Skip to content

UFOs, are they real? Do you believe?

13»

Comments

  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146
    edited August 2014
    Troodon80 said:

    If there's no way of knowing, then why be so adamantly against the idea that life can be created and evolve based on our own understanding of Earth? All we have is our own knowledge. No matter what belief system you use, humanity was created—seemingly from nothing—and from that we evolved. There is no evidence to prove or disprove that it can happen again, nor is there currently and proof of how it happened here, but consider this: we are just another planet in another solar system in another galaxy in a universe of incalculable proportions. Any assumption humanity comes to regarding the origins, the creation of primitive human life, cannot overrule the possibility of it happening somewhere else. Many of Earth's scientists are fascinated with the possibility of extraterrestrial life, so I would say there is reason enough to believe even if there currently is no proof.

    To be honest, I find it worrisome that we might be the only intelligent life in a vast and seemingly infinite universe.

    "It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination." ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

    Philosophical humor aside, our bias toward believing in extraterrestrial life is nothing more than an extension of our own desire to find it, and our own fear of being truly alone. We have no proof, no evidence, not an iota or modicum or infinitesimal shred of solid, verifiable, logical proof of life elsewhere in this infinite Universe than on Earth. Do I believe there probably are? Yes, hence my poll vote. Do I believe they must be out there? Certainly not, but unfortunately there wasn't a poll option that indicated my level of uncertain, tentative belief. As much as I'd like to say they are statistically probable, or mathematically logical, or scientifically possible, I simply can't because that is not true—at least, not at this time.

    We are the only data point. The scope of our knowledge of the Universe ends at the edge of our solar system, with some minor observations outside of it. The entirety of our scientific understanding of the Universe is based on the measurements taken in our own home. Overall, our ability to accurately predict and understand the chances of extraterrestrial life is pretty slim. This goes to both you and @mlnevese‌.

    Speaking of which...
    mlnevese said:
    Adding onto my above statements, I think it's pretty arrogant of NASA to be "predicting" anything about the chances of meeting extraterrestrial life. That's just their optimism getting the better of them coupled with an attention-grabbing scheme to drum up more popularity and support for their programs—at least, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. There is literally NO WAY they could predict this mathematically or scientifically. It's pure extrapolation.

    *EDIT:* After reading the articles, yeah it's definitely their optimism getting the best of them. They're just giddy about finding the little green men. And yeah, they definitely have no solid proof or reason to believe this will actually occur. It's pretty much a wild guess with an arbitrary date attached to it. One of the scientists even said that he "thinks" it will happen in the next 20 years. No proof, no predictions, none of that. Just some scientists who "think" it will happen and are too busy "imagining the moment" of first contact to get their heads out of their idealistic asses. Oh well, no surprise there.
    ErgElrandirTeflon
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110

    This goes to both you and mlnevese‌.

    You must also realise that this also goes for you.
  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756
    Troodon80 said:

    If there's no way of knowing, then why be so adamantly against the idea that life can be created and evolve based on our own understanding of Earth?

    @Troodon80, I agree with @Nokkenbuer on this.

    I'm not against the idea of life somewhere else in the universe, but I do not believe it must exist either.

    My personal answer to the question "Does life in the universe exists other than on our planet?" is "maybe, but we don't know yet". I guess you could call me an agnostic.
    Nokkenbuer
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    @Erg, I don't believe life has to exist, I'm against the idea where people say it "can't exist because we have no proof of it." There is little reason to think that life couldn't be created and evolve along the same lines as us.
    mlnevese
  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756
    Troodon80 said:

    I'm against the idea where people say it "can't exist because we have no proof of it."

    I don't think that's what @Nokkenbuer is saying, but maybe he can clarify on that.
    Nokkenbuer
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    @Erg, the entire argument supposes that the universe doesn't operate on what we would consider normal; e.g. creation and evolution of organic life. To deny that life can be created at all is to deny that we exist. For just a moment, let's take out the "'elsewhere' in the universe" and simply refer to it as 'in the universe." Let's not assume that we are special. Certainly, I would imagine it to require very strict circumstances and a catalyst, but since it happened at least once that we know of, what argument is there (that doesn't revolve around "we might not be right in how we think the universe operates") that it cannot happen again? The thought that we might not be right is probably true and correct, but since we have no other data points to draw from we must draw from ourselves.

    Basically, the way I think is this:
    1. Was life created on Earth?
    2. Could this happen again given the right circumstances?
    3. Could this thought be applied to other planets?
    1. Yes.
    2. I see no reason why not, it was created in the first place.
    3. Why not?

    @Nokkenbuer has already said they believe there could be life out there, but debates a point with comments about a "lack of proof" for this and that. If there's a lack of proof for anything, then the one thing we know to be a fact is the only thing we can draw on. Us. To disregard that as a data point is to disregard all life, and not just life elsewhere.
    Post edited by Troodon80 on
    Nokkenbuer
  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756
    Troodon80 said:

    If there's a lack of proof for anything, then the one thing we know to be a fact is the only thing we can draw on. Us. To disregard that as a data point is to disregard all life, and not just life elsewhere.

    That would be like doing linear interpolation with just a single point. You can draw a line in any direction and still fit the data. Not very reliable if you ask me.
    Nokkenbuer
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    @Erg, with anything else you would be correct. 100% of 1 person thinking some shampoo is great is not the same as saying 'can life be created?' If life can be created, and we know 100% that it can, then there's no proof to suggest that it couldn't happen either again or elsewhere. If people want to use 'there's no proof' as a point of debate, then it must work both ways.
  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756
    Troodon80 said:

    If people want to use 'there's no proof' as a point of debate, then it must work both ways.

    @Troodon80, there must be a communication problem, because that's exactly what I'm saying: it works both way. You can't be sure either of the existence or the non-existence of life in the universe (other than on our planet). We simply don't have enough information to say it does or doesn't exist.
    Nokkenbuer
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    @Erg, hence why I'm not disagreeing with you. What I do disagree with is the wording that @Nokkenbuer uses. At no point is it referenced regarding the possibility of other life existing (positive), it's always the other way around: "There is no evidence to support the possibility of life elsewhere (negative)." Which means that with the lack of evidence either way, no one can draw any sort of valid conclusion. Which means that debating further on this topic is futile and silly.

    But, of course, that supposes that the key data point—us—is removed from the discussion. The question is less about 'what are the chances of there being other life out there' and more about 'what are the chances of life being created?' Since we know for a fact that life can be created from what appears to be nothing (obviously not nothing), there is more proof to suggest life can be created than there being no life. If we suppose the universe works the same way it does with our limited knowledge, even if not uniformly, then there is little reason to think that life couldn't be created elsewhere.

    There is currently no evidence of that life beyond Earth, but there is evidence, in us, of it being possible. More-so than the 'lack of evidence' constantly being spoken about. Like I keep saying: to deny the creation of life (forget about where in the universe that life is) is to deny our own existence. If we look at ourselves then we have all the evidence we need regarding the possibility.

    The statistical probability or improbability of us finding that life is a different thing entirely.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    This is a fascinating subject that I used to have time to ponder before I became 'Married with Children'.

    I think that it's extremely unlikely we're going to contact other civilizations unless Earth-like planets are far more common than we now believe. It's also entirely possible that there's no way to travel faster than light which makes contact with anybody farther out than 100 or so light-years a multi-generational or suspended animation voyage. Another thought I've had is you could set off on your voyage and find your destination star has went nova by the time you got there. Very dangerous indeed...

    Extra-dimensional travel though, that's another story. Cthulhu lives!
    NokkenbuerElrandir
  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146
    Troodon80 said:

    This goes to both you and mlnevese‌.

    You must also realise that this also goes for you.
    How exactly does it apply to me, as well? I mean, of course it does, but how is that relevant or how does that contradict anything I've said?
    Troodon80 said:

    @Erg, I don't believe life has to exist, I'm against the idea where people say it "can't exist because we have no proof of it." There is little reason to think that life couldn't be created and evolve along the same lines as us.

    @Erg‌ is right, what I'm saying is that while I suspect life to exist elsewhere in the Universe, I have no reason to believe they actually do. My belief in aliens at this time holds the same level of certainty and conviction that I do about my belief in God: it's an interesting and curious idea, and I believe that it's possible, but there is no evidence or proof to support my belief. Yeah, I think there might be aliens, but you'd be hard-pressed to get me to admit that I believe they must exist.

    In other words, I'm not saying they can't exist because there is no proof, only that there is no reason why they must exist, and the absence of any evidence or proof offers no answers.
    Troodon80 said:

    @Erg, the entire argument supposes that the universe doesn't operate on what we would consider normal; e.g. creation and evolution of organic life. To deny that life can be created at all is to deny that we exist. For just a moment, let's take out the "'elsewhere' in the universe" and simply refer to it as 'in the universe." Let's not assume that we are special. Certainly, I would imagine it to require very strict circumstances and a catalyst, but since it happened at least once that we know of, what argument is there (that doesn't revolve around "we might not be right in how we think the universe operates") that it cannot happen again? The thought that we might not be right is probably true and correct, but since we have no other data points to draw from we must draw from ourselves.

    Basically, the way I think is this:

    1. Was life created on Earth?
    2. Could this happen again given the right circumstances?
    3. Could this thought be applied to other planets?
    1. Yes.
    2. I see no reason why not, it was created in the first place.
    3. Why not?

    @Nokkenbuer has already said they believe there could be life out there, but debates a point with comments about a "lack of proof" for this and that. If there's a lack of proof for anything, then the one thing we know to be a fact is the only thing we can draw on. Us. To disregard that as a data point is to disregard all life, and not just life elsewhere.
    Given that the Universe operates rather uniformly throughout, I would agree that the chances of life elsewhere is definitely probable. My argument, however, stresses that we have no way of knowing how probable, and the fact that we have a poor idea of how the Universe as a whole functions only compounds the issue.

    I disregard our existence as valid point of statistical analysis precisely because we are the only data point. Statistically, you cannot form predictions with only one point of reference. Statistics rely on patterns, not on singular points. Therefore, our existence only proves that we exist, not that other life must exist. There is no scientifically, logically, or mathematically sound prediction to determine this while we still have only one data point. Until we make contact with an alien species, we cannot even begin to predict the abundance of life in the Universe. Even at two data points, there is hardly any established pattern or sufficient information to form a valid prediction. However, even that is enough to possibly, tentatively, analyze. At only one data point, however, we are pretty limited.
    Troodon80 said:

    @Erg, with anything else you would be correct. 100% of 1 person thinking some shampoo is great is not the same as saying 'can life be created?' If life can be created, and we know 100% that it can, then there's no proof to suggest that it couldn't happen either again or elsewhere. If people want to use 'there's no proof' as a point of debate, then it must work both ways.

    Of course there is a 100% certainty that life can exist, as evident by our very existence. However, the question, more specifically, is the probability of life in the Universe. Like I stated previously, what if the chances of life is 1 in ∞? Logically, that can mean only one instance of life can exist at any given time, or ever exist at all depending on the parameters. If this is true, then yes there is a 100% chance that life can exist, as represented by the 1, but there is an approx. 0% chance that multiple instances of life exist.

    I do not deny the certainty of life existing whatsoever (for the purposes of this argument), only the necessary probability of multiple instances of life existing in the Universe.
    Troodon80 said:

    @Erg, hence why I'm not disagreeing with you. What I do disagree with is the wording that @Nokkenbuer uses. At no point is it referenced regarding the possibility of other life existing (positive), it's always the other way around: "There is no evidence to support the possibility of life elsewhere (negative)." Which means that with the lack of evidence either way, no one can draw any sort of valid conclusion. Which means that debating further on this topic is futile and silly.

    But, of course, that supposes that the key data point—us—is removed from the discussion. The question is less about 'what are the chances of there being other life out there' and more about 'what are the chances of life being created?' Since we know for a fact that life can be created from what appears to be nothing (obviously not nothing), there is more proof to suggest life can be created than there being no life. If we suppose the universe works the same way it does with our limited knowledge, even if not uniformly, then there is little reason to think that life couldn't be created elsewhere.

    There is currently no evidence of that life beyond Earth, but there is evidence, in us, of it being possible. More-so than the 'lack of evidence' constantly being spoken about. Like I keep saying: to deny the creation of life (forget about where in the universe that life is) is to deny our own existence. If we look at ourselves then we have all the evidence we need regarding the possibility.

    The statistical probability or improbability of us finding that life is a different thing entirely.

    Adding onto the above statements, I would like to clarify that my mention of "lack of evidence" refers to the lack of evidence of life beyond Earth. I do not deny that life exists on Earth; that's absurd. I do deny, however, that our existence is sufficient proof to assume that life exists elsewhere. Our existence only confirms that we exist, and that life can exist, but not that it must exist or that it does exist elsewhere in the Universe.

    The entire premise of this discussion revolves around the existence of extraterrestrial life, not whether we exist. Why are we arguing over our very own existence?
    ErgElrandir
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    The entire premise of this discussion revolves around the existence of extraterrestrial life, not whether we exist. Why are we arguing over our very own existence?
    Because the question of whether there can be other life aside from ourselves is not a simple one. It is like a checklist.

    For any life to exist it must first be created. We are the data point that says it can be done. Mathsorcerer was the one who said it was a high probability of alien life, you're the one who said it was impossible to make any claim on probability, and I am the one who said when one talks about the 'possibility' of something occurring (such as the creation of life), it can indeed lead probabilities. If there is a possibility of something happening then there is a certain probability, no matter how great or small it might be, attached to it. If you have a six sided dice numbered one to six, there is exactly 0 probability of getting a 7, it is not possibly because there simply is no 7 on the dice. Just because we have no current accurate formula for working out the probability in this instance does not mean that the probability is 0.0∞. Some mathematical formulas will, in fact, try to calculate and predict, even if futile and useless due to only theorising and guessing, statistical probability of there being other life in the universe, or encountering said life. The Drake Equation is an example. It can be used as a probability measure by using abstract data. It, too, uses data from our own existence to determine a probability. Results from this are useless, but it contradicts there being no mathematical formula. In the absence of anything better, it is the theory most likely to be used.
  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146
    Troodon80 said:

    The entire premise of this discussion revolves around the existence of extraterrestrial life, not whether we exist. Why are we arguing over our very own existence?
    Because the question of whether there can be other life aside from ourselves is not a simple one. It is like a checklist.

    For any life to exist it must first be created. We are the data point that says it can be done. Mathsorcerer was the one who said it was a high probability of alien life, you're the one who said it was impossible to make any claim on probability, and I am the one who said when one talks about the 'possibility' of something occurring (such as the creation of life), it can indeed lead probabilities. If there is a possibility of something happening then there is a certain probability, no matter how great or small it might be, attached to it. If you have a six sided dice numbered one to six, there is exactly 0 probability of getting a 7, it is not possibly because there simply is no 7 on the dice. Just because we have no current accurate formula for working out the probability in this instance does not mean that the probability is 0.0∞. Some mathematical formulas will, in fact, try to calculate and predict, even if futile and useless due to only theorising and guessing, statistical probability of there being other life in the universe, or encountering said life. The Drake Equation is an example. It can be used as a probability measure by using abstract data. It, too, uses data from our own existence to determine a probability. Results from this are useless, but it contradicts there being no mathematical formula. In the absence of anything better, it is the theory most likely to be used.

    Again, you seem to maintain this fallacious understanding that other instances of life must necessarily proceed the initial instance. I'll restate my previous point more generally: one instance of life forming in the Universe has no statistical or bearing on the chances that another instance will occur. The initial instance only confirms that life can exist, but any further instances (if there will be any more) will occur independent of the initial instance. In other words, just because we exist, that doesn't mean aliens exist, too. There is no causal relationship between life on Earth and the chances of life elsewhere in the Universe.

    My 1 in ∞ statistic was nothing more than an example to illustrate how it's possible that Earth may be the sole planet in the Universe which hosts life. I don't know if that was clear, but hopefully that clarified what I meant.

    Yes, there are certain mathematical formulae which seem to possess the capacity to predict extraterrestrial life. In fact, it's true to some extent that we can tentatively predict the chances of life in the Universe, given we employ a whole lot of extrapolation and assumption, and allow for an absurd amount of unknowns. I am aware of this. However, my point is that there is no solid evidence for extraterrestrial life, and that there is no mathematical formula or theory which can accurately predict this without relying heavily on unknown or assumed variables. Therefore, I find any such abstract prediction, like the Drake Equation, to be ultimately a poorly-constructed guesstimate. There simply isn't enough data to accurate predict, model or analyze with any real confidence.
    Erg
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    @Nokkenbuer‌, why do you keep saying "must"? At no point did I ever say there must be. In fact, I stated above that I do not believe as such at all. I stated that if it can happen once then it can happen again. You can throw around 'fallacious' as much as you want, but your side of the debate is equally so without evidence. I merely pointed out that when you said there is no statistical probability or improbability that you were not entirely correct. Meaning that both sides of the debate are equally irrelevant. This is what followed that. Using the logic of 'no evidence means fallacious understanding':
    Again, you seem to maintain this fallacious understanding that other instances of life must necessarily proceed the initial instance.
    You seem to maintain this fallacious understanding that other instances of life must not necessarily proceed the initial instance. See how pathetic that is when a debate gets to this point?

    Even your point about 1 in ∞ leaves p=1, which is a statistic, which you were saying is impossible to calculate. It is impossible to accurately predict but it is not impossible to predict. A prediction is akin to a weather forecast, it is an educated guess base on recurring patterns. In this case, the creation of Earth-like planets. You continued by saying that any predictions achieved from it were weak and presumptuous and yet you were the one who came up with 1 in ∞ (which you cannot possibly know as a fact). Thus you actually made your own prediction based entirely on an assumption. Which you said was weak and presumptuous. That's also why I said it must work both ways. If it is impossible to predict probability, then it it also impossible to predict improbability. Which it is not, either way, since we have the Drake Equation to work with. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant. We can predict using a mathematical formula. Predictions range from ~2 to thousands of potential alien civilisations. So my original point is that it is silly to say one cannot predict. There are also factors such as the Bayesian reasoning to think about, but even that has it's own paradox. Currently, there are approximately 17,129 candidates that are being researched. There have also been comets that have been studied and found to have organic compounds. In the absence of hard evidence either way, it is not possible to rule out possibility or probability.

    So, in other words, two pages of debate leads us to the conclusion that there might or might not be alien life. Predictions range from p=1 to p=[insert any number]. Which is still better than p=0. I am still going to say that a universe which is seemingly infinite is an incredible waste of space if it is only us. Of course, that brings up questions such as the meaning of life, if we are alone then what is the point to all of this? But that's something for a different topic.
    Post edited by Troodon80 on
    Nokkenbuer
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    I'll restate my previous point more generally: one instance of life forming in the Universe has no statistical or bearing on the chances that another instance will occur. The initial instance only confirms that life can exist, but any further instances (if there will be any more) will occur independent of the initial instance. In other words, just because we exist, that doesn't mean aliens exist, too. There is no causal relationship between life on Earth and the chances of life elsewhere in the Universe.

    I do not disagree with your assessment--we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any non-terrestrial species, regardless of their state of development or level of technological achievement. Strangely, this boils the question of extraterrestrial life down to a point of faith--a person either believes that they exist or they believe that they do not. Of course, this isn't to deny the third option of not making up one's mind either way.

    I, for one, would *like* for a non-terrestrial species of sufficient technological advancement to exist and I would *like* for us to find evidence that they exist even if we aren't in direct contact with them because that fact alone would shake us out of the status quo we are in. It will, figuratively if not literally, turn our world upside-down and make us rethink *everything*. It might even get us to quit doing some of the stupid crap we as a species are doing to each other, since we clearly do not have the ability to stop some of our behavior patterns on our own.

    Let's just say, then, that I am of the opinion that the probability of existence for some other species with a reasonable level of technology or advancement is greater than zero. As a direct result of this, because of the size of the universe the idea that they *can* exist means, to me, that they *do* exist, even if we never find proof of their existence. We should look for them but I am not going to hold my breath in anticipation of finding them during my lifetime.
    On the other hand, people who have a differing opinion will conclude that other species do not exist because there is no evidence of them but they, also, should keep looking. At the very least, the people in the second camp won't ever be disappointed--they weren't expecting to find anything, anyway, so finding nothing isn't surprising to them.

    Troodon80mlneveseNokkenbuerElrandir
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
    I believe this thread has gone into an infinite argument loop. If no one opposes I'll close it tomorrow.
    Troodon80jackjack
  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146
    Troodon80 said:

    @Nokkenbuer‌, why do you keep saying "must"? At no point did I ever say there must be. In fact, I stated above that I do not believe as such at all. I stated that if it can happen once then it can happen again. You can throw around 'fallacious' as much as you want, but your side of the debate is equally so without evidence. I merely pointed out that when you said there is no statistical probability or improbability that you were not entirely correct. Meaning that both sides of the debate are equally irrelevant. This is what followed that. Using the logic of 'no evidence means fallacious understanding':

    Again, you seem to maintain this fallacious understanding that other instances of life must necessarily proceed the initial instance.
    You seem to maintain this fallacious understanding that other instances of life must not necessarily proceed the initial instance. See how pathetic that is when a debate gets to this point?

    Even your point about 1 in ∞ leaves p=1, which is a statistic, which you were saying is impossible to calculate. It is impossible to accurately predict but it is not impossible to predict. A prediction is akin to a weather forecast, it is an educated guess base on recurring patterns. In this case, the creation of Earth-like planets. You continued by saying that any predictions achieved from it were weak and presumptuous and yet you were the one who came up with 1 in ∞ (which you cannot possibly know as a fact). Thus you actually made your own prediction based entirely on an assumption. Which you said was weak and presumptuous. That's also why I said it must work both ways. If it is impossible to predict probability, then it it also impossible to predict improbability. Which it is not, either way, since we have the Drake Equation to work with. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant. We can predict using a mathematical formula. Predictions range from ~2 to thousands of potential alien civilisations. So my original point is that it is silly to say one cannot predict. There are also factors such as the Bayesian reasoning to think about, but even that has it's own paradox. Currently, there are approximately 17,129 candidates that are being researched. There have also been comets that have been studied and found to have organic compounds. In the absence of hard evidence either way, it is not possible to rule out possibility or probability.

    So, in other words, two pages of debate leads us to the conclusion that there might or might not be alien life. Predictions range from p=1 to p=[insert any number]. Which is still better than p=0. I am still going to say that a universe which is seemingly infinite is an incredible waste of space if it is only us. Of course, that brings up questions such as the meaning of life, if we are alone then what is the point to all of this? But that's something for a different topic.

    Perhaps I have been mistaken, for I have been under the assumption that you believe extraterrestrial life must exist given that we exist. I'm not sure when I picked up this misunderstanding, but I suspect it's either due to me erroneously attributing @FinneousPJ‌'s post to you, or (more likely) my interpretation of your introductory sentence: "I don't put any stock in conspiracy theories, but I think it is a bit silly to think that there couldn't be, or simply is not, any other advanced life out in the universe." I should have realized that my assumption was false, seeing how you have mentioned and implied multiple times in your subsequent posts how you don't believe extraterrestrial life must exist, which I only realized after rereading your previous posts. Sorry about that.

    Like I said, my use of "1 in ∞" was an example to illustrate how we could be alone in this Universe. It was not meant to be taken as an actual statistical prediction or anything of the sort. If we are, however, then I should clarify that p=1 would be us. We are the instance of life that satisfies the chances of life predicted in "1 in ∞"; therefore, the chances of alien life, given this statistic, would be p=0 or somewhere approaching 0.

    I admit that I was wrong in stating that there is no mathematical formula or theory to predict the chances of extraterrestrial life. I feel I should note, however, that even when I initially claimed that, I was aware of the Drake equation and such predictive models. I dismissed them as insufficient, though, because they were heavily flawed and riddled with unknowns. I also found the fact that there was no room for the possibility of there being no extraterrestrial life in those equations to be frustrating, since that should certainly be a possible outcome given all the unknowns and variables that needed to be considered.

    From your description of what qualifies as a prediction, and after rechecking the definition of a scientific prediction, yes those are indeed predictions and yes you are correct. I suppose I should have specified my argument, that I believe there is no satisfactory predictive model to determine the chances of extraterrestrial life. I'm not sure how to define the qualifications for what should be considered a "satisfactory predictive model," though, so that revision is pretty useless. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make was that the current models for predicting the probability of intelligent alien life are far too weak and steeped in unknown variables. Yes, it's still a prediction, but it has so many hole and flaws that I find it hard trusting its predictions. Additionally, I have yet to come across any sort of prediction which factors for the possibility that we are alone in the Universe, which led to my points as to why it's fallacious to believe that alien life must exist. To think of it, I guess I was as much arguing against the integrity of these predictions as I was arguing with you.
    Troodon80
  • NokkenbuerNokkenbuer Member Posts: 146
    mlnevese said:

    I believe this thread has gone into an infinite argument loop. If no one opposes I'll close it tomorrow.

    As far as I'm concerned, it seems like this discussion is coming to a close, anyway. The entire premise of my arguments was based on a false assumption and a failure to adequately explain how the current models for predicting alien life are insufficient. Unless @Troodon80‌ has something else to say, I have run out of talking points.
    Troodon80
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    edited August 2014
    I just want to add a small detail about random numbers in the infinite possible numbers...

    Actually, since it's infinite, possibilities are infinite too, but the consideration of time and space have to be taken into account when talking about possibilities in an infinite number too, so you actually have THREE infinite variables we could, just for our convenience name X (time years), Y (distance in years-light straight from the earth) and Z (possibilities of alien-life in a specific planet)... so this, besides being a little bit difficult to calculate, is completely unpredictable by any means we _now_ have. If our data processing technology advances enough to be able to calculate something like this, by that point DNA designing would be treated like a hobby (since the number of nitrogenous bases is definitely not infinite, maybe (and maybe it's shorter!) it's longer than a unsigned long long int but still not infinite) and we could predict winning number of casino-like games and such (since they aren't infinite and they are actually quite small numbers), besides lots of stuff I don't think that mentioning would be interesting, so it would probably take a while before we can guess where aliens could be.

    Oh, and also the planet might by destroyed by the time we discover/reach it, since... well... supernovas happen :)

    Edit: this three infinite variables' purpose is to determinate if we could or not met the aliens, which I forgot to mention in my post :\
  • MetallomanMetalloman Member, Moderator, Translator (NDA) Posts: 3,975
    Because today is my conspiracy day.

    @mlnevese‌: Aliens*

    * = Tsoukalos' way to say: I agree.
    mlneveseCrevsDaakjackjack
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    I have nothing further to add. :-)
    CrevsDaakNokkenbuer
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
    Ok thread closed. If anyone wants to reopen it send me or any other moderator a PM :)
    Nokkenbuer
This discussion has been closed.