DiscussMormonism.com

Is climate change one of the great filters for exocivilizations. Could it be a potential answer to the Fermi Paradox. Joining John Michael Godier on this episode of Event Horizon is Adam Frank a physicist, astronomer, and writer. His new book Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth, is an exploration of the “astrobiological” nature of our Universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTZgsuXfRYU

I think it is a very interesting topic.

It seems irrational to conclude that "statistically" there must be another earth with life. The stats can also equally conclude with we are alone....but meh, what is science without faith amiright.

subgenius wrote:It seems irrational to conclude that "statistically" there must be another earth with life. The stats can also equally conclude with we are alone....but meh, what is science without faith amiright.

Sub, Heavenly Father didn't create life on Earth. The Universe is very big and I think there is microbial life everywhere. Soon we will find out.

subgenius wrote:It seems irrational to conclude that "statistically" there must be another earth with life. The stats can also equally conclude with we are alone....but meh, what is science without faith amiright.

You honestly think the odds of something known to have occurred once in this vast universe is equally likely to have never occurred another time, anywhere as it is to have occurred at least one other time?

Huh.

I am still waiting for battlestar galactica to return and prove Mormonism true .....

In the meantime, it seems more logical to me that there are other inhabited worlds. The universe is too vast to think we are alone. I remember in my population genetics course at the UofU (in between snarky remarks about DNA and the Book of Mormon) that the professor repeated more than a few times that no matter how small a mutation was that affected an important function, chances were great that over time, it would take over and become dominant. So, that principle seems to point to the possibility of life elsewhere. It may take billions of years, but it just takes one out of billions of reactions to start life's precursors.

honorentheos wrote:You honestly think the odds of something known to have occurred once in this vast universe is equally likely to have never occurred another time, anywhere as it is to have occurred at least one other time?

Huh.

Yes, I do believe that. There are too many variables and unknowns to reasonably assemble a finite set of circumstances that would therefore result in an eventual "repeat", replication, or even facsimile. Nevermind the argument for how our perception insists upon a certain discernment for what it means to be "alive".

Point being, the bigger the universe the more unlikely the odds...its like believing that adding more numbered balls to the lottery and going from pick 6 to pick 9 will increase your odds of winning the jackpot....more earths doesn't just mean more
chances for life it also means more chances for not-life.

In Vegas, your odds for winning are best with your first bet...after that your odds get worse every time.

Exiled wrote:In the meantime, it seems more logical to me that there are other inhabited worlds.

by what logic?

Exiled wrote:The universe is too vast to think we are alone.

That is not a logical thought. Take a look at the vast number of "living things" that have ever existed on this planet and your post here has no record of ever existing before this moment...by your "logic" this post has already existed and will exist again simply because of "vastness"....or by your method, at best, the occurrence of no-other-life has the equal odds of the occurrence of life.

Exiled wrote: I remember in my population genetics course at the UofU (in between snarky remarks about DNA and the Book of Mormon) that the professor repeated more than a few times that no matter how small a mutation was that affected an important function, chances were great that over time, it would take over and become dominant. So, that principle seems to point to the possibility of life elsewhere. It may take billions of years, but it just takes one out of billions of reactions to start life's precursors.

Yeah, jumping from 1 mutation must equal life over there is not a logical conclusion but rather just a simple leap of faith - which is inherently illogical, is it not?

subgenius wrote:

honorentheos wrote:You honestly think the odds of something known to have occurred once in this vast universe is equally likely to have never occurred another time, anywhere as it is to have occurred at least one other time?

Huh.

Yes, I do believe that. There are too many variables and unknowns to reasonably assemble a finite set of circumstances that would therefore result in an eventual "repeat", replication, or even facsimile. Nevermind the argument for how our perception insists upon a certain discernment for what it means to be "alive".
Point being, the bigger the universe the more unlikely the odds...its like believing that adding more numbered balls to the lottery and going from pick 6 to pick 9 will increase your odds of winning the jackpot....more earths doesn't just mean more chances for life it also means more chances for not-life.
In Vegas, your odds for winning are best with your first bet...after that your odds get worse every time.

This is the most stunningly ignorant probability “analysis” I’ve ever seen. The odds of a single planet having life are independent of the number of planets. Whatever those odds are, the more planets there are in the universe, the greater the odds that one of those planets will develop life. Adding a planet doesn’t change the odds that any single planet will develop life, but it does increase the odds that some planet will develop life. Sub is essentially arguing that every time you roll a die, the odds of rolling a six decreases.

Res Ipsa wrote:This is the most stunningly ignorant probability “analysis” I’ve ever seen...Sub is essentially arguing that every time you roll a die, the odds of rolling a six decreases.

Exactly. I was really expecting him to walk back his original comment once he thought about what he had actually said but instead he clarified he doesn't have the most basic grasp of the concepts involved. It's rather spectacular in a way.

To be fair to DT, the OP isn't about what subbie turned it into, and it raises some interesting questions about what alien civilizations must be like compared to ours. If a big part of the problem with climate change arises from our fuel source being carbon-based as is our bodies, is it reasonable to assume it is likely the energy they use to build their society will have similar consequences for their environment? I don't know.

Thinking about our species' road to the present, there have been multiple points along the way where there was a paradigm shift in the energy source that fueled and also defined the technology level available. Our move to fuels that require prehistoric carbon-based life forms may not be an available option in all cases when it comes to the possible expressions of alien life forms. Perhaps in some way being carbon-based and discovering the high energy yield of fossil fuels at the point we were capping out using wood and other similar fuels in our civilizational development might have been an unlucky but inevitable outcome once life took the carbon-based path is did here on Earth? Would silicone-based life forms have an entirely different tech tree when it comes to energy that makes climate change less likely of a concern? Would they move more easily into energy sources that aren't as climatically impactful if the high yield yet consequential option doesn't exist because they didn't have the equivalent prehistoric flora and fauna that makes it possible? Or would they be unable to make the leap from primate fuels to a source that could power a high-tech civilization? It makes for interesting speculation.

Of the thresholds that answer the Femis Paradox, I'm partial to violence being the high hurdle. I can't conceive of life following an evolutionary pathway that doesn't involve competition. If that is an inevitable requirement for biological and, subsequently social, development is self-destruction baked into the recipe of life? Is societal enlightenment even feasible? Or, alternatively, is it necessary if hive minds are able to achieve the necessary break throughs that allow a given species of hyper-intelligent hyper social species to both dominate other species on their planet as we dominate on Earth, but also "win" against competing socially organized hives by going the opposite direction of seeking a Star Trek society? Full Klingon, perhaps?