Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life on other Planets?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 16 of 160 (594354)
12-03-2010 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


...there is life on other planets?
Almost certainly (and I only include the "almost" out of due deference to tentativity)
Now, how much of this life has developed into something more complex than a basic microbial stage is another question entirely...
Basic reasoning for the above (off the top of my head):
Abiogenesis is a physical process and thus we can assign a gross probability, p, to the probability that abiogenesis occurs in a single trial.
The number of trials appropriate to p is roughly the number of stellar systems to +/- an order of magnitude or so.
Let us consider just the Observable Universe. That gives an n of around 1022. Let X be the number of abiogenetic events.
If p>10-22, then E(X)>1 and P(X=1) is very small.
If p~10-22, then E(X)~1, but still P(X>1) > P(X=1), and suggests a level of "fine-tuning" which would require further explanation.
If P<10-22, then E(X)~0 and P(X=1)>>P(X>1), but P(X=1)<<1 and thus X=1 is a highly significant event which requires further explanation.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 7:53 AM cavediver has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 17 of 160 (594356)
12-03-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by cavediver
12-03-2010 7:29 AM


Well, as long as you are going to try to make things convoluted, don't you at least have to say what capital "E" and capital "P" are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2010 7:29 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2010 8:22 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 18 of 160 (594362)
12-03-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 7:53 AM


Sorry, standard stats notation - E(X) is the Expectation of X, otherwise known as the mean in other contexts, and E(X) = n x p in this context. P() is simply the probability of the condition in the brackets.
Example with dice: X is rolling a six; n is number of rolls, p is probability of rolling a six.
So with p=1/6, n=6
E(X)=1 (i.e. we expect to get 1 six when rolling a die 6 times)
P(X=1) = 0.4 (but the probability of getting 1 six is actually only 0.4, so even though we "expect" 1 six, we are more likely to get something else!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 8:28 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:01 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 19 of 160 (594365)
12-03-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by cavediver
12-03-2010 8:22 AM


I see.
But how do you arrive at 0.4 for the probability of 1 six? Why isn't it .3? Or .45?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : left out word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2010 8:22 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2010 8:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 20 of 160 (594369)
12-03-2010 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 8:28 AM


But how do you arrive at 0.4 for the probability of 1 six? Why isn't it .3? Or .45?
Count up the probabilities: six rolls, so the six could occur on any one roll.
P(six on 1st roll, and not a six on other five rolls) = 1/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6
P(six on 2nd roll, and not a six on other five rolls) = 5/6 x 1/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6
P(six on 3rd roll, and not a six on other five rolls) = 5/6 x 5/6 x 1/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6
etc...
These are mutually exclusive probabilities, so they can be added up to give
P(six on just one roll, and not a six on the other five rolls) = 0.40 (2 d.p.)
We can condense the arithmatic by using the mathematics of the Binomial Distribution:
P(X=r|n, p) = pr(1-p)(n-r)Cnr
In this case, we have
P(X=1 | 6, 1/6) = (1/6) x (5/6)5 x C61 = 0.40 (2 d.p.)
Oh, and...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 8:28 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 21 of 160 (594382)
12-03-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


That the universe is very highly complex at certain places is not very surprising. I would consider such occurrences to be automatically occurring; i.e. statistically and energetically favoured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 160 (594383)
12-03-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


Re: life out there
Hi Bolder,
Bolder-dash writes:
How many people here believe there is life on other planets?
Yes there is life out there, somewhere.
I don't know about other planets in our universe but in the universe that our universe exists in there is definitely life that is responsible for this universe and all life forms on this planet.
Yes I know I don't have physical verifiable reproducible evidence to support such a statement.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 23 of 160 (594393)
12-03-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Larni
12-03-2010 5:35 AM


After all, there is only so much information you can gather with an anal probe.
Well on the other hand if they think of us like we think of monkeys, some experimentation would happen if they where here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 12-03-2010 5:35 AM Larni has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 24 of 160 (594398)
12-03-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by cavediver
12-03-2010 8:22 AM


Yes I see. I don't want to get too far off topic with stats, and maybe I will start another thread, but I believe that there is a way of looking at stats that some theorists agree on and some don't. After this post I will continue it elsewhere, but it goes something like this.
If you are going to roll the dice six times and the first two times do not come up with a six, does your probability increase that one of the next 4 times you will get a six (it s a little simplified, but that's the gist of it)? I know I know, the probability for every roll of the dice is the same, and is unaffected by previous rolls..or so it would seem! But I have tested this theory on numerous occasions in gambling situations, and I can tell you that statistically I am way way ahead of the game. In fact I have calculated that I am right at least 75-85% of the time during an evenings worth of gambling. I won't go into the specifics here, but the thing is I always win. How can this be? Is it luck? I guess it could be, but I don't think so (I am not making any of this up). The fact is of all the times I have gambled I have only ever lost money at a casino one time. Go figure.
So what are we to believe, what numbers can show or what empirical tests show (me). BTW I have tested my theory literally hundreds of times in a casino, so its not just random error. The point is that when stats say one thing and real life information says another, who do you believe? I don't know.
Ok, a small diversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2010 8:22 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 11:37 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 1:38 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 12-03-2010 2:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 25 of 160 (594405)
12-03-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


How many people here believe there is life on other planets?
I will be just as pedantic as the rest of the EvCer's and state that "belief" is too strong of a word. I will say that I would be very surprised if there were not life elsewhere in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 26 of 160 (594406)
12-03-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2010 2:42 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
I have yet to see the argument --- but it seems to me that any argument that implies an ontological uniqueness for my planet and my species could also with minor adjustments be turned into an argument for the ontological uniqueness of my race, my gender, my nationality or just for me personally. In fact, sight unseen, I am willing to wager a small sum that any such argument will make more sense if applied to me personally.
I've wondered about that myself and you may well be right. I mentioned it to my wife one day and she told me it made sense to her as I certainly live in my own universe. Don't know what she could have meant by that.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 2:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 27 of 160 (594408)
12-03-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 11:01 AM


If you are going to roll the dice six times and the first two times do not come up with a six, does your probability increase that one of the next 4 times you will get a six (it s a little simplified, but that's the gist of it)?
As to the probability of life elsewhere in the universe, I have another analogy.
Let's say that I have a huge warehouse stacked to the ceiling with tiny little tiles. All of them are face down. I ask you to randomly pick one of these tiles, and you do so. You flip it over and see that it has the number 42 on it (homage to Mr. Adams).
With just that information, what are the odds that you would have picked a tile with the number 42 on it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:01 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:10 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 160 (594409)
12-03-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


Likely?
I would say that the likelihood of there being other life than just on earth is relatively high, certainly higher than the likelihood of the Exodus every happening or the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah or of any prophecy of Jesus standing up to examination.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 29 of 160 (594411)
12-03-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2010 2:42 AM


I have yet to see the argument --- but it seems to me that any argument that implies an ontological uniqueness for my planet and my species could also with minor adjustments be turned into an argument for the ontological uniqueness of my race, my gender, my nationality or just for me personally. In fact, sight unseen, I am willing to wager a small sum that any such argument will make more sense if applied to me personally.
Or even more importantly, the argument is just as valid for the bacteria in your gut, perhaps even one species of bacteria, and perhaps just one single bacterium. Perhaps that one bacterium looks out at a universe that seems fine tuned to produce humans so that it has such a nice place to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 2:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 30 of 160 (594423)
12-03-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taq
12-03-2010 11:37 AM


My scenario was not some kind of analogy per se (so it really doesn't pertain to your question)-its a real fact. If traditional statistics were correct it should not be possible for the hundred or so times that I have gambled in a casino, to only lose once (and actually there is a caveat to my one lose story-I bet all of my considerable winning from earlier in the day on one particular bet as a whim because I had won so much that day and was feeling stupid). Other than that time, I have never lost. And you can't even say that was a loss really , because it was the money I won earlier that day that I gambled that evening. I always bet using a system similar to what I described. So something is wrong-either the stats or wrong, or I have defied probability too many times.
Now all I can say about this is that life is unusual (and I can guarantee you that I have many more stories than this to prove it). You can say well its just an anomaly, as you are always going to get anomalies. But when does an anomaly become a trend? When does an anomaly become empirical evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 11:37 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 12:21 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 12-03-2010 12:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024