03-06-2005 09:33									#62
	Support Apolyton

hmmm . . . . . .


my equipment is not picking up any wave signals from UR's location

	03-06-2005 09:48									#63
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Well if you don't like that link UR, then check out any of the others provided in this thread. Or google to your heart's content.

Thanks for the link. My question is, have you read the fine article? Here is a quote from page 3:

quote: The weak anthropic principle is interesting and unobjectionable.

So I guess you need to try again.

Furthermore, the article talks about the application of the (W)AP in Cosmology, but I am not. I am talking more along the lines of language positivism, or about the meaningfulness of statements.

	03-06-2005 09:54									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

funny how you "forgot" to quote the important sentences after what you quoted




It qualified the one sentence that you quoted with several "buts."

	03-06-2005 10:32									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

here is a link to a multitude of sources on extraterrestrial life

sources

	03-06-2005 11:22									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Really? Do explain why the Weak Anthropic Principle is bunk.

How rude! Mr. Fun, I don't see why you even bother explaining it to him. He won't give you the same courtesy. Just tell him he's wrong and watch him flounder.

	03-06-2005 14:11									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MrFun funny how you "forgot" to quote the important sentences after what you quoted

So? The WAP is not a scientific principle.

	03-06-2005 14:25									#68
	Suffering from ads?

It's all bullshit. I don't think anyone has a half-way decent estimate for the probability of life arising.

	03-06-2005 16:09									#69
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

For billions of years, the only life on earth was strictly bacterial, so when we find life on other planets, chance is high that it will be bacterial only as well.

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Or the nearest inhabited world is 10,000 light years away?

My guess would be something like that as well.

On a side note, what would a civilisation that is a few million years more advanced than us look like ?

	03-06-2005 19:17									#70
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: I think the problem is your failing to comprehend basic words... Yes, because we all know that context is not important to interpretation at all. I'm sure he really meant that human life isn't possible...

Did you see his follow-up?

You seem to be the one putting words in his mouth, not I. Sorry if I took what he said to be what he meant. I think the "context" of someone saying something is "impossible" is pretty damned clear...

quote: The anthropic principal is a load of ****. Bringing it up carries about as much weight as claiming god created everything.

Funny how what you linked to on wikipedia actually refutes Dissident. At any rate, the anthropic principle is used by IDists exactly the way Diss was, which was why I mentioned it. From Wikipedia:

"Proponents of the intelligent design conjecture assert support from the anthropic principle."

My point was that Diss was engaging in extreme Anthropic bias.

There are varying applications of the AP, some valid, some clearly not. And the Cosmological AP is hotly debated, but has by no means been shown to be "bunk."

	03-06-2005 19:26									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo It's all bullshit. I don't think anyone has a half-way decent estimate for the probability of life arising.

Could n't have put it better myself!

	03-06-2005 20:21									#72
	Suffering from ads?

the book "The Rare Earth Hypothesis" had an interesting discussion of the Drake equation and its implicit simplifications. Forex, the Drake eq assumes that a planet is either in an inhabitible zone or its not. It says nothing about how long the zone stays habitable. The authors discuss why evolution to intelligence is likely (though this cant be proven, and of course we have only one data point) to a long time, and how many things can CHANGE in a star system and its neighborhood during that period that could lead to mass extinction events, which could either kill off all life, or kill off everything thats evolving in the direction of intelligence, and thus reset the clock to zero. Their conclusion is that intelligent life is extremely rare - probably arising no more than a few times in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way.

OTOH they suggest that one celled life is probably quite common, based on recent discoveries of extremophile bacteria.

	03-06-2005 20:28									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yeah, I read that we happen to be in a relatively stable, safe portion of the galaxy that is not subject to the turmoil that most parts are. For one thing, most areas are subject to a lot more asteroid/comet activity, which makes the presence of a life-bearing planet a more hazardous proposition.

	03-06-2005 20:41									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ramo It's all bullshit. I don't think anyone has a half-way decent estimate for the probability of life arising.

I disagree, I estimate it to be somewhere between 0 and 1 inclusive.

Oh right, you meant meaningful estimate....

	03-06-2005 20:44									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yeah, I read that we happen to be in a relatively stable, safe portion of the galaxy that is not subject to the turmoil that most parts are. For one thing, most areas are subject to a lot more asteroid/comet activity, which makes the presence of a life-bearing planet a more hazardous proposition.

Comet activity has been suggested as a seeding for life though (extreme case being panspermia, not so extreme being just the provision of raw materials for life), so increased activity could lead to a peak of life bearing planets before it becomes overly destructive.

I make no comment on the accuracy of the said theory of panspermia though.

	03-06-2005 20:50									#76
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Re the Anthropic principle. Just six numbers.

	03-06-2005 21:07									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Comet activity has been suggested as a seeding for life though (extreme case being panspermia, not so extreme being just the provision of raw materials for life), so increased activity could lead to a peak of life bearing planets before it becomes overly destructive.

Like Lotm, I was referring to advanced forms of life - i.e., sentient species. While such activity could be a breeding ground for primitive life, it could also reach a point of diminishing returns where the conditions made anything other than extremophile life forms unlikely. A world that gets hit by a comet every 50,000 years probably isn't going to produce an intelligent species.

	03-06-2005 21:42									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I appreciate your point and agree to an extent. Although if that logic were applied to the Earth 4-5 billion years ago you would conclude that it wouldn't be able to produce sentient life (which at the time it wasn't). It was having major impacts on a continual basis - as the moon is testament to, and of course there was one huge one called Orpheus.

	03-06-2005 21:47									#79
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think it's fun to play around with the Drake Equation, but it is unscientific in the extreme to try to say much of anything based upon a sample of 1.

	03-06-2005 21:51									#80
	Re: The science behind the probability of extraterrestrials Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Here is something to start off with. The linked Wikipedia article below explains why lifeforms would be less likely with silicon or ammonia elements. Does anyone disagree and think differently? Building blocks for lifeforms

Ammonia is not an element. And where exactly do you think the "amin" root of amino acids comes from? (Amines, i.e. NRRR, NHRR or NH₂R groups)

Silicon is ridiculous as a prospective base for evolution of life at any level, due to its physical properties at the atomic level and the resulting effect on silicon chemistry.

Carbon is widely abundant and supports so much more chemistry than any other element or root compound that it is pretty pointless to assume life that isn't carbon based.

	03-06-2005 22:04									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yeah, I read that we happen to be in a relatively stable, safe portion of the galaxy that is not subject to the turmoil that most parts are. For one thing, most areas are subject to a lot more asteroid/comet activity, which makes the presence of a life-bearing planet a more hazardous proposition.

We don't have a clue about asteroidal or comet activity around any other star, so we have absolutely no idea of such things on a galactic scale, as they are purely local phenomena particular to individual star systems.

There are some nasty areas of the galaxy near its core and in some energetic star-forming regions, but most areas of the galaxy are likely to be pretty quiet, although we can't see much of anything on a small scale in other spiral arms.

The common hazards at the galactic and stellar scale are:

Excessive gravitational interactions in dense regions of the galaxy (mostly near the core of the galaxy, but that has a lot of older stars anyway)

Local gravitational interactions from systems of multiple stars, which severely limit the number of potentially stable planetary orbits, especially those close enough to any of the stars to receive infalling radiation.

Large amounts of high energy radiating in active star forming regions. This isn't necessarily a big deal, except in extreme cases, as any star near main sequence should produce adequate stellar wind to deflect most or all extrasolar radiation up to the mid to far ultraviolet range, which is typically the highest energy level found in most star producing regions.

If you take all these factors into consideration, there are still many millions of candidate stars in this galaxy alone.

	03-06-2005 22:05									#82
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Although if that logic were applied to the Earth 4-5 billion years ago you would conclude that it wouldn't be able to produce sentient life (which at the time it wasn't).

Ah, but that's precisely the point of the "rare earth" hypothesis. While conditions were volatile here 4-5 bya, due to our sun being formed and the relative youth of the galaxy, things settled down for a long stretch of time that is unusual for the galaxy. Most regions of the galaxy experience far more turbulence on a far more regular basis. Consistently calm areas like ours are very rare, hence the arising of sentient beings will likely be rare.

	03-06-2005 22:09									#83
	Re: Re: The science behind the probability of extraterrestrials Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Ammonia is not an element. And where exactly do you think the "amin" root of amino acids comes from? (Amines, i.e. NRRR, NHRR or NH2R groups) Silicon is ridiculous as a prospective base for evolution of life at any level, due to its physical properties at the atomic level and the resulting effect on silicon chemistry. Carbon is widely abundant and supports so much more chemistry than any other element or root compound that it is pretty pointless to assume life that isn't carbon based.

First, sorry for the misuse of words when I mentioned ammonia.


Second, you presumed that I already believe that ammonia or silicon-based lifeforms are possible when in fact, all I did, was posted a link that explained why such lifeforms are not possible, and merely asked what others thought.

So thank you for posting your thoughts. By the way, you seem to be slacking -- you post much longer posts than this usually.

	03-06-2005 22:10									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I've read there's really only a small belt around the galaxy that would be suitable for supporting life, including approximately 35% of our galaxy's stars. Too close in to the core and you have too much radiation. Too far out and you don't have enough supernovae to seed the stars with heavier elements.

	03-06-2005 22:12									#85
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ah, but that's precisely the point of the "rare earth" hypothesis. While conditions were volatile here 4-5 bya, due to our sun being formed and the relative youth of the galaxy, things settled down for a long stretch of time that is unusual for the galaxy. Most regions of the galaxy experience far more turbulence on a far more regular basis. Consistently calm areas like ours are very rare, hence the arising of sentient beings will likely be rare.

But maybe we're mistakened about the rarity of calmer areas of the universe.

Just because we haven't discovered other areas of the universe that could be as calm as ours, doesn't mean they are not out there. You said that most regions in our galaxy has much more turbelence compared to our part of the galaxy. We could very well discover a galaxy that is different from ours though, in that it could have calmer areas.

	03-06-2005 22:15									#86
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ah, but that's precisely the point of the "rare earth" hypothesis. While conditions were volatile here 4-5 bya, due to our sun being formed and the relative youth of the galaxy, things settled down for a long stretch of time that is unusual for the galaxy. Most regions of the galaxy experience far more turbulence on a far more regular basis. Consistently calm areas like ours are very rare, hence the arising of sentient beings will likely be rare.

You're confusing galactic scale and age and stellar system scale and age.

Out on the arms of a standard spiral galaxy, there's not a hell of a lot going on after the first few billion years of the galaxies age - most of the compression of gas that results in active star forming regions has occurred (and that star formation has absorbed/dispersed the shock waves of the compression), large numbers of first and second generation supernovae have occurred, seeding the area with heavier than iron elements and creating additional shockwaves to drive gas compression, etc. Most of the area of our galaxy's spiral arms is essentially free of galaxy scale hazards and disruptions.

The rest of it is a matter of local stellar system characteristics, and of course, a young main sequence star in its first few hundred million years of life is not going to be an environment for intelligent life at that time. The point is that out of the total lifespan of the typical main sequence star in a single-star system, there will be a few billion relatively calm years for things to happen.

	03-06-2005 22:18									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I've read there's really only a small belt around the galaxy that would be suitable for supporting life, including approximately 35% of our galaxy's stars. Too close in to the core and you have too much radiation. Too far out and you don't have enough supernovae to seed the stars with heavier elements.

If you take 35%, (it's probably less than that, but we've got 10^11 stars to play with, so what the heck. , and assume 99.9% of those are unsuitable as even candidates, due to being multiple star systems, non-main sequence, etc., then you still end up with millions of candidate stars.

	03-06-2005 22:18									#88
	Tired of ads?

quote: I've read there's really only a small belt around the galaxy that would be suitable for supporting life, including approximately 35% of our galaxy's stars. Too close in to the core and you have too much radiation. Too far out and you don't have enough supernovae to seed the stars with heavier elements.

Yeh, that leaves us with only 35 billion stars.

	03-06-2005 22:23									#89
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Good cross-post.

	03-06-2005 22:23									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MrFun But maybe we're mistakened about the rarity of calmer areas of the universe.

Oh, absolutely, they could be. I was just reiterating what those who propose a "Rare Earth" say. They could very well be wrong.

MTG: The notion that it's "galactic scale" isn't the only issue when it comes to rare occurences of life-sustaining worlds, but was just one aspect I mentioned as part of the whole. But I have read that extensive portions of the galaxy are within "clouds" of greatly increased comet/asteroid activity that make them much more dangerous.

quote: Well then, what are the special attributes of Earth that we have to take into account when attempting to run this calculation? Proper distance from the star. If a planet orbits its sun too closely or too far away, liquid water would not exist. There isn't much margin for error here: a change of 5 to 15 percent in Earth's distance from the Sun would lead to the freezing, or boiling, of all water on Earth. Proper distance from the center of the galaxy. The density of stars near the center of the galaxy is so high, that the amount of cosmic radiation in that area would prevent the development of life. A star of a proper mass. A too-massive star would emit too much ultra-violet energy, preventing the development of life. A star that is too small would require the planet to be closer to it (in order to maintain liquid water). But such a close distance would result in tidal locking (where one face of the planet constantly faces the star, and the other always remains dark -- as with the moon in its orbit around Earth). In this case one side becomes too hot, the other too cold, and the planet's atmosphere escapes. A proper mass. A planet that is too small will not be able to maintain any atmosphere. A planet that is too massive would attract a larger number of asteroids, increasing the chances of life-destroying cataclysms. Oceans. The ability to maintain liquid water does not automatically imply that there will be any on the planet's surface. It looks like Earth acquired its own water from asteroids made of ice that crashed here billions of years ago. On the other hand, too much water (i.e., a planet with little or no land) will lead to an unstable atmosphere, unfit for maintaining life. A constant energy output from the star. If the star's energy output suddenly decreases, even for a relatively short while, all the water on the planet would freeze. This situation is irreversible, since when the star resumes its normal energy output, the planet's now-white surface will reflect most of this energy, and the ice will never melt. Conversely, if the stars energy output increases for a short while, all the oceans will evaporate and the result would be an irreversible greenhouse-effect, preventing the oceans from reforming. Successful evolution. Even if all of these conditions hold, and simple life evolves (which probably happens even if some of these conditions aren't met), this still does not imply that the result is animal (multi-cellular) life. The evolution of life on Earth included some surprising leaps; two worth mentioning are the move from simple, single-cellular life to cells which contain internal organs, and the appearance of calcium-based skeletons. It appears like the first of these leaps took more time than the evolution from complex single-celled life to full-blown humans. Avoiding disasters. Any number of disasters can lead to the complete extinction of all life on a planet. This include the supernova of a nearby star; a massive asteroid impact (like the one that probably caused the extinction of dinosaurs, and 70% of all other life-forms at the time); drastic changes of climate; and so on. There are also a few attributes that seem, at first, to be completely unrelated to life and not required for its development. Ward and Brownlee argue strongly for the importance of the following attributes: The existence of a Jupiter-like planet in the system. Apparently, Jupiter's large mass attracted many of the asteroids that would have otherwise hit Earth. Could life evolve in a system with no Jovian planet? On the other hand, too many Jovian planets, or one that is too large, could lead to a non-stable solar system, sending the smaller planets into the central sun or ejecting them into the cold of space. The existence of a large, nearby moon. Apparently Luna, Earth's moon, is atypically large and close. Both of Mars's moons, for example, are minor rocks by comparison. What does this have to do with life? Well, it turns out that Luna kept (and still keeps) Earth's tilt stable. Without Luna, the tilt would have changes drastically over time, and no stable climate could exist. If the tilt would have stabilized on a too-large or too-small value, the results could also be disastrous; Earth's tilt is "just right". Plate tectonics. Surprisingly enough, it seems like plate tectonics are required for maintaining a stable atmosphere. Plate tectonics play an important role in a complex feedback system (explained in detail in the book) that prevents too many greenhouse gases from existing in the atmosphere. No other planet (except maybe for Jupiter's moon Europa) is known to have plate tectonics. Is this a rare phenomenon, but required for life?

One of the interesting claims here is that, without a Jupiter-sized gas giant to "soak up" asteroids, our solar system would likely be uninhabitable due to asteroid collisions.