Phoenix Launched

[paazin]

I know you're just being cute, but in fact using spectrometry we can discern that hydrogen and oxygen make water on distant planets too, and can measure gravity and mass, orbital relationships, etc. We may not be able to detect life outside our solar system (or even right now outside our planet), but we can certainly detect that universal laws are indeed universal, being able with telescopes to look across the vast distances and back through time to observe stellar phenomenon.

I'm not just being cute. You (and Grand Fromage) are just speaking in absolutes about a subject that is constantly changing. Scientific knowledge now is very different than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. And it is arrogant and short sighted to think that we are now at the pinnacle of our understanding of everything. What we "know" now, we may "know" to be false in another 500 years time. Again, by continuing to say "This is how it is" and not "This is how we believe it to be", you are being religious in your beliefs.

And how does that differ from you arguing that life is too complex to form anywhere except Earth?

Peusdo-philosophical gibberish can go on ad infinitum - the fact is that what was stated by Mulu and GF is what is considered 'current knowledge' unlike what your 'beliefs' are

[NickD]

And how does that differ from you arguing that life is too complex to form anywhere except Earth?

I never said that. I even re-iterated that I never said that. And now I'm re-re-iterating that I never said that.

Learntoreadplsthx.

[mxlm]

So when Mulu said "I sure hope..." he was speaking in absolutes?

[NickD]

So when Mulu said "I sure hope..." he was speaking in absolutes?

Obviously not. No-one here is arguing that life does or does not exist on Mars or anywhere else. The area of contention is the probability of life existing on Mars and the probability of human level+ intelligent life existing anywhere else and to a much lesser degree, the probability of any life existing anywhere apart from Earth.

The absolutes disagreements have come from Grand Fromage and Mulu pointing out the sciences that say life could be fairly common in the universe based on things observed here on Earth and assuming that they work just the same everywhere.

Now, to be perfectly honest, I will also speak in absolutes about things. However, I am willing to accept that they are not absolute. It's the whole "all I know is I know nothing" thing.

[Mulu]

I still don't see how saying life "could be common" is an absolute.

To the extent that scientific principles are assumed to work the same everywhere, well yes that is an underlying assumption of all science. It dates back to the Ancient Greeks in fact. Other underlying assumptions include reality exists, our perceptions are valid, etc. Without these assumptions, we're all just dreaming Greek Gods as far as we know.

But the proof is in the pudding. Cell phones work, the Internet works, hydrogen bombs work (unless reality is just a dream). Therefore, science works. It makes mistakes, but it's ultimately the best objective truth we have, and observations that actually disprove scientific theories are themselves scientific observations. Science only ever gets disproven by better science, not by speculation or fantasy.

[Mulu]

And it is arrogant and short sighted to think that we are now at the pinnacle of our understanding of everything. What we "know" now, we may "know" to be false in another 500 years time.

Well, I doubt we are going to discover that stars are *not* powered by hydrogen fusion, even in 500 years. I would also like to point out that we've come a long way from Gregor Mendel fudging his wrinkled pea counts to make the math work right. I can't think of hardly any modern theories that have been proven "false," though Anthropology's multi-regional hypothesis of human evolution is certainly looking gamey, but only because the alternative out of Africa hypothesis is so much better, and always has been.

As we gain knowledge theories get amended, increased in scope, or restricted to certain conditions, but an actual reversal in modern times is pretty rare. That's largely because scientific theories are rarely stated in absolutes to being with. A modern scientific theory is really just a well-substantiated explanation for observed phenomena. With better observations, it gets modified to include them.

Newton and Einstein haven't been disproven, they've just been restricted. Newtonian physics still works for many calculations, and Pluto may not be called a planet anymore, but it wasn't really "wrong" to do so in the first place, we just use a stricter definition now. Well, here's a better explanation:

Newton's theory of mechanics and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism are well established theories within the context of their applicability, but they are not "universal", in the sense that one can find some set of conditions where they do not apply. Neither theory applies to atoms and molecules. A new theory, quantum mechanics, was developed to "explain" the behavior of atoms and molecules -- but even quantum mechanics has its boundaries of applicabilty. Neither Newton's, Maxwell's, nor "quantum" theory applies to conditions where the speed of particles approaches the speed of light. Here Einstein developed the theory of special relativity. And even special relativity does not apply in circumstances where gravity is a significant factor. In such cases the "general theory of relativity" must be used to correctly describe, explain, and predict experimental observations.

That doesn't mean any of those theories have been proven "false," just that they have limited application. Expanding on that, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is today only considered correct in broad strokes, as the biochemical details of evolution are far more complex than he imagined. His version of the theory is still an accepted general explanation of the observed fact of evolution, however. He wasn't "wrong," and he wasn't completely "right;" he just didn't have the whole story. Notice that even as the theory gets refined, it doesn't change the underlying observed fact of evolution....

And don't be confused by philosophical definitions of proof. Even math proofs aren't absolute, despite TDawg's naive beliefs, as they all rely on assumptions. For example, Euclidean geometric proofs rely on the assumption that parallel lines never cross, but that's only true for one form of geometry. In spherically shaped space parallel lines do indeed cross. The quality of knowledge in many ways depends on your initial assumptions. Make good assumptions - reality exists, observed phenomena are universal - and you can acquire useful knowledge like the kind that lets us end the world in a nuclear holocaust.

Besides, given the increasing prevalence of religious extremism, we may very well be close to or at the pinnacle of our understanding of everything. Civilization is not guaranteed to continue to evolve in a positive manner, you know. We've had one Dark Ages, a global religious upsurge or WWIII or global depression or global ecosystemic collapse due to climate change or more likely all four concurrently could certainly throw us back a couple centuries. From a biological standpoint, we're still just hunter-gatherers with active imaginations, and a somewhat greater tolerance to lactose. It's a very weak thread that holds us above that.

[NickD]

To the extent that scientific principles are assumed to work the same everywhere, well yes that is an underlying assumption of all science. It dates back to the Ancient Greeks in fact. Other underlying assumptions include reality exists, our perceptions are valid, etc. Without these assumptions, we're all just dreaming Greek Gods as far as we know.

But the proof is in the pudding. Cell phones work, the Internet works, hydrogen bombs work (unless reality is just a dream). Therefore, science works. It makes mistakes, but it's ultimately the best objective truth we have, and observations that actually disprove scientific theories are themselves scientific observations. Science only ever gets disproven by better science, not by speculation or fantasy.

I'm also repeating myself here. Earth has unique parameters under which this science works. We have our own gravity, our own atmosphere, our own distance from the sun, our own levels of exposure to UV radiation, our own chemical make up and a million other parameters that differentiate us from other planets. They may all work the same, or they may not.

Observing science on Earth and saying that is how science works on Mars, is like giving a dog chocolate and saying it is poisonous to humans.

Well, I doubt we are going to discover that stars are *not* powered by hydrogen fusion, even in 500 years. I would also like to point out that we've come a long way from Gregor Mendel fudging his wrinkled pea counts to make the math work right. I can't think of hardly any modern theories that have been proven "false," though Anthropology's multi-regional hypothesis of human evolution is certainly looking gamey, but only because the alternative out of Africa hypothesis is so much better, and always has been.

As we gain knowledge theories get amended, increased in scope, or restricted to certain conditions, but an actual reversal in modern times is pretty rare. That's largely because scientific theories are rarely stated in absolutes to being with. A modern scientific theory is really just a well-substantiated explanation for observed phenomena. With better observations, it gets modified to include them.

I've only ever skimmed over Quantum Theory before, but I believe part of it is that the act of observation alters the state of that being observed. Therefore nothing we see could be as it really is.

[Mulu]

I'm also repeating myself here. Earth has unique parameters under which this science works.

And I'm also repeating myself here, we can actually observe phenomenon outside of our own planet. What we've observed is that there is nothing reality altering about the conditions on our planet. Remember, there have been a lot of experiments repeated in orbit too, and on the Moon as well, specifically to disprove this rather antediluvian notion. In other words, although any given location on the planet may have unique conditions, that uniqueness doesn't change observed laws. In fact, the conditions are "part" of the laws. When you take chemistry and do chemical equations, initially everything gets done at ATP, which is a standard temperature and pressure. Changing those values changes the outcome, because they are part of the equation.

I've only ever skimmed over Quantum Theory before, but I believe part of it is that the act of observation alters the state of that being observed. Therefore nothing we see could be as it really is.

And yet your computer works. At the quantum level, there is observer error. At our everyday level of perception, those anomolies become insignificant.

[NickD]

And I'm also repeating myself here, we can actually observe phenomenon outside of our own planet. What we've observed is that there is nothing reality altering about the conditions on our planet. Remember, there have been a lot of experiments repeated in orbit too, and on the Moon as well, specifically to disprove this rather antediluvian notion.

Right. So we've observed organic molecules spontaneously form from inorganics very easily on other planets with this so called Strong Emergence that happens universally, have we? Discussion over then, I guess.

[Mulu]

I will concede the discussion is probably over, but only because of your behavior, certainly not because you've made any strong points. Given that abiogenesis, the assembly of organic molecules into life, may very well take upwards of a half billion years to occur, it's not likely something that we are ever going to observe directly. But indirect observations can be valid too. After all, we measure the mass of exoplanets based on the wobble they induce in their host stars, an indirect observation (that relies on Newtonian physics working in other solar systems). The fact that life exists on this planet, but didn't always exist on this planet, is rather suggestive. That it started as very simple organisms is also very suggestive. What it suggests depends on the quality of your assumptions, your base of knowledge, and your critical thinking skills.

[Grand Fromage]

Right. So we've observed organic molecules spontaneously form from inorganics very easily on other planets with this so called Strong Emergence that happens universally, have we? Discussion over then, I guess.

Titan's atmosphere is full of naturally-occuring organic materials, such as methane. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Iapetus, Enceladus, Uranus, Ariel, Oberon, Titania, Miranda, Umbriel, Neptune, Triton all also have organics on them, in varying amounts.

[NickD]

Taking half a billion years from when? Half a billion years is not really all that much in terms of the age of the universe. It needs a catalyst to start, and again we go back to the likelihood of life starting in the first place.

OK, I got around to reading some of the article on emergence, but it does nothing to further the argument that life could easily be common around the universe. Which kind of invalidates most of the past two pages. So weak emergence explains storms and hurricanes and ant colony behaviour. So what? Storms and hurricanes and insectile behaviour is far from as complex as life forming. What you'd need there is strong emergence, which one quote in that article likens it to magic, so again, we are back to the likelihood of magic occuring. And I would say spontaneously creating life from chemicals or whatever would require Superman strong emergence at that.

[paazin]

And how does that differ from you arguing that life is too complex to form anywhere except Earth?

I never said that. I even re-iterated that I never said that. And now I'm re-re-iterating that I never said that.

Learntoreadplsthx.

You didn't exactly state it in those terms, yes, but that was about the crux of your belief - that there nearly aren't any likely to exist.

However that doesn't justify why your argument should more correct than anyone else's if the laws of physics are indeed "fluid" There's no real point for future discussion if the basic axioms can't be agreed upon

[Mulu]

Taking half a billion years from when? Half a billion years is not really all that much in terms of the age of the universe. It needs a catalyst to start, and again we go back to the likelihood of life starting in the first place.
/
And I would say spontaneously creating life from chemicals or whatever would require Superman strong emergence at that.

Well, there is no alternative rational explanation for the emergence of life, so therefore no matter how low the probability is, it's possible, since it happened here. Our existence is proof of that.

Next you have to look at the enormity of the Universe. Trillions of galaxies, with trillions of stars each, existing for billions of years. We have *no idea* what the probability of life emerging is, or exactly what conditions are required for its emergence, or even if it can take other forms than what occured here, but even an infintesimal chance of emergence is sufficient to allow for millions of other life bearing planets in the Universe.

Which goes back to the original post in this thread. Finding another example of life - even microbial life - on another planet, is *important.* It would be even better if it was in another solar system, as that would all but eliminate the panspermia issue, or if it was obviously different from life on Earth, which would also eliminate that issue.

Long before I ever heard the term "emergence," I wrote an essay on it. Some ideas are just obvious, I guess.

The letters of the alphabet make up words. Words make up sentences, sentences communicate ideas. These ideas can express anything: relativity, religion, government, how to build a space shuttle. Computers use bits, positive and negative, a two-character alphabet. Bits make bytes, 8 or 10 bits to a byte depending on who’s counting. Bytes make code. Code launches the space shuttle, and allows you to program your VCR (if you’re smart enough) and use a cell phone.

The universe is made up of matter and energy (and possibly other things as well). Matter and energy can be defined in many ways: Quantum states, particle streams, waves, atomic spin, electron clouds. Energy binds matter into subatomic particles. Subatomic particles form atoms. Atoms make up molecules, molecules make up nucleic acid. Nucleic acids pair to form DNA. DNA codes for proteins in the four-letter alphabet of protein synthesis, and makes the instruction set for life.

Life starts with cell structure, then multi-cellular organisms, organs and tissue differentiation, people, society. From humble beginnings, systems form and take shape. Those that work, survive; those that don’t, perish. The survivors continue. Life continues. Increasing in complexity over time as it competes against itself, adapts to new environments, and the fossil record and our own DNA evidence this fact. Our existence is the product of energetic chemical systems, random acts, zero-sum and non-zero sum games of survival and reproduction, and the development of very complex biochemistry, the conclusion of billions of years of competition, trial and error and extinct relatives.

Well, I don't know if that's any clearer than the wikipedia entry, but I was able to understand and write that by the time I was a Freshman in college, so it can't be that hard.

[NickD]

OMFG!

[...] there may well be life on other planets, however, the chances of it being on the planet next to us is pretty low.

I think there probably is life on other planets due simply to the number of planets out there, just not life capable of developing space travel and most probably not on Mars (unless, as discussed earlier, it was due to transference between Earth and Mars, or some other third party - maybe life originated on Titan and spread to Earth and Mars, for example).

An ex-girlfriend of mine would buy a lottery ticket and then get depressed when she didn't win because she truely believed she would win it each and every time. This thread gives me deja vu.