Statistical impossibility??

Don't feel too overwhelmed.. and it is the honest question that is not asked that is the unintellgent one.You certainly can get enough information here to have you thinking for a bit.

I think you're researching will go faster if you take advantage of those here to ask questions.I've never seen anyone here mind questions; even "stupid" ones. Those with the most expertise understand how much there is to learn and that others haven't had time to learn so much. They also understand their own ignorance in other things.What is not appreciated is those who ask the same stupid questions over and over or even make ridiculous pronouncments after having been corrected.To my mind, the most apparently stupid questions are often the most important. I try to be good at asking them.

ecohing Ram and ned .. do ask , i find the massive range of answers you get here helps , i get good basic answers for the areas i have little knowledge , through to the mose detailed exacting proofs where im trying to peer deeper , of then the differing ways of expalianing help me see the ideas in ways i did not consider .i find research is so often helped by someone confirming my thoughts , of showing me a better way of dealing with the facts .And it is true explaing to other does help with ones own understanding , as you have tto order your thoughs to make the inteligable to others .Also it is often the case the inocent mind askes the deeper questions , and casuse the Sage to question his wisdom .....Make use of this place. . . . .

I would think simple common sense would dictate that even the most pessimistic estimation as to the smallest percentage of stars that likely have planets orbiting them in our known universe would make it a much more statistical probability that life exists elsewhere in our universe.Taking into account just the number of stars that are within the size of ours plus or minus 25 percent and the age of ours plus or minus 25 percent would still be a huge number. If one was to accept Bode’s law as plausible expectation in some large percentage of this prior subset we then get a smaller (but still very large number) of stars at this very moment in time that likely have habitable planets orbiting them.Recent findings as to the worst possible conditions on this planet that could exist and still contain some form of life would do nothing but increase the number of habitable planets from the subset above so I would say that it is much more realistic to assume that it would be a statistical impossibility for their NOT to be life elsewhere in our known universe.The concept of any form of valid contrary argument escapes my abilities. I cannot conceive of any intelligent reasoning person on this planet with a rudimentary grasp of the number of stars in our known universe being able to stand there and say that we are probably the only planet in the entire known universe with a habitable planet. But I am biased, I guess since I already know the answer.

Instinctively I think that you both might agree to some extent with my instincts.Until someone can prove that there is not a largest slice of time or a smallest slice of time or a largest slice of distance or a smallest slice of distance it would seem logical to deduce that is better than a 50% chance that both continue outwards and inwards for an infinite number of iterations.But lets for a second ignore all the space outside our known universe and all the space inside what we call elementary particles and only concentrate on this infinitesimal little pocket of space time that we call our known universe and that which we can see within it.My question is do either of you have a good estimate as to the number of known stars that are similar in size to our sun plus or minus 20% and similar in age to ours plus or minus 20%.And secondly if Bode’s law is a derivative of the gravitational attraction that could make a pool of elementary particles merge together at certain distances from each other and thus form planets then would it not be an almost statistical impossibility for there not to be other planets in our known universe that are similar in size to ours at a similar distance from their sun as ours is.

Small clarification. I did not mean to imply that our observation of ONE solar system is sufficient enough to give any further merit to Bode's law as a valid reason for calculating an estimated number of planets within a specfic distance of their relative central star. Just that there is no conclusive evidence to support an interaction of the laws of physics near other similarly sized and simiarlty dense stars where Bode's law would not hold true.

Our sun is a G class star - current estimates suggest they make up about 8% of the galactic population. There are other classes such as F and K that might be candidates, but I think 8% of 200 billion is probably enough to work with.The age of a star is fairly irrelevent in the debate - Instead we need to look for what are known as population I stars. These stars formed with elements heavier than helium, thus allowing planetary formation, and consequently then the basic building blocks for life to accumulate.Unfortunately I have not found any definitive data on numbers of this population. But in essence anything outside the galactic bulge should qualify.Either way there are a bucket load of oppotunities for life to get started in just our galaxy - In the whole universe.... the numbers would be mind boggling

Thank You. Anybody else with any form of useful facts would be welcomed.

Firstly, the phrase "...it would be statistically impossible" doesn't make sense. If something is impossible, it doesn't happen, and no statistics are involved. If something is possible (no matter how improbable), it has a greater than zero statistical chance of happening. These are really just the definitions of impossible and possible. I don't think i am just nit-picking here. A great many arguments presented on this forums topics make the statement that some probability is so small that it is essentially zero. Of all the numbers, and there are a whole bunch of them, only one gets to be essentially zero. (and no, its not the square root of pi.)I think the previous posts have addressed what you were most likely referring to, but before the current hubbub about the likelihood of our universe existing arose, there was equally heated discussion about the Drake Equation , which is also described here: Wiki Article on Drake Eq. .This equation, put forward in 1961, tries to estimate how many planets in our galaxy are currently occupied by technologically advanced civilizations. The real value of studying the discussion that evolved around this equation is to see just how easy it is to come up with something that seams to be scientifically or mathematically valid but is really just nonsense because of the lack of knowledge surrounding its key aspects. It has been shown that even very small changes in the values of fundamental constants or laws will radically change the nature of our universe, but there is no way to determine whether there might be other combinations, or even an infinite number of combinations, that could lead to complex structures of 'stuff'.

I loved the logic shown in your linked article. What his argument boils down to is that for something to exist, it must have a set of traits and specific values of at least some of those traits, since its existence is defined by its traits and their values. Since many of these traits will have an infinite range of possible values and the 'something' will only have one or at best a very limited finite range of these values, the probability of anything having that specific set of values and thus existing is zero.But god has a very specific set of traits and a limited set of values of those traits - e. g., he/she/it is merciful and all loving, etc. Thus, the author of that tract has nicely proven that god cannot exist. Of course, the author himself/herself/itself also cannot exist, so we are left with the question: If the existence of god is disproved by a nonexistent entity, does that mean that god can still exist?

If you read through some of the threads on this forum you'll likely see that I have posted on a number of science threads. I started with zero knowledge and have moved only slightly from that position. I'd suggest maintaining the degree of humility that you have because I've found that as long as I don't suggest that I know what I'm talking about people go easy on me. Please keep posting and asking questions because you are far from alone in being here because you want to learn.One more suggestion; I'd get hold of a book by Brian Greene called "The Fabric of the Cosmos". IMHO it is the best book available if you want to get an idea of what's going on in the physics world.By the way, as far as a statistical impossibility goes, I do think that it is worthwhile looking at the number of things that are required to be exactly correct for us to exist and then come to your own conclusion about which is most likely; good luck or good design.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Actually, one of the major hallmarks of intelligent design is DESIGN MARGIN! Only a very stupid design has so little margin that even the slightest changes in the design parameters totally disrupts the function of the 'product'. Remember the problem that Ford SUVs had with Bridgestone tires? If the tire pressure was not exactly correct, the vehicles became unstable and had a tendency to flip. The annals of industrial design are littered with such stories of defunct products and companies that were too tightly designed and suffered from inadequate design margin. So its ironic that some try to use the precarious semi-stability of the laws and constants of nature to argue for intelligent design in the universe.

It may be precarious but it seems to be working. So far so good.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Ya, 'n dem Ford SUVs drove real sweet 'til you took a corner a tad too fast. Not sure what the universal counterpart to fast cornering is, but there is some indication that some of those constants are slowly changing. How long until the get into the kaboom range? I just know I'm keeping my life insurance paid up. My real point in previous post is that when designers get their annual performance review, its based more on results than intentions. It appears that the so called intelligent designer didn't graduate from MIT with Summa Cum Laude. I would think that ID proponents would be trying to refute the improbable universe theories rather than embrace them.It appears that the majority of people strongly believe the multiple universe concept with other universes having quite different physics. At least one of these universes (they believe) can support intelligent life that is disease free and immortal (disease and decease free).-------------------
The downside of immortallity is that the second trillion years can drag on a bit.Reqards, AnInGeEdited by AnswersInGenitals, : edited to correct spelling and add really cute comment.

Ya, 'n dem Ford SUVs drove real sweet 'til you took a corner a tad too fast. Not sure what the universal counterpart to fast cornering isDefinately the Type 2 Supernova