Posted on 06/26/2018 6:13:36 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
A new scientific paper published by a researcher with a Ph.D in computational neuroscience, a nanotechnology researcher, and a moral philosopher theorizes that there is a “substantial probability” that outside of Planet Earth, there is no other intelligent life in the observable universe. The abstract for the paper states that the conflict between the apparently lifeless universe that we observe and the Drake equation, which suggests the sheer multitude of possible sites for intelligent life should yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations, arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which are not necessarily reliable. The paper notes, “But while the equation is often invoked as a way of reasoning about uncertainties and ignorance, the actual practice is often considered to be somewhat suspect. Many papers state that some of their parameter choices are just their best guesses, though this fails to provide an appropriate framework for interpreting the result.”
The abstract notes that “extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude … When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it.”
The authors conclude:
When we take account of realistic uncertainty, replacing point estimates by probability distributions that reflect current scientific understanding, we find no reason to be highly confident that the galaxy (or observable universe) contains other civilizations, and thus no longer find our observations in conflict with our prior probabilities. We found qualitatively similar results through two different methods: using the authors’ assessments of current scientific knowledge bearing on key parameters, and using the divergent estimates of these parameters in the astrobiology literature as a proxy for current scientific uncertainty.
When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively).
(ViaDailyWire)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404
No...
Tell me it isn’t so.
“Observable universe” - what’s that, only what we know about?
There is vastly more we DO NOT know, than what we do. The arrogance that somehow Earth is absolutely unique is unfounded by any empirical knowledge we now have.
Sheer distance alone would make the probability of actually knowing if there were any other life forms out there purely conjectural, but that does not mean that some other advanced society may have already solved the twin paradoxes of instantaneous travel between points of the Universe, and the time displacement of achieving that instantaneous transport.
Hm the lifeless universe we observe. Uh unless you include observing earth. Duh. Also, outside of our solar system I’m unaware of “observations” sufficient to determine other planets are lifeless. In fact I’m certain we have no such observations.
So, maybe the Lord God created the whole Universe just for us?
And yours isn't ???
What do they mean by ”observable universe?”
Well, I for one am relieved. I no longer have to fear ending up on the dinner table of a space alien. This also means that all those habitable planets we find will be ours without a fight, and without a bunch of alien diseases.
“What do they mean by ”observable universe?”
I presume he means anything that can be observed by our best telescopes. How many light years that is, I have no idea.
Probability of life in the universe, global-warming forecasting, long-term political predictions ...
with all these complicated equations with multiple unknown variables, you can get out whatever result you want depending on how you define the inputs.
You’re basically just guessing.
This is based on the same trust in mathematical simulations as global warming climate models. As much as I love probability and statistics, which have been central to a large portion of my life, I’m honest enough to admit what math cannot do. Math cannot tell us what the numbers in the Drake Equation are any more than it can tell us the coefficients in the climate equations.
Science is supposed to be based on truth, and the truth is that we don’t have any idea what our uncertainty is in any guesses at the Drake coefficients, nor do we have useful estimates for those guesses. We simply don’t know.
You can see quasars 13 billion miles away. I doubt they mean that. They are probably talking about the galaxy or even less.
In the universe I am sure there is life other than our own.
Naturally occurring, I’m not convinced at all.
Math cannot tell us what the numbers in the Drake Equation are any more than it can tell us the coefficients in the climate equations.
...
Drake wanted his equation to spark conversation on the subject and I think it worked.
Quasars are VERY BRIGHT or so I’ve been told.
Life is the product of a will, not probability.
There is no evidence for life beyond our planet, so why would you be sure?
Yes. I read that they are so bright that a lot of physicists have difficulty believing they are really producing the radiation that they appear to produce.
That was My first impression,
and the Lord has gone to
Prepare a Place for Us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.