In other words, "It's simple math. But, nobody knows what that probability is. It could be one in a million. It could be one in a trillion billion million. Nobody knows."
Is not simple math. Do you understand how those ‘probability’ estimates are formed?
But, but, Real Obvi is pointing out the Real Obvious. How can you argue with such overwhelming logic?
In other words, "It's simple math. But, nobody knows what that probability is. It could be one in a million. It could be one in a trillion billion million. Nobody knows."
Is not simple math. Do you understand how those ‘probability’ estimates are formed?
I understand that you do not understand the English language very well. I wouldn't worry too much about that. There are many people who do not. Some of them are very nice people.
Let's say there will be 10^20 planets throughout the lifetime of the Universe. And let's say the probability of a planet evolving intelligent life is significantly higher than 1/10^20. Then your zero odds are pretty close. However, if that probability is significantly less than 1/10^20, then there's pretty close to zero chance that intelligent life forms anywhere else in the universe.
It's simple math. But, nobody knows what that probability is. It could be one in a million. It could be one in a trillion billion million. Nobody knows.
We only know much about 1 solar system in the entire universe and it has intelligent life in it.
I'd say the odds are much better than you think.
Great statement!
You "think" the odds (which you have absolutely no idea of) are much better than Bound4Glory thinks (which you also have absolutely no idea of)
You don't understand thermodynamics like you think. The bucket of molecules will never form dna. The bucket of rocks separate, not because of entropy, but the opposite. It facilitates the process of less chaos and more order. Entropy is a result of the first mover and it can never be undone, but a system will always move towards a lower energy state...less complex, more simple. It takes outside intervention to continue to drive more complexity
I guess I should specify that by "shake around a bucket of biomolecule precursors" I mean that you have to add small amounts of energy into the system in the form of heat or radiation or electrical charge to facilitate entry into energetically favorable states. I don't mean that they react spontaneously. The "shaking" was a metaphor
Physical systems do not seek order per se - order is a byproduct of local entropy maxima. A system will become ordered if order produces local entropy maxima. The same is true for complexity - a system will not seek complexity per se, but it will trend towards complexity if a complex system produces local entropy maxima. Order and complexity are not the same, of course, but both can be achieved by the same mechanism. A cloud of gas dispersing in a vacuum is complex, but the dispersion of the cloud maximizes the free energy of the system, so the system trends towards disperson. If you reduce the average kinetic energy of the molecules so that intermolecular forces overpower the random momentum of the molecules, then they will order themselves into a solid in order to maximize their free energy.
A solution of nucleotides will disperse through an aqueous solution like a gas in a vacuum (sort of) if no energy input is available, but if energy is available - UV radiation, heat, electron transfer, etc - then the condensation of the nucleotides becomes possible. Condensation will increase the entropy of a system more than random motion will because it turns the motion of electrons into heat. Thus condensation produces a local entropy maxima. Once the molecules have reacted, they will stay that way until jostled out of their chemical potential energy well.
Bluebeaming wrote:
And just to comment further, you admit your [sic] wrong and I'm right. The energy "inputs" are intervention. Left on it's [sic] own, these things will never happen. Dna being exothermic proves my point. Read a book and learn something
I'm not saying that no "intervention" is required - I'm saying that no biological intervention is required. Abiotic energy inputs (e.g. the sun) are quite common.
You don't understand thermodynamics like you think. The bucket of molecules will never form dna. The bucket of rocks separate, not because of entropy, but the opposite. It facilitates the process of less chaos and more order. Entropy is a result of the first mover and it can never be undone, but a system will always move towards a lower energy state...less complex, more simple. It takes outside intervention to continue to drive more complexity
I guess I should specify that by "shake around a bucket of biomolecule precursors" I mean that you have to add small amounts of energy into the system in the form of heat or radiation or electrical charge to facilitate entry into energetically favorable states. I don't mean that they react spontaneously. The "shaking" was a metaphor
Physical systems do not seek order per se - order is a byproduct of local entropy maxima. A system will become ordered if order produces local entropy maxima. The same is true for complexity - a system will not seek complexity per se, but it will trend towards complexity if a complex system produces local entropy maxima. Order and complexity are not the same, of course, but both can be achieved by the same mechanism. A cloud of gas dispersing in a vacuum is complex, but the dispersion of the cloud maximizes the free energy of the system, so the system trends towards disperson. If you reduce the average kinetic energy of the molecules so that intermolecular forces overpower the random momentum of the molecules, then they will order themselves into a solid in order to maximize their free energy.
A solution of nucleotides will disperse through an aqueous solution like a gas in a vacuum (sort of) if no energy input is available, but if energy is available - UV radiation, heat, electron transfer, etc - then the condensation of the nucleotides becomes possible. Condensation will increase the entropy of a system more than random motion will because it turns the motion of electrons into heat. Thus condensation produces a local entropy maxima. Once the molecules have reacted, they will stay that way until jostled out of their chemical potential energy well.
Bluebeaming wrote:
And just to comment further, you admit your [sic] wrong and I'm right. The energy "inputs" are intervention. Left on it's [sic] own, these things will never happen. Dna being exothermic proves my point. Read a book and learn something
I'm not saying that no "intervention" is required - I'm saying that no biological intervention is required. Abiotic energy inputs (e.g. the sun) are quite common.
You're retarded. A little bit of energy addition is the difference between default physical and chemical reactions (the base standard of the universe) and divine intervention. Keep trying to prove yourself and maybe you'll realize everything you said proves me right
Is not simple math. Do you understand how those ‘probability’ estimates are formed?
I understand that you do not understand the English language very well. I wouldn't worry too much about that. There are many people who do not. Some of them are very nice people.
You’re an angry little man, aren’t you? Think it might be time for a fruit roll up, juice, and a nap? Come back when you feel better.
You're retarded. A little bit of energy addition is the difference between default physical and chemical reactions (the base standard of the universe) and divine intervention. Keep trying to prove yourself and maybe you'll realize everything you said proves me right
Science has nothing to say for or against acts of divine intervention. You should probably talk to a theologian, not a scientist
Taking ourselves as an example, even when our computer technology was primitive, we have sent unmanned probes before sending humans. Given the rapid evolution of AI and its potential scalability, it seems incredibly unlikely that if we were going to search for other intelligent life that took enormous time scales to find, that we wouldn't send AI, or perhaps more accurately our AI would send AI. It seems unlikely that any civilization would achieve intersteller travel without technology that would inevitably create AI and follow this same course. If anything, it seems MORE likely that civilizations will evolve from biological to digital and in so doing, might either 1) lose interest in space exploration, or 2) evolve WAY past the need to actually explore by physically needing to go anywhere. I would expect that sufficient AI would be practically "god-like" and have no need to travel vast distances to do anything it imagined to be useful. So, species actually sending biological living creatures to do something that involves massive time and questionable rewards seems very far-fetched. More likely that SUPER powerful AI's have the ability with complete mastery of physics to have complete awareness of the universe without going anywhere.
You're retarded. A little bit of energy addition is the difference between default physical and chemical reactions (the base standard of the universe) and divine intervention. Keep trying to prove yourself and maybe you'll realize everything you said proves me right
Most people don’t realize how many sacred cows there are in science and practitioners in a given field will retreat into jargon as a defense mechanism. Since they are aligned with ‘appeal to authority’ arguments, then they will be unable to see out of their little silo.
I’ve seen several people in this thread confidently speak about the Big Bang as if it is the accepted model for the origin of the universe. However, they are probably blissfully unaware of things like the matter/anti-matter asymmetry that is unexplained. Or any of the other problems that we have in asserting it as our origin myth.
It’s frustrating to talk to people like this at times, because they resemble the religious more than people who are committed to logic and deductive reasoning.
Taking ourselves as an example, even when our computer technology was primitive, we have sent unmanned probes before sending humans. Given the rapid evolution of AI and its potential scalability, it seems incredibly unlikely that if we were going to search for other intelligent life that took enormous time scales to find, that we wouldn't send AI, or perhaps more accurately our AI would send AI. It seems unlikely that any civilization would achieve intersteller travel without technology that would inevitably create AI and follow this same course. If anything, it seems MORE likely that civilizations will evolve from biological to digital and in so doing, might either 1) lose interest in space exploration, or 2) evolve WAY past the need to actually explore by physically needing to go anywhere. I would expect that sufficient AI would be practically "god-like" and have no need to travel vast distances to do anything it imagined to be useful. So, species actually sending biological living creatures to do something that involves massive time and questionable rewards seems very far-fetched. More likely that SUPER powerful AI's have the ability with complete mastery of physics to have complete awareness of the universe without going anywhere.
But if AI doesn't have to travel vast distances to calculate probability of vastly distant places over vast timescales, how would that be practical or helpful to us stupid humanoids?
We only know much about 1 solar system in the entire universe and it has intelligent life in it.
I'd say the odds are much better than you think.
Great statement!
You "think" the odds (which you have absolutely no idea of) are much better than Bound4Glory thinks (which you also have absolutely no idea of)
Brilliant!
No he/she is asserting the ‘anthropic’ principle which is something of a valid argument to make considering the discussion.
Observationally, we can say that given the conditions of the early earth, whatever they were, there is a 100% chance that we will develop. Unless you invoke god or little green men. That’s wha the thread is about. Try to keep up and you won’t look so silly.
Taking ourselves as an example, even when our computer technology was primitive, we have sent ….. SUPER powerful AI's have the ability with complete mastery of physics to have complete awareness of the universe without going anywhere.
Do you accept the idea of AI as we currently have it as exhibiting intelligence?
I would expect that sufficient AI would be practically "god-like" and have no need to travel vast distances to do anything it imagined to be useful.
But this god-like AI would be limited by how much power its host computer consumed. Assuming such a being would always want more and more power, it would first build a Dyson Sphere around it's local star to capture every possible watt of stellar energy. After that, it must travel to nearby stars and build Dyson Spheres around them. Eventually it covers every star in its galaxy with Dyson Spheres.
If this actually happened, we would be able to detect it fairly easily. But we haven't. So advanced civilizations like this must not exist. Nobody knows why.
My point was we have no way of knowing. Perhaps the kid I was responding to who thinks he already knows the unknowable is the person you should be directing your "wise and wonderful" vitriol towards.
Maybe your own hubris needs to be addressed also?
Pointing it out when people make outrageous claims to know the unknowable isn't hubris....
Summary: Out of the 260,000 stars, the team found less than one out of 1,000 stars is compatible with a 300 Kelvin Dyson sphere with about 10 percent coverage of the star. For 50 percent coverage, the number was less than one per 10,000 stars, and for 90 percent coverage, the limit is less than 1 per 100,000 stars.
“Any or all of these objects may have natural causes for their infrared excess, so this is just an upper limit, not a definitive rate of true Dyson spheres,” Huston clarifies.
----------
the researchers behind the new study analyzed 260,000 stars in the Milky Way.
After putting together the brightness of these stars, the team then created models of Dyson Spheres that showed their potential temperature (which was estimated to be around 300 Kelvin) and how much of the star they would cover (which was about 10-90 percent of the star). They then compared that to the measurements of the stars’ temperature and luminosity.
“From this, we could determine the number of stars in the sample which would be compatible with the Dyson sphere models,” Huston says. “Then, that is the limit on how common such objects could be.”
Out of the 260,000 stars, the team found less than one out of 1,000 stars is compatible with a 300 Kelvin Dyson sphere with about 10 percent coverage of the star. For 50 percent coverage, the number was less than one per 10,000 stars, and for 90 percent coverage, the limit is less than 1 per 100,000 stars.
“Any or all of these objects may have natural causes for their infrared excess, so this is just an upper limit, not a definitive rate of true Dyson spheres,” Huston clarifies.
WHAT’S NEXT — After narrowing down a potential number of stars that could be hosting Dyson Spheres, the team behind the study want to narrow in on these stars to conduct a search of the alien megastructures in the Milky Way. https://www.inverse.com/science/how-many-dyson-spheres-are-in-the-milky-way
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
