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  <1234>
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
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 00:46
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.
Back to Top
rileydog22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 01:44
Wuss!  True proggers keep trying to keep their head above water until they drown. 

Anyways, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be millions of other planets out there with life as advanced or more advanced (not that that's something possible to quantify anyways). 

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 01:50
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

Anyways, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be millions of other planets out there with life as advanced or more advanced (not that that's something possible to quantify anyways). 


Well there are actually probably very few planets with multicellular (or some "advanced" equivalent) life for every planet with any type of life at all.
Back to Top
rileydog22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 01:55
It's probably a fairly small percentage of the planets that have life at all, but it only took us, what, 2 billion years to develop some decent multicellular stuff out of the first cells?  I see no reason why that couldn't happen in a million other planets out there in the millions of galaxies in the universe.  

Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 05:17
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

It's probably a fairly small percentage of the planets that have life at all, but it only took us, what, 2 billion years to develop some decent multicellular stuff out of the first cells?  I see no reason why that couldn't happen in a million other planets out there in the millions of galaxies in the universe.  
 
Good call. IMO there is so much life out there the universe is teaming with it. I think 2 billion years in universal terms is pretty small...if you believe in single dimensionsWink
 
We are in a tiny solar system apprently right out on the fringe and we do not even know where black holes lead to or even if there was life on Mars yet. In 140 years we have gone from sea faring ships to putting some guys on the moon ( not bad going). If we don't destroy the place, in 1000 years we will be sipping chardonnay with some intelligent Ozric's from somewhere up there in orion's belt, oh and swapping timeshare holidays for a long weekend on Neptune. The mind boggles.....
 
But to think we are the only ones around would be crazy personally speaking.
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
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 10 2008 at 08:12
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


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 11:06
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?
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 11:07
Originally posted by rileydog22 rileydog22 wrote:

It's probably a fairly small percentage of the planets that have life at all, but it only took us, what, 2 billion years to develop some decent multicellular stuff out of the first cells?  I see no reason why that couldn't happen in a million other planets out there in the millions of galaxies in the universe.  


But as I understand it jumping from single cells to multiple cells is a gigantic jump unlikely even given tons of time.  I might be wrong, though, as I'm speaking off hazy memories.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 11:22
Life most likely, sentient life most likely not, Independence Day no.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 10 2008 at 15:08
I said definitely, because I find it difficult to believe that Earth is all their is that supports life, especially with how big the Universe is.

As for the inteligent part, you could argue that there's none here, let alone out there.Wink
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.248 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.