NO Life IS Possible

[CraigS]

For all those who argue: "that if life arose on Earth, then life throughout the universe must be common", comes this one:

Astrophysicists apply new logic to downplay the probability of extraterrestrial life

David Spiegel and Edwin Turner of Princeton University have submitted a paper to arXiv that turns the Drake equation on its head. Instead of assuming that life would naturally evolve if conditions were similar to that found here on Earth, the two use Bayesian reasoning to show that just because we evolved in such conditions, doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere; using evidence of our own existence doesn’t show anything they argue, other than that we are here.
..
As Spiegel and Turner point out, basing our expectations of life existing on other planets, for no better reason that it exists here, is really only proof that were are more than capable of deceiving ourselves into thinking that things are much more likely than they really are.

… at last ! … sensibility prevails ! …

The two argue that just because intelligent life occurred rather quickly here on Earth, once conditions were ripe, giving rise to the people we are today, that doesn’t mean it naturally would on another planet just like ours in another place in the universe.

Of course, my favourite perspective on all this, (Chaos Theory), already directly supports this new statistical approach, and goes even further by underwriting the non-predictability of it all !
Interesting that this stuff is now starting to come out .. hot on the tail of NASA's reduced funding outlook.
Paper is here.

Reality rules dudes … (& dudettes) !

Cheers

[avandonk]

It is a bit like the old joke where a kid with a stick and a bit of line with a simple hook walks off the pier with a very large fish. A little old lady says 'thats a big fish you have there whart sort is it?'
The young boy replies 'all the blokes on the end of the pier with their fancy rods said it was an effin fluke!'

Both camps are deluded! We just do not know!

Bert

[CraigS]

Hang on a minute there Bert … haven't you said in the past that given all the same initial conditions as those which occurred on Earth in the past, life would still emerge, all be it different life ????

Cheers

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hang on a minute there Bert … haven't you said in the past that given all the same initial conditions as those which occurred on Earth in the past, life would still emerge, all be it different life ????

Cheers

Yes it would. Given the correct conditions life is inevitable. Intelligent life is another matter. In my humble opinion intelligent life does not exist on Earth yet on average.
Have a look at any pond life and try to see the really intelligent sentient individuals.
Bert

[CraigS]

Well, their paper is a tricky read, but I think their argument is that the actual emergence of life, (abiogenetically), can be said to be so rare, that it means that the level of confidence of finding it elsewhere is extremely low ... to the point that one cannot predict the emergence (by the same means), elsewhere.

In other words, we can't extrapolate from what may have happened here ...

Thus, a Bayesian enthusiast of extraterrestrial life should be significantly encouraged by the rapid appearance of life on the early Earth but cannot be highly confident on that basis.

So, this model would seem to say that "given the same conditions, life is by no means inevitable" ??

However, as I mentioned, its a tricky read .. but I think this is what they're concluding in the paper … (happy to be corrected if I'm reading more into it than what it says).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Well, I can tell you right now that we won't see NASA or anyone else find life elsewhere in our lifetimes simply because of what's going on down here right at this minute. I doubt NASA will be going anywhere for a rather long time, in so far as manned (and even in some cases unmanned) missions go. In any case, as Bert said, there is no intelligent life present in this Universe. You couldn't call the so called sentient species dominating this planet, intelligent. If it was, we'd be in a much better position than what we are. So, both camps are wrong. They just don't know and it's rather pointless arguing about it. They're both coming at it from a system of belief and have the "evidence" and "science" to back their PoV's up.

You can make maths (and theory) predict anything you like and you can use it to back up any preconceived notion you want. Until you have proof to the contrary or to the affirmative, it's all just conjecture. Chaos theory or any other theory tells you nothing...until you have evidence to back it up (empirical, anecdotal or otherwise) it's nothing more than just reasonable (or wild, as the case may be) speculation.

However, given what we do know about life here on Earth and given what we know about how the Earth formed and the conditions which followed subsequently etc etc etc. And given what I know about these areas of science, it is my assertion that the same patterns that were found to be here, will also be found to be elsewhere. If there's life here, all things being equal, it will also be elsewhere. What that life might be, I haven't a clue, but there's nothing to say it won't follow similar patterns to what we have here. But it could equally be totally different altogether. That's the beauty of it all. The possibilities are endless.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I think their argument is that the actual emergence of life, (abiogenetically), can be said to be so rare, that it means that the level of confidence of finding it elsewhere is extremely low ... to the point that one cannot predict the emergence (by the same means), elsewhere.

They have no way of proving that assertion at all. How do they know if abiogenesis is rare. What is the empirical basis for their assumption???. Their whole paper is not predicting anything....all it's doing is going over the same old, tired arguments for the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Hell, given their assumptions, we shouldn't even be here ourselves. Which just goes to show you how nonsensical their arguments actually are. It's quite simple to apply their reasoning and statistical methods on a global scale and that would mean no life should be present anywhere.

What it means is that they're going to have to explain our own presence and unless they have a very convincing and plausible explanation, then they're going to have to concede that they don't know at all and then the religious element will be bound to raise its "solution" to the problem eventually.

Back to square one.

[CraigS]

Ahhh … good ol' Julius-the-optimist at it again ??

During my break, I had someone attempting to argue that if all the exo-planets out there had zero water, then you could say that the probability of exo-life was zero. (I agreed).

and then .. that if this were the case, (by the same logical premise), then if all the exo-planets out there DID have liquid water, then the chance of life as we know it, are increased. Everytime we find a planet with liquid water, then the chances of life as we know it, are increased.

I disagreed, as the 'life as we don't know it' component, may significantly swamp the proportion of 'life as we do know it' component, thereby swinging the chances back to even. (I decided that I started to sound too much like 'Sir Julius-the-renormalised' … so I went for another beer …

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ahhh … good ol' Julius-the-optimist at it again ??

During my break, I had someone attempting to argue that if all the exo-planets out there had zero water, then you could say that the probability of exo-life was zero. (I agreed).

and then .. that if this were the case, (by the same logical premise), then if all the exo-planets out there DID have liquid water, then the chance of life as we know it, are increased. Everytime we find a planet with liquid water, then the chances of life as we know it, are increased.

I disagreed, as the 'life as we don't know it' component, may significantly swamp the proportion of 'life as we do know it' component, thereby swinging the chances back to even. (I decided that I started to sound too much like 'Sir Julius-the-renormalised' … so I went for another beer …

Cheers

It's got nothing to do with optimism and everything to do with what we think to be the case. The laws of physics appear to be the same no matter where we look. Since we rely on those laws for our existence, all things being equal, the probability of life being elsewhere is just the same as it was (and is) for this planet.

Only one problem with the contention of all the exoplanets not having any water....they've detected water everywhere in the Universe. Given its ubiquitous nature and presence in all star forming regions, some of the planets which form in those regions must have water as a consequence of where they form. Even if they didn't, there's more than one substance around which can act as a medium and solvent for organic (or even non organic) life.

As far as life as we know it, or don't know it, is concerned, we have no way of knowing anything about the proportions of either. Until we go out there and look for ourselves. The likelihood of either is an unknown quantity.

[xelasnave]

I cant understand why the Drake equation it given any time at all...it merely tries to quantify something with no evidence ... you may as well pick a number out of the air or calculate the probability of unicorns.. it is useless.
alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I cant understand why the Drake equation it given any time at all...it merely tries to quantify something with no evidence ... you may as well pick a number out of the air or calculate the probability of unicorns.. it is useless.
alex

It's just an equation Frank came up with as a theoretical exercise in trying to get a handle on what might be the case. Some of the numbers are known to a reasonable degree, but the majority of the equation's variables are pure guesswork.

[avandonk]

All I know that 13.7 billion years of evolution means I can cuddle my lady loves large bottom. She has a minor thought of my muscular body. The resulting children are us. And so the cycle goes on.

I wonder if these blokes could work out the chances of a root without the contradictions.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

All I know that 13.7 billion years of evolution means I can cuddle my lady loves large bottom. She has a minor thought of my muscular body. The resulting children are us. And so the cycle goes on.

I wonder if these blokes could work out the chances of a root without the contradictions.

Bert

Didn't John Forbes Nash Jr win the Nobel Prize for working that one out ?

(I think Sir Russ also did it in "A Beautiful Mind" …??…)

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

IThe laws of physics appear to be the same no matter where we look.
... all things being equal, the probability of life being elsewhere is just the same as it was (and is) for this planet.

The laws of physics also apply for earthquakes ..
Where and when an earthquake will next occur, is not predictable ...

The laws of physics (presumably) applied when life emerged …
Where and when a second occurrence will occur, is also not predictable (for the same reasons as above … all things being equal, of course … ).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The laws of physics also apply for earthquakes ..
Where and when an earthquake will next occur, is not predictable ...

The laws of physics (presumably) applied when life emerged …
Where and when a second occurrence will occur, is also not predictable (for the same reasons as above … all things being equal, of course … ).

Cheers

Yes, they do.

It's not a matter of predicting when and where anything will occur. It's a matter of if something happens once, given that everything is equal, it will occur again, elsewhere.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, they do.

It's not a matter of predicting when and where anything will occur. It's a matter of if something happens once, given that everything is equal, it will occur again, elsewhere.

Yep .. I'd say that's a prediction …

.. and yet, its not predictable …



Cheers

[Ray?]

Sorry, alien life does exist. Every time I go to one of our local shopping centres, the evidence is irrefutable.

Cheers

Ray

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Ray?

Sorry, alien life does exist. Every time I go to one of our local shopping centres, the evidence is irrefutable.

Cheers

Ray

I totally agree....there you go, Craig. And so much for the government conspiracies.......THEY'RE HERE!!!!!!

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Hi Craig,

I mean this with all respect to you and your views but every post you do on life it comes across that you believe life isn't out there you say your mind is open but that is not how it comes across. I have no problems with you infact I admire your arguments in all except when it comes to the subject of life in the universe it comes across as something that you have already made up your mind on which is not a very scientific way of looking at things.


Just an observation not a critisism I believe that you generally add a positive foward looking improvement to scientific debate.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Hi Craig,

I mean this with all respect to you and your views but every post you do on life it comes across that you believe life isn't out there you say your mind is open but that is not how it comes across. I have no problems with you infact I admire your arguments in all except when it comes to the subject of life in the universe it comes across as something that you have already made up your mind on which is not a very scientific way of looking at things.


Just an observation not a critisism I believe that you generally add a positive foward looking improvement to scientific debate.

Warren, it's because he's on a bandwagon with a certain subject. No matter how applicable it might be to any situation, if you start to believe it's a panacea to all problems and situations then it becomes a problem itself. What then is seemingly logical and reasonable becomes illogical and unreasonable by dint of its supposed universality. Belief in something that becomes too good a thing is where most people (and many scientist sometimes) go wrong.

It's a wise thing to remember the old adage "there's more than one way to skin a cat". Especially when it comes to science and philosophy.