3 ms·

1 in 10^22 sounds like a lot but it really isn't when it comes to probabilities. It's only about a 10 sigma evidence against a null hypothesis. Put it another

1 in 10^22 sounds like a lot but it really isn't when it comes to probabilities. It's only about a 10 sigma evidence against a null hypothesis. Put it another away, all it takes is about four one-in-a-million chance independent events (or filters) and you're left with Earth being the only planet with life in the observable universe.

colechristensen 4y ago
>Put it another away, all it takes is about four one-in-a-million chance independent events (or filters) and you're left with Earth being the only planet with life in the observable universe. This presupposes life can only exist on a planet with several exact characteristics that we have on Earth. Given life on Earth exists quite nearly in every environment that exists, it could be expected that despite significant filters, there is room for several variations which enable life even if quite different.
- cogman10 4y ago
  The real question to me is if intelligent life exists. If you look at the history of earth, there have been several filters that very nearly wiped out intelligent life. Further, we needed a few extinction events just to have a world where our intelligent life could reach the point of developing science. We wouldn't, for example, have been able to thrive in the Jurassic period. There were simply far too many predators to keep us from doing anything more than hiding in caves and trees. Then if you look at the evolution of humanity, we very nearly went extinct a couple of times. We were estimated to have been whittled down to 10000 citizens at one point. [1] Evolution, it seems, doesn't necessarily select for intelligence. It selects for better killers and better hiders. Being smarter than the predators doesn't immediately grant enough benefit. If it did, we'd probably not be the only intelligent species to ever exist. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...
  - macintux 4y ago
    This is why I worry about our potential extinction: what if we truly are the only beings in the entire universe capable of exploring it, and we wipe ourselves out? What an incredible waste.
    - irrational 4y ago
      How is that a waste? The universe doesn’t exist to be explored. It just is. It is not wasted if it is never explored.
      - gcanyon 4y ago
        I like to think of the universe as a large mass of hydrogen that evolved to consider itself.
        colechristensen 4y ago
        Science fiction idea: a “universe” is actually an egg, a race of godlike beings’ method of reproduction and we’re the embryo. When consciousness grows to encompass the entire infinite extent with every particle contributing, it hatches.
jcims 4y ago
This is the exact point that I would love to see someone really dig into relative to some of the prevailing theories of biogenesis. Molecular biology is so mind-bogglingly complex that 10^22 planets could disappear into the noise floor very quickly.

colechristensen 4y ago

>Put it another away, all it takes is about four one-in-a-million chance independent events (or filters) and you're left with Earth being the only planet with life in the observable universe. This presupposes life can only exist on a planet with several exact characteristics that we have on Earth. Given life on Earth exists quite nearly in every environment that exists, it could be expected that despite significant filters, there is room for several variations which enable life even if quite different.

cogman10 4y ago
The real question to me is if intelligent life exists. If you look at the history of earth, there have been several filters that very nearly wiped out intelligent life. Further, we needed a few extinction events just to have a world where our intelligent life could reach the point of developing science. We wouldn't, for example, have been able to thrive in the Jurassic period. There were simply far too many predators to keep us from doing anything more than hiding in caves and trees. Then if you look at the evolution of humanity, we very nearly went extinct a couple of times. We were estimated to have been whittled down to 10000 citizens at one point. [1] Evolution, it seems, doesn't necessarily select for intelligence. It selects for better killers and better hiders. Being smarter than the predators doesn't immediately grant enough benefit. If it did, we'd probably not be the only intelligent species to ever exist. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...
- macintux 4y ago
  This is why I worry about our potential extinction: what if we truly are the only beings in the entire universe capable of exploring it, and we wipe ourselves out? What an incredible waste.
  - irrational 4y ago
    How is that a waste? The universe doesn’t exist to be explored. It just is. It is not wasted if it is never explored.
    - gcanyon 4y ago
      I like to think of the universe as a large mass of hydrogen that evolved to consider itself.
      - colechristensen 4y ago
        Science fiction idea: a “universe” is actually an egg, a race of godlike beings’ method of reproduction and we’re the embryo. When consciousness grows to encompass the entire infinite extent with every particle contributing, it hatches.

jcims 4y ago

This is the exact point that I would love to see someone really dig into relative to some of the prevailing theories of biogenesis. Molecular biology is so mind-bogglingly complex that 10^22 planets could disappear into the noise floor very quickly.