Why are we alone in Universe?

[Aupmanyav]

"Why are we alone in Universe?"
Are we? 2 trillion galaxies (and the number is likely to increase with James Web telescope - Milky way is one of the smaller galaxies), each with about 100 million stars like our sun (on an average - Google search) and its planets, would you think that we are alone in the universe? Of course, the distances are so large (and increasing) that communicating with others will not be possible unless we create a teleporter or attain 'siddhis' (powers - 'manojavah', moving the body wherever thought goes) by meditation.

 

[KWED]

The official point of view is that Fermi paradox not only exists, but is unsolved yet.

Only if you assume that we should be able to detect evidence of ET life if it exists, but such an assumption is obvious nonsense.

 

[questfortruth]

evidence of ET life

 

[Twilight Hue]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' Romantic people look at night at star
systems and think that the sky is full of life because the chance for Earth to
get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable planet to bloom with
living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is alive, and Mars is
dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider ten planets suitable
for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current time is 4 000 000 000
BC. If it is given that there will be one single living planet in this group
of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the likelihood that the Earth gets
alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must be exactly there, where the life has begun.
But Mars has not this advantage; hence, the probability of Mars getting
life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained
by Luck. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

I am saying that I have made a solution to Fermi Paradox. The famous Drake equation uses the wrong value for the probability of a perfectly suitable for living planet getting alive. This probability was equated to 100 % in the Drake equation. But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less.

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

I think among a variety of reasons includes long distance as being a factor, that any civilization upon attaining a technological threshold will ultimately destroy themselves, and development of other worlds may coincide with ours where they, like ourselves, don't have the technology to reach out effectively.

I'm pretty sure there's life out there, the question of being if and when. I do hope we make a discovery before I likely die in the next 20bto thirty years if not sooner.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' Romantic people look at night at star
systems and think that the sky is full of life because the chance for Earth to
get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable planet to bloom with
living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is alive, and Mars is
dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider ten planets suitable
for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current time is 4 000 000 000
BC. If it is given that there will be one single living planet in this group
of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the likelihood that the Earth gets
alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must be exactly there, where the life has begun.
But Mars has not this advantage; hence, the probability of Mars getting
life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained
by Luck. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

I am saying that I have made a solution to Fermi Paradox. The famous Drake equation uses the wrong value for the probability of a perfectly suitable for living planet getting alive. This probability was equated to 100 % in the Drake equation. But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less.

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

Congratulations.Well done.
Our planet has a limited life.The sun's energy will be exhausted and eventually die (although admittedly this will takes ages and ages) .The next stage is for humans to colonize Mars and mine space minerals to build space systems for living in the future.Again far in the future.

 

[questfortruth]

Congratulations.Well done.

 

[wellwisher]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' Romantic people look at night at star
systems and think that the sky is full of life because the chance for Earth to
get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable planet to bloom with
living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is alive, and Mars is
dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider ten planets suitable
for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current time is 4 000 000 000
BC. If it is given that there will be one single living planet in this group
of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the likelihood that the Earth gets
alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must be exactly there, where the life has begun.
But Mars has not this advantage; hence, the probability of Mars getting
life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained
by Luck. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

I am saying that I have made a solution to Fermi Paradox. The famous Drake equation uses the wrong value for the probability of a perfectly suitable for living planet getting alive. This probability was equated to 100 % in the Drake equation. But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less.

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

This situation is similar to an Atheist version connected to the proof of God. The Atheists want to believe in life on others planets, via faith, even though there is no hard lab proof that science can supply. At the same time, there are many excuses for why there is this lack of proof. The oracle of statistics has spoken and that has to be truth.

This appears to shows that the philosophy of science is like a two edge sword, where only the sharp edge is applied to religion; politics of science. They save the dull edge for themselves, through margins of error. The mythology of life on other planets is allowed to stand, since the motto of the dull edge is, do as I say and not as I do.

Maybe the reason we can't see signs of life on other planets is because our current theory for life is not fully valid, therefore we are barking up the wrong tree, unable to see the obvious. This explanation could also be used for why we cannot see God in the lab; he is not made of matter but spirit and what is the composition of spirit?

This dull edge of the sword may have led atheists astray. This may be due to statistics being a type of fortune telling; false god, that is seen as infallible but in reality, it cannot always do what you ask. However, the oracle appears to have spoken, with numbers, but its conclusions seem to work best, before we try to apply them to reality, when our hope and faith is at a peak to win the lottery or avoid the bogeyman.

Science has never made life in the lab, from scratch; abiogenesis. This is something science does not yet know, but should be essential to all life start-up. Instead science uses the oracles of statistics to fill in these blanks, to form soft theory, that has an element of mythological faith; lottery, while also lacking in the facts.

The analogy is the old fashion science idea of the spontaneous generation of life, before they knew of cells. If you assume this bad theory was correct, to find life on others planets, you may not look in the right places, since the output of the mythology and the oracles may not apply, as expected. The oracle is being fed logic, from man, using a limited soft theory. It can only do as good as the foundation it is built upon.

 

[Kenny]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' The official point of view is that the
Fermi paradox not only exists but is unsolved yet. Romantic people look at
night at star systems and think that the sky is full of life because the
chance for Earth to get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable
planet to bloom with living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is
alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider
ten planets suitable for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current
time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living
planet in this group of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the
likelihood that the Earth gets alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must
be exactly there, where the life has begun. But Mars has not this advantage;
hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The
difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained by Luck. I have written a
solution to the Fermi Paradox because the famous Drake equation uses the wrong
value for a planet's probability to get a life. The latter was equated to 100 \%.
But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less; in the above
argument, it is less than 3 % even for a planet perfectly suitable to start
life. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

Please do feel good.

1) you are thinking
2) you present an argument
3) you give your points.

I just think there is a spiritual world that has not been considered in this position.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...Romantic people look at night at star
systems and think that the sky is full of life because the chance for Earth to
get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable planet to bloom with
living organisms...

Some romantic people do. I accept evolution as evidenced, however I think we are alone in the universe. I think that the Fermi Paradox is the opposite of romantic, because it is an argument against evolution. It is an exciting and interesting argument against Evolution. It is probably a straw argument, but I don't know. I don't know enough, or we don't know enough to rule out the possibility of life elsewhere.

"However, G¨odel has excluded Luck." <-- I did not understand this at first. I'm partly grasping what you are trying to say.​

I am not able to read G"odel's theorem, though I have skimmed it and once purchased a copy of the Continuum Hypothesis (was not able to read that, either). I understand it a little but not mathematically. I don't have that skill. I grasp the concept of the cardinality of numbers, and I grasp the concept that G"odel shows that a system cannot prove itself to be consistent. Luck heals this how?

I have heard that while luck is involved in quantum computing, that they are able to overcome this to get results. The luck is not 50%. I do not know if anyone will ever achieve a large number of quantum bits in a computer. This may happen or it may not, however it is claimed that several q-bits can be made to function despite the interference of luck.

"It is scientific to accept (beyond any doubt) the existence of the Higgs Boson (or any effect or particle in Particle Physics) if the probability of a mistake is less than the five sigma rule value." <-- from your paper

I actually have never found this convincing. I understand it is convincing to Physicists, but I also understand that the Standard Model remains in question and may need a change, someday. I like the 5 sigmas. It is a high bar for probabilities, but it is not final to me. I think it is an accomplishment but is not the end, and I am not sure we can afford to build enough accelerators to find the end. Perhaps we will have to wait until we have some new devices that are less expensive and more effective at measuring things.​

Here is my intuition: We are limited beings who require a consistent reality. Without this we cannot be aware. If there are partially consistent realities we can only guess what they will be like. Even our most chaotic imaginations are of aggregates of order. We can imagine chaotic arrangements or chaotic sounds. We cannot imagine pure chaos -- 'Luck' as you refer to it.

 

[KWED]

This situation is similar to an Atheist version connected to the proof of God. The Atheists want to believe in life on others planets, via faith, even though there is no hard lab proof that science can supply.

You misunderstand the issues here.
1. Atheism has literally nothing to do with the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.
2. Scientists and rational thinkers do not "want" there to be life. It is simply a strong possibility based on the available evidence. "Faith" has nothing to do with it.
3. "Hard lab proof" is not necessary to establish if something is possible or probable. However, we do have "hard lab proof" that life exists in the universe, so it isn't a major leap to propose other life. When the issue is god, we have no "hard lab proof" of gods in the first place, so that initial premise (that god exists) needs to be supported by HLP before we move any further (eg, which version of god, what they want us to do, etc)

At the same time, there are many excuses for why there is this lack of proof. The oracle of statistics has spoken and that has to be truth.

"Reasons" not "excuses". No one is claiming that a specific type of life actually exists but we are unable to detect it (which is basically the god claim).

This appears to shows that the philosophy of science is like a two edge sword, where only the sharp edge is applied to religion; politics of science. They save the dull edge for themselves, through margins of error. The mythology of life on other planets is allowed to stand, since the motto of the dull edge is, do as I say and not as I do.

Unfortunately, this merely shows your lack of understanding of science, probability, evidence, etc.

Maybe the reason we can't see signs of life on other planets is because our current theory for life is not fully valid, therefore we are barking up the wrong tree, unable to see the obvious. This explanation could also be used for why we cannot see God in the lab; he is not made of matter but spirit and what is the composition of spirit?

Nope. The reason why we can't see life on other planets, if it is there, is because of distance and access. If we could safely survey and sample every planet, we would find any life that existed.
The the best explanation for why we can't detect god in any way is because he isn't there.

This dull edge of the sword may have led atheists astray. This may be due to statistics being a type of fortune telling; false god, that is seen as infallible but in reality, it cannot always do what you ask. However, the oracle appears to have spoken, with numbers, but its conclusions seem to work best, before we try to apply them to reality, when our hope and faith is at a peak to win the lottery or avoid the bogeyman.

Science has never made life in the lab, from scratch; abiogenesis. This is something science does not yet know, but should be essential to all life start-up. Instead science uses the oracles of statistics to fill in these blanks, to form soft theory, that has an element of mythological faith; lottery, while also lacking in the facts.

The analogy is the old fashion science idea of the spontaneous generation of life, before they knew of cells. If you assume this bad theory was correct, to find life on others planets, you may not look in the right places, since the output of the mythology and the oracles may not apply, as expected. The oracle is being fed logic, from man, using a limited soft theory. It can only do as good as the foundation it is built upon.

So what are you actually trying to say here, that there definitely isn't life elsewhere in the universe, or that there definitely is?

 

[questfortruth]

what is the composition of spirit?

The God does not have structure and composition, because God is Love personalized. Why? It is dogmatic: The God is most simple "thing".

 

[questfortruth]

You seem to be the GOOD reader of my paper, thank you.

I grasp the concept that G"odel shows that a system cannot prove itself to be consistent. Luck heals this how?

An inconsistency is defined as a violation of laws of the
Aristoteles Logic. They are three, but sometimes the fourth is acknowledged: the law of sufficient reasoning. It is known that a simple formal system is consistent.
But a more complex system (as modern mathematics is) has the
non-vanishing probability of inconsistency in some hidden yet example
or aspect: one math theorem could disagree with another. This is
called Hilbert's Second Problem: one wants to prove the consistency
of arithmetic. We would be very lucky if none of such inconsistencies
or paradoxes existed. But we must be lucky because mathematics
is the product of logical endeavor, and logic cannot ever be illogical.
Hence, on the one hand, the probability of consistency is 100 \%,
but on the other hand, it is somewhat less than 100 \%.
I have an unpublished reason to expect about 37 \%.
The difference between 37 \% and 100 \% is explained by Luck.

"However, G¨odel has excluded Luck." <-- I did not understand this at first. I'm partly grasping what you are trying to say.

Yes, G\"odel, being a perfect genius, has not written Luck into the text of his theorem. Yes, there is no word about Luck in entire serious Science and Math. Scientists are very serious but not very funny and relaxed people. They are constantly under devastating pressure from donators and funds for perfection and flawlessness.

 

[ChristineM]

My contribution is the scientific solution of the Fermi Paradox, nothing else or more.

So you haven't checked, you are youse making assumptions and treating them as fact.

 

[questfortruth]

So you haven't checked, you are youse making assumptions and treating them as fact.

My assumption is that You have the birthday. I wish You happiness.

 

[rational experiences]

All human's are born babies equal and innocent.

Pretty basic advice where human innocence exists.

If a human who has to think by Choice to choose a subject then try to enforce the subject. It's obvious it's fake.

If a human says you must believe as I can kill you ....it only further enforces you're lying. As groups support incorrect human behaviours.

Pretty basic advice for not intelligent humans whose behaviour and choices can have us all destroyed.

By owning an ego. Belonging to a group of just human egotists who can control artificial causes. So any thesis they believe I can enforce as I'm successful already in AI status.

Yet nature natural had owned the reaction in the past.

Hence is not actually a humans theory at all.

Until natural laws as natural anything no longer allows their subjective artificial choices to be supported. Does a human theist claim Im wrong or I'm lying.

In both circumstances innocent humans lose. A pretty basic we've seen it all before liars theists.

Any theist if they have enough human support can thesis a theses.

Yet natural owned reactive history naturally which is not any thesis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Romantic people look at night at star systems and think that the sky is full of life because the chance for Earth to get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable planet to bloom with living organisms. It is a romantic delusion.

What informed people think is that the likelihood of extraterrestrial life is high. Why? Because the ingredients for life appear to be widely disseminated in the universe, and life can be expected to form wherever conditions for life are found given enough time.

However, this is will be unicellular life initially. Only life that gets the kind of time earth life had will develop complex (eukaryotic) cells, then multicellular life, then conscious intelligent life, and only then, technological civilizations capable of contacting other life. The Drake equation attempts to estimate this number, but the estimates are very crude. For example the estimate of the fraction of planets (and moons) that orbit a sunlike star, and have liquid water but also dry land (are rocky) are higher than previously thought thanks to Kepler. Estimates used to be that there were some 20-50 such civilizations in the Milky Way, but even if we increase this to 1000 by extrapolating from the Kepler data, since the galaxy contains about 200 billion stars, you're looking at about one high-tech civilization per 200 million stars, which are are separated by several light years of starless space.

So, no, informed people do not have any romantic delusion. And there is no paradox if extraterrestrial contact is merely possible, not expected

The Earth is alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth.

What kind of a comment is that? Mars is dead because people are born on earth? We don't know that Mars ever had life, or that if it did, that it is completely gone. If Mars was once alive and is now less so or is dead, it's because its core solidified, and with that went its magnetic fields, and then most of its atmosphere and surface water.

This dull edge of the sword may have led atheists astray. This may be due to statistics being a type of fortune telling

Yes, statistics can be a type of fortune telling. That's what it's for. Flip a fair coin 1000 times. Statistics tell us that the result will be 950-1050 heads 99.7% of the time. You can test that empirically.

Thanks for your concern about stray atheists, but I think they have this covered.

Two things we see consistently in comments directed toward unbelievers by the faithful:

• Mischaracterization of what atheists think think, as you did when you wrote, "The Atheists want to believe in life on others planets, via faith." Critical thinkers don't 'want' to believe anything, and they're atheists because reason allows for no other position but agnostic atheism. Any other position is faith-based.

• Insistence that atheists are somehow missing out on something as you are doing here (what does astray imply if not a mistake, and how is something a mistake unless there is a cost?), that their thinking is too restricted, too myopic, too materialistic. We are told of the great benefits of this other kind of thinking, but where are they? Shouldn't the lives of the people taking this other path be better than those of the unbelievers if there is any merit in recommending this other way of deciding what is true? Ask one of these people what great insights they have received and how they benefited their lives, and you hear nothing that would be considered a benefit in the life of a well-adjusted critical thinker, who's not looking for comfort or meaning there, nor heaven, nor an afterlife. He is comfortable without religion or faith-based belief.

You also wrote, "Science has never made life in the lab, from scratch; abiogenesis. This is something science does not yet know, but should be essential to all life start-up. Instead science uses the oracles of statistics to fill in these blanks, to form soft theory, that has an element of mythological faith; lottery, while also lacking in the facts."

Once again, thanks for your concern, but science seems to be doing just fine without the advice of nonscientists.

Also, hearing about mythological faith and lacking facts from from a faith-based thinker seems odd, just like your demeaning fortune telling. Isn't scripture full of prophecy? Isn't your worldview based in faith? Isn't Christian scripture full of mythology? When did these become things for the believer to demean in others?

Also, did you think it relevant that the work on abiogenesis is incomplete? What do you think that implies? That the hypothesis is wrong? If not, why mention it? If so, you've committed a common informal fallacy.

 

[questfortruth]

What kind of a comment is that? Mars is dead because people are born on earth?

The Earth is alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. In another
formulation, the intelligent observer must be on a planet which got life. That is why the
chances for Earth getting alive were much higher than the chances for life
on Mars, even if Mars were luckier with the formation of the conditions for life.

 

[firedragon]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' The official point of view is that the
Fermi paradox not only exists but is unsolved yet. Romantic people look at
night at star systems and think that the sky is full of life because the
chance for Earth to get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable
planet to bloom with living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is
alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider
ten planets suitable for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current
time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living
planet in this group of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the
likelihood that the Earth gets alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must
be exactly there, where the life has begun. But Mars has not this advantage;
hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The
difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained by Luck. I have written a
solution to the Fermi Paradox because the famous Drake equation uses the wrong
value for a planet's probability to get a life. The latter was equated to 100 \%.
But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less; in the above
argument, it is less than 3 % even for a planet perfectly suitable to start
life. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

Thats "solving" the Fermi paradox? Seriously?

Who reviewed your so called "solution"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are we alone, have you been and checked?

Yes, I did. Didn't you notice that I was gone for a month or two? It takes a while to scour the universe.

 

[questfortruth]

Who reviewed your so called "solution"?

I have submitted the file to Am. Math. Soc. a two weeks ago.