Ok .. that's cool .. but that's not what it means to me.
Cool, I should keep in mind other peoples opinions.
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.
No apologies!!!! my mind/level of understanding these/this topic is not as in depth as yours or other members on this forum.
To some the 'convoluted' statement would make sense
( and convoluted would have been a great choice of a word to describe my thoughts!!!!!
)
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.
Whoah... didn't think of that...... (no sarc there)
But..... aren't we ( simple minds) still thinking of the universe as an infinite "thing". Therefore the 'huge sample of space' is mute ( correct spelling ?) The attempts would be mute too. Life could possibly not be a fluke cause the sample of space is infinite, attempts would be infinite and we haven't seen our observable universe to its full extent.
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.
I agree, quote from the movie "contact" ( I believe it is a forum members sig)
[
Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.
This all changes immediately however, when a single exo-lifeform instance is discovered … but not until that discovery.
YEP
Cheers