Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...

I wish people would actually read the entire thread....or at least the posts relevant to the position being made rather than making assumptions about what I was stating.

Anyway, I have been neglecting other things so I will bid everyone in this thread adieu for now and refer you to my previous posts as that is effectively all I have to say on the subject. :)

You are gettiing confused with belief and faith. The difference is small but its a clear line between faith itself. None of this proves faith, if anything it couldn't be any futher away as these people are demonstrating "belief" based on what the substantial amount of responses display. Probability and logic, logic provoked opinion is belief and not faith.
 
Finish Life of Pi yet? :)

Not quite....almost. I really like the allegorical nature of it all. It is all very validating.;)

I am hoping to finish it this week, but I am also reading a book that D.P recommended called Machine Consciousness which is quite fascinating. The title is self explanatory.
 
You can't show anything, it's not just not accurate, it has no value you can't even guess. What happens if it's 1x10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

In which case doesn't matter that the universe is huge, on the other had it could be 1/4 and life is pretty much everywhere.

Of course its not accurate - that probability for you. Its a tool to use when you cannot be certain of some parameters but have some facts and need to extrapolate this out based on what you know. So we know we are here, we know the rough parameters to support life, we can estimate the number of stars and therefore possible number of planets and use these to give a very rough probability of it happening again . Its not going range from 1/4 to 10^(large number), but it does give a figure whilst wildly inaccurate isnt zero. As time goes on and we discover more things then that figure becomes more accurate. Just look at the last 10 years, before then we couldnt even see if other stars had planets - now we can and the more data we gather the more information about the potential possibility of life there is
 
Aaaggghhhhh why are people still saying probabilities. You have ZERO idea what the probability is, the probability is totally unknown therefore it can't be used to support your opinion.

I think the way to consider probabilities, is when multiply out the factors. If only one of those factors is in fact zero, then the entire sum is zero. Until you can prove each factor conclusively then it's all nonsense.

The scary thing is for me, suppose we are the only planet with life? We should be taking much better care of the old girl.
 
You still aren't getting it, it really could be in that range. We have no idea of the probability. We simply don't know.
To say it's usefull but inaccurate is laughable, we wouldn't even know where to start with the figures. Let alone come up with something useable or that fits into any scientific method.

Wow we can estimate planets great, now tell me what the probability of life forming is? You can't, you can't even guess. You have no probability figure and so can not use it to support your opinion.
 
You are gettiing confused with belief and faith. The difference is small but its a clear line between faith itself. None of this proves faith, if anything it couldn't be any futher away as these people are demonstrating "belief" based on what the substantial amount of responses display. Probability and logic, logic provoked opinion is belief and not faith.

I am not getting confused at all. Faith simply means that you are putting complete trust in someone or something...in the case of ascribing definitive conclusions to the various estimates of probability and their resulting beliefs based on them they are putting faith in those probabilities and opinions to validate and justify that their beliefs are correct.

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

You simply do not understand the difference contextually so assume that Faith must be dogmatic, theological or mystical and doesn't require someone reasoning their position. In many ways the words faith and belief are synonymous with each other.

You are basically advocating that Faith=Fideism, whereas I am not. I do not ascribe to such extremes with regard to the epistemological validity of faith or the definitions forthwith. Everyone has faith in a myriad of things, from faith in your doctor to treat you, to faith that the roof won't cave in while you are sleeping, to faith that life exists on other planets and so on....faith doesn't mean a lack of reason, it is in fact a by-product of our ability to reason.

For example, I have faith that my Wife loves me....I cannot objectively and conclusively prove it, but I can use reason and logic to make assumptions based on her actions, words and how she and I react to each other and so on, to come to the conclusion that she does. I effectively hold a confident belief that the truth value of the statement "My Wife Loves Me" is supportable albeit not conclusively..in other words I have faith that she does indeed love me.

Anyway I hope that clarifies it somewhat and it is obvious that people do not want to discuss the definitions or usages of the word Faith or the philosophical ramification of it, so it might be best to move on to something else. It is up to you.
 
Last edited:
I think the way to consider probabilities, is when multiply out the factors. If only one of those factors is in fact zero, then the entire sum is zero. Until you can prove each factor conclusively then it's all nonsense.

The scary thing is for me, suppose we are the only planet with life? We should be taking much better care of the old girl.

completely agree with your logic - the argument is there are so many stars and planets the chances of other life whilst infinitely small may not approach zero unless we explore every planet in the universe and confirm that value is zero. Until then unless you believe we are special in the Universe then it could happen again

and dont worry the old girl will be fine - if we manage to mess it up and wipe ourselves out then she will recover over time and life will continue in some form until our Sun decides to run out of fuel.
 
Of course its not accurate - that probability for you. Its a tool to use when you cannot be certain of some parameters but have some facts and need to extrapolate this out based on what you know. So we know we are here, we know the rough parameters to support life, we can estimate the number of stars and therefore possible number of planets and use these to give a very rough probability of it happening again . Its not going range from 1/4 to 10^(large number), but it does give a figure whilst wildly inaccurate isnt zero. As time goes on and we discover more things then that figure becomes more accurate. Just look at the last 10 years, before then we couldnt even see if other stars had planets - now we can and the more data we gather the more information about the potential possibility of life there is

The problem is that some peoples grasp of variables and probability is limited. It is then easier to such a mind to just declare it all too much, and not even bother to try and make extrapolations. As another person mentioned it isn't any wonder that some people turn to religion for answers.

In any event there is a lot we do know, even if it isn't evident to some. Rough parameters for life, what sort of stars are more likely to harbor viable worlds etc. The mere fact that it appears that life on this planet is a result of a whole lot of amazing coincidences is exacting information in itself as to what is needed to create life. Everytime a researcher in any field discovers a condition that needed to be present to allow for us is another piece of the puzzle. I'll even go out on a limb and say we almost have a complete picture of exactly what conditions need to be present to create life. I know some won't agree, but to each his own.
 
The problem is that some peoples grasp of variables and probability is limited. It is then easier to such a mind to just declare it all too much, and not even bother to try and make extrapolations. As another person mentioned it isn't any wonder that some people turn to religion for answers.7

LOL you guys really dont grasp the fact that we do not have any idea how scarce or abudent live is.

Knowing the number of planets means little, that is not the important factor.
the important factor is how likely is that life springs up and that we simply have no idea, we have such little info we cant even guess. Once we know that figure then we can use the number of planets to say here should be x-planets with life on it.

And what the hell has religion got to do with it.
 
The problem is that some peoples grasp of variables and probability is limited. It is then easier to such a mind to just declare it all too much, and not even bother to try and make extrapolations. As another person mentioned it isn't any wonder that some people turn to religion for answers.

In any event there is a lot we do know, even if it isn't evident to some. Rough parameters for life, what sort of stars are more likely to harbor viable worlds etc. The mere fact that it appears that life on this planet is a result of a whole lot of amazing coincidences is exacting information in itself as to what is needed to create life. Everytime a researcher in any field discovers a condition that needed to be present to allow for us is another piece of the puzzle. I'll even go out on a limb and say we almost have a complete picture of exactly what conditions need to be present to create life. I know some won't agree, but to each his own.

Completely agree with you.

I dont think people also realise the study of extremophiles on Earth also give us a picture of the hostile environments that life can thrive in. This sort of stuff never ceases to amaze me. Probably a load of gangly eyed fish and odd looking animals to many others. Most also think that life outside of the earth has to be being with arms and legs (and big heads) etc etc
 
We do realise, but that does not help us with the most important number we need to make any such probability. The chance of life arising. Life arose on this planet we know that. All the extreme survival does is broadens the planets we need to look at. It tells us zilch about the chances of life arising.

Evolution means you should be able to predict features as it's trends towards perfection for any given environment. So allyhough you can't predict looks, it is no surprise we have the features we have.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that some peoples grasp of variables and probability is limited.

Which you so ably illustrate.


It is then easier to such a mind to just declare it all too much, and not even bother to try and make extrapolations. As another person mentioned it isn't any wonder that some people turn to religion for answers.

In any event there is a lot we do know, even if it isn't evident to some. Rough parameters for life, what sort of stars are more likely to harbor viable worlds etc. The mere fact that it appears that life on this planet is a result of a whole lot of amazing coincidences is exacting information in itself as to what is needed to create life. Everytime a researcher in any field discovers a condition that needed to be present to allow for us is another piece of the puzzle.

An example of how changable "what we know" is:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/cosmic_rays_gamma_ray_bursts/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7394/full/nature11068.html#/author-information


I'll even go out on a limb and say we almost have a complete picture of exactly what conditions need to be present to create life. I know some won't agree, but to each his own.


You have a complete and exact explanation of abiogenesis?

Maybe you would like to enlighten us on this newly discovered 'standard model', you might want to notify the Nobel Prize Selection Committee as well, I am sure they might be interested to hear of this breakthrough in our understanding of the Origin of Life because last time I looked there were still dozens of competing Scientific Hypotheses on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Aliens exist, but NASA covers them up says astronaut

"Have we been able to identify where the other planets are? No, certainly not in our Solar System but we have been able to identify quite a number of planets that could be life bearing planets.

"I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real.

"It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.

"I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes – we have been visited.

"Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit."

Dr Mitchell, along with Apollo 14 Commander Alan Shepard, still holds the record for the longest ever moonwalking session at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission.

Officials from NASA, were quick to play the comments down.

In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

"Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2453700/Aliens-exist-but-NASA-covers-them-up-says-astronaut.html

Edgar Mitchell also believes in ESP, Remote Viewing and claims to have had a religious/spiritual experience while on Apollo 14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences
 
http://www.science20.com/news_relea...obability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.

According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.

“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Watson_(scientist)

It would seem that not all scientists agree with the conclusions that some have maintained are shared by all scientists.....
 
Last edited:
That's a good thing though, if no one questioned the conclusions of other scientists we would never take the next step to test theories one way or another.

Absolutely, we should always be sceptical of everything. We should never simply accept anything and we should question everything.
 
Back
Top Bottom