4 ms·

> Physics and chemistry impose some serious constraints on all life forms. On earth's carbon based life forms you mean. Its a huge blindspot, basically monkeys

> Physics and chemistry impose some serious constraints on all life forms. On earth's carbon based life forms you mean. Its a huge blindspot, basically monkeys looking for other monkeys. If we believe our life is sufficiently compelex biochemically, it figures that other "life" may have the same complexity but with very different structures. So the argument for ET life to have almost exact homologs of terrestial life is bordering on naievete at best, and dangerously intolerant at worst.

542354234235 5y ago
No, its more like saying “our star and the planets and most satellites in the solar system are generally spherical due to gravity. I postulate that all stars and planets in the universe are subject to those same forces and will also generally be spherical”. That isn’t a dangerously intolerant idea. We can say that life is unlikely to arise from a solid block of iron, due to what we understand about the atomic properties of iron, the possible chemical reactions, etc. There just isn’t much going on at a basic physics level for it to “do” anything that could likely lead to even the most generous definition of “life”. That isn’t naivete. It is your kind of fantastical thinking that life somewhere else somehow isn’t subject to the same physics as life here that is naive. It’s not wanting to be bound by boring concepts like chemical reactions, gravity, perceiving your environment in some way, etc. We don’t take people seriously that say that stars in other galaxies are actually the heads of long bright snakes and us thinking they are just boring balls of gas is our “blindspot”.
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  We know a lot about physics. We don't know factually if a beetle can think and remember. We know about proteins. We don't know how some aquatic life can survive in the mariana trench. Biochemistry is indeed chemistry but it isn't as straight forward as we'd like to imagine. Till this day there are cell structures we are uncertain of and would be completely wandering in the dark were it not for cheap but powerful computation available 24/7. Lets go smaller and things get blurry. The standard model looks...hmmm.
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    > We don't know factually if a beetle can think and remember. What does this mean? We don’t know the exact capacity of the mind of a beetle. We don’t know how its subjective experience compares to our own. But we know that the structure of neuronal tissue allows information to be stored, just like we know that the structure of DNA allows information to be stored. The relay on chemicals, temps, and pressures where weak chemical bonds and be reliably broken and made. > We don't know how some aquatic life can survive in the mariana trench. Again, what does this mean? This feels like the misunderstanding when we say “we don’t know how the pyramids were built” which means we don’t know everything about the exact methods used, but we understand the general technological levels of the time. While people take it as “the ancient Egyptians had a secret technology” or “they couldn’t have built them”. We haven’t been able to observe certain behaviors or exact mechanics or feeding habits for some animals, but we understand how they survive. > Biochemistry is indeed chemistry but it isn't as straight forward as we'd like to imagine. Till this day there are cell structures we are uncertain of and would be completely wandering in the dark were it not for cheap but powerful computation available 24/7. Understanding the exact mechanisms is not the same as understanding why cells would be round, or why a semi permeable membrane is important, or why they need energy to resist entropy, or how they need a reliable way to encode and store information,etc. Understanding very specific and exact biological processes is not the same as understanding basic constraints placed on all matter. If its too cold for chemical reactions to regularly take place, that is a constraint. If a material does not have a structure that can be broken down and remade, that is a constraint. The inverse square law is true everywhere, which is why we can say we won’t see giant flying dragons on any planet.

542354234235 5y ago

No, its more like saying “our star and the planets and most satellites in the solar system are generally spherical due to gravity. I postulate that all stars and planets in the universe are subject to those same forces and will also generally be spherical”. That isn’t a dangerously intolerant idea. We can say that life is unlikely to arise from a solid block of iron, due to what we understand about the atomic properties of iron, the possible chemical reactions, etc. There just isn’t much going on at a basic physics level for it to “do” anything that could likely lead to even the most generous definition of “life”. That isn’t naivete. It is your kind of fantastical thinking that life somewhere else somehow isn’t subject to the same physics as life here that is naive. It’s not wanting to be bound by boring concepts like chemical reactions, gravity, perceiving your environment in some way, etc. We don’t take people seriously that say that stars in other galaxies are actually the heads of long bright snakes and us thinking they are just boring balls of gas is our “blindspot”.

vagrantJin 5y ago
We know a lot about physics. We don't know factually if a beetle can think and remember. We know about proteins. We don't know how some aquatic life can survive in the mariana trench. Biochemistry is indeed chemistry but it isn't as straight forward as we'd like to imagine. Till this day there are cell structures we are uncertain of and would be completely wandering in the dark were it not for cheap but powerful computation available 24/7. Lets go smaller and things get blurry. The standard model looks...hmmm.
- 542354234235 5y ago
  > We don't know factually if a beetle can think and remember. What does this mean? We don’t know the exact capacity of the mind of a beetle. We don’t know how its subjective experience compares to our own. But we know that the structure of neuronal tissue allows information to be stored, just like we know that the structure of DNA allows information to be stored. The relay on chemicals, temps, and pressures where weak chemical bonds and be reliably broken and made. > We don't know how some aquatic life can survive in the mariana trench. Again, what does this mean? This feels like the misunderstanding when we say “we don’t know how the pyramids were built” which means we don’t know everything about the exact methods used, but we understand the general technological levels of the time. While people take it as “the ancient Egyptians had a secret technology” or “they couldn’t have built them”. We haven’t been able to observe certain behaviors or exact mechanics or feeding habits for some animals, but we understand how they survive. > Biochemistry is indeed chemistry but it isn't as straight forward as we'd like to imagine. Till this day there are cell structures we are uncertain of and would be completely wandering in the dark were it not for cheap but powerful computation available 24/7. Understanding the exact mechanisms is not the same as understanding why cells would be round, or why a semi permeable membrane is important, or why they need energy to resist entropy, or how they need a reliable way to encode and store information,etc. Understanding very specific and exact biological processes is not the same as understanding basic constraints placed on all matter. If its too cold for chemical reactions to regularly take place, that is a constraint. If a material does not have a structure that can be broken down and remade, that is a constraint. The inverse square law is true everywhere, which is why we can say we won’t see giant flying dragons on any planet.