Quote:
Originally Posted by bartman
Craig;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigS
"Supports my suspicion that we are limited in our own understanding, by our own miniscule experience of the Solar System, and the physical processes observed here on Earth."
|
Doesn't mean we cant fantasize - read 'make ideas' - that might evolve into real 'things/events'.
Look at Jules Verne and Star Trek (Gene Rodenbury). We dont need to necessarily know all the "physical processes" to make things happen just yet.
Jules Verne ( and others) anticipated that we would make it to the moon. |
No worries about fantasizing, Bart ! I'm into dreaming, also.
I'm a big supporter of exploring out there !
Can't see anything wrong with 'havin' a little faith' and making use of that as a basis to explore .. exploring is the only way to find out, after all !!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bartman
I am not saying emphatically that there is life out there, but the statement;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigS
"This still does not support the idea that 'life MUST be out there', however, it does support the concept of: 'infinite diversity through infinite combinations'."
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bartman
in my eyes reads that life IS out there......the infinite diversity and combo bit.
|
|
Ok .. that's cool .. but that's not what it means to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigS
"If this ever turns out to become an emerging consensus picture, then the view that a specific occurrence of life emerging, actually requires a universe of the size and dimensions of our observable domain, would seem to become even more credible than it presently is."
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bartman
Sorry Craig you got me there..... what the shell does that mean????? 
In plain words - I dont understand what that says.
I'm re-reading it over and over again  
#####sarcastic joke coming#######
Craig are you a politician? 
If that was in bad taste Mods please delete but Craig ...No malice is intended.... I just simply thought it was like a pollies response to a question.......
Please Craig, no offence 
yours humbly, Bartman |
No not a pollie .. I'm always seeking new ways to compress the thinking behind the concept, which was outlined way back in this humungous thread (I believe). Apologies if the statement was convoluted.
If life was a 'fluke', then there needs to be a huge number of 'attempts' for it to result in life (as well as beings, like us). Those 'attempts', require an enormous sample space, before 'it works'. We see a huge sample space in our observable universe. Maybe this single instance of life, required everything we see around us in our observable universe, in order for it to exist here.
This concept is just as valid as "there must be life out there because of the numbers". Whichever alternative we choose to believe, is purely by choice (and opinion). Statistics and science cannot 'disprove' one or the other concept.
This all changes immediately however, when a single exo-lifeform instance is discovered … but not until that discovery.
Cheers