60 billion planets in Milky Way may contain life

[Morchella]

Some people watched too much Star Trek. Even if life was common and there were habitable planets they would more likely be hundreds of generations away traveling at below the speed of light. Einstein proved that nothing travels faster than light. I would rather live at the south pole than try to set up a home on Mars. At least there would be oxygen to breath.
It's nice to dream but I'm convinced that our species will go extinct right here on earth. We are 7 billion strong now but there is no reason t believe that we won't go the way of 99% of all species that ever existed. Interstellar travel and terra forming are and always will be just naive fantasies.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm talking about the manner in which we utilise and manipulate the elements on the periodic table in order to make things that are useful to us.

Then you're talking chemistry, which is based on universal laws of physics.

Just admit you said something silly and move on. It's easier that way.

If you think the Periodic Table is written in stone, then you don't really understand what you're dealing with.

Nice to know you're going to ignore anything that gets in the way of your rants, even your own statements.

 

[Dinwar]

It's nice to dream but I'm convinced that our species will go extinct right here on earth. We are 7 billion strong now but there is no reason t believe that we won't go the way of 99% of all species that ever existed.

Actually, in "Future Evolution" Peter Ward, a paleontologist focused on mass extinctions, provided some very well-reasoned and evidence-supported arguments supporting the notion that humans are essentially extinction-proof. We have all the characteristics of organisms that survive mass extinctions, and some traits that allow us to survive minor extinctions.

I would rather live at the south pole than try to set up a home on Mars. At least there would be oxygen to breath.

Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes. I'd love to visit Mars--there's a lot we can learn from looking at the development and geology of other planets. There are some moons of some gas giants that may be fairly comfortable as well. And honestly, after it gets below a certain temperature it doesn't matterr. I've worked in -20 degree weather (and married the woman who made me do it.....I'm not terribly bright sometimes), and one thing we had to do for safety was make sure no skin was exposed. At that point, a space suite really isn't any more cumbersome. You want to not have to carry oxygen. I want to see cool geologic structures.

Einstein proved that nothing travels faster than light.

I thought that the prevailing view of this forum was that nothing in science is ever proven.

 

[LSSBB]

Some people watched too much Star Trek. Even if life was common and there were habitable planets they would more likely be hundreds of generations away traveling at below the speed of light. Einstein proved that nothing travels faster than light. I would rather live at the south pole than try to set up a home on Mars. At least there would be oxygen to breath.
It's nice to dream but I'm convinced that our species will go extinct right here on earth. We are 7 billion strong now but there is no reason t believe that we won't go the way of 99% of all species that ever existed. Interstellar travel and terra forming are and always will be just naive fantasies.

Fine, just don't stand in the way of those who think greater things are worthy of the attempt. If we're all doomed to die here anyway, what does it matter to you on how others spend their time, if that includes spending time trying to get elsewhere?

And I think it rather arrogant to think that such attempts are naive, when the history of humankind shows constant ability to overcome apparent obstacles.

 

[McHrozni]

The Periodic Table Of The Elements is such an example. Its makeup is skewed entirely to the manner in which we're able to interact and use the elements and chemical compounds. The way our minds evolved caused us to "recognise" certain types of patterns, and the structuring of those patterns entails our bodies of knowledge.

The patterns we've made out of "what is" are extremely one-dimensional, and are put together in terms of how human perception, conditions and actions operate. The results we get are predetermined because our actions and thoughts work a certain way, as do our perceptions and our senses.

The sciences as we understand them evolved out of use, specifically our use, and each branch of science entails a chain of evidence and events, each link of which is contingent upon what it is to be human.

This would only make any sense if this advanced alien civilization wouldn't discover chemistry in any noteworthy depth. These two are pretty much incompatible.
If they did discover the laws of chemistry (which are really laws of physics of valence electrons), they would have a periodic table of elements in some form or fashion. Annotation would be completely different, but this just amounts to encryption.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I will agree that with a sample size of one, we really don't have much an idea what the real numbers are for life elsewhere. However, a recent discovery today should, IMO, increase the likelihood that life does arrive elsewhere.

Weird Quantum Tunneling Enables 'Impossible' Space Chemistry

Of course it does do that. Don't get me wrong, I think life is plentiful in the universe. But we still have little idea of what makes life from a bunch of abiotic molecules, and we should be cautious - it could be ridicolusly rare

McHrozni

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Youse is missing my point, you is, you is.

Our technology evolved out of what it is to be Human. Our tools are extensions of us.

I think you are missing the point.

Humans evolved as part of the natural world. The faculties that makes us "Human" as you put it evolved to work in the actual world.

You seem to think the human mind evolved wholly separate from the universe and that the ways we understand the universe are arbitrary and only describe our minds and are not in fact valid ways of understanding the universe.

Also, the scientific method helps us overcome the biases we have from our relatively limited environment.

The Periodic Table Of The Elements is such an example. Its makeup is skewed entirely to the manner in which we're able to interact and use the elements and chemical compounds.

The periodicy in the elements is actually part of the real universe, and is not something arbitrarily imposed by the human mind.

In fact, we don't have to guess at what sort of a system the human mind might cook up if we didn't adjust our knowledge to the evidence the universe provides. There was a time when humans thought there were only 4 elements that composed everything: fire, air, earth and water.

We'd also conceive of a universe that exists on a much more human scale (in both space and time). I know this is so because that's exactly what the human mind did. In fact, much of science has turned out to be counter-intuitive, but that doesn't put it beyond human understanding.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But we still have little idea of what makes life from a bunch of abiotic molecules, and we should be cautious - it could be ridicolusly rare

Actually, we have a pretty good idea. It's not even that difficult for a generalist to understand within 10 minutes*:



*ETA: Actually the abiogenesis explanation starts almost 3 minutes in. . . so under 7 minutes, really.

 

[Corsair 115]

Interstellar travel and terra forming are and always will be just naive fantasies.

While I would agree that humans are almost certainly trapped within our solar system, we do have a nice, big solar system to play around in with lots of interesting things to see and do. And who needs to terraform a world to gain new living space? Just build habitats directly in space - Gerard O'Neill was proposing space colonies in detail back in the 1970s. Granted, there are considerable technical challenges, but these would not seem to be insurmountable. Space habitats are certainly more plausible than some form of FTL travel, or even than normal space travel at high percentages of the speed of light.

 

[McHrozni]

Actually, we have a pretty good idea. It's not even that difficult for a generalist to understand within 10 minutes*:



*ETA: Actually the abiogenesis explanation starts almost 3 minutes in. . . so under 7 minutes, really.

It's quite convincing, yes. Sadly this still takes too much time to replicate in a lab. Note, I'm not advocating some invisible wizard from outer space (or whatever), just that many hypotheses seem very convincing when sufficiently simplified

In other words, I fully accept that an abiotic origin of life is not just possible, but the only way life came into existence in the first place (which is the point this video is adressing). But we don't know how special conditions it needs, and how likely those conditions are in the universe. We have some idea they aren't (or weren't) unlikely in the Solar system, but that's a Texas sharpshooter. We also don't know if the switch from a bunch of molecules to something we can call life is likely or not. It happened relatively quickly on Earth, so we assume it's not too unlikely. A reasonable, but unproven assumption.

McHrozni

 

[AdMan]

We can't begin to imaging alien physics and technology because they would have evolved to accommodate beings that are nothing like us.

Unless you're talking about aliens in a different universe or have a different definition of physics, you're completely wrong.

 

[gsmonks]

Unless you're talking about aliens in a different universe or have a different definition of physics, you're completely wrong.

You guys are still not getting it.

Our use of the Periodic Table is entirely contingent on two factors: 1) the environment in which they exist and 2) the amounts in which they exist.

There is also the matter of our understanding of the subatomic world, which is a collection of approximations based upon our observation.

You may be dealing with a world in which iron is as scarce as iridium and titanium is as plentiful as dirt. And you may be dealing with beings with different senses that are oriented very differently.

As a musician I can tell you that composers observed in an MRI "see" sound in their minds. When observed composing music their visual cortex is in play, the auditory centre barely at all.

The senses (that we know and understand) could work in entirely different ways in alien beings. They might have evolved to smell colour, see smells and sounds, radio echo-locate to see, perceive smells spatially in terms of distance and direction, and so on.

This is going to cause them to approach the uses of the Periodic Table in different ways from the beginning. This, in turn, is going to lead to technologies and discoveries that are wholly alien to us.

Our various built-in blindnesses, when it comes to interacting with and manipulating the natural and subatomic world, might not present the same problem for other beings.

For example, their perception of phenomena such as gravity and vacuum, might be such that they make enormous progress where we've made little or none, allowing them to delve into such areas as unraveling a full understanding of the Higg's boson that allows them to put it to full use; allows them to use neutrinos in communications and other practical areas, and allows them to develop an understanding of the subatomic world based upon fields and frequencies, and does not include a Periodic Table, which they might see as extremely limited and not very useful or practical.

Again, your view of things scientific is anthropomorphic. Everything we think we see and understand in physics is from a Human perspective.

You guys must have missed that class in "Reality vs Perception". The dogma I'm seeing here is frankly disappointing.

 

[McHrozni]

You guys are still not getting it.

Our use of the Periodic Table is entirely contingent on two factors: 1) the environment in which they exist and 2) the amounts in which they exist.

Both are false.

There is also the matter of our understanding of the subatomic world, which is a collection of approximations based upon our observation.

This is just a fancy way of saying that technologically advanced aliens may have no clue of chemistry. Possible, but rather unlikely.

The senses (that we know and understand) could work in entirely different ways in alien beings. They might have evolved to smell colour, see smells and sounds, radio echo-locate to see, perceive smells spatially in terms of distance and direction, and so on.

Periodic table would still contain the same information. You can't see smells, because sight is optical perception - perception of photons, in other words. Smell is chemical detection. Echolocation is obviously possible and present on Earth, but it does nothing to prevent knowing the laws of physics.

Your entire argument is that they wouldn't discover certain areas of science because they'd be different. It's possible, but rather unlikely.

McHrozni

 

[gsmonks]

You're still not seeing past your own anthropomorphism.

Let me put it to you in the simplest possible terms:

Let's use a Spackle ceiling as an analogy for the world around us.

We see patterns in the Spackle because the Human brain is built to find order in chaos.

Even if a true pattern isn't seen, the brain will make one up for us. Hence, when I look at the abstract pattern on the tile floor of my bathroom, I see a Don-Quixote-like figure riding a donkey facing backwards.

Are you with me so far?

All things being equal, this applies to the universe around us. The patterns we see are the same as those on a Spackle ceiling. Our brains make those patterns up for us. They have no existence outside of our own heads.

Still with me?

The contention you guys are making, repeatedly, is that the patterns we perceive are really out there, that we're seeing what is.

It is demonstrable that this position is false because science's "understanding" of things is regularly being updated.

You were about to add "as our knowledge grows", but you would be wrong. It's not a case of greater knowledge or information: it's a case of finding useful patterns which, right or wrong, are workable. These patterns have a built-in entropy in that they weren't right or correct to begin with, so they can only take us so far.

"Finding out more" or "gaining more knowledge" is an illusion. What we've actually done is what we've been doing all along, which is moving along and being forced to discard useful illusions along the way.

Getting back to reality, aka our Spackle ceiling, everything we think we perceive is an illusion. Our brains create sound, depth-perception, directional hearing, colour, the patterns we think we see. Beings with senses and minds other than ours are going to have a wholly different reality, which extends to the world we think we see "out there".

Yes, it is possible to see smells, because sight can be wired in various ways, many of them non-optical. Again, you're thinking of "sight" in terms of what sight is to life on this planet. In order to smell sight, light-wave frequencies and characteristics would be assigned olfactory and/or other properties. What we call the characteristics of "sight" are those things that carry useful information to us. Echolocation too is a type of sight. So is hearing when you get right down to it. Many of our senses are variations on a theme, that of orienting oneself and finding things in 3-dimensional space.

Again, I remind you what tools are: from the most primitive to the most complex, they are extensions of ourselves. Logic is a tool. Mathematics is a tool. The various sciences are tools. Our perception is a tool, and that includes everything we think we see and think we know.

We also don't know any more about the universe around us than did cave men 10,000 years ago. They created tool sets to deal with and explain it and so have we. Like cave men 10,000 years ago we only know what we can do to the world around us. We only flatter ourselves that we know exactly what we're dealing with. Gods, the four elements, alchemy, the Periodic Table, it's all Spackle on a ceiling, the patterns we think we see being in us, not out there.

Why else do you think modern scientists are beginning to fiddle with the idea of a multiverse, a fractal universe, a virtual universe, and various other modern theories? That a good many of them are beginning to suspect that there are undiscovered physics out there that are wholly unlike our own?

You guys really need to get out of the box more.

 

[LSSBB]

You're still not seeing past your own anthropomorphism.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Dinwar]

You guys are still not getting it.

No. YOU are not getting it. The periodic table is based on the arangement of subatomic particles to make atoms. These arangments are due to fundamental laws of physics (reference). Therefore the nature of the elements will be the same EVERYWHERE, at ALL times, for ALL species, on ALL planets, orbiting ALL stars, PERIOD.

Don't agree? Cool. Read that book I cited--or at least the first two chapters--and refute that data.

The actual look of any alien periodic table will be different, most likely (though I find it difficult to imagine an alien that can't wrap its head around cartisian coordinates), but the actual data will be identical due to the fact that it is based on fundamental properties of the universe itself.

There is also the matter of our understanding of the subatomic world, which is a collection of approximations based upon our observation.

Nope. Every trait predicted by the periodic table can be tested.

You're doing exactly the same thing as the "quantum equals magic" idiots: you're saying that because we can't predict the behavior of something smaller than a proton, we therefore cannot understand something the size of a lump of coal. This is stupid. There's no other way to put it--in order to hold that view you must necessarily ignore huge swaths of data.

How the devil do you think we came up with this stuff? Do you think it's arbitrary? Do you think we threw darts to figure out where to put elements on the table? The periodic table is one of the most impressive examples of scientific knowledge in history, and has been tested as much as evolution. These are not guesses--these are well-tested conclusions. Learn the history of the field before you presume to dismiss those who founded it.

We also don't know any more about the universe around us than did cave men 10,000 years ago.

This is your entire argument: "Because we are not omniscient, we therefore know nothing." Allow me to finish it for you: "....therefore my nonsense is right".

 

[McHrozni]

Are you with me so far?

All things being equal, this applies to the universe around us. The patterns we see are the same as those on a Spackle ceiling. Our brains make those patterns up for us. They have no existence outside of our own heads.

Still with me?

Nope. Finding patterns in an otherwise random collection of spots is not the same as learning about laws of physics (or chemistry). It's not even similar.

It is demonstrable that this position is false because science's "understanding" of things is regularly being updated.

In the case of the periodic table, it's just largely meaningless additions of artificial elements.

We also don't know any more about the universe around us than did cave men 10,000 years ago.

How literarily do you mean this? As in "there is so much unknown that what we know is essentially zero" you might have a point.
Literarily speaking, it's false.

McHrozni

 

[Puppycow]

You may be dealing with a world in which iron is as scarce as iridium and titanium is as plentiful as dirt.

That seems unlikely to me given that the heavy elements are almost all produced in supernovae and (I'm not a physicist but) I believe at least roughly in certain ratios. The physics of supernovae are thought to be the same throughout the universe, and certainly in the milky way.

Abundance of the chemical elements (Wikipedia article)
Supernova nucleosynthesis (Wikipedia article)

Maybe some worlds like that exist, but worlds where iron is more common than titanium are likely to be far more common than worlds where titanium is more common than iron. And worlds where iron is as rare as iridium are probably rarer yet.

 

[AdMan]

You're still not seeing past your own anthropomorphism.

Let me put it to you in the simplest possible terms:

Let's use a Spackle ceiling as an analogy for the world around us.

We see patterns in the Spackle because the Human brain is built to find order in chaos.

Even if a true pattern isn't seen, the brain will make one up for us. Hence, when I look at the abstract pattern on the tile floor of my bathroom, I see a Don-Quixote-like figure riding a donkey facing backwards.

Are you with me so far?

Quit being so patronizing, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.

 

[gsmonks]

No. YOU are not getting it. The periodic table is based on the arangement of subatomic particles to make atoms. These arangments are due to fundamental laws of physics (reference). Therefore the nature of the elements will be the same EVERYWHERE, at ALL times, for ALL species, on ALL planets, orbiting ALL stars, PERIOD.

Don't agree? Cool. Read that book I cited--or at least the first two chapters--and refute that data.

The actual look of any alien periodic table will be different, most likely (though I find it difficult to imagine an alien that can't wrap its head around cartisian coordinates), but the actual data will be identical due to the fact that it is based on fundamental properties of the universe itself.

Nope. Every trait predicted by the periodic table can be tested.

You're doing exactly the same thing as the "quantum equals magic" idiots: you're saying that because we can't predict the behavior of something smaller than a proton, we therefore cannot understand something the size of a lump of coal. This is stupid. There's no other way to put it--in order to hold that view you must necessarily ignore huge swaths of data.

How the devil do you think we came up with this stuff? Do you think it's arbitrary? Do you think we threw darts to figure out where to put elements on the table? The periodic table is one of the most impressive examples of scientific knowledge in history, and has been tested as much as evolution. These are not guesses--these are well-tested conclusions. Learn the history of the field before you presume to dismiss those who founded it.

This is your entire argument: "Because we are not omniscient, we therefore know nothing." Allow me to finish it for you: "....therefore my nonsense is right".

You're STILL not getting it.

It's not a question of being omniscient. It's a question of the extremely narrow understanding developed by homo sapiens which consists of an extremely narrow band in terms of chain of evidence, from the most primitive tools to the most complex.

Yes, scientific tools and evidence are tested to death for accuracy. What you're not getting is that each represents a narrow slice of chain of evidence, which is all that we humans are capable of perceiving. What we are prejudices the outcome.

In other words we've built upon what we are, extended what we are, explored the universe in terms of what we are. The universe itself is like a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected and nothing else.

That's why I brought up the Spackle analogy. All things being equal, when confronted with randomness we see only what we're equipped to see, which is ourselves and the contents of our own minds.

You guys should really listen to yourselves. You're responding like religious kooks. "We know it's true because it's in the Bible! We've tested and tested and retested what's in the Bible, and because the results are always the same we know the Bible is right on all counts! It's YOU that can't see it!"

Science as empty-headed dogma. Hooda thunkit?

 

[Dinwar]

gsmonks, your argument continues to be "We don't know everything, therefore we know nothing." You continue to refuse to address the issues I raised.

Do you understand how chemical properties arise from atomic structure? I'm guessing not--if you did, you'd understand that these are absolutely universal. ALL hydrogen will act the same. ALL iron will. ALL carbon will. The precise chemicals may be extremely weird, but the elements--because their behavior is dictated by electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force--will ALWAYS act the same.

Don't believe me? Fine. I gave you the tools to prove me wrong. If you wish to continue with nothing but nihilism, that is of course your choice, but it doesn't make your decision rational and your refusal to defend it makes you a crackpot.

Science as empty-headed dogma. Hooda thunkit?

Only someone who is trying to defend an a priori conclusion such as religious faith or nihilism would see a rational and referenced defense of well-established scientific principles as dogma.

Address the actual points I raised, or admit you can't.

 

[Dinwar]

Maybe some worlds like that exist, but worlds where iron is more common than titanium are likely to be far more common than worlds where titanium is more common than iron. And worlds where iron is as rare as iridium are probably rarer yet.

Funny thing is, this exposes gsmonks abysmal ignorance of what science has shown. Titanium isn't actually that rare on Earth. Titanium dioxide (rutile) isn't particularly rare as far as oxides go. It's not terribly common as far as rocks go, but oxides aren't exactly a common component of the planet, so that's more or less irrelevant.

 

[Mark6]

You're STILL not getting it.

It's not a question of being omniscient. It's a question of the extremely narrow understanding developed by homo sapiens which consists of an extremely narrow band in terms of chain of evidence, from the most primitive tools to the most complex.

Evidence of this "extremely narrow band"? Evidence that a broader "band" even exists?

Until you present such evidence, you are just spouting "Actual science is too hard for me to learn, so I will pretend to be superior by claiming it is worthless". If that makes you feel better about being a loser (I met quite a few people who espoused ideas similar to gsmonks, and "loser" was a universal description), nobody can convince you otherwise. Nor should anyone waste time trying.

 

[McHrozni]

All things being equal, when confronted with randomness we see only what we're equipped to see, which is ourselves and the contents of our own minds.

Sure. But not all things are equal. Physics, for example, isn't a random bunch of laws and regulations like the US tax code, it's a set of observable and measurable phenomena which arise solely from the properties of matter. From rather few properties of matter, as it turns out.

Your entire argument is that aliens would be so different they probably wouldn't discover chemistry but would discover other properties, completely unknown to us. Though this is possible, it is also unprovable and hugely unlikely. It's not as if we're limited by our senses - we can and do detect anything that interacts with matter, and as far as I know we also have technological means to do so.

McHrozni

 

[Acleron]

Sure. But not all things are equal. Physics, for example, isn't a random bunch of laws and regulations like the US tax code, it's a set of observable and measurable phenomena which arise solely from the properties of matter. From rather few properties of matter, as it turns out.

Your entire argument is that aliens would be so different they probably wouldn't discover chemistry but would discover other properties, completely unknown to us. Though this is possible, it is also unprovable and hugely unlikely. It's not as if we're limited by our senses - we can and do detect anything that interacts with matter, and as far as I know we also have technological means to do so.

McHrozni

That,s a good point. If we only relied on what we directly perceive then the vast majority of reality would be unknown to us. Aliens arriving through evolution would have similar restrictions on their perceptions although the individual senses may be different. To explore reality they would have to build instruments that rely on the same chemistry and physics that we have used.

Their way of thinking may be different giving them different insights. For instance, they may be very large or very fast, to them, relativistic effects might be directly observed and understood very easily. But the effects will still be the same.

 

[alfaniner]

That's why I brought up the Spackle analogy. All things being equal, when confronted with randomness we see only what we're equipped to see, which is ourselves and the contents of our own minds.

Which is why the analogy is completely wrong. Finding patterns and making conclusions in randomness is retrofitting. Science takes the randomness, looks for patterns and asks, "What does this tell us?"

 

[Dinwar]

Which is why the analogy is completely wrong. Finding patterns and making conclusions in randomness is retrofitting. Science takes the randomness, looks for patterns and asks, "What does this tell us?"

Not quite true. Scientists have numerous methods for determining if what they are seeing is random--there are, for example, numerous random models we can use as a null hypothesis. There are also direct tests such as Markov chain analysis, which does not function as a null hypothesis but rather a test for patterns in the data (if the pattern is absurd, we can dismiss it). What that means is that we are able to identify true randomness vs. apparent randomness.

So we're not looking for patterns in randomness. We're doing something much more important for this conversation: we're differentiating between randomness and patterns that the human mind hasn't evolved to detect.

Your entire argument is that aliens would be so different they probably wouldn't discover chemistry but would discover other properties, completely unknown to us. Though this is possible, it is also unprovable and hugely unlikely.

I'll go further: it's flat-out insane ot present such an argument. Aliens would necessarily be made of chemicals, as would their environment. Any advanced species would have tried to figure out how their environment works. This would lead inexorably to physics and chemistry. They may have a different focus, but they'd study the same field.

 

[McHrozni]

I'll go further: it's flat-out insane ot present such an argument. Aliens would necessarily be made of chemicals, as would their environment. Any advanced species would have tried to figure out how their environment works. This would lead inexorably to physics and chemistry. They may have a different focus, but they'd study the same field.

Pwah yeah, pretty much
It is possible that chemistry would be more obscure to them, rather than basal science (also hugely unlikely). One reasonable possibility is that they wouldn't study chemistry as one science, but as a bunch of sciences with other attributes - i.e. the associations of knowledge could be entirely different. Still, that they wouldn't come to uncover the very basics of what we call chemistry is pretty much impossible for an advanced (at least industrial) civilization.

McHrozni

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's quite convincing, yes. Sadly this still takes too much time to replicate in a lab.

I never quibbled with whether or not we've yet replicated it in a lab. In fact, though, we have observed the formation and splitting of vessicles formed by simple lipids and we have observed polymers of all sorts forming and we have observed that some polymers are self-replicating. [ETA: So I'm not sure what needs to be replicated in a lab that hasn't. Getting to this basic, proto-cell stage doesn't take long at all. Getting from there to something that could out-compete an existing bacterium doesn't just take long, it's virtually impossible with the great head start the bacterium has.]

Anyway, you said:

But we still have little idea of what makes life from a bunch of abiotic molecules,

I was pointing out that we actually have a pretty good idea of how life forms from abiotic molecules.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All things being equal, when confronted with randomness we see only what we're equipped to see, which is ourselves and the contents of our own minds.

First, as pointed out, the universe isn't "randomness".

Second, "what we're equipped to see" is the result of natural selection acting on our interaction with the environment (that is, our part of the universe). You still seem to be assuming that our minds are something separate from and unrelated to the universe. *

The reason we can even discuss these things is that our minds evolved as very successful adaptations to the universe. If there was no relationship between our perceptions and reality, natural selection would not have favored our minds.

*ETA: On a bit of a tangent, this approach is something I've observed in causing communication problems between rationalists and "woos". Many "woos" (especially of the New-Agey type) reject the idea that there is an objective universe. They believe we are each free to create our own universe based on how we perceive it. That is, reality and opinion are the same thing. That's why in discussions of stuff like astrology, a rationalist's observation that certain claims made are false sounds like bullying to the believer. One particular manifestation of this communication difficulty comes in applying this same idea to language. When, for example, I have challenged the misuse of words with actual conventional meanings (vibrations, resonance, energy, wavelength, etc.) by one such "woo", the response was that they believe they are free to use words in any way they want, regardless of convention. Again, the reason language evolved as a convention was that it was useful. If we didn't have some idea of a generally agreed upon meaning of words, communication by language would not have been the huge adaptive success it has been.

 

[Dinwar]

Also, we've developed ways to test for patterns, and to test whether the patterns we're seeing are real or not. So gsmonks' points are simply not true.

 

[sowhat]

While checking out how many planets total in the galaxy, ( 100 billion according to the article I read ), I read this; "This means there are 1500 within just 50 light years of Earth". Just? Oh we do dream big. Why that's like walking to the corner grocery.

 

[Puppycow]

While checking out how many planets total in the galaxy, ( 100 billion according to the article I read ), I read this; "This means there are 1500 within just 50 light years of Earth". Just? Oh we do dream big. Why that's like walking to the corner grocery.

Well the low-end estimate for number of stars is 100 billion. High end is 400 billion.

A hundred billion would be only one planet per star? But our own has 8. Many other stars where we have found exoplanets also have multiple planets. Seems like there's probably more, but maybe 100 billion is the low end of the range and it could actually be 10 times that or even more.

 

[sowhat]

Well the low-end estimate for number of stars is 100 billion. High end is 400 billion.

A hundred billion would be only one planet per star? But our own has 8. Many other stars where we have found exoplanets also have multiple planets. Seems like there's probably more, but maybe 100 billion is the low end of the range and it could actually be 10 times that or even more.

Thanks. I kind of thought it was a bigger number. Still a long drive to get there though.

 

[gsmonks]

Also, we've developed ways to test for patterns, and to test whether the patterns we're seeing are real or not. So gsmonks' points are simply not true.

It's sad that you're so desperate that I be wrong.

Is it such a horrible thing to contemplate that we may be utterly alone in the universe?

 

[Puppycow]

It's sad that you're so desperate that I be wrong.

Is it such a horrible thing to contemplate that we may be utterly alone in the universe?

I thought that you were arguing something completely different.

SETI itself is problematic, as it is purely anthropomorphic in its collective thinking. SETI is essentially looking for us out there, which is a huge mistake. The truth is that we can't begin to imagine what to look for.

. . .

Other creatures on other worlds will have originated out of situations we can not begin to imagine. Our imaginings thus far, and such as they are, are purely anthropomorphic. We can't see the forest for ourselves, as it were.

Language itself is anthropomorphic. For something to mean something, it must mean something to us, and for something to be meaningful to us, it must be us.

. . .

SETI is naive. SETI is wishful thinking. SETI is anthropomorphic. I wish them the best of luck, but I don't think we have the tool set yet to comprehend what is meant by the word "alien".

 

[Dinwar]

It's sad that you're so desperate that I be wrong.

Is it such a horrible thing to contemplate that we may be utterly alone in the universe?

I'm not despirate. You're wrong, simple as that. This has nothing to do with us being alone or not--that's completely irrelevant to the fact that you are ignoring mathematical concepts fundamental to numerous sciences. Worse, you are comming across as insufferably arogantly ignorant.

 

[gsmonks]

I'm not despirate. You're wrong, simple as that. This has nothing to do with us being alone or not--that's completely irrelevant to the fact that you are ignoring mathematical concepts fundamental to numerous sciences. Worse, you are comming across as insufferably arogantly ignorant.

H'm . . . "despirate" . . . could mean "I'm not that pirate" . . .

"Comming across" . . . are you trying to imply that I'm a commie?

"Insufferably arogantly ignorant?" How about "too many adjectives"?

I'm not "ignoring mathematical concepts fundamental to numerous sciences". That's your spin. What I've done is question whether the models we use would have been arrived at by alien intelligences.

You guys talk like Trekkies. In the Trek universe there was a humanoid race billions of years ago that seeded the galaxy with beings that came to look somewhat like themselves.

Some of you are dogmatically claiming this scenario to be the only "fact" worth considering.

Back in the Cold War days, when Science Fiction was chock-full of angst and horror, our space aliens were far more alien and incomprehensible, although most of them were still out to get us for no good reason.

But we had radiation monsters that lived in the ground, brain 'n' spinal cord monsters that sucked your brain out of the back of your neck, giant blobs that ate everything, monsters that looked like Hoover vacuum cleaners that sucked the bones right out of your body, always accompanied by cool Theremin music and scary noises made by strings of low- and high-pass filters and other electronic gadgets.

The work SETI is doing is admirable, but I have reservations about this generation of lazy kids with their pants at half-mast or tangled around their ankles. They can't seem to get past the act of looking to actually seeing.

I predict that if we actually spot ET The Extratesticle, most of the effort of seeing ET will go into attempting to comprehend what we're seeing, or what we think we're seeing. For its part, ET may pass us by all the while, unable to made sense of our attempts to get its attention.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not "ignoring mathematical concepts fundamental to numerous sciences". That's your spin. What I've done is question whether the models we use would have been arrived at by alien intelligences.

Not the part of your nigh-incomprehensible rants that I was referring to. I was actually talking about the parts where you claim that humans can't prove that the patterns we see are anything more than people seeing patterns that aren't real in random data. Ever hear of Markov Chain Analysis? Principle Component Analysis? Q vs. R mode analysis?

But the position you erroniously think I'm critiquing is wrong too. As I said, and as you insist on ignoring, the models you specifically call out to complain about are based on universal physical laws. The periodic table, for instance, is based on strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force--forces that will operate at ALL times, in ALL locations where atoms are present. Because of those forces we know that ANY periodic table, in ANY configuration, will necessarily have the same data in it in some fashion. The periodic table is an inevitable consequence of the laws of the universe. We can therefore rely on it as a point of mutual understanding, in order to begin to comprehend the more arbitrary aspects of things.

You want to talk alien intelligence? Read "The Gaia Hypothesis", "The Mediea Hypothesis", and "Life As We Do Not Know It". Those present a realistic, rigorous look at what life on other planets will look like. Or study paleontology--me and my ilk study monsters. Once you've held the fossil of an Ediacaran in your hands you tend to abandon the idea that alien life will look like Earth life. That said, rational people do not abandon all principles merely because the setting changes. Until you prove that aliens will violate the laws of physics that govern the workings of the universe we can conclude, with as much confidence as we have in the Earth orbiting the Sun and based on the same concepts, that aliens will be bound by certain principles. There is a great deal of latitude in that range, but we CAN define the range.

 

[gsmonks]

Not the part of your nigh-incomprehensible rants that I was referring to. I was actually talking about the parts where you claim that humans can't prove that the patterns we see are anything more than people seeing patterns that aren't real in random data. Ever hear of Markov Chain Analysis? Principle Component Analysis? Q vs. R mode analysis?

But the position you erroniously think I'm critiquing is wrong too. As I said, and as you insist on ignoring, the models you specifically call out to complain about are based on universal physical laws. The periodic table, for instance, is based on strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force--forces that will operate at ALL times, in ALL locations where atoms are present. Because of those forces we know that ANY periodic table, in ANY configuration, will necessarily have the same data in it in some fashion. The periodic table is an inevitable consequence of the laws of the universe. We can therefore rely on it as a point of mutual understanding, in order to begin to comprehend the more arbitrary aspects of things.

You want to talk alien intelligence? Read "The Gaia Hypothesis", "The Mediea Hypothesis", and "Life As We Do Not Know It". Those present a realistic, rigorous look at what life on other planets will look like. Or study paleontology--me and my ilk study monsters. Once you've held the fossil of an Ediacaran in your hands you tend to abandon the idea that alien life will look like Earth life. That said, rational people do not abandon all principles merely because the setting changes. Until you prove that aliens will violate the laws of physics that govern the workings of the universe we can conclude, with as much confidence as we have in the Earth orbiting the Sun and based on the same concepts, that aliens will be bound by certain principles. There is a great deal of latitude in that range, but we CAN define the range.

The Gaia hypothesis???

You almost had me there. With the mention of the Gaia hypothesis, however, you lost all credibility.

I have lots of fossils, mostly of shellfish. They make me think of . . . well . . . very old clams.

As different as clams and other forms of ancient life are to us, we still share some DNA. As strange as some life forms on this planet appear to us, we still share some DNA and are therefore related.

In point of fact, there is nothing on this planet that is 100% off-the-wall strange and wholly unrelated to us. Without such a starting point, we have no frame of reference from which to develop hypotheses in terms of taxonomy and evolution. Divergence and convergence as we observe them are contingent upon Earthly conditions which operate within a very narrow frame of reference. Change those conditions and aspects of taxonomy such as divergence and convergence produce different results.

Evolution itself, taxonomically speaking, is contingent upon the existing state of an organism, as you no doubt well know. The existing state is all-important because it dictates what follows.

This certainly applies to the formation and development of organic compounds and molecules, both of which are often astounding in their complexity and their ability to produce substances that would/could never have arisen in the 52-card-pickup milieu of the accumulation of stellar dust that we otherwise are.

This latter is important mainly because it is representative of Human thinking. Random stuff that becomes things like rock, gasses, liquids and mineral deposits are easy for the Human mind to grasp and manipulate.

Organic compounds, however, are another matter entirely. Most notable is the fact that teams of people around the world are going to remote and endangered places in order to find out what's there, in terms of complex biological and biochemical compounds. They're looking for things with medical and industrial applications, to be sure, but most glaringly obvious is the fact that these people aren't sequestered away in a lab somewhere, trying to come up with such things themselves.

This has its analogue in the computer/knowledge scenario and the old question, Why can't we just programme a computer to figure out everything?

Humankind isn't anywhere near as intelligent as it thinks it is. It's pawing and scrabbling around in what remains of Amazon forest tree poop looking for undiscovered stuff for making better medicines and plastics. Claiming that it understands what life on other planets may be like is utter hubris when one considers how little control and understanding it has of the biology of this planet.