/sci/ - Science & Math

honestly?
considering the vast size of the universe, and the huge timescale to account for, I say yes, probably.

Theres even evidence that there might be life in our own solar system:
http://phys.org/news174918239.html
which is right fucking next to us, astronomically speaking, so any life at all in the ENTIRE universe?
yeh, probably

INB4 hur durr GB2/x/,
INB4 EK cant INB4

yes.

And I think that we should be dedicating far more resources than we are towards technological and scientific advancement so we can reduce the amount of time during which we'll be vulnerable to space-faring species as much as possible.

If by "aliens" you mean intelligent life somewhere other than Earth, then yes, I certainly do.

If you mean the conspiracy theory mythology stuff with Roswell, etc., then no, I don't.

I can't help but think there has to be other life in the universe. But I think it's bound to be so different from what we know that we'd easily overlook it.

>>4739316
>aliens
[insert Mexico joke here]

What do you mean by "aliens"?

I like your picture, OP.

>>4739320
Capable of supporting life doesn't mean that there is life there. The argument that the universe is vast only supports the claim that there should be other planets which can support life, but not the existence of life itself.
Even Dawkinds admit that the odds of evolution is small enough that we need to use the anthropic principle to explain its existence. But the anthropic principle doesn't apply to aliens.

I.... agree with EK?

Life appears to be common in principle.

Alien visitors however do probably not exist. There are better and simpler explanations for such beliefs.

Why aren't we seeing signs of life out there? There's a number of explanations, but something I think to be illuminating is to consider the age of the universe. The age of our Earth. Cosmic evolution has not had a whole lot of time to allow for life to arise: It's the Golden Age of the Universe and we're the first, or among the first.

I think EK is an alien. A sexy alien.

>>4739341

A vast universe full of planets that can support life is evidence in support of life.

>>4739341
If you find one black grain of sand in a desert it would be foolish to think it is the only one, and a safe assumption to believe there are more.

>>4739341
The anthropic principle doesn't explain why life exists, just that we must necessarily exist to make the observation that we do.

It's really a self-evident truth when you think about it.

>>4739356
LIFE SUPPORT

Nanananananananananana

>implying we're alone in this huge ass universe

Well yes, I am fairly convinced of visitations, why there hasn't been an official contact you ask ? Here's the reason why : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw

>>4739360
>The anthropic principle doesn't explain why life exists, just that we must necessarily exist to make the observation that we do
Which explains why there is life instead of no life. The way I understood the anthropic principle had always been in conjunction with multiverses, I don't think it works without it, or at least not as powerful...

>>4739362
Agreed, intelligent life has got to be out there somewhere.

>>4739362
ho-lee-shit
i know the scale is hard to get your head around but DAAAAMMNN!

its like the
>you find one black grain of sand in a desert
but the desert covers the entire planet
and the planet is huge

>>4739362
Agreed, there is also moe.

>>4739400
actually fuck that, i opologise for my laziness, i can juts fix it myself from the first one.

>>4739393
ah shit, i want the nice scrolldown one, its nicer to read. can you fix it without the cartoon shit at the bottom, and switch it back to 'observable universe' please?
i wanna save it
thanks

>>4739380
Unless intelligent life is a disadvantage.

The chance of life spontaneously evolving is very small, but you have a huge timescale and a really huge universe, so it's not impossible. It is less probable though that there is advanced life somewhere out there, although again, it's not impossible considering the scales we're dealing with here.

I do however believe that all of those alien conspiracy plots are crap. If there is advanced life out there, I'm not sure it would know we're here, unless it's very advanced, which is again improbable but not impossible.

>>4739359
not if we know that the probability of finding a black grain of sand is smaller that 1 divided by the number of sands in the desert.
I guess we should work out the expectation value for life. Actually maybe it's already been done. Does anyone know?

>>4739393
oh yeh, i got a fix on that if anyone wants the scrollable version from above.
its easier to read than the landscape one up there.

and thanks again to whoever posted the original

Doing an essay on this right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Keep the discussion going, references always help!

>>4739433
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

>>4739481
>>4739485
drake equation is wishy-washy as fuck, and each individual factor has a huge margin for error

>>4739433
The probability of there being a black grain of sand in the desert is non-zero, and the number of grains of sand in the desert is approximately infinite. One can make the practical assumption that there is another black grain of sand out there. The same goes for life.

>>4739491
>approximately infinite
sorry i stopped reading there

>>4739495
lol, i cringed at that as well, but 'uncountably and unimaginably large number' will do.

>>4739495
Why can't you into physics? It's standard practice to throw away terms divided by very large numbers.

>>4739434
Your welcome, and thanks for this version, much easier to read.

>>4739498
I don't mean to offend, but are you in a particularly good mood EK? Your posts are more amicable than usual.

>>4739502
*You're
lol

>>4739505
i am actually, yeh!
:)
you can actually tell?
wow, quite impressive.

>>4739508
It's a gift.

>>4739513
well im probably a lot more up and down than most people, so its probably a bit easier to tell with me, so dont feel too proud =p

>>4739501
only if there are other terms which dominate it. Not in this case. The universe is finite, as far as we know. So unless we are considering the multiverse, you can't just assume infinity. What if the probability that intelligent life spontaneously evolves is small enough that expectation value for it for the whole universe is less than 1?

>>4739375
people still take schrodinger's cat seriously?

it looks like he will forever live on as the ultimate troll...

>>4739516
>The universe is finite, as far as we know
You don't understand. In physics, we get rid of terms that are divided by relatively large values. The values aren't infinite, but we just assume they are because the resulting term would be ridiculously small. The universe isn't infinite, but it is very large (I'll assume you know how big it is) so it can be assumed to be infinite unless abiogenesis is so ridiculously improbable that it only happens due to a proto-cell spontaneously forming out of thin air. However, we DO know how it could happen, so it is much more likely than that.

No, I do not believe in aliens. I have no reason to do so. I might change my mind, when someone provides evidence for their existence, but right now they are killed by Occam's razor and believing in them is on the same level with ghosts and tulpas.

>>4739491
>approximately infinite

you seem to just throw scientific-sounding phrases out there.

>>4739539
The probability of life forming naturally on an Earth like environment is nonzero and the universe is very very big and very very old. There's your evidence.

>>4739543
A misunderstanding of probabilities is not evidence. Please come back when you took a course on probability theory.

>>4739541
I have a physics degree and several of my professors have said "approximately infinite" several times. Us physicists like simplicity, so we throw out terms whenever it is reasonable. If a term is divided by a very large number then we just act like the term is zero. It's the only way physics can work.

>>4739543
There is the number 3. It's the only number we observed so far having this value. So we have non-zero probability for a number to have the value 3. If we take all the other real numbers (i.e. the set R\{3}), then there infinitely many of them. Since the probability of a number having the value 3 is non-zero, we can conclude that for sure the set R\{3} contains lots of threes.

That's your reasoning, right?

>>4739545
You misunderstand. The size of the universe, the age of the universe, and life on Earth is the evidence.

>>4739558
I told you that's not evidence. You might as well say tomatoes and apples are evidence for ghosts. It would be just as inane as your statement.

>>4739558
Your post is the typical christfag argument for their belief. You might want to leave /sci/ and go to /x/ instead.

>>4739551

Physicist make me sick

>>4739590
Me too. I could rage every time I hear a physicist say "delta function". I mean it's a fucking distribution. That's really not hard to understand.

>>4739565
Why is it not evidence?

>>4739571
How is that?

>>4739551
>>4739537
Like I said that approximation is only valid if there are other terms overpowering it.
You might as well be saying shit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o

>>4739590
>>4739601
1/10

>>4739609
I couldn't care less about your beliefs and actually OP was asking for nothing more than beliefs. But please never confuse them with science.

>>4739619
Physicist detected. You're probably one of those who think vectors are arrows in three dimensions.

>>4739316
Sauce on the pic, Op?

>>4739627
Dresden Codak

>>4739615
So you think the probability of abiogenesis on an Earth like environment is less than <span class="math">10^{-20}[/spoiler]?

>>4739622
So you don't can't back up your claim?

>>4739630
Making any estimation on that probability would be unscientific and could be backed up by nothing.

>>4739635
I didn't make any claim. I merely explained why your reasoning is flawed and not compatible with science and logic.

>>4739485

The Drake Equation isn't an "expectation value" considering that we have no concrete/useful knowledge of most of the fucking variables. We have the equivalent of wild guesses/estimates but anything useful would require actual exploration of space.

And to be honest, the notion of "other intelligent life" seems to be an article of a religious faith amongst the stupid who have barely scratched the varieties of "intelligence" that exists in the almost obscene polymorphy of human societies. It's something born by pale ghouls who haven't scratched more than a pinpoint of human gatherings and thus bored by a ghoulish exhaustion (for who could not get exhausted by the repetition of our culture and the repetition of a single climate!) they seek a respite in some supercharged "other intelligence" which promises a wealth of interesting propositional worlds to seduce the mind with.

But as an article of a scientific mind, there seems to be no valid compact with the notion of "other intelligent life" at the present state of knowledge and the engaged consciousness shudders at the psychologies that are so depleted that they have to engage with hopes that aren't even going to be fulfilled within our lifetime unless some magic form of space travel is found! If one has already wearied of earth ape intelligence, I doubt that one has the intelligence to understand a majority of the polymechanics that could occupy lifetimes of thought!

>>4739632
Thanks a lot!

>>4739637
>Making any estimation on that probability would be unscientific
>probability
>unscientific
Nothing in science is absolute broseph.

Do you know much about abiogenesis? It's as if you think there aren't well studied mechanisms that could lead to life. We know they happen and we know they happen in Earth like environments.

>>4739641
> I merely explained...
No, you didn't explain. You made a claim without an argument.

>>4739652
We know that abiogenesis happened in exactly one earth like environment, namely earth. Nothing more.

>>4739630
Maybe, I don't know the number. But are you saying that there are <span class="math">10^20[/spoiler] earth-like environments in the universe?

>>4739658
To get this straight: We are talking about this post: >>4739543
The fallacy he's committing is illustrated pretty well by this reply: >>4739554

>>4739663
Please read my posts before posting. We know how life could form on Earth and we have seen the steps in the process happen in simulated Earth like environments.

Please go find some literature on abiogenesis. It's very interesting.

>pic
fukken saved
I lulz'd hard

Just remember kids: The universe is not eternal and it is infinite. It has a limit, despite what Discovery channel might have you believe.

Even if it gives an example of abiogenesis, it is still not safe to assume we will ever find life anywhere else. is it possible? Yes. Is it certain? No.

>>4739667
The mechanisms of abiogenesis haven't been fully explained yet. Please give a link with citation regarding the simulations you're referring to.

Some tiny microbes on Europa or somewhere aren't really that remarkable, guys. Let's limit the discussion to intelligent life.

>>4739676
>microbes on Europa

[citation needed]

>>4739666
The two arguments aren't alike. The number argument uses numbers, knowing full well the very definition of numbers makes the argument wrong. Every individual number is defined to be different than all others. All Earth like environments, on the other hand, are Earth like.

>>4739675
>universe
>not infinite

b-back that fact up...

>>4739681
And there's where you're going wrong. We don't know anything about abiogenesis on "earth like" environments, we only know abiogenesis on earth. The generalization is not backed up by anything.

>>4739678
something EK linked
but looks like she deleted her post
Why did you delete your post EK??

>>4739674
>The mechanisms of abiogenesis haven't been fully explained yet.
What do you mean "fully explained"?

>Please give a link with citation regarding the simulations you're referring to.
Instead of me typing in "abiogenesis" to Google Scholar for you, how about you tell me what experiments you DO know about so I can type something more specific into Google Scholar for you.

>>4739684
Infinite matter requires infinite energy. Unless there is a constant supply of energy coming from whatever source it could be, the universe as we know it has a limit of how much raw "fuel" it has available.

Of course, it could also be YHWH/Odin/Buddah giving he juice for free.

this is a troll attempt by [b]
you may stop posting now

>>4739687
sorry, wasnt me who deleted it
it was this:
http://phys.org/news174918239.html

not proof, just a 'ooooh! MAYBE theres life, because oxygen'
as soon as they actually find proof of life elsewhere in the solar system, you can be sure they'll splatter it all over the global news

>>4739693
>implicit ad hominems
>doesn't provide the citation he was asked for
Alright, I see you have no evidence to back up your babble.

>>4739700
Thanks.

Isn't it amazing to see how bad >>4739676 's reading comprehension is? The article in the link doesn't say anything about life on Europa, it only states that scientists discoverd oxygen.

>>4739688
>We don't know anything about abiogenesis on "earth like" environments.
Just read up on abiogenesis. Steps in the development of life have been observed in Earth like environments, like the formation of RNA and the, the self-replication of RNA, and the formation of cell walls form lipids.

>>4739701
dude I can't see any ad hominem in that post
why so butt-sensitive man?

>>4739701
Yeah, I'm not being polite, but I think your aggressive ignorance deserved it. I'm still willing to do what I said. Just tell me what you know.

>>4739711
This is wrong. Scientists were able to reconstruct steps (and only steps, not the entire process) of abiogenesis in ARTIFICIAL environments. Get your facts straight.

>>4739695
The conservation of energy would be locally true if the universe were infinite.

>>4739712
I asked him a simple question and he wasn't able to answer it. If someone makes horrendously bizarre claims, he should either be able to back them up or he shouldn't label them as science.

>>4739718
First of all it's not my ignorance, but yours. The only reason I'm posting ITT is to point out your errrors. Secondly you still haven't provided the evidence I asked for.

>>4739724
Explain yourself. That is a contradiction.

It's like spliting a molecule of water and expect an extra atom in the mix.

>>4739720
>ARTIFICIAL environments
I didn't say they were observed in natural environments, but Earth like is Earth like. That's how experiments work. You isolate the variables and observe.

Maybe next time you should act a little less abrasive without reading other posts more than once.

>>4739739
What makes them artifical (and not earth like anymore) is the fact that the experimenter actively inteferes in the experiment.

>>4739731
What do you want, real published work or summaries of abiogenesis for laymen?

>>4739746
I also would like to add that such "Earth enviroments" are an educated assumption of the weather, salinity, temperature, volcanic activity and assorted factors that could be as varied and full of opportunity as they could be hazardous for any potential lifeform.

>>4739748
Whatever your sources are. I know you're just gonna google some shit that you didn't read.

>>4739316
> Do you believe in aliens?

Clarification: Alien lifeforms. YES. But is there a galactic civilization? Obviously NO. The Silent Sky clearly demonstrates that.

In addition, are there technological civilizations? Unlikely at best. The Silent Sky suggests they are few if any.

But the physical facts of physics and chemistry combined with collected data about stellar evolution, indicates that lifeforms may be a fairly frequent occurrence in the galaxy. Is it worth traveling even 4.3 lightyears to find that out? Fuck NO.

>>4739756
I don't have my old sources. My knowledge was built up over time. I'm looking relevant information up right now for you to show you the different avenues of research on the topic of abiogenesis.

Here's one,
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700028155_1970028155.pdf

I do remember reading a Scientific American article that summarized abiogenesis decently. Would you like that? If so, I'll try and find it for you.

>>4739754
>>4739746
>Experiments are flawed because of the fact that the experimenter actively inteferes in with the experiment.
I'm not feeding your trolling anymore.

>>4739779
This link is pretty much unrelated to the discussion. I am aware of research being done on the steps of abiogenesis that probably happened on earth. Nonetheless it is invalid and highly unscientific to say anything about hypothetical abiogenesis on other planets happening with certainty.

>>4739784
I never said the experiments are flawed. They are experiments and are conducted properly. I'm just saying that your conclusions are flawed. The experimenters' goal never was to prove the existence of alien life, but only to understand the abiogenesis on earth, which is the only abiogenesis we know of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o&feature=related

Tyson's got this.

>>4739787
>Nonetheless it is invalid and highly unscientific to say anything about hypothetical abiogenesis on other planets happening with certainty.
Do you mean absolute certainty? Because no one said that they were absolutely certain, just that it was very very likely. Nothing based on empirical infomration can be known with absolute certainty.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

>>4739791
Define "prove". You may be putting words in my mouth.

>>4739829
"Very likely" is just as unscientific. Anyone making a statement on the probability of alien life should be aware that right now he has no scientific basis to back it up.

>>4739832
"Prove" was used in the colloquial meaning of course. But since you mentioned research on abiogenesis as an argument for the existence of aliens, I have to assume that it was your intention to "prove" them.

>>4739836
I'll say it again, NOTHING based on observation can be known with absolute certainty. There is implicit doubt behind everything determined scientifically.

>>4739839
Is something "proven" if there is a 99.99% chance?

>>4739845
That wasn't my point. We don't need to bother about the fundental philosophical problems in science, because irregardless any claim about probabilities of alien existence is unscientific and only an expression of a belief without basis.

>>4739848
No, it isn't. We can only "prove" things in mathematics. When using the word "prove" in colloquial context, it means as much as giving unrefutable evidence. There is no 99.99% chance for your fairy tale beliefs btw. Stop pulling numbers out of your ass.

>>4739856
I disagree. I believe that is the very heart of our disagreement. Why else would you claim "probabilities are unscientific" unless you thought that there was no inherent doubt in all scientific observations?

If you disagree then you are going to have to throw me a bone and think deeply about what is going on in this dialogue. I feel like you are just responding to me one sentence at a time.

>>4739877
I don't say "probabilities are unscientific". Probabilities are found empirically or predicted based on mathematical models. Both are valid in scientific context. But the topic of aliens lacks any scientific context because we're lacking sufficient data.

>>4739861
Nothing based on observation is 100%.

I'm getting fed up with this dialogue. Perhaps we should call it a day.

>>4739886
>Nothing based on observation is 100%.

I never said that and it's irrelevant to the discussion. Stop making up strawmen.

>>4739885
How about this...

Science tells us there is a very high probability of life existing beyond Earth. Whether that high probability is sufficient for belief is up to the individual.

>>4739893
>Science tells us there is a very high probability of life existing beyond Earth.
But that's wrong, you retard. Science doesn't allow us to say anything about the probability of life on other planets. It's only your belief.

>>4739889
I'm done arguing with you so don't bother claiming the following is an ad hominem, which I know you love to do whenever possible.

You obviously can't hold a thought in your head for more than a few seconds because you only respond to posts one sentence at a time instead of keeping the greater argument in mind. You don't care about learning anything, you just want to win an internet spat. I just hope you are either a troll or both in a bad mood and sleep deprived, because I don't want people like you to exist.

>>4739905
>But that's wrong, you retard.
Stopped reading. Take it to /b/.

>>4739913
You are mad, aren't you? I refuted all your nonsense and instead of being thankful for the corrections, you need to insult me. I seriously hope you are underage, because it would be a shame for an adult to behave that immaturely.

>>4739915
A retard is a person who is mentally deficient. Someone who keeps repeating something that has been proven wrong, despite being told multiple times why it is wrong, can be considered mentally deficient.

>>4739915
Don't like 4chan jargon? Then fucking don't go to 4chan, retard.

>>4739918
It's surprising just how well understanding quells emotion. It must be Data's trick.

>>4739926
Well played, troll. I should've seen this earlier. I mean nobody can have a reading comprehension as bad as you pretended.

>>4739915
>>4739913

>greater argument in mind

"Gosh well I don't know how to calculate the probabilities of abiogenesis so abiogenesis must have a high probability of occuring! I've totally researched stellar formation and chemistry to an extent beyond that of any other human being alive and I have a database of all exoplanets that after extensive examination allows me to say 'yep, high probability of abiogenesis!'"

Now the more interesting position is to throw possible mechanisms, do an examination of exoplanets, FIND AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE, and if the mechanism would've been helpful in predicting it on the example than HOLY SHIT YOU HAVE A BASIS FOR PROBABILITY!

And really, the possible mechanisms of abiogenesis are far more interesting than the wankery of insisting that LIFE MUST BE OUT THERE because of some psychological deficiency.

>>4739316
DO you have the source for that image?

>>4739926