Please critique my theory-compare Drake's equation

[bobw]

The fastest chemical reaction is much slower than your number. I remember reading about a femtosecond camera a few years ago and checked that I remembered correctly that the camera can take pictures of the bonds in a reaction. One of the scientists said, of the camera, 'that's all there is; with this we can watch the fastest chemical reactions'. A femtosecond is 0.000000000000001 seconds, 10^-15. <br /><br />That's the real value you need in that spot in your introduction. I think I'll call this one a draw because you are just as guilty of being unclear as I am of misunderstanding. Your second explaination wasn't really what you mean either. You should derive your number from "how fast can a reaction go". <br /><br />So why do you want to throw your final answer off by such an incredible ammount? That's way more than just "10% padding to allow for uncertainty"; especially when the true value is known. The object of the Drake equation is to fill known values into the variables as they become known; doing so improves the accuracy of the estimate. And it does matter if it makes the number smaller if it is better. Why be wrong on purpose? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

mooware- The math in my first formula in my theory is quite simple:<br /><br />P=TxRxA<br /><br />That is simple multiplication also using simple algebra.<br /><br />It is not factorial math, as Steve alleged. Factorial would be like how many different combinations could be produced from, say, 20 different amino acids. The number would be astronomical! However, there hasn?t been enough time for all these combinations to be tried, so we can ignore factorial math for this side of the equation.<br /><br />Factorial math is important in determining probabilities of a statistical protein from 20 amino acids however - I can post how that works if you would like- it is involved in the 10^112 probability for a statistical protein.<br /><br />Would you like me to help you through the simple multiplication in the simple formula TxRxA?<br /><br />On the relevant tangent about origin of life and fine tuning:<br /><br /> It is not either or, but rather: both.<br /><br />If our universe is more fine-tuned for life then more complex building blocks for life will be more available for the origin of life.<br /><br />If our universe is less fine-tuned for life, there will be less complex building blocks available only.<br /><br />This will be naturally reflected in the relative ease or difficulty human creators have in creating life.<br /><br />Ditto any creator, including extraterrestrial (see Drake?s equation) and even including God.<br /><br />How much information is intrinsic in our universe? For example, in the laws and properties thereof?<br /><br />This will naturally be reflected in the proportions and complexity of building blocks for life.<br /><br />A good example are those 70 amino acids found on meteorites according to the recent Nova Origins broadcast - a detail I am currently researching.<br /><br />Currently scientists do not know how information got into informational proteins- statistical proteins are almost useless (or even worse then useless, e.g. prions in mad-cow disease).<br /><br></br>

 

[newtonian]

bobw- Thank you - a post with a real alternative number to punch in to my formula.<br /><br />So you would favor R= 10^15 per second.<br /><br />That's a billion times slower. Yes, I had read even slower for a fastest rate: 10^-13, i.e. 10^13 per second.<br /><br />If I had started with 10^15 or so, then posters would be saying my upper limit was too low.<br /><br />This way posters agree that the upper limit is unnecessarily high.<br /> The reason I did that was so the upper limit would not be broken, just simply lowered.<br /><br />BTW, that makes P= 10^113 instead of 10^122.<br /><br />And some have calculated a statistical protein probability of 10^113 - an interesting coincidence!<br /><br />Now my theory is not shown wrong:<br /><br />P=TxRxA<br /><br />You are simply helping to add a more certain number to the equation.<br /><br />Thank you again, btw.<br /><br />As long as no other poster objects, I will edit my first post with 10^15 per second instead of 10^24 per second for R.

 

[bobw]

Are you talking about something along the lines of: In the same way that 8 bits of data can define 256 different values that 2^{number of base pairs} bits can contain data for a number of configurations which far exceeds the number of atoms able to execute them at one time? That the number of possible configurations isn't limited by the number of atoms? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

So you would favor R= 10^15 per second.<br /><br />No. I'd prefer your "theory" divide by 10<sup />-15</sup>. You need to use that quantity to derive the term you are using so your term isn't a prime factor in the calculation. It skips a step and the nomenclature is wrong. I think it makes a difference and you think it is a joke. Oh well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"Would you like me to help you through the simple multiplication in the simple formula TxRxA"</font><br /><br />Do I detect sarcasm? <br /><br />I see you tossing alot of calc's around. I've asked you fundamentaly what is it you are trying to prove with your calculations. You answered the truth. <br /><br />I tend to think, and knowing you from your past posts, that you are trying to use this calculation to prove the universe must have had a creator. Am I correct?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

bobw- Sorry if my sense of humor offended you.<br /><br />I do appreciate your input.<br /><br />Now you prefer I divide by 10^-15. I prefer multiplying by 10^15. <br /><br />Before continuing, do I understand you correctly?<br /><br />And do you see the humor in it? <br /><br />BTW, I agree I skipped said step - oops!

 

[newtonian]

mooware - That would be a tangent from this thread - a whopping tangent! For me, yes - however:<br /><br />The reason I made reference to Drake's equation is that there are many conclusions possible in many subjects for scientific research that can use my equation or theory as an upper limit.<br /><br />Drake's equation is but one of the many applications of these upper limits for various things that could have formed by chance in our universe since our universe began.<br /><br />However, it seems many who refer to Drake's equation ignore the fact that intelligent civilizations can form things which cannot be formed by chance - or, at least, cannot be formed by chance in the finite time and mass involved.<br /><br />In short, if something has formed in our universe that cannot have formed by chance in the finite time and mass of our universe, than intelligent design could account for it.<br /><br />The question then becomes:<br /><br />Would you agree that N in Drake's equation could include a number of creators with different abilities to create?<br /><br />In other words, how do you define creator? Or Creator?<br /><br />For me, like Isaac Newton and Galileo, I believe in God and in the Bible.<br /><br />However, math is not one thing for a believer and something different for a non-believer.<br />

 

[newtonian]

Bump. For blass who referred to my use of probability in SDC.<br /><br />This is one example of such use.<br /><br />Blass, feel free to further critique my theory.

 

[search]

"Drake's equation tries to determine the number of detectable intelligent civilizations in Milky Way"<br /><br />Correction<br />Drake's equation tries to determine "how low the probability that any given<br /> galaxy will have intelligent life in it, ..."<br /><br /> "where are they?" <br />

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - Well, I actually knew that - did I post incorrectly?<br /><br />Any comments on my theory (notably the opening post)?

 

[search]

Sorry it took so long but I lost the thread<br /><br />From one of your posts:<br />"Drake's equation tries to determine the number of detectable intelligent civilizations in Milky Way- he seems to assume by chance, despite the obvious skewing factor that intelligent civilizations could create life with a much higher probability than would be the chance formation of life represented in his equation. <br />My equation or formula also assumes chance formation, specifically chance combinations."<br /><br />Critique:<br />Drake Equation is a low probability calculation and yours a high probability calculation since you use "upper limits" in at least two factors. <br /><br />If it is correct or not the calculation itself I will not be looking into it first because I do not have time and second because I really think that life exists here and most probably somewhere else and no matter what the odds are we should look for it both passive and active (looking for signals and sending signals). <br /><br />In any case I hope you read the site about the Paradox in my post above (wher are they?)<br />

 

[yevaud]

<i>Drake Equation is a low probability calculation and yours a high probability calculation since you use "upper limits" in at least two factors.</i><br /><br />I would personally have to say that neither is accurate. The Drake Equation - in point of fact all similar equations - are based solely on speculation. Thus, any ascribing of probability of accuracy is not possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[search]

I did not want to go that far...so I decided to stay on the form and not content.

 

[newtonian]

Yevaud - Note first that my theory is not the ascribing of probability - Drake's equation attempts that.<br /><br />My theory formulates how any predicted probability for anything, not just life, should be judged against our finite section of universe with its limited number of events because of limited atomic mass units (or atomic particles, e.g.: pions, etc.) and limited time of existence of our universe such that anything less likely (by a few powers of 10) than 10^122 to 1 against should not have happened anywhere in our observable universe (or 10^80 amu section of universe) since our universe began.<br /><br />My theory also posits (introduces) a predictable rate (both in time and location in our universe) for things (e.g.: chemical reaction products; e.g.: proteins) to have occurred so far.<br /><br />Now, I do not know if you, Yevaud, are lumping my equation with Drake's equation and then stating, in effect, that my equation is based solely on speculation.<br /><br />Mine is not based on speculation. <br /><br />Both the mass of our universe, the age of our universe, and the fastest possible chemical reaction time are not mere speculation but rather are based on scientific observations.<br /><br />Of course, I have overstated the case because I was trying to give an upper limit. I know very well that the accurate probability is well under 10^122 as an upper limit - in fact the likely upper limit is probably closer to a googol, i.e. 10^100. Just the fastest reaction time is more likely to be 10^13 per second than 10^24 per second.<br /><br />I agree that to ascribe an actual probability to the origin of life is not possible. However, ascribing an upper limit to the probability is possible, and this is, in a nutshell, my theory!<br /><br />Please comment on any of the math factors in my equation that you may feel do not accurately represent an upper limit.<br /><br />I am all ears, so to speak!

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - Will study the link next, after offline for a while.<br /><br />Meanwhile, since I believe in intelligent design (creation), I agree we should look for life elsewhere, and it seems unlikely to me that God would have created such a vast universe but only have created life on this little spec, planet earth.<br /><br />My point is that usually people simple appeal to the massive amount of time our universe has been here, and the massive amount of mass, and then say anything could have happenned. The truth is that there is an upper limit to what could have happened by chance.<br /><br />Clearly, intelligent extraterrestrial life, including God, could have created many things that would not be possible by pure chance.<br /><br />In other words, belief in a Creator greatly increases the odds for life beyond earth, and should be encouraging, not discouraging, in the hopes of finding (by searching) life elsewhere.<br /><br />Just like we have found life deep withing earth's crust and deep in ocean depths in conditions we used to think could not support life.<br /><br />If you have time (no rush) I would sure appreciate honest critique of any or all of the factors in my equation, as stated in the first post of this thread (I think).

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - Excellent link! Fermi's paradox is indeed relevant.<br /><br />And your link also illustrates my point about the math not actually being stated. That is why I stated my theory, which states the math.<br /><br />Your link states:<br /><br />"The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for or contact with such civilizations."<br /><br />The link, however, does not state the probability estimates - a flaw common in most statements addressing this subject.<br /><br />I believe one simple reason is that actually addressing the math would show how improbable life forming by chance in our universe would be. And that, therefore, creation by a more advanced extraterrestrial life form, e.g.: God, would have to be addressed - a thought which many scientists strive very hard to avoid.<br /><br />I will post more on the link (e.g. Drake's equation, anthropic principle, rare earth hypothesis, etc.) after you respond.

 

[yevaud]

Well, yes it is based on speculation. The mass of the universe is an estimate, based on the <i>observable</i> universe, and there is more to the universe than that. The age is also an estimate that has altered time and again in light of new theorizing, in fact altered again quite recently.<br /><br />So there's a limit on what we know or can know. Thus, an theory based on these two factors is speculation. QED.<br /><br />This is the same for both equations. Look at Drake's...all of the factors he took into account were gross estimates that later were altered and adjusted and altered again, and we <i>still</i> do not (and may never) have an accurate answer. <br /><br />FYI, this response is not intended to be perjorative about your idea in particular. It is directed at all "theories" that involve speculation assumed to be fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Yevaud - Well, the estimates for mass of universe and age of universe have not varied that much - it is much more solidly based than the various probabilities in Drake's equation. <br /><br />Remember, also, that my theory adapts as already posted as follows: <br /><br />Consider, rather than the entire universe, our 10^80 atomic mass unit sector. <br /><br />Also, consider, rather than a specific age, the rate per 10 billion years or per 100 billion years. <br /><br />Note, therefore, that as the age estimates and mass estimates change, the RATE remains the same. <br /><br />The rate is very important. <br /><br />For example, for life to spontaneously generate, the various complex ingredients must be in the same place at the same time (i.e. within reaction distance of each other). <br /><br />However, the lifetimes of complex prebiotic molecules are sometimes very short, especially compared with millions of years. <br /><br />So the predicted rate of production of, for example: proteins, is tied in with the lifespan of said protein while waiting for a receptor, etc., to spontaneously generate. <br /><br />If the rate of production is too slow, the two synthesized chemical reaction products will never meet - one will disintegrate before the other forms within reaction distance. <br /><br />Again, to repeat for emphasis: the rate will not change with changing estimates of the age and mass of our universe. <br /><br />Also, note that the probability only becomes better for a more massive and older universe - and only if you include sectors extremely distant in time and space compared with my stated sector about 10 billion years in age and about 10^80 amu in mass, then how can these ever meet over such a vast distance in time and space (i.e. over 100 billion years later, and over 13 billion light years away). <br /><br />Do you understand what I am posting?

 

[yevaud]

I understand that you are taking estimates to be considered as fact, yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Please consider your original "theory" in this thread. In almost every line of thought, the word "estimate," "probability," "upper limit," "statistical," "predicted probability" is used.<br /><br />A theory is fine and well. But obtaining definitive answers from this is not possible. Minf you, it's a good piece of work, but in the end, it too is only based on educated guesswork, and in lieu of any hard evidence, results from it must be considered as educated guesswork as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[search]

As I said before for me it is irrelevant if the probability is high or low and also add to this that it is also irrelevant if God, any God, more than one God or no God is/are involved and the reason is that humans are natural explorers. <br /><br />Humans seek knowledge, humans "starve" for new discoveries and the motivation as been, is and I believe it will be always dependent on the individual or group of individuals. To you God leeds you to know more about science for others it is not God but science itself.<br /><br />Can this live together? <br /><br />Yes it can if we learn to accept that independently of the personal motivations there is a lot to learn out there and if there is other forms of life in other worlds either less or more advanced it will always be worth to search for it because it will make us more complete as the biodiversity on earth makes humans more complete.<br /><br />The only important mathematical factor is not the "probability of existence" itself but the "probability of the location of existence" because that is what true explorers should do. They do not drift they sail. They do not wander they set course.<br /><br />As for looking into your equation forgive me but no.

 

[rfoshaug]

I totaly agree, Yevaud!<br /><br />Might as well use this equation:<br /><br />L = X<br /><br />L is the number of advanced civilizations in the universe.<br />X is the average number of advanced civilizations in each galaxy multiplied with the number of galaxies in our universe.<br /><br /><br />Estimating how common life is does not become any easier by dividing the one unknown number into a whole lot of unknown numbers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

rfoshaug - I agree. This is why my theory is so superior to Drake's equation.<br /><br />I am dealing with factors for which we have scientific data to determine upper limits.<br /><br />Remember, I wanted you to compare Drake's equation. What I wanted you to critique was my theory, not Drake's equation!

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH – First, my theory (formula, equation) is not stating the probability is either high or low. Rather, my theory states the upper limit into which various probabilities must fit in order for the result to have occurred somewhere in our universe since our universe began.<br /><br />Why do you refuse to look into my equation?