A question or proposition as to why we are not alone

[TrevorW]

Sceptics often argue that because we have not seen, found or heard from an alien life in our own small part of this galaxy then life elsewhere does not or cannot exist.

My own belief is that life does exist but we are yet to find it or on the otherhand never shall because of the constraints placed upon us and the distances involved.

Astronomers think that there are hundreds of billions galaxies in the universe, however the exact number is not known. But astronomers should know how many galaxies we’ve actually seen and discovered, right?

Well, not necessarily. “We don’t know,” says Ed Churchwell, professor of astronomy (http://www.universetoday.com/32869/astronomy/) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “We know it’s a very large number.” In just one image for example, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, above, there are about 10,000 galaxies visible.

In our own galaxy, There are between 100-300 billion stars in the Milky Way (http://www.universetoday.com/70742/milky-way-photo/). At most, 8,479 of them are visible from Earth. Roughly 2,500 stars are available to the unaided eye in ideal conditions from a single spot at a given time.

But the number of galaxies will keep growing as our telescopes get better and can look out and back farther in time.


“To count them all, you have to be able to look far enough back in time or deep enough in space to see when galaxies were formed,” Churchwell says. “We haven’t reached that point yet. It’s not a well-determined number, but at some point we’re going to reach it.”


The estimate of how many galaxies there are in the universe is done by counting how many galaxies we can see in a small area of the sky. This number is then used to guess how many galaxies there are in the entire sky.


For the time being, the hundreds of billions in the tally are extrapolated from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, taken (http://www.universetoday.com/23816/citizen-science-unmannedspaceflightcom/canvin-mer/) over a time period in 2003 and 2004. Pointed at a single piece of space for several months — a spot covering less than one-tenth of one-millionth of the sky — Hubble returned an image of galaxies 13 billion light (http://www.universetoday.com/34504/infrared-light/) years away.


http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Hubble-deep-field-1.jpg (http://www.universetoday.com/36610/how-many-galaxies-have-we-discovered/hubble-deep-field-1/)Hubble Deep Field. Credit: NASA


“You look at that and say, ‘How many galaxies can I see?’” Churchwell explains. “And that turns out to be a very large number.”

“Then you take that number of galaxies from that postage-stamp-sized piece of the sky and multiply it by the number of postage-stamp-sized pieces of sky,” Churchwell says. “And that turns out to be a much larger number.”


In the first Hubble Deep Field image (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01), taken in 1995, there are about 3,000 galaxies visible in the image.


So if only 1 star in each galaxy has 1 planet that is capable of supporting life then in our Universe there would be baed on these estimates 100's of billion alien life forms but because of the distances between galaxies and the constraints placed upon us we may never come in contact with an alinet life form, but to state they don't exist because we haven't found any is IMO ludicrous.

[CraigS]

So too, is to state that they do exist .. especially if we'll never know .. as you state, we'll never reach them ..

(Better off stating that they may or may not exist. Its more accurate and better balanced).

See also, the Fermi Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) .. its all been said before.

Cheers

[shelltree]

I think we need to be open to all possibilities. There may be life on other planets and maybe even moons, it seems far more bewildering to think that we are the only planet amid goodness knows how many planets in the entire universe that has just the right conditions to harbour life.

But we don't have proof of it either so no matter how many times we say, "for sure there is life out there", we have no proof of it and until there is proof I can imagine, dream and speculate about what could be out there but nothing more. It is an amazing thought, that we are not alone but without some shred of evidence, I wouldn't say it's one way or the other.

We just have to hope :)

[ChrisM]

It's been shown that the building blocks of life - the elements C, N, O & H - are relatively abundant out there. So it's not absurd to think that there could be plenty of of examples of life through the universe.

However, the much deeper question becomes - is there any other human-like intelligence out there?

[Sylvain]

That's a facinating topic.
I hope we'll make a discovery, find evidences, demonstrating the existence of life out there. And I hope to be around when that happens :)

[bartman]

Fully agree:)



K, Craig the Fermi paradox is a very compelling piece of Theoretical stuff....hehehehhe. Sure there is no hard evidence for extra-terrestrial life,
but....in your heart Craig....your deep down feeling .......statistics and theory aside ....... including the Fermi Paradox.....
do you really think there is life out there?
Simple yes or no.......and please, no - "what type of life" ..... just life in a sentient form....ie like you and I....

Cheers
Bartamoeba......:D

[ballaratdragons]

:lol:

and no more links or copy/pastes.

[casstony]

We'll only ever know if life exists elsewhere if we find it or if we finish searching all of the universe without finding life. Since it's in our nature to explore we may as well assume there is life, keep searching and not worry about not knowing the answer to the question. The journey is its own reward.

[Brian W]

Why would you want to find life like us? We are violent, cruel, greedy and cunning. Every time we get a better technology we turn it into a weapon. Our richest countries have people starving and dying for lack of medical care. War, violence, intimidation and just good old financial power are our most used ways of dealing with problems.

Perhaps we should hope that if we do find life that it is nothing like us.

Brian

[ballaratdragons]

Great answer!

As slim as it currently is, can you imagine really finding another intelligent lifeform out there, or even making contact somehow :eyepop:

Emotions would run beserk!

[casstony]

At some point in the future we will evolve to be nothing like us, assuming we survive the current hazardous stage of our evolution.

[Brian W]

I should like to see some evidence for that belief.

As far as I know as long as there have been humans, humans have been herd animals with a great fear of 'others'. We have always been territorial and violent. Our fight or flight instinct is still as strong today as it ever has been.

I grant that our technology has advanced but has our morality? We build power plants that are inherently dangerous. We have weapons of mass destruction. Show me a country where the majority of people do not need stimulants that, to a greater or lesser degree change reality to get through the day.

When might this evolution you proclaim start?
Brian

[casstony]

The pace of our evolution has been astonishing considering the short time we've been around and that pace has increased at an increasing rate. We've learned to live cooperatively in ever larger groups though we're still burdened with the competitive nature that was necessary in our early development. Our ability to cooperate will either catch up to our technological development or our technology will destroy us - time will tell.

Even if our technology destroys us it may continue on as a self-reliant, evolving artificial intelligence. Possibilities are endless.

[Brian W]

Depending upon where one draws the line we have been around for up to 4 million years.

As for living cooperatively in ever larger groups might I point you to Libya? Perhaps China and Tibet. Or perhaps just to any of the genocidal programs of the modern world... starting with the Tasmanians and progressing to Auschwitz and then perhaps Africa?

It will not be our technology that destroys us it will be our greed.

The possibilities may be endless but if the universe has any luck at all humanity will be finite.

Consider for just a moment how much better off Mother Earth and all the rest of the creatures that inhabit this planet would be without us.

Brian

[ballaratdragons]

Also, as I have mentioned before in another thread on this same topic, even if we did hear from a very distant life-form, they may not even exist any more :shrug:

SuperNovae, self-destruction, Meteor, etc.

Hello . . . Hello . . . Hello . . hmmm, they must have hung up!

[bartman]

:rofl:;):rofl:;):rofl:

[casstony]

I think you're focusing exclusively on the negative Brian - it's not hard to find the good side of human nature either.

All species have to compete to survive; we're in a transition period where we've achieved a level of intelligence that may not be beneficial to our species survival unless we can alter our competitive instinct. Perhaps that pressure to cooperate or die will lead us to continue to evolve through this phase.

We learned to cooperate first in family groups, then in tribal groups because it benefited our survival. Learning to cooperate on a planetary scale would benefit the survival of our species today - maybe that pressure will lead us to continue evolving and ensure a future for humanity.

[bartman]

Very true.....in all respects of your post.
Magellan, Columbus et al - they all went out and found new "whatever's" ....

The journey is THE REWARD.

There IS life out there ( my opinion - no scientific back up-) and wether we are close enough to meet them - or them to meet us, it's all just a matter of time.....(space time .......

Just found a piece of music/song in my library, which could/can meld(?) into this post......

The Shamen...various tracks....
Space Time;
Re-Evolution

Check out the Lyrics......and the audio!!!

Bartman

[jjjnettie]

I want to believe!

[astroron]

I believe there is life out in the COSMOS :) Can I Prove it:question: No!
I hope that other life is found in the galaxy is found in my life time be it Microbes or intelligent :thumbsup:
Cheers

[CraigS]

Bart;
The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with theoretical ‘stuff’.
The link I posted, gives an excellent summary of most of the ‘for’ and ‘against’ points raised in recent discussions here at IIS, and then some.

You could replace this entire thread with that one link.

In my heart do I really think there is life out there ?
Bart, in my heart, I really don’t care whether there is life out there or not. Toss a coin if you must have an answer ! I choose to contribute to the community in ways other than by voicing my opinion on such a topic.

I respect people’s right to choose, and I respect yours.

Narrowing the field of answer options to your question, won’t make a difference to the part that matters.

I remain open to consideration of all points of view.
:)
Cheers

[supernova1965]

This is what you are doing in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor. Saying that because we can't see it that it isn't there that is the simple answer and as the article shows the simple answer usually isn't the correct one. You are also trying to shift the burden of proof an old and well used arguement when one can't actually back up their statements with facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof. Hope you are well and happy in your beliefs. I know I am in mine.:thumbsup: And we don't know that we can never reach them all we know is that at present we can't reach them that does not mean that we won't be able to in the future.:question:

[supernova1965]

As a race we are not so violent,cruel and greedy as we once were just look back at history and see what used to be quite exceptable and isn't now

[bojan]

Same here...
And I would like to witness the discovery of at least microbial life forms (on Mars?) but this is unlikely, I am afraid..

However, as for existence of intelligent life (in our Milky Way), Fermi paradox is the best evidence suggesting the opposite, that we have so far, unfortunately.
I was following the work of Milan Cirkovic for some time, he is trying to explain Fermi paradox by proposing the regular sterilisation of the large areas of Galaxy by GRB's, or some other events (including self-destruction of civilisations).. even the re-evaluation of the whole concept of SETI (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506110)
But, all this is based on BELIEF that life is abundant and that it MUST happen... and that Fermi paradox is a genuine paradox. But what if it isn't?
We simply don't know.. we even don't HOW life started here, on our own Earth.

So, in principle I am with Craig here: the whole discussion is quite meaningless.

[Brian W]

There is an old joke or truism in the Mennonite culture that might be applicable here; what is the first thing a new Mennonite community does? it hires a Lutheran to be the police man!

Humanity did not learn how to cooperate in family and group. What humanity learned was the need to drive out those who did not fit in so that the larger group could function and survive.

I fear and believe that if we ever do begin the exploration of space that it will be a great deal more like 'Avatar' than 'Star Trek'

Brian

[Brian W]

There you go I should never answer mail before coffee. Sorry about the last post but it should be understandable.

Brian

[avandonk]

I have as much proof of extraterrestrial 'intelligent' life as all the religions have for their deities and the afterlife NONE!

We can however by observation and inference conclude given the right conditions life will inevitably occur given the correct conditions. This is only due to the laws of the Universe. Not some mythical deity invoked by primitive hunter gatherers.

Fortunately for us they are too far away to even communicate let alone pose a threat if they were more advanced than us. If they are less advanced the answer is obvious.

I personally think the Universe is teeming with life without any proof only because the alternative is equally terrifying!

Bert

[bojan]

Well, Brian,
Your beliefs are founded on a very strong historical and factual evidence.
Such behaviour was essential and absolutely necessary for humans to survive in the first place. And it is not only the speciality of human species..
Now, whether such hard-wiring of our brains is good for survival in the future, as humans are becoming the dominant species on Earth and the Darwinian evolution in the classical sense is no more, is to be seen.
Historically, it can be proven that the behaviour can be modified, especially because it seems that humans are social animals in a first place - so other urges we have can be controlled (by laws and culture) and sublimed.

[casstony]

The caring side of human nature is all around us Brian; to pick one example the Victorian government spends money to support children with a variety of intellectual, physical and behavioural disabilities - in the not to distant past such kids might have been considered a burden on society that are at best ignored and at worst disposed of. One can find plenty of examples of good or bad human behaviour, but I think most people try to help others rather than kill them, depending on the circumstances.

Still, you might be right Brian but chin up - we're not dead yet :) .

[Brian W]

lets hope I'm wrong.
Brian

[casstony]

I imagine many have seen page 29 of Australian Sky & Telescope (April edition). We've looked for life in a poofteenth of our galaxy so far. Our ability to search for transmissions from other civilizations is ramping up rapidly.

[CraigS]

Warren;

I wasn't the one who said we'll never reach them.
To state: "That they don’t exist" is just as valid as stating: "That they do exist" … because we have no empirical data to make either claim, with any assurance.

The issue about reaching them is basically irrelevant, but under the same logic created in the original post, the statements:

1. “They do exist because we can never reach them”.
is as equally as ‘ludicrous’ (not my words) as:
2. “They don’t exist because we can never reach them”.

The original premise:

makes statement (1) above redundant and eliminates the possibility of statement (2).

The whole argument premise is rendered meaningless (no disrespect implied towards Trevor) ... which is OK. I don’t mind living in a world that is empty and meaningless. That way, I can choose to do whatever I please).
:)
Cheers

[TrevorW]

The term ludicrous was used because IMO to dismiss the existence of alien life because there has not been a genuine supported close encounter of any kind is farcical IMO in the face of all probability. This is a purely personal assumption.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Yep, I agree. The 'because I haven't seen it before', as justification for a conclusion, is pure pseudoscientific reasoning in my view, also. And this would stand even without the scale of the universe matters you raise.

Interestingly, many outcomes in science which have required addressing the scales of the universe, and taking them into consideration, have very frequently resulted in unexpected, counterintuitive outcomes. What may seem 'ludicrous' from our perspectives, is very frequently reversed by the reality of how it actually works.

The essence of the case you've raised in this post however, in my view, is not one of them. The 'because I haven't seen it before' argument is nonsensical.

How much haven't we seen of it all, eh?

Cheers

[mill]

Ok i make it a bit easier :P
They might exist but we will never know because we might never have the technology to find out or the human race will be wiped out.
If we find proof then we still might not be able to do anything and we can all have a warm fuzzy feeling that more life forms exist.
Instead wasting money on finding other life forms, it could be used to clean up this world where we live on at this moment, and find alternative fuels.

I myself think that there are other life forms out there (human or not).
But that is solely my opinion and not necessarily other peoples view :P

All comma and punctuations are placed by me in the believe that they are on the right spot :lol:
:thanx:

[CraigS]

.. or .. by spending money on pursuing other life forms, we may accidentally (or intentionally), discover other clean ways of generating power for ourselves !

If we could overcome the obstacles of close-to-light speed travel, I'm sure solving our present energy problems would seem miniscule, by comparison !

One thing that can be said of the search for exo-life is that if we don't pursue the goal, we'll never find out !

Cheers

[TrevorW]

In someways I agree, look how much time and effort has gone into SETI without any genuine return on time invested.

However as space will (again IMO) be our next frontier to ensure the survival of mankind barring some extraordinary catastrophe that curtails population explosion some benefit may come from the scientific exploits into exploring our galaxy or finding such life whether sentient or not.

[avandonk]

Even a negative result is a data point!
Bert

[Rob_K]

Interesting read. To me it seems simple. The universal laws of physics applied to planet formation produce life. We have the empirical evidence in abundance. It is here on Earth. And we have empirical evidence of the building blocks of life in far flung objects such as comets. The alternative is that life is 'special' or magical. Good on you if you believe that, and I mean that sincerely - life's tough enough as it is being a germ on a rock out in the vastness of space.

It's very hard to get beyond our early cultural brainwashing that life is somehow miraculous, rather than a 'proven' expression of the ordering of matter from the chaos of starbirth. When we spectroscopically detect an exotic new compound in a distant star system, do we say, well that is the only place in the Universe that this compound exists, until we get indisputable empirical data to say otherwise?

Life elsewhere in the Universe becomes a reasonable assumption at the very least for similar melting pots, not speculation. And that is only for life as we know it. The burden of proof is on the naysayers to find evidence that life is magical after all, or that the Solar System (or Earth) is somehow unique in all the Universe, or that the universal laws that produce life apply to only our small corner of the Universe. The proof required would be extraordinary because we already have the empirical evidence. Fence-sitters... well they're in denial both ways. :lol:

In practical terms we may never detect life outside our own Solar System (or detect it to the satisfaction of everyone!), but we can be pretty certain it exists. We are the proof.

Cheers -



PS... :question: Maybe we should be looking for dark life, seeing as dark matter & energy dominate the Universe... :P

[bojan]

No, I wouldn't say that..

The science operates in different way.
Yes, we have one "proof" and it is our own existence, but science also requires repeatability of experiment - and as long as we don't have another example (of extraterrestrial life form) in our hands, we simply can't say that life in universe is a rule rather than just a very rare (or even one off) exception.
Anything beyond that is speculation, whether we like it or not... All we have so far on extraterrestrial life existence is just circumstantial...
But just one other example, even in bacterial form (perhaps a plant or bacterial fossils on Mars surface) will make all the difference. It sounds like a bit formal approach, but that's how science works...

[jjjnettie]

yep, yep, yep, we need evidence before we can say for certain that there is life elsewhere in the Universe.
Even though in our hearts we know there is.

[bojan]

Quite so :thumbsup:

[The_bluester]

My own perspective is, given the current estimates of what proportion of stars are likely to have planets, and what proportion of panets are likely to provide conditions suitable for live as we can conceive of it (I think it would be a mistake to only consider "earthlike" planets as candidates for life) and given how many galaxies have been observed by the likes of the Hubble scope. I think it is almost inconceivable that this is the only place in the universe where life has come about. Will we ever have undeniable proof that Earth is the only place where ther is life? I doubt it. Will we ever prove that there is no other life in the universe? No, that is a position that could only ever be disproved, not proven!

[Rob_K]

I acknowledge your points Bojan, but it is not speculation. Speculation would be talking about some theoretically-modelled occurrence for which there was no empirical data. In this case, we have empirical data (Earth) as well as a rough (though evolving) model of how life formed. It is extrapolation of course.

We started off billions of years ago with a rich cloud of dust and gas, applied the universal laws of physics, and ended up with abundant life. Indisputable, nothing else, no magic. Because life beyond the Solar System may prove difficult (or even impossible) to detect at least in the short term, in considering the possibility of life elsewhere in the Universe we look to other systems. That is, looking for things that might make our Solar System unique. Not so many years ago the existence of extrasolar planets was speculation. Then improving technology found big ones. More improvements in resolution - smaller and smaller ones. We're still working on resolution, but are down to super-Earths now. Planetary systems are abundant. And that's just close to us in the Milky Way. Talk to planetary scientists and tell them that Earth-sized bodies are pure speculation until proven by hard empirical data!

If you want hard proof before considering the possibility of life elsewhere in the Universe, you may have a long wait. Mars would be great, but really we know already that conditions were right in our Solar System for the emergence of life. I disagree with your view of the way science works - if it was just the interpretation of empirical data, it would not advance. :)

Cheers -

[CraigS]

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever reproduced life from its fundamental constituents.
This suggests that there are some missing elements in our understanding of how it gets started :question:
What are those elements ? Where do they exist ? Under what physical conditions do they come together to form life ? Where in the universe might they be found ? How many of these places exist ?

The gaps in our understanding of life are huge .. perhaps commensurate in size and number, as the dimensions of the universe. If this is not so, then why is it not so ?

The laws of Physics govern what happens when a brick on a rubber band is pulled up an inclined plane of carborundum paper. No matter how many times you run the experiment every outcome is different. It is called a complex system. (Credit to: Bert).

Does life happen this way ? If not, why not ? Are the number of attempts related to chance duplicate outcome ? If so, how many attempts are needed? If not, then is it reasonable to agree with an empirical, observationally demonstrable model, that every outcome is different, no matter how many times you run the experiment ?



Why is it so important to be right about such a nonsense issue ?
There's something else afoot here, methinks ! :question:


Last time I looked, we live inside the Solar System.

Cheers

[bojan]

Exactly as you said... extrapolation.

Please don't get me wrong, I do want this extrapolation to be proven correct one day.. but at this stage, it is only extrapolation, based on only one single data point. That is my point.



I fully agree with this.




That has been proven on 150+ examples so far, so with this statement I have no problems.



Yes, I do want hard proof.. I bet you do as well ;)
I agree, waiting is hard, though :D

[GrampianStars]

Mmmmmm.............. doesn't wash
What you are also assuming that by association the universe is awash with Ipods, WMD's, Internet, WAR, fuel guzzling machines, etc......
as We Have the proof ;)

[Rob_K]

Yes, very valid questions although pretty obvious ones Craig. But the fact is it did get started. Dust & gas + universal laws of physics = life, in this solar system. That is the simple statement of input and output.




Pure speculation. If they are gaps, how can they be measured? ;)



Dear oh dear, so many ifs and if nots. Are you trying to say it's all too difficult, so don't bother? If we don't know what started life, how can you speculate on what sort of system it is? I could posit that the actual beginnings of life are a simple system that must occur, with equal validity. But of course I wouldn't.



:lol: LOL, it's called paranoia!



No, we live in a solar system. :)

Cheers -

[supernova1965]

Actually some one did just that and found organic compounds and amino acids in the flask. Link Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment)

[joe_smith]

Hi Rob but if life is that simple where is the evidence for it being this simple? We have a theory on how life evolves but not the actual cause of that life here. We have no idea how life started here or even how our consciousness fully works for Intelligent life. As far as I can tell there is not one laws of physics that deals with how life started. How dose a cloud of lifeless dust and gas turn into a fully conscious Intelligent life-form? For me the odds for life starting here on earth and to have the life forms we have here to day all working in harmony in nature happening again on another planet is unreal to me. Its like throwing a million playing cards out of a plane and watching them hit the ground and then doing it again and all the cards line up on one another. For me life was formed with he univese or life was the goal and not just a by-product, because so far all the evidence on earth shows life can only come from life. Why hasn't a Stanley Miller's famous spark type of experiments formed a living cell? if life was that simple, a simple cell is anything but simple.

[CraigS]

No life .. keep trying Warren ..
… you are underestimating and oversimplifying, the steps beyond the simple synthesis of complex organic molecules from simpler chemicals, and the emergence of complex molecules capable of life functions.

Cheers

[supernova1965]

I didn't once in my post claim he created life but I did show that he created the building blocks of life.

[bojan]

And then you extrapolate...
But this is not proof yet.

Guys, we are talking here about how science works -
Personally, I strongly believe the extraterrestrial life is abundant and just by-product, not a goal.. (Whose goal, BTW ???).
But, this is only MY, personal belief.. and I don't have any proof for it yet.

On the other hand, if/when we find a bacteria in Mars' soil, THAT will be enough proof for me that this can happen on other planets.
With two data points, extrapolation is much more accurate process...

[supernova1965]

Isn't that how we learn stuff to take evidence and then to extrapolate and form a theory and then prove that theory to be fact. If scientists didn't extrapolate we would learn nothing.

[CraigS]

Rob (& Warren);

There is much to learn from keeping an open mind.

You'll find that complex systems biology is a field of mainstream science which investigates the structure and function in biological organisms with emphasis on the emergence of, and subsequent evolution of organisms and species.

It is based on the complex interactions within biological systems. Its key focus is on the mathematical modelling of fundamental relations and patterns, leading to the emergence of life. There is a partial overlap with with complex systems theory and it covers the range of abstract theoretical complex systems within applied mathematics, with or without relevance to biology, chemistry or physics.

It is not speculation that complexity theory is used to model aspects leading to the emergence of life. It is used because the observed characteristics we refer to as the 'template' definitions of life, match the theory. (Eg: Emergence, self-organisation, replication, reproduction, complex symbiotic interactions with local an external environments, etc).

I assure you, there is much more to where I'm coming from, than my irrelevent opinions.

The simple mathematical/statistical models cited in this thread, (and many others on this same topic), are basically irrelevant when compared with where modern theory and modelling has taken us.

We should adapt before making wild statements which are not supportable in the face of such developments, and make statements which are supportable.

I may look like a simple fence-sitter but I assure you, there are many good reasons for not making wild inaccurate statements. At least I am aware of what I don't know .. even if I am not an expert in it.

Cheers

[bojan]

Extrapolation is fine as a starting point, as a working hypothesis.. driving force ... like "This could be, lets see if it's true.." but is nowhere near proving something to be true.

[supernova1965]

I believe it is a wildly inaccurate statement to say that there isn't more evidence for life than for none. There is a lot more evidence for life than evidence to say that none exists I still haven't seen any evidence showing it doesn't exist. If we were not here discussing this I would agree that the chances are that there was none but then I wouldn't be able to say that would I as I wouldn't be here.

[supernova1965]

That is my point but if we took the opposite position we would get nowhere I never said it was proof. But it is a lot closer to saying it does exist than saying it doesn't. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that there isn't more circumstantial evidence for life than circumstantial evidence for it not existing at some stage we have to say the balance is in favour of it being there somewhere while this is not proof it makes it more likely than not. That is my point it is a driving force while the view that it may not exist is a regressive force. Also there is evidence that life didn't start only once on earth but twice. http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/556302-life-on-earth-started-not-once-but-twice

[joe_smith]

This is the whole thing with a chat about the possibility of life on other planets there is no proof at all. All views about the facts we have so for are being interrupted by our own world views (me included) and has been stated here, what we believe in our hearts. As to whose goal, who knows or even if there is a something watching. But until we find the golden nugget of evidence can you rule it out? you can with your current world view of what you believe to be fact, but can you rule it out scientificily using science. To me no, until one is proven and the other is disproven I will keep a open mind. Dont forget the notion of small bugs causing disease was laughed at as being so stupid until Louis Pasteur Proved Germs Cause Disease and started the whole new world of micro biology for me we have only opened the box on the origin and meaning of life and are on a wonderful journey, just dont get stuck on a oneway path its going to be a multiple path maze for the truth. I would like to hear why people hold the view they have, and what facts they use to get to that view.

[TrevorW]

One thing for sure that is certain science fiction has often become science fact regardless of the all the sceptics lets not forget that

:P;):D

[bojan]

With proofs you can's say "likely" or "not likely".
We have no proof that life exist outside Earth and that is how it is.
Of course, we have no proof for the opposite either.

In other words, we don't know... yet.

Having said that, I didn't mean we should stop searching... on the contrary. But we have to be aware always, that indication for something to exist is not a proof of existence.. never was and never will be.

[CraigS]

Extrapolation in a Complex or Chaotic System is irrelevant.

That is the whole point of it !

These systems are not necessarily deterministic !

Warren, you are attempting to apply mathematical techniques which assume a characteristic which is not at all self-evident !

Cheers

[CraigS]

From amongst the folk who believe in exo-life, and have contributed to this thread, and who demonstrate their wisdom in admitting that their views are purely beliefs, I find one comment which is also scientifically on the mark …



Which allows for the unknowns associated with the frequency of occurrence of those conditions, the unknowns associated with the emergence of life, and Chaotic/Complexity modelling, which shapes our quantitative thinking about it all and causes us to pause before making unsupportable quantitative statements.

And I'm in love with jjjnettie's "I want to believe". That's cool, too.

Cheers

[Brian W]

Ok lets turn a microscope into a telescope. We are looking for life like us and compared to the universe we really are less than a microscopic infestation in a single cell.

Is the some way to test to see if the universe is alive.

All right now that everyone has stopped laughing and or rolling their eyes... I ask the question seriously.

Most of humanity, well perhaps only some of humanity, then again perhaps it is only a vast minority of humanity but certainly I know, from observation, that humans are not the only creatures that live and think.

So I seriously repeat the question; is there any reason for denying the possibility that the universe is a living thinking entity.

And as a follow up question; can any one think of a way to test the hypothesis that the universe is alive?

Brian

[bojan]

First, lets define the term "alive".

[mill]

Life can be anything, what do we know about what is classed as alive?
We just look at us and that is it.
Maybe there is life that we just don't class as alive because we just don't know or just discard it because we look at live that has to breath air and has to grow.

[bojan]

No mate, that is not right thinking.. We have to know exactly what we are talking about.
Even when we look at us, we assume couple of critical conditions to be present - and we immediately know if some object is "alive" or "dead".

In biological sense, "alive" means roughly the following:
1) metabolism
2) response to environment
3) growth
4) replication
5) ?

If we go deeper into mechanism of the living cell, we can see many more details but essentially, we have all the above.



Now, to try to apply the above definition to the whole universe... it won't work I'm afraid.
If we have to modify the definition of life to include the universe.. we may find that the new definition doesn't include us (even if we are part of the universe... and we "know" we are alive...).

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=bojan;702042]No mate, that is not right thinking.. We have to know exactly what we are talking about.
Even when we look at us, we assume couple of critical conditions to be present - and we immediately know if some object is "alive" or "dead".

In biological sense, "alive" means roughly the following:
1) metabolism

if by metabolism you mean gasses and fluids that move throughout the body and the ability to reproduce then I would suggest throughout the universe there is movement and in certain areas, the Pillars of Creation in the Eagle nebula come to mind, there is certainly creation.

2) response to environment

I believe some would say that the Big Bang was in response to an environmental effect in the singularity. Whether is a response to the environment and there are whether patterns on planets, stars and in space.

3) growth

the universe is certainly expanding

4) replication

one theory, and I admit not the most popular is that the universe is in a constant expansion and contraction which to me is replication. Another theory is that there are multiple universes. If that is true then as with humans and many other species there is no reason not to have sexual replication.

5) ?

*

Now, to try to apply the above definition to the whole universe... it won't work I'm afraid.

I believe that I have shown the possibility that the definition you have given could and I stress -could- apply to the universe as well as it applies to us.

Brian

[CraigS]

As far as classifications go, I'd say:

i) there's life as we know it and;
ii) life that we don't know.

For life as we know it, (in addition to Bojan's classical definition), try Mary Voytek's definition. She heads NASA's astrobiology program. She says:


Pretty cool, if you ask me. Give them a go, Brian !

For life as we know it, the two oddballs are viruses and crystals.
Organic molecules from non-organic replication molecules, are also covered by Clay Theory process definitions.

Cheers

[bojan]

Brian, no...

1) Metabolism is breathing, eating and sh***... in other words, living organism needs energy from outside environment (in some form - for us, this is in the form of other living organisms) to sustain the working of internal machinery and growth. The leftovers from this processes are expelled out back into environment.

2) Response to environment may be defined as changing (something like homeostat), counteracting to outside stimuli, in order to sustain internal equilibrium and state of affairs (for example, the temperature of our bodies is regulated, and independent of the outside conditions (of course, within limits))

3) Growth means exactly that - living organisms grow as they get older

4) Replication doesn't mean expansion and contraction, it means sexual (or other) means of procreation, so that the species survives and evolves, regardless of what happens to individuals (as we know, individual members of species die, but species itself survives... much longer)

You are too metaphysical with your analogies.
So, no, the definition I gave can't be applied to universe.

[bojan]

I am just a humble RF engineer :P

[mill]

Lol just found that out by looking at your public profile.

[Brian W]

Ok Craig,

Life needs water;

every where we look we find water, even on our moon which was for a long time thought to be arid. The universe creates water, the universe stores water, the universe uses water on and between the planets and all living being that we know of... which are a part of the universe use water.

life needs energy

Eta Carina, the Trapezium, all suns and some planets are putting out huge amounts of energy . The universe has an energy supply

a cell or structure that separates itself from the environment.

internally we have cell like structures in solar systems and galaxies. To the best of my knowledge main line science sees a border that encompasses our universe that separates it from what is not in our universe. If there are multiple universes then the separation is even more obvious.

storing and reproducing the blue print

there are a limited number of star and galaxy types which indicates to me that there could be a blue print that is both stored and followed

conversion of stuff into protein

I am guessing here she is referring to feeding the body? Which when you think about it is what happens to the universe when it, through gravity, collects stellar gasses et al and eventually produces a new star which feeds the energy needs of the universe.

must be able to respond to Darwinian evolution

as we are all part of the universe and we all respond to Darwinian evolution there does not seem to be a problem here. But on a grander scale when multiple galaxies interact and the strongest survives or when a black hole consumes by claw and tooth all around it, surely Darwinian evolution comes into play. And if there are multiple universes and they collide or merely interact surely once again the hairy face of Darwin is resurrected.

As I said Craig I believe a reasonable hypothetical case can be made for a living universe but just how to take the universes blood pressure is beyond me.
Brian

[CraigS]

The universe does not need water. It is a by-product of what goes on inside it. Sorry Brian. Fail.


The Universe does not require energy as it serves no purpose !
Fail.


Brian .. we've had this out before … in BBT, there is no "outside" the universe. There is no bound in the present Cosmological model. Fail.



Cool. How is what is inside your mind relevant to the Universe (as a cause)?
Fail.


No .. she means PROTEINS ! It has a very specific definition in science. Check it out !
Fail.


This is stretching it a bit Brian.
There is no particular 'fittest' in the universe. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it merely changes state.
Fail.


That's Ok Brian .. you can believe whatever you like.
This doesn't even rate as a hypothesis, as it has no basis of reality, other than in your, (and only your), mind.

Cheers

[Brian W]

Nothing metaphysical in the above though it is certainly speculative.

Brian

[Brian W]

But I have such a nice mind Craig. However it is more attuned to the spiritual than the scientific so it may well be time to hide the report card (once again) and follow along quietly for a while.
Brian

[CraigS]

It is a nice mind, too Brian.
And I enjoy our conversations.

There are points to be made in this thread … and they are important obstacles to get over, in order to move this whole topic along. I think I could easily count well over 200 posts on this same topic over the last few months.
Just trying my best to bump it along and generate some fresh thoughts about it all. Appreciate your help in doing the same.
:)
Cheers

[Brian W]

my pleasure
B.

[bojan]

OK, one by one as follows:


Universe doesn't metabolise. Metabolism is on-going process, and it is in place as long as organism lives.
When the metabolism stops, death takes place and dead organism start to decay rapidly - the decay process is boosted by its own out of control enzymes.
Have a look here for clarification on metabolism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism
To say that black holes are universe's excretion orifices is very original and certainly amusing :lol:..
But the problem is, black holes stay in the system (universe).. so this can't be considered as metabolism.





Yes... it evolves... but since condition 1) is not met, it is not alive.



Yes.. but this is not growth as per definition I gave earlier (and we are not playing with words here, we are trying to approach your original question from scientific point of view).



Well, well, sex between two universes ! :eyepop::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Now that is a colossal stretch !

Sexual reproduction on Earth is not mandatory, but it is most common among higher developed organisms on Earth - it seems that this is the best way of getting rid of bad genes (or, corrupted information stored in genes).
Paramecium, very simple unicellular organism normally reproduces itself by simple division... but from time to time there will be two Paramecia merging briefly and exchanging genetic material.. this process refreshes the genes and cleans corrupted DNA sections. However, it can not be considered as sex, resulting in the next generation of Paramecium. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium)

However the Universe is complex, the structures we see (stars, clusters, galaxies, clusters and super-clusters of galaxies) are not organised and stable enough to be considered alive as per standard definition of life.
They are certainly not self-sustained (neither homoeostatic), they obey the laws of thermodynamics and life doesn't - because it keeps it's entropy low by using energy from outside, as long as it is alive (Maybe this may be another definition of life?)

[Brian W]

Bojan, as I said to Craig time once again to hide the report card. I hoped you might like the imagery of the black hole and cosmic sex.

However this discussion has led me to another question; what type of container is needed for the development of intellect?

The answer might help us to develop better tools for the ongoing search.
Brian

PS; Craig I did look up protein but now I need a really good dictionary to even begin to understand what I read.
B.

[bojan]

I certainly did :lol::thumbsup:



This is something that bothers me for ages...
Being an engineer myself, my approach to this question is predictable:

Hardware (brains) and software (wiring within the brains, partly genetically determined partly result of learning, based on stimuli via sensors and trial-error cycles).

Now, what is the mind (intellect).... is it a number of operations/calculations in the brains per second, or something else... I don't know.

[TrevorW]

All known life on Earth is built upon carbon and carbon-based compounds. Yet the possibility has been discussed that life elsewhere in the Universe may have a different chemical foundation, based on the element silicon.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Silicon-based-Life-50623.shtml

as such alien life, but not as we know it Jimmy, may not need water to survive