/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15674581
Point 3 does not follow. We have no idea what the probability for life evolving on its own is, so we can't conclude anything from the vastness of the universe.

>>15674603
you are the common short sighted little human, who underrates the vastness of the concept of at least 1 trillion .. trillion solar systems at that's only the universe that is observable currently.

also religion or/and common narcissism has poisoned your mind to exclude EARTH as a COMMON EXAMPLE of spontaneous "alien life" because we are no different than that.

>>15674603
you are the common short sighted little human, who underrates the vastness of the concept of at least 1 trillion .. trillion solar systems and that's only the universe that is observable currently (it's AT LEAST that).
also religion or/and common narcissism has poisoned your mind to exclude EARTH as a COMMON EXAMPLE of spontaneous "alien life" because we are no different than just an example of "aliens existing".

>>>/ilt/sffg

>>15674683
you are stupid. the probability is unquestionably ludicrously low to not be true, and that's only the observable universe numbers causing it (it in reality approximately impossible to not be true).

>>15674683
you are stupid. the probability is unquestionably ludicrously low to not be true, and that's only the observable universe numbers causing it (it's in reality approximately impossible to not be true).

>>15674581
>inb4 your models and assumptions were wrong and the whole thing was operating under principle which were completely unaccounted for (you cannot realize this due to your own hubris)

even if there is advanced alien life out in the milky way, it is practically impossible that we will ever know about them. the aliens on earth have always been here (demons)

>>15674581
>Now there's also the interesting dark forest theory; advanced ones are already near; but they don't feel it helps them to help.
As someone who's played free-for-all matches in RTS vidya like Red Alert and Starcraft. Strategically it makes more sense to me, to hide as much information about yourself as you can. While also sharing alot of information about other players, to almost all other players. Especially sharing information to players you think have similar or less strength to yourself.
Because you can team up to take down stronger players. Hope for reciprocated information sharing. Even if others don't reciprocate sharing information, your information could help others sus out whose the biggest threat. That would still help your chances of surviving longer.

>>15674707
that's what I said

>Main issue is a) the vastness of space in combination with b) speed of light limit -> c) it's almost impossible to meet most of them.

and I wasn't talking about the milky way; more than a trillion .. trillion sons with planets; the probability is approximately 1.

>>15674707
that's what I said
>Main issue is a) the vastness of space in combination with b) speed of light limit -> c) it's almost impossible to meet most of them.
and I wasn't talking about the milky way; more than a trillion .. trillion suns with planets; the probability is approximately 1.

>>15674719
if you share information about other players, don't you also share something about yourself? how do you have info that is "purely not about myself"?

>>15674581
>1) We already know that life can exist on a planet of the universe; it has happened here; it has managed to reach a point of the 2nm transistor and it keeps going.
Yes, true. We do exist.
>2) We know that there are at least ~10 to the 24th solar systems that is at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or a trillion trillion systems.
Yep, there is a lot of stuff out there.
>3) Therefore it would be stupid to not assume that not only there are alien occurrences elsewhere but the advanced ones must be millions.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I think you missed quite a few steps there, namely the part where you gave any proof that there is any area of space in the universe where life can arise more than once.

>>15674811
yeah but you being distrustful about it implies you are biased, because of religious indoctrination (even if you're not religious) or plain human narcissism.

I mean "we are aliens" ourselves in that context so the extraordinary claim would be that we are NOT just one of the aliens instead of uniques.

>>15674811
>>15675274
and let's not forget that the mathematics about it are brutally in favor of the OP statement.
because it's not just a trillion .. trillion solar systems which is already a crazy number,

it is AT LEAST that because it's only what is already certain on the observable part.

>>15674581
Can't tell if troll or edgelord

But one possibility not being accounted for here is that on the scale of life developing we might be incredibly young. We may be among the first wave of civilizations that are forming. There may be some other versions of "humanity" out there, they may be at varying levels. It could be that the leap from pack animals to organizing intelligences that can span a world is a low probability event. If so then there may only be a handful of them scattered around the universe right now.

If they aren't able to go faster than light, then it's a waiting game to see which stars actually have life on them and have developed. We could get an entire civilizations rise and fall broadcasted to us from a star long dead as well.

Or our galaxy is just feeding a giant void god type being created by an unfathomably massive superorganismal intelligence

Even harnessing the entire energy output of a star isnt it impossible to reach the nearest star?

Also consider there js clearly a great filter.

Cooperative systems are more prone to energy parasitism. Kikes and niggers would be a problem in any energy sufficient cooperative system.

>>15674581
You also need to account for the fact that because stars form out of their nebulas at random times these civilizations are unlikely to coexist in time. That means time separations of millions of years between civs which also means the first civ to arise in a galaxy will likely take over that galaxy.

>>15675290
but even in your hypothesis the mathematics are extremely in favor of the OP statement instead of yours.
we're talking about a trillion ..trillion solar systems and that's only the MINIMUM (in the observable).

It's plain religious indoctrination (even to the non-religious) or just plain human narcissism to start from NOT assuming it's true because we're "just another alien" in this context and the mathematics are brutally in favor of not assuming uniqueness of something that we already know appeared spontaneously due to VERY NATURAL CHEMISTRY .

>>15675291
off topic. I never talked on if we'll meet them. "Main issue is a) the vastness of space in combination with b) speed of light limit -> c) it's almost impossible to meet most of them."

>>15675291
off topic. I never claimed we'll meet them easily but the opposite. "Main issue is a) the vastness of space in combination with b) speed of light limit -> c) it's almost impossible to meet most of them." (though the dark forest theory is fun to consider too (but maybe more unlikely than just "it's just far")).

>>15675292
that's partly off topic. I'm not claiming there we'll meet them but mainly if the exist and more or less if the exist in the contest of history.

people who claim humans may be alone usually assume aliens never existed at all.

>>15675290
even in the "in we are young" hypothesis the mathematics are extremely in favor of the OP statement, because the extraordinary claim would be to assume that in approximately unlimited solar systems we are somehow special,

whjen we already know the chemistry that caused it is very common and the repetitions are almost unlimited.

>>15675303
Maybe they dont exist because there is a great filter and they suffered from parasitism that ulyumately degraded their gene pool to the point of extinction?

We are certainly facing this here with no solution in sight

>>15675290
even in the "we are young" hypothesis the mathematics are extremely in favor of the OP statement, because the extraordinary claim would be to assume that in approximately-unlimited solar systems we are somehow special,

when we already know the chemistry that caused it is very common and the repetitions are almost-unlimited.

>>15675318
but even if it's very hard "because of a filter" the mathematics are very brutally in favor of the OP statement,
because we're talking about almost-unlimited repetitions and very common chemistry that is needed.

it's pretty obvious that only religious indoctrination or plain human narcissism can start elsewhere.

oh and something else people forget (and it's somewhat related the dark forest theory,
it's just extremely unlikely to even SEE aliens let alone even meet them.

approximately ALL parts of the universe are non-observable for at least millions of years.

>>15675323
There is a fundamental paradox

Cooperativeness is necessary for civilization. But cooperative organisms cannot destroy parasites. The greater the surplus energy, the greater inevitability that a parasite will emerge and control the cooperative instinct. A cooperative instinct necessarily excludes the possibility of exterminating parasites.

I am not aware of any mechanism that can resolve this conflict outside of cybernetic heirarchy. But at that point it is less a civilization and more of a biocomputer.

So the people bave to choose to die and merge with a biocomputer or not. Cooperative people who value humanity will likely not assent to this. So any cybernetic system is filled with inhumane, aggressive parasites. Any such cybernetic system will collapse because individual sentient beings will not assent, so the system can only accumulate parasites. Parasites are inherently anti cybernetic, they will not add to collective computing power

The civilization must ban cybernetics and computation, as any sufficient intelligence will gravitate towards accumulating computing power.
Boom. Intelligence becomes outlawed.

Civilizational collapse.

Any sufficiently advanced civilization has already descrnded into dygenics. There is no alternative

>>15674581
my predictions based on nothing
1.microbes are prob fairly common on prob a few thousand worlds in our galaxy
2. plants and fungus prob a few hundred
3. animals a dozen or so
4.intelligent life prob only 1 or 2 per galaxy tops

>>15675342
yes, and we have at least billions of galaxies, so we have at least 1 or 2 billions "tops" per your assumption.

>>15674682
I don't care how many galaxies are out there. You just can't conclude anything from that without knowing the probability for spontaneous life occurring on a planet.
simple as

>>15675474
I never concluded. I said it's approximately mathematically nonsense to assume the opposite as a starting point. We already know we're "an alien" and we know the chemistry that caused it is common so having a STARTING point that we are unique is practically religious lunacy or just plain human narcissism.

>>15675507
>I said it's approximately mathematically nonsense to assume the opposite as a starting point
It's mathematically nonsense to assume anything without having information about the likelihood of spontaneous life occurring.

>>15675586
that's your religious lunacy or human narcissism omitting the facts we already know. we know already that at least one "alien species" existed (us) and we already know that it happened with very common chemistry without any supernatural activity required.

therefore it's you who has the burden of proof on how COMMON CHEMISTRY on ALMOST-UNLIMITED PERMUTATIONS is not NOT going to produce life.

>>15675586
that's your religious lunacy or human narcissism omitting the facts we already know. we know already that at least one "alien species" existed (us) and we already know that it happened with very common chemistry without any supernatural activity required.

therefore it's you who has the burden of proof on how COMMON CHEMISTRY on ALMOST-UNLIMITED PERMUTATIONS is NOT going to produce life.

>>15675613
You are retarded. We don't even know how life started on earth (inb4 memiogenesis).

>>15675613
Why do you care about alien civilizations if you cant see them anyway and they dont affect you in any direct or indirect way? You are completely disconnected from them.
And if in some future date that were to change it would have nothing to do with you or anyone believing aliens exist. It makes no difference.
Your opinion on aliens doesnt matter

>>15675624
nice religious lunacy child. we know exactly how it started by common chemistry.
the details on how are irrelevant in this context since it's about possibility only.

>>15675629
you pose a good question, but I think it's still fascinating to know about those things because it makes us widen our horizons on how prejudiced we are.

it's interesting how people are so narcissistic (or affected by religion possibly) that they don't see we're just randomly selected on common chemistry.

>>15674581
>it would be stupid to not assume
>mathematically impossible

>>15675642
sure let's assume it's not 100%, but it's approximately with a probability of 1 because the permutations are almost unlimited (let's not forget we have only observable-universe number so they are likely multiple times that),

and at the very least: the burden of proof should be on those NOT assuming as a starting point that very common chemistry on unlimited permutations is producing life in the entire universe.

>>15675642
sure let's assume it's not 100%, but it's approximately with a probability of 1 because the permutations are almost unlimited (let's not forget we have only observable-universe numbers so they are likely multiple times that),

and at the very least: the burden of proof should be on those NOT assuming as a starting point that very common chemistry on unlimited permutations is producing life in the entire universe.

>>15674581
You're probably only going to dumb animal life if you find any. like fish or something.
maybe there is something like us at far end of the universe somewhere, maybe.

>>15675656
no. the main reason humans are so intelligent is probably because we reached a point that other animals were not a big threat; so we practically had as a main enemy the other groups of humans; so the best "politician" so to speak or "strategist" would win against other humans and that needed a big brain.

and at the very least: with almost-unlimited permutations in the entire universe (we're talking about one galaxy here or even just the observable universe): it should be extremely likely for others to go through similar journeys.

>1) We know that the number 3 exists.
>2) There are infinitely many numbers.
>3) Therefore, it's stupid to assume that there aren't many more numbers equal to 3

>>15674581
Civilization has only brief period of time between them learning how to transmit signals and them learning not to expose themselves.

>>15675662
that's stupid, because you start with the assumption all numbers are unique.

there is nothing unique about earth in an almost-unlimited universe.

>>15675640
>, but I think it's still fascinating to know about those things
Except you dont know anything about aliens

>>15675667
we can't even expose ourselves. it takes MILLIONS of YEARS to go even to the very close neighborhood in this small part of this one galaxy.

and we're talking about billions of GALAXIES in a universe that is observes (which means they are probably multiple times that).

>>15675669
>there is nothing unique about earth in an almost-unlimited universe.
Earth is the unique planet with life on it.

>>15675675
you know that they are likely with similarities to us, because we must be using the same laws of physics to exist.


what I suspect is that any animal can become intelligent because it's probably only a question of "do I have so much competition from the others in this same species that I don't need gig teeth anymore but mainly a big brain to be a good strategist against the other people here?".

>>15674581
> Therefore it would be stupid to not assume
Why are you assuming that intelligent life is common?
>dark forest theory
Dark Forest theory is a meme, not only would be damn near impossible to hide from an older civilization (Even a K2 civilization has the resources to keep an eye on every in the galaxy), but even if it was possible trying to hide means you lose out on the benefits of expanding your civilization.

>>15675676
It's not about us exposing ourselves, it's about our neighbours exposing themselves few light years or millions light years away few years or million years ago.

>>15675686
>common?
the permutations are almost unlimited and the chemistry that caused is common and understood (for the context of just saying if it's possible), so the probability of it happening is approaching 1.
let's not forget that those crazy-big numbers that we already now are not even the limit because they only refer to the observable universe.

I love how the probability of life appearing from non-life all by itself is never taken into account in these so called calculations

>>15675683
>because we must be using the same laws of physics to exist.
so all you are saying is that physics is universal. Beyond this pablum you are not adding any real knowledge.

>>15675703
but we know for certain that it happened on common chemistry. we have proven in vitro that we can builds the first blocks ourselves and further details than that are irrelevant in this context because it's mainly a question of "if it's possible",

and we're an example ourselves so that alone satisfied the question of possibility unless we're religious lunatics or just irrationally narcissistic.

>>15674581
>it has managed to reach a point of the 2nm transistor and it keeps going.
Of the roughly two billion years life has existed on Earth, how long has the above been the case? What component of evolution makes this outcome inevitable?

>>15675711
I suspect the main reason we have big brains, is that we managed to have as our main competition not other animals but other humans; so it was no longer a question of "who has the bigger teeth"; it's mostly about who is the better strategist to beat other humans now and that needs big brain.

other planets are unlikely to have apes doing it but I don't discount the possibility that apes have some particular characteristic that makes them better strategist but it's partly off topic because we're micromanaging the details now.

>>15675586
This is the counter argument i dislike the most. "Spontaneous" has no meaning in this context, it is no different from the dichotomy of "life/no life", as the cause may well be ineffable. Not only does it ignore how little we understand our own planets conditions and exactly how it relates to life, but also how little we know about the possibility life in general. An example would be to say "had there been X% less nitrogen, then..." Well, is that a stroke of luck or an adaptation? All this to say that there is no calculation that relates to "spontaneous" that could be meaningfully superior to "life vs no life", but "spontaneous" carries the potential to always move the goalposts because you've snuck in an unverified assumption of knowledge about the formation of life. That is a silly thing to burden the discussion with. I.E you can introduce "spontaneous" if you'd like to, but then you have to define and defend that concept, and you'll be torn to shreds every time since you can't define it in a way that captures all modalities with any certainty. I can't believe how many "critical" thinkers believe this is a fair term to include in this discussion, and at the same time they miss the fact that their belief is a conscious bias which hinders their ability to account for equally, if not more, eligible explanations leading to broader ranges of probability. It's their version of "God". "Oh no this has to be accounted for", as if the concept is valid to begin with. Well, given the known-unknowns, you can't, what now? Most fall into the, "I'll have to use the data we do have". In any other case, a single data-point gets absolutely trashed, but when someone is about to empirically defend fermi-paradox style arguments they seem to forget all about it. "But we've observed millions and billions of planets and found nothing", again, empirical fallacy, we suck at attaining the necessary observations.

>>15675715
large brains objectively did not develop in africa. the primary selection pressure in africa was against microbes and for persistence hunting, and then those animals slowly evolving to outrun us as well, which is why the sapiens sapiens fossil record is thin in africa. there was no method of breaking out of the competetive cycle

large brains obviously developed in eurasia due to the sudden ability to outnumber megafauna, which drove cooperation amongst eurasians within the family group, eventually beginning to select for cooperation in order to fight outgroups.

there is zero nonkin cooperation in africa. it is obvious that this was not the evolutionary bed of human neurology

>>15675723
not him but I believe we can do without most of this philosophical discussion if we look just on some basic testing.
we already have in vitro proof that we can start randomly producing that basic blocks of plant and animal life.

with almost unlimited permutations surely the universe can easily beat 1 human doing it easily in 1 lab.

>>15675730
>with almost unlimited permutations surely the universe can easily beat 1 human doing it easily in 1 lab.
This is what pop-soience does to a young and impressionable 110-115 IQ mind. He actually thinks this is legitimate scientific reasoning.

>>15675733
it's you who has the religious and narcissistic reasoning. we've proven we can do it in controlled conditions extremely easily.

what makes you think almost unlimited combinations in the entirely universe will not do it?

>>15675649
Maybe you're assuming that the magnitude of the non-zero density of inhabited worlds in the universe has to be an element of the set of real numbers? In that case, I would agree with you on mathematical impossibility. However, if that magnitude is infinitesimal rather than real, then there is nothing strange about only one inhabited world, and I say the onus would be on you to prove the magnitude is in [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. What reason do you have to even offer such a claim as a conjecture?

>>15675733
it's you who has the religious and narcissistic reasoning. we've proven we can do it in controlled conditions extremely easily.

what makes you think almost unlimited combinations in the entire universe will not do it?

>>15675661
You just don't appreciate how unlikely there is to be life out there, let alone intelligent life.
so many things had to go right in order for us to be here it's insane.
im not saying there aren't any, just extremely unlikely and very very far away.

>>15675715
> not other animals but other humans
Humanity's ancestors did get picked off rather frequently be apex predators. The problem with big brains is that they're energetically expensive, but may not confer that much fitness as they evolve. Sapience is probably incredibly niche, which is why its existed for less than 0.1% of history of life on earth and only occurred in us a few other species that are now extinct.

>>15675736
>it's you who has the religious and narcissistic reasoning
Are you talking back to the voices in your head? You sound like you're having a literal psychotic episode.

>what makes you think almost unlimited combinations in the entirely universe will not do it?
What "unlimited combinations" are you talking about, you absolute cretin? The universe has a finite amount of matter and a finite age as far as anyone can tell. Even ignoring this, a literal Boltzmann brain theory is more parsimonious than your idea. Kill yourself.

>>15675744
literally, if only there had not been a land bridge out of africa, and then simultaneously, not TOO large of a land bridge, because too large of a land bridge would have introgressed ALL early hominin dna into the sapiens gene pool, literally without this, we would still be paranthrapus or egaster

not to mention, if our tracheas hadn't descended, or if we didn't have thumbs from our ape ancestry, or if the tropical environment was not specifically isolated from all other continents by a series of vast deserts

literally we would still be monkeys

>>15675740
See >>15675756, you reddit cripple. Imagine deleting your own posts like that... Cringe.

>>15675739
I'm not going to discount pure agnosticism here, but I think it's just nonsense when people assume the burden proof is on aliens existing and not on humans being unique and the center of life in the universe, because we have at least a trillion-trillion permutations of solar systems to do what our solar system has already done and in fact can even do easily in the lab (in part(but it proves the possibility)) and those crazy big numbers are not even the limit because it's only the observable part of the universe so you'd have to prove an approximately 0 probability for it to happen and good luck with not having the burden proof on that when 1 guy in 1 lab can do part of what is required (but a large part) in a few minutes on a random morning.

Lets play a game, the drake equation for planets like earth with life
I'll throw you some numbers:
% of suns that can harbor life: 10%
% of solar system with good suns that have rocky planets of earth size in a habitable zone: 1%
% of those planets that have water but not so much they are completely covered in water and not so little they are deserts: 1 in a million.
I made up all these numbers but the universe is so big theres still tons of planets like this
10X100X1000000=>1 in a billion stars has a planet like earth. Such a planet could be a barren world with rocky deserts and a dead ocean, but its a start.
That would be 100 to 400 planets in the milky way, and there could be trillions of galaxies so 100 trillion "dead earths" are possible.
Chances for life in them? (completely made up)

>>15675744
it doesn't have to be very likely. the permutations of the tries are almost unlimited in the observable universe so they probably multiple times that in the entire universe (it's even unclear if it's unlimited or almost unlimited but let's assume it isn't).

therefore you have to prove that the probability for it happen in 1 single planet is approaching 0 but the burden of proof on that is seriously on you because we already know it happened here and we already know we can do it partly in the lab.

>>15675767
Now take every one of your made up numbers and try making every one of them 10 orders of magnitude smaller. How do you like your game now?

it's religious lunacy if you don't believe in aliens simple as. the planets are approximately unlimited, and we know the chances of happening in a planet are high since any random moron can "spontaneously" do it in a lab.

>it's religious lunacy if you don't believe in aliens simple as.

>>15675780
simple as dude. at the very least the burden of proof is on you. it's as if you farted and then claiming others can't fart because you didn't hear them.

>>15675715
My point was that there's no evolutionary pressure to develop intelligence, If that were really the case intelligence (i.e. tool making, interstellar signal sending, etc.) would have developed tens (hundreds?) of millions of years ago. It was a fluke. I suspect life in the universe is probably relatively common, but intelligent life (as defined above) is probably vanishingly rare.

>>15675768
wrong. an organism gets an extremely brief window to evolve sentience. we already know that even with multicellular life established, something as subtle as the weather or shape of the continent could prevent the physical isolation necessary for sapience to develop.

that is to say nothing of mass extinction events

we are 4 billion years into the suns remaining 8 billion.

there are ZERO other animals on the planet with the capability to develop sentience and communication after a quarter of a billion years, and all other hominids have gone extinct with an extreme prejudice.

imagine everything died and restarted. you're looking at a minimum of 250 billion years before the next mammal species even gets a chance, that's 12% of the entire remaining time of the sun

>>15675775
I think its reasonable to expect many rocky planets to exist, and some will be in the goldilocks zone. We have two in our own solar system, venus and earth, and venus is not in the goldilock zone.
Water could be common but it needs to be an exact amount. Too much and theres just a world ocean, the opposite you get a desert. I assigned a chance of 1 in a million, seems reasonable.
Beyond that point its impossible to know. No clue what chance some dead earth has to become a planet with life. I want someone else to make up these numbers with some semi believable cover story

>>15675783
but there is serious pressure for humans, most likely because the competition is other humans' strategies against them.
I would NOT be surprised if on most planets of only-animals: it would be natural for one of them to be the 'strategist'.

>it's religious lunacy if you don't believe in aliens simple as.
>at the very least the burden of proof is on you.
The final state of this board.

>>15675785
>I think its reasonable to arbitrarily shit out the numbers that suit my unsubstantiated beliefs
No one cares. We're using your "logic" as a template. Plug in numbers 10 orders of magnitude lower and come back with results.

>>15675788
simple as dude. we know a random moron in a lab can just building the first blocks of life in an evening. we almost unlimited planets in the entire universe it's approximately inevitable (it's probably very likely even in ONE galaxy and there are multiple billion galaxies (at least)).

>>15675785
we dont have strong enough predictive chemistry but

what is the chance that a slightly different chemical composition of the atmosphere could completely disrupt the ability to even form some sort of amino acid or carbon structure? quite high. imagine a planet with more lead or nearly no nitrogen. there goes respiration or multicellular organisms

>>15675786
intelligence evolution necessitates that an organism with already high intelligence, communication, and also hands, has the ability to escape its ancestral environment into a new environment with no natural defenses against them with NO genetic introgression from ancestor populations

what the fuck do you think the chances of that are, geographically

There's less than 3 billion stars.

>>15675786
I'm trying to imagine dinosaurs with opposable thumbs making fires, and somewhat later integrated circuits.

>>15675796
>already high
sure I agree. fucking dolphins with literal words to communicate.
you seriously think apes are that special you religious man?

>>15675798
You guys must be falling for NASAs clear shops.

>>15675803
it won't be the only shit on other planets. I don't they would massively dissimilar planets because we have to share the same laws of the universe.

the differences might be more like "not apes but felines doing it first" or I don't know may apes are just likely why the fuck not.

>>15675805
dolphins have no ability to manipulate physical matter, e.g. hands. hands would in fact severely hamper their ability to even swim.

and even if they had hands, there is never any ability to build things in an aquatic environment. dolphins are obviously a dead end unless you expect them to evolve legs again. are you an idiot?

>>15675811
sure maybe, maybe even apes are needed. Even with that (hypothetical) limitation I wouldn't be surprised if apes are very likely to occur in other planets because we share the same laws of physics and let's not forget we're talking about almost-unlimited planets to try it.

>>15675790
You are technically correct but still a boorish brute. Fuck off i dont want to talk to you anymore

>>15675815
you would need an ancestral environment where the ancestral species is LIMITED in distribution so that fauna cannot develop responses to them, and then this ancestral species, limited in distribution, would also need to be physically isolated, but with a geographical escape path that allows them to enter into a new environment, but preventing other ancestral species from introgressing into the new population for several million years.

you know how many places like that exist on earth now? ONE single place, that's africa. and in the past, ZERO places like that existed on earth.

Cus i have 2 go

>>15675810
That's just not the way evolution (i.e. random mutations in a given fitness landscape) works. People keep acting like rocket-ship-building is the guaranteed outcome if we just wait long enough.

>>15675822
first of all I doubt pure land-sea geography is that important here, because it would be LOW probability for a random planet to have high uniformity of land.
and let's not forget the common themes: almost unlimited planets to try it:: even a random moron in a lab can start building the blocks of life.

>>15675821
>You are technically correct
The best kind of correct. Anyway, you're a legitimate brainlet. "% of suns that can harbor life"? Was there even an attempt at objectivity? Your objective prior on that there is exactly one such sun. Anything else is just speculation that circles back on the same assumptions you are pretending to validate.

>>15675832
it is not nearly unlimited if you consider the precise chemical balance on the planet needed to form multicellular life in the amount and proportion that would lead to group cooperation. or an environment that has sufficiently low levels of toxins in order to support long lives.

every single one of these conditions reduces the chances exponentially, taking us from trillions to perhaps a few thousand at most.

if you really think the shape of the land does not affect evolutionary history, you need to study biology, dude. I dont care if you're a pure physicist, you're literally rejecting the very basis of evolutionary morphology

dropping trillions of entire solar systems (not just planets) to a few thousand might be in itself a stretch,
but you didn't notice that it's not even trillions but trillions..trillions and that only in the observable part.

just showing our intuition is flawed in grasping how big of a number the "tries of planets" actually is.

>>15675848
dropping trillions of entire solar systems (not just planets) to a few thousand might be in itself a stretch,
but you didn't notice that it's not even trillions but a trillion..trillion and that only in the observable part.

just showing our intuition is flawed in grasping how big of a number the "tries of planets" actually is.

>>15675869
>babby still doesn't understand the concept that if A=B*C, A can still be arbitrarily small, no matter how large B is

>>15675875
but that still has the burden of proof on you. we already know it happened here and we already know any random moron can start building the first blocks of life in a lab in half an evening.

it's just religious lunacy after a point simple as; similar to "earth is the center of the universe"; just "human is the center".

>>15675879
>that still has the burden of proof on you.
The burden of proof is on whoever claims A is significant because B is large, you mentally ill muppet, since logically it just doesn't follow. lol

>>15675869
two more filters

there would need to be a cold climate environment for them to go to, during an ice age, in order to foster intelligence genes. THEN they would also need to be able to successfully defend themselves against warm climate derived species for long enough, whilst preventing introgression of the warm species genes, in order to reach the industrial revolution

5 more steps, each one becoming increasingly unlikely
1. seasonal climate
2. seasonal climate with SNOW or at least something that kills off 99% of life seasonally
3. within the seasonal climate, an accessible snow climate from the origin point
4. DURING an ice age in order to cut off contact and allow a million years of independent evolution
5. then, if or when the ice age ends, they would need, additionally, to WIN hundreds of years of war against their version of arabs and niggers

you are forgetting that europe almost got completely destroyed 3 times. once by the arabs over the course of 800 years. again by the ottomans over 800 years, and then again by the mongols.

literally ONE major battle gets lost and europeans are dead, and tehre is no industrial revolution

I mean, for fucks sake. just look at the industrial revolution. the english needed to be SUPER nice to the scottish and basically allow them to do whatever the fuck they want until they accidentally stumble onto steam technology.

so you need an entire continent completely isolated from other species, and then they need to be pretty nice guys that generally let each other run their own countries instead of establishing some sort of chinese empire

like LITERALLY think about it. almost all of this shit never happened at all

>>15675881
the number of planets are not upper bound, the probability of life existing on a planet is PROVEN to be non-zero because you exist.

the Planck constant of 6.62607015×10−34 is less than the inverse of the number of planets and by the logic the thread is over.

>>15675884
the Planck constant of 6.62607015×10−34 is less than the inverse of the number of planets and by that logic the thread is over.

the probability of the planck constant of 6.62607015×10−34 is less than the inverse of the number of planets and by that logic the thread is over; OP wins; I say good day sir I said good day.

>>15675884
like. fucking THINK about it.

the europeans did not win a SINGLE aggressive war against arabs, the near east, or the mongols over the course of 2000 years. not a SINGLE one.

europeans lost control of turkey, ALL of central asia, ALL of north africa, the vast majority of russia, ALL of the balkans, almost all of eastern europe, ALL of italy, ALL of spain.

imagine if europe hadn't been completely surrounded by tons of mountains. europeans would have been exterminated by the arabs, ottomans, or mongols, ALL of which had vastly larger populations

just fucking THINK about it you stupid nigger.

>>15675887
>the Planck constant of 6.62607015×10−34 is less than the inverse of the number of planets and by the logic the thread is over.
Well, I guess that's that then.

>>15675892
>just fucking THINK about it you stupid nigger.
Thank you, that was the encouragement I needed.

>>15675894
it's enough. we know the probability is non-zero because it happened here.we know the number of planets alone will produce very high probability even if it dropped to the planck; it's the end; I said good day.

>>15675897
nope. if technological distribution to survive in cold environments proliferates before eugenic environments eliminate low iq genes, the species is stuck. forever.

>>15675897
>it's the end; I said good day.
And I threw in the towel. Flawless logic.

>>15675887
>the probability of life existing on a planet is PROVEN to be non-zero because you exist.
It doesn't follow from this that probability of life existing on any other planet is non-zero... not that it helps your case either way.

>the Planck constant
Okay. I see I'm dealing with a legit undermedicated nigger ape.

>>15675908
We are truly alone. Just more reason to appreciate our fellow humans -- you nigger ape.

>>15675832
>start building the blocks of life.
STOP SAYING THIS, YOU GODDAMN MORON
NO, THERE IS NOT A LAB CHEMIST OR BIOLOGIST ALIVE THAT CAN CONSTRUCT A UNICELLULAR ORGANISM FROM SCRATCH
TO DO SO REQUIRES MANY PARTS TO BE PERFECT IN STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION, AND ANY FAILURE IN ANY MEMBRANE OR ORGANELLE WILL CAUSE IT TO BE NONFUNCTIONAL
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW COMPLEX THAT IS? HOW UNLIKELY IT IS TO FORM NATURALLY? ABIOGENESIS IS A GODDAMN MIRACLE

>>15675918
If you can't appreciate the concept of multiplication, I don't consider you a fellow human. "Simple as".

>>15674603
>We have no idea what the probability for life evolving on its own is
100% otherwise life wouldn't exist

>>15675938
>something happened once therefore the probability of it happening again is 100%
What is even the point educating niggers like you? LOL

>>15675944
>happenes once
Proof?

>>15674682
You have ZERO means to detect life in other galaxy retard. Stfu.

>>15674581
Everyone is forgetting what we have is extremely special, our brains, our vast technology, our way of life is different from any other species. Why assume aliens might be human like and want to conquer or do what humans do? They might not want that and only reproduce and eat just like any other species of animal, never caring about space and only caring about their problems.

>>15676037
Because its like ma hekin startrek told me so

>>15676037
Why assume they are bipedal or intelligent at all, how do you know there aren't thousands of planets full of dinosaurs

>>15676060
Why assume dinosaurs? They might be being beyond our comprehension and probably look scary as shit? There probably an flying vagina space alien that eats and chops up its prey.

>>15674581
obviously
>>15674603
nonsense
we can make decent estimates, that's not "no idea"
>>15675938
that's equally retarded, something doesn't need a 100% chance of happening to happen

>>15674581
The fact that we exist cannot be used to determine the probability of intelligent life coming into existence beyond that its not 0. Since we can only make observations if we actually exist, then we must necessarily exist regardless of how improbable. The universe could be teaming with intelligent life, or we could be alone, there is no way to determine.

>>15676071
>The fact that we exist cannot be used to determine the probability of intelligent life coming into existence beyond that its not 0
Even this is wrong. It may very well be 0 if its initial appearance was contingent upon a unique event rather than pure chance.

>>15676067
>something that has already happened doesn't have a 100% chance of happening
What colour crayons do you think taste the best?

Why so much passion in denying that aliens could exist? I only see this on the internet and very strongly on 4chan. Is it just religious people? In real life, most people I know are open to the possibility, never met anyone who said it was entirely impossible. I mean even people who strongly believe in aliens are open to admitting that maybe we are alone, but those who don't believe cannot just say maybe they do?
I guess what I am trying to understand is how the subject could make someone angry.
If we are alone, great, we can own the entire universe. If there are other aliens, I hope they are peaceful.

>>15674683
lol

>>15675934
Lol.

>>15676126
>Why so much passion in denying that aliens could exist?
Because you're psychotic and hallucinating. People are "denying" the validity of your pseudoscientific reddit arguments for why aliens must exist.

>>15676152
>existence of life is pseudoscience

>>15676165
Good job demonstrating my point. It's obvious your corporate-media-addled mind lacks basic congnition at this point.

>>15676170
>no argument
>ad hominem schizo rambling

>>15676179
See >>15676152 and >>15676170. You are mentally ill. No one is "passionately denying aliens". People are simply shitting on your pop-culture reddit arguments about "muh universe is le big therefore little green men".

>>15676191
Other Earth like planets exist
Life requires Earth like conditions
There is other life

/Thread
/Orangepilled

>Other Earth like planets exist
>Life requires Earth like conditions
>There is other life

>>15676196
Even if they do exist, it doesn't really matter as much, they're far away and we will never meet each other. If we do, it just causes more problems, more xenophobia, crazy religion people attacking them thinking they're demons, or people just going completely insane and dropping out of society. Aliens give us no benefit at all, we should focus on ourselves and make life better but no one wants to do that cause everyone including me is a selfish asshole naturally.

>>15676191
>still no arguments
>more schizobabble

>>15676220
I wasn't arguing for or against aliens in the first place. You are legit mentally ill. lol

>>15676223
>keeps writing schizophrenic word salads with every known buzzword on the internet without providing any clear, educated criticism as a valid counterpoint to someone elses arguments
>calling someone else mentally ill

>>15675762
>I think it's just nonsense
That's a lot different than "mathematically impossible," which was the only point I meant to address, 762 poster.

>>15675781
>it's as if you farted and then claiming others can't fart because you didn't hear them.
Exactly.

>>15676233
>valid counterpoint to someone elses arguments
What "argument" did you make besides spouting some schizophrenic hallucination about all these people on 4chan who passionate hate le heckin' ayyyylyums?

>>15675708
Being able to make those blocks does not mean they will spontaneously form actual life. To our knowledge such a thing has happened once in billions of years in the one place we know life can exist.

>>15675908
>It doesn't follow
if you are a religious lunatic.

do you believe the laws of nature are universal? do you believe basic chemistry is universal?

>>15675922
almost unlimited permutations bro. do you have any idea what the number "a trillion trillion solar systems"(not even planets) is?

and that's not even the limit because it's just the observable universe.

>>15676037
>different
different my ass. fucking dolphins are almost where apes were a few thousand gens before humans.

you only need a species that has as its main competition its own species so "strategy" is a big benefit; maybe it needs an ape; it doesn't matter if apes exist naturally on other planets.

>>15676071
>its not 0
the permutation of non-zero probability are almost unlimited though. we're talking about at least a "trillion trillion" solar systems, and that's only the observable ones (they are likely way more when it's probably not even needed in this context).

>>15676126
>Is it just religious people?
probably. it's the main logical explanation because it's so nonsensical to assume

> laws of natural are universal
> only earth can do it

choose one church bois.

>>15676152
>pseudoscientific

do you believe the laws of nature are universal? do you believe basic chemistry is universal?

or did your priest tell you earth is the only one with laws of physics that can sustain life?

>>15676191
>"muh universe is le big therefore little green men".
you are stupid. if the probability is non-zero and the permutation are approximately unlimited compared to that probability,

then it's approximately impossible to not be true.

>>15676278
dude a random moron can do it in a lab in a single evening. this is only a matter of a planet having very roughly the conditions of earth, and we have approximately unlimited tries in the entire universe in this context.

>>15676831
Oh yeah, when has anyone ever made life from non-living molecules? For that matter, where are all the other lineages of life from separate abiogenesis events on earth?

>>15674581
What if aliens are racist and used to own other races of their species, haha like us right? Does that mean slavery is good?

>mathematically impossible
Consider the possibility that the probability of abiogenesis happening and then evolving up to advanced civilization is less than 1 in 10^24 solar systems.

>>15676836
we've already done the first parts. (it's not an easy job to make a whole animal). here's a paper apparently talking about the latest steps https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/1873-3468.14507

>muh retarded soience fiction fantasy life that i got from watching hollywood jew movies and tv

>>15676843
unlikely because earth isn't some kind of impossible scenario, when even THE SOLAR SYSTEM ITSELF has at least 2 "almost earths".

also they're not even 10^24 because those are only for certain in the observable.

>>15676846
(You):
>dude a random moron can do it in a lab in a single evening
Pavlinova et al.:
>How life emerged from inanimate matter is one of the most intriguing questions posed to modern science
>no self-replicase has been identified to date
>it remains unclear how evolution could emerge in autocatalytic systems

>>15676851
you're stupid. american sci-fi has the delusion that 100 billion alien species are next to the vicinity of planet earth.
the chink said it best; they are probably millions; but it's almost impossible to communicate with most of them.

>>15676872
a random moron can do the first basic, but very necessary steps.

planets that are earth-like have millions of years to do it.

>>15676880
>a random moron can do the first basic, but very necessary steps.
Yes, but not the next, not so basic but also necessary steps. I can dig a lump of rock out of the ground but I cannot convert it into a nuclear reactor.
>planets that are earth-like have millions of years to do it.
Yes, and the most Earth-like planet of all did it, so far as the evidence seems to suggest, a single time in four billion years.

>>15676887
it's approximately religious lunacy after a point. the solar system itself has "almost earths" next to earth,

and you have the delusion almost unlimited permutations won't have even 1?

>>15676854
It's not impossible but it's retardedly rare, there are trillions and trillions of solar systems yet most of them come up empty and shitty.

>>15676922
We have no idea how unlikely abiogenesis is. It could be Boltzmann brain tier bizarre chance that only came about due to the universe having near or actually infinite numbers of dice to roll. We know of a single example of it happening ever. But even if it's actually pretty common, it's not the only great filter. For one thing, almost Earth really isn't quite good enough in terms of space faring civilizations. If Earth had a little more water or a little less tectonic activity, for example, it would have no dry land. No dry land means no fire. No fire means no metallurgy. No metallurgy means no industrial revolution or electricity and no spaceflight. An intelligent species on such a planet could never pass the stone age.

And the fact of the matter is, the whole premise of the Fermi paradox is that if they were there, we'd be able to see them, and we can't. A spacefaring civilization would be insanely bright in the infrared and radio spectra. We would see them in distant galaxies. So, unless they have arisen in the same few million years as us, which would be a pretty extraordinary coincidence given the universe is billions of years old, or the same few millennia as us in the case of this galaxy, and their light simply hasn't reached us yet, they ain't there. The hiding thing is nonsense too. As another anon pointed out, a measly K2 civilization could point a mega-telescope at every star in the galaxy full time, ready to obliterate any emerging threats with a Nicoll-Dyson beam or RKV as soon as it saw radio signals or even biosignatures. Your best shot at survival would be to hope you could build up enough before it got there that you could weather it or dodge with a Shkadov thruster or something.

>>15676967
>which would be a pretty extraordinary coincidence given the universe is billions of years old, or the same few millennia as us in the case of this galaxy
An excellent point that I should have made earlier. Futhermore, if the nearest civilization arose a few million years before us, but they're 3 superclusters over they're existence is utterly irrelevant to us beyond maybe getting some radio signals from them in a few hundred million years.

This does not compute.
The probability of abiogenesis is completely unknown, let alone the probability of life evolving towards intelligence. Therefore you cannot say anything at all about the probability of intelligent lite existing elsewhere.

>>15676927
even the solar system itself has a couple of "almost earths" next to earth. we are talking about ridiculous numbers of solar systems here so the probability of not having at least 1 early is practically approaching 0.

just 1 galaxy is probably with a few earths already (they don't have to be more than a couple to be ludicrously high in this context).

>>15676927
even the solar system itself has a couple of "almost earths" next to earth. we are talking about ridiculous numbers of solar systems here so the probability of not having at least 1 earth is practically approaching 0.

just 1 galaxy is probably with a few earths already (they don't have to be more than a couple to be ludicrously high in this context).

>>15676967
>>15677254
> we'd be able to see them, and we can't
you are morons. start with the OP picture (it's related). practically ~100% of what we can observe is just a little tiny sphere inside our tiny little spot in our 1 galaxy.

yep we can't even see fucking other galaxies and they are (at least multiple billions) since we can't even see ONE galaxy AT ALL.

>>15676967
>>15677254
> we'd be able to see them, and we can't
you are morons. start with the OP picture (it's related). practically ~100% of what we can observe is just a little tiny sphere inside our tiny little spot in our 1 galaxy.

yep we can't even see other fucking galaxies and they are (at least) multiple billions since we can't even see ONE galaxy AT ALL.

>>15677325
you can say, that it's non-zero since it happened here on earth and we have already started building the first few blocks of life needed in an evening in a lab without too much effort.
with almost unlimited number of tries it's unlikely the probability is low; it's probably not even rare in 1 galaxy; just this solar system has a couple of extra "almost earths".

>>15677325
> cannot say anything at all about the probability
you can say that it's non-zero, since it happened here on earth and we have already started building the first few blocks of life needed in a lab without too much effort needed.
with an almost unlimited number of tries it's unlikely the probability is low; it's probably not even rare in 1 galaxy; just this solar system has a couple of extra "almost earths".

>>15677821
PS obviously the theory is that we might be able to see gigantic structures or indirect effects of aliens that are further, but we can't build those ourselves either. radio signals for example are completely lost after a short distance (in this context) before we even mention the speed of light keeps as in the dark on its own.

>>15677821
>we can't even see other fucking galaxies
Shit could have fooled me

>>15677844
see the PS I added. obviously the theory is that we might be able to see gigantic structures or indirect effects of aliens that are further, but we can't build those ourselves either. radio signals for example are completely lost after a short distance(in this context) before we even mention the speed of light keeps as in the dark on its own.

a note on the so called radio signals that will bring aliens to us supposedly,
just to go to Proxima Centauri which is practically next door to us:

> Now, if you wanted to make a signal that can be detected easily, you’d make a very narrow band transmission - Above, I assumed the radio station was essentially random noise with 10kHz BW. If we transmit just a narrow carrier (<1 Hz wide), then we pick up another 40 dB. So at a billion km, we’re now at -191 dBW/m^2, compared with -224 dBW/m^2. If we go out to the Kuiper belt, where things like Pluto are, that’s at 6E9 km, and our signal is another 15 dB weaker (-206 dBW), but still detectable. Out at 200 AU (3E10 km), we’re starting to get close - the signal is -220 dBW, and the noise is -224.

>But, if you go out to Proxima Centauri, 4.4 light years, or 4.16E13 km (that’s about 41,600 billion km), the signal has faded to way below the noise floor.

i.e. radio signals are dead in the water for most intends and purposes of this context.

How many of these ultra rare planets end up nothing but crabs and dandelions.
Having just the right amount of shit going badly without killing everything seems way harder than having a nice planet.

>>15677862
the reverse might be true. this shitrock was a dirty pool of boiling chemicals for most of its time; most animals and plants have died; it doesn't have to be humans specifically that survive.
just this solar system alone has a couple of other planets that didn't need TOO much to be earths; the solar systems in this context are approaching infinity; laws of physics are shared.

Take the range o SETI instruments and make a grid with n points.
Select k < n points randomly and direct the instruments to these points.
Take various radius from earth and examine each for each dot.
Then repeat the sampling multiple times. Now you have several representative samples of the observable universe. If signs of life cannot be found in none of the samples, then we can conclude that, if there's life, they aren't detectable with the current instruments.

What prevents them from doing that?

>>15674581
>n=1

>>15677873
if we directed a strong radio wave towards alpha centuri which is practically next door to us,
it would still become noise and undetectable.

alien civilizations even of our level (and possibly much higher) are approximately undetectable in this context (since the context is the universe and we can't even see THE GALAXY).

>>15677879
the laws of physics are proven in samples of n=~infinity. do you have special chemistry that caused abiogenesis?
this solar system alone has a couple of other "almost earths" and this context has almost unlimited systems.

>>15677886
Sure, but then at least we would have evidence of the futility of trying to detect them with radio waves. That would make people open to try other methods.

the rarity of discovered life outside earth would aim to suggest there were a tremendous amount of incredibly specific things that had occurred to afford life on earth. Treat the world like it actually is the center of the universe. Work backwards from where we are.

>>15677916
I keep trying to tell these morons but they don't care.

I mean jesus, what if the aliens let their women vote. they'll lose all their space probes within weeks just like us and descend into anarchy immediately

>>15677909
no evidence needed: we just know that radio waves are ded after a short distance(short in this context). it's just that science fiction writers have poisoned people's mind; most of them have the delusion that aliens are detectable if they exist easily; very few writers understand we can't see shit even inside one single galaxy (and 1 galaxy is absolutely nothing in the context of the universe).

it's sad because the big concepts would make better sci-fi.

>>15677916
>>15677945
you are stupid. there's no observed rarity. we practically can't see anything beyond our nose; if we directed our strongest radio wave towards alpha centauri it would still become pure noise and undetectable; i.e. we can't even see a small part of single galaxy and the context is at least billions of galaxies.

>>15677954
>the big concepts would make better sci-fi
it's why Contact is amazing. it knows we can't see shit unless a special technology is invented to be ABLE to see shit.

it would make better even shows like star wars or farscape or star gate to be able to explain those things.

>>15677821
>>15677841
Listening for alien radio broadcasts is a complete meme. You are correct about that, and it's true that we could not currently detect a roughly 21st century equivalent alien civilization around a nearby star, but it's not the absence of such that's paradoxical; it's the absence of ancient and advanced civilizations that would be very obvious if they were there. Indeed, a species with a couple million years head start on us could have easily harvested all the matter around all the stars in the galaxy and encircled them with habitats, power collectors, factories, etc., and a couple million years is peanuts. Another species could have conceivably had billions of years head start on us if life does indeed commonly emerge and produce technological civilizations. If there are a lot of roughly 21st century level civilizations about to escape their home planets out there, then it indicates either the coincidence of all time, or that some unknown great filter causes all or virtually all to get stuck at that level of development. Not even technology, just development. We have all the tech we need right now to colonize the galaxy and beyond.

>>15678153
>Indeed, a species with a couple million years head start on us could have easily harvested all the matter around all the stars in the galaxy and encircled them with habitats, power collectors, factories, etc.,
You have NO basis for this indeed other than riligious dogma

>>15678153
>Indeed, a species with a couple million years head start on us could have easily harvested all the matter around all the stars in the galaxy and encircled them with habitats, power collectors, factories, etc.
No lmao, we have hit the technogical limit of what is feasible without scifi magic, that's why we can't find anyone, because they're just as primitive as us

>>15678173
>>15678176
We could literally do it with zero new major breakthroughs ever. The only reason we aren't well underway is a logistical catch-22 where launch costs off earth are too high to make developing space practical, and until space is fairly developed there's insufficient motive to invest in big projects to lower launch costs.

>>15678183
No, no we couldn't, the logistics of space travel remove any feasibility of becoming an "advanced" civilization, it's a literal death trap out there.

>>15678190
I'm not convinced. Maybe you should post the rocket rat webm or something.

>>15678198
Maybe you should go through a thought excercise of what to do when you're orbiting jupiter and you suffer a catastrophic failure of your tin box with the nearest civilization being an entire year away, space travel and resource collection is not feasible on a large scale in any way

https://youtube.com/shorts/BN-Y94YtZ-I?feature=share

>>15678208
Nobody gets out of this alive. But really the issue with that scenario sounds more like a scale problem. Little ships going far from civilization are about as practical as intercontinental travel in rowboats, but you can build really big in microgravity. Even just for Mars, you'd probably want to send a whole fleet of big ships as von Braun suggested.

>>15674682
>short sighted human
why are you so emotionally invested in the existence of aliens? is your life going to suddenly improve if ayys are real?

>>15678183
Repeatedly posting cringe worthy basedabait and now you're claiming to know the future. Get a hold of yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

>>15678229
I accept your concession.

>>15678218
And large ships would not only consume the resources of our entire planet within a few years but are also impossible to construct

>>15678234
At this point you're just making stuff up.

>>15678232
Accept some meds in your mouth

>>15678237
He's trying to bring some semblance of reality in your fever dreams brone out of sci fi

>>15678237
How about you get off your neet ass and partake in constructing something other than a dorito sandwich, large scale structures are extremely complex, not to mention spaceships, you do understand that they're not just empty steel boxes, right, thousands of systems would have to be put in place so people could actually use it, but the larger and more complex your construction becomes the more failure points exist, not only that you would have to build it extremely far from Earth if you don't want it to come raining down the sky unless you have billions of tons of fuel lying around to provide thrust for it, the entire thing is so far removed from what we are capable of, sorry to burst your little fantasy but this is it, everything you have ever known will live and die on this planet, scientific advancements have already been stagnating for years, there's nowhere left to go

>>15678253
I can smell your fat rolls from here you blackpiller faggot.

>>15678256
>-pilled
Go back to r*ddit you dumb faggot

>>15678268
/r9k/ is supposed to keep you retards contained.

>>15674581
"They believe in the government and thus believe the extraterrestrial lie. These dupes do not know that the Illuminati are the aliens who plan to destroy the United States of America in any event. When I saw Operation Majority while serving in the Navy I believed the alien threat was real just like everyone else. It was not until I had performed many years of research that I was able to fully understand exactly what it was that I had seen. It was extremely difficult for me to believe that my government and the United States Navy had used me, especially since I had dedicated my life to government and military service. Most government and military personnel cannot and will not believe such and idea. The plan is real. The extraterrestrial threat is artificial. The threat is presented through the use of secret technology originally developed by the Germans in their secret weapons programs during WW-II, by geniuses like Nikola Tesla, and many others."
-Bill Cooper

"I know that the CIA employees were programmed to believe in such alien forces in order to mask their uber programmers - these operatives were indoctrinated - made to foster this 'alien agenda' belief system and to pass it on. The Nazis were creating aircraft that looked like flying saucers. If any retired CIA official decided to talk about all of this - after the documents had been declassified 'memory modification' would kick in i.e. the unwitting mind control victim would add fanciful stuff about the 'alien agenda' to confuse the issue. I know that there were Illuminati/Nazi designs of aircraft, of the 'flying saucer' variety - but they were not built or flown by 'aliens'."
-Ex MI6

https://youtu.be/CJqBiH2e5HM?t=3407
https://youtu.be/UTLHmbbI8ik

pro tip: the earth is flat and stationary, aliens don't exist

>>15678275
Sorry I'm not a delusional retard so you'd probably fit in there more than me

>>15678339
If the earth is flat how come jews have space lasers? Checkmate glowie

>>15678153
idk maybe other civilizations don't have enough fossil fuel or fuel in general to waste on space missions

>>15678153
>>15678173
>>15678176
OP here. I do NOT see evidence of that being that clear.

a) Maybe there are simply limitations in the laws of physics preventing "harvesting a star" etc.
b) "Billions of years" late is probably untrue. The earth is only ~half the age of the universe.
c) We simply DO have evidence "aliens" can exist (it's us) but not NOT big structure-aliens.

>>15678153
>>15678173
>>15678176
OP here. I do NOT see evidence of that being that clear.

a) Maybe there are simply limitations in the laws of physics preventing "harvesting a star" etc.
b) "Billions of years" late is probably untrue. The earth is only ~half the age of the universe.
c) We simply DO have evidence "aliens" can exist (it's us) but NOT big structure-aliens.

>>15678635
>>15678153
>>15678173
>>15678176
also, I should have added the dark forest hypothesis starts becoming a serious contester in this sub-context, because if you can harvest a star you might be at level of advancement that you might be able to also hide your existence from conventional instruments.

>>15675290
We have two on this planet right now, us and orcas
Only one has hands. But that’s twice language and culture arises in a pack life form


Interestingly enough we evolved at about the same time. Orcas are brand new too

>>15678654
also nothing prevents evolution, having orcas and then thousands of years later giving them hands.
interesting how a lot of nonsense in this context misses the fact ape-to-human is ~zero time.

> Some researchers have done research on the IQ of humans and killer whales, and found that the IQ of Orcas is equivalent to that of fifteen or sixteen-year-old humans

religious fucks btfoed

>>15678651
>dark forest hypothesis starts becoming a serious contester in this sub-context, because if you can harvest a star you might be at level of advancement that you might be able to also hide your existence from conventional instruments.
based chink expanding the mind of the /sci/ normie

>>15678658
No I was more interested in the time frame.
Orcas and humans turned up at almost the same exact time. Modern orcas are 2500,000 years old with baseline forms about a million and a half years old.

I wonder if there is just a timeline it takes nature to build the systems of a brain. The other smartest group, the Corvids are only 15 million years old as a family.
You might have to have so many reproductive events before the complexity of the brain reaches a critical mass

>>15674581
I get your math but why does there "have to be life" though? Perhaps the conditions for life (in any meaningful sense) really is very, very rare.

>>15678683
I suspect it's a matter of much higher quality at being dominant over mundane elements of nature, to the point that nature itself isn't your biggest threat anymore but others of the SAME species (or maybe slightly different sub-special) making it an important to need to be a better "strategist" or "politician" which is biggest brain than bigger teeth.

When the earth first made some basic evolution, it obviously couldn't have done that and it constantly btfo'ed by the basic elements instead of others of the same special. After most other animals become lame against you: that's when probably you start getting the big brain (and probably why if humans are first: the fuck most of the rest animals).

>>15678688
because it can happen. it's relatively easy to happen if a planet has similar chemistry to earth and we have approximately unlimited permutations of planets in this context. and then evolution takes over.

>>15678683
I suspect it's a matter of much higher quality at being dominant over mundane elements of nature, to the point that nature itself isn't your biggest threat anymore but others of the SAME species (or maybe slightly different sub-species) making it an important to need to be a better "strategist" or "politician" which is bigger brain and not bigger teeth.

When the earth first made some basic evolution, it obviously couldn't have done that and it was constantly btfo'ed by the basic elements instead of others of the same species. After most other animals become lame against you: that's when probably you start getting the big brain (and probably why if humans are first: they ruin most of the rest animals).

>>15678681
Liu has stated in multiple interviews that he doesn't believe in the DF theory. Unlike in the books
SPOILERS
.
.
.
you can't build blind zones to prevent alien civilizations from looking at you

>>15678704
he obviously doesn't believe exactly in this own fiction but he's not a scientific authority (just an inspiration),
but deception of that scale isn't impossible hypothetically:

a) You don't know if you know all the relevant laws of physics correctly (physics only partly-disproves in reality / never proves-totally).
b) What if they "harvest the sun" in smarter ways than we think e.g. structures seated inside the suns?
c) What if the projection or simulation technology is just better?

>>15678688
Reality converges towards complex systems, life is inevitable

>>15678736
>Reality converges towards complex systems
Low IQ take. Proof?

>>15678715
>hypothetically
Completely meaningless, anything is hypothetically possible if you ignore all the observed rules of reality

>>15678738
>proof
The fact that anything exists in the first place lol?

>>15678745
>The fact that anything exists in the first place lol?
Are you actually, literally retarded? This thread seriously reads like a bunch of GPT-2 bots stringing together logically unrelated phrases.

>>15678740
I just don't think "we will definitely see them" is such a valid criticism, when the level of advancement to "harvest a star" is so extreme that I don't see it unreasonable to assume their deception over us isn't similarly extremely better.
also let's not forger that the earth is not extremely late in this context because the universe is only ~double the age of the earth and throughout this whole concept the speed of light limit is extremely brutal.

just to check on what alpha centauri is doing now which is right next to us we have to wait for more than 4 thousand years for their light.

>>15678747
>no argument
>meaningless ad hominem
I thought it would take more than 1 post for you to concede but you're not even trying

>>15678770
>the level of advancement to harvest a star
This is already impossible so there is no point to hypothesize further

>>15678780
>reality converges on complex systems
>i know this because... uh...
>things... exist...
Say something remotely coherent first, you braindamaged animal, and then maybe we can discuss it.

>>15678789
that supports the thesis of the OP. I don't claim thousands of aliens "harvest the stars". I'm saying it's extremely unlikely to be alone on at least our level of technological advancement because the earth is nothing supernatural in chemistry or physics and there are almost unlimited permutations of other planets to try the same.

>>15678790
Yes? You do understand that the universe itself is a complex system, right? If reality didn't converge towards complexity then nothing would exist and you wouldn't have the chance to act like a tard on 4chan

>>15678815
>maybe if i reiterate my incoherent and illogical drivel it will fly
How do you know reality as it stands isn't just a transitional state on the path toward sterile thermodynamic equilibrium? This is a rhetorical question, of course. If you're so fucking stupid that you need to be asked to think about this, you are too stupid to talk to, so I will ignore any replies from you.

>>15678635
>We simply DO have evidence "aliens" can exist (it's us) but NOT big structure-aliens.
Then you can't detect them. sowwy. Go away for 100 more years and try again.

>>15678827
not him, but I think or at least suspect that entire discussion starts from the wrong question.

I doubt we can even say what it "converges to" (maybe it converges to neither).

>>15678834
>I doubt we can even say what it "converges to"
Not my problem. I just asked him to explain his mongoloidal claim and he failed miserably. I was just illustrating his failure with one trivial possibility he hasn't considered when he vomited his pseudoscientific dross.

>>15678833
100 is nothing. Just to check on what alpha centauri is doing right now you have to wait for more than 4 thousand years, and that's practically right next to us in a tiny neighborhood inside just 1 galaxy.

>>15678635
>>15678651
>harvesting a star
No the idea is that they'd have shitloads of solar panels or even just farms around it collecting all its output instead of just letting it blast away its energy into space (a Dyson sphere, which is not, to be clear, a solid object). They could even just be using it to light their habitats. You could theoretically harvest matter from a star, but you don't need to be able to do that for the problem here to come up, so it's more or less irrelevant. By collecting all the light coming off that star, their shit gets incredibly hot and must radiate that heat into space. That would create a very unnaturally bright object in the infrared and radio spectra. As they spread to other stars that would create an expanding region that was dark in the visible spectrum and extremely bright in infrared. The only way they could hide this is by somehow breaking thermodynamics.

>>15678827
>How do you know reality as it stands isn't just a transitional state on the path toward sterile thermodynamic equilibrium?
That's still a complex system

>That's still a complex system

>>15678846
You can resolve planets with solar gravity lensing if you can manage to send a telescope to 500au
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d0EGIt1SPc

This is doable in the next century

>>15678868
>getting so assblasted over being wrong that you forget how to reply

>liferinoes is inevitable
>b-b-because the universe converges towards complex systems
>l-l-like a maximum entropy particle soup

>>15678872
if it's as good as that meme picture, it sounds realistic. just to see a "great wall of china" is all that's needed ..if we can reach at least most of the galaxy (and not just 1/1000th of it as I suspect this is).

>>15678872
> using the sun as a lens.
is that inspired directly from the three-body book?

>>15678872
> go far back, so that the sun is a lens
it sounds it needs to go too far back..

>>15678893
About 4 times as far voyager has gone so far.
Better if you can stop once you get there but not completely necessary for a v1

If we live in a simulation, it might be set so that it only has one civilization at any time.

>>15678927
it would be a stupid simulation, because it implies there are more, when we know we can't see beyond our nose currently so there's practically 0 evidence aliens are very rare.

>>15675342
This is more or less what I think. It took 3 billion years for complex eukaryotic cells to emerge and then 600 million more for the cambrian explosion where complex life really occured.

My bet is that simple "replicators" if you will -not even proper microbes- that are still working out things like homeostasis are probably relatively common. Common enough that we could likely eventually find a half dozen examples in our solar system alone. But, anything more complex is vanishingly rare. It took 3.4 billion years or about 1/3 the age of the universe to get to technological life.

People also forget that there are galactic habitable zones (things like frequent gamma ray bursts could preclude advanced life) and elliptical galaxies (~12%) of them are kind of unlikely to form rocky planets due to their differences in star populations and metallicity. Granted this is based off of what we know of our biology and technology.

There could be weird biochemistry replicators in the clouds of venus, in the Martian soil, or in the ethane seas of Titan. But, my point in all this rambling is that "complex cells probably really rare, simple cell-like structures probably decently common"

>>15678966
it's extremely unlikely if you have a very favorable earth-like chemistry, to not eventually converge to very complex animals,

because simply survival of the fittest (I can only see it for planets in the other scenario: barely favorable (e.g. mars)).

>>15678978
If you have earth like chrmistry. IF.

What content of lead or cadmium on earth would be sufficient, all other factors being the same, to make multicellular life completely impossible

It wouldnt have to be very high

What happens if carbon content is reduced? It is already low. No multicellular life

What happens if tides are fuckhuge? No land life. No land life is game over. What about chaotic tides because of 2 moons. We cannot even predict what that would do to water circulation or climate because of the three body problem

Chaotic rain patterns could make the entire landmass a desert. Little to no pand life.game over.

>>15678993
chances are it's not extremely unstable to the point that billions of galaxies can't have a few of them,
simply because the earth itself is constantly bombarded with problems that destabilize it by a little.

I mean sure we can accept some resistance to instability required but it is unequivocally limited because otherwise it would just destroy life on earth and it hasn't happened in ~4 billion years and that supports the hypothesis that with almost-unlimited permutations of other planets it's very unlikely to not have many advanced species (possibly millions or more).

>>15678978
Earthlike chemistry is also interestingly a product of simpler lifeforms over a long period. The oxygen catastrophe ~2 billion years ago killed most of the other microbial life on earth and radically changed the ocean chemistry but precipitating out the iron among other things.

This is pretty much a happy accident though. Imagine if the metabolic processes were different we could have ended up with an oxygen poor, methane rich atmosphere.

My point remains though that I believe that we'll find that "replicators" of some kind or another are fairly common. If the RNA world hypothesis is correct that's about as complex as I'd expect to find other "life" in the solar system that's not a product of panspermia.

>>15675822
It happened on Earth. So why not elsewhere?

>>15675884
Lol are you saying the arabs/niggers would never evolve into the industrial revolution? Why do you think that?

>>15678881
>>15678875
Fucking childish losers, both of you, you two deserved to repeat science and math from 4th grade to 12th, none of you have no idea what your talking about

>>15679071
Sorry about your excruciatingly low IQ. I don't know what it takes to make a retard understand that globally, the universe is doing literally the exact opposite of converging towards more complex forms or organization, and that whatever is going on in this tiny neighborhood doesn't reflect any special preference of the universe.

>>15679081
Such a little snob are you? The other guy was simply stating that the universe itself IS a complex system, then you go fucking sperg about it and completely miss his point. Stop pretending you're smart.

>>15679071
>no argument
>meaningless insults
I'm glad you concede

>>15679100
>The other guy was simply stating that the universe itself IS a complex system
No, the brainlet is laboring under the delusion that the universe has some kind preference for complex self-organization. It doesn't. It has a preference for no organization.

>>15679106
The universe itself is an organized system dumbass

>>15679118
Yes, and it clearly doesn't like staying that way. You're so stupid it hurts. Literal children have an easier time grasping this fact than you do.

>>15679118
>>15679106
I don't think the universe is anything but infinite space, the universe is clearly older than 4 billions years, even older than that fake report saying its 22 billion old. The universe is so imaginably amazing to observe.

>>15679121
>it clearly doesn't like staying that way
It doesn't matter what "way" it is, anything that exists is an organized system

>>15679230
Just stop posting. You're such a monumental inbred it's not funny anymore. Come back when you finish 7th grade and have some basic awareness of physics and biology.

>>15679301
>no argument
>meaningless ad hominem
I'm glad you concede, come back when you don't talk like a 4th grader

>>15679325
>>15679301
i love both of you retards, yall have a good day.

>>15679325
I "concede" the same your psychiatrist "concedes" before prescribing you with stronger anti-psychotics.

>>15674581
>MUH HOMOSEX ALIENS DONT WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT THEM BC THEY ARE IN TOUCH WITH THEY FEELINGS
I hear this constantly and it's fucking retarded. That is not how life works anywhere. If they were out there and had any sort of EM emitting technology we would know about them.

Astronomy and deep space beyond the earth-moon system is the outward looking equivalent of quantum mechanics. It's just background noise imposed on scales outside the scope of human experience, and as such does not 'exist' in any sense of the word not tied to the paradigm of the 'scientific method'. There are no aliens. There are no 'black holes'. There is nothing outside of existence as defined by conscious perception.

>>15679703
you're stupid. the strongest directional radio signal we can send will become pure noise before even reaching alpha centauri next door (a tiny portion of 1 galaxy only).

the poison sci-fi writers put into people's minds is the delusion "it's so easy to see the aliens if they exist".

>>15679726
you're stupid. what does not exist is any scientific evidence that we are NOT completely common in terms of physics and chemistry.

we KNOW we are part of basic chemistry and physics so you have no basis other than religion and narcissism to think otherwise.

>>15679730
>the poison sci-fi writers put into people's minds is the delusion "it's so easy to see the aliens if they exist".
*american hollywood/capeshit writers. there are smart texts out there on sci-fi.

>>15679732
what do you think religion is other than the study of life from the point of view of subjective, rather than objective experience dumbass. It's orthogonal to objective science but no less valid, and one can't fully understand one without understanding the other

>>15679730
The time-scales involved are massive. If we are going by the odds posted by OP, then it is impossible that countless civilizations would not have a several hundred million year head start. There is zero chance that a fraction of these civilizations would not a. be relatively close by and b. have harnessed fusion in a way that releases sufficient energy to be detectable

This calls the entire framework into question

i'll make it simple for all those arguing itt.
there is no god until it is proven. none of the 10k+ gods.
it has yet, after 3k-10k+ years to be proven.
simple as.
faith is not evidence, it is admission of bias.

>>15679747
Fuck off you dont belong in sci. Go to church and fu

>>15679701
>still no argument

>>15674581
>Therefore it would be stupid to not assume that not only there are alien occurrences elsewhere but the advanced ones must be millions.
Non sequitur. Give your equation with the values you used for your variables.
>dark forest theory;
Stopped reading right there. You're a pseud. Your thread is trash. Rosemary and oregano. Go back to plebbit.

>>15680168
you don't even do science you dumb nigger. I do and it's my right to call it fake garbage. So shut your mouth when real academics are talking to you

>>15676814
nah man i know how this goes.
a phone requires a designer. therefore all life also require a designer. it has to be another human who made humans, or, i mean, magical human, god man! in the sky!

>>15680440
write that again without crying brainlet, you've been exposed hard

>>15675739
As far as we can tell not even irrationals exist in nature, what reason is there for me to entertain models where we have to account for probabilities with surreal values?

>>15674603
We exist so there is a probability greater than 0. Whether it's common or not is up for debate, but the one thing we know for certain is that it is possible.

People forgetting the prime directive
>we don't have to deal with the unadvanced until they get warp drive fast enough to come bother us

>>15680790
Some space jesus freak would come and try to convert us like the sentinelese.

>>15680268
>Give your equation with the values
the inverse of the number of trillion-trillion planets (or much more (it is only the minimum of the abservable)), is number that approaches the planck constant.

and be honest here; just the solar system here has at least 2 other places that are almost-earths; the probability of the OP thesis approaches 1.

>>15680268
>Give your equation with the values
the inverse of the number of a trillion-trillion solar systems (or much more (it is only the minimum of the observable)), is number that approaches the planck constant.

and be realistic here; just the one solar system here has at least 2 other places that are almost-earths; the probability of the OP thesis approaches 1.

>>15680268
>Give your equation with the values
the inverse of the number of a trillion-trillion solar systems (or much more (it is only the minimum of the observable)), is a number that approaches the planck constant.

and be realistic here; just the one solar system here has at least 2 other places that are almost-earths; the probability of the OP thesis approaches 1.

Aliens don't exist faggots. We're the life forms destined to colonise the universe through terraforming AI with our gene samples
>It was revealed to me in a dream.

>universe exists for a ludicrously long amount of time in stupidly vast amount of space
>very rarely occassionally spits out some living things, but only in small quantities every eternity or so
>living things can only observe things when living (go figure), so will always obseve what appears to be an infinitely small probability that is their own existence
Sounds right to me

>>15674581
By your logic, it is impossible for there to not be an advanced civilization of fish hidden deep in the ocean.