New published study concludes: Yes, There Have Been Aliens!

Just with the info we do have on how large the universe is and how many galaxies and stars we have discovered and the countless we have probably yet to find us being the only life be it advanced and technological to simple life is just nuts. I can't think as to why a small little water hole in the vast cosmos is the only place with life. As far as we know there could be entities that are similar to energy like creatures or plankton like creatures that float in space and feed off of the resources in the surrounding space. *shrugs* I just can't see how we would be the only ones or are. 13Billion years roughly before our solar system and planet was even created, to think that for 13Billion years there was nothing but gas and rocks floating around just doesn't sit well with me.

It's almost a guarantee there's life on other planets given the building blocks of life we've found in comets and experiments in labs that have concluded that lightning can cause life to start with the right materials.

Whether there is intelligent life...?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What percent of planets have life? Since that is the biggest key to the equation, and there is literally no information available for an input, they simply made a number up. That means this is really just a bunch of crap.

It means that the Drake equation can't absolutely state that there are, or have been, other examples of intelligent life.
But, again, the Drake equation makes no such claim.

Harte

Exactly my point, these people are claiming it does, when it simply doesn't.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What percent of planets have life? Since that is the biggest key to the equation, and there is literally no information available for an input, they simply made a number up. That means this is really just a bunch of crap.

It means that the Drake equation can't absolutely state that there are, or have been, other examples of intelligent life.
But, again, the Drake equation makes no such claim.

Harte

Exactly my point, these people are claiming it does, when it simply doesn't.

I believe it's the media (along with certain posters here) that is actually making this claim.
Also, this is a modified form of the Drake equation.

Harte

There's the small matter of cultural imperatives , which I have mentioned in a couple of posts before on this forum. Secondly, there is also the gross anthropomorphism lens that we tend view the universe at large through. One that really does tickle me is the basic mindset of almost all debunkers. That being, UFOs don't exist and if they did, they would exactly as I describe because I know it all and this wholly based on an totally ego driven anthropomorphic view of the universe.

As I have pointed out before and I am not being facetious here merely pointing out an inconvenient fact, if rocket scientists had the first clue about how to create a warp drive, they wouldn't be rocket scientists as rockets are inherently totally rubbish when it comes to meaningful deep space exploration. In short, asking rocket scientists about UFO technology is akin to asking a pianist what is the best guitar to buy.

Anyway, back to the cultural imperative thing.... We assume without any knowledge that all intelligent species are warlike self destructive knuckleheads , just as we are and then have the cheek to ask in the next breath, "If they are here why don;t they make themselves known to us?" even though, in effect, they have to any sane person, already answered their own question.

Imagine an intelligence that has sprung up and is generally co-operative and inclusive as a society discovering that, the Star they live near is due to go supernova at sometime in the next few thousand years Betelguese for instance. Now, up until this point, aside form observational astronomy, they might have no interest in wandering the stars in a physical sense however, all of a sudden they know they have a time limit or they are doomed to be blasted back into the stardust they were like all of us, born from. At that point there's every chance that the majority of their scientific effort would be geared towards the "Let's get the chuff out of here" premise and it would therefore be perfectly possible to extrapolate a society that might, never bother with TV in an entertainment sense, rather they go straight for the invention of the warp drive, wormholeship whatever, you catch my drift I'm sure.

As I've proposed before, if you live on a planet where the vast majority of the fertile land is in mountainous areas then, there's every chance you will develop the hot air balloon before the wheeled cart. It's that old cultural imperative thing again, that is what drives us. Why were so many thing invented in Scotland.... what else do you do apart from drinking to excess in a country where it's dark, cold and soaking wet for 10 months a year?Joking aside, is it really that surprising so many inventions that make our lives easier, have a Scottish heritage?

In reality, given our current understanding of quantum physics, there is no reason to dismiss out of hand, the idea that, there a race of space faring jellyfish with a predilection for advanced calculus who use Douglas Adams, "infinite improbability drive" in their star faring craft. Much of the problem with the whole of Ufology is that, we don't half let our human egos block our perceptions on all sides of the debate.

originally posted by: Harte
-- snip --
I wouldn't call it a useful tool, but it is useful in a way - where one can plainly see the change in probability given a change in one (or more) of the variables.
Yes, it's elementary. But it wasn't meant for anything more.

Harte

This may be the first we've spoken, so, "Hi!"

Although I've loved working with computers (both hardware and programming) since they became available to the general population, it would be dishonest to say I enjoy math. For me, math is only a means to an end and when I saw my first calculator (mechanical not electronic for Christmas in the mid-1950s) it was like seeing the sun come out after months of gray, cloudy weather.

One of the first things I had to learn when I finally landed an IT job was understanding concepts "in principle." Knowing and understanding every item in a batch of documentation isn't absolutely necessary if the docs can give you what you need to get the job done. There is always the chance that at a later date you will revisit those docs and what you've learned through experience in the meantime will give you the context to understand what you couldn't quite grasp earlier.

In that respect I consider any thought experiment to be a valuable tool. The first time I saw the Drake equation I knew on sight that it was way, way beyond my ability to understand. However, the article about the equation was easy enough to understand.

Sometimes, imo, professionals/elites (however you care to describe them) forget that their ideas increase in worth when expressed in ways that can be understood "in principle" by non-professionals.

CornShucker

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: Harte
-- snip --
I wouldn't call it a useful tool, but it is useful in a way - where one can plainly see the change in probability given a change in one (or more) of the variables.
Yes, it's elementary. But it wasn't meant for anything more.

Harte

This may be the first we've spoken, so, "Hi!"

Although I've loved working with computers (both hardware and programming) since they became available to the general population, it would be dishonest to say I enjoy math. For me, math is only a means to an end and when I saw my first calculator (mechanical not electronic for Christmas in the mid-1950s) it was like seeing the sun come out after months of gray, cloudy weather.

One of the first things I had to learn when I finally landed an IT job was understanding concepts "in principle." Knowing and understanding every item in a batch of documentation isn't absolutely necessary if the docs can give you what you need to get the job done. There is always the chance that at a later date you will revisit those docs and what you've learned through experience in the meantime will give you the context to understand what you couldn't quite grasp earlier.

In that respect I consider any thought experiment to be a valuable tool. The first time I saw the Drake equation I knew on sight that it was way, way beyond my ability to understand. However, the article about the equation was easy enough to understand.

Sometimes, imo, professionals/elites (however you care to describe them) forget that their ideas increase in worth when expressed in ways that can be understood "in principle" by non-professionals.

CornShucker

It's not as complicated as you seem to think.
The probability of any two (or more) unconnected things happening is the product (using multiplication) of the probabilities of the two (or more) things you're talking about occurring individually.

The Drake equation is just a string of probabilities (most of them blind guesses) multiplied together.

Harte

originally posted by: dougie6665
a reply to: CornShucker
-- snip --
Regarding length of civilization survival, this is sobering. www.livescience.com...

Great link. Thanks!

The first existential threshold humans crossed was not blowing ourselves up with the bomb.

So far...

The Second existential threshold appears to be over population and the resulting political fall out. The third will be controlling green house gases.

I would include pollution, including radioactive waste.

I think civilizations should be able to thrive for millions of years. But, it is going to require a more thoughtful planning process for the global population going forward in the near future. That is going to consist of controlling the right to give birth, food and water supply and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society. That may trample a few human rights in the future. But, what is more important, absolute rights or survival?

I'll try to say this as concisely as possible in order to avoid the appearance of introducing a distracting tangent.

In another thread I was told (I'm paraphrasing) that I was misrepresenting what is being proposed when talking about a "Socialist" society. It was a little ironic that part of the rebuttal pointed out that nobody had claimed that the upper hierarchy would be expected to live within the same means as the lowest levels. My entire point had been that Human Nature seems to forestall any successful attempt at a Socialist/Marxist/Communist society.

What is the phrase, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?"

I remember seeing a newsclip of an interview of Leonid Brezhnev's daughter (who had a drink on her table the entire time and spoke with obviously slurred speech) in which she complained of how far her quality of life had fallen and that she could barely afford the cheapest vodka.

It may only be my opinion, but it sure seems that Human Nature insures that those at the top will always have an inflated sense of their worth and abilities and consequently be more "needy."

You and I are in agreement on the challenge. We may look at it from slightly different perspectives but, for our civilization to survive, at some point we are going to Require a genuine shift to a paradigm in which the Common Good is priority number one, not just something paid lip service in order to achieve agendas.

CornShucker

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What percent of planets have life? Since that is the biggest key to the equation, and there is literally no information available for an input, they simply made a number up. That means this is really just a bunch of crap.

It means that the Drake equation can't absolutely state that there are, or have been, other examples of intelligent life.
But, again, the Drake equation makes no such claim.

Harte

Exactly my point, these people are claiming it does, when it simply doesn't.

I believe it's the media (along with certain posters here) that is actually making this claim.
Also, this is a modified form of the Drake equation.

Harte

Yes my problem is not with the Drake equation, but the claim we now have actual data that can be plugged in to reach a true data based answer.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yes my problem is not with the Drake equation, but the claim we now have actual data that can be plugged in to reach a true data based answer.

My problem is with the equation, the data and the assumption that intelligent life is somehow a necessary occurrence in evolution.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yes my problem is not with the Drake equation, but the claim we now have actual data that can be plugged in to reach a true data based answer.

My problem is with the equation, the data and the assumption that intelligent life is somehow a necessary occurrence in evolution.

Well, you could put in "zero" for that term then. Again, it's just a guess.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I think the number is so low that it could effectively be zero. Could intelligent life have in the past fluked itself into existence? Possibly. I just think it is an ultra rare occurrence if it did happen previously.

a reply to: Outrageo

I'd agreed with that because i think that species eventually get to a certain technological or spiritual point and no longer are what they were and become something different and go into another dimension

a reply to: uncommitted

By your response then, any ET life couldn't create a civilisation, but that's your opinion.

I didn't say that, I gave you a definition of what civilization meant

So much out there to be seen and discovered, hoping that we are not the only intelligent ones in existence. Even that is debatable