Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Could be over 30 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 spacemunkee

spacemunkee

    Skylab

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,215
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 15 June 2020 - 08:50 AM

.. and there could be 0.. or 300..
Love when they come up with these numbers with no hard facts to really base it on other than "WITH THIS AND THAT CONSIDERED, WE ESTIMATE THERE 'COULD' BE!.."

https://phys.org/new...ife-galaxy.html

#2 wrnchhead

wrnchhead

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,047
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: NE Kansas

Posted 15 June 2020 - 09:01 AM

Sensationalism is kind of annoying but it does interest people in space at least. Often my coworkers will come to me asking about something they read, I calm their fears (usually cause some HUGE ASTEROID WILL BARELY MISS EARTH or some such), and then we have a chat about the subject. So I laugh when I see them, but I welcome the conversation. 

 

Also, that study was led by the University Of Nottingham, those guys are great. Brady Haran does tons of videos with them, Deep Sky Videos and Sixty Symbols on youtube, if you haven't, they are assuredly worth checking out. 

 

https://www.youtube....r/DeepSkyVideos

 

https://www.youtube....er/sixtysymbols


Edited by wrnchhead, 15 June 2020 - 09:03 AM.


#3 Shorty Barlow

Shorty Barlow

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,673
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2015
  • Loc: Lloegyr

Posted 15 June 2020 - 09:20 AM

There could be thirty intelligent civilisations who haven't invented the wheel yet. Let alone frozen pizza.



#4 lee14

lee14

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2009
  • Loc: CNY

Posted 15 June 2020 - 09:22 AM

Most estimates are based on the Drake Equation, or some form of it. Agreed that the frequency of many of the factors are pure supposition, but others are far more refined than they were when the formula was initially proposed, particularly those representing the number of suitable planets. Others are based on a single example, and that's always a logic trap. But that's how science works, increasingly accurate descriptions as the fine details become known.

Lee



#5 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,000
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 15 June 2020 - 09:57 AM

~Probability and Statistics~ is something every would-be renaissance man should include in his repertoire. Just after the introductory fundamentals comes the intriguing topic of ~conditional probabilities~. That is to say, probabilities are contingent on the estimator's (ever-changing) "state of knowledge". Most, nearly all people insist that probabilities are somehow independent of what people know... that we simply foolishly come up with wrong numbers, because we are ignorant. Problem with that misinterpretation is that it is double-dipping the definition as in, "the real probability is probably different than what they are estimating, because they are stupid!" But no, it doesn't work that way.

 

Consider this scenario:

You watch me flip a coin, now my hand over it.

I ask you what is the probability that it's heads.

You say 50%.

I say 50%.

We agree and are both correct.

Now I peek under my hand, and ask you again.

You say 50%, which is correct... to you.

I then say 1%, which is correct... to me. The slight uncertainty allowing for my poor eyesight.

I ask again and you say 2%, which is correct... to you. The differential allowing for the possibility that I'm lying.

I lift my hand and you look.

I ask again and you say 0%, which is correct... to you, being that you have excellent eyesight and I said 1% upon seeing it.

I then say 0%, which is now correct... to me, having heard your confirmation.

 

NOTICE: that the conditional probabilities have changed, as our states of knowledge upgraded.

 

The problem with the Drake Equation construct (unto itself logical and correct) is that the cascaded multiplicative probability contributors each are, for now, conditionally feeble. That is to say, our state of knowledge is terribly lacking in both sound theory and experimental data. Consequently, the hand is still over the coin... the probability that ~we are not alone in the Universe~ is still somewhere between zero and one... and we have insufficient knowledge to establish a definitive/agreeable place-holder anywhere between those two extrema. The jury's out, it's still a coin-toss.

 

Ren·ais·sance man

/ˈˌrenəˈˌsäns man/
noun
a person with many talents or areas of knowledge.    Tom


  • spacemunkee and N5SE like this

#6 goodricke1

goodricke1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Ireland

Posted 15 June 2020 - 10:13 AM

Of course we are not completely in the dark; we do know that there has been zero intelligent interference in the history of the Earth from external sources, beyond reasonable doubt. That in itself represents rather a huge slab of evidence - it's the interpretation of which is the problem.



#7 spacemunkee

spacemunkee

    Skylab

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,215
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 15 June 2020 - 10:18 AM

^^ Well Tom, that's food for thought, which brings the question?.. Do these civilizations have coins to flip, or do they just have telepathic bank accounts?

 

I'm going with a 50% probability of either. Can't go wrong with that! My junior year math teacher 'Mr. Probability' would be proud of me!grin.gif

(Spent a year flipping coins and rolling dice...)tongue2.gif


Edited by spacemunkee, 15 June 2020 - 11:51 AM.


#8 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,762
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 15 June 2020 - 11:36 AM

Of course we are not completely in the dark; we do know that there has been zero intelligent interference in the history of the Earth from external sources, beyond reasonable doubt. That in itself represents rather a huge slab of evidence - it's the interpretation of which is the problem.

And precious little intelligent interference from internal sources.


  • goodricke1, Andrew_L, wrnchhead and 2 others like this

#9 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,762
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 15 June 2020 - 11:37 AM

^^ Well Tom, that's food for thought, which brings the question?.. Do these civilizations have coins to flip, or do they just have telepathic back accounts?

 

I'm going with a 50% probability of either. Can't go wrong with that! My junior year math teacher 'Mr. Probability' would be proud of me!grin.gif

(Spent a year flipping coins and rolling dice...)tongue2.gif

Wouldn't a truly advanced civilization be flipping ATM cards?


  • spacemunkee likes this

#10 spacemunkee

spacemunkee

    Skylab

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,215
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 15 June 2020 - 11:50 AM

Wouldn't a truly advanced civilization be flipping ATM cards?

lol.gif Call it in the air! Chip or magnetic strip!



#11 Shorty Barlow

Shorty Barlow

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,673
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2015
  • Loc: Lloegyr

Posted 15 June 2020 - 12:55 PM

 

 

Ren·ais·sance man

/ˈˌrenəˈˌsäns man/
noun
a person with many talents or areas of knowledge.    Tom

Good call ... https://www.youtube....h?v=coLTXx9utQM



#12 Andrew_L

Andrew_L

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Oxfordshire & Cornwall UK

Posted 15 June 2020 - 01:18 PM

Of course we are not completely in the dark; we do know that there has been zero intelligent interference in the history of the Earth from external sources, beyond reasonable doubt. That in itself represents rather a huge slab of evidence - it's the interpretation of which is the problem.

I don’t see how we can know that “beyond reasonable doubt“.  We’ve never found any evidence for it that’s all. 



#13 spacemunkee

spacemunkee

    Skylab

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,215
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 15 June 2020 - 01:33 PM

Of course we are not completely in the dark; we do know that there has been zero intelligent interference in the history of the Earth from external sources, beyond reasonable doubt. 

Giorgio would disagree! grin.gif

 

Though I believe there has to be more than us in this whole 'place', I don't care for when they throw out specific numbers based on what little is truly known, and the massive amount that is not, or theorized, speculated, estimated, blah blah blah..



#14 robbieg147

robbieg147

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 15 June 2020 - 01:54 PM

The most basic form of life is estimated to need around 250000 bases of DNA, I just cannot see how life can start by chance?


  • DSOGabe likes this

#15 goodricke1

goodricke1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Ireland

Posted 15 June 2020 - 02:15 PM

I don’t see how we can know that “beyond reasonable doubt“.  We’ve never found any evidence for it that’s all. 

 

That's the point: if there has been any interference then there's no evidence for it. Which means it has had no consequence.

 

That said, it's not outlandish imo to suggest that the inherent complexity of life may be explained by its having been delivered here by intelligence, but that still leaves a 4-billion year span without provable, and by extension significant, outside involvement.



#16 lee14

lee14

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2009
  • Loc: CNY

Posted 15 June 2020 - 02:55 PM

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'

 

Lee


  • Dynan and DSOGabe like this

#17 robbieg147

robbieg147

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 15 June 2020 - 03:21 PM

In my eyes the fact that there is life is proof of interference, life started approx. 3.7 billion years ago on a very inhospitable Earth, under conditions very unfavourable for life to start.

 

Today under perfect lab conditions scientists with intelligent input cannot get close to creating life by chance. Trying to create a single protein of say 150 bases by chance is extremely unlikey.



#18 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,762
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 15 June 2020 - 04:56 PM

The most basic form of life is estimated to need around 250000 bases of DNA, I just cannot see how life can start by chance?

We're talking about civilizations here.  Don't try to pull this into a religious debate.
 


  • lee14 likes this

#19 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,000
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 15 June 2020 - 05:11 PM

It may also be that we are the blatant evidence of not only the existence of other intelligent life... but that said other is vastly superior than are we, having cultivated this fine-tuned Universe ~just so~ ... so that it would "naturally" , inexorably, most surely ... result in our evolution.

 

Personified stew, marveling over its improbable existence, and asking, "How did we come to be?" And the carrot replies to the onion, "The kitchen and all its machinations naturally resulted in our evolution." To which the muscle shard inquires... but what about a Cook?" The onion and carrot harumph, and self-righteously declare, "No cook is needed!" They sense a shadow, look up... and see a man in a big white hat wielding a ladle.    Tom


  • mich_al likes this

#20 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 June 2020 - 02:45 AM

In my eyes the fact that there is life is proof of interference, life started approx. 3.7 billion years ago on a very inhospitable Earth, under conditions very unfavourable for life to start.

 

Today under perfect lab conditions scientists with intelligent input cannot get close to creating life by chance. Trying to create a single protein of say 150 bases by chance is extremely unlikey.

1.  The first life form did not have DNA.  DNA arrived long after life had got going, supplanting something much simpler.  What?  We don't know - the murderer disposed of the body ~4bn years ago.

 

2.  To come up with life, Earth had a hundred million years or so, and a test tube the size of a planet.  The fact scientists have not replicated this process yet is hardly surprising.


  • lee14 likes this

#21 brentwood

brentwood

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,137
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2005
  • Loc: SW BC Canada

Posted 16 June 2020 - 10:58 AM

The value of equations such as Drake's is not in their results, which as has been stated , are based on so many guesses, but they do show the factors involved in the calculations. The 'Time' elements really show how fleeting the periods of simultaneous civilisations could be.  


  • lee14 likes this

#22 robbieg147

robbieg147

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 16 June 2020 - 02:09 PM

1.  The first life form did not have DNA.  DNA arrived long after life had got going, supplanting something much simpler.  What?  We don't know - the murderer disposed of the body ~4bn years ago.

 

2.  To come up with life, Earth had a hundred million years or so, and a test tube the size of a planet.  The fact scientists have not replicated this process yet is hardly surprising.

No sorry the first life was DNA based, bacteria can be found in fossils nearly 4 million years old some almost identical to strains in existance today.



#23 robbieg147

robbieg147

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 16 June 2020 - 02:18 PM

We're talking about civilizations here.  Don't try to pull this into a religious debate.
 

 

I was not trying to pull this into a religious debate, it's just I cannot see how life can start by chance.

 

To create a single protein by chance is hard, life needs thousands! the odds to me seem impossible.


  • Steve Cox and DSOGabe like this

#24 spacemunkee

spacemunkee

    Skylab

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,215
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 16 June 2020 - 03:07 PM



To create a single protein by chance is hard, life needs thousands! the odds to me seem impossible.


Far from an expert on such matters. Perhaps it seems impossible from our understanding and knowledge at present time, but maybe it's like putting on your pants to the universe. It's had a 'little' time to figure it out...
  • lee14 and Kunama like this

#25 lee14

lee14

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2009
  • Loc: CNY

Posted 16 June 2020 - 03:43 PM

Amino acids are present in comets, certain types of meteorites, and tentatively identified in interstellar space as well. Just add a little UV and a bit of warmth, and protein formation can occur. It's not magic, it's molecular chemistry.

Lee


  • russell23 likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics