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)
Yup. Being able to see anything at any time and any where artificially by something like a smart phone is way new. It could very well be a step towards a virtual reality paralysis or stagnation. The ubiquity of available electronically delivered pornography, tied to the instinct to procreate is a huge reason why more developed countries are experiencing lower birth rates, in my opinion.
Freegards
Please don’t try to anticipate what I think.
That’s what questions are for.
He has as much training as the "Science Guy", meaning he likes to hear himself.
Nanotechnology = Cosmology in your little world?
The drake equation is pseudo-scientific garbage. Too many of the variables are completely unknown for it to be of any use whatsoever to anyone who’s not smoking lots of weed.
I think the OP has done an admirable job of sparking a debate, and isn’t that what we FReep for?
Smartest answer yet posted! The "observable" universe is like someone who never left their house but viewed silent movies from 1918 believing that is how cities look like. All time dependent, and giving false ideas of reality.
There could be super-highways with alien commuting spaceships a billion light years away, but we're observing the barren space devoid of what may have been built, and would need to wait a billion years to see the evidence! Heck, there could be civilizations 1000 light years away waving banners at us and sending radio signals, but we won't know, as we'll be long dead before anyone notices.
It's a futile attempt, this looking for other civilizations. We need to focus on civilizing democrats and other miscreants, because if they spread then we won't find civilized life here on Earth.
If you’re too stupid to see the intersection between Von Neumann machinery and “life,” you have no business offering an opinion on this subject.
So why are you here?
I can’t tell if he supports the premise of the article or not from what he has posted about it. Seems like that is a pretty low threshold, but no big deal really. And yes, it has gotten posts, so it is successful for sure.
freegards
You going around insulting monkeys?
What did they ever do to you?
Just cause you can’t see them,
Doesn’t mean they can’t see you!
Could be.
That’s not really relevant. It only shows life can demonstrate variability; it does nothing to make abiogenesis any easier.
They don’t call it “The Anthropic Principle ” for nothing.
I’ve always thought that to be the case, you know God’s creation and all.
Well aren’t you the arrogant little pissant?
Explain his knowledge of cosmology, or, can it be, you are him? Certainly are touchy, been running into more than a few this last year.
Find water worlds.
No, the observable universe is utterly gigantic compared to the Milky Way galaxy. They weren’t speaking of the Galaxy.
That’s the responsible bet, as the only example of what we are looking for also lives on a water world. But that is still only an example of one. Water world life could really be exceedingly rare for all we know.
Freegards
Just expressing my thoughts in question form. No offense meant. I certainly haven’t contacted any alien civilizations - yet.
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.