Are we alone?

[Turtle]

Wait! Wait! There's a flag on the field!...

 

:couple: let's see the ruling...

 

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think it's perfectly well falsifiable.

 

I think the position of believing life on earth to be unique, is a matter of faith.

 

faith is not-falsifiable, therefore these two statements contradict one-another. logical fallacy

 

life is inevitable.

 

A: life developed on earth (special case)

B: there are other planets like earth

c: other planets must develop life (general rule)

 

Converse Fallacy of Accident: argues from a special case to a general rule

Example

Argument: Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.

Problem: What one has seen is a subset of the entire set. One cannot have seen all swans.

Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

additional source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/accident.html

[Pyrotex]

Okay dudes and dudettes!

I have the total number of Earth-like planets in this envelope I am holding.

Y'all play nice together...

... or I burn the envelope!

 

[sNICK!] (the sound of an old-fashioned Zippo lighter being opened) :couple:

[Moontanman]

Okay dudes and dudettes!

I have the total number of Earth-like planets in this envelope I am holding.

Y'all play nice together...

... or I burn the envelope!

 

[sNICK!] (the sound of an old-fashioned Zippo lighter being opened) ;)

 

Total number in the universe or total number in our galaxy? Have you been talking to the aliens from Zeta Reticuli again? They never tell the truth but the aliens from Alpha Centauri always tell the truth but they look just alike :naughty:

[modest]

I don't think it's enough to say:

And it turns out that there is nothing special about Earth, it's composition, etc.

That statement is inherently non-falsifiable. It can't be a step in a proof because it could never, itself, be proven.

Not quite. If you take a look at Earth's composition, and you take a spectrometer and look at the stars you will find the same kind of stuff up there. The Earth and our solar system consist of iron, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and a whole host of other stuff. Neighboring solar systems consist of exactly the same stuff - not weirdcraptanium. Some solar systems might have more of this and less of that, but there's nothing special about their mixes, either. And with that being the case, nd with the same laws of physics applying everywhere, yes, I think we can conclusively prove that there is nothing special about Earth.

 

Finding a commonality between A and B does not disprove A's uniqueness. Finding 10 commonalities between A and B doesn’t disprove A’s uniqueness. No matter how many commonalities you find between A and B you will not falsify a statement claiming A is unique.

 

Since we don’t know the particulars of abiogenesis we cannot prove that every conceivable essential component is not unique to earth. You can consider our solar system very much similar to others and reason that the necessities of life must certainly be there as well... but that is an assumption. You can't prove it logically.

 

...Out of those Millions, a fair fraction should have roughly the same size of Earth and be in the goldilocks zone. These conditions have led to Life on Earth.

2. Above conditions are not unique to Earth. We can see this by analysing spectroscopic data, where we find the same elements that appear in our solar system. Based on the numbers of stars and the fact that our home star appears to be very average, planets with Earth's composition, size and density should not be unique.

 

It's possible that a certain kind of amino acid came to earth in a comet 4.5 billion years ago and it was a necessary component to kick start life. Such an amino acid may be extraordinarily uncommon. The chances that it would find itself delivered safely to an earth-like planet with all the other components necessary to start life may be such that Earth is unique. You can't *prove* that's not the case—not with our knowledge of the situation where it is right now. Saying that life must be inevitable or that there must be life elsewhere in the cosmos assumes too much.

 

Same with the search for alien life, I guess - you can probe each and every single planet in the Milky Way, a project that will keep you busy for billions of years, and not find life. Yet, you still haven't ruled out the possibility of life elsewhere.

 

I agree. "Life exists elsewhere" is not falsifiable just like "the components necessary to start life exist elsewhere" is non-falsifiable.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Falsifiable, I know it's important in science but there are other things assumed to be true that we think of as true from less than direct methods. We assume the existence of Dark matter but we have no direct evidence of it, there are other ideas but we assume one over others with no direct evidence of any of them. Why is it so important that we have direct evidence of life? Why is it assumed the same chemical elements cannot do the same thing in other planetary systems?

 

I honestly do not see why it's so difficultly to assume that conditions around other stars on other planets are similar to those on the earth in our solar system. I think this quote is a reasonable train of thought.

 

Biology News: Was life on Earth inevitable?

 

They argue that life was the necessary consequence of available energy built up by geological processes on the early Earth. Life sprang from this environment, they say, in the same way that lightning relieves the accumulation of electrical charge in thunderclouds.

 

In other words, say biologist Harold Morowitz of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and physicist Eric Smith of New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, the geological environment "forced life into existence".

 

This is not a minority position, it is true that the sun is unusual in it's metal content and that stars with high metal content are more likely to have Earth like planets but there are still significant numbers of stars like the Sun.

 

Life in Solar System? Inevitable, Experts Say : Discovery Space

 

Why Science Guy (10:14 AM): Eric Smith (Santa Fe) posed the origin of life problem in an interesting way:

"What problem was there on the early Earth that was solved by the appearance of life?"

The problem is basically that geophysical processes push electrons in atoms to high-energy states, and life is the best way for them to get back down.

That's the basic idea, at least as far as origins go -- life is just basic chemistry.

I like to put it this way:

The chances of finding enough gold atoms in one place to make a ring, assuming pure chance, is something like... one chance in 10^123 (one followed by 123 zeros!).

However, we can make gold jewelry because the assembly of atoms isn't random. Rather, it's governed by well-known laws of chemistry and mineralogy.

In other words, the fact that a woman as classy as my wife said "yes" when I proposed may be a miracle, but my ability to buy a gold ring isn't.

 

or

 

Why Science Guy (10:22 AM): Ok -- carbon dioxide and hydrogen are produced in deep sea hydrothermal vents.

The energy of the system can be lowered if the electrons in the hydrogen "roll down the hill" to bind with carbon dioxide and form acetate.

Problem is, this is a very slow process (ordinarily). But it's quick in the presence of life.

So: The problem is that the electrons are stranded in a high energy state, the solution is provided by life.

 

 

Life is chemistry, not a miracle no more than snow or rust is a miracle. When chemicals are present the chemical reactions that can take place do, life is just one of those reactions.

 

Complex life is a little more "complex" in it's requirements but appears from what happened on the Earth that life will adjust to conditions and that life is driven toward complexity.

 

First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

 

We assume that hydrogen fusion makes the Sun shine, we have never been there or directly measured it, we even make allowances when the measurements we take to not agree with what we think is happening in the sun because we assume it has to be fusion. Life is not some odd things that happened miraculously, it's chemistry, it happens as sure as gravity keeps the moon in orbit.

[Turtle]

Okay, but still...with a large enough sample, like the amount of molecules in my body or - a simpler example - the amount of molecules in a glass of water, strings of heads & tails fade into the background. The molecules in a glass of water move about randomly, from one side of the glass to the other. It is possible (probability > 0) that all of the molecules will, at some point, find themselves on one side of the glass and none on the other.

...

It is the possibility of one moving to the right, as opposed to the left (50%) times the possibility of the next....times the possibility of the very last one. The wait-time for an event like this exceeds the amount of time we have, the age of existance (~15billion years). I am very comfortable calling 1/2 column glasses of water, or spontaneously disembodied smans, impossible events, even though their possibilities are calculably greater than zero. I merely want to apply this to the possibility of contact to see if our unfounded fantasy will float or founder

 

so again no. not only has this never been observed in water, it violates the laws of physics & is a mis-application of probability theory.

 

 

 

Where the medium is water, I'm not sure. But, in the case of a gas you're spot on. The probability that the gas filled container of volume V₁ will have molecules self-compress to fill only a smaller volume V₂ is:

[math]p=\left( \frac{V_2}{V_1} \right)^N[/math]

where p is the probability and N is the number of molecules. Where the volume is being halved it is as you say: 1/2 (the probability of each independent molecule being on the correct side) times itself as many times as there are molecules.

 

A 1 liter glass (per your example) will hold about 1/22.4 moles (or 2.69 x 10²² molecules) at STP. To look at that glass and find all the molecules on one side would then have a probability of roughly,

[math]p=\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{ 10^{22} } \approx 10^{-10^{21.5}}[/math]

which is, of course, unimaginably small (in the literal sense of the word unimaginable). The quote below calls it “vanishing small” and “essentially zero”. But, it is also, as you say "probability > 0". In a strictly mathematical sense, it is not zero. In a practical sense, I think one can treat it that way.

 

It is probably worth noting that this thought experiment does not require quantum effects like the other 'wait an impossibly long amount of time' thought experiment about a person tunneling through a wall. The other interesting aspect is that the event necessarily lowers the entropy of the universe.

 

It's explained well here:

 

Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 1

 

I think that puts it about right

 

~modest

 

excellent! i was mistaken about the physics, but not anymore. now we can proceed with sman's, and your, analysis of the possible conditions now so excellently flayed out.

 

the boldened part of my entering quote of mon état stands separate from the physics challenge. that is, i was first challenging the validity of the example, and second, presuming the example was actually valid, challenging the application of the result. shall we retire to the salon? :lol:

 

i propose 3 conditions to consider on the half-gassed glass. for the time being, i give no attribution. to whit:

 

A. the half-gassed glass is a surprise (to the observer).

B. the half-gassed glass has a major impact.

C after the fact, the half-gassed glass is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

 

coffee? tea? one lump, or two? :hammer: :cup: :cup: :cup: :cup:

 

l

[Moontanman]

Turtle, this is off topic, nothing to do with the OP :naughty: please start another thread if you want to discuss statistical improbabilities ;)

[modest]

A. the half-gassed glass is a surprise (to the observer).

I think so, yeah. It certainly would be to me.

B. the half-gassed glass has a major impact.

Impact? I'm sure it would knock the glass over and probably break it... or do you mean on humanity, like witnessing a miracle? Uh... I guess if what happened was well-documented people would have all kinds of beliefs regarding why it happened, but a "major impact"... ;) Maybe more of a curiosity than something profound.

C after the fact, the half-gassed glass is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

It could be rationalized as an extremely unlikely and rare, yet not impossible, event. If no other reason for the event is found then I suppose that would be the bag scientists would be left holding.

 

Where do A, B, and C come from?

 

 

 

Turtle, this is off topic, nothing to do with the OP :naughty:

You might want to read that OP again :hammer:

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Ok, i see your point but I still think the idea of the air molecules all moving in the same direction and life on other planets is not a legitimate comparison. Like comparing apples and bacteria.

[Turtle]

A. the half-gassed glass is a surprise (to the observer).

I think so, yeah. It certainly would be to me.

 

excellent. affirm A.

 

B. the half-gassed glass has a major impact.

Impact? I'm sure it would knock the glass over and probably break it... or do you mean on humanity, like witnessing a miracle? Uh... I guess if what happened was well-documented people would have all kinds of beliefs regarding why it happened, but a "major impact"... Maybe more of a curiosity than something profound.

 

i don't yet know how to properly qualify "major impact", but we may soon enough. what i had in mind though, was that you quoted this from your article at google books, which i can't read anymore it says 'cause i done used up my free reading limit on it. ;) :lol: :cup: oh, the quote.

The other interesting aspect is that the event necessarily lowers the entropy of the universe.

seems like a major impact to me. B. conditionally affirmed. we press on.

 

C after the fact, the half-gassed glass is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

It could be rationalized as an extremely unlikely and rare, yet not impossible, event. If no other reason for the event is found then I suppose that would be the bag scientists would be left holding.

not only could it be rationalized, you just did rationalize it in your post expounding plexed googls. you clearly showed we could expect it every 36 million years. C. affirmed. :naughty:

 

Where do A, B, and C come from?

 

~modest

 

they come from nassim nicholas taleb and they are used to qualify outliers he terms black swan events. i don't know enough of it yet to say anything rigorous, but the thought certainly comes to mind that life on earth is a black swan event. i may have to buy the book, butt we'll get to the bottom of it.

 

guten abend,

~ schildkröte :hammer:

[modest]

not only could it be rationalized, you just did rationalize it in your post expounding plexed googls. you clearly showed we could expect it every 36 million years. C. affirmed. :thumbs_up

But, no, the 36 million years was for 10 molecules. If the glass were filled with air with billions of billions of molecules then it's absurdly longer. We'd have to wait

[math]10^{10^{21}}[/math]

seconds. Or, perhaps better written 10^{1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000}. I recall that Carl Sagan described a googleplex by saying that writing the number out like "1000..." would be impossible because the visible universe isn't wide enough to hold the number of zeros. The same should apply to this number. It's unimaginable.

 

Ok, i see your point but I still think the idea of the air molecules all moving in the same direction and life on other planets is not a legitimate comparison. Like comparing apples and bacteria.

 

Yeah, I think Sman was comparing them because he thought their likelihood were similar. While I have no way to prove so, I think extraterrestrial life is far too likely to be compared to this type of event.

 

~modest

[modest]

We assume the existence of Dark matter but we have no direct evidence of it, there are other ideas but we assume one over others with no direct evidence of any of them.

 

You say "assume the existence of Dark matter" and "assume one over others" and that is indeed my argument: that "extraterrestrial life exists" is an assumption and not proven.

 

Why is it so important that we have direct evidence of life? Why is it assumed the same chemical elements cannot do the same thing in other planetary systems?

 

I am not assuming that "the same chemical elements cannot do the same thing in other planetary systems" I am saying that no one has proven they must.

 

I honestly do not see why it's so difficultly to assume that conditions around other stars on other planets are similar to those on the earth in our solar system.

 

I think that's a very good assumption, but assuming its validity is not a proper proof.

 

Life is chemistry, not a miracle no more than snow or rust is a miracle.

 

I am not claiming that life is a miracle.

 

When chemicals are present the chemical reactions that can take place do, life is just one of those reactions.

 

Not saying that chemical reactions don't occur—saying that it is fallacious to attribute certitude to an unknown chemical reaction.

 

We assume that hydrogen fusion makes the Sun shine, we have never been there or directly measured it, we even make allowances when the measurements we take to not agree with what we think is happening in the sun because we assume it has to be fusion.

 

Yes, there is very good evidence for the workings of the sun. Maybe one day there will be very good evidence for extraterrestrial life.

 

Up until the 1800's people thought the Sun was made of coal. It was the only known substance that provided a continual source of heat and light. That was a fine assumption for its time, but it was not proof. Claiming that the sun must be made of coal because coal exists on earth and it burns continuously and makes heat and light etc. is not proof of the sun's composition.

 

Likewise, I don't think it is anywhere proven in this thread that life must exist elsewhere in the universe. It would be a wonderful thing to prove, and I think it's probably true, but I wouldn't want to say that it must be true or it has to be true. I don't know the frequency of earth-like planets, nor exactly what the conditions were on earth 4 billion years ago. I don't even know what process started life on earth that makes those conditions favorable, so it seems like a fantastic jump in logic to say the conditions and the process must happen elsewhere.

 

Life is not some odd things that happened miraculously, it's chemistry, it happens as sure as gravity keeps the moon in orbit.

 

Perhaps so. One day we might do this unmiraculous chemistry in a lab and compare it to astronomical spectroscopy and then we should feel comfortable talking about what happens as surely as gravity. Until then, I'd rather talk about the probable existence of extraterrestrial life and not its proven necessity.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

not only could it be rationalized, you just did rationalize it in your post expounding plexed googls. you clearly showed we could expect it every 36 million years. C. affirmed. :thumbs_up

 

But, no, the 36 million years was for 10 molecules. If the glass were filled with air with billions of billions of molecules then it's absurdly longer. We'd have to wait

[math]10^{10^{21}}[/math]

seconds. Or, perhaps better written 10^{1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000}. I recall that Carl Sagan described a googleplex by saying that writing the number out like "1000..." would be impossible because the visible universe isn't wide enough to hold the number of zeros. The same should apply to this number. It's unimaginable.

...

~modest

 

:lol: i was thinking last night after i posted that that was the 10 molecules, but it was late so i didn't come back. nevertheless, it's good enough for who it's for, so let's run with it.

 

first, sagan aside, how long did it take to write

[math]10^{10^{21}}[/math]

? how long for me to imagine it once written? i get a little cheesed when big numbers are thrown up as scary impediments to knowledge. :naughty: billions & billions of stars.... i hear carl is still dead. :hyper:

 

oh yeah, big number. alright, let's take just your 10 molecule black swans expected 1 every 36 million years. now a 14 billion year universe, so we could expect over 300 10 molecule half-gassed glasses to surprisingly, impactily, justifiable-after-the-factily to occur. oui/no? what i'm getting at is that the probability calculation says nothing about when these events, or any probabilistically determined event, happen. when these terms are used, there is a fallacious implication that such things happen "once every" expected time period, when in fact the events could happen in the allotted time all in a row, or not happen at all yet, or a few here, a few there, or in any random order.

 

so in conclusion, i conclude. a little early & blurry here; will check back later. :coffee_n_pc:

[Moontanman]

So I guess the links I provided are just so much useless dribble? The idea that life will occur anywhere the conditions are right or even life is a part of planetary formation and occurs anytime a planet forms at some point is not a minority opinion. It is a logical assumption given the evidence we have about energy driven chemical systems.

 

Just like it's logical to assume fusion powers the sun and not some weird zero point energy source connected with mass or a magnetic energy driven by galaxy wide magnetic fields (yes there is a theory that claims that) Even when measurements of neutrinos didn't even come close to jiving with what would be necessary to have fusion power the sun we changed our ideas about neutrinos instead of investigating the possibility that fusion doesn't run the sun.

 

We assume lots of things with out direct measurements and i really don't see how anyone can say the same elements to not exist everywhere in the universe because they do, we have direct measurements of this fact, and they follow the same laws of chemistry they do in our solar system and on the earth.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to assume life will occur any where it can and that the conditions for life occur freely around other stars at some point in the evolution of a planet.

 

Saying that life is inevitable given the correct conditions is no different than assuming fusion takes places given the correct conditions or that snow takes place given the correct conditions.

 

Assuming the correct conditions exist freely in the universe is no different than assuming the conditions for fusion occur outside the solar system.

 

Organic molecules exist in space independent of planets, organic molecules are everywhere, the conditions for life also exist when ever planets forms, we know planets form quite easily. It's not illogical to assume life also forms when conditions are right.

 

Complex life is a little more iffy since it takes tighter constraints but it is logical to assume complex life forms when the conditions that allow it are also present. Since evolution is driven toward complexity it makes intelligent life look inevitable given the correct conditions as well.

 

Assuming that life is rare or unlikely is not reasonable knowing what we know about chemistry and energy driven chemical systems.

 

I will admit the key here is the "correct conditions" but these conditions are inevitable on some worlds, just the tremendous numbers of planets in the galaxy make it inevitable the correct conditions exits widely in just our galaxy.

[modest]

It is a logical assumption... logical to assume fusion powers the sun... we assume lots of things... assuming the correct conditions exist freely in the universe... it's not illogical to assume life also forms... it is logical to assume complex life...

 

I’ll say again, that is indeed my argument—that "extraterrestrial life exists" is an assumption and not proven. It is, as wiktionary defines the word: “To authenticate by means of belief; to surmise; to suppose to be true, especially without proof.”

 

"It is logical to assume x" is not an argument against "x is an assumption".

 

The idea that life will occur anywhere the conditions are right... is not a minority opinion.

 

The idea that life will form anywhere conditions are correct for its formation is mostly tautological, so I wouldn’t imagine scientists, or myself, doubting it.

 

Just like it's logical to assume fusion powers the sun and not some weird zero point energy source connected with mass or a magnetic energy driven by galaxy wide magnetic fields (yes there is a theory that claims that) Even when measurements of neutrinos didn't even come close to jiving with what would be necessary to have fusion power the sun we changed our ideas about neutrinos instead of investigating the possibility that fusion doesn't run the sun.

 

There is no standard model of abiogenesis. There is a standard model for the sun. The difference arises because abiogenesis is an unknown process while fusion is not only the result of a falsifiable theory, it has been experimentally tested—as for example with hydrogen bombs.

 

i really don't see how anyone can say the same elements to not exist everywhere in the universe because they do

 

I also cannot imagine anyone saying that.

 

The necessary conditions for the formation of a diamond are more than "carbon is present". I don't know the sequence of chemical / physical / radiological events that led to the first nucleic acid (for example). No one does. But, it is at least a possibility that the process is extremely rare—that the conditions necessary are such an odd combination as to be surprising they happened once and unreasonable to expect twice. I would doubt that is the case, but not knowing how it happened I can't prove it one way or another.

 

Assuming the correct conditions exist freely in the universe is no different than assuming the conditions for fusion occur outside the solar system.

 

Assuming that an unknown process requiring unknown conditions exists throughout the universe is different from assuming a known process requiring known conditions exists.

 

I will admit the key here is the "correct conditions" but these conditions are inevitable on some worlds, just the tremendous numbers of planets in the galaxy make it inevitable the correct conditions exits widely in just our galaxy.

 

How many planets are there in our galaxy with a star +/- 20% solar mass with a liquid water planet +/- 50% earth mass +/- 0.1 au? What are their names?

 

Is the 8th step in the sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acid on earth inevitable on those planets? Is the step an irreversible process that lowers the entropy of the universe? As such, is it extremely statistically unlikely even when environmental conditions are favorable?

 

Since we can't evaluate the 8th step of an unknown process deductively any more than we can the 7th or the 9th, we have to judge the probability inductively. With only one data point for life we can't judge its statistical likelihood and couldn't apply it to an unknown number of suitable planets anyway.

 

Therefore, I'm afraid your statement that "the correct conditions exit widely in just our galaxy" is completely unsupportable with our current knowledge. If we only apply the scientific method when it supports the hypothesis then the method looses ARGH loses its most powerful attribute: falsifiability.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

That fusion occurs in the center of the sun is not falsifiable either but I don't see anyone pointing it out. H-bombs prove nothing about the sun.

 

I don't think we need to know exactly how life happens in detail to be able to say energy driven chemical systems involving the conditions of planetary formation result in life. Life is not a special event, it is chemistry, carbon chemistry to be sure but still just chemistry. Far more reason to think it is what happens when a earth like planet forms than it is to think of it as some wild inexplicable freak of nature. When the right chemicals come together driven by geological energy you get life.

 

All the detractors of abiogenesis, not to mention evolution depend on life being an unlikely event that requires the intervention of a supernatural deity. I think the evidence points to the opposite, life is just as inevitable as fusion is in a large enough mass of hydrogen.

 

I understand it hasn't been proved or measured directly but just like the evidence that fusion powers the sun the evidence is overwhelming that life forms naturally, easily and quite quickly when an earth like planet forms, possibly when any planet forms at some point so does life, whether or not life persists depends on how long the correct conditions persist. There is no reason to assume or even postulate there is some weird or unusual chemical that has to be present for life to start. This idea ignores the reality of both chemistry and what we know about life.

 

The links i provided asserts no special chemicals or unusual conditions exist to allow life nor does any evidence point in that direction, the evidence points exactly the opposite direction.

[Boerseun]

We have never seen it rain on an alien planet. Yet, we can say that it is inevitable to have it rain on other planets, because that is how liquids act under certain circumstances.

 

Yes / no?