>>16828935
>Trusting space knowledge from academics

There's probably 2 billion stars in total

>>16828935
the question
>is there other life in the universe
is dumb as fuck, and not really what people wonder about anyway
The real question is
>is humanity ever going to encounter other living beings?

>>16828935
>I think it boils down to midwits not being able to grasp the size and age of everything really.
That's exactly what it boils down to. A midwit thinks scales beyond his comprehension automatically justify whatever sci-fi fantasy he wants to believe in.

>>16828935
its mostly glow niggers trying to keep this planet isolated

>>16828935
Fun thought experiment to (maybe) grasp the size of things.
1 million seconds = 11 days
1 billion seconds = 31 years
1 trillion seconds = 30,000 years

If you made ten thousand dollars per hour since the birth of Jesus, Jeff Bezos would still be much richer than you.

>>16828945
Chances of that are really slim unless it's possible to create warp drives through spacetime.
Andromeda galaxy, 1 single galaxy is 2 million light years away. Distances of things are just so big each galaxy may as well be its own universe

>>16828935
Once upon a time this solar system had TWO green and blue plantes, Mars and Earth. Jupiter has moons with water.

There's life outside? Yes.
Are they smart? We don't know

>>16828935
Learn the anthropic principle retard. Of course we found us, because we are required to be intelligent beings in order to even think about this. The fact that the universe is so massive means that if we find another intelligent species that most likely either means that species has colonized a huge portion of nearby space, or that intelligent life is pretty common. There are very low odds that two extremely low odds occurrences happen near each other

>>16828935
you dont know anything about radio telescopes and you have never made a survey yourself

its hilarious, any human with enough brains can just listen in, but you have to build your own systems that arent back door'd like all of the SETI arrays are


moon landing is real, earth is mostly spherical, but we did discover alien communications long ago and keeping it secret is a global initiative

theres no other reason for all the regulation on radio frequencies and the restrictions on ghz+ class transistors

>>16829093
>low odds occurrences

we are here therefore it's more likely it's common than a 1 followed by dozens of zero no? It seems rare why exactly? People basic reasoning are so bad

>near eachother
define near, we haven't even made to the nearest start system 4 light years away

>>16829093
>one habitable planet in a solar system
>it's teeming with life

Seems pretty likely to me that life should exist on every earth-like planet out there. It would be a different matter if Venus and Mars were as hospitable as Earth yet had no life.

>>16829428
You can't make any judgement about the odds based on the fact that we are here. It could literally be 1/100000000000000000 yet we would necessarily be the ones to observe ourselves, that's just how the weak anthropic principle works. You can't make any judgement about the probability of life from the fact we are here.

I was thinking within the solar system, but even within a 1000 lightyear diameter I would consider close. The milkyway is 100k light-years wide

>>16829430
Hospitable for intelligent life as we know mind you.
We evolved around Earth's conditions not the other way around. Life finds a way according to its environment.
It's not like life only evolves if it has earth characteristics because that's the example we have. That would be foolish

>>16829431
Your reasoning proccess seems really flawed somehow I can't put my finger on it.
Your anthropic principle explains why we observe intelligent life but doesn't explain the likelihood of that life existing in the first place, which is the main point here.

Imagine a firing squad of 100 marksmen who all missed. You would say "you shouldn't be surprised that happened, had they hit you you wouldn't be around to observe that they missed".
The real question is, why did they miss and how likely they are to miss, which you don't address (neither do i fwiw.)
Your point only states the outcome, not the initial conditions and the likelihood to of that.
You only address the necessity of observation, so it seems kinda of a moot point, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Yeah we developed some intelligence to be able to observe ourselves, but how does that prevents the initial statement of intelligent life being more likely to be common based on sample size and likelihood of things?

It's just probability. A Universe with 1 intelligent life in a planet, one, one single one. Or maybe considering how many more planets (and this is very important obviously, as it's crucial to make a calculated guess on this matter) than stars are there it's more likely it isn't one? The observation thing seems too much of a misdirected philosophical weird point.

So if we were to find 1 more intelligent life somewhere, how would you feel about it? Maybe it's just 2 in the whole universe then? Because sample size of 2 to 1 doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things, it's a 100% increase but it seems irrelevant in this case.

>>16830116
What he's trying to tell you is that you have nothing to base an estimate on. A single sample tells you nothing. There's nothing to relate it to.

>>16830116
>Imagine a firing squad of 100 marksmen who all missed.
You're not observing 100 marksmen, you're observing the target.
You see a target with 1 bullet hole, can you know how many marksman shot? All you know is that the target got hit once, and all you can infer is that it is possible for a bullet to hit the target. Maybe one marksman got the bullseye on one try. Maybe a thousand marksman have been firing for days until one of them managed to hit. From just the picture of the target and no other information, you have no idea how common it is for a marksman to hit the target.

You don't know the initial conditions or the probability. We have exactly one example of a planet evolving life. All this tells us is that life is possible in conditions similar to earth. We can't claim anything about how frequent life is, or if earth conditions are the only ones that can sustain life

>>16828935
hunter gatherer tribe
>we are alone (probably)

our planet earth
>it's the only one

our solar system
>it's the only one

it's actually a galaxy with more systems
>it's the only one

there's more galaxies, it's actually a univese
>the whole world

it's actually a multiverse
>you are here

people can't think abstractly beyond what their eyes can see, will always be we alone until we see someone else

for all intents and purposes scientifically that's the right approach, but to assume that is the actual truth is just silly

>>16830123
>All this tells us is that life is possible in conditions similar to earth.
It doesn't even tell you that much. For all anyone knows, the actual causal chain responsible for life on Earth relied on a freak accident that isn't inherent to the conditions associated with the Earth.

>>16830130
>I am not like the other normies
>I am part of the elite intellectual class who can "think abstractly" (entertain Hollywood sci-fi scripts)
>Normal normies can't "think abstractly" like I do
>They only believe in concrete aliens, not the abstract ones I'm agnostic about

>>16830123
>>16830133
But normies can't, that's why they are normies.

Sure scientifically speaking we can't say for sure, we need hard proof, but science always start with assumptions (often way crazier than anything you can come up with) before jumping to experimentation.

What size (or age) of the universe then would be enough for you to go like "yeah that's close to 0% chance of us being alone". Because the monstrosity out there isn't enough already.
It seems there isn't even a number. 2 trillion galaxies to 20000 trillion galaxies and your argument would probably be the same.

You make calculated guesses in a daily bases based on probability and chance while driving or when to cross the street at night, but when it comes to this you decide to pull the I aM a ScIeNtiSt card

>>16830141
>What size (or age) of the universe then would be enough for you to go like "yeah that's close to 0% chance of us being alone".
You're incapable of abstract thought so you're continually getting filtered by the fact that there is no way to answer this question because there is no way to estimate how that likelihood scales with universe size or any other concrete factor.

>>16830143
>there is no way to estimate how that likelihood scales with universe size or any other concrete factor.
I should rather say there's no way to know what likelihood is being scaled.

>>16830141
>You make calculated guesses in a daily bases based on probability and chance while driving or when to cross the street at night
No, you don't. You just apply intuitions built up over a life time of dealing with traffic.

>>16829055
And if I had a million bucks and was spending a dollar per second, I'd be flat broke in less than two weeks.

>>16830130
What a bunch of blatant lying. People have been making up the equivalent of aliens coming to visit them from unknown realms beyond their familiar habitat for at least as long as recorded history goes and probably since the dawn of mankind. You are no different than a caveman speculating about the demons who lurk in the depths of the forest.

>>16830145
You kinda can, if it is 9 planets it's less likely than whatever the amount of planets we have in the universe.

>in b4 what matters is likelihood of abiogenese etc

More planets = likely more planets going through those processes

>>16830156
Holy shit. Almost everyone on this board is 80 IQ...

>>16830154
Correct. Demons to them were probably some unknowm scary animals

Also incorrect. Caveman didn't know planets, galaxies or universe

We have been wondering about logical things to wonder about. That's why we have SETI and such.

>>16830161
>Also incorrect. Caveman didn't know planets, galaxies or universe
Another episode of your cult demonstrating zero capacity for abstract thought. Well done.

>>16830159
>>16830163
Next level arguments ladies and gentleman, thread is dead

>>16830165
Anyone who bothers to argue with you unironically after your last couple of posts is a retard like you.

>>16830154
>People have been making up the equivalent of aliens coming to visit them from unknown realms beyond their familiar habitat for at least as long as recorded history goes and probably since the dawn of mankind
If anything, it takes a significant level of intellectual development to grow out of the natural tendency to treat the unknown as the land of arbitrary possibilities and conceive instead of an orderly universe with consistent rules one can apply to reason about distant and inaccessible places. The early iterations of this erred on the side of this world's significance. The modern ones seem to err on the side of its insignificance. Both use relatively sophisticated philosophical and scientific arguments that have proven or are proving to be wrong, but are in any case are beyond the flimsy "universe is le big, therefore anything is possible" attempts to rationalize a modern variation of primitive superstitions about mysterious creatures lurking in the dark.

>>16830167
>ad hominem
Bro got destroyed, probably rethinking life and everything he thinks he knows
Thats why you have inceldom at such age with such low women interaction :'( :'(

>>16828935
my issue with this is more so time
we humans have existed in a very brief window of time. so whats the odds of another intelligent species existing in the same time window as us?

>>16828935
Lesbian Karen Tranny.
Get a haircut you fucking retard.
Your 1990s boy band days are over.
You look like a damn male lesbian Karen freak

>>16828935
I always say the same, we need way better telescopes, to see the Ayys

>>16830467
China already has better telescopes and better space stations

>>16828935
Biker guy in your meme is an alien, he pats but says nothing