Science/Environment Aliens exist - Hawking

[Hawks1523]

Personally I find it amusing how some people criticise Religious people for believing there must be a creator, but then go to use the same logic of "there must be other intelligent life out there, just because".

Very funny stuff. They have nothing to base that belief on yet bag out us for having faith in a God.

The hypocrisy is golden and there for all to see

I was thinking the same thing, but reversed.

People are all too happy and willing to bag out people who believe in other lifeforms in the universe, but who hold strong beliefs in the existance of a god.

 

[Richo83]

Richo, nobody uses the probability argument to prove that there are aliens. Those that say they do are stupid. All the probability argument says is that it is very likely.

Nick85 gets quite close to it. So do you in some respects. Claiming that something is "very likely" doesn't sound to me the domain of science, which by definition is the process of the uncovering of knowledge, not probable guesses.

Now, your argument seems to be that the probability argument is flawed, because we could be alone, and just really, really, really unlikely.

Why is it unlikely, that because we assume that since we rolled six sixes, that we can do it again? Chance and accordance with scientific principles guides the presence of life, we have already seen that the presence of life in many planets does not occur, it seems possible that all but one fail the criteria for sustaining life. Why do we assume that just because there are places of possibility, that they must have some hope of repetition? As I said, probability and the principles of probability work on logic, the logic of repetition and similarity. And I feel doubtful on the success of application of logic on the proof of a physical being. This is not to say people believe that aliens must exist, but some come close. And I dispute the notion that aliens are probable in their existence, they are not a logical process, they exist independent of our probabilities.

Some would say that given everything we have observed has a cause, it is probable, likely, that the beginning, the first of anything observed, was itself caused by a causer. The oldies called this the prime mover, people now call it god. Some could say that it's probable on the basis of the logical extension of the notion of causation that a god of some sort exists. Probability is a dangerous game.

Life according to our complete knowledge of the planets is already rare, we already know of quite a few planets with no life, and only one that does. Lets say there's say 3 out of 10 billion planets with life, it's still a god awful surprise more haven't been used. To me, the likelyhood and oddity of 1 out of 10 billion and 3 out of 10 billion isn't that different.

We can't see them yet, but in the future we may be able to.

I was ridiculed for postulating that science delved beyond the physical. If we can't see them, then any claim to their existence is not scientific. Further, any claim to a possible future sighting rests on first proof. That's how science works, unless we see the green martians, we cannot make any appeal to their being.

Oh and cancat I know our ancestors and dolphins are smart, but not as smart as us, and a good majority of organisms don't get close to the intelligence of a dog. With probability, with all those organisms and all the chances of development via evolution, you'd think at least one would have developed complex cognitive processes.

But they haven't. Indicating that one maybe a lonely number, it may also be the right number.

 

[Brad Roo]

Which part of the Bible discounts life on other planets?

 

[likka]

Intelligent life may be out there, but our ability to ever interact with it is severely limited.

Space is an awfully big place.

Time is as big a problem as the infinite vastness of the known universe.

From what we know it took us approximately 4.3 billion years to evolve within our little solar system, supposedly 10 billion years after the big bang... and we only developed the technology to search for extraterrestrial life forms over the last 50-60 years.

The odds of simultaneous existence of highly evolved technical alien life are almost as long as the universe is big, and even if this did happen it would be located so ridiculously far away it becomes irrelevant.

 

[BigBadCam]

Well, it seems to me that the crux of the argument boils down to how rare the existence of life actually is. Until we actually discover life in other places in the universe, we cannot accurately make this call. It might turn out that life is nothing special and that it actually exists in some form on all planets with an atmosphere of a certain makeup, which might be very common. Alternatively it might be as 'rare' as Richo is trying to make out. There is no authoritative answer as yet. The huge number of stars, galaxies etc., mathematically means that chances are high that intelligent life exists, but the variable that actually matters, and that would impact on this assumption is an unknown.

 

[Richo83]

I'm not saying life is rare, it really depends how you define that word. All I'm saying is that we have nothing to go with in terms of knowledge about aliens, all we have is human derived assumptions, which, as history shows, can and have been faulty. The existence of aliens may be one of those moments where we look back at it and laugh. We may be alone, it certainly is a possibility, although I'll accept that I have no ability to prove so. Maybe there is aliens, maybe not, I don't know, and more importantly, I have no idea what to believe either.

 

[BarneyBent]

Nick85 gets quite close to it. So do you in some respects. Claiming that something is "very likely" doesn't sound to me the domain of science, which by definition is the process of the uncovering of knowledge, not probable guesses.

LOL. You're definition of science is quite a way off. Science is all about probable guesses. Scientists observe things, and then take educated guesses (very highly educated guesses, mind you) as to why they occur. In the realm of science, there is no such thing as a "fact". Only theories, which are the strongest and most valued ideas to scientists. For example, take the modern heliocentric view of our solar system. Do you think, when it was first proposed, and even when it came to be accepted, that anybody had actually seen the Earth move around the Sun in a near-circular orbit? No. There were no photos from space probes, or anything like that. But calculations were made, and that was what they found.

Now, has anybody seen aliens? Well, some would claim to have, but we can pretty much say no, they haven't. However, calculations have been made, and the results of those calculations would suggest that there are almost certainly aliens out there, of some description, or there have been in the past.

Evidence does not have to be physical, nor does it have to be conclusive, for a scientific theory to develop. All it has to do is be better than all the rest, and stand up to counter evidence.

Why is it unlikely, that because we assume that since we rolled six sixes, that we can do it again? Chance and accordance with scientific principles guides the presence of life, we have already seen that the presence of life in many planets does not occur, it seems possible that all but one fail the criteria for sustaining life. Why do we assume that just because there are places of possibility, that they must have some hope of repetition? As I said, probability and the principles of probability work on logic, the logic of repetition and similarity. And I feel doubtful on the success of application of logic on the proof of a physical being. This is not to say people believe that aliens must exist, but some come close. And I dispute the notion that aliens are probable in their existence, they are not a logical process, they exist independent of our probabilities.

Some would say that given everything we have observed has a cause, it is probable, likely, that the beginning, the first of anything observed, was itself caused by a causer. The oldies called this the prime mover, people now call it god. Some could say that it's probable on the basis of the logical extension of the notion of causation that a god of some sort exists. Probability is a dangerous game.

Wow. OK, where to begin. Your dice analogy. Regardless of rolling six 6s in a row, what do you think the chances are of rolling another six, ever. Pretty damn high. I know what you're getting at, but it's not about that. It IS possible that our planet is the only planet with life, but that would be akin to rolling the dice a few million times and not once rolling another 6. It's possible, but extremely, extraordinarily unlikely.

You say that you doubt the application of logic to the physical world, and that the existence of aliens are separate from our probabilities. Why?

Your example using god simply doesn't hold up. There's no reason to believe there wasn't a "prime mover". It just doesn't have to be one we'd normally consider, e.g. a conscious god. The Big Bang could be the prime mover. In fact, if you follow the rule of causation existing within our universe, the logical conclusion IS the Big Bang, because it was at the Big Bang that rules such as causality could well have been set. What existed (and I use the term loosely) before the Big Bang would not necessarily have been subject to the same laws we experience, and so there's no need for something to have caused the Big Bang. Sorry, but that argument fails. Hard.

Life according to our complete knowledge of the planets is already rare, we already know of quite a few planets with no life, and only one that does. Lets say there's say 3 out of 10 billion planets with life, it's still a god awful surprise more haven't been used. To me, the likelyhood and oddity of 1 out of 10 billion and 3 out of 10 billion isn't that different.[/quote]

OK, let's use your thinking. We know, I dunno, 7 planets we're sure don't currently have some sort of life? And one that does. Let's apply a 1:7 ratio of planets with life. Our universe would be swarming in life. I'm not for one minute suggesting life is that common, just that comparing the planets we know do have life compared to the ones we know don't is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Um, surprise they haven't been used? What? Who says they all have to be used? Christ. And 3 in 10 billion is three times 1 in 10 billion. Pretty significant jump, really.

Also, there are more than 10 billion stars in the universe. If you take a ratio of one in 10 billion, then that's 10 in our galaxy alone (we have 100 million stars), and many billions of planets with life in the universe.

I was ridiculed for postulating that science delved beyond the physical. If we can't see them, then any claim to their existence is not scientific. Further, any claim to a possible future sighting rests on first proof. That's how science works, unless we see the green martians, we cannot make any appeal to their being.

Oh and cancat I know our ancestors and dolphins are smart, but not as smart as us, and a good majority of organisms don't get close to the intelligence of a dog. With probability, with all those organisms and all the chances of development via evolution, you'd think at least one would have developed complex cognitive processes.

But they haven't. Indicating that one maybe a lonely number, it may also be the right number.

Once again, wrong. We can't see atoms, we know they're there. We can't see "strings", but modern scientific theories are suggesting they are there. We can't see quantum froth, but we think it's there. We can't see the centre of black holes (like, literally, light is sucked into them, it's physically impossible) but we know what they are. We can't see evolution at work but we know it happens.

You have a serious, serious misunderstanding of how science works, and trust me, it shows.

Also, those comparing this to belief in god are barking up the wrong tree. Scientists DISCOUNT the existence of god on the basis of probability, and they discount the NON-existence of aliens on the same basis.

If there was a probable reason for the existence of god (e.g. we were somehow able to observe numerous other universes and saw they were all the creation of a god), then it would be scientific to suggest that ours too was a creation of a god. However, we haven't, and in the absence of any sign a god is possible, any intrinsic structural need for a god to exist, etc, the idea is therefore widely discounted. Notice that those who do see a structural need in the universe for a god DO claim a god exists. This view is scientifically valid, but it doesn't make it correct. In the absence of any probabilistic evidence, other evidence must be sought, and none has been found.

With alien life forms, we don't need to observe them to postulate they exist, because probability is also a form of scientific evidence.

 

[Papa Juggs]

There will be intelligent life everywhere in the Milky Way, I'm sure of it.

I like to be an optimist and say that life is not rare and will have developed and many rocky planets with suitable climates, moons, gas giant comet sweepers etc...

There's nothing special about earth, nobody put a magic seed here. Life is just one of those things that happens, a chemical reaction of some sorts.

 

[BarneyBent]

There will be intelligent life everywhere in the Milky Way, I'm sure of it.

I like to be an optimist and say that life is not rare and will have developed and many rocky planets with suitable climates, moons, gas giant comet sweepers etc...

There's nothing special about earth, nobody put a magic seed here. Life is just one of those things that happens, a chemical reaction of some sorts.

Well, we don't know that. Various forms of seeding (ranging from conscious incubation of life on earth by a non-human consciousness to something as simple as amino acids arriving on the earth via asteroid impact) have been proposed as possibilities (some with more support than others, obviously). In any case, there's nothing to suggest that however life happened here, it couldn't have on another similar planet.

 

[Meow]

What I tend to hypothesize is that Aliens more advanced than us will also be more emotionally and mentally advanced, meaning they may not be as greedy and as self-centred as we are. That suggests to me they would have a better way of being able to raid our resources with the intent of causing minimal harm to our species. I wouldn't lose sleep if we discovered an alien race superior to ours, in fact I'd be happy. People's initial reaction would be shock, surprise and possibly panic, but they would be kind and long-term they would do more good to our world than harm IMO.
It's almost impossible for life to not exist elsewhere. Most of it would be simple bacteria, however I believe there are a handful of space-faring civilizations in the Milky Way. Not as many as the Drake Equation may suggest, but I'd wildly guess several thousand communicating civilizations exist in this galaxy.
After all, there could be 50 billion planets in the Milky Way alone. Even if 1 in every million had life, there would still be 50,000 planets with life in this galaxy.

 

[BarneyBent]

What I tend to hypothesize is that Aliens more advanced than us will also be more emotionally and mentally advanced, meaning they may not be as greedy and as self-centred as we are. That suggests to me they would have a better way of being able to raid our resources with the intent of causing minimal harm to our species. I wouldn't lose sleep if we discovered an alien race superior to ours, in fact I'd be happy. People's initial reaction would be shock, surprise and possibly panic, but they would be kind and long-term they would do more good to our world than harm IMO.
It's almost impossible for life to not exist elsewhere. Most of it would be simple bacteria, however I believe there are a handful of space-faring civilizations in the Milky Way. Not as many as the Drake Equation may suggest, but I'd wildly guess several thousand communicating civilizations exist in this galaxy.
After all, there could be 50 billion planets in the Milky Way alone. Even if 1 in every million had life, there would still be 50,000 planets with life in this galaxy.

Do you reckon? Sure, there's a chance they would have developed to the point of being passive, but I'd say it would be unlikely, and a lot more than we could hope for. Pre-technology humans were just as aggressive as modern-day humans towards other species, and a large proportion are aggressive towards and prejudiced against some fellow humans. Again, it's possible, but hardly something we could assume.

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

Of all the millions of life forms to have ever been on earth probably billions if we include plant life and bacteria etc. We are the only species that is possible of coming close to a level of interstellar relevance.

So even if there is life, it would only be a minute chance that they are as intelligent or highly developed as us.

Of course I don't know s**t and am just trying to think about this logically, but IMO of the planets that do have life, I propose that very few would have "intelligent life", or at least life that could pose an existential threat to us.

 

[Bretski]

But we have no proof Aliens exist.

Our planet is literally one in a trillion, so many things had to go absolutely perfectly right.

The chances of another planet and solar system having absolutely everything go right are astronomically low.

We probably are just the one.

There have been a fair few other planets which share "earth-like traits" that have been found. Obviously we cannot yet study the stars further out than out small corner of the galaxy, but with billions of stars in out galaxy, plus billions of other galaxies, I'd say the the probability strongly favours life.

 

[BarneyBent]

Of all the millions of life forms to have ever been on earth probably billions if we include plant life and bacteria etc. We are the only species that is possible of coming close to a level of interstellar relevance.

So even if there is life, it would only be a minute chance that they are as intelligent or highly developed as us.

Of course I don't know s**t and am just trying to think about this logically, but IMO of the planets that do have life, I propose that very few would have "intelligent life", or at least life that could pose an existential threat to us.

I agree with that. Intelligence is a tricky thing. The chances of intelligent life developing on a life-sustaining planet could well be very, very small, so, when you factor in isolation, there's absolutely no guarantee we'd ever come into contact with another intelligent life form. But if we did, at any point in the short-mid term future, it would mean that this intelligent life had found a way to overcome these huge distances, almost certainly making them a huge danger to us.

 

[Meow]

Do you reckon? Sure, there's a chance they would have developed to the point of being passive, but I'd say it would be unlikely, and a lot more than we could hope for. Pre-technology humans were just as aggressive as modern-day humans towards other species, and a large proportion are aggressive towards and prejudiced against some fellow humans. Again, it's possible, but hardly something we could assume.

I don't think they'd be totally passive, but more spiritually, mentally and emotionally advanced than we are. That means they may try and hurt us for our resources, but not to the extent that us humans hurt some others.
Some will be friendly, some will be assholes IMO. We won't come into contact with an alien civilization for a very long time unless they visit us or contact us. They might already have visited Earth.

 

[cancat]

Now he's saying time travel may be possible...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/7153027/time-travel-possible-hawking

 

[BarneyBent]

Now he's saying time travel may be possible...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/7153027/time-travel-possible-hawking

He's far from the first. It's just using the idea of relativity. Technically speaking, every time we accelerate, we travel through time in the same way he's talking about there. It's just an incredibly minute effect. All he's talking about is accelerating at such a rate that this effect is strong enough to essentially make time travel noticeably faster around us, which would be a form of time travel.

 

[Niximus]

Now he's saying time travel may be possible...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/7153027/time-travel-possible-hawking

That's not exactly time travel though.

It's not just possible though, this effect has been proven. they've taken 2 synchronised atomic clocks and flown one in a jet for a while and upon reuniting it with the other they are ever so slightly out of synch - more time has passed for the clock left behind than the one that flew.

The effect increases as the speed increases and so if you were going 98% of C then it's as Hawking says and years on Earth will fly by to your days.

 

[BarneyBent]

That's not exactly time travel though.

It's not just possible though, this effect has been proven. they've taken 2 synchronised atomic clocks and flown one in a jet for a while and upon reuniting it with the other they are ever so slightly out of synch - more time has passed for the clock left behind than the one that flew.

The effect increases as the speed increases and so if you were going 98% of C then it's as Hawking says and years on Earth will fly by to your days.

A lot more than 98% of c, I'm pretty sure. From year 12 physics (so don't take this as gospel, I've probably ****ed up the calculations somewhere), even going at 99.99% c would only multiply the rate at which time passes a few times.

EDIT: Actually, it's about 70 times. Still, 98% c only multiplies it by about 5 times.

 

[Niximus]

A lot more than 98% of c, I'm pretty sure. From year 12 physics (so don't take this as gospel, I've probably ****ed up the calculations somewhere), even going at 99.99% c would only multiply the rate at which time passes a few times.

EDIT: Actually, it's about 70 times. Still, 98% c only multiplies it by about 5 times.

Very true, just did the calculation and for 1 day to = about a year you'd need to go 99.9996% c

Squeeze another .00009% out of it though and suddenly 1 day = 3 years.

 

[BarneyBent]

Very true, just did the calculation and for 1 day to = about a year you'd need to go 99.9996% c

Squeeze another .00009% out of it though and suddenly 1 day = 3 years.

That 0.00009% would be a bloody hard 0.00009% to achieve though! Certainly harder than the previous 1,111,107 0.00009%s (yes, that's how many times 0.00009% goes into 99.9996%!). Bloody relativity and it's annoyingly s**t limitations. It just has to get harder to accelerate the closer you get to c, doesn't it? Just perfect!

Seems like an odd mistake to make by Hawking though. Even I knew straight off the bat that 98% of c would be nowhere near enough to achieve that sort of time dilation. Typo on the speech box generator thingy maybe?

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

So riding a shopping trolley down a steep hill won't cut it?

Damn.

What I would be dying to find out is whether intelligent life would have any biological similarities to us.

Of course it would be extremely unlikely that they should share the same physiologocal details as us. But would evolution guide them to a two legged upright structure? Would they be four limbed? Carnivorous? Would the have lungs? Would they have opposoble thumbs? Even a spine?

It raises so many questions? How do they reproduce? How big are they?

 

[BarneyBent]

What I would be dying to find out is whether intelligent life would have any biological similarities to us.

Of course it would be extremely unlikely that they should share the same physiologocal details as us. But would evolution guide them to a two legged upright structure? Would they be four limbed? Carnivorous? Would the have lungs? Would they have opposoble thumbs? Even a spine?

It raises so many questions? How do they reproduce? How big are they?

Do they use DNA? Are they carbon based? Do they have a "brain", in the same sense we do? Or is it a more holistic (for lack of a better word) nervous system with routes that span the entire body, with no central hub, so that in essence every single neuron is part of a full-body "brain"? Did they make the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction (or something analogous)? How might this have affected their rate of evolutionary development? Do they communicate with sound? Do they breathe? If the air was very thin where they evolved, audible communication might be inefficient, as would breathing, so they might use other methods of communicating and attaining vital compounds from their environment.

Just about everything we take for granted about life on Earth need not necessarily apply on a planet other than Earth. As such, it would be absolutely fascinating to see what common trends DO emerge.

 

[Suspense]

It raises so many questions? How do they reproduce?

[youtube]Y2QkBFMjlag[/youtube]

 

[The rabbi]

What I tend to hypothesize is that Aliens more advanced than us will also be more emotionally and mentally advanced, meaning they may not be as greedy and as self-centred as we are. That suggests to me they would have a better way of being able to raid our resources with the intent of causing minimal harm to our species.

We have plenty of resources for the Aliens.
High protein snacks aplenty.

​