Is there life in the universe?
When I get bored and can't sleep, I like to take popular delusions and knock them down a peg.
The existence of life on other planets. Notably "intelligent" life is a commonly held belief by a fairly large and illustrious list of people.
To start. Life? Absolutely, I believe it exists elsewhere. We have good reason to believe that life, or at least the components necessary for life arrived here via rocks smashing into the planet. Which means that same material and possible life is elsewhere in the universe. And there is definitely enough planets out there to support the basic kinds of life which humanity originated from.
Where the theory falls apart? It doesn't actually matter how many planets or stars there are in the universe. It matters what the odds of a human like intelligence are relative to that number. And our problem? We have the worst sample size possible. A sample size of 1. We don't know if we're a relatively common event, or a mathematical improbability. Because, math and probabilities scale up to "universe size"... it is ENTIRELY possible that the odds of it are so low that it was even unlikely for it to happen the once that we know it did.
The more data points you have, the more reliable your estimates can become. If we had 2 examples of similarly intelligent beings in 1 billion, we would still have a really hard time saying that the odds are 1 in 500k, but, we would be MUCH MUCH MUCH more confident that we're at least likely looking at the right order of magnitude (and we still wouldn't be SUPER confident even with 2).
We'd want something like a sample size of, well as large as possible covering as many samples from as many different variables as possible (big, small, water based, land based, plant, animal, etc... ). For instance, if our second example were another primate, it would certainly help the odds, but we'd be more narrowing down the odds of human like intelligence IF a species similar to primates already exist. A second example would be ever better if it shared very little in common with man, like maybe a fish or a plant or bacteria.
But, we don't have that. And THAT is the problem that is being ignored. We cannot safely assume that the probability is something which can be expressed in "Earth-y numbers" or even "universe scale numbers". So, quoting the immensity of the number of habitable planets as "proof" that it must have happened elsewhere in the universe is meaningless drivel.
I'm not attacking the notion that there may be life on other planets. I have nothing against the belief. But, I have issues with people claiming to be scientists making statements to the effect that there HAS to be other intelligent life by virtue of the size of the universe or number of planets in it.
In this case, if they turn out to be right, it would be for the wrong reasons.
It is seductive though. I WANT to believe it as well. I think about how much bigger those numbers are compared to anything I can comprehend. And it FEELS true. But, the foundation isn't really there to support it. When we find intelligent life example #2 though... get back to me. Science isn't about assuming you know the truth. Sometimes you need more information. And this is one of those cases.
The existence of life on other planets. Notably "intelligent" life is a commonly held belief by a fairly large and illustrious list of people.
To start. Life? Absolutely, I believe it exists elsewhere. We have good reason to believe that life, or at least the components necessary for life arrived here via rocks smashing into the planet. Which means that same material and possible life is elsewhere in the universe. And there is definitely enough planets out there to support the basic kinds of life which humanity originated from.
Where the theory falls apart? It doesn't actually matter how many planets or stars there are in the universe. It matters what the odds of a human like intelligence are relative to that number. And our problem? We have the worst sample size possible. A sample size of 1. We don't know if we're a relatively common event, or a mathematical improbability. Because, math and probabilities scale up to "universe size"... it is ENTIRELY possible that the odds of it are so low that it was even unlikely for it to happen the once that we know it did.
The more data points you have, the more reliable your estimates can become. If we had 2 examples of similarly intelligent beings in 1 billion, we would still have a really hard time saying that the odds are 1 in 500k, but, we would be MUCH MUCH MUCH more confident that we're at least likely looking at the right order of magnitude (and we still wouldn't be SUPER confident even with 2).
We'd want something like a sample size of, well as large as possible covering as many samples from as many different variables as possible (big, small, water based, land based, plant, animal, etc... ). For instance, if our second example were another primate, it would certainly help the odds, but we'd be more narrowing down the odds of human like intelligence IF a species similar to primates already exist. A second example would be ever better if it shared very little in common with man, like maybe a fish or a plant or bacteria.
But, we don't have that. And THAT is the problem that is being ignored. We cannot safely assume that the probability is something which can be expressed in "Earth-y numbers" or even "universe scale numbers". So, quoting the immensity of the number of habitable planets as "proof" that it must have happened elsewhere in the universe is meaningless drivel.
I'm not attacking the notion that there may be life on other planets. I have nothing against the belief. But, I have issues with people claiming to be scientists making statements to the effect that there HAS to be other intelligent life by virtue of the size of the universe or number of planets in it.
In this case, if they turn out to be right, it would be for the wrong reasons.
It is seductive though. I WANT to believe it as well. I think about how much bigger those numbers are compared to anything I can comprehend. And it FEELS true. But, the foundation isn't really there to support it. When we find intelligent life example #2 though... get back to me. Science isn't about assuming you know the truth. Sometimes you need more information. And this is one of those cases.
Comments
Post a Comment