[Closed] are there aliens?

portlyone - the strangely named panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Could you explain why the number of stars and galaxies dont alter the odds?

Because we don't know what the probability of life on earth was before it happened.

We have nothing to extrapolate from.

If the chance of life occurring spontaneously is infinitesimally small, then even multiplying it by a very big number makes no difference. To all intents and purposes it would still be virtually zero chance.

In scientific terms, having a bigger number of stars planets would be akin to "turning the amp up to 11"

go look up the Fermi-Hart Paradox

I always kind of think if you go in your garden and pick up a rock, there might be an earwig under it.

I could study the earwig even up close and it would never be aware of my presence. I could completely re-arrange it's habitat and it still wouldn't be able to conceive that I was there doing it. I could squash it and it would never know to blame me. I certainly wouldn't bother trying to talk to it.

So if some superior race or beings were [i]that[/i] much more intelligent and enlightened than us happen to be around I don't see how we would be able to conceive of them anyway, much like the earwig and me in my garden.

You look like ET.

If the chance of life occurring spontaneously is infinitesimally small, then even multiplying it by a very big number makes no difference. To all intents and purposes it would still be virtually zero chance.

If it were "infinitesimally small" then we wouldn't be here.

Because we don't know what the probability of life on earth was before it happened.

Based on your lottery argument it was 1.0 wasn't it? 😀

So the sum as you see it is

Number of planets with life = Total number of planets in the universe that could potentially support life x probability of life actually evolving. And yes, if that probability is suitably small and the number of stars is suitably big then one possible answer to that is 1, ie. us. But why is that more or less likely than any other answer?

You're talking about a church hall raffle. We're talking about a National Lottery draw where its perfectly possible to have no winners.

No it's not.

You may not have a winner in one particular week, but eventually you will have a winner. Eventually all of the combinations will be covered and someone will win.

Even if we send probes to every planet in the universe it is possible that they will all come up -ve.

Based on your lottery argument it was 1.0 wasn't it?

I see there are people here who know even less about probability than Graham.

I see there are people here who know even less about probability than Graham.

[b]

Based on your lottery argument

'nuff said. 😉

You may not have a winner in one particular week, but eventually you will have a winner. Eventually all of the combinations will be covered and someone will win.

I'm talking about [i]one [/i]draw in [i]one [/i]week with [i]one [/i]set of tickets.

And even if you want to keep on drawing next week, and the week after, and on as long as you like, this...

Eventually all of the combinations will be covered and someone will win.

...is still wrong, sorry 🙂

Ahha! I've got it rightplacerighttime works for MiB, quick everyone put on you shades before the bright light come through your monitor.

Can I clarify the lottery thing because it seems to be causing confusion.

I said:

Winning the lottery is quite unlikely, but somewhat less so if you buy 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tickets (estimated number of stars in the universe).

What I meant by that flippant remark is that for ONE DRAW of the National Lottery there [i]could[/i] be 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tickets sold and still no jackpot winner!

But I think everyone would agree that is highly unlikely - even though the odds of your one ticket winning are very small (1 in 13,983,816), it would be quite amazing if there wasn't a large number of winners from that number of entrants.

i.e. the number of planets/tickets clearly [i]does[/i] alter the overall odds of a successful outcome.

Don't forget time, that multiplies it by another huge number so even more likely

I am very happy with the comment "it is extremely unlikely that we are alone"

Intelligent alien lifeforms in "can't be arsed to talk to humanity" shocker.

They could ask us a lot - "what tyres for space?"

Would a spaceship take off on a conveyor belt & how to vent post picolax waste in space 🙂

Should we employ translators for aliens in NHS hospitals?

The probability of winning the national lottery is roughly 1 in 14 million for each draw for a single ticket. Previous draws not being won do not change the probability of future draws (thinking otherwise is known as the Gamblers Paradox)

Because of the random way that numbers are picked for each draw there is no guarantee that all the combinations will be covered for any draw so the probability is never 1. But the probability become lower as more tickets are bought (Think Graham S has explained this pretty well too)

We don't know the probabilty of life forming on Earth but as we are here discussing it (that would be the Anthropic principle) we know its higher than zero. Therefore having lots of Galaxies / stars / planets etc will obviously shorten the odds to argue otherwise is pointless

Aliens must exist , who else would buy those pig ugly bikes from Orange??

infinitesimally small

/grinds teeth

😉

If the chance of life occurring spontaneously is infinitesimally small, then even multiplying it by a very big number makes no difference. To all intents and purposes it would still be virtually zero chance.

In scientific terms, having a bigger number of stars planets would be akin to "turning the amp up to 11"

That is just stupid, Does buying more lottery tickets not alter your odds of winning?
It's so funny you mock us for our comprehension of probabilities… I thought troll at first tbh.

I see there are people here who know even less about probability than Graham.

The number of stars and galaxies is totally irrelevant.

I dont really understand why you are arguing this TBH it seems obvious tyhat it does, at the very least, alter the odds

Because of the random way that numbers are picked for each draw there is no guarantee that all the combinations will be covered for any draw so the probability is never 1. But the probability become lower as more tickets are bought (Think Graham S has explained this pretty well too)

It would get to 1 because of "lucky dip" tickets, which select an unchosen combination if one is available.

But we are getting away from the main point.

Junkyard:

…do I really need to explain why that is poorly thought out?

Yes, you do.

The point about the alien life problem is that it can't be solved by theory. Empirical evidence is required and we have none. Until we get some, we are simply guessing.

so if I give you one chimp and one typewriter and I have infinite chimps and infinite typewriters our odds are the same of creating Shakespeare as nothing has changed

Are you suggesting that there are an infinite number of planets?

Is this a what tyre for olympus mons thread?

It would get to 1 because of "lucky dip" tickets, which select an unchosen combination if one is available.

[i]*nnnnnurk*[/i]

A brave attempt, but no. The Lucky Dip is randomly chosen. Doing anything else would violate the principles and rules governing a lottery.

'Lucky Dip®' means a Selection consisting of six different numbers which, instead of being selected by a Retail Player, are [u]selected on a random basis[/u] by the Company's Central Computer System on behalf of that player.
-- http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/playinginstore/gameprocedures/lotto.ftl

Are you suggesting that there are an infinite number of planets?

I guess there must be if the chance of life is [i]"infinitesimally small"[/i] 😀

Actually, sorry, I apologize wholeheartedly for my gross error.

I was wrong about the lucky dip thing.

However, the probability of winning would still eventually get to 1 as once the pot got big enough it would be worth someone buying a ticket with each combination.

But really, my point about the planets is important - do you think there are an infinite number or not?

The point about the alien life problem is that it can't be solved by theory. Empirical evidence is required

Right.

and we have none.

Wrong! as was repeatedly pointed out upthread, we have quite a lot of empirical evidence on (a) the conditions under which life can exist and (b) the number of places in the universe where those conditions might be present.

And both (a) and (b) are turning out to be much wider categories than anyone previously thought.

"Technology from a very advanced civilization will be indistinguishable from magic"

However, the probability of winning would still eventually get to 1 as once the pot got big enough it would be worth someone buying a ticket with each combination.

However, the probability of winning would still eventually get to 1 as once the pot got big enough it would be worth someone buying a ticket with each combination.

Possibly true*, but that's talking about multiple lottery draws, not a single draw (as I explained earlier).

(* it'd be a risky gamble. Say the pot was at 28 million and you had 14 million quid just sitting around. You could buy every ticket combination and be assured of winning the jackpot, plus all lower prizes - BUT you risk sharing it with other people and making a loss).

But really, my point about the planets is important - do you think there are an infinite number or not?

Nope. Current thinking is there are a VERY large number, but not infinite.

[i]Even if we send probes to every planet in the universe it is possible that they will all come up -ve.[/i]

this isn't true, there's at least one. Right?

Depends if you're looking for intelligent life emsz 😉

Even if we send probes to every planet in the universe it is possible that they will all come up -ve.

this isn't true, there's at least one. Right?

It doesn't matter.

Possibly true*, but that's talking about multiple lottery draws, not a single draw (as I explained earlier).

(* it'd be a risky gamble. Say the pot was at 28 million and you had 14 million quid just sitting around. You could buy every ticket combination and be assured of winning the jackpot, plus all lower prizes - BUT you risk sharing it with other people and making a loss).

What would anyone accept as evidence? So far we have had eyewitness reports,video footage,photos,radar returns,and physical traces left behind(high levels of radioactivity etc). If this evidence was used in any other kind of case there wouldnt be a question. It would be regarded as proven.

It doesn't matter.

I'm struggling to see how the fact that life has definitely arisen once in the universe (something that I hope everyone can agree on 😉 ) is inadmissible as evidence for life in the universe.

Please continue your point rightplace.
I agree there are not infinite planets.... so..?

If you want some numbers to use, [url= http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g1.html ]NASA astrobiologists[/url] reckon, based on our current experience of what "habitable" means, that there are 10,000,000,000 habitable "Earth-like" planets in our galaxy and around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the observable universe.

Erm..

It does matter.

I'm a beleiver in Aliens, nope, I am, and am of the thought that we've already been visited way back. To get to where we are I think some beings visited here, populated the planet for a short period of time, found us lot on here, mated, we evolved into what we currently are.
I think that the reason so many breakthroughs in science and the apreciation of the Arts have been so profound in the last 160years or so is due to human evolvemnt and our Brains capacity to be used more effectively, like it should be.

On Girl who sits on a desk across from me looks like a Grey.

You are Erich von Daniken AICMFP.

OK, to take the point about a finite number of planets. If we agree on that then we are getting somewhere.

What we don't know is what the chance of life spontaneously happening is. It could be vanishingly small.

What most of you seem to be concentrating on is the big number (of planets) but somehow you're not too bothered about how small the chance of life starting is. If it is a vanishingly small chance, then overall chances of finding alien life will also be vanishingly small.

The point is, that we can't know what that chance is because we've not observed it happening.

Chances are that in time, we may get a pretty good idea of what the big number is, but we have literally no idea what the small number might be.

What most of you seem to be concentrating on is the big number (of planets)

That's because it's kind of important.

I reckon most people would consider odds of, say, 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be "vanishingly small" but even that would give you 1,000 instances of extraterrestrial life in the observable universe. Obviously chances are they'd be too far away to ever contact, but that's another issue 🙂

Intelligent life hasn't got as far as Doncaster, so I doubt there will be any on planets in Galaxies Far, Far Away.

I reckon most people would consider odds of, say, 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be "vanishingly small"

It's not really a question of "what most people reckon" though is it?

This isn't the committee for the formation of alien lifeforms.

My point (still) is that no one knows, or can know, what the figure is. it is unknowable, and [i]may[/i] be very, very, very small.

But really, my point about the planets is important - do you think there are an infinite number or not?

The number of stars and galaxies is totally irrelevant

My point (still) is that no one knows, or can know, what the figure is. it is unknowable, and may be very, very, very small.

And mine is that even if it's very, very, very small there's probably still something out there because of the vast number of planets. Worst case: it's 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. I find that somewhat implausible.

I'm not arguing for certainty here (and I don't think anyone else is either), just for the balance of probabilities.

Junkyard,

When I said that the number of stars and galaxies was irrelevant I was kind of assuming that people would be thinking of a finite number - how large that number might be isn't important, but it is important that it is finite.

Then you started talking about an infinite number of chimps, which gave me cause to check that we were all indeed thinking of this problem within a finite universe.

Simple really.

So do you, Junkyard, think that there are a finite number of planets?

the balance of probabilities

Aaaaaaarggghhhhhhhh!

I'm just slapping myself on the forehead.

That Hubble telescope has a lot to answer for.