5 ms·

> I think life is the most common thing in the universe. Until we have sufficient evidence we don’t know how common life is in the universe. It doesn’t take mu

> I think life is the most common thing in the universe. Until we have sufficient evidence we don’t know how common life is in the universe. It doesn’t take much for one of the exponents of the Drake equation to veer towards zero so closely that all the vast distances, multitude of galaxies, stars, and planets make no difference to our chances of not being alone in the universe. We won’t know until we have a body of evidence with which we can perform statistical analysis and N=1 isn’t enough. Unless you’re in possession of non-public data on the matter then your assertion is merely a kind of faith.

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
Drake equation is a probabilistic argument or simply science fiction of the intelligent kind. It is not science. Life is incredibly common because nothing about us is special in the universe.
- vsnf 3y ago
  Why do you speak with such confidence when you have no data? If life is common as you've stated, then where is it? Whether ultimately true or untrue, your assertion is without evidence, yet presented as though it is the unassailable truth.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    It's generally a fairly safe assumption that if something can happen once, it can likely happen twice. It's not guaranteed, but with fifteen billion years and 200 sextillion stars to work with, even the most unlikely things are pretty likely.
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      Space is hostile to life. After 4 billion years, life cannot propagate to nearest planet. We are lucky that life on our planet is not erased yet, but it will be erased in about 2-4 billion years, when oceans will boil, then when core will freeze, then when Sun will consume the planet. Out of 6-8 billion years, 3 billion years was spent in single-cell form of life. We are extremely lucky. We can calculate how many stars are formed after a supernova event, how many Earth-size planets in the habitable zone are survived after collision of two objects of comparable size, how many of them survived with ocean and large moon, to make large tidal waves (I suspect that first cells were formed as greasy puddles, then partially dried out, which created a membrane), then how many of them were far enough from a supernova or not erased by it own star in 4 billion years at least. I suspect, that final number will be much less that 200 sextillion, because, to avoid a supernova, a star must be formed in a less dense region.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Space is hostile to life. Space is hostile to most Earth-style life... but so are hot springs, undersea vents, and mile-deep mines, all of which we've unexpectedly found life in. Tardigrades can survive a complete vacuum and temperatures from -450 to 300 Fahrenheit, plus significant radiation. Slow-growing life hopping around in the Oort clouds and taking million-year interstellar hibernations on rogue planets might be common, who knows? > in the habitable zone Same mistake here. We define "habitable zone" very, very narrowly based on our own circumstances; it's potentially a massive misnomer.
        nyokodo 3y ago
        > who knows? Precisely the point, no one knows yet as far as is publicly known. Anyone who purports to know ought to front up with the evidence or admit they don’t know.
    - mr_mitm 3y ago
      That's ignoring an anthrophenic argument and the finiteness of the observable universe. The probability for life to evolve on any given planet may be 10^-100. But because we obviously observe the planet where life happened to evolve, we cannot tell whether the probability is 10^-100 or 1/10. That would mean that it would most likely only happen once in the observable universe, and the next instance may be many universe distances away. That would make us alone, even if we assume that the universe is infinite.
- cafeinux 3y ago
  For the time being, being certain that life is common (or rare) is akin to believing in God: there's nothing that can prove or disprove that belief, and it is at this point a matter of faith. Fortunately, not like religion, we may one day have a definitive answer on the matter of life in the Universe, but today there's just not enough data to affirm anything.
  - wredue 3y ago
    It’s not the same as faith: Life observably exists The life we know of began as soon as conditions could possibly have enabled it. This suggests that “the formula” for life may not be accidental or coincidental, but inevitable under earth like conditions. Intelligence is not a necessary product of evolution. Large rigid bodies may not be a common pathway. If I was going to wager, I’d bet most life on other planets is microbial.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  So common we haven't found it yet. Even though we went to multiple celestial bodies.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    This argument would conclusively disprove exoplanets as recently as the early 1990s.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    I've been to multiple buildings on my block and haven't seen a single McDonald's, I'm convinced they don't exist.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > Drake equation is a probabilistic argument or simply science fiction of the intelligent kind. It is not science. it's a parameter-pluggable model. ISTM it's science, just needs params. I think you're dissing stuff because you say so. Looking at your comments, you seem to like saying provocative things. Whatever.

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago

Drake equation is a probabilistic argument or simply science fiction of the intelligent kind. It is not science. Life is incredibly common because nothing about us is special in the universe.

vsnf 3y ago
Why do you speak with such confidence when you have no data? If life is common as you've stated, then where is it? Whether ultimately true or untrue, your assertion is without evidence, yet presented as though it is the unassailable truth.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  It's generally a fairly safe assumption that if something can happen once, it can likely happen twice. It's not guaranteed, but with fifteen billion years and 200 sextillion stars to work with, even the most unlikely things are pretty likely.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    Space is hostile to life. After 4 billion years, life cannot propagate to nearest planet. We are lucky that life on our planet is not erased yet, but it will be erased in about 2-4 billion years, when oceans will boil, then when core will freeze, then when Sun will consume the planet. Out of 6-8 billion years, 3 billion years was spent in single-cell form of life. We are extremely lucky. We can calculate how many stars are formed after a supernova event, how many Earth-size planets in the habitable zone are survived after collision of two objects of comparable size, how many of them survived with ocean and large moon, to make large tidal waves (I suspect that first cells were formed as greasy puddles, then partially dried out, which created a membrane), then how many of them were far enough from a supernova or not erased by it own star in 4 billion years at least. I suspect, that final number will be much less that 200 sextillion, because, to avoid a supernova, a star must be formed in a less dense region.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > Space is hostile to life. Space is hostile to most Earth-style life... but so are hot springs, undersea vents, and mile-deep mines, all of which we've unexpectedly found life in. Tardigrades can survive a complete vacuum and temperatures from -450 to 300 Fahrenheit, plus significant radiation. Slow-growing life hopping around in the Oort clouds and taking million-year interstellar hibernations on rogue planets might be common, who knows? > in the habitable zone Same mistake here. We define "habitable zone" very, very narrowly based on our own circumstances; it's potentially a massive misnomer.
      - nyokodo 3y ago
        > who knows? Precisely the point, no one knows yet as far as is publicly known. Anyone who purports to know ought to front up with the evidence or admit they don’t know.
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    That's ignoring an anthrophenic argument and the finiteness of the observable universe. The probability for life to evolve on any given planet may be 10^-100. But because we obviously observe the planet where life happened to evolve, we cannot tell whether the probability is 10^-100 or 1/10. That would mean that it would most likely only happen once in the observable universe, and the next instance may be many universe distances away. That would make us alone, even if we assume that the universe is infinite.
cafeinux 3y ago
For the time being, being certain that life is common (or rare) is akin to believing in God: there's nothing that can prove or disprove that belief, and it is at this point a matter of faith. Fortunately, not like religion, we may one day have a definitive answer on the matter of life in the Universe, but today there's just not enough data to affirm anything.
- wredue 3y ago
  It’s not the same as faith: Life observably exists The life we know of began as soon as conditions could possibly have enabled it. This suggests that “the formula” for life may not be accidental or coincidental, but inevitable under earth like conditions. Intelligence is not a necessary product of evolution. Large rigid bodies may not be a common pathway. If I was going to wager, I’d bet most life on other planets is microbial.
rowanG077 3y ago
So common we haven't found it yet. Even though we went to multiple celestial bodies.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  This argument would conclusively disprove exoplanets as recently as the early 1990s.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I've been to multiple buildings on my block and haven't seen a single McDonald's, I'm convinced they don't exist.
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> Drake equation is a probabilistic argument or simply science fiction of the intelligent kind. It is not science. it's a parameter-pluggable model. ISTM it's science, just needs params. I think you're dissing stuff because you say so. Looking at your comments, you seem to like saying provocative things. Whatever.