Do you think life exists elsewhere in the universe?

[rufuspaul]

Relax dude. It's all conjecture, but conjecture is often the starting point in scientific discovery.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I haven't read the this thread yet, only this last post...but the thread title reads "do you THINK life exists elsewhere..."

not "is there scientific proof that life exists elsewhere..."

Ok, but in this thread, and among the general population, the answer to that question is so often spoken declaratively, rather than speculatively. People answer the question like "Everyone chill, I got this. Ill put this question to rest for good." And then they proceed to unintentionally make a mockery of logic. Smh. People need to check themselves.

Also, even the people who say "I think there is life out there, because..." are often proceding to use a false or indetermined premise. So I took care to point that out in this thread, for anyone who may care to improve their perspective, rather than cling to it stubbornly.

[tpols]

This is again speculative assumption. Thats called inductive reasoning, it is what Aristotle and Freud did. That has not been the scientific standard since the late 16th century thanks to Francis Bacons pioneering work developing the scientific method.

Multiple universes are possible. But there is no evidence of them right now. You are casually taking for granted conclusions that have NO supporting data. Again, that is called inductive reasoning and it is antiquated in the scientific community. It has been for hundreds of years.

You are drawing conclusions based on a premise that doesnt legitimately exist as far as the scientific method is concerned. Bacon is rollin over in his grave! Not to mention Copernicus, Newton, and Franklin. First gather your proof of infinite universe/multiverse. Then we can talk about it as a premise for the odds and probability of life.


Amateurs on ISH throwing around 'facts' that life long scientists have yet to definitively conclude. Its silly. If you consider yourself scientfically minded, be patient and wait for the data. Theres no gaurantee youll even live to see it, but if you proceed without it youll look like a fop.

Tread extremely carefully with absolutes. As Niels Bohr (or Heisenberg, I mix them up) said about studying the atom: "If you think youve figured it out, you did something wrong"

Not saying I figured anything out.. this whole thread is based on what you think is out there.

Is it not somewhat logical to assume, that in the trillions of star life cycles that have ever existed with all of the rocks circulating them, that at some point, atoms, somewhere, sometime on one rock out of a gazzillion, didnt arrange into the right concoction of elements to form what we calll life? Even if the chances are preposturely small, can they be much smaller relatively than how big what we know of space and time is?


I just think its shortsighted to think were the only lucky rock out of the gazzilion that have floated around to have sprouted life..

We can baely investigate a rock RIGHT next to our own for life. Weve been digging mars for decades and are still teetering whether or not we agree it ever support life. There have been studies saying there is evidence of thermophiles, bacteria that live deep inside the planet in very unsustainable conditions, on mars but theyre still trying to mount more evidence.

So if its even possible thats mars has had simple life on it.. right next to us.. how low can the chances be that it has not came up anywhere on all the others so far away?

[Lebowsky]

Starface, the Law of Truly Large Numbers makes the fact that life exists elsewhere in the universe an very reasonable, educated, statistical assumption, given the vastness of the universe. Of course it will not be an irrefutable truth until life is actually observed outside of Earth, but it is logical and reasonable to assume life happens in other places.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Not saying I figured anything out.. this whole thread is based on what you think is out there.

Is it not somewhat logical to assume, that in the trillions of star life cycles that have ever existed with all of the rocks circulating them, that at some point, atoms, somewhere, sometime on one rock out of a gazzillion, didnt arrange into the right concoction of elements to form what we calll life? Even if the chances are preposturely small, can they be much smaller relatively than how big what we know of space and time is?


I just think its shortsighted to think were the only lucky rock out of the gazzilion that have floated around to have sprouted life..

Well, people are welcome to be as cavalier about scientific inferences as they want, I guess. I'm just telling you what's considered accepted practice in the actual scientific community.

What you described above races past mandatory steps in the scientific method for drawing a conclusion. I'll give you an example of how something like this SHOULD work:

Right now, the data we have about life and the rest of the universe, goes only so far as to suggest it is "possible". There is no 'probable' about it at this point, scientifically speaking. If you want to take a leap of faith, that's your prerogative. Just don't masquerade it as science, that's all I'm saying.

Now let's say we did discover a directly observable and measurable planet somewhere. And we noticed that the the carbon in the atmosphere of the planet had been gradually rising over the years, in a pattern similar to ours. That would be the first type of step needed to BEGIN to suggest a probability. However that is STILL not a conclusion. Then suppose we observed terrain that was very unlikely to have occurred naturally (such as a Mt. Rushmore type of deal). Now we're getting pretty warm. However, without directly observing life itself, we still are not at a fact. But at that point, we could likely say "It seems pretty evident..." and so forth.

The scientific method is hypothesis, experimentation, observation, data analysis, conclusion. You have gone straight from hypothesis to conclusion.

There are countless examples of this in the history of science, and the things people 'knew' ended up clearly wrong. The 'its so big, there has to be' argument is no different than early man seeing the sun go from one end of the sky to the other, and declaring that it's going around us.

We can baely investigate a rock RIGHT next to our own for life.

Exactly right. And yet we are concluding about its existence throughout the universe?

You guys seem to think I'm trying to debunk the possibility. I'm not. It's ENTIRELY possible. But we don't even know specifically how life originated here. Yet we are theorizing about how it 'must' exist somewhere else? That's not science, that's a leap of faith. And my issue is with the hypocrisy of those who deride the leaps of faith among others, but boldly proclaim their own to be true here.

It seems like most people here are mildly acquainted with what we DO know about the universe; i.e. it's really big, there's like stars and stuff. Very few people know much about the issues that are confounding scientists to this day. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, spooky action at a distance, "dark" or "missing" matter/energy. The most dedicated and learned scientists grapple with the reality of what reality even is or how it came to be, and yet armchair astronomy guy "knows there's life out there, cause the universe is real big."

Again, I can't spend all my time trying to convince those who wish to be adamant. But people are way ahead of themselves scientifically with the "its so big" slogan. Right now, it is at best 'possible.' There is nothing legitimately supportive of any measure of probability. Unless someone here wants to throw out a random percentage and describe how they calculated it based on 'its so big'.

And again, if life is discovered somewhere tomorrow, people will come back to this thread and lob "I told you soooo!!!" at me til they're blue in the face. Those are the people who will have been completely incapable of comprehending what I've been saying.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Of course it will not be an irrefutable truth until life is actually observed outside of Earth, but it is logical and reasonable to assume life happens in other places.

Ok, to me and I think to most people, this SOUNDS like a conclusion. You can argue that it's 'technically not' but it's clear you are stating a high degree of confidence in this assertion.

The Law of Large Numbers would only be relevant if you first KNEW exactly what you're dealing with when it comes to life origins. If you KNEW it was generated from a lightning spark into salt water in an atmosphere of methane and carbon, then you could proceed to theorize further.

But we still don't know how life started. There have been so many theories throughout the course of science where people were making progress toward the expected conclusion, getting warmer, getting warrrmerrrrrr... and then poof, it was completely wrong. This could EASILY be the case with suppositions about how life started. We are not close to knowing where it came from, in fact we likely never will. Even if we recreate it in a lab. Guess what, we can create oxygen in a lab. Does that mean oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere the same way we replicated it in laboratories? Probably not.

Nobody even knows how the universe itself formed. Where did the singularity come from? Why did it blow up? How did its contents suddenly become hydrogen atoms?

It is WAY WAY WAYYYYY to early in our understanding to be declarative about conclusions that are based on premises we aren't even sure of. You have to at least be sure of the premise with probability. If ____, then the likelyhood of ____ is such and such. But nobody even knows if the first "If" is accurate! We are taking it for granted too cavalierly IMO.

[TheMarkMadsen]

If ETs exist, they aren't traveling long distances, their going through worm wholes.

If UFOs are extraterrestrial i think it's more logical to assume those are not manned but are more "drones" than anything.

Also if life evolved or was created on another planet, there's no way of predicting what they look like, it could be something we can't even comprehend.

Also, if a species has mastered worm holes and space travel chances are they are way past the point of being savages, would be spiritually evolved to a point where material items are irrelevant. Consider that a species with the technology to travel to earth, assuming they can, and go basically undetected.. Their goin to have the technology to where recourses would be abundant and easy to come by/create. They wouldn't be fighting over land and killing their own species for profit..like we do.

Just my 2cents

[OldSkoolball#52]

Also, if a species has mastered worm holes and space travel chances are they are way past the point of being savages, would be spiritually evolved to a point where material items are irrelevant. Consider that a species with the technology to travel to earth, assuming they can, and go basically undetected.. Their goin to have the technology to where recourses would be abundant and easy to come by/create. They wouldn't be fighting over land and killing their own species for profit..like we do.

Yes. The concept of traveling through wormholes is so incomprehensibly advanced (and not even necessarily possible) that if anyone was doing it, they likely wouldn't even be able to remotely resemble any Earth life physiochemically. One would think they would almost have to be metaphysical. And this is of course playfully supposing wormholes can even be created and physically traveled through by anything.

I think the public underestimates how many atomic and astronomic "facts" are actually best-guesses so far. Even when in many cases the scientists themselves would readily tell you that the information is still at best a theory, the public at large consumes much of it as conclusive fact. I see evidence of that any time questions like the OP's come up.

I enjoy studying this kind of stuff, as obviously a lot of others do too, but I think it's common to at the beginning take the things you learn at face value. The deeper you go into it, the more you begin to think like a scientist, and realize that the one thing you truly know is that you don't actually KNOW.

[Lebowsky]

Ok, to me and I think to most people, this SOUNDS like a conclusion. You can argue that it's 'technically not' but it's clear you are stating a high degree of confidence in this assertion.

The Law of Large Numbers would only be relevant if you first KNEW exactly what you're dealing with when it comes to life origins. If you KNEW it was generated from a lightning spark into salt water in an atmosphere of methane and carbon, then you could proceed to theorize further.

But we still don't know how life started. There have been so many theories throughout the course of science where people were making progress toward the expected conclusion, getting warmer, getting warrrmerrrrrr... and then poof, it was completely wrong. This could EASILY be the case with suppositions about how life started. We are not close to knowing where it came from, in fact we likely never will. Even if we recreate it in a lab. Guess what, we can create oxygen in a lab. Does that mean oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere the same way we replicated it in laboratories? Probably not.

Nobody even knows how the universe itself formed. Where did the singularity come from? Why did it blow up? How did its contents suddenly become hydrogen atoms?

It is WAY WAY WAYYYYY to early in our understanding to be declarative about conclusions that are based on premises we aren't even sure of. You have to at least be sure of the premise with probability. If ____, then the likelyhood of ____ is such and such. But nobody even knows if the first "If" is accurate! We are taking it for granted too cavalierly IMO.

This is not correct. You can formulate the Law of Truly Large numbers in layman's terms (not the Law of Large Numbers, mind you) as: given a certain experiment, even the most unlikely outcomes are bound to happen after enough repetitions. Consider this example from wikipedia:

For a simplified example of the law, assume that a given event happens with a probability of 0.1% in one trial. Then the probability that this unlikely event does not happen in a single trial is 99.9% = 0.999.

In a sample of 1000 independent trials, the probability that the event does not happen in any of them is 0.999^{1000}, or 36.8%. The probability that the event happens at least once in 1000 trials is then 1 − 0.368 = 0.632 or 63.2%. The probability that it happens at least once in 10,000 trials is 1 - 0.999^{10000} = 0.99995 = 99.995 %.

This means that this "unlikely event" has a probability of 63.2% of happening if 1000 chances are given, or over 99.9% for 10,000 chances. In other words, a highly unlikely event, given enough tries, is even more likely to occur.

You're getting stuck on the fact that it is currently unknown how life appeared on earth, but that's irrelevant. The specific contiditions under which life originated on Earth don't matter at all. The fact that life appeared is infinitesimaly likely, but the fact that the universe is infinitely large brings the probability of life happening infinitely close to 1. Life may have happened just like it happened on Earth (however that may be), or in a completely different manner. Scientists look for life in Earthlike planets because we know life somehow appeared under our conditions, not because it's the only way it can happen. Targeting any other set of conditions would be a blind, fruitless endeavour.

[Lebowsky]

Forgot to add that, by that, I don't mean ET life must have happened without a doubt, I mean that it is statistically and logically sound to assume so.

[OldSkoolball#52]

This is not correct. You can formulate the Law of Truly Large numbers in layman's terms (not the Law of Large Numbers, mind you) as: given a certain experiment, even the most unlikely outcomes are bound to happen after enough repetitions. Consider this example from wikipedia:

Yes, the ol' "tennis ball through the wall" concept, i.e. quantum probability. I'm familiar with it, in fact I was drunkenly trying to explain it to a chick at a bar (not even kidding about this) just a couple weeks ago.

But:

You're getting stuck on the fact that it is currently unknown how life appeared on earth, but that's irrelevant. The specific contiditions under which life originated on Earth don't matter at all. The fact that life appeared is infinitesimaly likely, but the fact that the universe is infinitely large brings the probability of life happening infinitely close to 1. Life may have happened just like it happened on Earth (however that may be), or in a completely different manner. Scientists look for life in Earthlike planets because we know life somehow appeared under our conditions, not because it's the only way it can happen. Targeting any other set of conditions would be a blind, fruitless endeavour.

This is where I see a faulty premise.

Is The Universe Infinite? Not Likely, Say Physicists
February 19, 2013


Lee Rannals for redOrbit.com — Your Universe Online

Scientists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) told reporters the universe may not be infinite after all.

Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist with FNAL in Batavia, Illinois, spoke to reporters at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Boston, saying recent calculations show its “bad news” for the future of the universe.

“It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable and at some point billions of years from now it’s all going to get wiped out,” Lykken, who is also on the science team at Europe’s Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, told Reuters.

[continues]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1...er-all-021913/

Scientists at the LHC do not even know if the universe is infinite, nor if a collection of multiverses exist. You cannot use that as a definitive premise. That's the road tpols went down and was really the crux of my disagreement. It is an unproven assumption.

[Lebowsky]

Yes, the ol' "tennis ball through the wall" concept, i.e. quantum probability. I'm familiar with it, in fact I was drunkenly trying to explain it to a chick at a bar (not even kidding about this) just a couple weeks ago.

But:




This is where I see a faulty premise.




Scientists at the LHC do not even know if the universe is infinite, nor if a collection of multiverses exist. You cannot use that as a definitive premise. That's the road tpols went down and was really the crux of my disagreement. It is an unproven assumption.

I agree there is not a consensus, but most evidence points in the direction of the universe being flat and infinite. Check out this link from NASA.

Of course the jury is still out on these matters, and we won't probably have answers to all these questions in our lifetime (if ever at all), but for now we have to go with what logic hints, and I believe it does hint in the direction I tried to show.

[Jello]

Stop bringing irrelevant topics about what scientists don't know. The observable universe is so large that the probability of life occurring on another planet is almost 100%.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I agree there is not a consensus, but most evidence points in the direction of the universe being flat and infinite. Check out this link from NASA.

Of course the jury is still out on these matters, and we won't probably have answers to all these questions in our lifetime (if ever at all), but for now we have to go with what logic hints, and I believe it does hint in the direction I tried to show.

I certainly don't discount it. But for me personally, when someone makes the argument for life elsewhere based on the vastness of space (and only vastness can be proven, not endlessness) the strongest endorsement I can give it is a solid "maybe so". For me there is not enough right now to go beyond that. Maybe I'm being extra cautious, but in science that's no crime.


edit: Because how big do you want to go? If we are talking about spontaneous life generation being probable due to large numbers, then is there a replication of our entire planet, centimeter by centimeter, of water and terrain? Somewhere out there that has the Alaskan coast shaped exactly like ours and at the same latitude, while also having the Madagascarian coast shaped and located the same way??? If we are theorizing based on probabilities and infinites, there has to be. What about our exact solar system? So many trillions of galaxies, is there an exact copy of Earth, equidistant to an exact copy of Mars, equidistant to an exact copy of Jupiter, etc?

IMO you just don't know that. It's getting way too speculative. It is not a sound argument IMO to state any of those things definitively, including the supposition about life. Especially with no proof that the universe is truly "infinite." Infinity itself is not even a completely graspable concept in the physical world.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Stop bringing irrelevant topics about what scientists don't know. The observable universe is so large that the probability of life occurring on another planet is almost 100%.