|
Yeah, but "nil" times infinity = likely!
I'd go into detail, but looking at the other column, it'd be redundant. :) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well you figure... If your talking spatially then time has to be included in where this other
inevitable life is bound to be found by us at. In fact maybe they won't even exist until after
we've become extinct. Maybe its something more metaphysical to where we're bound to never meet. Or
something more hopeful to where we must depend on patience. Maybe if we depend on the wrong thing
they'll choose not to exist. None of these are supposed to be right, they're just supposed to show
that this website is not the only theoryverse on the web'r'net.
Compromise will show the truth, arguing will show we already know that.
If there's life what matters is what happens. If there's not, we'll probably just keep looking.
Or mathematically speaking
from what i understand 4% of the universe is matter. But we still call that starry-clustered
cavalcade "vast". Pretty clearly showing no concept of relativity. Myself surely included, but!
Whatever chances there are of finding intelligent life is close to 0 which is still no excuse for
looking at that glass as half empty. If you ever use the phrase "only possible conclusion", assume
you've lost respect. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
True. In theory, the chance of our own existing when compared to the scope of the universe is also
virtually nil |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm on the For side only because you said "intelligent life", although "sentient life" would
be more apt. Dolphins are sentient and aware of their own existence, unlike dogs or cats, but one
wouldn't call them "intelligent" in the sense of reading and writing or doing 1+1.
Life elsewhere in the universe is unproven but very likely. In numerous unrelated studies,
scientists have shown that basic proteins can be formed in a lifeless "chemical soup" simply by the
addition of an energy source. If other non-frozen planets exist and are billions of years old, then
life is almost an inevitability.
Www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html
The real issue of sentient life is not one of possibility but of time. People arrogantly and
ignorantly assume that life on Earth isn't the first to come along and isn't the only life in the
universe. Even if there are other planets that are teeming with life, they may have no sentient
beings, just plants and perhaps animals, or planets with sentient and intelligent life that has only
reached the Stone Age and are thus incapable of detecting or contacting us. It may also be that
such life won't occur for another five billion years and we'll never know about it.
We have only started detecting other planets in the past 20 years, and we are incapable of travel to
other stars; even if there is intelligent life, it's probably constrained by the same limits on
speed of light travel (infinite weight) and on "wormholes" (infinite energy and the lack
of a destination portal).
There is no planet capable of sustaining life within 100 light years of Earth, so no one will have
yet heard Marconi's first transmissions to know we are here, and aliens would have to be within 50
light years, plus possess light speed travel, in order to visit here. Neither is possible. |
| |
 K9  24 Nov 2009 13:34
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Star Trek, Superman, and all the other cult science fiction sequels are all human fantasy. The
simple fact is we could be all alone in this huge infinite cosmos! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
You have to be wrong, theres no other way it can possibly be. I say that with no disrespect for your
opinion, but its just not right. There is an infinitesimal number of galaxies, with an infinitesimal
number of stars (the milky way have over 300 billion stars) that have an infinitesimal number of
possibilities to have a planet to sustain some form of intelligent life, most likely not carbon
based. The odds of finding another earth are extremely small, but there are countless possibilities
to have life that is based on another element, probably one that we dont have the capability to find
because our planet doesnt have that element.
When one bases life on us, the chances of life out there in space are almost nil like u said, but
when its looked at, in another perspective, one that takes into account what we dont know, the
possibility grows exponentially. And if one takes into account of new dimensions, and the
possibilities that go along with them, it is improbable, nay, impossible (lol) to say accurately
that we are the ONLY intelligent life in the universe. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it is either nil or pretty much guaranteed. If the conditions that suit life are unlikely
then due the the incredible vastness of the universe and the incredibly large amount of planets then
it stands to reason that there must be a huge amount of places that have life. When you deal with
huge numbers any fraction, even a very small fraction, of that number is still likely to be pretty
big. If they have life then some of them are certain to have life that has developed far beyond the
intelligence of ourselves. Because there is life on our little planet, despite the odds, then it
just proves that it is possible.
As for finding it. Well I think that is highly unlikely bearing in mind the massive distance in
between stars, but then they probably thought it was highly unlikely that we would ever go to the
moon 10000 years ago. Maybe there is a better chance that they will find us first. Maybe they
already have. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Actually, the "goldilocks" idea of a place "just right" for intelligent life as we know it (like
us), suggests that the odds are virtually nil for its existence elsewhere. When one calculates
(roughly) the numerous parameters that have to be present and so fine tuned to sustain life, as we
know it, then it makes a lot of sense. Imagine, a control room in a huge power plant and in the
control room are thousands of control dials that have to be set precisely in the right position for
the plant to operate. If one dial is off an infintesimal amount the system fails. When one
multiplies this out to the odds that these exact settings could be randomly produced elsewhere it
becomes something in the range of 1 chance in 10 to the 43rd power. Now, when one multiplies out
(best guess, here) the number of galaxies times number of stars per galaxy times number of planetary
arrangements, etc. The number comes out to 10 the 32 power (or something close to that). So, from
the reasoning presented, it is highly unlikely, in fact almost nil, that life as we know it exists
elsewhere in the universe.
(I should have voted on the other side--screwed up again.) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
125 billion galaxies and roughly half a trillion stars per galaxy. If one in a billion stars have a
planet (this is a wildly conservative guess in light of recent findings) with conditions that would
allow our type of organic life (there are theories about silicon based life and organic life on the
hydrogen giants) and one in a billion of those develop life (no way at this time to estimate this
number experts disagree but this estimate is on the conservative end of the spectrum) that means
there are 6 billion life bearing planets in our universe. My feeling is that intelligence is going
to be an advantage in any evolutionary system because it allows a range of behavioral adaptability
that would be tough to beat. So I think that once intelligence develops on a planet it will continue
to exist in one fashion or another on that planet for a long time. My guess is that there are many
intelligent species out there and most will be far older species than ourselves.
6 billion life bearing planets are a lot but it is still less than one in 20 galaxies. Even assuming
faster than light (a very big assumption) or even near instantaneous travel finding one planet in 20
galaxies is a near impossibility. If FTL travel is possible or just almost light speed and extremely
long periods of time, the only real chance of us running into other intelligent species would
probably be through the observation of interesting celestial phenomena. So very unlikely but not
nil.
So I disagree with your first assessment by a considerable margin. I disagree with your second
assessment by a tiny but significant margin. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I disagree with part 1 (that the chance of intelligent life is nil) because frankly space is so
immense there are almost infinite possibilities out there. Whatever factors lead to life on earth
most assuredly exist other places too.
I agree with part 2, we're so immensely far from everything else that unless there is a technical
breakthrough of science fiction proportion it's unlikely we'll ever stand face to face with other
intelligent life. Send signals to each other perhaps (?) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it is awful conceited to assume that we are the only intelligent life. The universe is a
mighty big place. We can't possibly know what is out there. Those are my thoughts on the topic. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
