6 ms·

No problem, I don't get heated over internet banter. And like I said, it's a belief, I don't have any proof just as no one has proof there is. But mostly I subs

by Pigo 10y ago

No problem, I don't get heated over internet banter. And like I said, it's a belief, I don't have any proof just as no one has proof there is. But mostly I subscribe the Fermi paradox when it comes to beings that would be akin to us, single-celled organisms up to Internet armchair-scientist organisms. The only plausible that makes sense to me I first heard from Kaku https://youtu.be/liFhgUinrZU?t=2m45s https://youtu.be/liFhgUinrZU?t=2m45s But to me that's where scientific endeavor starts blending into spirituality, and completely out of our grasp. I only made my first comment because I have a passion for space, and believe it's the greatest human endeavor. People being constantly teased with finding life does a disservice to a pure science that is unequaled in majesty and wonder.

Sir_Substance 10y ago
>I said, it's a belief, I don't have any proof just as no one has proof there is. Does it not seem statistically improbable that in the entire universe, life only occurred once? Personally I think if I believed that, I'd have to accept a creator deity of some kind as well.
- rocqua 10y ago
  Presume that life only exists for a finite amount of time, and let the universe exist for a long time, and the odds of life existing simultaneously go down. You can probably manipulate the odds by changing both life-time and life-probability to be anything you want. Add restrictions of life being able to interact causally (i.e. they coexist long enough for a light round-trip) and things get even harder. Then consider how long it takes for life to be capable of interstellar communication and things probably get even more tighter. To get even closer to foolproof, presume a correlation between sufficient technology for interstellar communication and sufficient technology for self-caused extinction-events (nuclear, climate or otherwise). So, there is a very big difference between 'did other life ever exist?', 'does other life exist right now?', 'will we ever have any kind of interaction with other life?' and, 'will we ever meaningfully communicate with other life?'

by Pigo 10y ago

Sir_Substance 10y ago

>I said, it's a belief, I don't have any proof just as no one has proof there is. Does it not seem statistically improbable that in the entire universe, life only occurred once? Personally I think if I believed that, I'd have to accept a creator deity of some kind as well.

rocqua 10y ago
Presume that life only exists for a finite amount of time, and let the universe exist for a long time, and the odds of life existing simultaneously go down. You can probably manipulate the odds by changing both life-time and life-probability to be anything you want. Add restrictions of life being able to interact causally (i.e. they coexist long enough for a light round-trip) and things get even harder. Then consider how long it takes for life to be capable of interstellar communication and things probably get even more tighter. To get even closer to foolproof, presume a correlation between sufficient technology for interstellar communication and sufficient technology for self-caused extinction-events (nuclear, climate or otherwise). So, there is a very big difference between 'did other life ever exist?', 'does other life exist right now?', 'will we ever have any kind of interaction with other life?' and, 'will we ever meaningfully communicate with other life?'