A question or proposition as to why we are not alone

[bojan]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 …

Originally Posted by avandonk

We can however by observation and inference conclude given the right conditions life will inevitably occur, given the correct conditions.

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 (Brian)]

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 (Martin)]

Originally Posted by bojan

First, lets define the term "alive".

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 (Brian)]

[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:

There are a common set of traits used to define life.
...
Life needs water, a particular set of elements, energy, a cell or structure to separate itself from its environment and a way to store and reproduce its blueprint and also convert those instructions into proteins. And the system as a whole must be able to respond to Darwinian evolution, she said.

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]

Originally Posted by mill

Bojan
One question?
What is your occupation?

I am just a humble RF engineer

[mill (Martin)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I am just a humble RF engineer

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

[Brian W (Brian)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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 (Brian)]

Originally Posted by 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.

the universe got its first big meal from the B.B. if we ever contact another universe that's where our next meal comes from. Black holes may well be the storage area for the universes excretion

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))

our universe is changing as it grows and ages

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

as our universe ages it has certainly grown

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)

if there are multiple universes reproduction is possible

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

Nothing metaphysical in the above though it is certainly speculative.

Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Brian)]

my pleasure
B.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Nothing metaphysical in the above though it is certainly speculative.

Brian

OK, one by one as follows:

Originally Posted by Brian W

1) the universe got its first big meal from the B.B. if we ever contact another universe that's where our next meal comes from. Black holes may well be the storage area for the universes excretion

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 ..
But the problem is, black holes stay in the system (universe).. so this can't be considered as metabolism.

Originally Posted by Brian W

2) our universe is changing as it grows and ages

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

Originally Posted by Brian W

3) as our universe ages it has certainly grown

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).

Originally Posted by Brian W

4) if there are multiple universes reproduction is possible

Well, well, sex between two universes !
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 (Brian)]

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.