What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
168 Comments
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -2/+28"scientists from around the world" are doing lots of things.
- TaniaDerveaux, on 02/08/2008, -3/+22Anyone who thinks we're alone in the universe is a fool. But anyone who thinks we've got a fair chance of making contact with an alien lifeform is perhaps equally foolish.
- raid517, on 02/08/2008, -0/+14You have to understand the scale of the Universe. Yes life is unlikely - and it is even more unlikely to have arisen by chance. However as unlikely as this may be, the universe is so unimaginably vast, more vast than any single human mind can contain - and it contains countless billions and trillions upon trillions of chance interactions and chemical and physical interactions, that it is almost a case that if it isn't forbidden by the laws of physics then in a certain sense it's almost compulsory.
In this regard, you can simplify this by thinking of the odds of throwing ten straight heads up coins in a row. As unlikely as this may seem, it is not impossible - and indeed if you persisted for long enough, it is likely that at one point you would hit ten straight heads up in succession at some point, all entirely by chance. (In fact I have witnessed someone doing this in a little under 9 hours of continuous throwing).
Scale this up to all of the chance interactions that could and have and could still happen within the universe, and the chances of organic matter arising from inorganic matter through a series of entirely chance events increases almost beyond comprehension. It is simply one of the billions and trillions of other chance events that have, or could have, or that might still happen in the future too.
So what are the odds of life emerging from inorganic matter? Well in a universe as unimaginably vast and complex as ours, I would say that they are pretty good - and we are simply fortunate to be in the right part of the universe in which this series of chance events occurred.
What are the chances that it might have happened in other parts of the Universe too? Well at that point the odds do seem to become much longer. This does not preclude the possibility that other forms of sentient intelligence have occurred, only that the same fantastically unlikely sequence of events that brought about the creation of life from inorganic material are extremely unlikely to have occurred elsewhere in an identical way twice. (This is not only my own view, but that of Richard Dawkins also).
The Universe is like a vast probability calculator. If it stays around long enough, anything that can happen is almost guranteed to happen. - sockpuppets, on 02/08/2008, -3/+14There's billions of galaxies and trillions of planets out there. You'd have to be retarded to not think intelligent life is on one of them.
- fyngyrz, on 02/08/2008, -1/+12From the blurb:
"The shear size of the known universe"
Ouch. Shear is a verb, meaning "cut"; sheer is an adjective, meaning "nothing other than" or "unmitigated" in this context.
Digg denizen Bukowsky: Learn the language. As goes your writing, so goes your credibility. Communication is important.
"The sheer size of the known universe" - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+11You said: "statistically the odds of us being the only planet with life are actually quite high"
While the article said:
"The odds of there being only one single planet that evolved life among all that unfathomable vastness seems so incredible, that it is all but completely irrational to believe."
Probability of life existing precisely here at this precise time are miniscule, but the probability of life existing somewhere in the universe at some time are almost guaranteed, considering probability calculations, no matter how small chance it is per planet. We are one event of that sometime and somewhere.
Like said in the article, there's nothing special in us being right here right now. And we'll almost positively fade from existence before yet another event of sentient life happens anywhere within an even remotely comprehensible distance away from us. And they'll be thinking about the same things; Why are we alone here? Is there some divine purpose for all this?
Also, it's not feasible to attempt to define "habitable" since we do not know what other kind of life might exist somewhere. It's a bit more probable that sentient life would require at least some of the things we also have but it's no guarantee, and on the other hand even here on earth we have non-sentient bacteria that live in extremely "inhabitable" areas, so it's not completely impossible that some sentient life could also be like that. - dreambucket, on 02/08/2008, -0/+10the problem with SETI is "Any sufficiently advanced modulation scheme is virtually indistinguishable from noise." Basically, for us to find ET, he's going to have to be actively looking for us - probably in the form of a giant space maser. Which is cool with me.
- hasslinthehoff, on 02/08/2008, -2/+12Hasn't Tom Cruise been talking to Xenu for the past 10 years?
- theghoul, on 02/08/2008, -0/+9They have been here and left. We're too primitive for contact from an advanced race:
* Pollution
* Irradiation
* War
* Famine
* Class based systems
* Crime
* Britney Spears obsession
I wouldn't want to contact us either. - TheN0ble, on 02/08/2008, -1/+10We are not alone and its time to disclose it.
http://www.disclosureproject.org/ - themanmachine, on 02/08/2008, -10/+18My teacher is an alien.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/08/2008, -2/+10Here's a great site that I wish was on Digg a lot more: DamnInteresting.com.
For more info on this article's topic, check out this article:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=219
half way down the article is an interactive Drake Equation chart, which is a way of making an educated guess at how many other planets with life should probably be in our own galaxy. The odds are actually pretty insanely low, but the galaxy is insanely big, so most people's charts usually show 1 or 2 planets as the outcome. And keep in mind that the chart applies only to our galaxy -- there's a plethora of other galaxies out there too, that each might have one or two planets with life on them. - NaziHatinChimp, on 02/08/2008, -0/+8Bruce Coville? Dugg
- bentman78, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8I am also a non-believer in ID or a deity created universe. But with as large as the galaxy, let alone universe is, I don't think it's probable we'll find life for a long time if ever. People must take into account the amount of time the universe has been around. The chances of an advance or semi-intelligent race raising to dominance on it's own planet the same time we're here that is looking in our direction is rare. I know they redid the Drake equation, but still, I think by the time anyone learns about us we'll be long gone.
- mypetridish, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Did they just finished playing Mass Effect or something?
- draculthemad, on 02/08/2008, -1/+7What you are mangling is called Sagan's Conjecture. He basically assigned low-ball estimates to every theoretical step along the way, from a given star having planets of the right size in the right orbit to have liquid water all the way down to the chance of microbial life spontaneously forming.
He gets a astronomically low probability, lets call it X
Then he calculates the probability that one of the stupidly huge number of observable stars has life aside from ours.
X^Y ( simple probabilty math) That number starts to approach unity.
And get this, every single estimated probability he assigned that weve been able to double check so far has been off by an order of magnitude. On the *conservative side*. Life is thus much more likely than even he thought. - lnf69, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5and less then two hundred years ago ppl who reasoned like you said man will never fly.
- GoneGreen, on 02/08/2008, -2/+7God Damn Jesus Freaks... Don't ask questions, burn all of the books and mindlessly follow whatever crap you were force fed as a child... grow up.
- takamalak, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Post of the year buddy. Well done.
- bentman78, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6That's assuming they have superior technology to us. Given how hostile the universe can be it takes a lot for a planet to sustain even the simplest of life forms. For us to be here is dumb luck, other races might not have been so lucky. They could have been wiped out by terrestrial or celestial events before they had a chance to evolve. Unfortunately I think that's more likely a scenario then someone with more advanced technology than ours.
- Slovenian6474, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Exactly, nothing is "suppose" to be able to live on the bottom of the ocean, or in lava flumes, or under massive amounts of radiation. Surprise! Guess where we find life!
- castong, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5I like the argument that if we find alien life, we may not be able to communicate with it. Dolphins are intelligent, even share some of our genome, yet we cannot really communicate with them.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4He said "intelligent life."
- Dubbsacc, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Really? What was it? Never read it.
- Legolover64, on 02/08/2008, -2/+6I disagree, opticwind. It's ridiculously unlikely that, with the billions and billions of celestial formations out there, we are the only one among them that supports any sort of life. It's extremely possible that there are many other instances of "habitable zones" out there, we've already discovered multiple worlds very similar to earth.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -4/+8Don´t worry, they´ll find us, or more likely, already found us.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5i've always wondered if scientists ever check for that kind of a message/sign. if the aliens were far more advanced than we are, than maybe they'd have the technology to blow up stars. so they could go to a far away neighboring solar system with no planets, or planets they already probed for life, and then blow up the star in hopes someone "hears" it. If our scientists had that star on record, and noted that it shouldn't supernova explode for several more millenia, then suddenly they rescan that galaxy and the star is missing.. they would realize something strange had happened. if the aliens managed to blow up a concentric-ish circle of stars around them, then bam -- there's your map and target to send a message to.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/08/2008, -2/+6I'm not sure if the "habitable zone" is solid logic anymore though. I remember reading an article last year about some scientists finding peculiar lifeforms in a cave far below the surface of earth, where the lifeforms weren't carbon based and had never been exposed to any form of light throughout their species' lives. The odds of us finding alien life that evolved/adapted in similar steps to our own species' history may be terribly slim even with the drake equation, but there could easily be other nearby planets with life thriving below its surface, where they possibly use something similar to DNA or photosynthesis, but by utilizing completely different atoms on the element chart for an entirely different body structure than what you'd find on earth.
I realize all of these discussions come down to "if, if, if, maybe, maybe, maybe", but when the universe is SO big, it really is worth exploring all the possibilities. - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4It takes a huge amount of energy to beam radio signals across star system, and even much more across galaxy. Remember, our current listening devices cannot detect terawatts of star light energy reflected off the extrasolar planets, let alone a few megawatts of light beam those aliens are sending out. So by using the current listening devices, you would expect some aliens to waste terawatts of energy every hour just to get some attention from other civilizations. We are foolish to expect such an extravaganza alien race.
By the way, our scientists have detected many extrasolar planets by observing their gravitational tug-of-war effects on the stars. They run simulations after simulations to pin point the location of the planets.
Ok, we really need to improve those listening devices to detect the faintest of the faintest and of the faintest signals. - lnf69, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4My personal opinion is that the discovery of ET would lead to World (Earth) Peace, (as in amongst humans).
If ETs are hostile then the difference between Christians, Jews, Muslims etc, would virtually disappear from all of us ***** our pants about invaders. - thefandango, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4to quote calvin and hobbes: "would you let in a dog that wasn't house trained?"
- Thex1138, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4How long do you believe technological advancements take? 100 years ago we learn to fly...50 years ago for the transistor...cabon nanotubes are about to revolutionalize electeronic in all manner of ways..in 100 years time who knows?
Billions and billions of stars are near enough the same mass and age of our own...average half a trillion in every galaxy out there...good odds I think!
IN 5 years we'll have space and ground telescopes able to filter and image celestial bodies orbiting near by stars..unthinkable 50 years ago..
It's all about relativity. - DiggityDugged, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4"But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space."
http://imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes - sockpuppets, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4The first rule of disclosure project is to not disclose disclosure project.
- cphelps, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3So you're saying you are smarter than all of these scientists?
- 2shae, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Looking for attention?
- captainboog, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4according to the disclosure project, SETI has received at least two signals that it thinks are extraterrestrial, but are being blocked by the NSA. Seriously folks, go to http://www.disclosure.project.com
*****, i have friends who have been contacted by extraterrestrials. it's like that virus vibration article that got dugg up recently. It was discovered 100 years ago by Rife, but shutdown by the mainstream idiots.
As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. has treaties with alien races. There have been sightings of UFOs with American flags and English written on the bottom. Which means part of the UFO tech is just secret American military tech.
There's so much consciousness and intelligence in our world that we just destroy. Like the dolphins, whales, elephants, some plant life. If we were really interested in making contact with other intelligent life forms, we would be talking to them. - positron, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Keep in mind though that it took us ~180,000 years to develop an industrial society which lead to our current rapid technological advancement.
- CiXeL, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3i was hoping he was being sarcastic.
- 2shae, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3No, the Bush War is a complete waste of money, this is just development.
- inajeep, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3At this point we must consider this a cry for help because we are messing up our planet beyond repair and really could use someone that has more than a hundred years of expereince with a technologically advanced society.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4You forgot to mention that those "other" religions are wrong. Yay Jesus.
- tattertech, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4Fail.
Your statistical argument breaks down under the simple numbers of the universe even if you take the lowest reasonable odds. Not to mention the recent understandings of different types of organisms potentially possible (that would affect what is considered habitable). - Skillatchi, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3What makes you think that an alien race that has the technology to travel the universe undetected is going to use headlights, etc? Please, its commonsense really....
- DiggityDugged, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4Do me a favor. Read through every alien/ufo article on DamnInteresting.com. UFOs do exist, but "Unidentified Flying Objects" doesn't necessarily mean it's an alien in the cockpit. Many of the UFO sightings in the 1960s and shortly thereafter were proven to be (yes, proven, even with documents and pictures) that the saucers were American made ships they were testing out in secret military locations. Not because aliens landed and taught us how to do it, but because they humored brilliant scientists and wasted a lot of money on flying designs that did not work at all, and some that brilliantly did. The reason they let the news run with the aliens story was because they didn't want Russia to realize they were creating advanced air technologies.
Again, I urge you to read all the ufo/alien stories on DamnInteresting.com. Likewise, I'll check out DisclosureProject to see if there's new stuff to be learned. - Thex1138, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3If other sentient life is able to travel vast distance across space....in reasonable time frames...do you possibly think that you'll be able to see that transit through any kind of telescope...let alone know where to look or what to look for?
Pick up your little grain of sand on at the beach...that's where we are right now in the universe. - bxblox, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2What if they have existed for much longer than we have and have technology way beyond ours? Maybe theyre liquid creatures or something equally strange. Theres just too many variables for my earth brain atm.
- MizuhoChan, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2I don't pretend to know anything about space travel, but what about "hyperspace" from Sci-Fi shows, which is travelling through subspace? Does subspace exist?
- 2shae, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Or you could see it like this:
Since we can't solve the problems on earth ourselves, why don't we try to find someone who can help us with them? - weeeezzll, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Exactly. If we send a signal out in all direction in a fashion that saturates the entire universe as it expand out through the universe by the time it reaches this other potential intelligent life our own planet and the life on it will likely be a distant memory by the time the signal reaches them. The converse also applies to potential messages coming from intelligent life from outer space. The detection of such a message would be profound, but only in a philosophical sense. It doesn't really benefit humanity in quantifiable way, and is thus a huge waste of time and resources.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is