This one is very simple to cover. All I need is two questions to find if you understand the Principles of Probability.
1) What is the probability that life can/would develop in this universe?
2) What is the probability intelligent life can/would develop in this universe?
The answers to above will probably shock everyone, except those who do understand the Principles of Probability.
We have not been anywhere other than Luna. We do NOT know if there is, or was, other life out there other than Earth. Even within our own stellar system. We know there ain’t on Luna. Mars has none now. But did it? There could be some extremophiles on Venus, but our longest lasting probe only made it 138 minutes. Actually slightly more than twice as long as the Soviets estimated (est. 60-65 minutes). Probes for Venus would be phenomenally massive in order to withstand the pressure and heat. We can build much less massive probes for Mars, Europa, Titan, others... in our search for life elsewhere other than Earth within our stellar system. But, Venus? Forget it. If there are extremophiles, they shall never evolve beyond extremophiles. And if they did…
That is true probability for you. Until we have a larger sample size, the probability of both questions is kind of moot. Especially with a sample size of 1. How those Religious Absolutists come up with those ridiculously huge numbers is unknown. But it does prove not one Religious Absolutist has the slightest understanding of the Principles of Probabiliy.
Here is an example. I am using the Ran# function on my Casio fx-115ES calculator that is almost¿ 40 years old. Battery is long dead. But, it still works with the solar panels with enough light, which is surprisingly very little light needed. In fact, it will still operate in light levels that make its use highly difficult due to too little light to see the display.
The Casio fx-115ES calculator was first launched in the mid-1980s. Say 1985ish? My Casio fx-115ES calculator is 40 years old. Perhaps older.
| Additive | Multiplicative | |
|
|
|
| ⇓ Final Results ⇓ | ||
|
|
|
See the difference? Additive gives you a 146.2 percentage of, not percentage chance. WRONG! Multiplicative is the ONLY correct method when determining if something is true, as factors are added to that something. All Principles of Probability are “Multiplicative” (“tending or having the power to increase in number or quantity or degree”). However, within the Principles of Probability since ALL factors are 0 ≤ N < 1, that definition becomes: “tending or having the power to decrease in probability or quantity or degree”.
Thus, you Religious Absolutists have added 1000s of factors to those God-things that the final probability is so damned close to 0, you may as well say impossible.
This BSBD Principles of Philosophical Probability used by you Religious Absolutists NEVER works for proving anything. Philosophy itself proves NOTHING except you have an imagination. A horrible one in the case of Religious Absolutists, but still imagination. You are misassociating PhD with such principles.
A PhD in Science is a completely different unbreedable species than those nondegree programs in Liberal Arts. PhD is short for “doctor philosophiæ”, doctorate of philosophy. Mine is “doctor scientiæ” (ScD), doctorate of science. And I am more proud of that ScD than the PhD I earned later. A PhD in Science essentially means you are capable of thinking scientifically. You know the philosophical history behind, and of, the Scientific Method.
The biggest problem with philosophies is they are literally like anuses. Everyone has one. Each person has their own philosophy. As with anything that is cerebrated, you SHALL always find commonality. Comes about from one of those True Absolutes: “Within order, there is chaos. Within chaos, there is order.”
Soo... if Philosophy proves nothing, then what makes you think the Principles of Philosophical Probability will prove anything?
Like Life and True Logic, Probability is cold, cruel, heartless, uncaring, unforgiving.
Here is the foremost Principle of Life ALL humans should get over: “Life does not care if you are alive or dead.” Life itself truly does not care. Only each individual person puts any value on alive or dead.
T…H…I…N…K…
How many times has DNA been through Life’s replication processes over the last 3½± billion years?
2.712190346... × 109171536436?
Is that a sufficiently large enough number? Made it up like the Religitards.
The answer to both questions above is:
100%.
However, the sample size is only 1! .
ADDENDA: The sample size is 1, for I am counting stellar systems. Not number off planetary bodies. How can we know for sure there is no life on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune? Or their satellites? They are full of the needed material. Storms are one hinderance. But, do we KNOW there is no life? We do not. Insuffucient Data. And we have found evidence of how many exoplanets? Probability that life may exist elsewhere continues to shrink, but out of hundreds of millions of galaxies each with hundreds of millions of stars, surely those 1 in 10124 chances start to look quite small. If I were to count known planetary bodies, the percentage changes to 0.016% (1 planet out of about 6220 known).
It would be Pure Arrogance to automatically assume we ARE the only life in this vast universe. What about as Star Wars begins? A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…
How you define “long time ago” and “far, far away” would be the KEY. How about how I placed my world of Onaviu? I placed it in a galaxy over 62,000,000 Lightyears “far, far away”. Then, I could say it is 4,953,430,146 years “long time ago”. Hmm… Onaviu later becomes Coruscant?
NOW, that would be like stretching a gnat’s arse over the end of an oil barrel. Even for Etherlond. Wow! That is stretching it…
Sometimes that ADHD can throw some really wild tangents…
Currently, we estimate the Milky Way galaxy may have 200 to 500 billion stars. Let’s go with 350 billion. Using all the photos we have from our telescopes, we estimate there may actually be at least 3 trillion galaxies. Multiplying that out gives us about 1,050,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. That is 1.05 × 1024 stars. And since we know the abiogenesis of life is 100%, and the rise of intelligent life is also 100%, that 1050 billion trillion stars with possible planets really makes it highly probable there is other life than in our stellar system.
With our exoplanet catalogue, NASA’s Exoplanet Archive, we have found OHEFE for over 5000 planets orbiting other stars. Actual numbers:
TESS = Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite
As far as I am concerned, the probability of life elsewhere than this stellar system is very highly probable. My contention is that life itself may actually be common amongst our universe. However, advanced intelligent life would be exceptionally rare.
Also read “Life From Lifelessness”.
— The Unknown Atheist
Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved