Alien life? -- your take on the subject

"…nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge...further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." –Edward U. Condon

Ah, but there's gold in them thar hills . . .

Anyone who does not see that those who write books about alien visitations, and maintain web sites to contend that such happens regularly and is the subject of a government cover-up conspiracy--deserves to be separated from their cash in order to buy the claptrap books which make those hucksters a good living.

Indeed there is gold Setanta,

As peddlars of religion, charlatans, spoon benders and cold fusionists know.

[actually not sure about cold fusion, could save the world and [/i] be new a thread on a2k?]

This, of course is merely one more opinion.

It seems to me that a lot of sweeping generalisations are being offered on the evidence of one case of life existing.

We have no way of telling if the solitary sample we have here is unique or is commonplace. We just do not have any more evidence other than one case.

The commonest argumet is "Here is a great big number, . . ." followed by "Must". But this is tantamount to saying "Of all of the people in New York, there MUST be one called John". But it is also tantamount to saying "There are more photons in the universe than there are planets. Given that huge number, at least one of them MUST be able to sing "Waltzing Matilda" while tap dancing and accompanying itself on the ukelele". One statement patently true and the other patently untrue

Each is a great big number followed by "Must". The difference is that we know enough to weigh the probabilities of there being someone called 'John' or the probability of there being such a photon. We do not know enough to weigh the probabilities of abundant - or otherwise - life in the universe. A big number followed by "must" is not evidence or even a valid argument.

Well said, Mungo . . . the technique is similar to argumentum ad populum . . . nicely stated . . .

Except, we know that there is at least one instance of life - we do not know:



ever existing - therefore they are not analogous. After saying that, I do believe the point is well taken.............

The universe is infinitesimal, unless I am mistaken. And even if we live on a planet that is unique because it has all the qualities needed to support life, there's still a chance that another planet in all of infinity would meet said requirements.

If they're more advanced than we are, that explains why they aren't responding to us. After all, would you want to introduce to your rare, life-supporting planet a species that so diligently works towards destroying the resources of its own planet?

I've always had pretty much the same idea on this topic; which is to say, not much has changed in the way of "research" since I've been alive.

To use the two polar oppostites: It is entirely possible that intelligent life has emerged, evolved to its highest possible capability, and gone extinct, somewhere in the universe. It is also entirely possible that our situation here on Earth is unique.

From this I think we may conclude that until travel near the speed of light, wormholes et al, are not just science fiction, the best we can do is speculate.

In turn, I tend to lean, on the basis of probability (we are, in fact, dealing with numbers beyond our comprehension), toward there being intelligent life, both now extinct and presently. The obvious problem being, we may never know.

I'll tell you.
In an infinite universe, super universe, super super universe, super super super universe (and so on), there is not only an infinite amount of possibilities, there is infinite being, infinite is.
What I mean is that everything in the universe (super universe) that is at all possible is happening somewhere within it. This is because of infinite possibility and its related infinite reality.

Well, now, Battery Wife, consider this; in an infinite universe, there would be infinite possibility the converse would be true ... presenting a rather thorny paradox.

Oh, and Welcome to A2K ... hope you like it here. Explore the neighborhoods ... no telling what you might find.

Considering how humans treat their fellow man, I"m forming the opinion that if there is intelligent life out there, I hope we don't find them.

Alien Lifeforms: With more research discovering lifeforms on earth that exist from one of the coldest places (antarctica) to the hottest ( volcanic vents), from oxygen based to sulfur based, the traditional view on conditions for the existance of life has been stretched ( in a way these new lifeforms that are being discovered are alien lifeforms for us ). Those conditions may be available on other planets in other galaxies. Of course, just having one of the possible environments for existence of life somewhere is insufficient, unless the formation of living entities is a possibility. Formation of living entities cannot be ruled out apriori, so yes I would think there is a possibility that Alien lifeforms exists outside Earth.

Intelligence with respect to humans: Since we are human, we tend to use us as a reference for intelligence in other living beings, which is my reason for comparing with humans, although humans have such a broad range of intelligence that once does not have an absolute reference. If alien life forms can be a primitive and less intelligent lifeforms, I see no reason to discard the possibility that there may be more intelligent life forms. In the former case, the chances they will contact us are small. In the latter, the possibilities are endless and one cant rule out the scenario that they already are amongst us. Which reminds me of the 'prime directive' often invoked in Star Trek (NG), perhaps something like that is keeping them from openly contacting us. It is all speculation until proved.

Superior Lifeform ? : I've ofen wondered, if a 'superior' lifeform would just be technologically superior or in other ways. I mean all life forms are material manifestations of energy unless one includes the possibility of existence of beings that are mostly energy and negligible matter ( ok so that might border somewhat on the notion of god, but i'm not invoking it ). Ancient buddhist and hindu and other similar philosophies do suggest the possibility of a less material and more spiritiual ( or more energy based, if such a connection is not too far fetched ) level of existence. If that is a superior lifeform, it would be alien to most of us. It being mostly energy, could perhaps exist anywhere irrespective of the environmental conditions. That would be just another possibility. Would welcome any thoughts on that.

UFO's: I have never seen one and if seeing is beliveing I shouldnt believe in their existence. But I cannot discard the possibility of their existence. If an alien lifeform is technologically superior, it might want to explore and Earth like any other planet could be a destination for them. I wonder if any lifeforms exist on Mars, they might be thinking(if they are intelligent enough) of Spirit or Opportunity as UFO's that might have crashed or landed. And with plans to land humans on mars, a martian lifeform (if it exists) is likely to see humans as aliens visiting their planet in UFO's. So UFO's may exist or not, may imply the existence of intelligent enough lifeforms or not, but one cannot rule out the possibility that they exist.

http://www.konkyo.org/english/seti.html

The chances of a another intelligent life bearing planet existing anywhere in our Universe have been seriously downgraded to 1 : 10 ^ 20 against!

So its odds on we are very alone!

Small extract - ignoring the 33 planetary and galactic conditions to support life and their importance and probability.

* * *

Probability of all necessary parameters occurring on one planet

In order to calculate the probability for the existence of other life supporting planets in the universe, at least two other factors must be taken into account. First of all, it needs to be recognized that a number of the above parameters are interdependent, and thus a simple multiplication of individual probabilities will give too low a figure. Thus, a dependency factor needs to be added in.

On the other hand, the dependency factor is at least partially canceled out by a longevity factor, in that all of the parameters must be maintained within acceptable limits for very long periods of time. In the case of the earth, that means almost 4 billion years!

How large are these factors? Dr. Hugh Ross uses in his estimates 10 ^ 9 for the dependency factor and .0001 for the longevity factor. Putting all of these factors together, that means that the probability of the 33 parameters mentioned above that have estimated probability factors to all come together in one planet comes out to one in 10 ^ 42 (or 10 ^ -42)! As there are a number of other parameters being researched for their sensitivity to the support of life on a planet at the probability of finding a Jupiter-like planet as part of a planetary system and numerous other factors not included in the figures above), the odds are probably many orders of magnitude worse! Even if one is generous and makes the dependency factor a million times greater the odds still only rise to 10-36!

As there are at the most only approximately 10 ^ 23 stars in the entire universe, it becomes quite obvious that the odds of finding even one star with a life supporting planet is very small - about 10 ^ -20 according to the probabilities listed above. One can, of course, argue with some of the probability estimates for specific parameters, as different scientists using different assumptions and rationales will no doubt come out with different probabilities for at least some of the planetary parameters. The figures used above are, according to Dr. Ross, rather optimistic figures, and thus the probability is high that many of these parameters are even further restrictive. Likewise, it should be added that while we can directly observe only the 9 planets of our own solar system, we have literally trillions of stars that we can observe and make measurements on. Thus, the figures for the stellar parameters are far more certain.

i repeat;
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20276&start=120

(my response @ 15 March; 08:23 +/-)

If a tree falls in the forest - an no one can observe it - can someone say it has fallen?

Space is our forest - in spades. Space is unimaginably big. With an currently calculated diameter of 40 billion light years - still expanding and at an accelerating rate - we will simply never absolulely answer this question unless we develop way faster than light speed travel. And I mean billions of times faster and pin point accurate to resolve this one (unless the other guy develops the technology first).

If your call viruses life - then yes I concede there is plenty of alien life - and that was possible to be our original genesis - descendents of virus trapped in comets that crashed into the right planet at the right time.

But intelligent life I guess is extremely rare and possibly short lived. Without that faster than light travel - and or time travel - we can just model and spectulate.

Too we have no scientifical reputable models that say the Universe is infinite - so be careful throwing that term around!

Whatever happened to:

"I don't know -- and it appears we really do not have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess???"

Alien life lives on A2k - doesn't it? No offense meant of course to most of you

What I have always wondered did it really take intelligent beings to create this earthly mess? What I mean is that holding our selves, humans, out as intelligent is sort of like the English reporting back to Europe that Native Americans were savages.

So what were you then?

What and when?