3 ms·

> If the universe is mathematically infinite, then it’s guaranteed we’re not the only ones because any low probability event will still happen infinitely many t

> If the universe is mathematically infinite, then it’s guaranteed we’re not the only ones because any low probability event will still happen infinitely many times in that case. This isn't really true in any meaningful sense. What is the probability of me tossing a coin immediately after writing this comment, and it landing heads? As I write now, it is 1/2. However, it's clear that only one outcome is possible. EDIT: it was tails. It didn't come up heads, however infinite the universe may be, it just didn't. (Note: there is a non-zero probability that a similar being sits in front of his computer in a similar shirt, having a similar online discussion, who tosses a similar circular disk which comes up a different way, but that being is not me). > the likelihood that that just happened by luck seems astronomically low It seems that way, but as you are arguing elsewhere, unlikely things can and do happen in the universe. > Note that I’m not claiming they are space faring That's part of OPs premise, but I don't mind leaving it out of the discussion. I actually like your formulation: a. what percentage of planets develop life b. what percentage of life develops a species capable of building technology c. what is the likelihood that species has access to resources on the planet to build that technology I'd argue with the 100% for b and c, because we have at least a reasonable belief based on observation that there is no other intelligent life in our solar system, and we have evidence that planets exist without those resources to build technology, but it's not the crux of my argument. The crux of my argument is really a). We don't know what percentage of planets develop life. But as yet, we are unique. On a personal level, by the way, I do actually suspect that we are not alone in the universe, but that's a gut feeling, and I don't believe there's maths to support it. EDIT: FWIW, it was tails.

d1sxeyes 4y ago
Side note while I think about it, actually we have more evidence than we think. Even on a planet clearly adapted to support life in massive varieties, it seems that all life on earth evolved originally from a single organism. We have millions of years of geological and paleontological evidence, and thousands of years of recorded history, and we have no evidence that this happened more than once. It does certainly seem from our limited evidence that abiogenesis (or going from not alive to alive) is at best extremely uncommon, or at worst, an isolated anomaly.

d1sxeyes 4y ago

Side note while I think about it, actually we have more evidence than we think. Even on a planet clearly adapted to support life in massive varieties, it seems that all life on earth evolved originally from a single organism. We have millions of years of geological and paleontological evidence, and thousands of years of recorded history, and we have no evidence that this happened more than once. It does certainly seem from our limited evidence that abiogenesis (or going from not alive to alive) is at best extremely uncommon, or at worst, an isolated anomaly.