NO Life IS Possible - Page 2

CraigS · #21 31-07-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

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.

Hi Warren;

The only thing I'm firm about when it comes to this topic, is the unpredictability of finding another instance of emerged life. This particular research paper comes to that same conclusion.

"How it comes across": The only feeling (or 'belief') I have ever expressed in this matter has been that I really don't care whether exo-life exists, or not. How it comes across, is as much a function of how you might be reading what I'm actually saying … but 'thank you', for allowing me the opportunity of restating my position (which remains unchanged on this matter).

Both of the majority perspectives on the topic, are purely products of optimism or pessimism, neither of which carry any weight in science.

My beliefs are also completely irrelevant, and I encourage you to dismiss them, whenever you like, and wherever you see them.

Cheers

renormalised (Carl) · #22 31-07-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hi Warren;

The only thing I'm firm about when it comes to this topic, is the unpredictability of finding another instance of emerged life. This particular research paper comes to that same conclusion.

But to use that unpredictability to then deny that the opposite assumption is equally true is rather disingenuous, Craig. Which is what you've done on numerous occasions. You've basically said that saying all things being equal and given what we know, we can't say life has appeared elsewhere. No, we can't categorically say that with 100% certainty, but to deny that it can (appear elsewhere, given the conditions and fundamental processes) and that chaos theory somehow is the overarching arbiter of the subject is presumptuous in the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

"How it comes across": The only feeling (or 'belief') I have ever expressed in this matter has been that I really don't care whether exo-life exists, or not. How it comes across, is as much a function of how you might be reading what I'm actually saying … but 'thank you', for allowing me the opportunity of restating my position (which remains unchanged on this matter).

That being the case, it would be wise to choose your words and the way you express them rather carefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Both of the majority perspectives on the topic, are purely products of optimism or pessimism, neither of which carry any weight in science.

I agree, but you can't divorce them from what science is being done. Humans are not robots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

My beliefs are also completely irrelevant, and I encourage you to dismiss them, whenever you like, and wherever you see them.

Cheers

Yet it's abundantly clear your beliefs about the subject cloud your opinions and what you write. Dismiss them and you dismiss what you write.

CraigS · #23 31-07-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

Carl;

This has nothing to do with my 'beliefs' or anything else you have dreamed up.

The 'bandwagon' you allude to, is a perfectly legitimate, supportable branch of mainstream science and has found many areas of diverse applicability.

My role in discussing it, has been purely one of 'carrier-pigeon'.

An understanding of Chaos Theory does not in any way, eliminate or compromise, any other scientific principles, theorisation, conjecture, principles, etc, etc, (as I have pointed out many times already).

Also, kindly do not speak on my behalf again … I am perfectly capable of expressing myself, when posts are directed at me.

Cheers

supernova1965 (Warren) · #24 31-07-2011, 01:13 PM

The title of the thread is where I base my statement that you don't believe life is out there it is hard to argue that you are not firm in the fact that you don't believe.

Quote:

NO LIFE IS POSSIBLE

supernova1965 (Warren) · #25 31-07-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

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

No we don't know when an earthquake will occur but we do know that one will

renormalised (Carl) · #26 31-07-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Carl;

This has nothing to do with my 'beliefs' or anything else you have dreamed up.

Yes it has. You have expressed an opinion on the complete and overarching veracity of a subject that despite its applicability in certain areas is still a matter of controversy in others. Not because it's wrong or anything of the sort, but because it has not been found to be applicable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

The 'bandwagon' you allude to, is a perfectly legitimate, supportable branch of mainstream science and has found many areas of diverse applicability.

Whether it's legitimate, mainstream or not is not the issue. The bandwagon is the belief that chaos theory has some magical "uber-influence" and applicability to everything. It's a theory, nothing more or nothing less. It could just as easily be replaced by something else tomorrow and it's not an universally agreed upon subject, despite what you might feel about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

My role in discussing it, has been purely one of 'carrier-pigeon'.

You do know, they became extinct

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

An understanding of Chaos Theory does not in any way, eliminate or compromise, any other scientific principles, theorisation, conjecture, principles, etc, etc, (as I have pointed out many times already).

That might be what you write here, but from everything else you've written about it, it would seem to indicate otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Also, kindly do not speak on my behalf again … I am perfectly capable of expressing myself, when posts are directed at me.

Cheers

I wasn't speaking on your behalf. I was speaking on my own and on what I have read of what you've written. You're only peeved because I am having a go at your position and you don't like it. I'm not doing it to upset you intentionally. I'm doing it to make you think but you seem to have not realised this. Chaos theory is not universally accepted amongst the scientific community, nor is it the last word on anything. Although from some of things you've written here, it's quite reasonable to think that this is what you feel about it. All it is, is just one approach to explaining how things work in those certain areas where it can be applied. If it's to be applied as an universal law/theory, then there has to be evidence saying as much. There isn't, so, the only thing that can be said is that where it's applicable use it. And, until it's found to apply to those previously inapplicable areas, leave it be.

Chaos theory is just a cog in a much larger system and should be applied/viewed as such.

marki · #27 31-07-2011, 01:33 PM

This is totally irrelevent. We cannot possibly know if life has evolved elsewhere in the universe equations or otherwise until we have searched the entire universe. You can calculate or believe what you want but right now we have no evidence for life elsewhere but that does not mean it cannot exist, just that we have not found any other examples at this point in time. All this seems to be doing is generating angst amongst members.

Mark

renormalised (Carl) · #28 31-07-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

This is totally irrelevent. We cannot possibly know if life has evolved elsewhere in the universe equations or otherwise until we have searched the entire universe. You can calculate or believe what you want but right now we have no evidence for life elsewhere but that does not mean it cannot exist, just that we have not found any other examples at this point in time. All this seems to doing is generating angst amongst members.

Mark

Ultimately, that is correct. All the equations in the world will mean nothing if you can't find or don't know the value of the variables to enter into them. It's much the same with philosophising about it. It's the age old question..."how many angels can dance on the head of a pin??". The answer being however many you wish. Saying that because chaos theory makes any determinations impossible and therefore life is rare or non existent elsewhere is just as irrelevant as saying every single rock out there has life on it and there's a gadzillion number of civilisations. They're moot points unless you have the rock solid evidence in your hands.

I'm not going to argue anymore with this or some of the other threads here. It's becoming not only tedious but rather fractious and non productive.

Zaps · #29 31-07-2011, 01:51 PM

It's an excellent paper, and the qualified conclusions are valid.

There is no reason to assume that ET life does or doesn't exist, and the authors have been careful to avoid baseless conclusions. The only thing anyone can say for sure is that humanity has yet to discover any reliable evidence of the existence of ET life.

renormalised (Carl) · #30 31-07-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaps

It's an excellent paper, and the conclusions are valid.

There is no reason to assume that ET life does or doesn't exist, and the authors have been careful to avoid baseless conclusions. The only thing anyone can say for sure is that humanity has yet to discover any reliable evidence of the existence of ET life.

Yes it is, and it's well thought out. But the danger is when people read too much into it.

However, it's also equally correct to say that the authors themselves should be careful not to be so sure of their own conclusions, based on their mathematics and their assumptions. Maths can be made to say and prove anything. Your last sentence is the only one we can truly be sure about....it all boils down to evidence.

CraigS · #31 31-07-2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supernova1965

The title of the thread is where I base my statement that you don't believe life is out there it is hard to argue that you are not firm in the fact that you don't believe.

The title is not my opinion ! It is a mathematically legitimate outcome from the analysis. It carries no more weight than the optimistic "Life IS Possible" statement !

The quote in my orginal post also points this out .. here it is again ..

Quote:

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.

If the same occurrence doesn't happen elsewhere, then a "null" outcome, ie: "NO life(forms)", is just as legitimate as either "different life(forms)" permutations. Neither of these is ruled out and at the same time, neither is directly supported (according to their analysis). The same occurrence elsewhere, is also not supported by the analysis.

Quote:

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.

.. and this point asserts the emotional/opinion/belief motivations underpinning either optimistic or pessimistic statements.

Cheers

Zaps · #32 31-07-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

However, it's also equally correct to say that the authors themselves should be careful not to be so sure of their own conclusions, based on their mathematics and their assumptions.

No, it's not.

Quote:

Maths can be made to say and prove anything.

No, it can't. Not when it's correct. People who do not know what they are doing often think they can make incorrect maths somehow correct.

Quote:

Your last sentence is the only one we can truly be sure about....it all boils down to evidence.

It all boils down to falsifiability.

CraigS · #33 31-07-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supernova1965

No we don't know when an earthquake will occur but we do know that one will

The only rational reason you can make this statement is because there is a history of earthquakes. If this history were absent, as is the case for previous exo-life discoveries, then you could not even predict that "there will be one" (earthquake, that is).

Earthquakes are functions of Complex Systems. Chaotic Systems can be viewed as a subset of Complex Systems, and may be distinguished by their initial conditions and lack of historical dependence.

Cheers

supernova1965 (Warren) · #34 31-07-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

The only rational reason you can make this statement is because there is a history of earthquakes. If this history were absent, as is the case for previous exo-life discoveries, then you could not even predict that "there will be one" (earthquake, that is).

Earthquakes are functions of Complex Systems. Chaotic Systems can be viewed as a subset of Complex Systems, and may be distinguished by their initial conditions and lack of historical dependence.

Cheers

Yes there is a history of earthquakes as well as moonquakes and planetquakes throughout the Solar system. Going by this evidence I am confident in saying that quakes happen throughout the Universe.

I can't prove that life exists or doesn't I can't prove that quakes happen in the universe or not but you haven't provided any proof to say that either don't exist and until you can do that they both exist and don't exist as with Schrödinger's cat.

Unlike you I do care whether life exists or not and if scientists didn't care whether something was true or not they wouldn't bother to try to prove it one way or the other.

CraigS · #35 31-07-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Yes there is a history of earthquakes as well as moonquakes and planetquakes throughout the Solar system. Going by this evidence I am confident in saying that quakes happen throughout the Universe.

Ie: there is a history of past quakes … so there is a basis to extrapolate from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I can't prove that life exists or doesn't I can't prove that quakes happen in the universe or not but you haven't provided any proof to say that either don't exist and until you can do that they both exist and don't exist as with Schrödinger's cat.

I'm not arguing that these things don't exist ! You seem to keep pinning this on me .. you've got the wrong target !
There is simply no evidence of exo-life to base rational statements about probabilities of their existence upon.
It is thus unpredictable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Unlike you I do care whether life exists or not and if scientists didn't care whether something was true or not they wouldn't bother to try to prove it one way or the other.

I have no problems in acknowledging the human motivations for scientific investigation. Curiosity and belief clearly provides the impetus and probably the momentum. I don't consider this to be particularly earth-shattering news, though …

Cheers

CDKPhil · #36 31-07-2011, 05:07 PM

What an interesting thread. I am no scientist but to say there is no life any where in the universe is about the same as saying the world is flat.
Science is in it's infancy we are only just beginning to understand some of the mechanisms that rule our universe. I would dare to say in a few hundred years time that scientists will look back on this part of history and laugh, and wonder how the hell did we get through it.

There are some great theory's out there but we must remember that they are just that. It always puzzles me to see all these theory's and people thinking or presenting them as fact, I don't know why that is, I guess it is just another form of belief.

For the record I think that there is plenty of life out there but we are to far away and we at this present time are to unintelligent to see it.
Thats my theory.

Cheers
Phil

marki · #37 31-07-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaps

No, it can't. Not when it's correct. People who do not know what they are doing often think they can make incorrect maths somehow correct.

.

I would say the opposite is true here. It's people who do know what they are doing that make it correct, just check out any of the latest political fights, both sides always seem to be backed by irrefutable stats based on in depth studies by proffessional bodies. How can they both be right when they directly oppose each other? The old saying lies, dam lies and statistics still holds true. Mathematics like any piece of written work is always open to bias and manipulation.

Mark