Languish.org

Inspired by this text:
http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/03/extraterrestres-equation-chercheurs_n_9826818.html
It's in French, but all the links are in English.

Some math people have made an equation about the probability of extra-terrestril life to have existed:
A = Nast * ƒbt
A is the probability an alien life existed.
Nast is the number of planets in the inhabital zone of space.
ƒbt is the probability an intelligent life develops using technology in the habitable zone of space at the right distance from a star.

The full details of the study are here with the explanation of the match concept:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/ast.2015.1418


So, what does Languish believe?  :)

I believe that they exist, the Universe is so vast. But so is time and we have no idea of the lifespan of an intelligent species. Perhaps there may be only one intelligent species per 100,000 galaxies at any one time for example.

Generally don't care, but with lack of evidence to the contrary I'm comfortable with the assumption that there is no intelligent life out there.

I'd say there is intelligent life, but it really doesn't matter.  We'll never be able to communicate or interact with them meaningfully unless we make some powerful technological advances outside of what we understand to be even possible right now.

I'm in the "universe is way too big for us to be alone" camp. Although I certainly don't believe in UFOs and shit for the same reason. There's probably lots of intelligent species out there, but we will never be able to contact them because of the insane scale involved.

If I had to I would guess that there is intelligent life out there somewhere. Or somewhen.

About what Cal said: I think interstellar travel isn't at all unrealistic, but I see the necessary breakthroughs more in biology than in rocket science.

God, I hope not.

I think that answers 2, 3, and 6 are all really the same answer.  When you are talking about "the universe" the concept of simultaneity (as in "they are alive right now as opposed to past or future") is pretty meaningless.

I do think there is life. I do not know if there is intelligent life since we have a grand total of one example (well maybe...) it is hard to know how common that might be. I would bet the universe is loaded with bacteria and single cell organisms though.

Quote from: Caliga on May 03, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
We'll never be able to communicate or interact with them meaningfully unless we make some powerful technological advances outside of what we understand to be even possible right now.

I don't think Ghenghis Khan envisionned the day he could talk to his subordinate in Karakorum and Georgia in real time while conquering Afghanistan.  I don't think anyone around him understood this to be even possible at the time.  So who knows for the future?  Not in my life time, most likely.  But in the scale of humanity's lifetime? Most likely.

Other: we're in a simulation.

Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2016, 12:02:37 PM

Quote from: Caliga on May 03, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
We'll never be able to communicate or interact with them meaningfully unless we make some powerful technological advances outside of what we understand to be even possible right now.

I don't think Ghenghis Khan envisionned the day he could talk to his subordinate in Karakorum and Georgia in real time while conquering Afghanistan.  I don't think anyone around him understood this to be even possible at the time.  So who knows for the future?  Not in my life time, most likely.  But in the scale of humanity's lifetime? Most likely.

I am not sure that is a good analogy.  He could actually travel to those places.  The reason why we probably won't be able to communicate in any meaningful way is the same reason we won't be able to travel there in any meaningful way.  The difficulty of travelling faster than the speed of light.

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Other: we're in a simulation.

The simulation could include extra terrestrial life.

Quote from: frunk on May 03, 2016, 12:08:13 PM

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Other: we're in a simulation.

The simulation could include extra terrestrial life.

And be created by extra terrestrial life.

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Other: we're in a simulation.

QuoteWe are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467. (TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)

:yes:

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:08:39 PM

Quote from: frunk on May 03, 2016, 12:08:13 PM

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Other: we're in a simulation.

The simulation could include extra terrestrial life.

And be created by extra terrestrial life.

Or, as Sam Harris frets, created by Mormons. :lol:

Sure, why not, but who cares?

Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2016, 12:02:37 PM

Quote from: Caliga on May 03, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
We'll never be able to communicate or interact with them meaningfully unless we make some powerful technological advances outside of what we understand to be even possible right now.

I don't think Ghenghis Khan envisionned the day he could talk to his subordinate in Karakorum and Georgia in real time while conquering Afghanistan.  I don't think anyone around him understood this to be even possible at the time.  So who knows for the future?  Not in my life time, most likely.  But in the scale of humanity's lifetime? Most likely.

You and I are in no way in disagreement. :)

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:09:46 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:08:39 PM

Quote from: frunk on May 03, 2016, 12:08:13 PM

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Other: we're in a simulation.

The simulation could include extra terrestrial life.

And be created by extra terrestrial life.

Or, as Sam Harris frets, created by Mormons. :lol:

Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2016, 09:50:37 AM
Generally don't care, but with lack of evidence to the contrary I'm comfortable with the assumption that there is no intelligent life god out there.

Quote from: lustindarkness on May 03, 2016, 12:19:15 PM
Sure, why not, but who cares?

Some scientists cared enough to work on a math formula.  Enough to generate interest for Languish, but I realize I am not Tim, so I have probably overstepped my bounds :P

Quote from: Caliga on May 03, 2016, 12:28:33 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2016, 12:02:37 PM

Quote from: Caliga on May 03, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
We'll never be able to communicate or interact with them meaningfully unless we make some powerful technological advances outside of what we understand to be even possible right now.

I don't think Ghenghis Khan envisionned the day he could talk to his subordinate in Karakorum and Georgia in real time while conquering Afghanistan.  I don't think anyone around him understood this to be even possible at the time.  So who knows for the future?  Not in my life time, most likely.  But in the scale of humanity's lifetime? Most likely.

You and I are in no way in disagreement. :)

Languish is broken, no more discussions possible. :(

Now if we could find intelligent life in this election year.  :wacko: :area52: :weep:

Microchips. Enough said.

Off course we are all Tetans brought here by Xenu :area52:

Quote from: Archy on May 04, 2016, 05:19:29 AM
Off course we are all Tetans brought here by Xenu :area52:

So, Jaron option?

Quote from: Caliga on May 03, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
I'd say there is intelligent life, but it really doesn't matter.  We'll never be able to communicate or interact with them meaningfully unless we make some powerful technological advances outside of what we understand to be even possible right now.

Pretty much my take on it as well.  I suppose that technically, I agree with the 6th option, but I voted for the first one, because for all practical purposes, it's probably effectively true.

I'm not entirely sure there is intelligent life on this planet.

Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2016, 08:40:05 AM
I'm not entirely sure there is intelligent life on this planet.

Everything is relative :P

Isn't the Drake equation better? *

(https://crunchedd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Drake-equation-SETI.jpg)




* In true languish tradition I've not clicked on the link and read it, so going by the way Viper described it, it isn't that old but gold musing.

Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2016, 08:40:05 AM
I'm not entirely sure there is intelligent life on this planet.

Certainly less than before.

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2016, 12:57:17 PM
Isn't the Drake equation better? *

(https://crunchedd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Drake-equation-SETI.jpg)




* In true languish tradition I've not clicked on the link and read it, so going by the way Viper described it, it isn't that old but gold musing.

This is a modification of the Drake equation, replacing someone of the variables that are now roughly known, and removing "how long does intelligent life survive" variable.

It is asking a slightly simpler question...

Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2016, 02:00:10 PM

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2016, 12:57:17 PM
Isn't the Drake equation better? *

(https://crunchedd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Drake-equation-SETI.jpg)




* In true languish tradition I've not clicked on the link and read it, so going by the way Viper described it, it isn't that old but gold musing.

This is a modification of the Drake equation, replacing someone of the variables that are now roughly known, and removing "how long does intelligent life survive" variable.

It is asking a slightly simpler question...

Which to me seems like almost the key variable, as it's linked to the probability of us ever being able to communicate with them, rather than say just conduct future extra-archaeology. 

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2016, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2016, 02:00:10 PM

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2016, 12:57:17 PM
Isn't the Drake equation better? *

(https://crunchedd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Drake-equation-SETI.jpg)




* In true languish tradition I've not clicked on the link and read it, so going by the way Viper described it, it isn't that old but gold musing.

This is a modification of the Drake equation, replacing someone of the variables that are now roughly known, and removing "how long does intelligent life survive" variable.

It is asking a slightly simpler question...

Which to me seems like almost the key variable, as it's linked to the probability of us ever being able to communicate with them, rather than say just conduct future extra-archaeology. 

It's a key variable if the thing you want to think about is "Are we ever going to have a chat with extra-terrestrials?" but not important at all if your interest is "What are the odds that human intelligence is truly unique?"

Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2016, 03:09:59 PM
It's a key variable if the thing you want to think about is "Are we ever going to have a chat with extra-terrestrials?" but not important at all if your interest is "What are the odds that human intelligence is truly unique?"

Exactly.  The work reads to me as an attempt to quantify the highest chance of intelligent life developing on a suitable world consistent with the human race being unique in the history of the universe as an intelligent life form.  That number is very very low based on what we know right now.

Voted no, despite the probability sums backed by scientists, because i'm assuming the poll is about intelligent life. I do, however, think it's a dead cert we'll find evidence of mono-cellular life elsewhere.

It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 09:57:06 AM
It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

I think there is some evidence that single cellular organisms exist outside of earth.

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 10:08:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 09:57:06 AM
It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

I think there is some evidence that single cellular organisms exist outside of earth.

Only the ones we brought into space with us.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 10:08:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 09:57:06 AM
It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

I think there is some evidence that single cellular organisms exist outside of earth.

Only the ones we brought into space with us.

I thought there were possible residue left behind on Mars maybe possibly indicating there was bacteria there at some point?

I thought there was evidence there had been life on Mars at one point too. Dunno if it's my faulty memory or sensationalist reporting to blame.

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 10:16:49 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 10:08:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 09:57:06 AM
It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

I think there is some evidence that single cellular organisms exist outside of earth.

Only the ones we brought into space with us.

I thought there were possible residue left behind on Mars maybe possibly indicating there was bacteria there at some point?

There have been claims, but each one falls apart when under scrutiny. 

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 10:21:31 AM
There have been claims, but each one falls apart when under scrutiny. 

Links? Evidence has also been found in meteorites as well I had thought.

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 10:28:57 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 10:21:31 AM
There have been claims, but each one falls apart when under scrutiny. 

Links? Evidence has also been found in meteorites as well I had thought.

Links to what?  It's hard to link to a negative.  Not a lot of news stories say "Nothing here!".  You are thinking of a meteorite found in the 1990's where a few scientists thought some mud might be fossilized bacteria.  Here's a link that NASA put out concerning that meteorite.  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/2004/J04-025.html  Several years later.  There is no particular reason to think it contains fossils.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 10:40:12 AM
You are thinking of a meteorite found in the 1990's where a few scientists thought some mud might be fossilized bacteria.

No I am thinking of the Meteor in Sri Lanka a few years back.

QuoteLinks to what?

Well where do you get your information? Meditation?

I had to look that one up.  Turns out it wasn't actually a meteorite.http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html  Where do I get the information that something is not there?  That's sort of a difficult question to answer.  I haven't any good evidence  that indicates there is extraterrestrial life, therefore I see no reason to believe in it.  It's not a source of information, but a lack of information.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 11:03:50 AM
I had to look that one up.  Turns out it wasn't actually a meteorite.http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html  Where do I get the information that something is not there?  That's sort of a difficult question to answer.  I haven't any good evidence  that indicates there is extraterrestrial life, therefore I see no reason to believe in it.  It's not a source of information, but a lack of information.

Well you can see how I have been misled. You say there are no sources of information out there disputing claims of extra-terrestrial life yet you keep linking me to some. Odd. Seems like the opposite of a lack of information :hmm:

There is of course plenty of evidence that extra-terrestrial life exists - we see lots and lots of life on earth under radically different circumstances.

That is evidence (albeit hardly proof) that life exists in general, and under very variable conditions.

Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to posit that there is nothing particular special about Earth, and life likely exists in other places in the universe.

When we examine the universe and note that the number of possible locations for life number into the trillions, hence suggesting that even if there is a very, very low probability of life in any particular location, it is still almost certain that it exists, it is not "faith" to conclude that it is very likely that there be life somewhere other than Earth.

Indeed, IMO, it takes a rather incredible amount of, I don't know the right word...arrogance? Self centeredness? to believe that in trillions of other stars, this particular one is ever so special that we should assume that there is no other life out there.

The fact that life exists here is excellent evidence that it exists elsewhere, simply from a statistical standpoint.

Could be wrong of course, but the evidence suggests that further investigation is very warranted. If there were truly NO EVIDENCE at all, we would like not even bother looking.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2016, 10:18:42 AM
I thought there was evidence there had been life on Mars at one point too. Dunno if it's my faulty memory or sensationalist reporting to blame.

The conditions for life, and some byproducts that may have come from life processes, but no firm evidence.

Probabilities are that extraterrestrial life exists, like probabilities are that the sun still exists when you read this, even though there is no direct evidence of either.

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 11:17:04 AM
There is of course plenty of evidence that extra-terrestrial life exists - we see lots and lots of life on earth under radically different circumstances.

That is evidence (albeit hardly proof) that life exists in general, and under very variable conditions.

Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to posit that there is nothing particular special about Earth, and life likely exists in other places in the universe.

When we examine the universe and note that the number of possible locations for life number into the trillions, hence suggesting that even if there is a very, very low probability of life in any particular location, it is still almost certain that it exists, it is not "faith" to conclude that it is very likely that there be life somewhere other than Earth.

Indeed, IMO, it takes a rather incredible amount of, I don't know the right word...arrogance? Self centeredness? to believe that in trillions of other stars, this particular one is ever so special that we should assume that there is no other life out there.

The fact that life exists here is excellent evidence that it exists elsewhere, simply from a statistical standpoint.

Could be wrong of course, but the evidence suggests that further investigation is very warranted. If there were truly NO EVIDENCE at all, we would like not even bother looking.

The word you are looking for is "skepticism".  Evidence of life on Earth is not evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe.  We don't even know why there is life on Earth.  For all we know the chances of life appearing on an Earth like planet could be one in one decillion (that's the largest number I know.) This is the trouble you have when you only have one data point.  You can not reasonably extrapolate anything from one data point.  The argument that there must be life in the Universe because the universe is very big is unconvincing.  Simply because X is very large doesn't mean Y will be found in it.   We know there are periods of time when was no life in the universe, say shortly after the big bang, and we know that in the future that there will not be life in the universe say after the heat death why should we believe that the universe is teeming with life?

Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 09:57:06 AM
It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

we believe in the possibility it exists somewhere.
most of us (if not all) do not believe they talk to us, or that we talk to them.  We do not claim to have seen extra-terrestrial life, here or in outer space.  We do not claim to have seen proof they exist.  We do not require that others believe as we do or risk shunning them from our community.

that is the big difference between where you're going and what we're theorizing.

Well we could start seeding planets with bacteria we have determined could survive there just to make it true  :P

Edit: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/meet-the-martians Oh never mind we might have already done that :hmm:

QuoteNASA had an answer for that one, too. "We know there's life on Mars already because we sent it there," John Grunsfeld, the associate administrator of the agency's Science Mission Directorate, said during a press conference on Monday. It is a Faustian condition of space exploration that we cannot search for life on alien planets without bringing along very small amounts of very small Earth life. This process is known as forward contamination, and minimizing, if not preventing, its occurrence is the responsibility of Cassie Conley, a plant biologist who has served as NASA's planetary-protection officer since 2006. "It's basic common sense," Conley told me. "We have to be careful not to blind ourselves with Earth life, the same way you can't see the stars when the sun is out."

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
one in one decillion (that's the largest number I know.)

Much smaller than a googolplex.  :showoff:

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 12:09:22 PM
Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2016, 12:14:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 09:57:06 AM
It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

we believe in the possibility it exists somewhere.
most of us (if not all) do not believe they talk to us, or that we talk to them.  We do not claim to have seen extra-terrestrial life, here or in outer space.  We do not claim to have seen proof they exist.  We do not require that others believe as we do or risk shunning them from our community.

that is the big difference between where you're going and what we're theorizing.

That is not how the question was presented.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 01:31:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 12:09:22 PM
Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

There is no card here Raz. This is just a perfect example of why engaging with you like this is completely pointless. You are not capable of debate in good faith. Your response is just another example of that.

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 01:53:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 01:31:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 12:09:22 PM
Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

There is no card here Raz. This is just a perfect example of why engaging with you like this is completely pointless. You are not capable of debate in good faith. Your response is just another example of that.

Bingo!  Welcome to my world.  Take the pledge and be free of even the temptation to respond to that nonsense (there's plenty of nonsense from others to keep you busy, never fear).

Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2016, 02:17:13 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 01:53:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 01:31:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2016, 12:09:22 PM
Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

There is no card here Raz. This is just a perfect example of why engaging with you like this is completely pointless. You are not capable of debate in good faith. Your response is just another example of that.

Bingo!  Welcome to my world.  Take the pledge and be free of even the temptation to respond to that nonsense (there's plenty of nonsense from others to keep you busy, never fear).

We are well aware you not capable of debating in good faith, you don't need to welcome anyone to that. We already know.

Quote from: Hamilcar on May 03, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Other: we're in a simulation.

Ah, my kind of kool-aid.
How does the hypothesis go?

1- Given enough time all life evolves into a technological civilization.
2- Given enough time all technological civilizations create reality simulations for research and/or pleasure.
3- Given enough time there will be so many simulations that statistically we have a far greater chance of being in a simulation.
4- We are living in a simulation.

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2016, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2016, 02:00:10 PM

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2016, 12:57:17 PM
Isn't the Drake equation better? *

(https://crunchedd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Drake-equation-SETI.jpg)




* In true languish tradition I've not clicked on the link and read it, so going by the way Viper described it, it isn't that old but gold musing.

This is a modification of the Drake equation, replacing someone of the variables that are now roughly known, and removing "how long does intelligent life survive" variable.

It is asking a slightly simpler question...

Which to me seems like almost the key variable, as it's linked to the probability of us ever being able to communicate with them, rather than say just conduct future extra-archaeology. 

But, intelligent life that survive the technological singularity would be immortal, or at least with an undefined lifespan.

Or, the fast thought dudes are right and a post singularity civilization have so much processing power that a million years equal just a year in the physical world.

Who knows. Way above my pay grade.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2016, 12:23:05 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
one in one decillion (that's the largest number I know.)

Much smaller than a googolplex.  :showoff:

Or graham's number.

Voted with the mob, though I don't like the wording.  It's a probabilistic assessment, so I'm not sure in the strict sense.

An interesting question occurred to me.  Let's say human being are somehow able move from star to star and  visit alien planets.  All it takes is finding one planet with life (however defined) will of course demonstrate that there is alien life in the universe.  How many lifeless planets will it require before we decide that the only life comes from Earth?

Maybe a trillion or so, with 95% confidence?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 05:23:22 PM
An interesting question occurred to me.  Let's say human being are somehow able move from star to star and  visit alien planets.  All it takes is finding one planet with life (however defined) will of course demonstrate that there is alien life in the universe.  How many lifeless planets will it require before we decide that the only life comes from Earth?

The thing is, we already know of a planet with life on it. So even if we establish that on our quarter of the universe, Earth is the only planet with life, that would still mean an expected value of 4 based only on our direct observations.

How do you know Earth has life? Have you considered the presence/absence of Whiteness in the juxtaposition of the body and the self?

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
Have you considered the presence/absence of Whiteness in the juxtaposition of the body and the self?

No. Should I?

Quote from: alfred russel on May 06, 2016, 06:42:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
Have you considered the presence/absence of Whiteness in the juxtaposition of the body and the self?

No. Should I?

Just asking.

Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2016, 09:35:06 AM

So, what does Languish believe?  :)

The probability of extraterrestial life is high. I highly doubt any of us will encounter it in our lifetime, unless one is a major follower of David Icke.

I don't find much intelligence on Languish either.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2016, 08:01:47 PM
I don't find much intelligence on Languish either.

Your telescope is broken.  :(

Quote from: alfred russel on May 06, 2016, 06:34:50 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 05:23:22 PM
An interesting question occurred to me.  Let's say human being are somehow able move from star to star and  visit alien planets.  All it takes is finding one planet with life (however defined) will of course demonstrate that there is alien life in the universe.  How many lifeless planets will it require before we decide that the only life comes from Earth?

The thing is, we already know of a planet with life on it. So even if we establish that on our quarter of the universe, Earth is the only planet with life, that would still mean an expected value of 4 based only on our direct observations.

Question:  There is a Berkut on Earth.  What is the expected value of finding an identical Berkut on another planet?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2016, 10:10:03 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 06, 2016, 06:34:50 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2016, 05:23:22 PM
An interesting question occurred to me.  Let's say human being are somehow able move from star to star and  visit alien planets.  All it takes is finding one planet with life (however defined) will of course demonstrate that there is alien life in the universe.  How many lifeless planets will it require before we decide that the only life comes from Earth?

The thing is, we already know of a planet with life on it. So even if we establish that on our quarter of the universe, Earth is the only planet with life, that would still mean an expected value of 4 based only on our direct observations.

Question:  There is a Berkut on Earth.  What is the expected value of finding an identical Berkut on another planet?

That depends on how free and widespread the licensing rights for the "Earthlings!" simulation game has become.  I like to think that I am being played on thousands of systems.  But it is hard to tell since my simulation is still in progress.

Whoever got stuck playing "Ethiopian_child_0773" probably thought that the game sucked.

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
How do you know Earth has life? Have you considered the presence/absence of Whiteness in the juxtaposition of the body and the self?

:lol:

I feel that of course there's extra terrestrial life. Such a large galaxy, so many planets and Earth couldn't be the only place where life grew. Certainly there's lower life but also has to be higher intelligent life. That's just the galaxy, and with billions of galaxies in the universe there certainly is life. I just wonder if it'll ever be possible to travel near the speed of light to actually travel far enough to get to neighboring star systems? But scientists have already been talking seriously about types of engines that will go multitudes faster than what exist now, which will make it a lot more feasible to travel longer distances.

All the aliens have turned into eternally dreaming AIs. Why explore the mundane galaxy, when you can live an infinity of lives, forever, in your own imagination?

I am agnostic over this issue.

Yes, our own existence beckons the possibility of other sentient life in the universe, but our sample remains n=1. You may add as many zeros as you wish, the result is still zero.

And if sentient life does exist, I am not convinced it is in humanity's best interest to discover and confirm its existence. The sheer magnitude of this new knowledge might be so dangerous it might tear the core fabric of our societies. Most, if not all of our philosophies and moral codes throughout history, even today, stem from humanity's moral or physical uniqueness in existence.

Quote from: Drakken on May 07, 2016, 06:13:04 PM
I am agnostic over this issue.

Yes, our own existence beckons the possibility of other sentient life in the universe, but our sample remains n=1. You may add as many zeros as you wish, the result is still zero.

And if sentient life does exist, I am not convinced it is in humanity's best interest to discover and confirm its existence. The sheer magnitude of this new knowledge might be so dangerous it might tear the core fabric of our societies. Most, if not all of our philosophies and moral codes throughout history, even today, stem from humanity's moral or physical uniqueness in existence.

Agreed there, even if the extra terrestrials were friendly it would be quite jarring to people and societies for a number of reasons.

Indeed.  It might lead to people conducting suicide bombings, terror attacks, and fomenting civil wars against their governments.

Quote from: Drakken on May 07, 2016, 06:13:04 PM
And if sentient life does exist, I am not convinced it is in humanity's best interest to discover and confirm its existence. The sheer magnitude of this new knowledge might be so dangerous it might tear the core fabric of our societies. Most, if not all of our philosophies and moral codes throughout history, even today, stem from humanity's moral or physical uniqueness in existence.

You can relax. There will be much discussion and throwing of internet feces, but it's not going to upset the fabric of society.

Quote from: Tonitrus on May 07, 2016, 10:04:38 PM
Indeed.  It might lead to people conducting suicide bombings, terror attacks, and fomenting civil wars against their governments.

:ph34r:  I guess we wouldn't notice any difference then.