Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - life on other planets
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedlife on other planets

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Poll Question: do you believe there´s life out there?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
0 [0.00%]
1 [2.56%]
2 [5.13%]
5 [12.82%]
23 [58.97%]
6 [15.38%]
2 [5.13%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Topic: life on other planets
    Posted: July 14 2008 at 23:22
Originally posted by Fight Club Fight Club wrote:

So, were you actually planning on saying something? Or were you just planning on throwing a bunch of words around to make it sound like you had a plausible counter argument? Because that's what it sounded like to me.


False dichotomy, loaded question, etc.

In any case, I intended not to exhibit a counterargument but rather to bring attention to the flaws in your reasoning.
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:59
maybe the creator(s) meant for life on other planets to never meet each other, thus why we're so far away from the nearest star.

this came up in a discussion i had about God or whatever, and how it's possible there's 2, but no more. and how 1 being created the 2. but that could turn this into SERIOUS arguments...
Back to Top
Dim View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:50
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by Dim Dim wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by Dim Dim wrote:

Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.


Why so certain?
 
Cause I have trouble believing theres intelligent life here.


I thought it might be that (it's what my dad says).  But, as stupid as people are, they still constitute intelligent life.  As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.
 
If behaviour beyond that of most basic life of all animals constitutes intelligent life, then there just maybe something out there that we can be compared to, but space ships flying at the speed of light... not possible.
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:49
dolphins will eventually realize "hey, what if i get out of the water and crawl around?" and the cycle repeats............ cmon! they figured out how to masturbate by jumping out of the water, and as they hit the water coming back down, well, you know the rest. (this is not meant to be offensive, dirty, or anything else. I'm being serious and mature about it. I brought this up to explain my point that dolphins are probably the most intelligent creatures on this planet and they have similar thought processes as us. I'm sorry if i can't actually post this, but if I get in trouble for what i said, that'd be sad.)

Edited by darkshade - July 14 2008 at 22:51
Back to Top
Fight Club View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: May 21 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:41
So, were you actually planning on saying something? Or were you just planning on throwing a bunch of words around to make it sound like you had a plausible counter argument? Because that's what it sounded like to me.
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 18:08
Originally posted by Fight Club Fight Club wrote:

Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it?

Strictly speaking it is neither illogical or logical to make that assumption; in fact, assumptions are alogical whereas their relation to other assumptions is logical (but even then the situation is not so rigid, as such evaluations are dependent on the interpretative model employed).  Now is such an assumption plausible?  I suppose it is.  Yet I still don't find the total argument convincing.

Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it.

Again: why is this assertion "illogical"?  Does it contradict any known evidence or well-established theory?  Not to my knowledge.  Incidentally, the "logical" (i.e., rational) position is that of disbelief:  believe P when there's evidence for P.


Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up.

Well, now you've convinced me.

Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 16:12
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.


Thanks for all the fish.


u mist teh "sew lonk"
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 15:08
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.


Thanks for all the fish.
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 15:06
Originally posted by Dim Dim wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by Dim Dim wrote:

Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.


Why so certain?
 
Cause I have trouble believing theres intelligent life here.


I thought it might be that (it's what my dad says).  But, as stupid as people are, they still constitute intelligent life.  As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.
Back to Top
Fight Club View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: May 21 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 572
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 13:17
Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it? Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it. Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up.
Back to Top
Dim View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2008 at 22:13
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by Dim Dim wrote:

Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.


Why so certain?
 
Cause I have trouble believing theres intelligent life here.
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2008 at 22:12
Originally posted by Philéas Philéas wrote:

Most likely. But I don't believe in UFO sightings and that kind of stuff. Space is big and the chances of them having found us is as slim as we having found them (which we haven't). Also, the whole thing about a possible intelligent life form on another planet being extremely far ahead of us technologically is rather silly to me, for all we know they could be stuck in the stone age still, or at our level. 

well, I do believe in UFO sightings. but I believe they are exactly that - Unidentified Flying Objects


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2008 at 17:53
Most likely. But I don't believe in UFO sightings and that kind of stuff. Space is big and the chances of them having found us is as slim as we having found them (which we haven't). Also, the whole thing about a possible intelligent life form on another planet being extremely far ahead of us technologically is rather silly to me, for all we know they could be stuck in the stone age still, or at our level. 
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2008 at 12:10
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


I hate to appear pedantic



I find that claim highly dubious.  Wink
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2008 at 12:08
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim.

...not according to the Wiki article you are about to show me - not all scientists support this assertion it appears.

It is true that not all scientists support the notion of falsifiability, but their numbers are marginal.

Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".

Originally posted by wiki wiki wrote:

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice


Which I interpret as "can never be proven wrong"

Strictly speaking, it should be interpreted as "Some statements that are falsifiable in principle are not falsifiable in practice."  From this we can infer that it is beyond practical limits to prove some statements incorrect.  But what is considered practical may change with additional information or technology.


Anyway, this is turning into a circular argument. I'm out.

I hate to appear pedantic but this is not a circular argument.  A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed as a premise.

Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2008 at 07:48
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism


re robots... I said conceivably.  It seems to me it could be done with further technological advances.

re viruses... primitive was a bad word, simple would be a better one (but still not ideal)

Meh, I'm in over my head here.  I'm out.

if a robot had a metabolism and was able to reproduce itself we had no choice but to call it alive, in my opinion. it doesn't really matter who made the first of them. it is not necessary for the robot to be sentient


Would you consider it reproduction if a robot (or multiple robots) was capable of doing everything from finding the materials to build a new copy of itself, processing those materials, and building a new copy of itself?

I certainly would; the means by which reproduction takes place are not of importance for the definition. you'd be amazed how many different ways for reproduction there are in life, even if it all boils down to "sperm meets egg" in the end.

the "cell" part of the definition is true for life on earth; it is not necessary for life per se. or would you not call something you find on another planet that fits all requirements except for the cell part "alive"?


Edited by BaldJean - July 15 2008 at 10:23


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 18:54
Originally posted by Dim Dim wrote:

Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.


Why so certain?
Back to Top
Dim View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 18:31
Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 18:28
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science.  Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially.  Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.

If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science.

No, this is entirely false.  Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim. 
 
...not according to the Wiki article you are about to show me - not all scientists support this assertion it appears.
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".

That is precisely what "not falsifiable" means.  See the Wikipedia entry, for example.

LOL good one. It is what "not falsifiable" means, but not always...
 
Originally posted by wiki wiki wrote:

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice
Which I interpret as "can never be proven wrong"
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast.
i.e. it is falsifiable in theory but not in practice.
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable.
i.e. it is falsifiable in theory but not in practice.
 
Anyway, this is turning into a circular argument. I'm out.
What?
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 16:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science.  Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially.  Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.

If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science.

No, this is entirely false.  Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim.

Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".

That is precisely what "not falsifiable" means.  See the Wikipedia entry, for example.

 
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.

Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
Difficult - yes, Extremely - meh, not convinced... the 'problem' can be reduced to simpler forms than give incremental answers - speculation of possible life-supporting planets are essentially simplified versions of the Earth model with varying parameters. Anyway, if it were easy it wouldn't be a problem Wink

All of this assumes, of course, that reductionist methods will be fruitful.  Although it may be the case, it doesn't appear to induce solvency in biological systems.

 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.160 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.