 1 in every 10E85? It could be, for all we know. Then it would be even more amazing that we exist at all, and extremely improbable that such a thing has ever happened elsewhere. The reverse argument could be equally true. That's the whole point. We don't know.

 

[flypejose]

I tried to touch over this earlier, the problem isn't the correctness of the definition, but that the definition itself can change dependant on how one looks at it. I prefer to the physical science approach to the social science one. To me, it isn't anything more than a chemical reaction. The most important reactions cease, then the proteins/cells/tissues which were classified as alive, are no longer alive.

As I said in an earlier post, I think we need to disagree on this one, as we are both looking at it from different perspectives

I got your point as soon as I read it! My reaction was over the part of your comment that said

"...But to assume that what we currently know, is wrong, because there might be something more to it, isn't a sensible approach eithe..."

Students all round get told to avoid Wikipedia. It's not peer reviewed by any known authorities on the subject (and if it is, you don't know for sure). However, I think it's silly for people to completelly avoid it, because it can be a great source of references when doing an initial study of something. The reference lists on wiki articles are usually pretty good!

Actually a made a donation to Wikipedia in 2010 for the very same reasons I donate to Talkbass. For me it’s a way to acknowledge the greatness of their respective initiative.

However, when I purpose to be a bit rigorous in any discussion, I don’t give people portions of Wikipedia which are not reference lists at least. Neither do I try to persuade people by saying things like “such and such Talkbass Member say such and such bass sounds like this or that”! I know there is a possibility that it might not be accurate!

Anyway, just another clarification...

 

[DwaynieAD]

i'm pretty sure there's life across the river from me...

whether it be intelligent or not i don't know

 

[GypsyMan]

Absolutely,

We all learned that H2O is the basic building block of life. Not but a decade ago scientist were saying that IF they found water that would be an indicator of the probability of life. Everyone thought that water was a scarce resource. We now now that water is everywhere!

Not but a decade ago we didn't know if there were other planets circling distant stars!

Scientists now believe the water on our planet came from a bombardment of comets and meteorites that originated in the asteroid belt at the edge of our solar system!

Do you know what that means?! That means that the chance of life in the asteroid belt at the edge of our solar system has a higher probability of life than Earth did!

 

[Jazz Ad]

It doesn't mean that at all.
The asteroid belt isn't at the edge of our solar system. It's located between mars and jupiter. It contains a lot of water, most of it being concentrated on Ceres, the biggest asteroid, now considered a dwarf planet. Much like Europa, it has an ice crust with a potential ocean beneath.
There is a lot more to life than water. Without proper volcanism or tidal forces, without light and without big bodies other than Ceres, life in the asteroid belt is unlikely to ever have existed.

Water on Earth didn't come from anywhere. It was around when the biggest bunch of rocks started cleaning its surroundings to form the Earth. Life appeared thanks to incredibly favorable factors such as the presence of water, oxygen, an atmosphere, a strong enough magnetosphere to protect us from radiations and a perfect position to get energy from the sun without suffering from its devastating effects.

 

[TDSLaBassiste]

Our universe is far too big with far too many galaxies, each containing far too many systems and planets for there to NOT be life elsewhere.

 

[GypsyMan]

Water on Earth didn't come from anywhere. It was around when the biggest bunch of rocks started cleaning its surroundings to form the Earth

Like I said, Science is changing everything we thought we new.

New information:

Comets Created Earth's Oceans, Study Concludes | Comets & Asteroids, Water in Space | Earth's Water & Life on Earth | Space.com

Oh one last thing, The Kuiper Belt and even more distant Oort Cloud are believed to be the home of comets that orbit our sun.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[BassyBill]

Our universe is far too big with far too many galaxies, each containing far too many systems and planets for there to NOT be life elsewhere.

You're about the fifth person to make this particular assertion, and it's not necessarily true. You might find some of the rest of the thread very interesting if you read it through.

 

[Relic]

This thread.....wow... I'm not sure what to make of it.
So much back and forth, science vs superstition, belief vs skepticism...I said it before and I'll say it again - what we say, what arguments we make, no matter how intelligent we are in our assertions, no matter how educated or naive we may be...
don't mean a damn thing lads. If there's life, there's life, if there's not, there's not. Nothing we say or do will change it. Argue all you want, it's all for naught.
I chose to believe there is with no evidence which apparently makes me "superstitious and uninformed" whatever, I'll take it. Others need hard evidence to believe there is and I personally find that silly, again - whatever.
We're just teeny beings on one small planet in a universe full of more planets than we may be able to count, what we argue about doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of the universe no how.
Nighty night

 

[punkinfantry]

i believe in a thing called love

(just listen to the rhythm of my heart)

 

[chuck norriss]

I'd like to know if there is. Remarkable that Earth is the only place that will sustain life--as we know it. What little I know from college-astronomy: the universe is freakin' enormous; the Earth has water.

 

[Muaguana]

This thread.....wow... I'm not sure what to make of it.
So much back and forth, science vs superstition, belief vs skepticism...I said it before and I'll say it again - what we say, what arguments we make, no matter how intelligent we are in our assertions, no matter how educated or naive we may be...
don't mean a damn thing lads. If there's life, there's life, if there's not, there's not. Nothing we say or do will change it. Argue all you want, it's all for naught.
I chose to believe there is with no evidence which apparently makes me "superstitious and uninformed" whatever, I'll take it. Others need hard evidence to believe there is and I personally find that silly, again - whatever.
We're just teeny beings on one small planet in a universe full of more planets than we may be able to count, what we argue about doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of the universe no how.
Nighty night

If you felt the need to say this, then you apparently don't understand the position that skeptics like Munji, bassybill, etc. are taking on this issue (they'd probably agree with that statement.) I doubt they or anyone else arguing that "we don't know" actively want there to be no life in the universe; it's more a matter of being intellectually honest with ourselves than a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong, that's how the universe is." And the most honest conclusion that anyone can come to, based on what we currently know for certain, is that we don't know if life exists outside of earth. Any assumptions made about existence are just that: assumptions.

Bassybill even said that the people assuming there is no life elsewhere are just as presumptuous as those assuming there is life. So, really, the only people who are trying to force their perspective onto reality are those who assume. Or, to put it in terms relevant to this thread, those who believe.

 

[Relic]

If you felt the need to say this, then you apparently don't understand the position that skeptics like Munju, bassybill, etc. are taking on this issue (they'd probably agree with that statement.) I doubt they or anyone else arguing that "we don't know" actively want there to be no life in the universe; it's more a matter of being intellectually honest with ourselves than a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong, that's how the universe is." And the most honest conclusion that anyone can come to, based on what we currently know for certain, is that we don't know if life exists outside of earth. Any assumptions made about existence are just that: assumptions. Bassybill even said in a post that the people assuming there is no life elsewhere are just as presumptuous as those assuming there is life. So, really, the only people who are trying to force their perspective onto reality are those who assume.

You're need to respond as though I issued some sort of challenge (?) is equally as interesting. I simply raised a point that takes no side of the issue, but simply states that our opinions really don't matter. If it's there, it's there, if it's not, then it's not. I understand the points raised earlier, I personally think that it's pointless to argue. After all this thread is about opinion, no? It's mine You're welcome to yours.

 

[Muaguana]

You're need to respond as though I issued some sort of challenge (?) is equally as interesting. I simply raised a point that takes no side of the issue, but simply states that our opinions really don't matter. If it's there, it's there, if it's not, then it's not. I understand the points raised earlier, I personally think that it's pointless to argue. After all this thread is about opinion, no? It's mine You're welcome to yours.

(?) - That's precisely what I thought, as well, when you introduced the concept of a "challenge" to this exchange. What challenge, exactly, are you referring to?

 

[12bass]

Perhaps one difference is that some of us want our opinions to be as accurate as possible, based upon the available facts. That means that our personal desires must be pushed aside where our beliefs are concerned. So, for those with a critical mind, even if we personally like the idea that we are not alone in the Universe, we are unable to believe such a notion, as the evidence simply does not support it (at present).