4 ms·

> Time literally means nothing to the universe. This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea, but the current theory pret

> Time literally means nothing to the universe. This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea, but the current theory pretty much completely rules out your completely unsuppported take. Gravity is to our best knowledge not symmetric in time, and neither is heat. (Every other fundamental force in QCD is though.) The likelihood of the emergence of life decreases as overall entropy increases. Moreover, the emergence of life at any point in the universe is already vanishingly unlikely. If we kill life on Earth, the likelihood of life emerging again is strictly less than that of life on Earth existing as it does. And beyond a certain temperature bound, it's simply impossible. The viability of informational molecules like RNA (even silicon based variants) vanishes above around 60-70C.

ramblerman 7y ago
> This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea Lol. The fermi paradox is not my idea, neither is the great filter as one the possible explanations. But the presumption in both is that we are not alone as intelligent life, not to mention simple life. You mention the goldilocks theory, which indeed states that life probably has an incredibly thin temperature band in which it survives. But that just means life is unlikely on most planets, which means almost nothing in infinite space and time. The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
- 1propionyl 7y ago
  There is no actual evidence of an infinite universe. If anything the most likely situation is finite but comtinuosly expanding. > The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter. This is still entirely wrong, on the basis of basic thermodynamic principles that are relatively well empirically supported. Even if life has emerged before us, the probability of it happening again only decrease over time. And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works.
  - ramblerman 7y ago
    > There is no actual evidence of an infinite universe. The drake equation and fermi account for that, using something like "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns". Most of these ideas are probabilistic based on sizes that are just immense beyond comprehension. But I still find them more grounded than the pre-Copernican hubris that we are somehow central to all this. > And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works How do you figure that?
    - 1propionyl 7y ago
      A vanishingly small probability on a finite sample still implies nothing beyond a vanishingly small probability over an infinite population. To analogize: the vanishingly unlikely probability of landing a dart precisely in the center of the bullseye on a finitely sized dartboard implies nothing more than the same for an infinitely large dartboard. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never")
      - ramblerman 7y ago
        > See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never") You're confused here, did you read the mathematical definition of your own article? It has nothing to do with what you think, it starts with the presumption of P(E) = 1 or P(E) = 0 for almost never. That's not what we are talking about with small probabilities.

ramblerman 7y ago

> This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea Lol. The fermi paradox is not my idea, neither is the great filter as one the possible explanations. But the presumption in both is that we are not alone as intelligent life, not to mention simple life. You mention the goldilocks theory, which indeed states that life probably has an incredibly thin temperature band in which it survives. But that just means life is unlikely on most planets, which means almost nothing in infinite space and time. The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.

1propionyl 7y ago
There is no actual evidence of an infinite universe. If anything the most likely situation is finite but comtinuosly expanding. > The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter. This is still entirely wrong, on the basis of basic thermodynamic principles that are relatively well empirically supported. Even if life has emerged before us, the probability of it happening again only decrease over time. And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  > There is no actual evidence of an infinite universe. The drake equation and fermi account for that, using something like "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns". Most of these ideas are probabilistic based on sizes that are just immense beyond comprehension. But I still find them more grounded than the pre-Copernican hubris that we are somehow central to all this. > And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works How do you figure that?
  - 1propionyl 7y ago
    A vanishingly small probability on a finite sample still implies nothing beyond a vanishingly small probability over an infinite population. To analogize: the vanishingly unlikely probability of landing a dart precisely in the center of the bullseye on a finitely sized dartboard implies nothing more than the same for an infinitely large dartboard. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never")
    - ramblerman 7y ago
      > See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never") You're confused here, did you read the mathematical definition of your own article? It has nothing to do with what you think, it starts with the presumption of P(E) = 1 or P(E) = 0 for almost never. That's not what we are talking about with small probabilities.