Why I Think We Are Alone In The Universe

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It is my belief that humans are alone in the universe. I will explain why.

The main argument for the belief in extraterrestrial life - or at least the belief that it is likely - is that there are 200 billion stars in the milky way galaxy alone. So even with a small chance of them developing life it is likely that life will be out there somewhere. The Drake equation. You all heard that before. It's like throwing a million darts. No matter how bad you are you are at darts - how small the chances of a planet developing life are - you will likely hit the center of the board at some time.
My objection to that argument is that juggling with such big numbers makes the whole concept impossible for humans to grasp. And thereby makes any intuitive judgment meaningless. Which is all we have. We forget that the chances that planets develop life are really small. While there are a lot of potential planets - a lot of darts - there also are a lot of factors that make it unlikely that life will evolve on a given planet - we hit the center of the board.
There are a great number of factors with each a very small chance for a planet develop life. Besides intuitive factors such as the right distance from it's star, a planet has to for example both have a gas giant in the same solar system to deflect asteroids and a small number of moons. Each of these factors is very unlikely, and multiplying a lot of small numbers gets you a really small number. So in our darts analogy the board is far away, moves around and we are blindfolded.
The problem is we really don't have any idea how likely any of these small chances are. With such big numbers, the margin of error is close to 1. We can only guess the chances involved in a planet developing life, our estimates will merely be a product of our prejudge. In other words the argument for the likelihood of extraterrestrial life is just confirming our prejudge, it's merely saying: We believe what we want to believe. The Drake equation does not add anything to our knowledge at all.
So we have a fraction with a really big number and a really small number, and we want to know if the result is smaller or larger than one. The big number looks really impressing, and the small one we have no idea about. Naturally we discount how small the small number may be.

But that's not the gist of this thread. Let's say we accept that there exists a likelihood that there is life out there somewhere because there are so many, many potential planets. How come we haven't seen any of their space junk flying around?
For this we need to look at exponential growth. Any life form will expand in exponential numbers. At first exponential growth is slow, suddenly it explodes.
As an example, suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacterium into an empty bottle at eleven in the morning, and then observe that the bottle is full at twelve noon. After half the time it would only be 3% full. At which point would the bottle be 1/4 full and when would it be 1/2 full? It would be 1/4 full two minutes before noon and 1/2 full one minute before noon.
So any potential aliens out there are either not around (extinct because they couldn't expand exponentially), never existed, or their numbers are so big that we see their probes passing by every week. There is a very narrow window where there are aliens out there somewhere but their numbers are still so small that we don't find any trace of them. In other words, the most likely assumption is that there are no aliens.

Maybe the intergalactic federation put up some sort of cloak so we don't detect them until we are ready? :flowers:

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,453 • Replies: 55

No top replies

@EmperorNero,

We would never see any alien space junk. For one the distances are so great they would have to be intentionally sending probes our way. But there is nothing remarkable about our sun for them to do such a thing. Secondly if you are trying to use space junk as an aspect just look at how much space junk we send away from our planet. We have a few probes but they are not heading any where interesting. The chances of them being detected by alien life is very minute.

Also the drake equation is open for other possibilities. Such as, maybe we have an asteroid riddled solar system but others might be free of asteroids. So in those systems the threat of extinction from asteroids might be far less, meaning no gas giant would be necessary. Also the drake equation does not take into consideration WHEN these life forms might develop. There could have been a very close by alien race living on some nearby planet but it was a million years ago perhaps. So they are not producing or sending or making anything because maybe they died out.

Space is just TOO vast for us to detect alien technology or space probes.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Why should you think otherwise than that we are alone???There is not the slightest proof otherwise, and so 'thinking' about it is pointless speculation...People give their own lives to searching for life elswhere...Their object they put behind them, and their end they seek...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;92053 wrote:

We would never see any alien space junk. For one the distances are so great they would have to be intentionally sending probes our way. But there is nothing remarkable about our sun for them to do such a thing. Secondly if you are trying to use space junk as an aspect just look at how much space junk we send away from our planet. We have a few probes but they are not heading any where interesting. The chances of them being detected by alien life is very minute.

Also the drake equation is open for other possibilities. Such as, maybe we have an asteroid riddled solar system but others might be free of asteroids. So in those systems the threat of extinction from asteroids might be far less, meaning no gas giant would be necessary. Also the drake equation does not take into consideration WHEN these life forms might develop. There could have been a very close by alien race living on some nearby planet but it was a million years ago perhaps. So they are not producing or sending or making anything because maybe they died out.

Space is just TOO vast for us to detect alien technology or space probes.

Thank you for the response. I tend to disagree with you. I will respond to your points in the order you have written them.
Your first objection was that it is unlikely that space junk would come our way. I implied it by talking about exponential growth, but didn't directly say that a likely assumption was that aliens may be sending probes to every solar system. I quote:
Initially, a von Neumann probe, (...) would be launched from the home star toward a neighboring stellar system. Upon arrival it would seek out raw materials, from local sources such as asteroids, and use these to make several copies of itself. The copies would then be launched at the next set of neighboring stars. This process would be repeated, over and over again, so that increasing numbers of identical probes would be involved in penetrating ever more remote regions of the Galaxy. (...)
He proposed a conservative value of 300 million years, or less than 5% of the present age of the Galaxy, for complete galactic colonization. [Link]

Your second point. We don't send anything anywhere interesting.
Humanity has been submitting everything from talk radio to commercials into space for the last 100-or-so years. At the release of The Day the Earth Stood Still the movie was transmitted to Alpha Centauri.

http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/aliens-watching.png

You are right that my example, a planet needing a gas giant in the solar system to sustain life, not always being the case. Though it does not change my overall premise - that there are hundreds of factors with each a very small probability that all have to be the case to sustain life. Another solar system might not have an asteroid belt, but gamma radiation.
We tend to not be able to grasp how tiny those probabilities are, while a ig number is something we can grasp. When you see 1/10 you have a concept of how big that number is. But you might have trouble understanding 0.0000000000000000001/10000000000000000000000000000 even if it's the same number. That's the "trick" behind the "there are sooo many planets" argument.
The Drake equation is a more general framework (which is what makes it so worthless), but we have no accurate concept of any of it's variables. We can't even make an educated guesses about them, as that would just be summing up our prejudges.

Life might develop and extinct so quickly that no two civilizations are around to notice each others. But they should be noticing each others space junk or probes flying around.
Plus the whole point with the exponential growth segment was that aliens are either not there (extinct or never existed) or are everywhere.
Because the phase between those two is so short that it is unlikely that we witness it. As demonstrated with the bacteria in a bottle. Or rather they came to beat the crap out of us.

Though I must grant that just because we don't see any probes flying around doesn't mean there aren't any. You would expect that a species mastering interstellar propulsion would be able to invent some with some sort of cloak.

---------- Post added 09-20-2009 at 05:23 AM ----------

Fido;92054 wrote:

Why should you think otherwise than that we are alone???There is not the slightest proof otherwise, and so 'thinking' about it is pointless speculation...People give their own lives to searching for life elswhere...Their object they put behind them, and their end they seek...

Yes. SETI is a religion. I point this out when atheists claim to reject religion for the reason that logic dictates it is unlikely. They don't seem to apply this strict a logic to their other beliefs. Which shows that they really just rebel against Christianity (oddly the only religion atheists have a problem with) because it represents "the man".

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;92063 wrote:

Your second point. We don't send anything anywhere interesting.
Humanity has been submitting everything from talk radio to commercials into space for the last 100-or-so years. At the release of The Day the Earth Stood Still the movie was transmitted to Alpha Centauri.

Yes but you are neglecting some key point. This assumes that aliens are using radio receivers. But look at us, we no longer use them, we use digital now. So aliens might have NEVER used radio waves for transmitting information, they might have always gone digital. But my point being just look at how short of a time scale we used radio waves verses digital? In the cosmic scale it was a blink of an eye.

EmperorNero;92063 wrote:

You are right that my example, a planet needing a gas giant in the solar system to sustain life, not always being the case. Though it does not change my overall premise - that there are hundreds of factors with each a very small probability that all have to be the case to sustain life. Another solar system might not have an asteroid belt, but gamma radiation.

Yeah but just looking at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field picture and doing some calculations, you can easily come to the conclusion that our type of solar system has a huge chance of being "similar" to others. A thousand galaxies covering the sky no larger than the width of your outstretched pinky? This means that the entire sky is filled with galaxies we just cant see them very easily. All those trillions and trillions of stars the odds are in favor of similar forming solar systems.

But this also ignores the fact that life might arise on planets that we might consider too harsh for life to develop, we simply do not have enough datum to say life can only develop the way we experience on earth.

EmperorNero;92063 wrote:

Life might develop and extinct so quickly that no two civilizations are around to notice each others. But they should be noticing each others space junk or probes flying around.

Highly unlikely because they would be just too small. You can't even see our man made satellites from the ground unless it is dark and the sun is reflecting off them. Even then they are just a small dot streaming across the sky.

EmperorNero;92063 wrote:

Plus the whole point with the exponential growth segment was that aliens are either not there (extinct or never existed) or are everywhere.
Because the phase between those two is so short that it is unlikely that we witness it. As demonstrated with the bacteria in a bottle. Or rather they came to beat the crap out of us.

Though I must grant that just because we don't see any probes flying around doesn't mean there aren't any. You would expect that a species mastering interstellar propulsion would be able to invent some with some sort of cloak.

Maybe. I think the distances between the stars is just too great for them to go wandering aimlessly looking for potential planets that might be harboring life. For that I would have to assume they would be several thousand years more advanced than us. Simply because they would need the technology and the economic incentive to make such investigations. Perhaps their theory of how life arises might be different than ours so when they look at our solar system maybe they are saying, "Life can't exist in that solar system ignore it". They would be wrong only because their theory was incorrect.

EmperorNero;92063 wrote:

Yes. SETI is a religion. I point this out when atheists claim to reject religion for the reason that logic dictates it is unlikely. They don't seem to apply this strict a logic to their other beliefs. Which shows that they really just rebel against Christianity (oddly the only religion atheists have a problem with) because it represents "the man".

I disagree, it is no different than a person probing bacteria cultures looking for a cure for some disease. SETI isn't a religion because it contains no dogma, it is just a search for some intelligent signal, a way to keep the senses open to the possibility to receive a signal of some kind. If you just close up shop then you close up the only avenue we have to hearing of the signal. That's not religion because religion would do just the opposite. It would firmly state that aliens exist and do no more investigation.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Yeah but what happens when you cant get off your sette because you're too scared to go outside because you may get attacked or something, I mean you're never completely free so obviously it cant be a religion if you cannot practise it, simply and only because you are not truly free to do so. If you want to practise religion but can't then why is that? Please Krumple, do please tell.
Thanks.

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline;92104 wrote:

Yeah but what happens when you cant get off your sette because you're too scared to go outside because you may get attacked or something, I mean you're never completely free so obviously it cant be a religion if you cannot practise it, simply and only because you are not truly free to do so. If you want to practise religion but can't then why is that? Please Krumple, do please tell.
Thanks.

I have no idea what you are asking me, sorry. Would you try again because I am just not sure what you are saying.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;92100 wrote:

Yes but you are neglecting some key point. This assumes that aliens are using radio receivers. But look at us, we no longer use them, we use digital now. So aliens might have NEVER used radio waves for transmitting information, they might have always gone digital. But my point being just look at how short of a time scale we used radio waves verses digital? In the cosmic scale it was a blink of an eye.

Yes, ok. There are a few factors that might mean that we don't detect aliens despite them being there. They might not know radio waves or cloak their existence. The whole universe might be a cloak put up in a radius a few miles behind the moon and behind it there are space stations everywhere.
But looking at exponential growth, an alien population would at some point explode and be everywhere. So we would see them.

As an example let's look at earth. There isn't a single corner on earth with no people on it. There isn't an island without a hotel on it, except a few tiny, uninhabitable rocks. We are everywhere. (I'm very proud of that btw. :phone:) No matter where on earth you should look, you likely run into some humans. This happened 14.000 years ago. Now there are 7 billion humans. In a 500.000 year history that's the blink of an eye.

Krumple;92100 wrote:

Yeah but just looking at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field picture and doing some calculations, you can easily come to the conclusion that our type of solar system has a huge chance of being "similar" to others. A thousand galaxies covering the sky no larger than the width of your outstretched pinky? This means that the entire sky is filled with galaxies we just cant see them very easily. All those trillions and trillions of stars the odds are in favor of similar forming solar systems.

But this also ignores the fact that life might arise on planets that we might consider too harsh for life to develop, we simply do not have enough datum to say life can only develop the way we experience on earth.

I know, there are really, really many planets. But the numbers are too big for us to grasp. We can't imagine that there is any number small enough to offset that huge number. So we assume the chance is likely. But it's not. In fact we don't know. The Drake equation will confirm whatever we plot into it's variables. The margin of error is larger than the result itself. Would you listen to a political poll with a margin of error of 99.999999%? No, you would think the result is utterly meaningless.

Krumple;92100 wrote:

I disagree, it is no different than a person probing bacteria cultures looking for a cure for some disease. SETI isn't a religion because it contains no dogma, it is just a search for some intelligent signal, a way to keep the senses open to the possibility to receive a signal of some kind. If you just close up shop then you close up the only avenue we have to hearing of the signal. That's not religion because religion would do just the opposite. It would firmly state that aliens exist and do no more investigation.

What does it matter if we close SETI? I thought it's so very unlikely we ever detect anything.
A belief in something with no proof of it's existence is just that. A belief.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

SETI is no more of a religion than scouting for rogue asteroids. We don't know for certain that there are any asteroids that are large enough to cause planet wide extinction on a path for earth some time soon. But we are keeping a watch and waiting to see if we discover any.

The part that you are neglecting is that WE are aliens, we count as one possibility in the over all equation. WE happened and if we can happen then why not keep your eyes open, your ears pealed for a sign that there might be some intelligent life using some form of communication signal?

SETI is not religion, this is propaganda devised by creationists wanting to curb these types of projects. It is intellectually dishonest to call SETI a religion. The clue is even in the name itself, "search". Maybe you should examine that word a little closer.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;92189 wrote:

SETI is no more of a religion than scouting for rogue asteroids. We don't know for certain that there are any asteroids that are large enough to cause planet wide extinction on a path for earth some time soon. But we are keeping a watch and waiting to see if we discover any.

Scouting for asteroids is just as silly.

Krumple;92189 wrote:

The part that you are neglecting is that WE are aliens, we count as one possibility in the over all equation. WE happened and if we can happen then why not keep your eyes open, your ears pealed for a sign that there might be some intelligent life using some form of communication signal?

Yes, let's take earth as an example. How many other intelligent, self-aware species are there on earth? Wink

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;92191 wrote:

Scouting for asteroids is just as silly.

Yes, let's take earth as an example. How many other intelligent, self-aware species are there on earth?

Sometimes I think NONE.

But there can be perfectly good reasons for why it has happened the way it has. All species have a niche. There is not two species that share the same niche. Therefore perhaps our niche is intelligence.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Scouting for asteroids has a major difference. We actually know there are asteroids. Though there is not a chance any big ones will be hitting us.

And I didn't understand what this has to do with creationists. Neither I or anyone I know of who came up with this is a creationist.

Krumple;92192 wrote:

But there can be perfectly good reasons for why it has happened the way it has. All species have a niche. There is not two species that share the same niche. Therefore perhaps our niche is intelligence.

Maybe. Still there is no reason to believe in something we have no shred of evidence about nor can calculate the likelihood of it's existence with a margin of error below 99.99%.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;92193 wrote:

Scouting for asteroids has a major difference. We actually know there are asteroids. Though there is not a chance any big ones will be hitting us.

Exactly. See we don't know that god exists so it is foolish to believe in god. However; we know that there is "intelligent" life on earth. So if there are other planets in the universe could they also have "intelligent" life. WE are the proof that the universe can have "intelligent" life in it. We are the evidence. Unlike god, there is absolutely no evidence. So you can't compare the two. They are not similar in any way.

EmperorNero;92193 wrote:

And I didn't understand what this has to do with creationists. Neither I or anyone I know of who came up with this is a creationist.

They do not like the search for intelligent life in the universe because it would undermine the christian faith. It would pose them more questions that they can't solve. So by avoiding the search it secures their power struggle over controlling humanity.

EmperorNero;92193 wrote:

Maybe. Still there is no reason to believe in something we have no shred of evidence about nor can calculate the likelihood of it's existence with a margin of error below 99.99%.

We are the evidence. If life exists on this moss ball, there is a possible chance it could exist elsewhere.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

When you can get your head round the idea that there as many galaxies as there are grains of sand on earth, then you might just believe life is possible somewhere else. Why would you expect to see other signs of life when this life could be many thousands of light years away or could have been and gone before we opened our eyes.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;92236 wrote:

When you can get your head round the idea that there as many galaxies as there are grains of sand on earth, then you might just believe life is possible somewhere else. Why would you expect to see other signs of life when this life could be many thousands of light years away or could have been and gone before we opened our eyes.

And there is a probability of the number of grains of sand on earth ^-1 that such a planet will sustain life. So what does it mean?

Why should they be gone? We are not gone. If they are not gone they are likely to have expanded throughout the entire galaxy. That they did it proof that there's nobody there.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;92238 wrote:

And there is a probability of the number of grains of sand on earth ^-1 that such a planet will sustain life. So what does it mean?

Why should they be gone? We are not gone. If they are not gone they are likely to have expanded throughout the entire galaxy. That they did it proof that there's nobody there.

Not necessarily. All sorts of things can cause a species to go extinct. What if they destroyed themselves with weapons of mass destruction?

What if they exist in another galaxy that is a hundred thousand light years away? We would never see any of them unless they were over a hundred thousand + year old society. That is only including the time for traveling to get to us, not to mention the time for their development biologically or technologically.

Look at us. We have only had space capabilities for less than fifty years. That is NOTHING in the over all time scale of the universe or time it would require for long distance space travel. For all we know they are tied with us for their space technology. Their equipment wouldn't be noticed at all.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;92242 wrote:

Not necessarily. All sorts of things can cause a species to go extinct. What if they destroyed themselves with weapons of mass destruction?

We didn't. Why should they?
Species are there to survive, they don't extinct themselves, maybe in Hollywood movies.

Krumple;92242 wrote:

What if they exist in another galaxy that is a hundred thousand light years away? We would never see any of them unless they were over a hundred thousand + year old society. That is only including the time for traveling to get to us, not to mention the time for their development biologically or technologically.

Yeah. But what does it matter if we can't ever notice any sign of them? It's like the tree falling in the woods and we don't hear it.

Krumple;92242 wrote:

Look at us. We have only had space capabilities for less than fifty years. That is NOTHING in the over all time scale of the universe or time it would require for long distance space travel. For all we know they are tied with us for their space technology. Their equipment wouldn't be noticed at all.

Think exponentially, not linearly. How unlikely is it they are tied with us technology-wise. That's very unlikely. And merely shows our prejudge.
More likely their numbers and technological capabilities exploded. As did ours in the last century.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;92247 wrote:

We didn't. Why should they?
Species are there to survive, they don't extinct themselves, maybe in Hollywood movies.

Super massive asteroid impact? I don't know, their sun goes nova? They are testing some biological terraform technology that fails destroying all their ecosystems? You can't give me any of these plausible scenarios?

EmperorNero;92247 wrote:

Yeah. But what does it matter if we can't ever notice any sign of them? It's like the tree falling in the woods and we don't hear it.

I've never liked this koan. I think it is miss used. Because if it is true in the context that you are using it. Then the world only has about five hundred people in it, because I have never met the other five billion nine hundred and ninety nine million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand and five hundred people who wouldn't exist. It is just silly to say that. A tree that falls in the woods does make a sound. Sound is not reliant upon the ear for it to exist. It is a fallacy. Sound is produced by vibrations, if there are vibrations there is sound.

EmperorNero;92247 wrote:

Think exponentially, not linearly. How unlikely is it they are tied with us technology-wise. That's very unlikely. And merely shows our prejudge.
More likely their numbers and technological capabilities exploded. As did ours in the last century.

It is a possibility however; I would agree that it would be quite unlikely but it is not completely impossible. Yes technology tends to ramp up very quickly in a short period of time.

As far as global thermal nuclear explosions go, I don't think we are completely out of the woods. I have a feeling that there are some groups that are dreaming up plans to get their hands on a portable device and let it rip in some major US city. So although we haven't destroyed ourselves yet, give us time be patient, I'm sure we will.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

If our solar system was a grain of sand our galaxy would be the size of Spain.

For the life of me how can you say the chances of life reoccurring is impossible ? or are you saying what i have previously asked ? Is there an engineer who is needed to secure life as a possibility. You choose an engineer or a one in a billion billion trillion that life occurred here by mere chance?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;92254 wrote:

Super massive asteroid impact? I don't know, their sun goes nova? They are testing some biological terraform technology that fails destroying all their ecosystems? You can't give me any of these plausible scenarios?

Sure, 95% of all species that lived on earth are extinct. But someone always filled the vacuum.
All life doesn't just disappear. If humans had gone extinct, dolphins would maybe have evolved to become the dominant species on the planet in a few million years.

And even nuclear war wouldn't destroy all of humanity.

Krumple;92254 wrote:

I've never liked this koan. I think it is miss used. Because if it is true in the context that you are using it. Then the world only has about five hundred people in it, because I have never met the other five billion nine hundred and ninety nine million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand and five hundred people who wouldn't exist. It is just silly to say that. A tree that falls in the woods does make a sound. Sound is not reliant upon the ear for it to exist. It is a fallacy. Sound is produced by vibrations, if there are vibrations there is sound.

Exactly. I can have some effect on someone on the other side of the globe. Maybe through other people, or some sort of butterfly effect.
But for someone on the other side of the universe, it may be physically impossible for anything I do ever reaching them within a million years.
So what does them being there or not matter? and just because we have no idea about the probability, it's a lot like they are - for us - both there and not there. :sarcastic:

Krumple;92254 wrote:

It is a possibility however; I would agree that it would be quite unlikely but it is not completely impossible. Yes technology tends to ramp up very quickly in a short period of time.

Why is it unlikely that technology will continue to develop in the way it always did? There are enough resources out there. If we don't resort to population reduction humanity should be spreading throughout the solar system very soon.
Progress will go exponentially faster and at some point any alien race, unless extinct (grow or die), will fill it's entire galaxy, maybe all of the universe.

---------- Post added 09-20-2009 at 08:12 PM ----------

xris;92257 wrote:

If our solar system was a grain of sand our galaxy would be the size of Spain.

Do you know how unlikely it is that a planet is in the right distance to it's sun? That it has the right size? That it consists of the right elements to sustain life? There are hundreds of such factors. Each with a very small chance (that we don't know).
So say there are 200 billion stars in the galaxy. Say the chance they have a earth-like planet in it's system in 1%. The chance that it is the right distance is 0.0001% and the chance that it has the same size is 0.0001%. Then the chance that the galaxy has a planet where these three factors are positive is 0.002 = 0.2%. And there are hundreds more factors that all have to be positive at the same time. This is how quickly this big number of 200 billion disappears. So don't think just because the number of stars is really big that the chance they have life on them is big too.
And since we can't guess at any of these possibilities. The chance is literally everything from just over 0% to almost 100%. Whatever we make it.

xris;92257 wrote:

For the life of me how can you say the chances of life reoccurring is impossible ? or are you saying what i have previously asked ? Is there an engineer who is needed to secure life as a possibility. You choose an engineer or a one in a billion billion trillion that life occurred here by mere chance?

Sorry. I'm not sure what you are saying.
I didn't say anything is impossible. I'm always speaking about likelihood. And the fact is that if there is a species out there expanding exponentially, it will cover the entire galaxy soon after being able to space travel. (Time in therms of the age of the universe.) Think of the bacteria in a bottle from my OP. They will almost fill the bottle within the last three minutes, from there the bottle will just be full of bacteria. So if we see a bottle that's not full of bacteria, maybe that's because there aren't any in them.

3 Replies

Why I Think We Are Alone In The Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know