Do You Believe That There's Life On Other Planets?

[SelfSim]

So, IOW, maybe evolution taps into something, yet to come, but that hasn't yet happened as a result of the fall.

The Theory of Evolution is evidenced directly from Earth-life's biology.

Evolution as a universal principle, is yet to be tested beyond earth-life environs and so its universal applicability is not yet known .. Its status is still: 'under test'. As such, it cannot be assumed as an objective truth in other 'earth-like habitable' zones and thus provides no objective implications about life elsewhere.

Brian Cox: 'Eat ya heart out, dude' .. (your opinion doesn't make any difference).

 

[Shemjaza]

So, taking that a bit further, some seem to think that we can invoke the Copernican Principle as the catalyst to infer the existence of exo-life, as it leads to a view that Earth is not ‘special’ or ‘privileged’. Earth contains life, therefore life will exist elsewhere in the universe, right? Extending this further, ‘the numbers’ of ‘Earth-like exo-planets’, implies that life will therefore be ‘likely’ within this population, yes?

Sounds logical, right?

The above argument is an attempted example of the Mediocrity Principle, which formally states that if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets (or categories), it's likelier to come from the most numerous category, rather than from any one of the less numerous categories. In other words: life is on Earth .. Earth is a random sample of a Copernican Principled Universe, thus via this principle, it is ‘likely’ there’ll be Earth-like life elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this attempt fails on several counts.

First of all, there is no knowledge about the characteristics of the population, (in this case the existence or non existence of life in the Universe). Secondly, the only sample comes from Earth which is not a random sample. Arguing that life on Earth supports the existence of life in the Universe, becomes a circular statement because the Mediocrity Principle has been reversed, and it is now claimed that the characteristic of the non-random sample, determines the dominating characteristic of the population, rather than the other way around.

The fallacy lies in the circular statement.

Even ignoring this fallacy, basing an argument on such reasoning, implies that the Mediocrity Principle, when applied correctly, is less likely than than the fallacious argument!

I see you point, but I feel it misses some elements.

We only have one data point on the existence, form and development of life. However that does demonstrate that life is possible withing the constraints of the material of the universe. And if we examine the evidence we can determine how common or uncommon Sol and the Earth. This is no longer a single data point we can examine size, temperature and other behaviors.

My use of ‘probability’ had nothing to do with ID or mathematics.

Fair enough. But even colloquially if someone makes claims about how "probable" something is, they aught to have a little justification.

 

[Tone]

The Theory of Evolution is evidenced directly from Earth-life's biology.

That may be, but it is a tampered with evidence, since earth has been hijacked, so the evolution seen is probably just a perverted picture of what we were created to be and become.

 

[inquiring mind]

Fair enough. But even colloquially if someone makes claims about how "probable" something is, they aught to have a little justification.

The Bible is my justification.

 

[SelfSim]

... We only have one data point on the existence, form and development of life. However that does demonstrate that life is possible withing the constraints of the material of the universe. And if we examine the evidence we can determine how common or uncommon Sol and the Earth. This is no longer a single data point we can examine size, temperature and other behaviors.

.. and that still won't provide any evidence about how prevalent (or otherwise) life might be in that subset. Its a huge subset, which can be expanded even further, and earth is not a random sample.

Hey .. I don't like it much either .. but I think this logic is right(?)

 

[eclipsenow]

And with Earth we see there are many things working in our favour, and there have been many attempts to try and mathematically work out the probability that these factors have that other solar systems might have. The Great Filters. Like having Earth itself in the goldilocks zone and liquid water. Like our sun being stable enough for long enough. (It turns out our sun is actually quite a large star compared to the many much smaller, longer lived stars - so other stars have vastly longer lives and could have allowed life to evolve many times over - if all the other Great Filters were in their favour!) Like our solar system having Jupiter to act like a solar system vacuum cleaner to mop up a lot of the more dangerous asteroids that might otherwise might make life on earth hit reset or even delete!

Here's Isaac Arthur on the Fermi Paradox.
Health and Safety warning: he's very addictive!

 

[SelfSim]

And with Earth we see there are many things working in our favour, and there have been many attempts to try and mathematically work out the probability that these factors have that other solar systems might have. The Great Filters. Like having Earth itself in the goldilocks zone and liquid water. Like our sun being stable enough for long enough. (It turns out our sun is actually quite a large star compared to the many much smaller, longer lived stars - so other stars have vastly longer lives and could have allowed life to evolve many times over - if all the other Great Filters were in their favour!) Like our solar system having Jupiter to act like a solar system vacuum cleaner to mop up a lot of the more dangerous asteroids that might otherwise might make life on earth hit reset or even delete!

Yes .. adding more terms to the Drake equation there (the same type of equation can be envisaged for abiognesis .. not just civilisations) ... and the 'correct' number of terms, is still unknown.

Pre-biotic chemistries are also thought of as being sensitive to initial conditions (deterministic chaos) - eg: Stuart Kauffman's research into autocatalytic sets .. even though his eventual conclusions seem to go along determinstic lines of thinking(?) ie: he eventually reverts to his gut-feel (or belief).

 

[Shemjaza]

.. and that still won't provide any evidence about how prevalent (or otherwise) life might be in that subset. Its a huge subset, which can be expanded even further, and earth is not a random sample.

Hey .. I don't like it much either .. but I think this logic is right(?)

Explicitly no, we just don't know.

However, given that the evidence is that the basic chemistry and physics that underline life operate across the Universe we can infer that the possibility exists universally.

So, while we only know for sure that life exists on Earth... we know that liquid water and organic chemistry are relatively common.

 

[SelfSim]

Explicitly no, we just don't know.

I still go with 'unknown' and I don't really care about beliefs on this one .. (and that includes my own!)
The question of: 'Do you believe ..' won't provide an answer, unfortunately .. so its just the wrong question for leading towards an objectively meaningful answer as far as I'm concerned.

However, given that the evidence is that the basic chemistry and physics that underline life operate across the Universe we can infer that the possibility exists universally.

There are many 'possibilities' and this particular inference is one which has an assumed 'truth' lurking as its premise, unfortunately.
The basic physics and chemistry which underlies what we call 'life' may not necessarily result in anything we would call 'life' someplace else in the universe (for as yet unknown reasons) .. we just don't know.

So, while we only know for sure that life exists on Earth... we know that liquid water and organic chemistry are relatively common.

Mars doesn't have communicative civilisations and fauna roaming its surface .. yet it has the same chemistries operating, universal constants, habitable zones and laws applying there.
Are you considering that datapoint?

 

[eclipsenow]

Mars doesn't have communicative civilisations and fauna roaming its surface .. yet it has the same chemistries operating, universal constants, habitable zones and laws applying there.
Are you considering that datapoint?

It's almost the same but not quite.
It's not abundant in liquid water, not abundant in heat energy, not abundant in that it has a pretty much dead core and no magnetosphere, etc. Now, I love Mars - and want us to go cook it up a bit. I think there's a good chance we'll terraform it into an Earth-like planet - but it will still be very, very Mars! But arguing that Mars is in the Earth-like category as a data-point for the Drake equation? I'm not so sure that applies.

 

[coffee4u]

Whether or not you're a Christian. I believe that it's possible that God could have created life elsewhere because even though it doesn't say that in the Bible,.. it also doesn't say that He didn't.

I don't believe so because if God created on other planets then surely they would have the same issue of sin and being in need of a saviour, and Jesus died once for all of us on this planet.
Any UFO sighting that isn't some kind of military or other physical thing from this planet will be demonic.

 

[SelfSim]

It's almost the same but not quite.
It's not abundant in liquid water, not abundant in heat energy, not abundant in that it has a pretty much dead core and no magnetosphere, etc. Now, I love Mars - and want us to go cook it up a bit. I think there's a good chance we'll terraform it into an Earth-like planet - but it will still be very, very Mars! But arguing that Mars is in the Earth-like category as a data-point for the Drake equation? I'm not so sure that applies.

(Minor point: I wasn't necessarily thinking of trying to justify any 'truths', which may be held by others, about the Drake Equation there ..)

Anyway, my overall point is that: physics laws, inorganic and organic chemistry laws, abiogenesis hypothesis, the theory of Evolution (by NS), when taken together, can be used to either:

- explain the observation as to why there are no communicative civilisations or fauna roaming Mars' surface (as you just did),
or;
- explain it ... if either were observed there.

Therefore, the 'operation' of all those hypothesis, laws, principle etc, even when assumed to be applicable throughout the universe, still doesn't help in arguing the existence of something, which it has not yet been observed in a location which has been selected, by using them as the guide.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's almost the same but not quite.
It's not abundant in liquid water, not abundant in heat energy, not abundant in that it has a pretty much dead core and no magnetosphere, etc. Now, I love Mars - and want us to go cook it up a bit. I think there's a good chance we'll terraform it into an Earth-like planet - but it will still be very, very Mars! But arguing that Mars is in the Earth-like category as a data-point for the Drake equation? I'm not so sure that applies.

Yet ALH-77005 showed signs of life once being on Mars in the form of, what scientists believe to be, fossilized bacteria...

I think people hear the word "life", and decide it means people like us which is not necessarily the case. I believe extraterrestrial life exists, but that doesn't mean I believe little green men are running around in spaceships (great for t.v. though..)

But life? Yes... I believe it would be fairly ignorant to say life only exists on one planet in the galaxy.

 

[SelfSim]

Yet ALH-77005 showed signs of life once being on Mars in the form of, what scientists believe to be, fossilized bacteria...

.. those are dubious scientists. (Hey .. there are good ones and there are dud ones).
And who cares what they believe anyway? - Its what they demonstrate to their peers that makes the difference .. and those ones failed in making one.

 

[Shemjaza]

I still go with 'unknown' and I don't really care about beliefs on this one .. (and that includes my own!)
The question of: 'Do you believe ..' won't provide an answer, unfortunately .. so its just the wrong question for leading towards an objectively meaningful answer as far as I'm concerned.

I prefer reasonable.

Life interacts with its environment via forces and chemicals using all the same processes as non-life.
Life is somewhat fragile in the environments that would allow evolution from very simple lifeforms.
Chemistry similar to and required for very simple life is common in the Universe.
Environments in the universe approximating the historical of Earth and approximating the requirements for life are relatively common.

There's no evidence for any of the steps in the development of life on Earth is anything other then consequences of evolution and chemistry. Even human technology and intelligence are clear variations on traits seen to develop from simpler traits.

There are many 'possibilities' and this particular inference is one which has an assumed 'truth' lurking as its premise, unfortunately.
The basic physics and chemistry which underlies what we call 'life' may not necessarily result in anything we would call 'life' someplace else in the universe (for as yet unknown reasons) .. we just don't know.

And we might be in a simulation with the singular purpose of teaching AV1611vet about MAD magazine...

I can't see how many people are currently sleeping in my suburb... that doesn't make the idea that every single one of them up and left this afternoon and I'm sitting her alone any more sensible.

Mars doesn't have communicative civilisations and fauna roaming its surface .. yet it has the same chemistries operating, universal constants, habitable zones and laws applying there.
Are you considering that datapoint?

That seems to me to be a silly way of looking at it.

You've seen people play a game a few times. You've seen someone win once, then someone else lose right afterwards... without absolute certainty about why the winner won, but some consistent ideas you can see why the first person won and second person didn't.

Given that there is an absolute demonstration that winning is possible... why does the fact that losing is possible in any way make it reasonable to assume no one will ever win again?

 

[Hazelelponi]

.. those are dubious scientists. (Hey .. there are good ones and there are dud ones).
And who cares what they believe anyway? - Its what they demonstrate to their peers that makes the difference .. and those ones failed in making one.

Lol... they aren't "dubious" scientists, nor did they fail. Some felt it wasn't conclusive enough to prove life, others felt it was indicative of life, that doesn't make anyone a dubious scientist just because there is debate on the matter. There's debate on just about everything in science, even global warming and it's causes...

It's also believed Mars once had water.. although you could say the folks at NASA are "dubious" and not real scientists like armchair scientists are.

Indications in 2 meteorites showing fossilized bacteria, plus indications of water once being on mars is good enough for me to say it's possible even Mars once contained life.

And if that's a very real possibility, why think it's impossible in this great expanse of the universe?

 

[Jok]

I am a yes that there is life on other planets, and I am a yes that I want to meet them! I mean what can go wrong?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am a yes that there is life on other planets, and I am a yes that I want to meet them! I mean what can go wrong?



View attachment 282832

I can think of uglier ones you DEFINITELY would not want to meet.

Although we can thank God of giving us John Moses Browning to the world.


In all seriousness, if we did meet alien life, we'd definitely have to take them on a very case by case basis and decide if we'd want to meet them, hang back or declare them 'dangerous to humanity'.

 

[eclipsenow]

Or adopt a Prime Directive where we quarantine them until they reach a certain level of technology. (What Isaac Arthur calls "Space snobs" - I mean - think of the ethics of not sharing our knowledge with a sentient but technologically backward species?)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Or adopt a Prime Directive where we quarantine them until they reach a certain level of technology. (What Isaac Arthur calls "Space snobs" - I mean - think of the ethics of not sharing our knowledge with a sentient but technologically backward species?)

I could see that working too. Or just full on quarantining them if we find out that one such civilization is so inherently hostile and dangerous so as to be inimical to other life-forms.
And yes, I do inherently see the irony in saying that.