4 ms·

Scientifically the only life I can prove exists is on earth. We have found no evidence of life in any form anywhere. It’s totally reasonable to believe that ma

Scientifically the only life I can prove exists is on earth. We have found no evidence of life in any form anywhere. It’s totally reasonable to believe that may in fact be the case. The statement that it’s geocentrism makes the supposition that it’s ego that drives assumption of life only on earth. However if life only exists on earth, we would necessarily be the ones observing the empty universe. A distinct possibility is that it takes a long time and very unique situations for life to evolve. The first life in the universe would look out at a lifeless universe. Life may later develop, and we are the first. Maybe life develops here first, and ejecta from our atmosphere seeding the space we travel through spreads it through the galaxy and the universe. Maybe life existed everywhere during the Goldilocks period of the universe and has died out almost everywhere and we are the last ember. But the only evidence we have for any of these theories - literally the only evidence - is that we are alone. But I am glad we keep looking to prove that wrong.

defrost 3y ago
Just a few decades ago it was absolutely correct to state that: Scientifically the only planets I can prove exists are here in this solar system. We have found no evidence of planets anywhere else. I question whether it was then totally reasonable to claim that it was likely there were no other planets anywhere. Today, of course, we are over run with evidence for exo planets.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  There is a pretty significant gap in the implications of the existence of exoplanets and in the implications of the existence of exobiology. Prior to the detection of exoplanets, there was likely still a general consensus that they probably exist, because that didn't really have any implications for our model of the universe. It was understandable that the technology of the time was just not capable of detecting things that small. The question of life becomes more complicated because what it means in terms of detectability is completely different depending on the conditions. Depending on how common it is, things range from it being weird we haven't detected any yet to it being so rare that our existence is indeed special.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > to it being so rare that our existence is indeed special. Which is possible but hardly reasonable . . . Many in STEM would argue that it's reasonable to assume we're not at all special.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Life may not be "special", but we (our lineage) has gone through a few demonstrably evolutionarily rare events to get to the point we are.
      - defrost 3y ago
        The question is whether there is life elsewhere, not whether we have replicants "out there". That said, the entire universe as is appears to be in incredibly rare event, moreso than mere evolution.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I kind of meant "we" as "intelligent life" capable of astronomical science. We have no idea how rare the universe is because we can't compare it to anything. We can compare terrestrial species to all of the other terrestrial species we know of. This shows that some evolutionary trajectories and forms appear to be more or less frequent outcomes.
        defrost 3y ago
        > We have no idea how rare the universe is because we can't compare it to anything. Good luck floating that past your typical theoretical astrophysicist, there are several quite different approaches to taking a stab at that one - all fall into can't be resolved either way basket though, I see your point. fnordpiglet mentions the rare earth notion, I first came across that in the mid 70's reading an Asimov non fiction essay collection The Tragedy of the Moon which raised the importance(??) of having a moon to create tides to create intertidal zones to nudge life from water to land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_the_Moon There's a long chain of chance that lies behind ourselves arriving where we are ... the argument can still be made (as it was by Douglas Adams) that "The universe is big. Really Big." The latest JWT images convey just a smidgeon of how big with high res images of tiny arc areas of the night sky packed with tiny lights that are each galaxies the size of the milky way and more. That's a lot of rolls of the dice out there.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Yet that proves nothing. I’d point out that the fact there are multiple planets around our own star and the theory of how the universe evolved predicted planets around other stars with near certainty, and we even had an idea of how to detect them it was just a matter of a sensitive enough instrument and computational techniques. We have nothing equivalent for life. But not for trying, we absolutely have, quite a lot with many techniques. But yet, nothing. We don’t even have a theory for how life emerges that’s very advanced or verifiable. I’m not saying we are alone. But the fact we exist doesn’t prove other life exists, and it doesn’t mean life is plentiful. If there were one person left on earth, they would observe a planet and assume there must be more people because how could they possibly be alone? Yet, by construction, they are. That incredulity doesn’t change anything. I’m not asserting we are alone, and I believe we aren’t. But just pointing out our belief proves absolutely nothing, and holding the opposite belief doesn’t mean egotism. It’s actually the most rational belief given all evidence that we are alone.

defrost 3y ago

Just a few decades ago it was absolutely correct to state that: Scientifically the only planets I can prove exists are here in this solar system. We have found no evidence of planets anywhere else. I question whether it was then totally reasonable to claim that it was likely there were no other planets anywhere. Today, of course, we are over run with evidence for exo planets.

dotnet00 3y ago
There is a pretty significant gap in the implications of the existence of exoplanets and in the implications of the existence of exobiology. Prior to the detection of exoplanets, there was likely still a general consensus that they probably exist, because that didn't really have any implications for our model of the universe. It was understandable that the technology of the time was just not capable of detecting things that small. The question of life becomes more complicated because what it means in terms of detectability is completely different depending on the conditions. Depending on how common it is, things range from it being weird we haven't detected any yet to it being so rare that our existence is indeed special.
- defrost 3y ago
  > to it being so rare that our existence is indeed special. Which is possible but hardly reasonable . . . Many in STEM would argue that it's reasonable to assume we're not at all special.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Life may not be "special", but we (our lineage) has gone through a few demonstrably evolutionarily rare events to get to the point we are.
    - defrost 3y ago
      The question is whether there is life elsewhere, not whether we have replicants "out there". That said, the entire universe as is appears to be in incredibly rare event, moreso than mere evolution.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I kind of meant "we" as "intelligent life" capable of astronomical science. We have no idea how rare the universe is because we can't compare it to anything. We can compare terrestrial species to all of the other terrestrial species we know of. This shows that some evolutionary trajectories and forms appear to be more or less frequent outcomes.
        defrost 3y ago
        > We have no idea how rare the universe is because we can't compare it to anything. Good luck floating that past your typical theoretical astrophysicist, there are several quite different approaches to taking a stab at that one - all fall into can't be resolved either way basket though, I see your point. fnordpiglet mentions the rare earth notion, I first came across that in the mid 70's reading an Asimov non fiction essay collection The Tragedy of the Moon which raised the importance(??) of having a moon to create tides to create intertidal zones to nudge life from water to land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_the_Moon There's a long chain of chance that lies behind ourselves arriving where we are ... the argument can still be made (as it was by Douglas Adams) that "The universe is big. Really Big." The latest JWT images convey just a smidgeon of how big with high res images of tiny arc areas of the night sky packed with tiny lights that are each galaxies the size of the milky way and more. That's a lot of rolls of the dice out there.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Yet that proves nothing. I’d point out that the fact there are multiple planets around our own star and the theory of how the universe evolved predicted planets around other stars with near certainty, and we even had an idea of how to detect them it was just a matter of a sensitive enough instrument and computational techniques. We have nothing equivalent for life. But not for trying, we absolutely have, quite a lot with many techniques. But yet, nothing. We don’t even have a theory for how life emerges that’s very advanced or verifiable. I’m not saying we are alone. But the fact we exist doesn’t prove other life exists, and it doesn’t mean life is plentiful. If there were one person left on earth, they would observe a planet and assume there must be more people because how could they possibly be alone? Yet, by construction, they are. That incredulity doesn’t change anything. I’m not asserting we are alone, and I believe we aren’t. But just pointing out our belief proves absolutely nothing, and holding the opposite belief doesn’t mean egotism. It’s actually the most rational belief given all evidence that we are alone.