Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

A cool thought :)


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

but one in 14 million is many, many many orders of magnitude away from what is required to support the infinite monkeys theorem.

Sorry about the last post for some reason I could not see any text I typed!

What I wanted to add was that my point was that I doubt any statistical inference when we only have one example to hand. So I get nervous when we talk statistically about our single universe or life when we only have the earth as an example etc. 

That was all.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
31 minutes ago, andrew s said:

What I wanted to add was that my point was that I doubt any statistical inference when we only have one example to hand. So I get nervous when we talk statistically about our single universe or life when we only have the earth as an example etc. 

At last, somebody sensible!

I suspect there's a huge flaw in the majority opinion on this - everyone seems so sure there's bound to be some off-the-earth equivalent of biochemistry. But maybe the first step is more unlikely than people think. How can we be sure with only one example?

So I say - the rest of the universe is virtually empty. Until we find one, single, second example - in which case it's probably teeming...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In have a display with 1024 pixels.

The number of possible permutations of the display is ~ 1 x 10^308.

The number of atoms in the visible universe is ~ 10^80.

So that's 10^208 permutations of the display for each particle.

I would have to nest universes four deep (i.e. each particle contains a universe, of which each particle contains a universe that contains another universe in each of its particles to have enough particles for there to be one per display permutation.

"There are 884,421 total words in Shakespeare's 43 works, there are 28,829 unique word forms, and 12,493 occur only once". Even if the monkeys just sel;ect random words from his canon - that's ... oh dear Microsoft calculator says 'invaluid input'.

That's this many possible permutations:

1712533620661261363847354573077095131094610907214997572203639646809677354884428165469361117434538494379252369199552703335425662320740954754124573806608977393212612973362504903487179515160297299280070062323756041477537351842551995251012077284877301254562287375184280892260562246872523815734937577601335374715265893298506301440529811902515846837032078597895897714000032121901301999818670734443974258671999273938730951108441020

... <48 screens of numbers removed to avoid the wrath of the mods - YES FORTY_EIGHT!>

9302123081071693045331410447817986044014627428407383083948792608614377210057621438735512922836649031192447195305398841349759594312895024162478614080982483646884576867471135287020409225249861260554507828341983002016383075630075405751788870251678628040304147210962596646701046641026580215588889292296886396414110238332691933625086860549717571234054003514136211315016863884341709337891940670898874099012606439978510088879559238306493018300234390271730106867807438177825615861827409994178479224953239312561410612607673489115791307223579172036407822250328890313202667244848727779996446787719457709262397819471942140672401704264324896718494813157071535262486032116539450912621536295442537254730601689080044698136110653714251564942713154581

That's with real words. Now, imagine working out how many potential versions there are with a typewriter keyboard that also allows nonsense words...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

"There are 884,421 total words in Shakespeare's 43 works, there are 28,829 unique word forms, and 12,493 occur only once"

This may be the wrong film and a complete miss-quote but I seem to recall that in Star Trex VI The Undiscovered Country :- "You can't really appreciate Shakespeare unless you have read him in the original Klingon" Now what are the odds of a having a hominid like race recreating Shakespeare? Pure fantasy if you ask me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ravenous said:

At last, somebody sensible!

I suspect there's a huge flaw in the majority opinion on this - everyone seems so sure there's bound to be some off-the-earth equivalent of biochemistry. But maybe the first step is more unlikely than people think. How can we be sure with only one example?

So I say - the rest of the universe is virtually empty. Until we find one, single, second example - in which case it's probably teeming...

Im not sure i see the logic here. You seem to be saying that the development of life is a incredible rarity thats probably limited to this one tiny corner of the universe backed up by the fact that we shouldnt speculate on its existence elsewhere as we only have one example of it happening. But surely the argument is exactly the same if turned around, how can we be sure life is very rare and unlikely as we only have one example to use as a guide. Surely by your argument life elsewhere is just as likely as its absence and therefore both sides of the argument are equally as shaky. However we know from experiments that if we create correct conditions for say crystals to grow or bacteria they will grow every time we repeat those conditions. If we looked out into the universe and saw no sings of where conditions maybe similar then the arguments maybe on equal footing as they were 20 years or so ago. But today theres an ever growing number of possible worlds that could provide that same Petri dish for life and we havent even looked beyond our tiny corner. Yes statistics are probably a non value in the argument but data isnt statistics and the more data we are presented with the ever greater the likely hood of life existing elsewhere it appears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

In have a display with 1024 pixels.

The number of possible permutations of the display is ~ 1 x 10^308.

The number of atoms in the visible universe is ~ 10^80.

So that's 10^208 permutations of the display for each particle.

I would have to nest universes four deep (i.e. each particle contains a universe, of which each particle contains a universe that contains another universe in each of its particles to have enough particles for there to be one per display permutation.

"There are 884,421 total words in Shakespeare's 43 works, there are 28,829 unique word forms, and 12,493 occur only once". Even if the monkeys just sel;ect random words from his canon - that's ... oh dear Microsoft calculator says 'invaluid input'.

That's this many possible permutations:

1712533620661261363847354573077095131094610907214997572203639646809677354884428165469361117434538494379252369199552703335425662320740954754124573806608977393212612973362504903487179515160297299280070062323756041477537351842551995251012077284877301254562287375184280892260562246872523815734937577601335374715265893298506301440529811902515846837032078597895897714000032121901301999818670734443974258671999273938730951108441020

... <48 screens of numbers removed to avoid the wrath of the mods - YES FORTY_EIGHT!>

9302123081071693045331410447817986044014627428407383083948792608614377210057621438735512922836649031192447195305398841349759594312895024162478614080982483646884576867471135287020409225249861260554507828341983002016383075630075405751788870251678628040304147210962596646701046641026580215588889292296886396414110238332691933625086860549717571234054003514136211315016863884341709337891940670898874099012606439978510088879559238306493018300234390271730106867807438177825615861827409994178479224953239312561410612607673489115791307223579172036407822250328890313202667244848727779996446787719457709262397819471942140672401704264324896718494813157071535262486032116539450912621536295442537254730601689080044698136110653714251564942713154581

That's with real words. Now, imagine working out how many potential versions there are with a typewriter keyboard that also allows nonsense words...

 

You can't even imagine these numbers. Yes, the possibility of life forming is VERY rare. However, given enough possibilities it's bound to happen. Our universe has provided plenty of those possibilities so I really don't see how life couldn't have formed and evolved elsewhere. "10^80" - do you know how big that number is?? That's huge... Beyond comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, symesie04 said:

how can we be sure

I think the point is we can't make any sensible statistically justified predictions one way or the other. We can endlessly speculate but we end up having to estimate factors that we don't know how to calculate or as has been said only have one example to base them on. Your guess is a s good a mine or that of anyone else. 

This is why finding any other example of life out side of earth is such a goal for science as it would then give us a much better basis for making these estimates. 

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Herzy said:

You can't even imagine these numbers. Yes, the possibility of life forming is VERY rare. However, given enough possibilities it's bound to happen. Our universe has provided plenty of those possibilities so I really don't see how life couldn't have formed and evolved elsewhere. "10^80" - do you know how big that number is?? That's huge... Beyond comprehension.

Personally, I think life evolving is more analogous to iron filings lining up along lines of magnetic force, or crystals growing. Provide the right conditions, and it will happen.

The tricky bit is the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote life, I suspect, purely because this took a VERY long time to happen here. the rapidity of life merging after the late heavy bombardment,in contrast, suggests that life starting wasn't big challenge.

Analysis of exo-planet atmospheres will give us answers. Find one with an oxidising atmosphere and you've probably got life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/05/2016 at 13:05, Ravenous said:

At last, somebody sensible!

I suspect there's a huge flaw in the majority opinion on this - everyone seems so sure there's bound to be some off-the-earth equivalent of biochemistry. But maybe the first step is more unlikely than people think. How can we be sure with only one example?

So I say - the rest of the universe is virtually empty. Until we find one, single, second example - in which case it's probably teeming...

Life is essentially chemistry and chemistry is the interaction of elements under pretty well defined and understood laws of physics.  We know what happens when these interactions take place and what drives them.  We also know, with a pretty high level of confidence, how the elements are disposed across the universe. It is a relatively easy step them to suggest that the same interactions we see here with precursor chemistry for life should be able to happen elsewhere.  Unless the laws of physics are different elsewhere then why should the chemistry be different?

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2016 at 16:37, Stub Mandrel said:

The tricky bit is the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote life...

I have to admit that, until fairly recently, I hadn't been aware of the difference. :p

To me, that throws quite a spanner into the works, re. any advanced life forms?
Amazing how Earth's diversity of life shares our common "Eukaryotic heritage". :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (Another bit of random light reading)

Some of the ideas... (claimed) self-replicating "blobs" (spherical lipid enclosures)
had been reported for a quite a time (60's/70's?) in popular Science Journals?
We have been increasingly adept at creating components for life for some time.
But we still lack the ability to combine these - To add that "vital spark" (sic)?!? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Macavity said:

But we still lack the ability to combine these - To add that "vital spark" (sic)?!? ;)

God forbid that we ever work that one out Chris, then we become the "engineers" from Ridley Scott's movie Prometheus - "in space no one can hear you scream".:happy8:

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it takes several million years, or thousands for that matter for light to travel to earth or from Earth to another galaxy by the time it gets there we may already have been, or them already visited us. Just depends upon us or them not blowing us/them selves up first! The way of the world is not  very friendly is it?

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Physopto said:

If it takes several million years, or thousands for that matter for light to travel to earth or from Earth to another galaxy by the time it gets there we may already have been, or them already visited us. Just depends upon us or them not blowing us/them selves up first! The way of the world is not  very friendly is it?

Derek

  I'm not sure I understand you Derek. Are you saying that if it takes 2.5M years for light to get to M31, then we might visit there before the light leaving now will get there? surely this requires faster than the speed of light travel? something concidered impossible. Unless of course we left earth before we existed :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we are really at a very early point in our evolution. We may as yet discover that faster than light speed travel is possible. Maybe not faster but certainly bypassing that idea using tunnelling, or inter dimensional travel ( Branes, Strings etc., never did understand or like that theory).

Just because it is regarded as impossible now ( to accomplish with present thinking and knowledge,  does not say that it will never be possible. Einstein's ideas were impossible a few hundred years ago, but there you go. 100 years ago quantum tunnelling was not even dreamt of, yet we use it everyday now  in simple items we take for granted. So in the future we could send a signal by conventional means at the speed of light today and still get there before that signal  does when our knowledge and abilities  increase.

All this as I said if we don't destroy ourselves first! :mad:

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, saac said:

God forbid that we ever work that one out Chris, then we become the "engineers" from Ridley Scott's movie Prometheus - "in space no one can hear you scream".

Not seen that one, Jim... but I can imagine. When I randomly used the phrase "vital spark",
an image of "Frankenstein's Monster" came to mind - "Pass the Electrodes", Igor? ;)
A creature, artificially created, and ultimately despised by everyone...
Perhaps the fate of most "Artificial Life"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Physopto said:

Yes, we are really at a very early point in our evolution. We may as yet discover that faster than light speed travel is possible. Maybe not faster but certainly bypassing that idea using tunnelling, or inter dimensional travel ( Branes, Strings etc., never did understand or like that theory).

Just because it is regarded as impossible now ( to accomplish with present thinking and knowledge,  does not say that it will never be possible. Einstein's ideas were impossible a few hundred years ago, but there you go. 100 years ago quantum tunnelling was not even dreamt of, yet we use it everyday now  in simple items we take for granted. So in the future we could send a signal by conventional means at the speed of light today and still get there before that signal  does when our knowledge and abilities  increase.

All this as I said if we don't destroy ourselves first! :mad:

Derek

Ok I see. with any luck we might find the tech to go back before the big bang :D. anythings possible isn't it?

I'd be very surprised if we will be around that long to be honest.  this planet doesn't seem stable enough to support any one particular complex life form for any great period of time and then theres the chance of the next great extinction. the cards definately seem to be stacked against us and thats before we even factor in our seemingly endless quest to destroy it :(

Happy Sunday :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligence has another option not tied to the boundaries of organic life, natural selection would still be at work with artificial life forms that can self replicate in seconds rather than tens of years maybe not as individuals but as a colony. I still like the idea that in some part of the universe there are robots frantically trying to convert everything into paperclips.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes statistics are probably a non value in the argument but data isnt statistics and the more data we are presented with the ever greater the likely hood of life existing elsewhere it appears. 

Sorry to be a pedant, but:  Data is statistics, pure and simple. At the moment we have a graph with one data point in the centre and no idea what's to the left or right of it. :)

Once we have a second data point, we can start speculating scientifically. Until then, people will just believe whatever we want I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't be sure, what if we are alone ( Which I personally don't believe, but it is a chance) . There will be no aliens looking at us then. Or maybe they are too far away or less advance in technology. But what you said is true, it will be an amazing site. :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own personal opinions:

1.  People/TV documentaries talk at great length about how likely or unlikely the evolution of life is.  To me this is not particularly relevant and is only important in determining how common life is, not does other life exist.  Other life is bound to exist (in loads of places).

2.  Our use of "intelligent life" is rather arrogant and introspective.  I can see no reason why other life should not be looking at us with the same regard as we give to bacteria or algae.  We seem to consider that we have surpassed some magic threshold - but look at how we behave, at our wars, how we treat others of our (and other) species, how we treat (and pollute) our environment in full knowledge of the damage we are doing and fully aware of what it will do to us (and other species).  Yet we regard ourselves as having surpassed some critical "intelligent" threshold (I think a lot of our behaviour just "stupid").  I would expect there to be loads of "intelligent" life out there that really would regard us as some sort of contamination on the planet.

3.  I'm sure that there is other more intelligent life out there but if we could suddenly communicate with it, I think I'd prefer the human race develop a bit more by which time we will either have "stepped aside" for another species to evolve or we would have developed enough to be a bit more "intelligent" in our behaviour.  We are not ready (e.g. can you imagine Cameron's, Putin's, Trump's, etc. behaviour were walking talking aliens to land tomorrow and would they make you "proud to be human"; and how many minutes would it be before the "we have to protect ourselves" and "which companies have right to profit from ...").

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like to see scientists being able to create very basic life in a laboratory, from very basic materials to be found on a young earth and in a young solar system. The sort of life that equals the first living cell that started life at this planet. When they manage that, we can presume that life can appear anywhere and that it will when it get's the chance. Now we can only speculate how likely it is to start existing. I suppose that when life exists, that the rest will follow by evolution, depending on the amount of radiation on the planet in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linda I know what you mean regarding scientists' goal being a search to create life but I must admit I have mixed feeling about that.  I agree that our curiosity and intellect will naturally set that as an ultimate goal.  Just as we were in a way predetermined to release the power of the atom, I guess the same forces in our nature will compel us to seek how to create life.  My fear is that we are not, certainly as yet in our development, ready for that.  My real concern is that life would then have less value if we believe it is under our command and control.  We have a history of losing our humility too quickly with each of our technological advances.   But I do think it will be pursued and if it is possible we will ultimately do it - I won't overly welcome the headline the morning I wake up to its announcement though.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.