Is intelligent life really an unbelievable fluke?
>>16865258If you believe in the materialist religion, it can only be that. And an impossibly implausible one at that.
>>16865258Is kind of hard to say because we have hardly any data. So far we've explored the moon and Mars a tiny bit and crash landed on a couple of other planets and asteroids. There's apparently hundreds of millions of exoplanets that could sustain life just in our galaxy. We've explored almost nothing.
>>16865328if human like life were very common like in most sci-fi space should be filled with bio signatures from millions of long dead civilizations and its not. This suggests intelligent life is not very common and perhaps extremely rare.
>>16865258The very fact that we chose a random ass asteroid and recently found most of the ingredients for life on its surface entails by probability that such a collection of matter is very common on other celestial bodies, suggesting life is actually copious, and the very fact that we've only directly observed like 4 planets does not by any stretch of the imagination prove life is some highly improbable accident
>>16865258>I think, therefore I doubt my own existenceJHFC, OP.
>>16865258Must be.
>>16865385Maybe it will be, or was. We've only been monitoring for bio/techno signatures for a few decades. And we can only detect signatures like that up to like 100 light years away. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years wide.
>>16865258Funny, you're mom said that exact same line about you.>>16865259nature and gawd are the same thingsMake Druids Great Again
I wish I could make you believe what I know.
>>16865258The idea of Intelligent Life is pretty dumb cause we are the one's defining it and we basically describe it as "is it human." Even here on Earth we see animals like ants, crows, dolphins, or whales making complex societies, passing down knowledge, using tools, and what not.
>>16865259there are around 10^23 planets in the observable universe and likely many more in the unobservable universe. it is virtually impossible that we are the only life, or even intelligent life, in the universe. whether we will ever know about the others is a different matter entirely
>>16865258unknown>>16865259not rly>>16866849based on what?>>16866825true, mostly our "definition" is convenient because it justifies destroying everything
>>16865258Idk Dolphins, Elephants, Parrots, Great apes, Octopi, Dogs, Corvids, etc all seem to be at least on par with toddlers. And that's just for extant species. Seems to crop up pretty frequently. Really the major difference between us and then isn't even intellect but the concept of active teaching. I'm not aware of any other species that ensures the next generation retains all the knowledge the previous.
>>16865258Talking about the probability of a dependent event does not really work. The probability of life coming into existence given said life exists to observe itself is 1.
>>1686684910^23 is not that much. You could easily crush that number down to zero by chaining a number of unlikely probabilistic evens.
philosophy thread
>>16865385>space should be filled with bio signaturesWhat is a bio signature and are we leaving that?All we do for now is emitting some weak radiowaves, even buidlings and roads on our own planet will be gone in a few thousand years.
>>16865259There's life on 1 out of 3 planets in this solar system in the liquid water zone, hardly sounds impossibly implausible to me. One of them is so close to the sun it's probably never a true habitable zone, and one is tiny and far (and the jury's still out on whether it had or has life). So it's not even a case of three likely candidates for life and one has life, it's literally 1/1 of likely candidates in this system has life on it.Personally I expect every planet roughly analogous to Earth out there to have life on it, but we won't know until we know. >>16865385Joke of a paradox. We could only detect anything if it was filling the galaxy with mad superstructures like dyson spheres and bleeding out energy like crazy for us to detect. Something close to a human level civilization we could not detect unless they were right next to us, like within 50 light years or so.
>>16866849>there are around 10^23 planets in the observable universe>it is virtually impossible that we are the only life, or even intelligent life, in the universeNotice how there is zero logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. Your belief system is really just a religion for imbeciles who got filtered by classical Western thought.
>>16866953>There's life on 1 out of 3 planets in this solar system in the liquid water zone>hardly sounds impossibly implausible to meNotice how there is zero logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. Your belief system is really just a religion for imbeciles who got filtered by classical Western thought.This is the only reply your cult is going to get from me because you all operate according to the same 2-instruction software.
>>16866868>based on what?knowledge of chemistry and probabilities>>1686690210^23 is just in the observable universe. it's believed to be many times that in the overall universe.the chemical requirements for basic life are not sufficiently improbably for life to exist elsewhere. even intelligent life may not be, though the criteria for that is based on best guesses at this point>>16867016It's sad that multiplying the probability of life existing multiplied by the number of trials (planets) is too hard for you to understand.
>>16868078>multiplying the probability of life existingHow did you determine this probability, mongoloid?> multiplied by the number of trials (planets) That's not how you'd to the calculation but I'm not surprised someone like you doesn't know literally the most basic thing about stats.
>>16868078> observable universeIs it even meaningful to talk about the existence of things outside of the observable universe. If something is forever beyond reach, it does not really exist in any useful measure.
>>16868087>If something is forever beyond reach, it does not really exist in any useful measure.This is what scientism does to your brain...
There is no Easter bunny, there is no tooth fairy, and there are no habitable exoplanets. Aliens are not real. Interstellar travel will never be possible. Faster than light travel and teleportation is not possible. Mars will not be colonized. Venus will not be terraformed. The sun cannot be harvested. We will never return to the moon. Resources will be exhausted within the century. You will die on this Earth, which will in turn perish as well.
>>16865258if humanity follows a power law (where crisis events like war, disease, etc. are attractors in the self-organized criticality). The next big crisis will make us go extinct, so yeah it's a big fluke. but seriously just look up Fermi Paradox...
“Alien life exists elsewhere. The odds are just too good.”“But alien life visiting us? No. Impossible. It could never happen.”Are scientists just retarded? Are they all terrified or something? They’re basically waging a war against the rest of space. “No you can’t come here. We’re off limits. No way no how. Cope.”It’s fucking weird how humans seriously think there wouldn’t be further frontiers or successor theories to our own limitations.
>>16868150>Are scientists just retarded? Are they all terrified or something?I mean. Why do you think they get so mad when you point out that gravity is still borderline magic to us? They hate empowering the unknown.
