Earth is Probably Unique

[mistermack]

I think it's you that needs a new hat.
Rare events are usually rare, because there are very few ways they can happen.

Rubbish. A particular sequence on a roulette wheel is rare, but there are many possible sequences.

Yes, there's only one way a particular sequence can happen. Among millions of other possible sequences.
That matches what I said.

Only if you can show that there is only one possible sequence of events that might lead to the formation of life.

Please proceed.

No. I didn't say that. It doesn't follow from anything I said. And you wouldn't understand anyway.

[rainbow]

I think it's you that needs a new hat.
Rare events are usually rare, because there are very few ways they can happen.

Rubbish. A particular sequence on a roulette wheel is rare, but there are many possible sequences.

Yes, there's only one way a particular sequence can happen. Among millions of other possible sequences.
That matches what I said.

Only if you can show that there is only one possible sequence of events that might lead to the formation of life.

Please proceed.

No. I didn't say that.

Yes. You did.

It doesn't follow from anything I said.

Of course it does. You were wrong.

And you wouldn't understand anyway.

Try me.

[mistermack]

Try me.

You don't even understand your own posts.
The "monkeys with typewriters" example, that you keep blathering about, is totally irrelevant to this discussion, because it's making a point about INFINITY.
Which you obviously don't get.

Infinity is a concept, not a real thing. In a finite universe, no REAL succession of monkeys and typewriters could ever produce the works of Shakespeare.

So your point, from the beginning, just shows your lack of understanding of the difference between reality, and the theoretical.

But, if you have information that the Universe is infinite, I'm sure there would be lots of eager cosmologists out there, gagging to share in your revelations.

[rainbow]

Try me.

You don't even understand your own posts.
The "monkeys with typewriters" example, that you keep blathering about, is totally irrelevant to this discussion, because it's making a point about INFINITY.

It is making a point about very large numbers and very improbable events.
You've admitted that life emerging is an improbable event.

Good. So what are the chances that it would emerge in the same way somewhere else?

[Brian Peacock]

The essential thing about life, is the ability to reproduce and evolve.
For a complicated being to evolve from basic molecules or energy systems, it seems likely that reproduction is essential. And not perfect reproduction, because there would be no evolution. And not hugely IMPERFECT reproduction, because that wouldn't be reproduction.

You need something that reproduces, almost perfectly, with just the very rarest of errors.

Scientists have been trying to achieve that kind of thing in the lab, with no success.
So other kinds of life seem no easier to start up, than our kind.

The thing about the universe is that it might seem infinitely varied, with the vast numbers of stars and planets. But actually, it's surprisingly uniform, as all matter is composed of the same basic elements of the periodic table. And all of the solid bodies came about in the same way, from gas clouds of hydrogen and helium forming stars, exploding as supernovas, producing some of the heavier elements.

So even if the quantity of ingredients is near infinite, the number and nature of the available ingredients is limited, and likely to be very similar. And similar ingredients will probably make similar cakes.

So if we can't make a different kind of life here on Earth, it might be just as unlikely everywhere else.

I've often mused about the chances of reproduction involving massless particles, travelling at the speed of light. What if they could get together in some way, and reproduce, like our organic particles do?
You could have evolution happening at the speed of light. All of our development, that's taken nearly five billion years of evolution, could happen in a month.
You could go from mindless particles to super-intelligent aliens, in between your monthly pay-cheques.

The problem here of course is that we are trying to draw conclusion from a sample of one and apply it to a massive system. Yet we can confirm that life has evolved in at least one case, and that Earth is not unique in as much as we have observed other solar systems with large outer gas giants balancing small inner rocky minnows against their central star. Sure we don't know the exact conditions that lead to our own biosphere, but if we apply the 'Goldilocks' assumption to the c.1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe, and allow for even a fraction of 1% having rocky planets similar to our own that fall within a Goldilocks zone (say 0.0001%), then that's still a truly massive number of potentially life-viable planets (1,000,000,000,000,000). Finding evidence of life elsewhere in our own solar system would bump that number by an order of magnitude and, effectively, signal that life was ubiquitous to the universe.

Reproduction at the speed of light would, I fear, be impossible because at c time stands still.

[rainbow]

The essential thing about life, is the ability to reproduce and evolve.
For a complicated being to evolve from basic molecules or energy systems, it seems likely that reproduction is essential. And not perfect reproduction, because there would be no evolution. And not hugely IMPERFECT reproduction, because that wouldn't be reproduction.

You need something that reproduces, almost perfectly, with just the very rarest of errors.

Scientists have been trying to achieve that kind of thing in the lab, with no success.
So other kinds of life seem no easier to start up, than our kind.

The thing about the universe is that it might seem infinitely varied, with the vast numbers of stars and planets. But actually, it's surprisingly uniform, as all matter is composed of the same basic elements of the periodic table. And all of the solid bodies came about in the same way, from gas clouds of hydrogen and helium forming stars, exploding as supernovas, producing some of the heavier elements.

So even if the quantity of ingredients is near infinite, the number and nature of the available ingredients is limited, and likely to be very similar. And similar ingredients will probably make similar cakes.

So if we can't make a different kind of life here on Earth, it might be just as unlikely everywhere else.

I've often mused about the chances of reproduction involving massless particles, travelling at the speed of light. What if they could get together in some way, and reproduce, like our organic particles do?
You could have evolution happening at the speed of light. All of our development, that's taken nearly five billion years of evolution, could happen in a month.
You could go from mindless particles to super-intelligent aliens, in between your monthly pay-cheques.

The problem here of course is that we are trying to draw conclusion from a sample of one and apply it to a massive system. Yet we can confirm that life has evolved in at least one case, and that Earth is not unique in as much as we have observed other solar systems with large outer gas giants balancing small inner rocky minnows against their central star. Sure we don't know the exact conditions that lead to our own biosphere, but if we apply the 'Goldilocks' assumption to the c.1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe, and allow for even a fraction of 1% having rocky planets similar to our own that fall within a Goldilocks zone (say 0.0001%), then that's still a truly massive number of potentially life-viable planets (1,000,000,000,000,000). Finding evidence of life elsewhere in our own solar system would bump that number by an order of magnitude and, effectively, signal that life was ubiquitous to the universe.

Reproduction at the speed of light would, I fear, be impossible because at c time stands still.

Yes, but if there is only a one in a billionty-billion chance of life emerging on any typical 'earthlike' planet, then the chances of life emerging anywhere in the universe are slim, and hence the initial statement would stand.

Even very big numbers multiplied by very small numbers, don't necessarily give you somewhat big numbers.

[Rum]

However knowing that we don't know means we don't know really doesn't it?

[rainbow]

Rum is short for....


Rumsfeld

[mistermack]

You don't even understand your own posts.
The "monkeys with typewriters" example, that you keep blathering about, is totally irrelevant to this discussion, because it's making a point about INFINITY.

It is making a point about very large numbers and very improbable events.
You've admitted that life emerging is an improbable event.

You really have no idea do you, of the concept of infinity?
It's not about very large numbers. That doesn't even come close. Until you understand the difference, you are as much use as the typewriter monkey.

[mistermack]

The problem here of course is that we are trying to draw conclusion from a sample of one and apply it to a massive system. Yet we can confirm that life has evolved in at least one case, and that Earth is not unique in as much as we have observed other solar systems with large outer gas giants balancing small inner rocky minnows against their central star. Sure we don't know the exact conditions that lead to our own biosphere, but if we apply the 'Goldilocks' assumption to the c.1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe, and allow for even a fraction of 1% having rocky planets similar to our own that fall within a Goldilocks zone (say 0.0001%), then that's still a truly massive number of potentially life-viable planets (1,000,000,000,000,000). Finding evidence of life elsewhere in our own solar system would bump that number by an order of magnitude and, effectively, signal that life was ubiquitous to the universe.

I wasn't arguing against the likelihood of life evolving. I would agree that it's highly likely, given the numbers. I was just suggesting that it's possible that there is only one KIND of life that could evolve. And I'm not championing that as a fact. Just discussing it as a possibility.

Reproduction at the speed of light would, I fear, be impossible because at c time stands still.

It stands still for the photon (for example) but it doesn't stand still for anything that's NOT travelling at the speed of light. So that photon can still interact with your eye, or be deflected by gravity, or do whatever else light does.
Anyway, it's just a whimsical notion, not a serious suggestion.

But you can run simulated evolution in the chip of a computer, at far higher speeds than we have witnessed here on Earth. So that's a sort of electrical evolution, that can happen in the real world.

[Brian Peacock]

My ex used to complain that I reproduced at the speed of light, but then again, I was a general and she was a relative.

[Hermit]

I wasn't arguing against the likelihood of life evolving. I would agree that it's highly likely, given the numbers. I was just suggesting that it's possible that there is only one KIND of life that could evolve. And I'm not championing that as a fact. Just discussing it as a possibility.

I recommend reading The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle.

[piscator]

My ex used to complain that I reproduced at the speed of light, but then again, I was a general and she was a relative.

NSFW:

[Brian Peacock]

Leonardo should have got his Oscar for that one rather than the bear wrestling movie.

[JimC]

The monkeys doing Shakespeare thing does not require infinite time. It may well require many times longer than the current age of the Universe, but it would happen ins some vast but finite length of time.