I may have seen it. I saw some documentary about how unique earth is. Certain things are necessary for life as we know it.
If I can remember,
1. Earth is just the right distance from the sun. Not to hot (Venus) Not to cold (Mars)
2. Earth's moon is just a certain size to affect the tides.
3. Earth's mass is just enough so its gravity can hold the atmosphere
4. Earth's chemical composition has the chemicals necessary for life
5. The magnetic field protects us from certain radiation
There was more. Basically, the more you look into what it takes for a planet to contain life as we know it, the more unlikely it becomes to find it on other planets. I believe they took some of the calculations astronomers have made to predict life on other planets and added these other factors. The probability greatly dropped.
Basically, the more you look into what it takes for a planet to contain life as we know it, the more unlikely it becomes to find it on other planets.
Yet, even with those 'unlikely odds', when taken into account the (Carl Sagan accent on) 'billions and billions and billions' (Carl Sagan accent off ;)) of stars, in the billions and billions of galaxies in the (known) universe, the odds of us being 'the Only ones', even on its face, ... drops. Significantly.Here's more of an in depth look at expanding what I'm talking about. ... True, it isn't proven, but I think that, even with a cursory understanding of statistical math, the man provides a rather valid point:
Yet, even with those 'unlikely odds', when taken into account the (Carl Sagan accent on) 'billions and billions and billions' (Carl Sagan accent off ;)) of stars, in the billions and billions of galaxies in the (known) universe, the odds of us being 'the Only ones', even on its face, ... drops. Significantly.
Here's more of an in depth look at expanding what I'm talking about. ... True, it isn't proven, but I think that, even with a cursory understanding of statistical math, the man provides a rather valid point:
. . .
Enjoy!
That is the equation I was referring to Garth. Thanks.
Now take that equation from our high school science class, and add the factors in my above post. (Better yet, see the documentary Belle mentioned.) The numbers get significantly smaller.
You didn't stop the video when Carl said that there would probably be 10 other systems in the galaxy, did you?
From my perspective, I just have a very hard time believing that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe. Sorry chief, but my 'gut reaction', coupled with just the massive amounts of other stars throughout the galaxy alone, let alone counting the billions and billions of other galaxies, ... Nope, no sale. And even just having it at 10 is (AFAIC) highly unlikely.
True, I'm a lowly science layman, and can give you no scientific research, copiuos amounts of data, and Mr. Spock to prove my point. ... Then again, niether do you. So from that perspective, its a stalemate.
You didn't stop the video when Carl said that there would probably be 10 other systems in the galaxy, did you?
From my perspective, I just have a very hard time believing that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe. Sorry chief, but my 'gut reaction', coupled with just the massive amounts of other stars throughout the galaxy alone, let alone counting the billions and billions of other galaxies, ... Nope, no sale. And even just having it at 10 is (AFAIC) highly unlikely.
True, I'm a lowly science layman, and can give you no scientific research, copiuos amounts of data, and Mr. Spock to prove my point. ... Then again, niether do you. So from that perspective, its a stalemate.
Until, .....
I can multiply numbers in scientific notation though. What year would you say that video was made?
And yes, its a stalemate, who the heck knows what's out there.
That site looks like the documentary is Intelligent Design propaganda disguised as science. I haven't seen it, but the guys involved are ID advocates, so their science is highly questionable.
As far as Sagan is concerned, whoever wrote that took his quote out of context in an attempt to mislead the readers. Sagan wasn't trying to make the Earth look insignificant, but rather give an idea of just how huge the universe is. You won't get that from the small portion quoted, but it's a pretty dramatic read that I highly recommend. The Earth is a tiny place, and there are likely other worlds out there that have life (as Sagan theorized as well) it's just that we haven't discovered them and probably never will because of the immense distances and size of the universe.
The photo that inspired Sagan to write that was this:
As far as the purpose of Earth and of our lives, it's up to each person to make our lives mean something. This documentary might point out some great things about our planet, but in the grand scheme of things it's so fragile and tiny that we could be snuffed out at any instant by a meteor or supernova. Our limitations prevent us from seeing for certain if there are other Earth-like planets out there, although we can tell that there probably are.
I've seen the video (an exWayfer friend of mine still tries his best to evangelize me from time to time - though no doubt out of the best of intentions), and was, uh, unimpressed.
There's a logical fallacy they commit with a vengence throughout the film. I think the term for the LF is "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", or something like that (maybe some of you logic grads out there can help me out?). Anyway, the gist of it is, taking what already exists and then try to figure out the odds of it happening. Uh, you can't work it from that end of things, sorry.
Like if you're dealt a hand in Poker and you get a Royal Flush. WOW! That's incredible! Do you know what the odds are of getting a hand like that? Well, yeah, they're exactly the same odds of getting my usual hand - a two of clubs, a six of clubs, a nine of diamonds, a four of hearts and a Jack of spades.
Nobody gets a zero hand and marvels at the odds now do they? Yet, if you figure out the math, the odds of getting any particular hand are astronomical. But the odds of getting dealt some hand are certain, if you're playing.
The odds of any individual winning their state's lottery twice in a year are beyond miniscule, yet a lady in New Jersey did that awhile back. But if you figure the amount of people playing the lottery nationwide everyday, the odds that SOMEBODY would do that are almost certain. You just can't figure out who it'll be, till after it happens.
There's also a lot of stuff in the film sorta like "Wow!, if the mold we made this vase with was any different, this vase wouldn't look like this!" Uh, yeah...
You do make some good points, as does Garth. I'm not proselytizing the film by any means. I just found it rather interesting and knew we have some rather intelligent folks on here, including some experts on the subject and was curious as to the thought of others.
I have periodically wondered about life on other planets and how much we really do know about the universe. The film does present quite a remarkable set of "qualifications" for a planet to be able to host "complex" life forms beyond algae and the lowly amoeba. But, the universe is a huge place and we haven't even scratched the surface of all that's out there.
I dunno, I always thought it'd be really cool to find another planet like ours. I wonder if they've polluted it and killed off many of their species like we have.
Good points made here about the film. I'd like to add two others:
We look at what is now and incorrectly believe that's all there is! I doubt that's the case; there's probably more planetary systems out there that we will find as our technology increases and we can either see farther, or can differentiate between all of the things we see now.
And when we look at our universe and consider it's size, we forget that it is always changing. Star cycles have been described, for example. We know our planet has undergone numerous changes over it's lifetime and for most of its existence it was also uninhabitable. How can we tell which of the "uninhabitable" planets which we see now really are what we see. We see things tonite as they were thousands of years ago (in some cases) because that's how long it takes for light to get here to show us. Who knows what, if anything has happened to any of those planetary bodies during that time to increase or decrease the probability of finding life there.
Such fascinating ideas that both intrigue and fascinate us. And we use the phrase "life as we know it" - would we be able to recognize something living if it wasn't "as we know it".
Thanks cman for that link. You'd better believe I'm going to play around with that one!
There's also a lot of stuff in the film sorta like "Wow!, if the mold we made this vase with was any different, this vase wouldn't look like this!" Uh, yeah...
I haven't seen the film, and I think I get your point George. But on the other hand, you don't care about getting the other hands, just the winning hands. But if there is a deck with only Royal Flush cards of one suit, then the odds of getting the royal flush go way up. So the question of what the odds are is significant, if you are looking for a particular result.
So the odds of getting that particular meaningless hand are the same as the royal flush, but the royal flush is a planet that can support life. So whether that is a one in a hundred thing, or a one in a bazillion thing seems significant.
Some believe that life just sorta pops up in those places that can support it. To me, logic says even those meaningless hands or planets shouldn't even exist. Who made the bang big? Why are there forces, why are they constant? If there is a wall at the end of the universe, what is on the other side ... impossible questions that lead to silly scientific answers like curved space, worm holes, and relativity.
But to have something as unexplainable as life and death multiplies the "odds" (of something I see as already impossible) by another 1/bazillion. And then to multiply the odds of something as strange as consciousness ("number 5 is alive" ... or whatever the quote is from "Frankenstein" when lightning gives him life) ... makes the chances a bazillion times more unlikely.
But basically I'm just saying the specialness of life and a royal flush are determined by how many cards are in the deck. It seems that is what the film looks at, and I don't see why that is a logical fallacy.
If there is a wall at the end of the universe, what is on the other side ... impossible questions that lead to silly scientific answers like curved space, worm holes, and relativity.
Good question, and one thats driven me crazy over the years even contemplating. Infinity just doesn't process well in my brain.
But religion doesn't seem to have any good answers here either, it just ignores the question, it seems.
But with probabilities it's the outcome that skews our perceptions I think. Nobody spends a lot of time marveling at the fact that Venus is the only planet in the solar system where you can melt lead at it's surface temperature do they? Why? Because maybe we don't view melting lead as the "right" outcome. But life on earth seems like it was the "right" thing to happen to us doesn't it? Gee, I wonder why that is?
So human life developed on a planet that had the necessary elements to support human life. Wow! Remarkable! But not as remarkable as if human life developed on a planet that couldn't support it, now is it?
And yes, if you agree with the concept, the logical fallacy is the entire basis of the film...
oh, and there's this tidbit from The Skeptic's Dictionary:http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk45.html
So human life developed on a planet that had the necessary elements to support human life. Wow! Remarkable! But not as remarkable as if human life developed on a planet that couldn't support it, now is it?
Well, life does seem to be the Royal Flush. Rocks and laws of physics are pretty amazing too, but I'd have to say life trumps all that.
With just a little understanding of science, it would be easy to claim the life of any kind is much more probable on an Earth like environment than a lead melting environment. There are only so many elements it seems, and having most of them in a gaseous or solid state doesn't seem to support life.
Christianity doesn't really offer anything. Even if God created it, that doesn't really help us understand how God did it. Maybe we'll never be more informed than the Ford was about Henry! :)
Recommended Posts
waysider
All in all, we're just another brick in the wall-------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I may have seen it. I saw some documentary about how unique earth is. Certain things are necessary for life as we know it.
If I can remember,
1. Earth is just the right distance from the sun. Not to hot (Venus) Not to cold (Mars)
2. Earth's moon is just a certain size to affect the tides.
3. Earth's mass is just enough so its gravity can hold the atmosphere
4. Earth's chemical composition has the chemicals necessary for life
5. The magnetic field protects us from certain radiation
There was more. Basically, the more you look into what it takes for a planet to contain life as we know it, the more unlikely it becomes to find it on other planets. I believe they took some of the calculations astronomers have made to predict life on other planets and added these other factors. The probability greatly dropped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I think the universe is a reflection of what we are.
And so as not to get doctrinal or spiritual.
Why is there so much universe when all we need is a bit of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Enjoy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That is the equation I was referring to Garth. Thanks.
Now take that equation from our high school science class, and add the factors in my above post. (Better yet, see the documentary Belle mentioned.) The numbers get significantly smaller.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Bolshevik,
You didn't stop the video when Carl said that there would probably be 10 other systems in the galaxy, did you?
From my perspective, I just have a very hard time believing that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe. Sorry chief, but my 'gut reaction', coupled with just the massive amounts of other stars throughout the galaxy alone, let alone counting the billions and billions of other galaxies, ... Nope, no sale. And even just having it at 10 is (AFAIC) highly unlikely.
True, I'm a lowly science layman, and can give you no scientific research, copiuos amounts of data, and Mr. Spock to prove my point. ... Then again, niether do you. So from that perspective, its a stalemate.
Until, .....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I can multiply numbers in scientific notation though. What year would you say that video was made?
And yes, its a stalemate, who the heck knows what's out there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Belle,
That site looks like the documentary is Intelligent Design propaganda disguised as science. I haven't seen it, but the guys involved are ID advocates, so their science is highly questionable.
As far as Sagan is concerned, whoever wrote that took his quote out of context in an attempt to mislead the readers. Sagan wasn't trying to make the Earth look insignificant, but rather give an idea of just how huge the universe is. You won't get that from the small portion quoted, but it's a pretty dramatic read that I highly recommend. The Earth is a tiny place, and there are likely other worlds out there that have life (as Sagan theorized as well) it's just that we haven't discovered them and probably never will because of the immense distances and size of the universe.
The photo that inspired Sagan to write that was this:
As far as the purpose of Earth and of our lives, it's up to each person to make our lives mean something. This documentary might point out some great things about our planet, but in the grand scheme of things it's so fragile and tiny that we could be snuffed out at any instant by a meteor or supernova. Our limitations prevent us from seeing for certain if there are other Earth-like planets out there, although we can tell that there probably are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I've seen the video (an exWayfer friend of mine still tries his best to evangelize me from time to time - though no doubt out of the best of intentions), and was, uh, unimpressed.
There's a logical fallacy they commit with a vengence throughout the film. I think the term for the LF is "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", or something like that (maybe some of you logic grads out there can help me out?). Anyway, the gist of it is, taking what already exists and then try to figure out the odds of it happening. Uh, you can't work it from that end of things, sorry.
Like if you're dealt a hand in Poker and you get a Royal Flush. WOW! That's incredible! Do you know what the odds are of getting a hand like that? Well, yeah, they're exactly the same odds of getting my usual hand - a two of clubs, a six of clubs, a nine of diamonds, a four of hearts and a Jack of spades.
Nobody gets a zero hand and marvels at the odds now do they? Yet, if you figure out the math, the odds of getting any particular hand are astronomical. But the odds of getting dealt some hand are certain, if you're playing.
The odds of any individual winning their state's lottery twice in a year are beyond miniscule, yet a lady in New Jersey did that awhile back. But if you figure the amount of people playing the lottery nationwide everyday, the odds that SOMEBODY would do that are almost certain. You just can't figure out who it'll be, till after it happens.
There's also a lot of stuff in the film sorta like "Wow!, if the mold we made this vase with was any different, this vase wouldn't look like this!" Uh, yeah...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Some of you might be interested in this program.
http://www.stellarium.org/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
You do make some good points, as does Garth. I'm not proselytizing the film by any means. I just found it rather interesting and knew we have some rather intelligent folks on here, including some experts on the subject and was curious as to the thought of others.
I have periodically wondered about life on other planets and how much we really do know about the universe. The film does present quite a remarkable set of "qualifications" for a planet to be able to host "complex" life forms beyond algae and the lowly amoeba. But, the universe is a huge place and we haven't even scratched the surface of all that's out there.
I dunno, I always thought it'd be really cool to find another planet like ours. I wonder if they've polluted it and killed off many of their species like we have.
That's a really cool link, cman. Thanks! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Good points made here about the film. I'd like to add two others:
We look at what is now and incorrectly believe that's all there is! I doubt that's the case; there's probably more planetary systems out there that we will find as our technology increases and we can either see farther, or can differentiate between all of the things we see now.
And when we look at our universe and consider it's size, we forget that it is always changing. Star cycles have been described, for example. We know our planet has undergone numerous changes over it's lifetime and for most of its existence it was also uninhabitable. How can we tell which of the "uninhabitable" planets which we see now really are what we see. We see things tonite as they were thousands of years ago (in some cases) because that's how long it takes for light to get here to show us. Who knows what, if anything has happened to any of those planetary bodies during that time to increase or decrease the probability of finding life there.
Such fascinating ideas that both intrigue and fascinate us. And we use the phrase "life as we know it" - would we be able to recognize something living if it wasn't "as we know it".
Thanks cman for that link. You'd better believe I'm going to play around with that one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I haven't seen the film, and I think I get your point George. But on the other hand, you don't care about getting the other hands, just the winning hands. But if there is a deck with only Royal Flush cards of one suit, then the odds of getting the royal flush go way up. So the question of what the odds are is significant, if you are looking for a particular result.
So the odds of getting that particular meaningless hand are the same as the royal flush, but the royal flush is a planet that can support life. So whether that is a one in a hundred thing, or a one in a bazillion thing seems significant.
Some believe that life just sorta pops up in those places that can support it. To me, logic says even those meaningless hands or planets shouldn't even exist. Who made the bang big? Why are there forces, why are they constant? If there is a wall at the end of the universe, what is on the other side ... impossible questions that lead to silly scientific answers like curved space, worm holes, and relativity.
But to have something as unexplainable as life and death multiplies the "odds" (of something I see as already impossible) by another 1/bazillion. And then to multiply the odds of something as strange as consciousness ("number 5 is alive" ... or whatever the quote is from "Frankenstein" when lightning gives him life) ... makes the chances a bazillion times more unlikely.
But basically I'm just saying the specialness of life and a royal flush are determined by how many cards are in the deck. It seems that is what the film looks at, and I don't see why that is a logical fallacy.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Good question, and one thats driven me crazy over the years even contemplating. Infinity just doesn't process well in my brain.
But religion doesn't seem to have any good answers here either, it just ignores the question, it seems.
But with probabilities it's the outcome that skews our perceptions I think. Nobody spends a lot of time marveling at the fact that Venus is the only planet in the solar system where you can melt lead at it's surface temperature do they? Why? Because maybe we don't view melting lead as the "right" outcome. But life on earth seems like it was the "right" thing to happen to us doesn't it? Gee, I wonder why that is?
So human life developed on a planet that had the necessary elements to support human life. Wow! Remarkable! But not as remarkable as if human life developed on a planet that couldn't support it, now is it?
And yes, if you agree with the concept, the logical fallacy is the entire basis of the film...
oh, and there's this tidbit from The Skeptic's Dictionary:http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk45.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You could always consider that life could be in forms not like our own. (not carbon-based)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well, life does seem to be the Royal Flush. Rocks and laws of physics are pretty amazing too, but I'd have to say life trumps all that.
With just a little understanding of science, it would be easy to claim the life of any kind is much more probable on an Earth like environment than a lead melting environment. There are only so many elements it seems, and having most of them in a gaseous or solid state doesn't seem to support life.
Christianity doesn't really offer anything. Even if God created it, that doesn't really help us understand how God did it. Maybe we'll never be more informed than the Ford was about Henry! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.