Are we alone? Intelligent aliens may be rare, new study suggests

[COLGeek]

I'd like to simply restate a couple things for the sake of brevity.

1. I've seen no threads/posts where any on the members who posted in this thread say that life is unique to Earth. In fact, most have acknowledged that given the enormity of the Universe (as we understand it), it is incredibly unlikely that our "third rock from the Sun" is the only place with life. The mathematical likelihood is infinitesimally small that we are "it".

2. Most members also acknowledge that the vastness of the Universe makes it very difficult to conceive us crossing paths with other intelligent life. No one has said it is impossible, but it is incredibly unlikely. This too is a matter of math, scale, etc.

3. Congressional and "eye witness" testimony proves nothing. Our history of jurisprudence and congressional transcripts prove both are fraught with mis-truths, agendas, lies, distortions, and on and on. Given the nature of modern politics, if there was something to share, it would have been. In the US, the misconception that the DoD makes the rules regarding disclosure is grossly misplaced. If directed to release something, it is released. The globe's other governments are players as well (no need to address this one).

4. Belief is not evidence. Seeing something unknown does not automatically mean "of alien origin". The notion that some entity is so advanced as to elude our observation is indeed a possibility, but given 1 and 2 above makes that a VERY remote possibility.

The idea of a global conspiracy to maintain alien contact secrecy is simply not feasible. There are too many potential leak sources. The lure of notoriety and fame to be gained by making such announcement, to be the first, is too enticing.

 

[contrarian]

The mathematical likelihood is infinitesimally small that we are "it".

While it is almost certain that life exists on many planets throughout the universe, the presence of "intelligent" life is another issue. Humans have only been around for a very brief time, and therefore so has any known intelligence "by definition".

However, periodic mass extinctions are almost certainly common to all such planets which have life. That it happens here is as equally likely that it happens in all those other worlds. This puts another wrinkle into the probability of life on other planets progressing to intelligent life that persists for extended periods of time.

A long period comet could take us all out within the next year or two. It is the long term persistence of intelligent life which may be much more uncommon than life itself.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

While not fundamentally disagreeing with Contrarian, I want to point out that "extinction events" have had a substantial influence on the evolution of life on Earth, rather than completely ending all life.

A challenging environment might actually be a necessity for the development of "intelligence" and adaptability.

And, "intelligence" is not automatically going to become "technological", nor is "technological" automatically going to lead to "space faring". There could be intelligent life with significant technology on "super Earths" that simply can't get out of their gravity well. And, possibly have never seen stars through their opaque atmospheres.

 

[Helio]

It's likely the best objective evidence for possible exoplanet life will come from the new and greater telescopes that will give us their atmospheric signatures.

It's unclear, especially to bio-neophyte me, what detections will produce the best evidence for life, but there are papers on this.

Here's an interesting paper, referenced by NASA. "The simultaneous detection of abundant CH4 and CO2 (and the absence of CO) on an ostensibly habitable exoplanet would be strongly suggestive of biology."

I look forward to adding a biomarker probability to the exoplanet stats thread.

It would be nice for someone to invent a probability index for future findings.

 

[Helio]

And, "intelligence" is not automatically going to become "technological", nor is "technological" automatically going to lead to "space faring".

Yep, and I'm thinking there's some porpoise in your statement.

 

[G_x0a]

Please ignore my ignorant arrogance.

Because up to now, no one has begun to answer the question: Why did life have to appear?
I am gradually forming, the theory of everything needs to answer the reason for the appearance of life on earth.
Predictions that satisfy the above question will explain: Are there other intelligent beings outside the earth?

The possible things I can think of are: find a similar reference frame like the human/earth population, maybe use a certain scale to distinguish these reference frames, like the way to distinguish strong and weak interaction forces. Observable, perhaps it will be a population more microscopic than humans (bacteria appear to eat cells, for example..., giving the reason for the appearance of bacteria).

 

[contrarian]

Why did life have to appear?

"Why" suggests a reason for something. Many scientists will tell you there is no reason for anything. Reasons, in the purest sense, is a human invention.

Life appeared on earth because all the conditions were met. There is no reason why, there is only "how" it all happened.

 

[G_x0a]

"Why" suggests a reason for something. Many scientists will tell you there is no reason for anything. Reasons, in the purest sense, is a human invention.

Thanks for helping me not be emotional.
I will have to ask descriptive questions instead of cause and effect questions.

 

[Classical Motion]

G_x0a, that’s a new take for me. I always thought the theory of everything just united the four physical forces that we know about. Or think we know about.

I had no idea it included life and purpose.

No one seems to recognize a life force. The only singular force ever detected.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

And there is this interesting article about present day bacteria that can only survive in colonies: https://www.space.com/space-explora...s-magnetic-field-and-needs-friends-to-survive .

It looks like a step on the way from individual cells to multi-cell animals.

Scientists don't yet understand why individuals die when separated from their colonies, nor how the individual cells communicate among themselves in order to move the colony.

So, basically, we still have a lot to learn before we are going to be able to fit "everything" into a theory of it. And that is especially true about life.

 

[G_x0a]

G_x0a, that’s a new take for me. I always thought the theory of everything just united the four physical forces that we know about. Or think we know about.

I had no idea it included life and purpose.

No one seems to recognize a life force. The only singular force ever detected.

I temporarily assume so to have more motivation to think more about this matter.
Luckily here, the emotional side will be highlighted to prevent distraction.

 

[Helio]

Thanks for helping me not be emotional.
I will have to ask descriptive questions instead of cause and effect questions.

The scientific questions will always be about "how", which are typically about cause and effect, but objectively so. In the 17th century and earlier, the "why" questions were within "science" because all scientific ideas and models included purpose. This was known as teleology. It became more and more clear, thanks greatly to Galileo and others, that the only clear story that can be told is one where objective-based evidence can be used to form hypotheses, which all scientific hypotheses allow for objective testing.

Science avoids pure theological or philosophical questions. Only when religion, for instance, presents a claim that overlaps with science can science address this element of the religious claim. This rarely happens, of course, but it does on occasion.

 

[whoknows]

The scientific questions will always be about "how", which are typically about cause and effect, but objectively so. In the 17th century and earlier, the "why" questions were within "science" because all scientific ideas and models included purpose. This was known as teleology. It became more and more clear, thanks greatly to Galileo and others, that the only clear story that can be told is one where objective-based evidence can be used to form hypotheses, which all scientific hypotheses allow for objective testing.

Science avoids pure theological or philosophical questions. Only when religion, for instance, presents a claim that overlaps with science can science address this element of the religious claim. This rarely happens, of course, but it does on occasion.

True and necessary, but it shouldn't it be properly recognised that objective testing struggles with understanding certain profound and fundamental areas, such as subjective experience and consciousness? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness).

In that sense

"the only clear story that can be told is one where objective-based evidence can be used to form hypotheses, which all scientific hypotheses allow for objective testing."

might be severely limiting.

 

[Helio]

True and necessary, but it shouldn't it be properly recognised that objective testing struggles with understanding certain profound and fundamental areas, such as subjective experience and consciousness? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness).

There are certainly disadvantages to limiting science to the objective realm, but the advantages outweigh these limitations, IMO. The ability to test even hard problems by any number of others will strengthen, or weaken, the claim.

Philosophy and religion are important subjective-based realms that include as much objectivity evidence available to it for the same reason above. Several Galileo stories make great analogies.

In that sense

"the only clear story that can be told is one where objective-based evidence can be used to form hypotheses, which all scientific hypotheses allow for objective testing."

might be severely limiting.

Yes, that’s why science is incomplete when alone. Ideas, for instance, are usually subjective ones that only then brings science to the table when they are deemed worthy.

 

[Dave]

Humanity is alone and we are the center of the universe. For a brief moment lets believe in this lie. What of the future of humanity? We may win out against our social aggression to each other on the whole and humanity may come together as one race. We will continue to search the galaxy for life and intelligent life. This is in our DNA, to to be both curious and to explore. We will continue to build ships exploring the galaxy. This is of course a best case scenario.

Two things will happen when we do this. We will find intelligent life and it will either be less or more advanced. If less advanced they may live in these primitive tribes. Let's call them countries. They will be both socially aggressive and dangerous. It would be wise for us to only observe them, not giving them that 'smoking gun' to discover us. If the odd credible witness sees us, well so what, no one will believe them. They are primitive and stupid. If a 1000 credible witnesses say they have seen spacecraft that can defy the laws of physics and they have seen it with their own two eyes, they still won't believe it. They will believe their science is the only science.

Now , what if we find an intelligent species that is more advanced. Oh... Right...

 

[COLGeek]

A pessimistic view of humanity and the likelihood of an actual intelligent encounter are two completely different things. One has nothing to do with the other.

Is the hope that an alien encounter will enlighten humanity to be better?

I have heard people joke that the only thing that would actually unite humanity would be an alien invasion. Maybe Dave is on to something, but a different something to hope for? Is that the intent?

The facts remain as previously discussed. However, chances of this happening are infinitesimally small. But, not impossible (one must acknowledge from a non-zero mathematical perspective).

 

[Helio]

If a 1000 credible witnesses say they have seen spacecraft that can defy the laws of physics and they have seen it with their own two eyes, they still won't believe it. They will believe their science is the only science.

What would be likely, however, is that the greater the number of witnesses and the higher the risk it may impose on society, the greater will be the effort to find out what is real and what is illusion. IOW, to go from a UFO to an IFO (Identified Flying Object), regardless of origin. If we can track them, we can find them.

Visual observations can easily fool us. Last night, for instance, the local astro club hosted a public viewing and while looking at the Moon at high power (235x), the craters, at times, suddenly appeared to be circular mounds; flipping their height.

Regarding witnesses, on a more humorous note, back in the 60s we were listening one night to the local radio DJ who reporter that there were multiple calls to their station of a UFO sighting on our side of town. We enjoyed a good laugh. The three of us were having fun with a JFO (Joe's Flying Object) and with little thought that it would be deemed a UFO. [We quit this activity when, at launch, the wind changed and the JFO went into the neighbor's large ash tree. It wasn't all bad, half of the tree survived. ]

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe our DNA requirements will keep us here.

 

[G_x0a]

Science avoids pure theological or philosophical questions. Only when religion, for instance, presents a claim that overlaps with science can science address this element of the religious claim. This rarely happens, of course, but it does on occasion.

Forgive me for my slow response, since I said I would study the theory of everything, when I touched on the time aspect of each individual and saw the short-lived finiteness, I felt bored.
I think we should include theology and truth in the disciplines, leaving the task of keeping the clarity to astronomy and those who are proficient in mathematics. When we reach the edge of the problem and cannot solve it for a long time, we enter the domain of theology to get some ideas and then leave, of course, leaving in a way that the morality remains unchanged - still not feeling bored, showing that we have used truth in the right way.

I believe our DNA requirements will keep us here.

I think all living creatures from the past to the present belong to a single living entity.
The question that needs to be reaffirmed is: is each individual human or each living creature really operating with independent thinking?
There have been many outstanding individuals who contributed to the development of civilization, traveled further and to more places than other entities, and in the end, each individual ended up the same.
Clarifying the above question will erase the belief in human intuition, helping each individual to correctly perceive the communication and connection of the hypothesis of a single living entity.

Please don't call me a theologian .

 

[whoknows]

"There are certainly disadvantages to limiting science to the objective realm, but the advantages outweigh these limitations, IMO. The ability to test even hard problems by any number of others will strengthen, or weaken, the claim."

Thanks, but to be clear what do you mean by "any number of others"?

Yes, that’s why science is incomplete when alone. Ideas, for instance, are usually subjective ones that only then brings science to the table when they are deemed worthy.

Deemed worthy by what?

 

[Helio]

Thanks, but to be clear what do you mean by "any number of others"?

I should have been more clear on this important point.

The key to objectivity is the ability of other people to test and retest a given claim. Subjective claims, however, disallow scientific testing in a lab or otherwise; opinions are not measured in pounds or feet or voltage.

So claims such as those found in Big Bang Theory have been found worthy not because they sound good, but because they have been tested over and over by other people. The more people that test a claim, the stronger a successful claim becomes, and the less likely any potential bias is found.

[Notice how UFO claims are in the middle of these two realms since some measurements can be presented, but they are never repeatable. So the more eye-witnesses the better, I suppose.]

Deemed worthy by what?

Anyone who is interested, but especially scientists. Once enough scientists are convinced a claim is well-founded, then the basis to the claim becomes "mainstream science". At this point, another theory that disagrees with the mainstream view will have a much taller hill to climb. But rightfully so. Such claims are known as ATM -- Against The Mainstream. ATM theories, at least on one astronomy site, are forced into their own forum and the author is required to defend its claims.

After Galileo published is Sidereous nuncius, it was only a matter of time before other observers would confirm his claims that there were mountains on the Moon and satellites "circulating" around Jupiter.

But, it is surprising how difficult it was for him to convince others of his claims. He did demonstrations in various cities for dignitaries to gather support, yet many times they found his spyglass worked for land objects but not sky objects. It was difficult to observe through his scope, and the lens quality was marginal, though his lenses -- made by him and his employee(s) -- were the best known throughout Europe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, in the context of this thread, how do you consider the following:

Page 3 - Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, in the context of this thread, how do you consider the following:

Yep, it's a dandy.

Your lucid explanation is more than adequate for any reader, IMO.

The only thing that might add to it would be to note the observable limit due to the speed of light, even though we can see regions expanding faster than light. Also, for the sake of a little irony -- In an expanding universe, of course, our horizons are contracting.

I've been trying to use "universe" to always mean "observational universe", since there are many reports of dragon's beyond these limits.

 

[whoknows]

Yep, it's a dandy.

Your lucid explanation is more than adequate for any reader, IMO.

The only thing that might add to it would be to note the observable limit due to the speed of light, even though we can see regions expanding faster than light. Also, for the sake of a little irony -- In an expanding universe, of course, our horizons are contracting.

I've been trying to use "universe" to always mean "observational universe", since there are many reports of dragon's beyond these limits.

That's a win for subjectivity over objectivity then.

 

[whoknows]

I should have been more clear on this important point.

The key to objectivity is the ability of other people to test and retest a given claim. Subjective claims, however, disallow scientific testing in a lab or otherwise; opinions are not measured in pounds or feet or voltage.

So claims such as those found in Big Bang Theory have been found worthy not because they sound good, but because they have been tested over and over by other people. The more people that test a claim, the stronger a successful claim becomes, and the less likely any potential bias is found.

[Notice how UFO claims are in the middle of these two realms since some measurements can be presented, but they are never repeatable. So the more eye-witnesses the better, I suppose.]


Anyone who is interested, but especially scientists. Once enough scientists are convinced a claim is well-founded, then the basis to the claim becomes "mainstream science". At this point, another theory that disagrees with the mainstream view will have a much taller hill to climb. But rightfully so. Such claims are known as ATM -- Against The Mainstream. ATM theories, at least on one astronomy site, are forced into their own forum and the author is required to defend its claims.

After Galileo published is Sidereous nuncius, it was only a matter of time before other observers would confirm his claims that there were mountains on the Moon and satellites "circulating" around Jupiter.

But, it is surprising how difficult it was for him to convince others of his claims. He did demonstrations in various cities for dignitaries to gather support, yet many times they found his spyglass worked for land objects but not sky objects. It was difficult to observe through his scope, and the lens quality was marginal, though his lenses -- made by him and his employee(s) -- were the best known throughout Europe.

So science is the arbiter, judge and jury of what is deemed to be true. (how very dandy). I am a great fan of science and sometimes throw a few, maybe daft ideas, out there for consideration and scrutiny. I stand by my original point that the lens of science, no matter how good its resolution, is blinkered.

That is not an invitation for any crackpot "reality", just a recognition that science is not all seeing, and often late to the party.