4 ms·

At astronomical timescales even Earth's life is just a blink of an eye. It's not at all unlikely that life on other planets happened, is happening or will happe

by pluma 11y ago

At astronomical timescales even Earth's life is just a blink of an eye. It's not at all unlikely that life on other planets happened, is happening or will happen somewhere out there. The odds are just pretty good that we'll never be able to find out because we not only happen to be in the wrong place to observe it, but also in the wrong time. That's pretty depressing IMO.

eru 11y ago
> At astronomical timescales even Earth's life is just a blink of an eye. Age of the universe: ~13.8 billion years Life on earth: ~4.1 billion years That's a decent chunk, not the blink of an eye.
- codeshaman 11y ago
  > Age of the universe: ~13.8 billion years If the age of the Universe is 13.8 billion years, I wonder, what was happening 13.9 billion years ago? What about 13.8^2 = 190 billion years ago and even before that ? Kind of mind bending, but time seems to be infinite (at least to us) so at that scale, the life of Earth is really a blink of an eye or less.
  - Sharlin 11y ago
    As far as we know, time began 13.8 billion years ago. Talking about events before that is not meaningful.
    - codeshaman 11y ago
      > As far as we know What we 'know' is given to us by the mathematical models which we invented to describe the observed reality. Currently, we have different models to describe reality based on the scale of observation.... Which is interesting because as you zoom into the microcosmos there's a point were the laws of physics magically 'switch' from relativity to quantum mechanics. As a programmer who is not a physicist, I can smell a hack right there. Which brings me to the inevitable conclusion that maybe our model of reality is not entirely correct. So if I were to bet on weather time existed before our model's mathematical moment zero or that our mathematical model is imprecise, I would definitely choose the infinity of time. Our mathematical model is for us or future generations to adjust to whatever we discover in the future.
      - oelang 11y ago
        > As a programmer who is not a physicist Let me stop you right there...
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >What we 'know' is given to us by the mathematical models which we invented to describe the observed reality So, do you have to propose anything better? Mere intuition "but time seems infinite" is not that.
        codeshaman 11y ago
        > So, do you have to propose anything better? If I did, would anyone listen to it here ? The point being that, throughout history humans always had a dominant theory about the origin of Universe and it was considered the truth at the time. The bing bang theory is one such theory which is currently accepted as 'truth' by the scientific majority, but it is not the last and not the only theory explaining the origins of the Universe. The man himself said it: "We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature." - Stephen Hawking
        eru 11y ago
        > If I did, would anyone listen to it here ? Maybe not here, but people would read a good paper on Arxiv.
      - Asbostos 11y ago
        Try as they might, physicists haven't found any way to adjust it that allows for an infinite time while also being consistent with so many observed phenomena. Of course we could make up an ad hoc model that says "It just is" but the big bang model is more consistent with observation than anything else we have. We don't have freedom to just change it. We first have to find a possible valid way to change it and nobody has. Also nobody's found a way to fuel a car with water, fly on magic carpets or travel back in time to meet our grandparents. It might turn out to be impossible. Would you bet on those things happening one day? As another commenter said, your intuition is no match for nature - it's based on human's very narrow experience of the world, our inability to see how limited the concepts we can imagine are and our arbitrary biases for the ideas we like at the expense of ones we don't understand.
    - amelius 11y ago
      Well, time is "synonymous" with change. So talking about events before "change" began is indeed not meaningful. But it is still meaningful to ask if there was change before the point where most people think there was no change.
      - eru 11y ago
        Oh, it's more complicated. Talking about time gets weird when masses and energies are in the relativistic realm.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cousin_it 11y ago
    Asking "what happened before the big bang?" isn't necessarily any more meaningful than asking "what's beyond the edge of the screen in a Pac-Man game?" or "what's the predecessor of a Garden of Eden configuration?"
- 6502nerdface 11y ago
  Yeah, it would be really fascinating if it turned out that life rare is in space, but not so rare in time.
- headShrinker 11y ago
  Earth didn't exist 13 billion years ago. By most calculations Earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
  - eru 11y ago
    Sorry, did you mix something up? I'm not even mentioning the age of the earth anywhere.

by pluma 11y ago

eru 11y ago

> At astronomical timescales even Earth's life is just a blink of an eye. Age of the universe: ~13.8 billion years Life on earth: ~4.1 billion years That's a decent chunk, not the blink of an eye.

codeshaman 11y ago
> Age of the universe: ~13.8 billion years If the age of the Universe is 13.8 billion years, I wonder, what was happening 13.9 billion years ago? What about 13.8^2 = 190 billion years ago and even before that ? Kind of mind bending, but time seems to be infinite (at least to us) so at that scale, the life of Earth is really a blink of an eye or less.
- Sharlin 11y ago
  As far as we know, time began 13.8 billion years ago. Talking about events before that is not meaningful.
  - codeshaman 11y ago
    > As far as we know What we 'know' is given to us by the mathematical models which we invented to describe the observed reality. Currently, we have different models to describe reality based on the scale of observation.... Which is interesting because as you zoom into the microcosmos there's a point were the laws of physics magically 'switch' from relativity to quantum mechanics. As a programmer who is not a physicist, I can smell a hack right there. Which brings me to the inevitable conclusion that maybe our model of reality is not entirely correct. So if I were to bet on weather time existed before our model's mathematical moment zero or that our mathematical model is imprecise, I would definitely choose the infinity of time. Our mathematical model is for us or future generations to adjust to whatever we discover in the future.
    - oelang 11y ago
      > As a programmer who is not a physicist Let me stop you right there...
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >What we 'know' is given to us by the mathematical models which we invented to describe the observed reality So, do you have to propose anything better? Mere intuition "but time seems infinite" is not that.
      - codeshaman 11y ago
        > So, do you have to propose anything better? If I did, would anyone listen to it here ? The point being that, throughout history humans always had a dominant theory about the origin of Universe and it was considered the truth at the time. The bing bang theory is one such theory which is currently accepted as 'truth' by the scientific majority, but it is not the last and not the only theory explaining the origins of the Universe. The man himself said it: "We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature." - Stephen Hawking
        eru 11y ago
        > If I did, would anyone listen to it here ? Maybe not here, but people would read a good paper on Arxiv.
    - Asbostos 11y ago
      Try as they might, physicists haven't found any way to adjust it that allows for an infinite time while also being consistent with so many observed phenomena. Of course we could make up an ad hoc model that says "It just is" but the big bang model is more consistent with observation than anything else we have. We don't have freedom to just change it. We first have to find a possible valid way to change it and nobody has. Also nobody's found a way to fuel a car with water, fly on magic carpets or travel back in time to meet our grandparents. It might turn out to be impossible. Would you bet on those things happening one day? As another commenter said, your intuition is no match for nature - it's based on human's very narrow experience of the world, our inability to see how limited the concepts we can imagine are and our arbitrary biases for the ideas we like at the expense of ones we don't understand.
  - amelius 11y ago
    Well, time is "synonymous" with change. So talking about events before "change" began is indeed not meaningful. But it is still meaningful to ask if there was change before the point where most people think there was no change.
    - eru 11y ago
      Oh, it's more complicated. Talking about time gets weird when masses and energies are in the relativistic realm.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Asking "what happened before the big bang?" isn't necessarily any more meaningful than asking "what's beyond the edge of the screen in a Pac-Man game?" or "what's the predecessor of a Garden of Eden configuration?"
6502nerdface 11y ago
Yeah, it would be really fascinating if it turned out that life rare is in space, but not so rare in time.
headShrinker 11y ago
Earth didn't exist 13 billion years ago. By most calculations Earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
- eru 11y ago
  Sorry, did you mix something up? I'm not even mentioning the age of the earth anywhere.