have they found anything?

[amb]

I doubt very much that there may be hundreds or thousands Intelligent ETs in our galaxy.
If that is so, I ask like Fermi did. Where are they? Why aren't they here. Not one single one has so far been detected unless you believe the UFO garbage that still a fair few people seem to believe.

My stand is that because of the sheer number of stars out there, there is bound to be other intelligent lifeforms of some kind out there, but nowhere as many as people think.
I will stick my neck out and say that perhaps there may be up to 1000 at most. Living in the 10% of the habital zone of a spiral galaxy like our own. That's in the whole cosmos as far as we can detect it.
Don't forget, I'm talking about intelligent life like homo sapiens, not anything higher than primates.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I doubt very much that there may be hundreds or thousands Intelligent ETs in our galaxy.

But, don't you agree that there may be?

If not, then you're really arguing that we are unique and not that we may be unique.

This is a point I've been harping on for a while. We really don't know. I agree that we may be unique, but we also may be one of several or even one of many. If you deny the latter two positions, you're arguing that we ARE unique.

If that is so, I ask like Fermi did. Where are they? Why aren't they here. Not one single one has so far been detected unless you believe the UFO garbage that still a fair few people seem to believe.

Asked and answered. I even numbered my points, any one of which defeat this lame-ass argument. Don't bring it up unless you can address the objections I've already raised.

By the way, according to this lame-ass argument, we don't exist because we aren't everywhere in the galaxy ourselves. In fact, we're not detectable by our own technology outside of our own solar system. Yes--the "Why aren't they here?" approach is a pretty poor argument, because we do in fact exist even though we occupy only an infinitesimally small part of the galaxy.

My stand is that because of the sheer number of stars out there, there is bound to be other intelligent lifeforms of some kind out there, but nowhere as many as people think.

But what if people think (as the majority do), "We don't know"? How you can you say there are fewer than that?

I will stick my neck out and say that perhaps there may be up to 1000 at most. Living in the 10% of the habital zone of a spiral galaxy like our own. That's in the whole cosmos as far as we can detect it.
Don't forget, I'm talking about intelligent life like homo sapiens, not anything higher than primates.

Again, you're using "may be" as a hedge. If you can't admit there may also be a great many more, then I think the "may be" is just there to make your argument easier to defend.

By the way, the idea that only 10% of a galaxy like our own is habitable is unfounded speculation. It too has already been answered.

 

[amb]

But, don't you agree that there may be?

If not, then you're really arguing that we are unique and not that we may be unique.

This is a point I've been harping on for a while. We really don't know. I agree that we may be unique, but we also may be one of several or even one of many. If you deny the latter two positions, you're arguing that we ARE unique.

I would be a fool to argue against that. I could be completely out of sync with common wisdom. There may well be trillions of intelligent lifeforms in the whole cosmos. Like you say, we just don't know and unfortunately will never know in our lifetimes anyway.
But, and that's a big but. We still have no idea how or where the first cell managed to assemble itself. Better still, where did all the molecules that make up a cell start to replicate themselves? Yes I know biologists have a very good idea, but not a certain theory. Some say the elements were carried to Earth in comets ect. But if life didn't originate on Earth, all they're doing is shifting the origins elsewhere.
It must be admited that the very origin of life is like throwing a set of sixes in dice a thousand times straight.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

It must be admited that the very origin of life is like throwing a set of sixes in dice a thousand times straight.

Why must it be admitted to be such a longshot if we don't actually know for sure? I don't get it. If anything, the chemical processes seem actually downright simple and very natural. It's the latter steps that brought the universe humans that have a lot more uncertianty due to our single datapoint.

Depending on your age, we may actually know a lot more depending on the findings of Kepler.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We still have no idea how or where the first cell managed to assemble itself.

That's not true.

I offered a couple of links earlier that show we have fairly good ideas about how cells first came about. As I pointed out, natural selection kicks in about as soon as you've got a self-replicating molecule. From there on, any change that is advantageous (to reproduction) will be "selected". Variants with changes that are disadvantageous won't reproduce as successfully and disadvantageous changes will tend to disappear.

Evolution by natural selection. It really does explain how you get from a self-replicating molecule to complex organisms (including humans).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would be a fool to argue against that. I could be completely out of sync with common wisdom. There may well be trillions of intelligent lifeforms in the whole cosmos. Like you say, we just don't know and unfortunately will never know in our lifetimes anyway.

We may never know, but then again we might find out. That's also part of what not knowing means.

Yes I know biologists have a very good idea, but not a certain theory.

No special theory is necessary. Chemistry already explains how you can get self-replicating molecules. The process has been done in the lab. From there on, natural selection explains it.

Some say the elements were carried to Earth in comets ect. But if life didn't originate on Earth, all they're doing is shifting the origins elsewhere.

Yes--so this notion of life being seeded from elsewhere is not necessary (it lacks parsimony) and it fails to address the question you asked--wrt abiogenesis. So the fact that some minority of biologists think it's likely is irrelevant.

It must be admited that the very origin of life is like throwing a set of sixes in dice a thousand times straight.

Nope--not at all. Chemistry happens all the time. That's all that was required to get a self-replicating molecule. As previously shown, from there on, life adapts to fit the conditions and not the other way around.

If you google the words spontaneous assembly protein (or polypeptide), you'll see paper after paper detailing these processes.

 

[amb]

It really is a fascinating subject isn't it? There is little doubt that the discovery of a single extraterrestial microbe, if it could be shown to have evolved independently of life on Earth, would drastically alter our world view and change our society as profoundly as the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. It could truly be described as the greatest scientific discovery of all time. The effects on mankind would be awesome.
It would answer the greatest of questions. Has life spread from a single source or arisen in several places independently? An improbable accident or an inevitable result of the laws of biology and physics?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It really is a fascinating subject isn't it? There is little doubt that the discovery of a single extraterrestial microbe, if it could be shown to have evolved independently of life on Earth, would drastically alter our world view and change our society as profoundly as the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. It could truly be described as the greatest scientific discovery of all time. The effects on mankind would be awesome.
It would answer the greatest of questions. Has life spread from a single source or arisen in several places independently? An improbable accident or an inevitable result of the laws of biology and physics?

I think it's a fascinating subject, and I'm thrilled to live at a time when some of these questions can be answered, BUT, I don't think finding an alien microbe would revolutionize science. In fact, I think it fits in with the conventional view.

I also don't think the question of whether abiogenesis happened in one place and spread or happened in more than one place is the "greatest of questions". (I can think of a few that would top that!)

I completely disagree that life as the result of "an improbable accident" or "the inevitable result of the laws of biology and physics" is a legitimate question. Neither one is a testable question. Science doesn't deal in things like the intention of the universe--which is really what you're implying.

Stuff happens in nature, and we can discern rules that describe these events. To call something "an improbable accident" or "inevitable" suggests something beyond science.

Have you heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy? You shoot a small bullet from a long range into the side of a barn. Then you locate the hole the bullet made and draw a tiny circle around it. Then you ask what are the odds against that bullet landing right inside that circle. Was the bullet hitting exactly that spot "an improbably accident" or was it "inevitable"? I think it's neither, and those questions are silly.

 

[amb]

Yes I agree with you to a certain extent.
But do you believe that if the tape of the history of the universe is re-played from the B/B to today, things would be exactly as they are now? What if there was a slight weakening or strengthening of gravity? My point been, all the parameters for the evolution of the universe and eventualy us are seemingly part of this universe in a possible multi-verse of which we are one out of perhaps billions of other universes.
Occam's Razor makes this theory very possible in explaining our origins.
We may be living in the only habitual universe out of billions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes I agree with you to a certain extent.
But do you believe that if the tape of the history of the universe is re-played from the B/B to today, things would be exactly as they are now?

No, but that's just like saying if the sharpshooter took a second shot, he's extremely unlikely to hit the same bullet hole. Do you see the problem with that way of thinking?

What if there was a slight weakening or strengthening of gravity? My point been, all the parameters for the evolution of the universe and eventualy us are seemingly part of this universe in a possible multi-verse of which we are one out of perhaps billions of other universes.
Occam's Razor makes this theory very possible in explaining our origins.
We may be living in the only habitual universe out of billions.

This is the fine-tuning argument, and it really makes no sense at all.

It pretty much just says that if things were different they wouldn't be the same. Our universe seems to be fine-tuned to chemistry and life as we know it. But it's actually the other way around. (You seem to be stuck on this backward way of thinking that leads you to believe that a rare set of coincidences is necessary for things to happen.)

Even if any of the multiverse speculations (which have exactly zero empirical evidence to support them) are true, a universe with different constants than ours would be an unimaginably different universe than ours. While we couldn't exist in one of them, it doesn't mean that they need be uninhabitable.

BTW, hypothetical multiverse very clearly does violate Occam's razor. Occam's razor specifically states that you should not create unnecessary entities to explain something. The multiverse stuff is exactly that--unnecessary entities. It's fine for working on mathematical models, or speculation or sci-fi, but it really has nothing to do with the empirical world.

But if you are going to play around with that notion, there's surely no reason to say that ours is the only inhabitable one. We can't possibly have enough information to reach that conclusion.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

We may be living in the only habitual universe out of billions.

As Joe said, this is the finetuning argument. Although, one of the funny things that happens with a lot of people who make this argument is that they change one variable independent of the others. It has been shown that if the variables are changed along with each other, you can get an infite number of different configurations that would also "theroretically" support complex chemistry, and then the whole debate starts over.

I do need to dissagree with Joe on the multi-verse not being an extension of Occams razor though. While it may seem more complex from an intuitive point of view, mathematically it may be simpler. Sort of how anti-particles were discovered/therorized as a result of Dirac's equation. It may seem complex, but in the end it may indeed be the simplest answer from a cosmological sense. The universe is under no obligation to follow our conventions you know.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I do need to dissagree with Joe on the multi-verse not being an extension of Occams razor though. While it may seem more complex from an intuitive point of view, mathematically it may be simpler. Sort of how anti-particles were discovered/therorized as a result of Dirac's equation. It may seem complex, but in the end it may indeed be the simplest answer from a cosmological sense.

It is, nonetheless, the creation of new entities for which there is absolutely zero empirical evidence. That it satisfies some mathematical model is hardly evidence of the existence of the extra entities. (Mathematical models are themselves more like hypotheses. If there is no evidence to support them, there's no reason to think they're true.) And there's certainly no reason to assume other universes exist and then make arguments about the likelihood that of us being in the universe we're in.

The universe is under no obligation to follow our conventions you know.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The convention I'm referring to (Occam's razor) is about the way we come up with hypotheses. Otherwise, I'm pointing out that basing an argument (like the fine tuning argument) on the existence of entities for which there is no empirical evidence, is just silly.

The multiverse hypothesis might someday be testable, but--at least as far as I know--it is not right now.

But this topic probably should be on its own thread.

 

[amb]

The mystery of life's origin remains. I understand that if the conditions are right, life will somehow find a way to start evolving. But we still have no idea how the first molecules or elements came together to produce the first DNA, or the first RNA.
I read in my local newspaper that some scientists have stated that the production of living lifeforms in a laboratory is only around 5-10 years away, which will prove useless to this discussion as it is already existing life that is doing the experiments.
The greatest discovery in my humble opinion will be the discovery of how exactly did life originate. I know I sound like a ID believer. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm a militant atheist. A member of Atheist_Australia.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But we still have no idea how the first molecules or elements came together to produce the first DNA, or the first RNA.

That's not true.

We have some very good ideas of how that process works. I linked to some pretty good sources (see above) explaining some of these ideas --spontaneous amino acid and protein formation, etc.

And again, once you get a self-replicating molecule, natural selection can go to work.

It is not a mystery. We have a very good idea of how it probably happened.

The greatest discovery in my humble opinion will be the discovery of how exactly did life originate.

Short of time travel, I don't think that will ever exist as certain knowledge. We've already got a lot of evidence that supports the ideas I've outlined.

You know there are people who claim that fossil fuels, petroleum in particular, aren't actually formed by fossil processes? Their argument is similar to the one you're making--since we can't know exactly what happened, their abiotic theory of the origin of petroleum is equally valid. Of course, that's nonsense. We don't have to know something exactly or for certain in order to be reasonably confident by the bulk of the evidence that we are probably right, and that other ideas (that have little to no evidence) aren't equally valid.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Before I derail, AMB, have you seen the articles on the fols making artificial life? I think those are helping us with a lot of insight into the how of the first RNA and DNA.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Sorry, it made perfect sense in my brain when I typed it. Before Dirac wrote his equations, coming up with the notion of Anti-matter was probably outlandish and downright in te realm of fantasy. Now we accept anti-matter pretty much out of hand. I'm not saying that our current mathematics and understanding are at that level, and as you said, it is way beyond any testable hypotheses. However, anti-matter would seem as a bad a violation of Occam's prior to Dirac as multiverses are to us now. Maybe I'm not explaining my train of thought very well. It just seems that Occam's razor philosophy is being violated because we're ignorant? How's that?

And you are right, that is probably somethig for another thread... although... What about intelligences in those universes? If they are there, does the absense of any sort of inter-univers travellers indicates that such a possibility is rought out (infinite universes, infinite time?), or is this universe somehow unique? Oh, great, now we have a unique planet in a unique universe? WTF? (Personally, I'd say that our best understanding would indicate the former, not the latter by the way, but that's like a Homo habilis contemplating the LHC I suppose.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with your overall point about the fine-tuning argument. Basically, who says the constants of our universe are the only ones that can possibly sustain life?

Leaving the question of a multiverse for a moment, you get the same notion with amd's question that is basically, "If you ran the Big Bang over again, what are the odds against getting this exact universe?" The only thing special about our universe (in that sense) is that it's the one that happened. Just like the only thing special about the place the bullet hit is because we drew a circle around it after the fact.

 

[amb]

That's not true.

We have some very good ideas of how that process works. I linked to some pretty good sources (see above) explaining some of these ideas --spontaneous amino acid and protein formation, etc.

And again, once you get a self-replicating molecule, natural selection can go to work.

It is not a mystery. We have a very good idea of how it probably happened.


Short of time travel, I don't think that will ever exist as certain knowledge. We've already got a lot of evidence that supports the ideas I've outlined.

You know there are people who claim that fossil fuels, petroleum in particular, aren't actually formed by fossil processes? Their argument is similar to the one you're making--since we can't know exactly what happened, their abiotic theory of the origin of petroleum is equally valid. Of course, that's nonsense. We don't have to know something exactly or for certain in order to be reasonably confident by the bulk of the evidence that we are probably right, and that other ideas (that have little to no evidence) aren't equally valid.

I have read somewhere that fossil fuels are produced by the same processes that formed our planet over 4 billion years ago, not fossils at all.
And the scientist who came up with that idea [Andrew Gold ?] has never been wrong in all his research throughout his life.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have read somewhere that fossil fuels are produced by the same processes that formed our planet over 4 billion years ago, not fossils at all.
And the scientist who came up with that idea [Andrew Gold ?] has never been wrong in all his research throughout his life.

Did you perhaps miss my point?

 

[amb]

You point been that until a theory is peer reviewed and proven beyond any doubt, we are all whisteling in the dark. or better still, winking at a pretty woman in the dark. You know what you're doing, but no one else does.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Theories NEVER get proven beyond a doubt though. In order for it to be a valid theory, it has to be falsifiable. I like your analogy, but it's more out of a basis of ignorance as opposed to proven and peer reviewed. That said:

- We only have one data point, and even our understanding of that datapoint is incomplete.
- We ARE constantly surprised by how life DOES thrive in areas we would have ruled out life just a few dacades ago (boiling vents, radioactive mines, toxic pools, etc.).
- We have only searched an infitesemally teeny, tiny part of our galazy for planets.
-- Even with our methodology of only really being able to find big ones that are close to their stars, by golly we've found quite a few!
- Nearly everywhere we look, we see a lot of building blocks to make the stuff of life as we know it.
- We are just not starting to understand and figure out some of the starting processes
-- We DO understand evolution quite well though.

Given this incomplete list, I totally agree that we really don't know one way or another. However, given the stuff we DO know, the scales are tilting towards there being more out there, rather than less. Should we find evidence of life (past or even present) on Mars, Europa, or anywhere else in our own solar system, then the scales would tilt toward even more (especially if Martian or Europan life is totally independent of our own abiogenesis). Now, I will admit that I have a personal preference toward a universe and galaxy teeming with life, and even intelligent life, but I will settle for "We don't know" at this point. Just saying intelligent life then devolves into a debate of what it means to be intelligent, and even the very nature of life.

Kepler may help us with finding out more about the likelyhood of planets that match our ONE datapoint, but we are rather hamstrung by our lack of data at this point, so if nothing else, it behooves us to search for as much data as we can in all the nooks and crannies.