Skip to main content

Browse GamesGame JamsUpload GameWinter Sale 2024Developer LogsCommunity
On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
redonihunter1 year ago

It would be a bold claim if   the expected value for the number of    intelligent species bearing planets   in the universe would be 1.

But since the universe is so big, I do not think it is bold to have an expected value much higher. Of course I can't tell how many zeros that number should have - for the universe. And   it might still be possible that the number turns out to be 1 per galaxy, especially if you require it to mean technological and explorative.

I think the expected value for singular cell organism bearing celestial bodies for our galaxy is in the millions. Even in our solar system it is slightly above 1. (We can't disprove as of now, that below the surface on mars there might be  some stuff still going on and of course, several moons have liquid water)

And to have some speculation, maybe our planet actually was pre-colonized by those fermi-civs. They could have sent some genetic material to ensure an oxygen atmosphere would be present when they finally  decide to visit. 

Reply
FearCode1 year ago
It would be a bold claim if   the expected value for the number of    intelligent species bearing planets   in the universe would be 1.

You're still failing to understand the difference between certainty and probability. Yet you can't prove intelligent life outside of earth exists, you only keep repeating how likely that probably is, probability alone does not prove anything, try taking a medication that works in 95% but there's 5% chance of death, probability in that case doesn't sound so appealing right? That's because probability alone is not always correct, that's why scientist don't just bring probability to prove their points. 

Saying something like "I believe there's intelligent life out there" it's plausible, but one can't say "I know for certain it exists", simply because you can't prove it.

And there's no such things "disproving life exists in mars" or anywhere else, that's a fallacy, in philosophy that's called "shifting the burden of proof". It's the same as if I told you that you can't prove there no flying invisible unicorns (odorless and silent), and you can't prove that, but that doesn't mean they exist.

That's why I used the word "certainty" in my original post, not "probability".

Reply
redonihunter1 year ago

Probability is never "correct" for an individual case. You proably never win big time in the lottery. But the one who did win, well, he did win. But his odds were still the same as yours. I am not trying to argue that someone specific is winning the lottery at life, only that it will have a payout, since the number of players is biggerly big than the probability is smallish small.

And if I had a disease with 20% death rate and a mediation with 5% death rate and 95% success rate, I would research how exactly those numbers are deduced to maybe guess my individiual risk better.

That people vastly misunderstand anything statistical and about probabililty was exposed over the last few years in abundance.

Should you not know that example , how many randomly selected people do you need for the chance of two of them sharing the same birthday being 50%? It is known as the birthday paradox.

To finish this, it seems the actual scientists working on that type of research do not believe we are a unique phenomenon. And life as found near volcanos under water   and all the other extremophiles radically changed their minds about life possibilities. 

Reply
FearCode1 year ago

Like in another topic you like to deviate the original topic to talk semantics just to prove your point, when semantics is not the point here.

Even though, technically speaking probability alone (unless 100%) is never correct by itself, you still need factual confirmation, I understand your point and I agree it's possible intelligent alien life exists.

However still, possible, not certain. And why that matters for this case? Because there's a huge difference between worry about intelligent aliens invading the planet, when there are humans right now destroying the planet. One could live in a bunker worrying about alien invasion or instead try to make a difference about things we know exist for sure.

Reply
redonihunter1 year ago

It started with this

while we don't even know if intelligent extraterrestrial life really exists

To wich I replied that it is the wrong question.

Oh, and extraterrestial intelligent life does exist. The real question is, if we ever make contact or see proof.

So you accused me of having no proof, only faith . 

You say " ...extraterrestial intelligent life does exist" and then say "The real question is, if we ever ... see proof." How can you say something exist but you have no proof (apart from faith)?

To wich I defended my position by stating the numbers, that are anyhting but faith. It would be faith to believe we are alone, when looking at the size of the universe. That we currently cannot prove is a trivial matter. It is only about which position is the prudent one. I remember long ago, it seemed that the scientific position was, that planets are a rare occasion. New data changed that position. Planets are in abundance.  And so is capabilty life in extreme conditions. And so is organic matter. We can observe dust clouds with amino acids in such quantities that we can see them over  light years. Organic chemistry is happening everywhere we look close enough. I stay with my opinion. The prudent position with the available pointers is, that life is in abundance in the universe and thus intelligence is not likely to happen but bound to happen.

Of course I freely admit that it is splitting a hair, when talking about extraterrestial life in this context it only matters for those aliens that could or would make contact. If that happens any time soon (even in geological time frame) is questionable.  And for the record, the very first statement already was semantics (shifting et to being seen by us, instead of existing at all), so do not complain a dozen postings later that I am talking semantics. I was talking semantics from the beginning ;-b

Reply
AboutFAQBlogContact us
Copyright © 2024 itch corp · Directory · Terms · Privacy · Cookies