Intelligent Life Really Can't Exist Anywhere Else
By: Caroline Delbert (Popular Mechanics)
The emergence of simple forms of life may, indeed, be quite common throughout the universe. But the transition of simple forms of life to more complex forms requires evolution. The Earth may provide a unique environment that favors evolution.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- Cosmic statisticians say the likelihood of life evolving on Earth is even less than we thought.
- Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
- The scientists say this research is designed give future researchers a foundation.
In newly published research from Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute, scientists study the likelihood of key times for evolution of life on Earth and conclude that it would be virtually impossible for that life to evolve the same way somewhere else.
Life has come a very long way in a very short time on Earth, relatively speaking—and scientists say that represents even more improbable luck for intelligent life that is rare to begin with.
For decades, scientists and even philosophers have chased many explanations for the Fermi paradox. How, in an infinitely big universe, can we be the only intelligent life we've ever encountered? Even on Earth itself, they wonder, how are we the only species that ever has evolved advanced intelligence?
There are countless naturally occurring, but extremely lucky ways in which Earth is special, sheltered, protected, and encouraged to have evolved life. And some key moments of emerging life seem much more likely than others, based on what really did happen.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
"The fact that eukaryotic life took over a billion years to emerge from prokaryotic precursors suggests it is a far less probable event than the development of multicellular life, which is thought to have originated independently over 40 times," the researchers explain. They continue:
"The early emergence of abiogenesis is one example that is frequently cited as evidence that simple life must be fairly common throughout the Universe. By using the timing of evolutionary transitions to estimate the rates of transition, we can derive information about the likelihood of a given transition even if it occurred only once in Earth's history."
In this paper, researchers from Oxford University's illustrious Future of Humanity Institute continue to wonder how all this can be and what it means. The researchers include mathematical ecologists, who do a kind of forensic mathematics of Earth's history.
In this case, they've used a Bayesian model of factors related to evolutionary transitions, which are the key points where life on Earth has turned from ooze to eukaryotes, for example, and from fission and other asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, which greatly accelerates the rate of mutation and development of species by mixing DNA as a matter of course.
Most of these "evolutionary transitions" are poorly understood and have not been very well studied by the scientists of likelihoods. And using their model, these scientists say that Earth's series of Goldilocks lottery tickets are more likely to have taken far longer than they really did on Earth.
There's an iconic scene in the 2001 movie Ocean's Eleven where George Clooney explains the series of escalating improbabilities of his planned crime. After several hugely unlikely outcomes, he says, "Then it's a piece of cake: just three more guards with Uzis, and the most elaborate vault door conceived by man." In a way, the unlikely hurdles to the rapid flourishing of complex life on Earth are the same way.
First, we win the lottery for surface temperature and protection from spaceborne dangers. Second, we win the lottery for the presence of building blocks of life. Third, we win the lottery for the right location for the right building blocks. That's before anything like the most primitive single cell has even emerged.
Using some information we do know, like the age of Earth and the expected end of its habitable lifetime due to the expanding heat radius of our sun, these researchers have turned evolutionary transitions into a series of existential scratch-off tickets. Read the whole fascinating study here.
We may not have found evidence of intelligent life elsewhere because there isn't any. Conditions that favor evolution are more rare than conditions that allow the emergence of simple forms of life.
Life has come a very long way in a very short time on Earth, relatively speaking.
The Universe is so vast that it's likely that other life friendly planets exist.
But we'll never know
Funny that the article does not even take into account the Drake Equation. To think that humanity is the only intelligent life form is existence constitutes the ultimate vanity.
Thank-you, Ed.
Well said Ed!
Probably because they know the Drake Equation doesn't do anything to predict how much life is out there. It was never intended to. The sole purpose of the equation, according to Drake, was to stimulate though about how to begin to answer the question concerning the the question of other life out there.
But besides that truth, in order for the equation to be used at all we need data on several variables we do not have. None. Nada. Zero.
I never stated otherwise.
And it may be only due to the vast distances such evidence would need to travel, and the short timeframe in which we've been capable of recognizing it. It takes a little over four years for light to reach us from the nearest star (other than Sol). Light from most stars takes far longer, with the farthest identified star being over 5 billion light years from Earth. So we are able to observe in a very limited fashion the happenings of other stars and their planetary systems (if any) at a four-year remove at least, and more likely at a hundreds-to-thousands year remove, with even more observational limitations, just due to the limitations of telescopes, either light or radio telescopes.
Lets not forget that we can only detect exoplanets mainly by their parent star wobble or dimmed light as the planet passes in front of the star. Detecting life on other planets, without actually going there to find out, is a whole different story and beyond our current technological capabilities.
It may well be that if life is present, we could only detect it if it's intelligent life capable of telecommunications whose broadcast we might be able to pick up. It's not likely we could see it visually. We have to assume we were similarly undetectable at least until we developed the technology to transmit radio waves, and probably for a while longer, due to weak signal strength.
And it may also be that we are the first intelligent life in the universe, which would explain why we can't find any others.
True.
A possibility. But rather unlikely.
Upon what data do you base that?
Given the vast distances between solar systems (across the galaxies) there could be all sorts of intelligent life that are out of our range. So distance (and time) is another explanation.
It took 4.5 billion years for Earth to evolve intelligent life capable of primitive interstellar communication. The universe is 13.78 billion years old and came from a single source (same raw materials). So there has been ample time to evolve intelligent life elsewhere and with the mind-boggling number of exoplanets in the universe (almost two trillion galaxies with an average of 200 billion solar systems within them) it is likely that we are not alone. But we may never know otherwise.
Mathematical probability.
Can you please show me the equation?
Not that I have a problem with your reasoning but it must be pointed out that reasoning is all it is. It isn't really based on anything other than the idea that if we exist, something else must exist elsewhere. While that make work as a belief, it hardly works as a means to determine how likely something may be from actual data.
Intuitively, given the rather large number of planets we expect to find in the universe as a whole, it does seem likely that there must be other life out there. However, that is an argument from incredulity rather than actual fact. That is, it seems to hard to believe that we might be the only intelligent life in existence. That is certainly a possibility and there are no factors I'm aware of that would prevent it from being true. And, as the article Nerm_L posted above states, we aren't even sure how we came about ourselves (from a scientific perspective) and intimates our existence may be more unlikely than we previously realized.
That said any claim to the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere, either for or against, seems more based off of gut feeling than anything else.
Back in reality the argument for intelligent life elsewhere is based on statistical likelihood and has nothing at all to do with any feelings.
Refer to Drake's equation. Even so, given that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, with trillions (or more) of galaxies and planets, plus knowing that basic & intelligent life can and has evolved over a myriad of environmental conditions, the idea that there is no other intelligent life anywhere in the entire universe becomes a little far fetched.
That is not true. You are ignoring:
These facts are more than: we exist therefore others must exist. They are far more than a 'gut' feel. And they certainly are not a mere argument from incredulity. They support an argument that we are likely not the only intelligent life in the universe.
It is indeed a reasoned argument (as you noted). But I note that you did your best to try to dilute the potency of 'reasoned'.
Is it your opinion that we are likely the only intelligent life in the universe? That, considering the factors listed, you expect that not even one intelligent species has evolved in the universe other than here on Earth?
If so, explain.
No. Not ignoring those factors but those factors do not guarantee life on other planets, let alone intelligent life. Especially when we can't scientifically explain life on this planet.
My opinion is that I don't have any idea one way or another. I certainly know, from a purely scientific point of view, intelligence isn't necessary. Right now we have no statistical method of quantifying the likelihood of life on other planets, let alone intelligent life. The only way to build a statistical model is to find life and find intelligence and build from that. The rest is just educated speculation.
Can you show me the statistics?
Drake's equation doesn't predict the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe.
I did not claim or even imply that those factors guarantee exolife.
Odd phrasing. Yes, you do not know one way or another; none of us know if exolife exists. But surely you have an opinion. It is not likely that you are on the exact 50:50 fence and that all your information and reasoning faculties have failed to yield even an opinion on the likelihood of at least one other intelligent species in the entire universe.
Well of course it is educated (aka informed) speculation. But the 'educated' (informed) adjective is not trivial.
The equation is a model for a galaxy, not the entire universe.
There are roughly 700 quintillion planets in the universe. In our own solar system, there is one that supports life and one that likely did at some point in the past, (Mars).
To give quintillion a bit of perspective, a, (one), quintillion seconds is about 31,688,738,506.8 years.
The chances of us being literally the only intelligent species in the universe is very slim, just by the sheer numbers alone.
I didn't intend that you had. My point was, from a purely scientific view, we don't even know for sure how life arose on this planet. We don't really have any sort of meter for just how stupendously unlikely it may have been or, conversely, inevitable. While the factors you thought I was ignoring are important for thinking about the problem, they really don't do us much good unless we know how hard or easy life is to spontaneously begin, especially there is no actual physical law we know of that life has to exist at all.
Not really. Not even within the framework of my belief in God. I recognize that God could certainly create life elsewhere if He so chooses, but there's no reason He has to. This entire universe may be just for us. I don't know.
Within the scientific frame, I have no reason to believe much different. If there is no God and all this is just chance, we have not the least idea how vanishingly rare or incredibly prolific life in this universe may be.
I read a lot of science fiction so I am not adverse to the idea of other civilizations out there. But, like you constantly say, follow the evidence. Right now there isn't a shred of evidence out there that life exists elsewhere.
No, it isn't trivial. However, not really relevant to the question of whether or not other intelligent life is out there. The only proof of that will be to find it. Even so, educated speculation can reduce the search area, so to speak. It can help us identify likely candidates.
Look. I'm not trying to poo poo the idea of intelligence other than ours. I'm simply pointing out that there is no statistical model of likelihood that can be built that means anything unless we find intelligence elsewhere. Look at how many people already try to use the Drake equation as some sort of evidence. All they are doing is showing they don't understand the equation or what constitutes statistical data.
It predicts the likelihood of life in this galaxy. Now multiply that by trillions of galaxies. The question was about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. Based on the numbers involved, it is unlikely humans are the only intelligent life in the universe.
But we know that life evolved within 1 billion years (possibly even hundreds of millions) and intelligent life evolved within 4.5 billion years. That information should not be dismissed or downplayed. It happened at least once. Now look at the landscape of opportunity. It is unlikely that with the near parallel development of an unfathomable number of exoplanets with the same foundational physics and more than twice the available time we had that we are unique.
… is different from having an opinion. One can have an opinion without being certain (or even highly confident).
Proof has not been the issue.
I have not been talking about statistics. But if we find one intelligent species in the future, how does that affect statistics? That would simply be 2 out of a landscape of billions of trillions of solar systems. This is not really about stats but about likelihood based on opportunity.
No, it emphatically does not do that. How can it when there is no data at all for the last five variables? How are you going to determine what numbers to put in there in order to make your prediction? Where are you getting your data?
You don't need to believe me, but you should at least believe Drake when he said his purpose wasn't to quantify civilizations in the universe but, rather, to stimulate conversation about the idea.
I'm constantly amazed at how few people seem to understand what the Drake equation is.
True, but one cannot build a statistical model from one occurrence. For instance, prior to the first exoplanet being discovered, we only had actual evidence of planets in this solar system. Now we have data that they occur elsewhere. What's more, if our science is right, we are discovering what kinds of planets and in what orbits. The more data we collect on this, the more accurate our statistical model of an average solar system becomes. Without it, we're just giving it our best educated guess.
Concerning your point about life and intelligence, until we find evidence of extrasolar life, we have precisely one example of it actually happening. Even so, we still have no solid idea how likely or unlikely our existence is. For all we know, we are extremely unlikely. It may be there is other life out there but never gets beyond single cells or lichen. There is literally no way to figure this out without finding other life out there.
I literally have no opinion one way or the other.
But you can't talk about likelihood without talking about statistics. Your likelihood has to be based on some sort of statistics, even if they are only assumed.
But it is not one. What would happen is we'd examine the planet and solar system in which that species was found. How close or how divergent is it from ours? What size is the planet? Does it have a moon? What is it's composition? How many planets we think should be capable of supporting life have we looked at before we finally found one that did? Such things would add to our knowledge as to what to look for.
When we found the first exoplanet, it probably didn't do a lot for statistical models, but it did something. As we find more and more, the statistical model becomes more relevant.
So you believe in God with just faith yet you cannot believe there is other life without some kind of proof.
There are now ways they can see where there are planets in habitable zones around their stars.
The likelihood that there is other life in the universe is more probable than not.
Are you making the contention that intelligent life in the universe is unlikely or impossible? If so, what do you base it on?
Again, I have not spoken of statistics. You keep insisting on stats while trying to downplay the factors of opportunity I have enumerated:
Keeping this in context.
Of course you can. Likelihood is based on the factors of opportunity that I listed. If you must see this in terms of numbers, I have provided numbers in my factors.
Yes, and that is good. But you were talking statistics in terms of extant intelligent life and from a pure statistical perspective the hypothetical stats went from 1 to 2. That is almost meaningless. Yet, interestingly, if the question is: 'is there intelligent exolife?' a single example answers the question completely. Statistics of extant life is not really of much value here.
Does not seem that way based on your argument. Plus, that would mean you are in the rare position of not having an opinion on a matter you are debating. That, IMO, would be quite unusual for you. But if you insist you have no opinion I cannot prove otherwise.
1 statistical model is a starting point and frame of reference to refine further search. Especially since our planet makes for quite a significant model. That why we look for other planets, especially those within their star's habitable zone. But the fact the we are intelligent life in this universe gIves merit to the idea that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Especially considering the vast numbers and circumstances involved in life and it's evolution. To infer that there is no other intelligent life seems rather naive.
An interesting observation and valid point.
Can we even quantify the condition of advanced intelligence?
Well, there's a can of worms. I can see this question leading to another article.
No, I'm not doing that. I am stating that we do not have enough information to make a determination of likelihood. Regardless of how many planets may be out there, we have no real idea of how prolific life actually is in the rest of the universe, let alone intelligent life. This is incontestable. Trying to insist otherwise is simply argument from incredulity.
Except it has been contested.
We have an idea. We know that all exoplanets come from the same source and thus have the same fundamental physics. And we know that on Earth, intelligent life emerged within 4.5 billion years. In a 13.8 billion year old universe there is (proven) time for intelligent life to evolve. And there is no requirement that the conditions be exactly the same as Earth either. We are not the only possible species (or even form) that could be intelligent. Intelligent exolife might be a water-dwelling species for example. Its biology may be entirely different than our own (e.g. may not even employ DNA or genes).
But given the certainty that life can indeed evolve in 4.5 billion years and that there are (200 billion x 2 trillion) solar systems in the universe ... most of which have been around for at least 4.5 billion years, there are that many laboratories for life to emerge.
So now think about the numbers:
If there were only 2 planets, Earth and a single exoplanet, then the likelihood of life emerging on that exoplanet can be shown to be very small due to the difficulty of achieving conditions suitable to trigger and sustain life.
If there were Earth and 1,000,000 exoplanets each serving as a laboratory for life (most failing), would you say that represents a more likely condition for life to emerge on at least one of them than versus a single exoplanet?
For you to respond with 'no' here ⇡ is simply not credible.
Current estimates suggest (assuming one planet per solar system) that the universe contains 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 exoplanets. All those laboratories for life, based on the same fundamental physics and running with more time than was needed on Earth.
It is not a matter of believing without some kind of proof. It is a matter of not having any information about how much, if any, life exists outside this solar system. All arguments being brought against me in this discussion devolve not from actual science or evidence but merely from the idea that, with all that real estate out there, there's just got to be not just life but intelligent life.
That's true. Unless we are able to detect life on them, all we will develop over time is the statistical probability of a given star system having planets in the habitable zones and nothing else. That is, we can refine the data necessary for the second variable of Drake's equation but, unless we can detect indications of life, that is all we can do.
This isn't rocket surgery. The only way to determine if there is other life out there is to find it. The only way to find how prolific it is or isn't is to develop the tech to examine every system possible. You can develop thousands of theories as to how many black marbles vs white marbles are contained in a box but until you actually take samples, they remain only that. There may be only one white one or there may be thousands. You can't know until you stick your hand in the box and start pulling out marbles. It may be that someday we have the tech to examine millions of systems and find no life. It may be that we find tons of it. But until we stick our hands in the universe, we simply can't know.
You are not basing this on anything other than what appears to be high odds in favor of life, essentially what TiG calls Massive Potential. That argument simply boils down to "it stands to reason" and that's it. Sure, there are likely uncountable planets within the habitable zone of their star or stars, yet that alone doesn't guarantee life. We simply don't know how likely life actually is. Life on this planet could be a once in a universe thing, for all we know. Or, it may be that there is life out there but never gets beyond the simplest forms of life. Or life like this planet but no intelligence emerges.
This is not an argument against life, intelligent or otherwise, elsewhere in the universe. It is an argument that we cannot actually calculate the likelihood because we simply don't have the information necessary.
The same could be said of God.
You are including a rather large assumption. That because life began here, it must have begun elsewhere, too. While that may seem reasonable, in order for it to actually stand we have to know just how likely life actually is, let alone intelligent life. According to the article Nerm posted, life on this planet may be even more unlikely than we thought. The only way to know is to find life elsewhere. There isn't any other way. Until we do, there is simply no way, beyond argument from incredulity, to determine how likely it is. It's that simple.
That assumption is not in my scenario. I did not say that because of the numbers life certainly has or must have occurred elsewhere.
I have argued 'more likely', not 'certainly'.
Note my core question designed to establish the essential notion:
If there were 1,000,000 exoplanets each serving as a laboratory for life (most failing), would you say that represents a more likely condition for life to emerge on at least one of them versus having but a single (1) exoplanet?
Then such proof should be required of God!
Is there even statistical likelihood of a God?
Okay, do it then. Require proof of God.
What does that have to do with his post?
Anything at all?
It will more than likely always will be so, at least as far as we are concerned.
Exactly, our sampling is guaranteed to be woefully inadequate. Even as we attempt to expand our view to gain a larger sample, the expanding universe continually puts more galaxies beyond our reach.
If I may be bold-----I'd like to ask ( which one ) are you referring to?
We cannot make a determination of certainty. But likelihood, yes we can make at least a simple determination based on what we currently know.
How prolific life is was not the issue. It's whether life (intelligent or otherwise) exists in the universe. Again, based on what we currently know and the numbers involved, it is indeed likely. Finding life would be a definitive answer as well as be one of the most profound discoveries in science.
If there isn't life out there, than that's a lot of wasted space (to paraphrase Jodi Foster in Contact).
No one said "it must have." Only that it likely has (or will).
As long as none of the numbers is zero, then it works.
The God of the big three.
An interesting question. When one hears "advanced intelligence," they probably assume a technologically superior species or AI, ala science fiction. Perhaps advanced intelligence is measured in stages of discovery? Like going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age was the first stage. Maybe discovering advanced mathematical concepts was another? Developing the ability to significantly alter the environment to suit one's purpose? Space flight, ect.
We really need to develop warp drive.
I will put that on my todo list.
No, I would not say it was more likely because I would have no information which would suggest likelihood. We don't even know the likelihood, in the sense you speak of, of life on this planet. For all we know, even though we have life here, it may have been staggeringly unlikely. A state of so many variables lining up just right that it is unlikely to happen again. We simply don't have the information. Simple as that.
Now, I've said all I intend to on this. Made my case. Either agree or disagree. Not wasting any more time with this.
Sure you do. You know that it happened here on Earth. You know that all the planets in the universe have the same underlying physics. You know that Earth required 4.5 billion years but that the universe has been around as long as 13.8 billion years. You also know that the universe is massive with approximately 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4x1023) exoplanets each of which is a potential laboratory for intelligent life of some form (does not have to be our form / biology or even chemistry).
You are correct that we do not have a number that tells us the rarity of intelligent life. But you certainly have a gauge given it happened here within 4.5 billion years. Intelligent life might indeed by extremely rare, but you are assuming that it is rare at the level of 1 in 4x1023. To imagine the enormity of that ratio, the Earth has about 7.5x1018 grains of sand. So when we speak of the number of exoplanets we are talking about a number that is equivalent to the aggregate grains of sand on 100,000 Earths. One in a million (1 in 106) is conventionally considered extreme. You, however, set 'extreme' at a minimum of 1 in ~1023.
You assume that intelligent life is incomprehensibly rare — an extreme equivalent to one grain of sand out of the combined grains of sand of 100,000 Earths. Why make that assumption? We are not talking about the probable density of intelligent exolife in the universe, but simply the likelihood of one species on one exoplanet.
It happened on Earth yet you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that with 4x1023 other opportunities (each with the same fundamental physics) it seems likely that at least one of them will do likewise.
Disagree.
Have you understood nothing about anything I've said? How could I have said what I have said and, at the same time, assume intelligent life is rare? This is just a waste of time.
I understand everything you wrote. My intelligence is not the problem here.
You refuse to acknowledge even a likelihood (the informal colloquial concept of more likely than not) that intelligent life (just one species on one exoplanet) out of 4x1023 might emerge given we know it has happened at least once here on Earth and that the exoplanets are all based on the same underlying physics as we are. You state that you have no idea one way or the other (none of us know, quantitatively, the likelihood of intelligent life). But you place yourself on a fence where one side holds:
Given intelligent life has emerged on one planet in the universe I consider it likely to emerge on at least one of the other 4x1023 exoplanets with the same fundamental physics.
… and the other side holds:
Even though intelligent life has emerged on one planet in the universe I consider it not likely to emerge on even one of the other 4x1023 exoplanets with the same fundamental physics.
If someone cannot give a nod to the likelihood that 4x1023 exoplanets represents an enormous number of opportunities to yield some intelligent species as has happened on Earth (just one time) then that means the individual assumes that intelligent life is incomprehensibly rare (or any words you wish to express this notion). To wit:
Intelligent life would have to be incomprehensibly rare for it to have occurred on one planet (ours in fact) yet never —not even once— on the 4x1023 exoplanets of the universe who share our same fundamental physics and have had billions of years to evolve.
Addendum:
What if there were 10100 exoplanets? How about 101000? Is there a scope of opportunity large enough that would cause you to recognize that if it happened once, it is likely to happen again given most of these exoplanets have had billions of years and are all based on the same fundamental physics as the planet (Earth) where intelligent life has been evidenced?
How about a number approaching ∞? Would that be enough to warrant giving a nod that if it happened once it likely would happen again given the incredibly large number of opportunities?
What if we also gave all these exoplanets a near ∞ amount of time to evolve life? Would that still be insufficient? Life emerged on Earth ... is it therefore likely or unlikely to emerge elsewhere (at least one time) given a near ∞ number of exoplanets over a near ∞ duration of evolution?
"The Big Three" used to be GM, Ford and Chrysler.
Everything you wrote here and in the next one shows that you do not.
That is correct. I can acknowledge the possibility that, out of 4x1023 exoplanets, that intelligent life may exist but I have no means to calculate likelihood. This is what you do not appear to understand. Whether you realize it or not, your "likelihood" is based on nothing but argument from incredulity. It's too hard to believe that out of such a great potential of presumed candidates, intelligent life hasn't occurred elsewhere. It isn't based on data, it is based on gut feeling.
Right now, the only data we can actually point to that has any evidence is that the odds of intelligent life in the universe is one in (however exoplanets exist in the universe able to support our kind of life). That is the only inarguable data there is. We are the only data we can plug into fl at this time. Anything else that can be plugged into it is just a guess, no matter how educated. Know why? Because we have no data, no evidence, of life elsewhere at this time. Period. More, we don't even know the likelihood of life on our planet let alone another.
Look, you can make any strawman you wish but don't expect me to bother with it. There could be trillions of intelligences out there or they may be none or somewhere in between. I have no idea which it is because there's no data that life exists elsewhere. At this point, those who insist there must be base it on nothing more than it stands to reason that with all that real estate and time, there must be. Maybe so, but we don't know and we certainly can't determine the likelihood without finding that life, should it exist.
The problem is not my intelligence, I think the problem is that you are being stubborn. You insist on requiring a probability density function. That is never going to happen. We have a sample size of 1. If we find intelligent exolife that gives us a sample size of 2. Irrelevant in terms of statistics. No matter how much data we gather, we will never be able to statistically determine the mathematical probability of intelligent exolife (a PDF) based simply on a sampling of extant intelligent exolife. (The universe keeps expanding and we lose the ability to ever get the needed info.) So given this, you stop right there and declare that you have no opinion due to insufficient information. That, Drakk, is just an excuse.
We clearly can form an opinion on colloquial likelihood based on other metrics (those I keep repeating). Note that this single additional data point I mentioned would mean nothing in your statistical model, but would be extremely relevant in terms of the question of likelihood of just one instance of intelligent exolife. In fact, it would take us from likely to certainty; my bar is reasonable and substantially lower than yours. My point has been that at least one intelligent exolife species is more likely than not given intelligent life has happened at least once in this universe and that the universe provides 4x1023 opportunities (all with the same fundamental physics) for it to happen just one other time.
That means nothing, most anything is possible. But we have more than that. We are not asking if unicorns are possible (no evidence that a unicorn ever existed). We have proof that intelligent life does form given the conditions of our universe and we know that our universe is vast yielding utterly enormous opportunities for intelligent exolife (of any biology or form) to also evolve. And we are only considering one other species. We are not talking about how many species are likely, just the notion that given it has indeed happened once given the fundamental physics of our universe that it is likely to have happened at least one other time.
Re-familiarize yourself with the concept of a strawman argument. I stated a logical consequence. You are (whether you admit it or not) arguing against the likelihood of intelligent exolife (in your case, you do this by refusing to opine unless you have a statistical probability density function). I do not think anyone is buying that. My point was that for you to fight so hard against even the basic notion of one species of intelligent exolife given the billions of available years and the vast number of opportunities then you ipso facto view intelligent life as incomprehensibly rare (or any words you wish to express this notion). That, Drakk, is no strawman, it is a direct consequence of your comments.
Now this ⇡, however, is a strawman. None of us has insisted that intelligent exolife is a certainty. There is no claim of 'must be'. Strawman! The argument is 'more likely than not'; it is not 'must be'.
I suspect you have a reason (unspecified) for refusing to even acknowledge likelihood of a just one intelligent exolife species. While I suspect it is centered in your religious beliefs, I am confident that this refusal is intentional. Evidence of this intention is that you ignore probative questions such as:
This ⇡ is an extreme scenario where I present you with the largest possible duration of finite time and the largest possible finite number of opportunities (exoplanets) all within the same fundamental physics. We know that intelligent life emerged once in this universe. So even if we were cooking almost forever on a nearly unlimited number of stoves you still will not budge ... not even give a nod to the clear likelihood of intelligent exolife emerging just once.
To wit, if you will not even acknowledge the extreme, then it is clear why reasoning has been dismissed at every turn.
No, not really. We have one instance of life that we know of. And of that life we do not know how likely even ours was. And to make matters worse, out of the many billions of life forms that have inhabited this planet over the years only one developed our level of intelligence. Do we know how likely that was? No, we don't. Not a clue. But somehow, we just magically assume that if it happened here then it's "likely" to have happened elsewhere. There may or may not be other intelligences out there we simply do not have a way to determine how likely it is except to say, well, it happened here so it can happen somewhere else. Fine, as an opinion but it doesn't actually carry any weight beyond that because it isn't based on anything.
It is the definition of a strawman. My position is that we can't determine the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere because we don't have the data necessary. I have repeatedly stated there could be huge numbers of intelligent life out there or none or somewhere in between. I have repeatedly stated that I have no opinion as to which it may be. Now, you may think I'm lying. That I must have some opinion. Whatever, but that's my position. You trying to make it say something else is a strawman argument. Just like you trying to link my saying you do not understand what I am saying to commenting on your intelligence is a strawman.
Given all this, is there any point to this discussion any longer?
Oh, and the first thing I said to you was I had no problem with your reasoning so I don't know what you're on about here. Your position is perfectly reasonable. It's just that it consists almost entirely of reasoning and little provable fact.
The somehow was explained and it was not magic .
4x10 23 exoplanets is part of the ' somehow '. That represents the realm of opportunity ... a lot of opportunities over a very long period of time. Now lets focus on this: ⇣
That does not actually make matters ' worse '. (Also, Earth has produced countless trillions of species, not billions.)
Remember now that Earth is ~⅓ of the age of the universe. The oldest known exoplanets are ~12.8 billion years old. So if Earth could produce countless trillions of species in its lifetime, the older exoplanets could produce even more. The point is that it does not really matter how many species are produced over time; what matters is how long it takes for an intelligent species to emerge (on Earth it looks like 4.5 billion years). (By the way, we are presuming that we are the only intelligent species that was produced by Earth. Not necessarily so.)
Yes, you seek a statistical probability distribution function. That, as I explained, will always be impossible since your metrics are simply a count of intelligent species we have verified. You will be ' dunno '-ing this forever. But note, if we find just one intelligent exolife species not only is that direct confirmation of likely , it is absolute proof of likely; it becomes certainty . Just one data point, that is all we need. Your bar is impossible, my bar is reasonable.
And I noted that acknowledging the possibility is not offering much. It is possible that leprechauns exist. Acknowledging the possibility never was the question.
That is correct. And I have agreed that nobody knows the statistical probability of intelligent exolife based on tabulating verified instances of same. I have gone further and explained why we never will know.
No, I am saying that you refuse to consider a paradigm outside of the impossible statistical paradigm you have proposed. Why you are doing this only you would know.
No, I am pointing out that your refusal to consider an alternate paradigm based on opportunity ( exoplanets times time ) where the opportunities are staggeringly large means that you (whether you recognize it or not) hold that intelligent life must be incomprehensibly rare. Seems to me, the following is not obvious to you: given intelligent life evolved on Earth, 4x10 23 planets all with the same fundamental physics are more likely than not, over a maximum duration of 12.8 billion years of evolution, to produce at least one intelligent exolife of some biology or form.
My reasoning is based on several well established facts. Having repeatedly listed them it is pointless to list them yet again. The reason this discussion continues is because the only facts you will consider is a statistically sound sample of intelligent exolife — something that we can never have (impossible).
I presented twice the most generous possible hypothetical scenario using finite numbers that we could have. You refuse to even acknowledge this.
This extremely generous hypothetical is:
The probative value of these questions was to see if your refusal to emit the words ' more likely than not ' had any limits at all. Clearly, no matter how ridiculously large I make the opportunity space and no matter how much time I offer, you declare an inability to opine on likelihood (other than ' possible ') .
That means as I stretch the opportunity space, you implicitly just keep increasing the rarity of intelligent life. The logical consequence of that is that you will eventually claim that you cannot form an opinion if intelligent life is likely to have occurred more than once over an eternity (infinite time and infinite number of exoplanets).
If you haven't noticed, I've pretty much ignored this part of the debate. This is because you estimate that given proper real estate and enough time, life is "likely". This is ridiculous because it leaves out too many factors to list. Once again, and speaking purely scientifically, we do not know how likely life was on this planet, let alone another. Without that number, stating life is likely elsewhere is just a shot in the dark.
Excerpts from New Equation Tallies Odds of Life Beginning
If I had not noticed?? I have (repeatedly) explicitly noted that you ignored this.
And you keep going back to your: 'we do not have a probability density function based on known intelligent exolife'. I have treated this thoroughly. Clearly I understand your point and have provided my rebuttal. Simply repeating your claim accomplishes nothing.
In contrast, by ignoring my hypothetical you refuse to face my point. What is ridiculous, Drakk, is to not —under any circumstances— acknowledge that it is likely for just one species of intelligent exolife to emerge given:
It happened once (Earth) and all those exoplanets have the same fundamental physics as Earth. Yet even given infinite time and infinite resources you refuse to acknowledge that it is likely to happen even one more time.
Yes, I do, because there are many more factors than just those two, which you totally ignore. While it may seem reasonable that there should be a high probability given infinite real estate and time, that doesn't get the science done. To say it is likely is simply a guess. One that even seems reasonable. If it can happen here it can happen elsewhere is a reasonable statement. But it isn't supported by anything except argument from incredulity at this point and there is no denying it. As the guy in the article I provided said....
Why is this so important to you, anyway? I have explained my position to you, which is more scientifically sound than yours. You disagree. Why is it necessary that I convert to your point of views?
I am not ignoring all the other factors. I purposely presented a simple scenario that is logically irrational to deny.
We are not conducting a scientific experiment here. The fact that you use the language 'may seem reasonable' illustrates that you cannot bring yourself to admit that even with infinite time and infinite resources and with the same fundamental physics it is likely that we would not be the only intelligent species to evolve.
That is really something to behold, Drakk. Even if intelligent exolife is (per your quote) truly "one in a trillion trillion" (which we do not know is true) under my infinite time and resources scenario intelligent exolife would then be very likely (arguably a certainty). But you refuse to even acknowledge that.
Your position (your statistical paradigm) is extremely restricted — statistically dependent on one metric: extant intelligent exolife. Being focused strictly on counting extant intelligent exolife (before any other factors are allowed) does not make your position more scientific. It does, as I have explained numerous times, make your position impossible to ever validate. Your position (your paradigm) accomplishes nothing of value.
I do not expect you to 'convert'. When you articulate your position on a topic, you will (in my opinion), never veer from it. At this point I was just interested to see how far you would go into the ridiculous. You showed me that you are willing to go to the very end of reason.
I am a little surprised by that.
Well, I don't understand the contention that more planets and more time would alter the outcome. The probability of life emerging on any given planet wouldn't be affected by the number of planets. And the emergence of life would be influenced by conditions rather than time.
There simply aren't an infinite number of planets that possess conditions and composition suitable for the emergence of life. If the necessary components and conditions are not available then the emergence of life would be precluded. Based upon our limited understanding, a planet must have some sort of atmosphere, must have a core that generates a protective magnetic field, must spin (close to) perpendicular to its orbital plane to sustain a temperature within a narrow range, and must be capable of absorbing and rejecting the right amount of heat from its parent star. The planet must possess the chemical elements in sufficient abundance necessary for life.
The Drake equation (provided by MrFrost in @1.4.21) describes a progression of increasing improbability within the galaxy (or the universe).
Is intelligent life comparable to humans possible elsewhere in the universe? Of course, human existence on Earth demonstrates that possibility. But that possibility doesn't say anything about probability. Humans did not win a lottery to exist; humans won thousands of lotteries. If the probability of humans existing on Earth is one in trillions then Earth may well be the one in trillion planets with intelligent life similar to humans. We may be the one and only in the universe.
I have not written of the probability of life emerging on any given planet. I have written of the likelihood that at least one species of intelligent life (which we know is possible) would emerge on an exoplanet given the exoplanets have the same fundamental physics as Earth. Two very different concepts.
We have Earth. Pretend now that there is only one exoplanet in the universe. It is not likely that this exoplanet would also evolve an intelligent species of life because we know intelligent life is rare. But we do not know how rare.
So instead of one exoplanet, imagine there are 200 billion (the estimated number of solar systems in our galaxy). Instead of one laboratory for potential evolving life we now consider 200 billion. Is it more likely that intelligent life would emerge in a universe with 1 exoplanet or 200 billion exoplanets?
If you say it makes no difference then I am not going to spend any more time with you on this.
Now, imagine that there are approximately 2 trillion galaxies where the average size is 200 billion solar systems. That is 4x10 23 solar systems and if we assume one exoplanet per, that is 4x10 23 exoplanets. That is 4x10 23 laboratories. Is it likely that at least one of these laboratories will evolve an intelligent species of exolife (any biology, any chemistry)?
If you respond 'no' or claim you do not know then I will ask you this:
What if a near ∞ number of exoplanets had a near ∞ duration of evolution? For all intents and purposes, I present you a hypothetical with no limits on the number of laboratories or time? Given we know the same fundamental physics have produced intelligent life on Earth, is it likely that at least one of these exoplanets would eventually produce at least one intelligent species of exolife?
Has absolutely nothing to do with the point I have made.
Interesting. We have a planet where we know life exists, and as you yourself pointed out, there have probably been more than a trillion species extant over the course of time, yet only one intelligence has ever been produced, and we don't even know how it came about, scientifically. But it gets worse than that. We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know how life went from single cell to multicellular. We don't know how cells began to specialize and, again, we don't know how an organism developed intelligence. Your belief that, given enough real estate and time, intelligent life will develop seems more like an act of faith than anything else.
But that's not how it works. Yes, we have Earth. If the probability of intelligent life comparable to humans existing on Earth is one in one trillion then the rational conclusion is that the likelihood of comparable intelligent life on another similar planet would be one in one trillion.
It doesn't matter how many similar planets there are. Each planet would have a one in one trillion probability of intelligent life comparable to humans.
The low probability of intelligent life comparable to humans on Earth really does suggest a low probability of finding comparable intelligent life on another planet. A trillion planets does not alter the very low probability of finding comparable intelligent life on any of those trillion planets.
And each of those planets would have the same very low probability of having intelligent life comparable to humans. Throughout all the evolutionary history of Earth, with countless species emerging, only one species developed intelligence and anatomy that allows making itself known to other worlds. In the history of Earth, the existence of humans is extraordinarily rare.
You are now introducing belief and faith where none is stated. Instead of playing word games show me that you can objectively consider what I have placed before you.
In an eternal / infinite scenario (which I have provided) anything that is possible to happen will happen repeatedly.
The fact that intelligent life happened on Earth means that it is possible given the same fundamental physics as Earth. Thus when given:
... it does not matter how unlikely intelligent life is. If it is possible, it will happen repeatedly.
First of all, that is not known. Earth produced countless trillions of species. You are presuming that all of those species had to be produced before intelligent life emerges. There is no basis for that assumption. Second, the exoplanets have varying conditions. This means that some have no chance to produce even life (as we define it) but others could have an arguably better condition for producing intelligent life.
As I pointed out to Drakk, it does not matter how many species were produced on Earth. What matters is how much time it takes to evolve an intelligent species. Our single data point is that it takes ~4.5 billion years. That is about ⅓ the age of the universe and the oldest known exoplanets are ~12.8 billion years old. So, based on what we know, there is enough time for other planets to evolve an intelligent species of life.
So there is enough time. The question now is the conditions necessary for the life to evolve. The more opportunities (laboratories) we have the more likely one of them will have 'the right stuff'. The number of exoplanets (opportunities) makes a monster difference.
Finally, with infinite time and an infinite number of exoplanets, the rarity of life is not a factor. Do you understand why?
I'll work on wormhole navigation. Just watched Interstellar again a couple nights ago, so I have a head start.
Well remember that those wormholes can be unstable. They can also change the spacetime coordinates of their endpoints. Could get tricky.
No, he's just stating what is in the one example we have. He isn't presuming anything. It is a fact that perhaps trillions of species have existed before intelligence finally arrived. And we have not the least idea why it appeared.
And you know this because you figured out how life got started on this planet? No? Then how are you going to identify what constitutes a system that, arguably, has better conditions for producing intelligent life when you don't even know what began it on this planet?
Which argues that we don't need to know the fiddly bits. All we need is real estate and time and somehow it's just going to happen.
And how are we going to know what those are unless we know how non-life suddenly becomes life? In fact, without knowing that, all we can do is guess on the conditions need to be. In fact, that's pretty much what those who are trying to create life in a test tube are doing. Trying to recreate what they think are the conditions and it will somehow spontaneously just happen.
Just make sure not to have a point arriving near a black hole. We should keep as far away from those as possible.
I have already done so. You just don't like the answer. Not going to change, TiG.
Yes, I provided that fact. Remember? But it is not a fact that there must be trillions of ancestor species before an intelligent species emerges. The phylogenetic tree branches which go from homo sapiens (leaves) back to single-cell organisms (trunk) does not have trillions of levels. Further, it does not matter. There could be countless paths to an intelligent species. We are not talking about having the exact history of Earth be repeated but rather to have just one occurrence of an intelligent species of any biology or chemistry. One.
Know what? That exoplanets have various conditions? You do not know that?
There is no need for me to identify how life started on Earth or what constitutes a better system. I have made no claim that requires any of this. My claim only stipulates that these exoplanets have the same fundamental physics as Earth and that they are varied (different conditions / environments). That should be obvious given the entire universe has the same fundamental physics. And we already know planets vary considerably.
No, it argues that we have an enormous opportunity ... 4x1023 exoplanets each with the same fundamental physics and each serving as a laboratory. It takes just one of them to be successful to satisfy the condition I have presented.
I have never claimed it will happen (no claim of certainty) with 4x1023 exoplanets. You keep trying to modify my argument. Don't. Face my argument as stated.
Okay, Drakk, now you are off the deep end. There is nothing in my scenario that requires verification. In fact, one of my arguments against your method is that it is impossible to verify anything in virtually all exoplanets. So, you are now just tossing stuff on the wall to see if anything sticks.
I notice that you continue to ignore my eternal hypothetical. Facing the truth is better than blowing smoke.
No, you have not. You refuse to address my eternal hypothetical:
Intelligent life happened once (Earth) so we know it is possible given the fundamental physics in play. Yet when given infinite time and infinite resources (a ridiculously generous scenario) you refuse to acknowledge that it is likely to happen even one more time.
If you will not even acknowledge this then clearly you are intentionally not going to acknowledge anything.
I do not acknowledge it because it isn't a possible scenario. Why talk about it? It is only you trying to strengthen your claim that details do not matter. Only real estate and time do. Why not prove that first before introducing impossible scenarios?
Sorry, man, but your intransigence is getting old. I think I'll just move on.
Projection. The perfect word, actually.
I think that is a good idea.
A big "if." But also meaningless if we're dealing with infinite planets.
That's just an assumption.
And it is a terrible assumption at that. It presumes the probability of intelligent life on a planet is equal to the number of species produced by Earth. That would be okay if the phylogenetic tree was not a tree (a structure with branches upon branches) but rather a linear progression (one species leads to the next). But that is simply not how evolution works. There are not trillions of species (trillions of branches) on the path from us back to our single cell ancestors. There are trillions of species in total.
We can, however, use the fact that it took 4.5 billion years for Earth to evolve an intelligent species (best we know). That makes no presumptions at all other than we know it is possible on at least one planet in the universe to emerge intelligent life. Given that is ⅓ the age of the universe we know there is enough time (theoretically) for another planet to also emerge intelligent life of some exotic biology (not necessarily anything close to ours). And given there are ~4x1023 exoplanets, that is a rather impressive number of laboratories —each with the same fundamental physics as Earth— to try to cook up another intelligent life.
Seems obvious to me that the universe is in pretty good shape to spit out at least one species of intelligent exolife.
That's not how it works. Evolution is more than genetics, alone. Evolution also depends upon adaptations. Species are interconnected within an ecosystem and influence evolution within that ecosystem. Multiple species are important for evolution.
No, I do not understand the point you are trying to make; please provide illumination. Keep in mind the topic is intelligent life and more specifically intelligent life capable of making its presence known to other worlds.
It also presumes similar or the same environmental events occurring to alter the evolution of species, such as Earth's mass extinction events.
Adaptations occur on a genetic level. That's how we get speciation. Environmental changes drives those adaptations. Species that cannot adapt go extinct. Multiple species play a role in an ecosystem. Changes in that ecosystem is what triggers adaptation.
If there is an infinite number of chances for intelligent (or otherwise) life to evolve, then it becomes a mathematical certainty.
You claim I misrepresent evolution when I note the duration required for intelligent life on Earth. Instead of showing what I got wrong, you make a claim and then add more facts about evolution. That is a slimy tactic. Yes, Nerm, evolution involves all sorts of factors. But we are not discussing the science of evolution on Earth so I focused on what is relevant information for exoplanets.
I have no patience for dishonest tactics which merely claim an argument is wrong and then instead of showing how it is wrong, simply add additional irrelevant facts into the scenario.
Then you are quite likely to never admit to understanding the point.
Have you not read what I have been writing for days? What the hell do you think we have been debating Nerm? Comments like that tell me that you are not even reading what I write. So why should I bother to spend my time with you?
§
I presented an extreme scenario to test for reasonableness with my interlocutors. If one cannot even agree to my eternal scenario then IMO the individual is intentionally refusing to 'understand' anything.
We all assume that intelligent life is rare (the topic of the seed). In contrast, I have presented an enormous set of opportunities for life to emerge. That is the solution for intelligent life being rare. Rarity is moderated by opportunity. With me so far?
The question is how much opportunity would be required to overcome the rarity? How many opportunities would we need so that our assumed (not quantified by the way) rarity occurs just one more time?
Well, we do not know, but even with an enormous number of estimated opportunities based on science, we see a nuh'uh refusal to even give a nod of 'more likely than not' that just one other species might evolve in our universe given the same fundamental physics, even more time than we needed on Earth and an enormous number of laboratories.
So here is what I did. I took away all the obstacles. We have rarity of intelligent life, but I have provided a scenario where we now have infinite time and an infinite number of exoplanets. I wanted to see if we can get agreement on even an extreme case that at least one species of intelligent exolife is more likely than not.
So far, nope. And that confirms (to me) that my interlocutors are not trying to see the point but rather are determined to not see it.
It also confirms they're stuck on their own personal views and refuse to budge or even acknowledge their flaws. Basically, it's willful, stubborn ignorance.
Agreed. Stubborn refusal with a pretense of objective discussion.
Which is a transparent, intellectually dishonest tactic.
You claimed that the number of species produced on Earth does not matter. The known process of evolution does not support that contention. Evolution requires multiple species within an ecosystem. So, the number of species produced on Earth does matter.
You have contended that the extraordinarily large number of planets in the universe increases the probability of finding intelligent life on other planets. I have explained why that contention is based upon unsound reasoning.
I do understand the contention you have presented for days. I am pointing out the basis of your contention is wrong thinking. Simply repeating the contention won't correct the flaw in reasoning.
You have not shown why. I have explained why the number of species on Earth does not matter. Show where my argument is flawed, don't just assert same. Do you understand the difference between a tree structure and a linear list?
Show me. I have yet to see where you have shown my argument to be unsound.
I see you simply claiming flaws and failing to show any.
I also see you avoiding my eternal scenario. Looks to me like you are arguing for the sake of argument again.
No, it doesn't. Evolution requires an adaptive change to an environment.
That is not what TiG said. He said [I summarize simplistically and and TiG will correct me if I am wrong] the large number of planets could likely (not certainly) lead to the development of intelligent life. Finding intelligent life is a whole different matter.
Clearly you do not, especially when you misrepresent (or misinterpret) what he actually said!
Explain to us how it is wrong!
A mathematical improbability. The sheer number of galaxies and planets in the universe, coupled with the known conditions in which life can arise and even thrive, especially over time, makes the idea that there is no other life in the universe highly improbable.
What conditions would those be? And how "evolved" of a lifeform are you considering here?
Please define the term ( intelligence ).
I suggest, for the purposes of this topic, that intelligence is the ability to engage in self-aware cognition and to communicate in a language capable of conveying one's thoughts; a quality that is true for all natural languages on our planet but is not true (to our knowledge) of any species other than our own.
What TiG said.
Then crows and dolphins meet this requirement.
So did neanderthal.
Neanderthal did (best we can tell). Do we know that crows and dolphins are self-aware and that their language can indeed communicate their thoughts or simply a limited subset of same? Communicating 'danger' is substantially different than describing the nature of the danger and the recommended response.
Crows actually do convey information, and not only do they speak to each other, but they also have 2 different languages, one for the entire crow population in their area and one specific for their family. They don't only communicate "danger", but can pass down information to their own.
The level of communication that I see required to be considered intelligence is that which allows communities to work together to achieve results that only a coordinated community could achieve.
That is why I spoke of self-awareness, cognition and language that expressed their thoughts (and not just a subset).
I have seen no evidence of that manifesting in a sufficient level in any extant species other than homo sapiens. I am aware that there are communal species that do communicate and work together to achieve ends, but it is always limited and primitive. Their language and cognitive abilities seem (as of now) to limit them to basic survival and do not even seem to be passed generationally through learning (just genetically). Certainly no evidence of recorded knowledge and thus a roadblock to advancement.
The intelligent beings we hope to communicate with would necessarily be that which can advance well beyond their physical bodies and that requires a level of cognitive skills and language that (best we can tell) only appears with human beings (on Earth).
I can hear those Dolphins and crows now: "Damn!. Look at those stupid people! What I wouldn't give for an opposable thumb!"
Sounds like more of that biblical dominion thing. Tell that to the Blue Pike that used to thrive in The Great lakes.
Hey, they do really well without an opposable thumb (at least crows do). Watch this videos:
Crow doing multi-step problem-solving.
Crows understanding abstract thought to problem solve
I'm reminded of a diving video, where people pay to go diving with the manta rays.
During the filming a dolphin approached several divers and looked them over, then approached the dive master
who had a collection of tools on his belt. The dolphin got the dive masters attention and rolled over to show him the fishing hook stuck in the edge of his fin and looped through his mouth.
While they could not remove the hook, they cut the line
and removed the rest of the line from the dolphins mouth while he waited patiently.
Animals are probably smarter than we realize. Certainly mammals have a degree of intelligence.
Humans can be quite a dichotomy. We are both the smartest and the dumbest mammals on the planet.
Given the context (this seed) we need to have some gauge for intelligence. I doubt that a person who questions the possibility of intelligent exo-life would accept intelligence at the level of a dolphin or a crow.
So my approach is to define intelligence as, in effect, the capability of a species to cooperate in such a way that it could communicate with another form of intelligent exolife (to it).
But that is insufficient to communicate with intelligent life. I am not talking about the kind of communication that takes place between, say, our dogs and ourselves (single words, etc.) but rather communication sufficient to express real world semantics and thus to enable cooperative building of technology that would enable other intelligent beings to detect and communicate with them.
The context here is alien intelligent life so the bar for communication is rather high.
That might also include the technological means to interpret communication. If we encountered an intelligent species in the universe, communication ability might vary if we're dealing with a species at a Stone Age level of intellectual sophistication vs. one that is at spaceflight level.
That was my point. Communication is not always a way of evaluating intelligence. In space, we may come upon intelligent life, that is not at the same point of evolution as we are, or like in "The Arrival" communicate on such a different level, due to their own evolutionary path.
How will we ever encounter intelligent life that isn't capable of making its presence known beyond its own planet?
The Oxford study mentioned in the seed article addresses the improbability of intelligent life emerging on planet Earth. The Oxford study is attempting to quantify the fi and fc terms in the Drake equation (posted in @1.4.21) based on Earth. Our planet; not planets elsewhere in the universe. Just because life exists on Earth doesn't negate the improbability of that existence. We didn't win a single lottery. We won thousands of lotteries.
We have no direct or indirect evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, let alone intelligent life. Earth may well be the one and only. A false humility doesn't avoid the burden of responsibility for being the one and only. The improbable possibility of intelligent life in other solar systems doesn't let us off the hook.
The consequences of what we do as a species takes on a different meaning if we are the one and only species in the universe capable of civilization and making our presence known. If we, as a species, destroy life on Earth then we may well be destroying all life in the universe. That's a big responsibility, isn't it?
If we come across a sufficiently developed intelligence, the initial way we might be able to communicate is through mathematics-the "language" of the universe.
But they would have the ability to communicate at a level sophisticated enough for them to evolve as a technological society. There is no requirement (from me) that they be able to communicate with us.
We either develop the means to detect it on their planet or we actually travel to their planet. But neither is likely in the foreseeable future.
But when you have infinite planets to work with, it's not so improbably anymore.
Yet. As it stands, we know the conditions where life can form and evolve. That gives us a starting point.
While that is possible, it is unlikely.
Off the hook for what?
I doubt the universe would care. The universe was going along just fine before we evolved and it'll probably do just fine once we go extinct.
There are an infinite combination of numbers but only one Pi. Singular uniqueness is not uncommon in the universe. Increasing complexity also increases improbability.
The existence of humans on Earth is a highly improbable outcome. The existence of intelligent life comparable to humans on any other planet is no more probable than on Earth. Humans demonstrate the possibility but that does not alter the improbability of human existence.
With Earth as the model, the probability of finding intelligent life comparable to humans on another planet is highly unlikely.
You're assuming Pi is the only possible number. But that analogy makes little sense.
If by "singular uniqueness" you mean intelligent life, then you are stating is not uncommon. Ergo, it is actually common. But improbability becomes irrelevant when we measure by infinity. It certainly doesn't equate to impossible. Especially since we know it has already occurred at least once in the universe.
Based on what? That's just another assumption.
If it's possible and has occurred, then it is not improbable.
Earth not only tells us intelligent life is possible (and certain), but it also gives us the parameters we need to start looking. What is not known for certain is if intelligent life requires the same or similar parameters to evolve. Another factor to consider is the possibility that intelligent life did evolve elsewhere in the past, but might have since gone extinct. But that is only speculation at this point.
WTF is that supposed to mean? There are an infinite set of numbers but only one number 3.
Back up that extraordinary universal generalization.
Because ... ? (And we are not requiring the exolife be comparable to humans, just to be intelligent.)
Because ... You left out your argument.
By the way it is very unlikely we will find intelligent exolife. But we are not talking about finding it, rather we are talking about it existing. Very different.
That's what I was wondering too.
Wait, you actually want a logical support provided?
At least, not anytime soon. Unless intelligent exolife finds us first (Also a possibility).
But both mathematical probabilities.
No, I am assuming there is only one Pi within an infinite combination of numbers. Pi is not a random combination of numbers. And Pi is singularly unique.
Statistical outliers are quite common. Statistical outliers are often difficult to explain and extraordinarily difficult to replicate. The singular uniqueness of an outlier is quite common.
Available evidence indicates that intelligent life on Earth (and the existence of human intelligence, in particular) is an outlier.
That's not how it works. Possibility does not indicate probability. An extraordinarily improbable outcome is possible. A possibility becoming reality doesn't alter the extraordinary improbability of that possibility. The extraordinary improbability does suggest that possibility becoming reality may not repeat.
If evolution were solely a determinate process not influenced by random chance then the contention would be plausible that the large number of planets indicates finding intelligent life on other planets. But evolution doesn't work that way. The number of sun-like F, G, and K-class stars comprise a small fraction of stars in our galaxy. The number of sun-like stars having Earth-like planets is smaller still. And the improbability of evolution influenced by random chance resulting in human-like intelligence means finding human-like intelligent life on the small fraction of Earth-like planets is highly unlikely.
So what? Like I noted, the number 3 is unique. The number 1,239.34 is unique.
Pretty sure everyone assumes intelligent life is rare. I have not seen anyone even hint otherwise.
Obviously. Blue and Red form Purple. Water is wet.
Why do you require Earth-like? Why do you require human-like? I have explicitly stated probably a dozen times that intelligent exolife need not be like our biology or chemistry. That means the life form could be a water-dwelling creature, made predominantly of silicon vs. carbon and the environmental conditions need not be like those of Earth.
Your analogy still makes no sense.
Again, are you referring to intelligent life?
What evidence?
Neither does it indicate improbability.
Who said evolution was determined by random chance? I don't think you understand the evolutionary process.
Our sun is a G-Type star. Red Dwarf (M Class) stars are the most common stars. Which makes sense when you think about it.
A planet does not necessarily need to have a G-Type star to have a planet/s capable of supporting life, including intelligent life. Or do you (yet again) assume only Earth like planets and stars are capable of supporting life?
Cosmically speaking, our gazing at the cosmos hasn't brought us past the surface of our collective eyeballs. I tend to think that what has happened here is very rare; but space being what it is, who is to know. The 'lack of evidence' claim seems more than anything to be an admission of our ignorance, while the speculations of statisticians are ... well ... just that.
Given the barriers of time and space, we have not been able to observe but a ridiculously tiny fraction of the universe. (One analogy is that if we put a cup in the ocean, the amount of water we pull out represents —if the ocean represents space— how much of space we have actually observed.) And much of it is already beyond our reach and we can never catch up to it (as the universe keeps expanding the distance between galaxies).
LOL! Indeed! One recalls the story of the half-dozen people who pontificate on what they have learned about the elephant from their respective positions.
It is the undisciplined mind which prides itself in the little that it does know ...
What a terrible waste of space/infinity that would be.
And yet, he thinks we have some "responsibility" to it?
You really are a Debby Downer. Don't you ever seed anything positive?
Must have been relevant.
It was restored. huh!
Or... it could be that we're unable to get to another solar system similar to our own yet... if ever. Even if we were able to stumble across another solar systems similar to ours, by the time a probe or manmade machine provided the information as such, it would be far beyond our life-expectancies... if any such manmade machine actually made it that far without failing.
Yes, that is a problem. What we obverse in the form of light (which includes wavelengths other than the visible) only provides information about the past. Sending spacecraft won't overcome that problem unless the craft can directly observe a planet at close range. Even then any signals sent back to earth cannot travel faster than what we observe from earth. Close observation allows seeing greater detail but we would still be observing the past.
The Oxford study estimated the probability of evolution. And conditions that favor evolution are different than those that allow simple life to emerge.
It is wise to view evolution as non-linear. It is more like a hilly, curvy road with hazards, stop-lights, accidents, etc. rather than a smooth highway with cruise control. The evolution of the eukaryotic cell took a very long period of time (best we can tell it was over one billion years) but the reasons for that are not known. It is hypothesized that the conditions on the planet simply were intolerable to the eukaryotic. So once the conditions changed (and made eukaryotic cells possible) they may have evolved quickly (we do not know). Kind of like waiting in super-slow traffic due to an accident two miles ahead and then finally being released to continue the journey.
One thing that science is pretty clear on is that evolving life to a level of intelligence similar to ours is quite a feat. There are just so many ways it can go wrong it truly is a wonder that we even exist. But, on the other hand, it is very difficult to dismiss almost two trillion galaxies with an average of 200 billion solar systems within them. With a universe that is 13.8 billion years old, that is a lot of time and a lot of environmental conditions for life (of some form) to come into existence and evolve.
We need to resist the temptation to look at evolution as linear. What might have taken a billion years on Earth may have been accomplished in a few hundred thousand in the proper conditions. Also, what we consider life is not the only possible life.
It's possible that the environment of the eukaryotic cell was all it needed, everything was readily available for it to absorb what it needed to survive and replicate, no need to evolve, but now say that the environment of the cell became depleted by the other cells using the same resources, now the only available resource is in other cells so you evolve to eat other cells and evolve protections from being eaten which forces more evolution.
13.8 billions years doesn't leave a lot of time when you have to consider half of that time may have been to hostile or not enough building blocks to start life. For life to evolve in a few hundred thousand years would take many adverse environmental conditions to force evolution to the point I would say that life would be doomed before it could advance very far.
And if 99% of the time the conditions were hostile then 13.8 billion years would be woefully inadequate.
But we are in total speculation mode now. We could just as easily speculate that conditions on exoplanets in this or another galaxy have been ideal for life. Speculation does not get us far.
We know that life did manage to emerge on our planet. And it emerged in a grand fashion and continues to thrive. We estimate that there are almost 2 trillion galaxies with the average galaxy holding about 200 billion solar systems. That is a hell of a lot of exoplanets evolving over a very long period of time.
Having the right conditions for life is tricky, no doubt, but I am encouraged by the vast landscape that our planet is not the only one wherein life has emerged.
If one takes into account all the various conditions in which life can evolve and even thrive, using our own planet as a template, then it's possible that life in the universe just may be more common than we realize.
TiG posted an article.....a while back about microbes that literally live on rocks in space. No atmosphere at all.
I didn't even consider possible space born lifeforms.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't say life would be unlikely, but intelligent life would be the unlikely as the seed states. To me life is the norm, just all the adverse conditions needed to force evolution in the short span of half of the 13.8 billion years make intelligent life unlikely.
We estimate that there are almost 2 trillion galaxies with the average galaxy holding about 200 billion solar systems. That is a hell of a lot of exoplanets evolving over a very long period of time.
And all these exoplanets have the same time constraints as we had, this is assuming the 13.8 billion years is correct.
Not all galaxies & planets are the same 14 billion years old. Our own solar system is only 4.5 billion years old. There are older & newer stars & planets. Older planets had more time for life, including intelligent life, to evolve.
Homo sapiens has been on Planet Earth for approximately .100,000 years? Before that there were the precursors that probably showed up millions of years before that.
Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. That's old. Look at what man has accomplished just with breeding livestock, pets, and grains. Have you seen what corn used to look like before Man got his hand involved in developing it into a really viable food source?
here's an article on how corn was developed:
Ok....., Where did I say the earth and our solar system is 14 billion years old? As I recall we are talking the universe and the likely hood of intelligent life elsewhere. Do you not understand that the formation of all matter and subsequently life did not start for many billions of years after the "big bang", you needed billions if not trillions of stars collapsing and going nova to produce the heavier elements needed to start the process of planet building and life.
You didn't. I was pointing out the age of the universe and that planets & galaxies are not the same ages. Hence, our own solar system is only 4.5 billion years old.
Yes, and it has been pointed out in other posts that intelligent life elsewhere is a likely possibility.
The first galaxies are thought to have formed approximately as early as 200 million years after the Big Bang. Only large stars are capable of going supernova and their massive size means they do not "live" very long compared to smaller stars. Giant, supergiant, and even hypergiant stars have a lifespan in the millions of years-a proverbial blink of the eye in cosmological timescales. So if there were enough such stars early on, then that makes for fertile ground for heavy elements and subsequent planets and smaller stars to form. It took approximately 1 billion years (some think less) for life to form on earth. That gives about 3.5 billion years of evolution to produce intelligent life. Perhaps intelligent life could have appeared even sooner had evolution not essentially "started over" with multiple mass extinction events? But that is just conjecture. Regardless, if one uses Earth as a model, it may have taken billions of years for a planet with a biosphere to form after the Big Bang and billions of more years to produce intelligent life (sooner for simple life). There could have already been intelligent life before the universe was 10 billion years old, around the time the Sol system formed.
Then you would agree with me that the first half of the life of the universe, intelligent life was improbable, which has been my point all along.
What quickened the pace of evolution to intelligent life on Earth was the start overs, adapt or die. In my opinion that's why evolution happened so quickly on Earth.
Speculation. Also, those same events could occur elsewhere.
I would say it becomes increasingly improbable the farther back in time. At what specific point in time intelligent life first evolved in the universe, we'll probably never know. We can only guess.
What they are saying is that it's unlikely our exact type of (supposedly) intelligent life would likely not evolve "the same way somewhere else".
So the headline should actually read "Intelligent life 'like us' really can't exist anywhere else".
It does not rule out some other type of intelligent self aware life forms evolving elsewhere.
I need more proof "intelligent life" exists here
Ha. I was going to say the same. I don't think there is intelligent life on this planet...
I think there might be some, but for the most part it is very well hidden.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." --- George Carlin
Did the emergence of humans end evolution?
Why would evolution end because of humans?
I think it's pretty conceited to think that mankind is the most intelligent species among multiple universes.
don't think i would concede it
It seems to me to be the height of arrogance to think that out of all the untold billions of stars in the universe, earth is the only planet, indeed that we are the only species, to have evolved intelligence over the immense spans of time.
Well, if one has been conditioned from birth to believe that the creator of everything focused its attention on Earth and created the balance of the universe along the way ...
Anthropocentrism is ingrained in world cultures.
Those untold hundreds of billions of trillions of lights were merely the lights in the sky. Of course they are in reality asteroids, planets, stars, supernovas, quasars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc.
And TON 618...
Gives me chills thinking about it.
The awesomeness is hard to grasp.
The presence of intelligent life on earth is not the result of evolution, alone. The earth has experienced several mass extinction events that removed competing species.
From our own planetary history, the emergence of intelligent life capable of creating a civilization depends upon just the right amount of planetary devastation at the right time. Human progenitors survived mass extinction events. Humans likely would not have evolved if an asteroid had not devastated the earth and killed off competing species while not causing our own progenitors to go extinct.
Human existence on earth is more improbable than evolution, alone, would suggest. Mass extinctions also played an important role.
The mass extinctions were part of the evolutionary process. Changes in the environment (good and bad) are part of evolution.
Yes. But that suggests that mass extinctions are more than an interruption in the evolutionary process. Mass extinctions were necessary to allow the evolution of humans.
Humans are unique because of the ability to make our presence known beyond our planet. That ability requires both intelligence and anatomy; brainpower alone wouldn't have made that possible.
In our case, yes, but that's likely not true for all species on other planets. Like I said, extinctions changed our evolutionary path, but it didn't stop evolution.
Mammals could have evolved other ways than by a mass extinction of dinosaurs. Necessary is too strong of a word. We attribute our ability to populate due to the major reduction of predators. Good for us. Other possible paths to our existence are still open.
There are many anatomies and anatomies evolve based upon how they are applied. I would not be so quick to presume that the only anatomy capable of achieving intelligent feats is that which necessarily evolved from mammals.
I cut off the end of my finger this morning so bare with the typo's please.
..
Signals from Earth, (mostly radio), have traveled just 116 LY from Earth. That's nothing. It barely qualifies as, "next door". 13 billion years is a long time, there could have been vast civilizations that rose and fell long before Earth even formed. I very strongly believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
It's hard enough to wrap your head around how big the universe is, we have all heard the, "more stars than grains of sands on all the beaches on Earth". It's a true statement, but it leaves out one detail... There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth and each grain of sand is....6 miles apart, (see the video below).
We live on a planet with live, (duh), to think we are the only one is, in my opinion, arrogant presumption.
And as Ed pointed out... Drake Equation, (which is meant to be used on a galactic scale, not a universe scale), all but proves we can't be alone.
I posted this before but if you have 30 mins and want to understand the scale of the universe, it's fascinating.
So very sorry to hear about cutting off your finger tip. I hope it heals well and soon.
For clarity, that was Mr. Frost, not me.
Cant get it to stop bleeding. LOL Got it good given the pain, deep enough to catch a nerve ending. I'll live. Problem is that I am VERY right handed. Hope I don't have to poop for a few days.
Ha! Sounds like you need a bidet.
Or brown carpet.
Ew.
Or how about a trip to the ER to get the bleeding to stop?
That's what most people suggested on twitter... One problem... Covid and I have risk factors.
I understand. I just don't want you bleeding to death
Well, yeah, but they're mostly going to do what Gordy and Perrie suggested. I think Frost has mentioned having worked in healthcare before. It probably takes a lot of blood to worry him.
I get queasy at the sight of a lot of blood
It does... I am really trying to get away from this subject because I don't like to post WAY off topic. But here is a pic I took this morning.
Direct pressure is the answer.
Ok, that's not as bad as I thought it would be. Nothing to do for that except keep it clean and dry, apply antibiotic ointment, and keep it covered with a gauze dressing for a few days.
Perhaps, but would have drawn a protracted string of curse words from me. As a pitcher I often lose the ability to complete the necessary lavatory paperwork the day following a game. It is why we have evolved with two arms my friend. (-: Heal up soon Mr. Frost!
"life"
OUCH! Hope you heal up quickly.
Asked my neighbor if she had anything to stop bleeding. She sent me a picture of a tampon. Then said she is running to the pharmacy to get something.
Apply pressure to the wound and wrap with a sterile gauze. Put some bacitracin ointment on the gauze and apply to the cut when wrapping.
Always keep two items in your wound kit:
Liquid skin, for light cuts or abrasions.
Liquid stitches for those very deep cuts. You can find them here:
and yes it says for vet use, but it is safe for humans (my vet told me so)
or this:
Which is like getting a stitch without getting one.
Or you can use Superglue, which is also cyanoacrylate, but the Vetbond may be more sanitary - I'm really not sure. But Vetbond and Dermabond (the human version) are cyanoacrylate, which is the same as Superglue.
I can tell you from experience that it stings like the dickens, though.
Seems similar to dermabond, which some physicians use to close small wounds or surgical incisions without stitches.
Don't laugh. Those things can soak up a helluva lot of blood. My dad had to have a cyst on his tailbone lanced and that thing just bled and oozed pus something awful. He soaked thru all the gauze the hospital gave him. Mom got some Kotex and taped that to his back. It worked.
Did exactly that over night. Get the bleeding stopped but of course, when I took the dressing off this morning...it started bleeding again. Got a lot of cleaning to do, looks like someone slaughtered a pig in the bathroom.
Neighbor brought over some liquid skin last night. She forgot to mention there is a lot of alcohol in it.. Ouch. But it did help. So thanks for that.
Had a lot of suggestions to use superglue then pull the wound together.. The problem is that it just shaved the skin off the end, so there is no flap of skin to glue down.
Our high school wrestling team used them for nosebleeds.
hold your hand higher than your heart and smoke weed until you forget it hurts.
I used them for cat toys. this was considered very bad form until I reminded the person that was offended who it was that usually had to go to the store for them.
Did that last night..
You're a gem, just for that.
it was only embarrassing the first time, but I could never figure out why she wouldn't stockpile them. meh, probably to torture me.
I did order some of those micromend wound closures.. Wouldn't work for this wound but.....i'll always injure myself again.
Ouch! Hope you heal quickly
Anyway, sorry for the slight derail Nerm... Excellent article, thanks for posting it.
Well, accidents happen. Hope yours is just a temporary inconvenience.
The idea that the vast universe contains so many planets that intelligence must have evolved elsewhere as a statistical certainty has become conventional wisdom.
What the article addresses is the improbability of intelligent life evolving on earth. Keep in mind that mammals had a chance to evolve because of a catastrophic mass extinction event. Humans likely would not have evolved if an asteroid had not devastated the planet and caused mass extinction without killing every living thing on the planet.
The evolution of humans required a number of mass extinction events that caused just the right amount of devastation; enough to wipe out competing species but not too much to wipe out all higher forms of life. The emergence of intelligent life on earth required mass extinctions along with suitable conditions for evolution. Which means the existence of humans is much more improbable than has been accounted for by the Drake Equation.
It is impossible to consider the many factors that worked together to produce the current state of life on our planet. But we do know that all life is highly related and that at least one life form has emerged with intelligence (as we define it). That means we know it is possible for evolution to produce intelligence.
I can't say I disagree but I also think that had the asteroid that killed the dino's never hit the Earth, it's likely that ultimately they would have evolved to be equally intelligent over time.
Speculation of course, but 65 million years would have seen a LOT of evolution.
Doesn't it require more than intelligence? Humans are not the only intelligent creatures on the planet capable of solving problems, using tools, and organizing themselves into complex social structures.
Humans are unique because intelligence is combined with an anatomy that provides the capability to make our presence known beyond our own planet. And the rise of humans depended upon planetary devastation as well as evolution.
The Oxford study mentioned in the seed article addresses the improbability of intelligent life capable of making its presence known beyond its own planet. Simple life may, indeed, be common throughout the universe. Evolution of simple life into complex life possessing intelligence is certainly statistically plausible. But the history of our own planet indicates that the probability of intelligent life capable of making its presence known in the universe would be extraordinarily slim.
Humans are unique because of intelligence, an opposable thumb, and ability to adapt to any terrestrial environment on the planet. That's extremely rare on planet Earth. And the improbability of the existence of humans suggest that would be even more rare elsewhere in the universe.
To evolve to an advanced civilization? Not really.
True, but can we name another species that can say, build a space shuttle? It's pretty much just us. While I do think that extinction level events certainly shaped the evolutionary tree of life, I don't think that evolution would have stopped had there been no extinction level event, I just think the tree of life would have looked much different.
I agree, but we don't know what life would look like elsewhere, there are....almost limitless possibilities as to what could evolve elsewhere. See, we are biased, we equate intelligence with what WE look like. For all we know, there could be an equally intelligent life form on another planet that lives as a bucket of slime. Netflix did a series about what life may look like on other planets. All speculation of course but interesting.
I just find it very unlikely that we are it, the one and only.
Evolution has made humans very adaptable to the Earth's climate. The same way polar bears have white fur, evolved that way so they can hunt better in a snowy environment.
Other planets would quite obviously have species that evolved to that climate. More gravity? The species would likely be shorter than us, less gravity? Taller, just one example.
[removed]
How is an anecdote about aliens off topic in an article about whether alien life exists?!
This is an offshoot of the anthropomorphic principle. When you take a unique event - and then say lets look for the probability of that unique event with no deviation - you get a very small likelihood.
There are probably a million ways for intelligent "life" to develop but we're looking for just one - because the only example we have to extrapolate from is our own.
This analogy underestimates the scale of the Universe and the issue with dealing with very large numbers. Given a large enough sample size and a discrete non-zero likelihood - even unlikely events happen with regularity. But to go back to my first point - in reality we're looking for someone who hit the jackpot six times - but there are likely all sorts of other prizes. If instead of just the powerball jackpot - we knew to look for the five dollar scratch winner as well - we'd quickly re-evaluate the impossibility of multiple lottery winning scenarios when Uncle Frank comes over and tells you he scratched four winners just last week.
Okay, so who's been planting those monoliths?
Not to go off topic, but since we're talking about the universe and such, I wanted to remind everyone of the Geminids Meteor Shower this month, peaking on Dec. 13-14. It should be quite a show.
What makes life here possible may not be the same on other planets.
Agreed, all sorts of different types of life are possible. Who says intelligent life must breath oxygen (plus) and be based on Carbon?