5 ms·

10^24 stars in the Universe. ~10^25 planets in the Universe. 13 billion out of a googol years elapsed. And you think our insignificant spec of dust is the fi

10^24 stars in the Universe. ~10^25 planets in the Universe. 13 billion out of a googol years elapsed. And you think our insignificant spec of dust is the first or will be the last on which life evolved?

bokan 2y ago
But the probability of life arising is an unknown. Intuitively I too feel it probably isn't that small, but it wouldn't be the first time intuition about the universe is wrong. How do you _know_ the odds of life arising aren't 1/10^30?
- grey-area 2y ago
  We don’t know, but we can guess that it is lower than that, and have no reason to think it is that rare. The elements of life have been found to arise spontaneously, see Bartel and Szostak for example.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The elements of life (by this I presume you mean various small biomolecules like amino acids) arising easily doesn't imply life arises easily.
- umvi 2y ago
  We know the probability of life arising in the universe is >0 because we exist. However, we don't know if life can arise spontaneously given the right conditions (abiogenesis) or if must it be "seeded" at some level by an existing life form (i.e. deity, asteroid containing bacteria, etc)? I'm religious, so I'm more in the "seeded" camp than "spontaneous" camp but either way, I strongly believe there is life on other planets in the universe, it's just too bad the universe is so big and light so slow that it's hard to confirm.
  - jnsie 2y ago
    > I'm religious, so I'm more in the "seeded" camp than "spontaneous" camp but either way, I strongly believe there is life on other planets in the universe, it's just too bad the universe is so big and light so slow that it's hard to confirm. Hijacking someone else's comment to ask without judgement or agenda - How, if at all, would it alter your religious beliefs were life/intelligent life to be found on another planet?
    - umvi 2y ago
      I keep my religious beliefs and scientific beliefs mostly segregated, so they don't affect each other too strongly for the most part. The reason for this is that those 2 things are reinforced by different sources. My religious beliefs are reinforced by spiritual experiences (such as repeatedly being stumped by [challenging life/work problem], praying for help, and then getting distinct thoughts or impressions that miraculously unblock me... or sometimes I'm miraculously unblocked through the actions other people), my scientific beliefs are formed and are refined by reading scientific literature + critical thinking. If the 2 are in conflict (which is pretty rare), it's usually my religious beliefs that adapt to new scientific understanding. For example, if evolution seems to be in conflict with intelligent design, I reconcile by concluding evolution itself may have been the thing that was intelligently designed (i.e. "this computer program can't have been intelligently designed, we've proven it was created by an LLM" --> "ok, then the LLM was intelligently designed"). One thing that would probably alter my religious beliefs significantly is if abiogenesis or synthetic life were proven possible (i.e. you can clearly show in a lab how to make life arise from non-life, or how to create artificial life). I don't find the current "primordial soup" or other abiogenesis arguments convincing enough to abandon religion, though I do re-visit the wiki every couple years to see what's new on that front.
      - versteegen 2y ago
        > I reconcile by concluding evolution itself may have been the thing that was intelligently designed I don't understand why I don't hear anyone else take this position. To me it's obvious and it's hard to find any other way to reconcile them. (But I'm not religious.) Well, actually there's two quite different things that could be asserted along that line and it's not clear which you meant: either that evolution is a mechanism by which the hand of God can meddle in random occurrences to pick outcomes, or that it's completely hands-off. But I would state the second one differently: that the universe was set up to allow evolution and all the other systems of natures to create the world today. Evolution itself is ultimately a consequence of physics and statistics.
pfdietz 2y ago
You didn't actually give an argument. Blustery personal attack is not an argument; indeed, it's a sign you realize you don't have an argument.
- grey-area 2y ago
  The no of stars in the universe is a personal attack? Or are you upset I consider Earth insignificant?
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    No, it was this question: "And you think our insignificant spec of dust is the first or will be the last on which life evolved?" First, when I ask someone to justify their position, I expect a justification, not questions about what I do or do not believe. My beliefs have jack shit to do with any justification for others' statements. Second, that question slips in the conclusion you're trying to justify, in the word "insignificant". If Earth were the sole lifebearing planet in the universe, it would be extremely significant. By proclaiming by fiat that it's insignificant, you've ruled that out. I suspect what you did there was assume that IF another world has physical properties like Earth, THEN that world would also produce life as occurred on Earth. But this inference is not valid, because the process could very well have been very nondeterministic, depending on one or more very unlikely steps. There is no reason to conclude if Earth were run through its history all over again that life would again have arisen.
    - grey-area 2y ago
      The numbers involved here make the chances that we are unique vanishingly small IMO; the numbers are the justification. Those numbers mean that even if the odds of life are vanishingly small, there was and will be other life out there. We’re not talking about one world like Earth but likely billions at least. As far as we can tell our star is in no way unique or special, and if those same processes happened say 100000000000000000000000 times elsewhere, it seems very unlikely to me that they wouldn’t produce self-replicating life as well somewhere, sometime.
seba_dos1 2y ago
Well, however improbable it is to be the first, someone always has to be.
- grey-area 2y ago
  We have no evidence we’re the first. Given the distances involved it is unlikely we’ll find other life, unless it is very common.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    We have no evidence we're not the first. I remind you that I'm not claiming we're first; I'm asking for justification for claims that life exists elsewhere, or is common, or that we're not the first. Myself, I am taking an agnostic position, not committing myself to unjustifiable conclusions.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      If I distribute standard, fair 6 sided dice to 10,000 people, and have them all roll their die in secret, would you be agnostic as to whether a 6 was rolled by at least two people?
      - seba_dos1 2y ago
        Now distribute 10,000 sided dice to 6 people, which will be an example just as relevant. It sure makes sense to assume we're neither alone nor first, as until we actually prove it either way that's just what the odds are - but I'm tired of people acting like this means we're definitely not the first. If you gave 10,000 people a number between 1 and 10,000 in random order, the probability that any given person got number 1 is 1/10,000, and yet the probability that someone got 1 is 1. (though there's another problem at play: "first" may not necessarily be a well-defined term at these scales)
        grey-area 2y ago

bokan 2y ago

But the probability of life arising is an unknown. Intuitively I too feel it probably isn't that small, but it wouldn't be the first time intuition about the universe is wrong. How do you _know_ the odds of life arising aren't 1/10^30?

grey-area 2y ago
We don’t know, but we can guess that it is lower than that, and have no reason to think it is that rare. The elements of life have been found to arise spontaneously, see Bartel and Szostak for example.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The elements of life (by this I presume you mean various small biomolecules like amino acids) arising easily doesn't imply life arises easily.
umvi 2y ago
We know the probability of life arising in the universe is >0 because we exist. However, we don't know if life can arise spontaneously given the right conditions (abiogenesis) or if must it be "seeded" at some level by an existing life form (i.e. deity, asteroid containing bacteria, etc)? I'm religious, so I'm more in the "seeded" camp than "spontaneous" camp but either way, I strongly believe there is life on other planets in the universe, it's just too bad the universe is so big and light so slow that it's hard to confirm.
- jnsie 2y ago
  > I'm religious, so I'm more in the "seeded" camp than "spontaneous" camp but either way, I strongly believe there is life on other planets in the universe, it's just too bad the universe is so big and light so slow that it's hard to confirm. Hijacking someone else's comment to ask without judgement or agenda - How, if at all, would it alter your religious beliefs were life/intelligent life to be found on another planet?
  - umvi 2y ago
    I keep my religious beliefs and scientific beliefs mostly segregated, so they don't affect each other too strongly for the most part. The reason for this is that those 2 things are reinforced by different sources. My religious beliefs are reinforced by spiritual experiences (such as repeatedly being stumped by [challenging life/work problem], praying for help, and then getting distinct thoughts or impressions that miraculously unblock me... or sometimes I'm miraculously unblocked through the actions other people), my scientific beliefs are formed and are refined by reading scientific literature + critical thinking. If the 2 are in conflict (which is pretty rare), it's usually my religious beliefs that adapt to new scientific understanding. For example, if evolution seems to be in conflict with intelligent design, I reconcile by concluding evolution itself may have been the thing that was intelligently designed (i.e. "this computer program can't have been intelligently designed, we've proven it was created by an LLM" --> "ok, then the LLM was intelligently designed"). One thing that would probably alter my religious beliefs significantly is if abiogenesis or synthetic life were proven possible (i.e. you can clearly show in a lab how to make life arise from non-life, or how to create artificial life). I don't find the current "primordial soup" or other abiogenesis arguments convincing enough to abandon religion, though I do re-visit the wiki every couple years to see what's new on that front.
    - versteegen 2y ago
      > I reconcile by concluding evolution itself may have been the thing that was intelligently designed I don't understand why I don't hear anyone else take this position. To me it's obvious and it's hard to find any other way to reconcile them. (But I'm not religious.) Well, actually there's two quite different things that could be asserted along that line and it's not clear which you meant: either that evolution is a mechanism by which the hand of God can meddle in random occurrences to pick outcomes, or that it's completely hands-off. But I would state the second one differently: that the universe was set up to allow evolution and all the other systems of natures to create the world today. Evolution itself is ultimately a consequence of physics and statistics.

pfdietz 2y ago

You didn't actually give an argument. Blustery personal attack is not an argument; indeed, it's a sign you realize you don't have an argument.

grey-area 2y ago
The no of stars in the universe is a personal attack? Or are you upset I consider Earth insignificant?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  No, it was this question: "And you think our insignificant spec of dust is the first or will be the last on which life evolved?" First, when I ask someone to justify their position, I expect a justification, not questions about what I do or do not believe. My beliefs have jack shit to do with any justification for others' statements. Second, that question slips in the conclusion you're trying to justify, in the word "insignificant". If Earth were the sole lifebearing planet in the universe, it would be extremely significant. By proclaiming by fiat that it's insignificant, you've ruled that out. I suspect what you did there was assume that IF another world has physical properties like Earth, THEN that world would also produce life as occurred on Earth. But this inference is not valid, because the process could very well have been very nondeterministic, depending on one or more very unlikely steps. There is no reason to conclude if Earth were run through its history all over again that life would again have arisen.
  - grey-area 2y ago
    The numbers involved here make the chances that we are unique vanishingly small IMO; the numbers are the justification. Those numbers mean that even if the odds of life are vanishingly small, there was and will be other life out there. We’re not talking about one world like Earth but likely billions at least. As far as we can tell our star is in no way unique or special, and if those same processes happened say 100000000000000000000000 times elsewhere, it seems very unlikely to me that they wouldn’t produce self-replicating life as well somewhere, sometime.

seba_dos1 2y ago

Well, however improbable it is to be the first, someone always has to be.

grey-area 2y ago
We have no evidence we’re the first. Given the distances involved it is unlikely we’ll find other life, unless it is very common.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  We have no evidence we're not the first. I remind you that I'm not claiming we're first; I'm asking for justification for claims that life exists elsewhere, or is common, or that we're not the first. Myself, I am taking an agnostic position, not committing myself to unjustifiable conclusions.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    If I distribute standard, fair 6 sided dice to 10,000 people, and have them all roll their die in secret, would you be agnostic as to whether a 6 was rolled by at least two people?
    - seba_dos1 2y ago
      Now distribute 10,000 sided dice to 6 people, which will be an example just as relevant. It sure makes sense to assume we're neither alone nor first, as until we actually prove it either way that's just what the odds are - but I'm tired of people acting like this means we're definitely not the first. If you gave 10,000 people a number between 1 and 10,000 in random order, the probability that any given person got number 1 is 1/10,000, and yet the probability that someone got 1 is 1. (though there's another problem at play: "first" may not necessarily be a well-defined term at these scales)
      - grey-area 2y ago