/lit/ - Literature

>>11437454
>my point is is that we the fluke happened which sets the precedent for other flukes having happened
That's not how probability works. Some event with a low chance of probability happening does not imply that event like that will happen again. A 1 in 100 chance of me getting a certain number does not guarantee that I will get that number within 100 attempts.

>And has that list changed at all over the years?
Actually I think the list is getting longer over the years, as our understanding of life increases. Earth for instance was inimical to human life for most of it's existence. Any requirement on that list not met means that the complexity of life goes down. Practically that means that it is far more likely that there is some sort of biological sludge in Europa's oceans than anything approaching intelligent life.

>but what happens when one part of that list is broken? At that point you would need to discount the accuracy of the entire list, no?
I don't think any requirement on that list can be "broken" or found not needed. You aim for a certain complexity and characteristics of life and come up with the requirements. I am very, very certain that there is no life out there that is based on interactions of protons, for the simple fact that it is far, far more energy intensive to knock out a proton out of a core than to knock out an electron out of it's orbit. I also know that events like the GOE (the Great Oxygenation Event or the Oxygen Holocaust) is not something needed for life (another one of those flukes).

>And the fact that our planet was able to get it just right, how is that more far fetched of an idea than a second planet also getting those variables just right?
We are back again at probability and I would like to add that the creation of life is not a singular event but a series of interconnected (and interdependent) events of mind boggling complexity. If you want the apex, the ultimate prize, the intelligent life than all of them had to happen just right and keep happening just right.

>>11437470
>Because it has happened before. With us.
And there is absolutely no guarantee that it will happen again. Only a low, low probability.

>>11437490
Just some bad cosplayer I have a photo of. On a unrelated note, I am still mad.