5 ms·
TL;DR: "We don't know how often abiogenesis happens, and our uncertainty for its rate is extremely large. The error bars extend so far into 'effectively zero' t
by MauranKilom 5y ago
TL;DR: "We don't know how often abiogenesis happens, and our uncertainty for its rate is extremely large. The error bars extend so far into 'effectively zero' that we could or could not be alone, it's a toss-up". Seriously, this paper hinges entirely on the prior distribution for the abiogenesis rate.
Longer comment:
The paper considers each parameter of the Drake as a probability distribution over some range. Notably, they assume that f_l in the Drake equation (the fraction of habitable planets that actually develop life) may vary over (at least) 200 orders of magnitude. Yes, you read that correctly.
Naturally, they thereby get a long tail of "planets essentially never develop life, even despite there being so many of them".
My main critique (as someone with no further credentials) is that the prior probability distributions they assume for the parameter distributions are more or less meaningless. Their results say "if we assume that the log of f_i (life-bearing planets that develop intelligent life) is uniformly distributed between log(0.001) and log(1), similar for other parameters, then the probability of being alone in the milky way is > 50%".
Specifically, by far the largest impact here is from assuming some distribution for f_l that covers 10x as many orders of magnitude (!) as the remaining parameters together. I'm very certain (but haven't done the math) that slightly tweaking the sigma they assume for the corresponding log-normal distribution (that sigma is 50 orders of magnitude) would drastically impact the results. They do a lot of dancing around that fact (discussing how little impact the priors of other parameters, or even the center of the log-normal distribution for f_l have), but fundamentally the result boils down to:
"We're extremely unsure how often abiogenesis happens, and this parameter dominates everything else." Followed by some math that (oversimplified) boils down to "if we set the rate of abiogenesis to effectively zero half the time, then half the time we are alone in the universe."
PS: Title should probably have (2018).
- brazzy 5y agoBasically, they've replaced ass-pulling the factors in the Drake equation with ass-pulling probability distributions for those factors.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wildermuthn 5y agoAnother refutation: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kvZshdx5FzTPjyhxG/the-fermi-paradox-has-not-been-dissolved https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kvZshdx5FzTPjyhxG/...
- jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago> We're extremely unsure how often abiogenesis happens Lacking any credentials on the subject whatsoever, and based on what (little) I know about abiogenesis, intuition tells me it happens with a probability of 1, if (and here's the key) the conditions are right, and given enough time. (A fun corollary of this is that intelligent life also happens with a probability of 1, under proper conditions [1]). So, we just need to find how many planets have had the right conditions for a long enough period of time. [1] p(abiogenesis)=1 + "evolution is a universal law" => p(intelligent_life)=1
- koheripbal 5y agoThe other thing I believe they are missing is that they are treating the Earth as a single data point for ambiogenesis. The entire Earth's history is hundreds of millions of data points. Each year that a habitable Earth existed prior to life evolving can be seen as a data point. ... and with life emerging very very near its habitability transition, this reduces the drake error bars considerably. The real limitation of the Drake equation is the duration at which life sends out radio signals - which given technological advancement and AI is probably only a couple hundred years.