5 ms·

I understand it would be super interesting to find biological processes similar to earth like life similar to our light, water & dioxide cycle (im sure there's

I understand it would be super interesting to find biological processes similar to earth like life similar to our light, water & dioxide cycle (im sure there's a name for it) But sometimes it sound like many people think that's the only way life can start, yet we have no idea how it really works. Also on earth there are organisms in the deep sea that have completely different biology. We might find life, even sentient one, in places we haven't thought to look.

Kalium 3y ago
Yes. You're right. Absolutely, completely correct. There's almost certainly other ways life can start. Other processes that can result in intelligence. Other paths of technological development. The issue, as I understand is, is that all of those are completely unknown. We have absolutely no useful idea of how to look for wildly different life in places we haven't thought to look. What we do know with certainty is that Earth's chemistry can result in life. We do know that it can result in intelligence. We do know what paths our technological development took. We even have some idea what these things might look like from afar. All together, we have exactly one data point that lets us search for similar data points. Are there other, different world, with different life? Very possibly. We humans are well aware of this. We just don't have a way of knowing if we've found anything. So as a matter of managing limited resources, there's a tendency to stick to what we know can work.
- card_zero 3y ago
  It may just be a failure of the imagination, but on the face of it the only chemistry that could feasibly make organisms is organic chemistry. That's not because it's Earth's chemistry, but because carbon is a very useful lego brick. This leaves us looking for alternatives beyond chemistry, something like Douglas Adams's "sentient shade of blue", except imaginable and not nonsense. So your certainty about this is ... staunch, let's say. Inevitable Wikipedia article about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemi...
  - Kalium 3y ago
    I'm doing my best to tell this user that their imagination is possibly on to something, but mostly this is a waste of energy. I'm exaggerating the realistic possibilities to help them feel good about themselves because it makes it easier to sneak in the idea that this is not a useful or productive line of thought. The approach of "Smart people have thought of that, there are very few chemically useful alternatives" is the kind of thing that entrenches a person in their insistence that this is just a wide-scale failure of imagination. Witness their comment about "earthlike biology perspective". They want to believe a wider, weirder universe is possible. As a rule, it helps people feel heard to tell them they're right about something. So yes. I'm going to present it as a staunch certainty that something else is possible but currently unknowable, invisible, and irrelevant. I'm doing this in the hopes that the message gets through that this is not simply parochialist arrogance at work, from which they might nobly dissent.
    - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
      Hi Kalium, I've rarely heard anything more condescending and arrogant to be honest.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >but on the face of it the only chemistry that could feasibly make organisms is organic chemistry. First order life, but what about second order? If I make a complex 'mechano-computer' that can reproduce itself, how exactly is that different from life? Now it looks like the universe doesn't have any direct way to go to silicon based life, but indirection over carbon based life first seems very possible.
- fellerts 3y ago
  > What we do know with certainty is that Earth's chemistry can result in life We know that Earth's chemistry can _support_ life. Panspermia is still a plausible explanation for life on Earth.
mr_mitm 3y ago
I'm on the more pessimistic side of this argument. Lots of very smart people have thought about this, and really the only element that is able to form complex molecules besides carbon is silicon, and there are good arguments as to why it's a much worse basis for life. And if you have carbon-based life forms, you will have water and CO2. In any case, it is just way more likely than any other form and makes absolutely the most sense to look for this first. Sure, you can always say that we don't know what we don't know, but the periodic table of elements is finite and complete, and we are pretty sure that chemistry doesn't change across the universe. I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle in my position, because it's hard to prove the non-existence of things, so you will always be able to say "whatever, maybe you didn't think of everything", and it's true, but I have a hard time seeing how life can be anything but carbon-based. If you have more insight besides what resembles a god of the gaps, I'd be very interested.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Yeah that make sense, but still very much earthlike biology perspective. I mean almost everyone here also believes in digital intelligence at some point. Are there elements that are more stable under high pressure or heat? Or opposite?
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    I can buy the argument that there might be "digital life" that has been built by carbon-based biological life which has since ceased to be.
    - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
      Hahah that's just the human scenario played out before us, let's be a bit more creative!
      - mr_mitm 3y ago
        I'm up for it, but since you are the one who proposed we could have unimaginable forms of life, and I'm coming up short, I'm relying on you (or anyone who holds your position) here to be the creative one.
kilpikaarna 3y ago
You don't have to look for oxygen etc that are the signs of earth-like lifeforms. I have no idea what prohects like this look for specifically, but any kind of thermodynamic disequilibrium that shows up in the atmospheric makeup of a planet is potentially a sign of life. Free oxygen is a very good candidate, but not necessarily the only one.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcswell 3y ago
"on earth there are organisms in the deep sea that have completely different biology": Not sure what you mean by that. There are bacteria that metabolize different things than what the bacteria up here metabolize, but they (and we) all use DNA, and with a couple exceptions they use the same codons to encode the same amino acids and start/stop. As far as anyone knows, that coding is completely arbitrary, i.e. the codons could have been entirely different. The fact that they are not entirely different implies a common origin. Lots of other biochemical similarities, too.

Kalium 3y ago

Yes. You're right. Absolutely, completely correct. There's almost certainly other ways life can start. Other processes that can result in intelligence. Other paths of technological development. The issue, as I understand is, is that all of those are completely unknown. We have absolutely no useful idea of how to look for wildly different life in places we haven't thought to look. What we do know with certainty is that Earth's chemistry can result in life. We do know that it can result in intelligence. We do know what paths our technological development took. We even have some idea what these things might look like from afar. All together, we have exactly one data point that lets us search for similar data points. Are there other, different world, with different life? Very possibly. We humans are well aware of this. We just don't have a way of knowing if we've found anything. So as a matter of managing limited resources, there's a tendency to stick to what we know can work.

card_zero 3y ago
It may just be a failure of the imagination, but on the face of it the only chemistry that could feasibly make organisms is organic chemistry. That's not because it's Earth's chemistry, but because carbon is a very useful lego brick. This leaves us looking for alternatives beyond chemistry, something like Douglas Adams's "sentient shade of blue", except imaginable and not nonsense. So your certainty about this is ... staunch, let's say. Inevitable Wikipedia article about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemi...
- Kalium 3y ago
  I'm doing my best to tell this user that their imagination is possibly on to something, but mostly this is a waste of energy. I'm exaggerating the realistic possibilities to help them feel good about themselves because it makes it easier to sneak in the idea that this is not a useful or productive line of thought. The approach of "Smart people have thought of that, there are very few chemically useful alternatives" is the kind of thing that entrenches a person in their insistence that this is just a wide-scale failure of imagination. Witness their comment about "earthlike biology perspective". They want to believe a wider, weirder universe is possible. As a rule, it helps people feel heard to tell them they're right about something. So yes. I'm going to present it as a staunch certainty that something else is possible but currently unknowable, invisible, and irrelevant. I'm doing this in the hopes that the message gets through that this is not simply parochialist arrogance at work, from which they might nobly dissent.
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Hi Kalium, I've rarely heard anything more condescending and arrogant to be honest.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- pixl97 3y ago
  >but on the face of it the only chemistry that could feasibly make organisms is organic chemistry. First order life, but what about second order? If I make a complex 'mechano-computer' that can reproduce itself, how exactly is that different from life? Now it looks like the universe doesn't have any direct way to go to silicon based life, but indirection over carbon based life first seems very possible.
fellerts 3y ago
> What we do know with certainty is that Earth's chemistry can result in life We know that Earth's chemistry can _support_ life. Panspermia is still a plausible explanation for life on Earth.

mr_mitm 3y ago

I'm on the more pessimistic side of this argument. Lots of very smart people have thought about this, and really the only element that is able to form complex molecules besides carbon is silicon, and there are good arguments as to why it's a much worse basis for life. And if you have carbon-based life forms, you will have water and CO2. In any case, it is just way more likely than any other form and makes absolutely the most sense to look for this first. Sure, you can always say that we don't know what we don't know, but the periodic table of elements is finite and complete, and we are pretty sure that chemistry doesn't change across the universe. I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle in my position, because it's hard to prove the non-existence of things, so you will always be able to say "whatever, maybe you didn't think of everything", and it's true, but I have a hard time seeing how life can be anything but carbon-based. If you have more insight besides what resembles a god of the gaps, I'd be very interested.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
Yeah that make sense, but still very much earthlike biology perspective. I mean almost everyone here also believes in digital intelligence at some point. Are there elements that are more stable under high pressure or heat? Or opposite?
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  I can buy the argument that there might be "digital life" that has been built by carbon-based biological life which has since ceased to be.
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Hahah that's just the human scenario played out before us, let's be a bit more creative!
    - mr_mitm 3y ago
      I'm up for it, but since you are the one who proposed we could have unimaginable forms of life, and I'm coming up short, I'm relying on you (or anyone who holds your position) here to be the creative one.

kilpikaarna 3y ago

You don't have to look for oxygen etc that are the signs of earth-like lifeforms. I have no idea what prohects like this look for specifically, but any kind of thermodynamic disequilibrium that shows up in the atmospheric makeup of a planet is potentially a sign of life. Free oxygen is a very good candidate, but not necessarily the only one.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mcswell 3y ago

"on earth there are organisms in the deep sea that have completely different biology": Not sure what you mean by that. There are bacteria that metabolize different things than what the bacteria up here metabolize, but they (and we) all use DNA, and with a couple exceptions they use the same codons to encode the same amino acids and start/stop. As far as anyone knows, that coding is completely arbitrary, i.e. the codons could have been entirely different. The fact that they are not entirely different implies a common origin. Lots of other biochemical similarities, too.