So, *Are* We Alone?
Locked
 
Administrator
|
I got to thinking a bit more about an assumption I (and I bet most of us) have held, that surely there is "intelligent" life on other planets, one capable of technology .. thus SETI's radio search. Surely it is hubris to claim humanity is somehow unique, just look at the diversity of our own world! Thus there's got to be lots of intelligent life out there, right?
(Yes, I know, this is pretty vague, and we're intelligent only for very small values of intelligent.)
But listening to a TED by Hawking, I was impressed with his somewhat measured approach: that we have not found a radio source within 200-400 light years. I believe his choice of distance had to do with our own development of radio a couple of centuries ago.
That got me reading up on just how long we've been around, and how long other civilizations could have existed. Very roughly speaking, the big bang was 14 billion years ago, our sun is 4.5 billion years old, and the earth is 4 billion years old.
Well, that sounds like we're late to the game: 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old. But wait a minute, we know we're the result of star-stuff, the heavy elements. The big bang was only able to muster nuclei of fairly low weight, lithium say .. possibly a bit more. The first generation of stars, therefor were fairly odd, huge and short lived. And the second generation of stars were less heavy element rich than our sun, which makes it at best third generation. http://goo.gl/gV54S
So given only 14BY for building solar systems, and assuming the requirement for an at least third generation sun, we may be as young as likely a life form possible.
So SETI is likely playing a loosing game, we're young enough that the statistics may be that, yes there is life out there, but it's pretty young too and maybe is no more advanced than we are. (Maybe that is Hawking's couple of centuries limit) Of course we're talking about a few centuries, which would make a huge difference in technology, but still.
Hawking does end with a grim comment others have made: maybe civilizations are short lived .. they self destruct or fall prey to destructive events (meteors, comets).
-- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
A couple of comments:
1. Recent research shows that there are tens of billions of rocky planets inhabiting the habitable liquid water zone in our galaxy alone. See http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-billions-rocky-planets-habitable-zones.html 2. Multicellular life started on earth about 540 million years ago 3. 250 million years ago the Mesozoic era began -- trees, dinosaurs 4. Homo Sap. has been around for maybe 100,000 years, or about 0.000000007% of the total time since the big bang. 5. There are perhaps 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and nobody even knows if the diameter of the universe is 78 billion light years in diameter, or infinite. Given the above, I'd say the chances there this is life out there are considerably greater than the chances of winning the mega-millions lottery. Whether any of that life evolves to the point of developing what we might call intelligence before catastrophe intervenes is an interesting question. There have been 5 mass extinctions on earth:
Were it not for that last one, intelligent life on earth might be sauron-based, rather than (arguably) hominid-based. However, having observed that the demonstrated proven benefits of intelligence on earth include religion, religious war, a fascination with building enough nuclear weapons to guarantee another mass extinction event, and a propensity for breeding beyond the capacity of the planet to supply food and water for a rapidly growing population of billions, I'd say that the odds were pretty good that we won't be around to meet another intelligence, should one ever happen to come looking this way. However, if you are a Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum or Rick Perry-class creationist, please ignore all of the above. Humans and dinosaurs were happily co-existing from the beginning, 6,000 years ago, and God made us in his image, and we are the chosen. Which makes the whole question of other intelligence completely immaterial. If you are a Mitt Romney-class Mormon, you may pass directly on to Kolub; the issue of intelligent life is obviously of no meaning to you. --Doug
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I got to thinking a bit more about an assumption I (and I bet most of us) have held, that surely there is "intelligent" life on other planets, one capable of technology .. thus SETI's radio search. Surely it is hubris to claim humanity is somehow unique, just look at the diversity of our own world! Thus there's got to be lots of intelligent life out there, right? > > (Yes, I know, this is pretty vague, and we're intelligent only for very small values of intelligent.) > > But listening to a TED by Hawking, I was impressed with his somewhat measured approach: that we have not found a radio source within 200-400 light years. I believe his choice of distance had to do with our own development of radio a couple of centuries ago. > > That got me reading up on just how long we've been around, and how long other civilizations could have existed. Very roughly speaking, the big bang was 14 billion years ago, our sun is 4.5 billion years old, and the earth is 4 billion years old. > > Well, that sounds like we're late to the game: 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old. But wait a minute, we know we're the result of star-stuff, the heavy elements. The big bang was only able to muster nuclei of fairly low weight, lithium say .. possibly a bit more. The first generation of stars, therefor were fairly odd, huge and short lived. And the second generation of stars were less heavy element rich than our sun, which makes it at best third generation. http://goo.gl/gV54S > > So given only 14BY for building solar systems, and assuming the requirement for an at least third generation sun, we may be as young as likely a life form possible. > > So SETI is likely playing a loosing game, we're young enough that the statistics may be that, yes there is life out there, but it's pretty young too and maybe is no more advanced than we are. (Maybe that is Hawking's couple of centuries limit) Of course we're talking about a few centuries, which would make a huge difference in technology, but still. > > Hawking does end with a grim comment others have made: maybe civilizations are short lived .. they self destruct or fall prey to destructive events (meteors, comets). > > -- Owen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Dear Owen, I don’t know how to ask this question without sounding churlish. But why is this question INTERESTING? That’s not a rhetorical question, It actually doesn’t INTEREST me. The cranky voice inside me wants to say, of COURSE we are term limited, of course our term of office could end at any time. In fact, I think it has probably come quite close to ending a couple of times during our life time. If we are around long enough to be picked off by a comet, I would say we are doing REALLY WELL. OF COURSE, there is no MEANING to our existence. And of COURSE, we are probably not the only life in the UNIVERSE, although I don’t see how knowing that there is some bit of slime with two heads on Alpha Romero II makes me feel less ALONE. There seems to be a huge confusion in this sort of discourse. Aloneness has to do our inability to muster the courage to engage with one another. (The courage to start a reading group; the courage to invite others to dinner; the courage to go to church, if that is one’s inclination.) It does NOT have to do with whether there is other life in the universe. And casting it in this lofty celestial way only gets in the way of our enjoying, being grateful for, and doing what we can to nurture, what we have. I have to admit, much as I have been titillated by the space program, I have always seen it as evidence of wildly misguided priorities. See, I really am in need of help, here. Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore I got to thinking a bit more about an assumption I (and I bet most of us) have held, that surely there is "intelligent" life on other planets, one capable of technology .. thus SETI's radio search. Surely it is hubris to claim humanity is somehow unique, just look at the diversity of our own world! Thus there's got to be lots of intelligent life out there, right? (Yes, I know, this is pretty vague, and we're intelligent only for very small values of intelligent.) But listening to a TED by Hawking, I was impressed with his somewhat measured approach: that we have not found a radio source within 200-400 light years. I believe his choice of distance had to do with our own development of radio a couple of centuries ago. That got me reading up on just how long we've been around, and how long other civilizations could have existed. Very roughly speaking, the big bang was 14 billion years ago, our sun is 4.5 billion years old, and the earth is 4 billion years old. Well, that sounds like we're late to the game: 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old. But wait a minute, we know we're the result of star-stuff, the heavy elements. The big bang was only able to muster nuclei of fairly low weight, lithium say .. possibly a bit more. The first generation of stars, therefor were fairly odd, huge and short lived. And the second generation of stars were less heavy element rich than our sun, which makes it at best third generation. http://goo.gl/gV54S So given only 14BY for building solar systems, and assuming the requirement for an at least third generation sun, we may be as young as likely a life form possible. So SETI is likely playing a loosing game, we're young enough that the statistics may be that, yes there is life out there, but it's pretty young too and maybe is no more advanced than we are. (Maybe that is Hawking's couple of centuries limit) Of course we're talking about a few centuries, which would make a huge difference in technology, but still. Hawking does end with a grim comment others have made: maybe civilizations are short lived .. they self destruct or fall prey to destructive events (meteors, comets). -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
Doug: thanks for the additional material. It exactly encapsulates my initial thoughts: there are so many possibilities in terms of time, space, number of galaxies and solar systems, that it just GOTTA be true!
But taking Page's Model Thinking class made me wonder, after hearing Hawking on TED, that I might be able to build a bit more of a model. So I looked into star types and their evolution and ages and was quite surprised that the number of generations of stars is a small number. Granted they overlap and possibly a Population II star could support life, .. but if we're betting on Population 1 stars, we may be seeing widespread life starting within a billion years or so of each other, not spread out over the 14BY of our universe.
Nick: mainly that star formation and percentage of heavy elements would greatly change the probabilistic models of "intelligent" life. I was taken aback by the thought. And what INTERESTS me is that one can make scenarios that are a bit more concrete than my prior thought that there are so many worlds and time, that intelligent life is inevitable. My model is becoming more like within the era of formation of Population 1 stars is a reasonable boundary condition. Still a lot, and still intelligent life looks pretty probable. But less so than before.
In general, I think other intelligent life forms are interesting to think about. I bet for example, they are pondering prime numbers as we do. I bet they have found that "chance" does not mean "no structure" .. i.e. random processes can create highly structured results. Evolution and Us for example.
-- Owen
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
All --
A couple of issues / observations . . . Concerning the probability that an "advanced civilization" (or "intelligent species"), even if it ever comes into being, will persist long enough to be noticed by another hypothetical "intelligent species" -- there are arguments that it (the probability of persistence) will be quite low. Here's a link to some discussion of Bayesian reasoning, and a brief outline of what is sometimes called the "doomsday argument": http://csustan.csustan.edu/~tom/Lecture-Notes/Risks/risks.pdf But of course a deep question in SETI is the question of what one should look for . . . clearly the best bet is electromagnetic signals -- although even that may just be more or less parochial bias. Perhaps we should be looking for gravitational wave communication, or neutrino-based communication, or something we haven't thought of or have no clue about -- but we're constrained to looking with the technological devices we have today, so radio waves it is, right? Although even that raises some problems. We've been a "technologically advanced civilization" (i.e., capable of using electromagnetic spectrum beyond simplistic visual signaling) for what, a century? And note that looking for simple AM or FM signals is almost surely pointless -- we're already outgrowing that -- in terms of sheer volume, it's "all digital now." And, information theory tells us that optimal use of a digital communication channel will maximize entropy, and hence will make all channel usage look like white noise. So, if we want to look for "advanced civilizations," what we should be looking for is "white noise" sources. But beyond that, optimal use of available channel capacity will demand "narrow-casting" to avoid interference (and thus, e.g., fiber optic, etc.). You don't want to use "broadcast" because of the waste associated with leakage and interference. Hence, if we want to look for "advanced civilizations," it seems we should be looking for relatively quiet "white noise" sources . . . :-) Sort of the only other hope is that some other "advanced civilization" will notice the "noisy new kids on the block" (us :-), and send us a really simple, easy to see "narrow-cast" beamed directly at us. I'd say we're extremely unlikely to "overhear" the "noisy chatter" of advanced civilizations . . . my guess is that advanced civilizations will outgrow the "noisy chatter" modes of communication about as fast as we have been . . . Thanks . . . tom p.s. -- An example of evolution of communication . . . consider Sprint . . . how did Sprint telecomm come into existence? Southern Pacific Railway (SPRint -- a coincidence? Not really :-) had railway right-of-ways, which gave them the ability to lay fiber-optic backbone, which enabled them to enter the Switched PRIvate Network Telecommunications game, etc. . . . On Mar 31, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > A couple of comments: > > 1. Recent research shows that there are tens of billions of rocky planets inhabiting the habitable liquid water zone in our galaxy alone. See > > http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-billions-rocky-planets-habitable-zones.html > > 2. Multicellular life started on earth about 540 million years ago > > 3. 250 million years ago the Mesozoic era began -- trees, dinosaurs > > 4. Homo Sap. has been around for maybe 100,000 years, or about 0.000000007% of the total time since the big bang. > > 5. There are perhaps 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and nobody even knows if the diameter of the universe is 78 billion light years in diameter, or infinite. > > Given the above, I'd say the chances there this is life out there are considerably greater than the chances of winning the mega-millions lottery. Whether any of that life evolves to the point of developing what we might call intelligence before catastrophe intervenes is an interesting question. There have been 5 mass extinctions on earth: > > • The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated. > • 360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event. > • The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history. > • The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct. > • The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents. > > Were it not for that last one, intelligent life on earth might be sauron-based, rather than (arguably) hominid-based. However, having observed that the demonstrated proven benefits of intelligence on earth include religion, religious war, a fascination with building enough nuclear weapons to guarantee another mass extinction event, and a propensity for breeding beyond the capacity of the planet to supply food and water for a rapidly growing population of billions, I'd say that the odds were pretty good that we won't be around to meet another intelligence, should one ever happen to come looking this way. > > However, if you are a Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum or Rick Perry-class creationist, please ignore all of the above. Humans and dinosaurs were happily co-existing from the beginning, 6,000 years ago, and God made us in his image, and we are the chosen. Which makes the whole question of other intelligence completely immaterial. > > If you are a Mitt Romney-class Mormon, you may pass directly on to Kolub; the issue of intelligent life is obviously of no meaning to you. > > --Doug > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > I got to thinking a bit more about an assumption I (and I bet most of us) have held, that surely there is "intelligent" life on other planets, one capable of technology .. thus SETI's radio search. Surely it is hubris to claim humanity is somehow unique, just look at the diversity of our own world! Thus there's got to be lots of intelligent life out there, right? > > > > (Yes, I know, this is pretty vague, and we're intelligent only for very small values of intelligent.) > > > > But listening to a TED by Hawking, I was impressed with his somewhat measured approach: that we have not found a radio source within 200-400 light years. I believe his choice of distance had to do with our own development of radio a couple of centuries ago. > > > > That got me reading up on just how long we've been around, and how long other civilizations could have existed. Very roughly speaking, the big bang was 14 billion years ago, our sun is 4.5 billion years old, and the earth is 4 billion years old. > > > > Well, that sounds like we're late to the game: 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old. But wait a minute, we know we're the result of star-stuff, the heavy elements. The big bang was only able to muster nuclei of fairly low weight, lithium say .. possibly a bit more. The first generation of stars, therefor were fairly odd, huge and short lived. And the second generation of stars were less heavy element rich than our sun, which makes it at best third generation. http://goo.gl/gV54S > > > > So given only 14BY for building solar systems, and assuming the requirement for an at least third generation sun, we may be as young as likely a life form possible. > > > > So SETI is likely playing a loosing game, we're young enough that the statistics may be that, yes there is life out there, but it's pretty young too and maybe is no more advanced than we are. (Maybe that is Hawking's couple of centuries limit) Of course we're talking about a few centuries, which would make a huge difference in technology, but still. > > > > Hawking does end with a grim comment others have made: maybe civilizations are short lived .. they self destruct or fall prey to destructive events (meteors, comets). > > > > -- Owen > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I doubt they'll be listening in on FRIAM, Tom.
:-/ --Doug
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> wrote: [snip] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Nick says: "what is this thing about INTELLLIGENT life? Isn’t all life intelligent? "
Yes. Nick, you are correct, there is a bit of sloppiness going on here, but it is a common sloppiness and I suspect the term is well understood in context. When people talk about finding 'intelligent life' on another planet, they are trying to invoke the notion of some level of linguistic and technological sophistication. Usually a linguistic sophistication that would allow us to converse about reasonably sophisticated ideas in a peaceful manner - we want enlightenment era entreaties between civilizations, not grunts that mediate between attack mode and ignore mode. Usually technological sophistication is about tool use, advanced modes of transport, fingers crossed that they can travel in space at least as well as we can, etc. As for your other question, I also do not know why it is interesting... but, to me at least, it is interesting. Eric On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 05:13 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
On 3/31/12 4:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
... Who can we attribute the (paraphrased) quote "If it turns out there is other intelligent life in the Universe, that will be really interesting!" and "If it turns out there is *no* other intelligent life in the Universe, that will be really interesting!" ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Radio? You use RADIO? Too much!
http://tinyurl.com/n2g9mz On 3/31/12 4:43 PM, Steve Smith wrote: On 3/31/12 4:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:... ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Omigod. Singing meat. Sent from Android. On Mar 31, 2012 8:26 PM, "Carl Tollander" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: So, *Are* We Alone?
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Tollander
Dear Carl,
Thank You, Thank You Thank you. ..... You've supplied a missing piece for me. I knew there had to be a reason (higher intelligence) for me to be lurking on this group. Its one of the core articles of my faith that "all life exists to be consumed" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Dharm] This was set down by our 3rd "teacher" (BTW, we are emphatically NOT a cult) Hemendranath Tagore (elder brother of Rabindranath Tagore ... and incidentally my own great great grandfather) who did considerable research into radio waves from the late 1860's. Unfortunately as all his scientific writings were in the Bengali language not much came to be known of it until his pupils like Jagadish Bose "invented" radio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemendranath_Tagore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Bose Sarbajit On 4/1/12, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote: > Radio? You use RADIO? Too much! > http://tinyurl.com/n2g9mz > > On 3/31/12 4:43 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> On 3/31/12 4:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: >>> Nick says: "what is this thing about INTELLLIGENT life? Isn't all >>> life intelligent? " >>> >> ... >>> >>> As for your other question, I also do not know why it is >>> interesting... but, to me at least, it is interesting. >>> >>> Eric >>> >> Who can we attribute the (paraphrased) quote "If it turns out there is >> other intelligent life in the Universe, that will be really >> interesting!" and "If it turns out there is *no* other intelligent >> life in the Universe, that will be really interesting!" >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
The problem here is that we have a sample size of one planet.
Now, to address the other part of the conversation, this is not a bad planet - it is chuck full of interesting organisms and other phenomena. But just as interesting as these things are, things on other planets (even non-living but complex, that bias is my minor pet peeve) have the possibility to be just as fascinating, contingent upon their existence. Now I agree that social programs are important - we should ensure the well-being and ultimately enjoyment of every organism on this planet (no species excluded) and the environment that supports them. However, that does not mean that stargazing and a spirit of exploration is misguided - after all, the ethic behind that is that behind Science and the hacker/maker movements, which I think nobody would seriously argue are solely bad. It is a fallacy that as a species we need to stop doing one activity to focus on another, because they are not in competition. People will do what they will do. As to whether there is life to find, regardless of whether we will find it, I do not buy 'look at these large numbers, it must be certain' because we simply have no experience with this kind of thing to either deduce or induce the existence and nature of extraterrestrial life. For example, we seem to assume that human-like things like communications technology are, if not inevitable, then not uncommon among a hypothetical alien species. The fact is, it just might never occur to a species, or they might not evolutionarily be in a place that requires or precludes such an attribute. Also, since we have no universal definition of life, we cannot claim to say what conditions it is impossible to live in, making such constructs as Goldilocks zones useful as a metric for comparison (to hypothetical alien species) only. If we want to know, we have to go - which seems pretty much impossible physically, from our current perspective. So SETI attempts to do this with a more passive approach. From what I have seen, for the most part SETI scientists are down-to-earth (excuse the pun) people who do not pretend that SETI is perfect, just one more thing that could be done. If this seems a little jumbled, it is because I am still arranging these thoughts. [EDIT: Checking the three messages sent since I started composing this draft, I see I am a bit late to a shift in tone...] -Arlo James Barnes
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I just had a face to face conversation with own who put his interest in the second way (see below). In which case, the thread ought to be entitled, “So why haven’t we heard from them?” THAT strikes me as a more interesting question. Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith On 3/31/12 4:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Nick says: "what is this thing about INTELLLIGENT life? Isn’t all life intelligent? " ...
Who can we attribute the (paraphrased) quote "If it turns out there is other intelligent life in the Universe, that will be really interesting!" and "If it turns out there is *no* other intelligent life in the Universe, that will be really interesting!" ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: So, *Are* We Alone?
|
|
Answer : Because "we" don't have a "Merkaba antenna" ?
On 4/1/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > I just had a face to face conversation with own who put his interest in the > second way (see below). > > In which case, the thread ought to be entitled, "So why haven't we heard > from them?" > > THAT strikes me as a more interesting question. > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 01:02 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
au contraire, asking if there is intelligent life elsewhere is a meaningless question only because, if you are a "Mitt Romney-class Mormon," you 'know' there is intelligent life elsewhere - a large, but unknown, number of populated worlds, and that many have come and gone before ours and many will come to be after ours is long gone.
There is speculation on the physical form of the life on those other worlds - as the only requirement to be 'created in God's image' is not physical - it is the 'spirito-intellect something' ( a concept very much like purusa in Vedic - and later Buddhist - philosophy) that is fundamental for 'godly imageness.'
When disparaging others' beliefs, or rejecting those of our own childhood/upbringing, one should always recognize that what is taught in 'Sunday School' is not theology.
dave west
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
But, what was taught in Sunday school *was* taught as theology, which is a very large part of the whole problem of religion. And if these holders of bizarre fantasy beliefs can't take a little disparragement now and then, well, their beliefs can't be all that solid now, can they? -Doug Sent from Android. On Apr 1, 2012 8:15 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: So, *Are* We Alone?
|
|
Dear Doug
What is taught in Sunday School is the problem with the "Christian" religion which for the most part seems based on gospels, unprovable historical events and parables etc. The ancient Eastern religions Dave mentioned don't have that problem insofar as their core beliefs are concerned For instance, my own religion's very ancient working principles can be distilled into 4 or 5 sentences. I would really like to know where and why you differ with me on them. 1) "GOD" (aka "Singularity"). Infinite, formless, beyond description, ruling principle of existence. [Comment - In other words there is a Unified Theory of Everything but "we" can never know it.] 2) "SALVATION". There is no salvation and no way to achieve it. All life exists to be consumed. There is neither Heaven nor Hell nor rebirth. 3) "WORSHIP". There is no scripture, revelation, creation, prophet, priest or teacher to be revered. Worship consist of revering the "inner light within" (i.e. enlightened conscience / intelligence) 4) "CULTS". There is no distinction. (All men are equal. Distinctions like caste, race, creed, colour, gender, nationality etc. are artificial. There is no need for priests, places of worship, long sermons etc. "Man-worship" or "God-men" are abhorent to the faith and denounced since there is no mediator between man and God) 5) "LIFE-FORMS" God / religion is not limited to "Man" alone, but covers / permeates all "life" Sarbajit On 4/1/12, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote: > But, what was taught in Sunday school *was* taught as theology, which is a > very large part of the whole problem of religion. > > And if these holders of bizarre fantasy beliefs can't take a little > disparragement now and then, well, their beliefs can't be all that solid > now, can they? > > -Doug > > Sent from Android. > On Apr 1, 2012 8:15 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 01:02 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: >> >> >> If you are a Mitt Romney-class Mormon, you may pass directly on to Kolub; >> the issue of intelligent life is obviously of no meaning to you. >> >> >> au contraire, asking if there is intelligent life elsewhere is a >> meaningless question only because, if you are a "Mitt Romney-class >> Mormon," >> you 'know' there is intelligent life elsewhere - a large, but unknown, >> number of populated worlds, and that many have come and gone before ours >> and many will come to be after ours is long gone. >> >> There is speculation on the physical form of the life on those other >> worlds - as the only requirement to be 'created in God's image' is not >> physical - it is the 'spirito-intellect something' ( a concept very much >> like purusa in Vedic - and later Buddhist - philosophy) that is >> fundamental >> for 'godly imageness.' >> >> When disparaging others' beliefs, or rejecting those of our own >> childhood/upbringing, one should always recognize that what is taught in >> 'Sunday School' is not theology. >> >> dave west >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?
If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so. -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Ok, so this is the second explanation we have had offered of why we haven’t heard from anybody. We’re the first. Indeed, has anybody got anything to say about this possibility. From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation? If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
There's a nice discussion of the Fermi Paradox on Wikipedia.
I would tend to agree with Owen's conjecture about the era, insofar as we have evolved on and live on a hot rock, said heat much driven by heavy element decay. That might turn out to be as important as the presence of water. As far as interststellar communication goes, (1) we've been using radio for communication for a *very* short time; a civilization even a hundred years "ahead" (o there's an assumption) might consider it quaint (2) our interstellar era might be characterized by a "buttons and threads" model, and its just too early days yet to see on average any interstellar feelers, so (3) the civs able to play might thus (due to small sample size) be somewhat divided on the advantages and disadvantages of contact so would perhaps be pickier about such contact than we might assume by their "advanced" labeling. Someone (Benford?) wrote: "The thing about aliens is, they're alien." We're not necessarily any more or less alone if they turn up. How *would* we respond to the message: "Hello meat, how's it going?" Carl On 4/1/12 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |