against the tide thinking

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dannyd

Guest
What if the current generally accepted supposition that the universe is teeming with intelligent life is wrong? What if we are the only ones? What if our destiny in not just to go to the stars and beyond but to bring self-awareness across the cosmos? And what if we fail to get out of this terrestrial cradle? Will the game end then and the universe go dark? dayll
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I don't think that your presumption that the generally accepted supposition that the universe is teeming with intelligent life is correct.<br />Teeming is a powerful word.<br />Some believe that there is no chance of any life anywhere until proven without any chance of doubt. Others believe while it's possible (or likely), there is no evidence.<br />Other's believe it's unlikely, but since there's no evidence either way, all possibilties are open.<br /><br />Are we the only ones? Yes, No, or Maybe...does it really make much difference? Since we have no evidence, one path is that we are alone. Since we have no evidence, another path is that there are many, but we can't see/they don't want us to see. Since there is no evidence, maybe there are other civilizations, but we haven't (and likely will not) bump into each other during our civilization's lifetimes.<br /><br />I guess I'm in a philosophical Mood(y Blues) tonight.<br /><br />MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Unless or until life is found outside our familiar biosphere, this idea is as good as the more popular idea that life must exist because the Universe is so vast idea. I have stated several times over the past year here that we might be alone in the Universe as highly unlikely as that might seem. Its still possible till proven otherwise.<br /><br />The kicker however is this...if we are alone, we will never know simply because the Universe is so vast we will never be able to explore it all and prove that we are alone. And of course, if we find life...the alone argument is rendered moot.<br /><br />Then there is the possibly we are simply the first life to arise in the Universe. Someone here brought that up a month or so ago. However, given that we are seeing Galaxies as they were millions of years ago, life probably arose on planets within those galaxies by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"the more popular idea that life must exist because the Universe is so vast idea."<br />---<br /><br />my idea was always something like this but not quite, I'd put it this way: because we exist other civilizations elsewhere may exists and because the universe is so vast it is pretty well certain that intelligent life will exist out there somewhere because the possibilities are endless for it to arise, on the other hand because the universe is so vast we will in all likelyhood never come accross that life (in this or future generations) that pretty certainly exists out there <br /><br /><br />I don't count some microbial life that we might very well still find on one our planets or moons<br /><br />whole point is that the universe has been around for long enough that anything that happens in it cannot be unique occurence (that's simple statistics) and that includes the independent rise of intelligent life in its various parts, basically whatever can happen will happen and it won't happen just once, that is one thing we can be sure of<br /><br />also I would add to what qso1 says that we can't know that we are alone in universe and I would conclude then that the only rational approach to the problem is to keep looking as best we can and we might find one day or we may not, on the other hand if we pesimisticaly assumed we are alone and not look, it will be pretty certain our vision will come true (that is unless somebody not so irrational would find us instead)<br />so the moral is we have to keep looking as best we can and hope we find it or it finds us, in short we have to act as if we were quite certain that life is out there<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

ebort

Guest
i have the feeling that life, conscious or other wise, may yet turn out to not be the "centre" of the universe...we allways assume that life is the the highest achievement of the universe (or words to that effect)...but given our history ..we have a continueing tendency to place our selves (ie life) at the hub of everything ,as if the universe only existed in order to create and cater to the existance of life..(the sun revolves around the earth state of mind- which only recedes very slowly as new information comes to light)..<br /><br />i think more thought is needed on this basic belief..as the reality is bound to be far more complicated..if as we tend to believe life is "put" or "developed" here (by what ever method your belief prefers) for some form of purpose.. it may be incorrect or at least incomplete, to assume that function is allways going to be a grand one....as this belief colours dramatically our view of the universe and our selves...and strongly influences the way we behave as a species (and individuals)...a lot more head scratching should be apllied to the concepts.<br /><br />we may be the "by product" not the "end result" of something..? for example.<br /><br />applying more objective (???and whose to say what that might be???) thought to the function of life within the "eco system" (??) of the universe might help us to picture the possibilitys of other life in the universe with some sort of balance??<br />
 
D

dannyd

Guest
Not being the type to put stock in religious after-lifes I like to think that (in rare moments of optimism) our species will eventually extend individual longevity to the point that many of the universe's mysteries will be explicated. How tragic for us if we are intelligent enough to ask the questions but never to know the answers. Perhaps we were born too soon. dannyd
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
What would it be like to be a member of the generation that <br />finally answers the last unanswered question? Then what? <br />With no more unknowns to discover, what is left to look forward to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"i have the feeling that life, conscious or other wise, may yet turn out to not be the "centre" of the universe...we allways assume that life is the the highest achievement of the universe (or words to that effect)...but given our history ..we have a continueing tendency to place our selves (ie life) at the hub of everything ,as if the universe only existed in order to create and cater to the existance of life.."<br />---------------------<br /><br />universe doesn't care one bit about life or about anything for that matter one way or another<br /><br />still that doesn't mean we shouldn't see ourselves as the highest form of life (that we are aware of) and that any life as such is a higher form than any inanimate matter<br /><br />given that perspective on life and matter, there is no reason to think that it implies we somehow regard universe as existing for our sake, I suppose some people see it that way but in making such judgements you shouldn't take them as representative sample of humanity, that is assuming you know better than that<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />What if the current generally accepted supposition that the universe is teeming with intelligent life is wrong? What if we are the only ones? What if our destiny in not just to go to the stars and beyond but to bring self-awareness across the cosmos? And what if we fail to get out of this terrestrial cradle? Will the game end then and the universe go dark? dayll</font><br /><br />good thought. however, that is far more than one person can bear, far more than even a culture can bear. we are isolated on earth for a reason. we can rise to the challenges, self-created, to go the stars. and that is fine. but to bear the weight of the guilty thought of "what if we're the only ones and we mess it up..." is untenable. <br /><br />i'd rather go out and wax my car and have a hamburger.
 
E

ebort

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>universe doesn't care one bit about life or about anything for that matter one way or another <br /><br />still that doesn't mean we shouldn't see ourselves as the highest form of life (that we are aware of) and that any life as such is a higher form than any inanimate matter <br /><br />given that perspective on life and matter, there is no reason to think that it implies we somehow regard universe as existing for our sake, I suppose some people see it that way but in making such judgements you shouldn't take them as representative sample of humanity, that is assuming you know better than that <br /><br />vanDivX <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />stop it..that tickles!!
 
D

dannyd

Guest
Blass - Yes - of course, there must be intelligent life out there, maybe even galloping gogols of it. My guess is there are extra-terrestrial intelligences but we are often wrong about things that seem so obviously true. (e.g. - the "moving" sun makes it obvious that the sun is going around the earth.) Godless and alone in the endless uncaring black abyss - now that's one heroic mission! dannyd (
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"Move to SETI room, please."<br /><br />one important ingredient is missing here for the thread to be moved - I mean the 'S' that stands for Search and which subject hasn't been discussed (yet) on this thread and which is the defining subject of the SETI thread, without that the discussion is still within the realm of the Space Science & Astronomy albeit only tangentially<br /><br />but then when was the world last perfect<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"My guess is there are extra-terrestrial intelligences but we are often wrong about things that seem so obviously true. (e.g. - the "moving" sun makes it obvious that the sun is going around the earth.)"<br />-----<br /><br />but intelligent life elsewhere is not from the same basket as the Earth being thought to be the center of the universe, on the contrary it belongs with daring facing of the reality, not some blind unthinking acceptance of the obvious<br /><br />also I am not big friend of going 'against the tide thinking', if you go against something it better be informed rebelion, the 'tide' doesn't have to be always wrong<br /><br />vanDivX<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dannyd

Guest
I just meant that nature seems to have an affinity for surprising us. Just when it seems we have a handle on something - thud! out goes the rug and we are on our collective intellectual and scientific butts! To close - yeah I'm one who surmizes that there MUST be intelligent life out there but what if there isn't? Dam - what a load that would be. dannyd
 
V

vandivx

Guest
in true science it is typically not such complete wipeout but only correction, also science is not guessing or being daredevil, I mean if you come up with some such idea that there might not be any life or any intelligent life out there, you better be ready to support it with some logical argument, else you are just being daredevil spouting sounds that mean nothing<br /><br />your idea smells strongly of mystical approach to science, all 'what ifs' have to have some grounds for being proposed, just making something out of thin air won't do, like because we might have been wrong in past thinking that the Earth was flat is no ground for proposing now that we might be wrong again with thinking its round, if that's your approach you might just as well cease and desist and not pretend being concerned with science or anything else for that matter, that's not meant to put you down, just to give some well meaning advice<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

enigma10

Guest
The folly of searching for intelligent life "out there" is that once we get there to confirm or deny there is, we're there, and therefor intelligent life "out there". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
relative to a being, place, or thing positioned on a terrestrial planet at alpha centauri or thereabouts, looking back to our system, there is indeed ETI. this is confirmed to be a fact as we are here. <br /><br />therefore ETI exists and is a proven fact.
 
D

dannyd

Guest
VanDivX: Wonderful - unsolicted advice - no, your not officious. Regardless, I am not offended. Never in my life have I been "accused" of being of a mystical bent. You're funny. thanks. dannyd (per ardua ad astra)<br /><br />
 
G

gsuschrist

Guest
Inteligent life is probably rare...only trillions of manifestations of conscious life. There are about a hundred billion stars in each of the same mumber of galaxies.<br /><br />that's: 10 to the 21st power number of stars. A trillion intelligences would be one for every 10 bililon stars.<br /><br /> One intelligence for 10 billion stars. That's rare in percent but still a trillion in the Universe as a whole.<br /><br /> If one has any expectation that we may someday have contact (an intelligence in one of the nearest million stars) then that would average out to the number of intelligences in the Universe being:<br /><br />10,000,000,000,000,000<br /><br />Again 'rare' is a relative term.
 
N

newtron

Guest
First, stable "livable" planets. This is subjective, based on what sort of life-form is going to live here. Be it humanoid, microbial, vegetable, or whatever. Depending on what you or other consider as life, the possible stable habitats for life could be many, or few.<br /> I consider microbes a life form, so I would guess (based on antarctic and sea floor volcano info) that there are numerous extraterrestrial habitats where microbes could survive. Let me Clarify that numerous in this instance is not meant to represent a very large number (like say, 95% of all worlds being habitable).<br /><br /> Next, brief terms of evolution, longevity, and survivability. Stars do and don't survive for long, based of course on the type of star. It may take thousands to millions of years for a life form to come into existence (let alone evolve). By this time, larger stars usually die out in supernovae. Though I believe any sort of planet around a stellar giant is bound to be less than habitable anyways (I may be wrong).<br /> Light mass stars tend to last longer, and are more numerous (I think). They'd be the candidates for life more than the super giants, I believe.<br /> Evolution is another thing (and is braking into my final point). Species may be wiped out, before they have a chance to evolve, by cataclysmic events like a meteor strike, rampant volcanism, or other galactic dealies. They may not be able to adapt to new or frequent changing surroundings. Or the planet may somehow change composition and "die". Its a play against time, and adaption.<br /><br /> Finally, intelligent life. Can intelligent life be regarded as creatures serving in a simple societal system? Or do you require it have knowledge of simple tools, and very basic understanding of the surroundings? Or must they be close to our level of intelligence of questioning mind, matter, and space? Whatever the case, I'd say the chance for a creature with a bug-like behavior, and instincts, coming about it is at least some
 
V

vandivx

Guest
let me explain a bit<br /><br />typical mystic is somebody who believes in some god(s), in supernatural something for which there is no scientific evidence<br /><br />now you may not fall in that category but what I am saying is that those 'what if' questions for which there is no scientific evidence are very much from the same source, mystical source<br /><br />it is nice to ask and consider unusual queries that go 'against the tide' but there is that certain line between mysticism and scientific enquiry<br /><br />I may have myself at one time considered what you have asked in this thread originally (same as I might have considered at some point 'what if God exists') but it took me very short time to push such idea into my mind's wastebasket, thing is that even the 'against the tide thinking' has to have some rational ground (some evidence even if tenuous) going for it, else it is mysticism<br /><br />reason why nobody much considers the idea that we might be alone in universe is not because they are all stuck in some groove that life is out there somewhere, rather most have likely considered it shortly before abandoning the thought and not even going out with it, that's why it looks like that is one forgoten alternative nobody thinks about and those who take it up think against tide...<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

tkobyrne

Guest
Science, 10/11/06 vol314pp932-934. A starving Majority Deep Beneath the Seafloor. Refering to an estimated 30% of the Earths biomass now being discovered just above the oceans crust deep under the sediment possibly being powered by the decay of natural radionuclides Jergensen & D'Hondt posit that "An extreme low-energy subsurface biosphere driven by radioactivity would be different from all other ecosystems on Earth. It could proceed on a planet without surface life and solor energy"<br />
 
O

observer7

Guest
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the univese can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole universie is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."<br /><br />Douglas Adams<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
'infinite number' is threadbare falacy as all numbers are finite by definition <br /><br />and doing arithmetical calculation with infinity is worse than running red light when driving because the consequences are certain to hit you while you may get away with ocassional red light driving<br /><br />that was as funny as some argument employing God and I hope it was meant like that originally even by that guy Adams LOL<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts