/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14834712]

Only a higher power could create a world as perfect as our -

[Anonymous No.14834723]

Is there a dumber meme than "rare earth?"
There was literally two books that came out that spouted fringe theory and unfalsifiable speculation and now everyone thinks its the scientific position on life elsewhere.

Fermi Paradox is not science. Kardeshev is not science. These are assumptions. The scientific position is that there likely is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere until proven otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis#Criticism

[Anonymous No.14834800]

>>14834712
>The scientific position is that there likely is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere until proven otherwise.
That's bullshit. You can't claim the "scientific position" (whatever that means) is that something for which there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE likely exists in the universe. That's like saying there are horses and there are horns therefore there are probably unicorns.

[Anonymous No.14834822]

>>14834800
>ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE
I can think of some evidence of life forming in this universe. You replied to the wrong post btw.

[Anonymous No.14834837]

>>14834712
nigga people still think archimedes math is valid
this dude was alive 2200 fucking years ago

2200 fucking years of everyone doing the wrong math equations

humans are not qualified to attempt comprehension. as has been said already, there is no evidence of alien life. there is contextually more evidence of the existence of god than aliens.

[Anonymous No.14834874]

>>14834723
>The scientific position
>The Pope's position
>The Bible's position
>My friend Carl says
Can you come up with one original idea instead of being some "scientific" evangelist?

>is that there likely is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere until proven otherwise.
I don't think you can tell facts and opinions apart.

[Anonymous No.14834895]

>>14834874
it is much more likely that human existence is the opposite of basic life expectation standards outside the Earth by an occams razor approach that human existence is basically opposite than any other discoverable life already present on Earth.

If aliens exist, they're probably more animal-like in nature than human-like, and they would probably be intelligent enough to want absolutely nothing to do with humans because of how goddamned weird humans are.

humans are basically black holes.
wouldn't you avoid black holes?

[Anonymous No.14834903]

>>14834712
>humans know everything about the Sun
https://www.wionews.com/science/new-solar-physics-mysterious-vortex-waves-discovered-on-the-sun-travelling-faster-than-expected-465470
https://sarajevotimes.com/incredible-new-discovery-at-ravne-tunnels-bosnian-pyramid-of-the-sun/
>humans know everything about anything
>humans have a better judgment than their Creator

[Anonymous No.14835022]

>>14834874
>I don't think you can tell facts and opinions apart.
You're right. Its far more likely that in a quite probably infinite universe that amino acids formed long self-replicating protein chains only once, here. Not only is that probably happening everywhere it can, I would bet anything that if we looked hard enough around deep ocean vents we would find times it happened completely unrelated to DNA that just never "took-off."

Rare Earth and Life is agenda-driven fringe science.

[Anonymous No.14835024]

>>14834712
If god made himself and god is everywhere, does that mean the aether can regenerate from entropy?

[Anonymous No.14835035]

>>14835022
>Its far more likely
You're dealing with opinions here again.
We know it happened here on Earth, idc how many times, it's not something that is fact-based.
It's simply we don't know.

Idc about the rest of your post.

The human urge to want to know is often led astray by taking opinions as facts.

[Anonymous No.14835050]

>>14835035
It could only be opinion that would ever make someone think this process 1 in many trillion/possibly infinite chances. The most educated inference is that its not the most special thing in the universe, because otherwise that's what we're talking about, the most unique event feasible. Does that sound right?

[Anonymous No.14835056]

>>14834712
>Because i said so, okay?

[Anonymous No.14835109]

>>14835050
It's normal to have this opinion you hold.
It's rather expected for self-preservation purposes. Feeling pointless and not special is associated with depression and suicide. Thinking you have a purpose or special can really be enough motivation to keep someone going.

[Anonymous No.14835125]

>>14835109
>say its not the most special thing ever, you/me/everyone is not at all unique or rare
>"you hold this opinion to feel special"
wut?

[Anonymous No.14835133]

>>14834723
>there likely is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere
Not sure you can even used words like "likely" here, it's just unknown. To get a rough idea of the probability we would need some sort of estimate for the probability of finding all requirements for life as we know it (not just some of them like water and heat). Of course there could also be other types of life but we obviously can't estimate the probability of that either.
>inb4 universe is infinite

[Anonymous No.14835146]

>>14834712
Our star is one of the best suited for life there is. Big enough that it doesn't destroy your atmosphere but also small enough to allow life to thrive for billions of years. Considering 80%-85% of stars are red dwarfs and 5% of stars are too big, only 10-15% of stars are potentially suitable for life.
>>14834723
>Fermi Paradox is not science.
It's an observation. We don't see aliens, we don't hear aliens, we don't even observe passive signs of their existence.
>Kardeshev is not science.
Humanity has constantly developed technologically over its existence.
>The scientific position is that there likely is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere until proven otherwise.
No it isn't. You're making a claim which isn't supported by current data. There's plenty of reasons why life itself could be nearly impossible in our observable universe - except for us.

[Anonymous No.14835155]

Here's my opinion on Aliens

they don't exist

if they appear and or we make contact with them then I change my position and they exist

but until then they don't exist

for the sake of every Alien lover out there you better hope that they appear before you die or you will be wrong for the rest of your life

[Anonymous No.14835159]

>>14834723
>Fermi Paradox is not science.
Isn't it? It's just noting that despite the high calculations for life in the universe, we see no evidence of it. It's not saying there is no life, it's just a problem to solve.
>Kardeshev is not science.
It's just an arbitrary (like all scales) categorization of how far along a civilization is.

[Anonymous No.14835161]

>>14834895
>If aliens exist, they're probably more animal-like in nature than human-like, and they would probably be intelligent enough to want absolutely nothing to do with humans because of how goddamned weird humans are.
Plenty of animals act like humans. Birds like to sing, dance and play pranks. Lizards like to tan in the sun. Dogs even have similar social structures to humans.
>>14835022
>in a quite probably infinite universe that amino acids formed long self-replicating protein chains only once, here.
Our observable universe is only ~90b ly in diameter and we will never see beyond ~120b ly. We can also only travel within ~16b ly. There is no telling how large the entire universe is but any statement about anything that's not causally connected to us is pointless since even the universal constants there could be totally different.
Now, to get back to our observable universe, we have roughly 200b * 300b = 2*10^11 * 3*10^11 = 6*10^22 stars. Our light cone is rougly 4% of that so 2.4*10^21 stars. If the likelihood of intelligent life developing is less than 1/10^21, we could very well be the only intelligent form of life. Hell, if the chance of life is totally at random, it could be as low as 1/10^~50 so even us existing is HUUUGE fluke.

Your argument boils down to UNIVERSE BIG THEREFORE aliens but you forgot about SMALL PERCENTAGES.

[Anonymous No.14835176]

>>14835035
>We know it happened here on Earth, idc how many times
For the record, it appears to have happened exactly once.

[Anonymous No.14835177]

>>14835146
>Our star is one of the best suited for life there is.
Relative to our distance from it.

>we don't even observe passive signs of their existence
Just because our corner of things isn't a bustling metropolis, to scale that to the entire universe is premature.

>Humanity has constantly developed technologically over its existence.
Yes, and when we apply human reasoning to civilizational development and see that nothing so far matches what we would do, right now, in 2022, such as star harvesting, we call that evidence of absence, when it may just be fallacious to base advanced technology on what we consider to be likely on Earth in 2022.

>There's plenty of reasons why life itself could be nearly impossible
And one very good reason to think it is possible. Like I have said, for this to be so painfully unique defies logic.

>>14835159
>despite the high calculations for life in the universe
We're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we presume ourselves a freak occurrence simply because evidence doesn't match our models. Its an anthropocentric fallacy.
I don't have an agenda. I actually don't care either way. My beef is with our hubris. To say "well they don't do exactly what we think they would do at least in our small window so... no life anywhere." We're assuming Kscale nonsense and VN probes and that is just wildly premature.

[Anonymous No.14835180]

>>14835177
>We're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we presume ourselves a freak occurrence simply because evidence doesn't match our models. Its an anthropocentric fallacy.
It's not a fallacy because the Fermi paradox simply states the difference between what we would expect (tons of life, signals, etc) and what we observe (silence). It makes no statement on the matter. It's just a question to be investigated.

[Anonymous No.14835185]

>>14835180
That's basically a restatement of "it doesn't match man's models therefore it is not," which is just repeating the fallacy.

[Anonymous No.14835192]

>>14835177
>Relative to our distance from it.
Red dwarfs are shit because anywhere in the habitable zone is a dead zone.
Bigger stars don't life long enough. Some die within a few million years.
>Just because our corner of things isn't a bustling metropolis, to scale that to the entire universe is premature.
Wherever I look I see signs of human activity, even in the most remote areas of the world. If an intelligent alien civilisation (who statistically must be dozens to hundreds of millions of years more advanced than us) does exist, it is very likely we would see signs of their activity even from here on earth.
>such as star harvesting
I'm assuming a head start of few hundred million years will eventually give you access to such technologies since they are physically possible to begin with. And they make sense, considering matter and energy are limited in our light cone. Even a smaller structure would be detectible.
>And one very good reason to think it is possible.
Winning the lottery is possible. A thousend people playing it doesn't mean anyone will win.
>Like I have said, for this to be so painfully unique defies logic.
What logic? The universe does shit a lot of autists have trouble coming to terms with like randomness. Just because life came into existence once doesn't mean it has to come into existence anywhere else in this universe.

[Anonymous No.14835195]

>>14835185
>it doesn't match man's models therefore it is not
Aliens need energy and matter to continue their existence. That's not a human model, that's a hard physical limit by the universe.

[Anonymous No.14835198]

>>14835185
I don't know if you're illiterate, retarded, or just not reading past the part that makes you butthurt. Maybe all three.

The Fermi paradox makes no statement that there is no extraterrestrial life. It only describes the disjunction between what we expect (lots of life) and what we see (no life). Again, it does not say there is no extraterrestrial life.

[Anonymous No.14835199]

>>14834712
Aight then nigga find life , there are better arguments against higher powers than this .
Don't give me the "muh probability" without verification .

[Anonymous No.14835203]

>>14835199
An entity like god existing or not doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood of life outside of earth.

[Anonymous No.14835216]

>>14835192
>red dwarfs
There are also plenty of g-type main sequence, but assuming we even need that is again applying our circumstances to the formation of life at large.

>Even a smaller structure would be detectible.
How about something the size of a penny that powers an entire continent? Again, we're taking a modern understanding of energy output and forcing it on all possible civilizations.

>Just because life came into existence once doesn't mean it has to come into existence anywhere else in this universe.
I look at our existence and glean the exact opposite.

>>14835195
See above. We're using our modern understanding of energy generation. Ask someone at the turn of the 20th century what a futuristic civilization uses for energy and you'll get steampunk.

>>14835198
No, I realize what I said after I posted it. What I should have said is yes, you're right, it makes no statements, but it does foster a "rule-out" attitude in all who come across it, and that's fallacious reasoning.

[Anonymous No.14835217]

>>14834723
>The scientific position is that there likely is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere until proven otherwise.
how could one prove this

[Anonymous No.14835218]

>>14835216
>it does foster a "rule-out" attitude in all who come across it, and that's fallacious reasoning.
By rule out I think you mean that people who read about the paradox will think it means there is no extraterrestrial life, is that correct?

If so, that's not a problem with the paradox itself but with the average mouthbreather's understanding of science.

[Anonymous No.14835224]

>>14835216
>There are also plenty of g-type main sequence
As I said, up to 15% of stars are potentially habitable, the rest are not.
>but assuming we even need that is again applying our circumstances to the formation of life at large.
Life definitely needs an atmosphere. There's just too much deadly stuff flying around in empty space.
>How about something the size of a penny that powers an entire continent?
You mean magic? I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. But even assuming it did, the electricty being used would result in a lot of heat signatures.
>Again, we're taking a modern understanding of energy output and forcing it on all possible civilizations.
No, we are extrapolating from physical limits.
>I look at our existence and glean the exact opposite.
Because you are autistic. The universe doesn't care.
>We're using our modern understanding of energy generation. Ask someone at the turn of the 20th century what a futuristic civilization uses for energy and you'll get steampunk.
The most efficient energy source you can get is probably black holes followed by slow fusion. Considering the universe is still far too hot to seriously consider black holes, that leaves amassing as much hydrogen and other matter as possible to slowly use it for fusion. Yet we are still capable of seeing stars and there is no large scale star mining going on around us.

[Anonymous No.14835250]

>>14835218
Right and to also answer >>14835217
To use our example as the one time this event occured, especially if its occurence was forged by no more than the brute laws of physics, is premature. I understand one example does not an inference satisfy, but I also have severe trouble believing uniqueness arguments based on human understanding of probability, understanding of energy generation, want for real estate, wanderlust, and other things that are quite possibly uniquely Earth-like features.

I'm well aware other lifeforms will have to play ball with the laws we (partially) understand, but who knows even philosphically where non-earth lifeforms are at. An "advanced civilization" may be one that keeps its numbers small and peacefully awaits the death of its star. We base nearly all specualtion on what we would do, current year, current level of understanding, and given the distance in space and time between possible civilizations, that's wildly premature.

>>14835224
>As I said, up to 15% of stars are potentially habitable
Even if that figure is correct its only correct in light of our current understanding.

>Life definitely needs an atmosphere
And a magnetosphere which until proven otherwise, I have to guess hang around a countless number of celestial bodies.

>You mean magic?
Go tell a man in 1600 that you have a machine that sees the inside of human bodies. He'll say "you mean magic?"

>No, we are extrapolating from physical limits.
Our understanding of, which we may as well stop all inquiry now since we have teased all the secrets of energy from the cosmos.

>Because you are autistic.
well, you've got me there

>The most efficient energy source you can get is probably black holes followed by slow fusion.
This is again our limited view on the wants and abilities of sufficiently advanced civilizations. Large scale mining of stars is an en vogue idea (goddamn did Kardeshev muddy the waters). To think it holds for all-time is probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.14835256]

>>14835250
>Even if that figure is correct its only correct in light of our current understanding.
You mean according to phyiscal laws.
>Go tell a man in 1600 that you have a machine that sees the inside of human bodies. He'll say "you mean magic?"
Our universe places hard limits.
>which we may as well stop all inquiry now since we have teased all the secrets of energy from the cosmos.
We haven't fully understood everything yet, but energy conservation is a pretty hard limit to circumvent.

[Anonymous No.14835260]

>>14834723
the greatest proof for rare earth is lack of life on mars retard

[Anonymous No.14835282]

>>14835256
>energy conservation is a pretty hard limit to circumvent
Based on what we know, but we also know there are properties we have yet to understand. Just as a bygone generation knew you could tease energy from coal through a chemical reaction, we can take the same lump of coal with our current relativistic understanding and know that in its mass is bound-up an astonishing amount of energy. Are we to think there are no more revolutions of understanding in store? That nothing like a small local white hole of sorts is conceivable?

Why still don't know why anything is. We're stuck philosophically, only observing how the matter and energy we were left to work with plays ball; What the rules are, and those are of course hard facts, but imho likely not indicative of all there could be in potentiality.

Gotta leave it there for now.

[Anonymous No.14835284]

>>14835282
*We still don't know why anything is.

[Anonymous No.14835325]

>>14835282
Ok Mandlbaur lol.

[Anonymous No.14835366]

>>14835161
>implying that humans invented singing, playing, and laying in the sunlight

[Anonymous No.14835562]

>>14835250
>Right and to also answer >>14835217 (You)
you didn't answer that question at all

[Anonymous No.14835575]

>>14834723
>Is there a dumber meme than "rare earth?"
yes, that planets like earth are common.

[Anonymous No.14835581]

>>14835146
>Our star is one of the best suited for life there is.
Spawns a planet that takes ~4 billion years to develop "intelligent" life, which seems likely to be a very lucky roll.
Has <1 billion left in it before it makes life on the planet impossible.

Red dwarfs are actually better candidates. Big enough magnetic field coupled with the right distance, or be a heavy moon around a large planet with a giant magnetic field and you're good for exponentially longer than you'd be around any yellow dwarf, and they're much more apt to spawn rocky planets.

[Anonymous No.14835591]

>>14835161
Habitable zone planets seem to be around nearly every star where we can see them, and Earth-like planets seem to be common enough even in the even narrower scope in which can we detect those. So the odds shouldn't be nearly so narrow.

Still think the great filter is a hard population cap, so civilizations that survive to space fairing maturity do not spread at infinitum nor have an ever-increasing need for energy, thus they leave a minimal footprint. Those that fail to make that adaptation eat all the resources on their worlds before they can escape them.