|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life on other Planets? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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 5/6P(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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024