All About UFO's

[Petrushka]

Biogenesis is not a high bar, given an earth like planet.

But 90 percent of earth’s history did not include animals. 99.5 percent of the history of animals did not include humans.

Humans almost went extinct.

There is nothing about the rules of evolution that lead to any predestined outcome. Whatever survives survives.

 

[JeffS7444]

What if Homo Sapiens is the most technologically advanced species to ever arise in the universe?

 

[Chester]

Seems like an update to the Fermi Paradox if I follow correctly, an attempt at calculating a probability for life on other planets, and it's not optimistic:

Kipping D & Lewis G
(2024). "Do SETI Optimists Have a
Fine-Tuning Problem?"

International
Journal of Astrobiology

1Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, 550 W 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
2Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, A28, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Abstract
In ecological systems, be it a petri dish or a galaxy, populations evolve from some initial value
(say zero) up to a steady state equilibrium, when the mean number of births and deaths per unit
time are equal. This equilibrium point is a function of the birth and death rates, as well as the
carrying capacity of the ecological system itself. The growth curve is S-shaped, saturating at
the carrying capacity for large birth-to-death rate ratios and tending to zero at the other end.
We argue that our astronomical observations appear inconsistent with a cosmos saturated with
ETIs, and thus SETI optimists are left presuming that the true population is somewhere along
the transitional part of this S-curve. Since the birth and death rates are a-priori unbounded,
we argue that this presents a fine-tuning problem. Further, we show that if the birth-to-death
rate ratio is assumed to have a log-uniform prior distribution, then the probability distribution
of the ecological filling fraction is bi-modal - peaking at zero and unity. Indeed, the resulting
distribution is formally the classic Haldane prior, conceived to describe the prior expectation of a
Bernoulli experiment, such as a technological intelligence developing (or not) on a given world.
Our results formally connect the Drake Equation to the birth-death formalism, the treatment of
ecological carrying capacity and their connection to the Haldane perspective.

Paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OxsjoOm8yJA7V3Yn_qt_sKshX8EYGT9U/edit

Kippings point is more that the Fermi Paradox is often mis-used to create the outcome desired by the person using it. They have added additional parameters which they believe make it more realistic and less open to mis-use.

He has a great YouTube channel and podcast, Cool Worlds Lab.

 

[terryforsythe]

What if Homo Sapiens is the most technologically advanced species to ever arise in the universe?

Not impossible. But, given the sheer number of galaxies just in the part of the universe visible to us, and the number of solar systems in each galaxy, I think it is highly improbable.

 

[WillBrink]

Biogenesis is not a high bar, given an earth like planet.

As we are currently n =1 on that, it's impossible to know with any certainty. I tend to agree, and there's likely millions of earth like planets in our galaxy alone, but it's (educated) speculation that Abiogenesis is likley given the right circumstances.

But 90 percent of earth’s history did not include animals. 99.5 percent of the history of animals did not include humans.

Humans almost went extinct.

There is nothing about the rules of evolution that lead to any predestined outcome. Whatever survives survives.

By the very fact we are here, it's undeniable without actual evidence higher intelligence was involved, it happened cuz it simply happened given enough time and interactions between the ingredients of life. I'm not closed to the idea per se that panspermia, ranging from microbes to advanced NHI involved, to even God(s) if evidence supported it. But, until that time, we work with Abiogenesis as most likely.

 

[WillBrink]

Kippings point is more that the Fermi Paradox is often mis-used to create the outcome desired by the person using it. They have added additional parameters which they believe make it more realistic and less open to mis-use.

He has a great YouTube channel and podcast, Cool Worlds Lab.

I posted his vid above.

 

[Chester]

I posted his vid above.

Congrats

 

[Chester]

By the very fact we are here, it's undeniable without actual evidence higher intelligence was involved

It’s totally deniable, how could we even make such a claim with zero evidence?

 

[JeffS7444]

Not impossible. But, given the sheer number of galaxies just the in part of the universe visible to us, and the number of solar systems in each galaxy, I think it is highly improbable.

Hominids like us got a series of incredibly lucky breaks, such as surviving extinction-level events which killed off the previous dominant life forms. And we happened to have binocular vision and opposable thumbs, which are awesome for manipulating objects.

 

[Chester]

Hominids like us got a series of incredibly lucky breaks, such as surviving extinction-level events which killed off the previous dominant life forms. And we happened to have opposable thumbs, which are awesome for manipulating objects.

And we evolved early enough to hopefully become a multi planetary species before the sun engulfs the earth.

Not saying it’s likely or unlikely, just that a lot of things have had to align for us to be where we are today. How often that happens, we do not know.

 

[WillBrink]

It’s totally deniable, how could we even make such a claim with zero evidence?

Your reading comp, as well as your manners, needs work. That's out of context to the entire thought/sentence I made on the topic.

 

[WillBrink]

Hominids like us got a series of incredibly lucky breaks, such as surviving extinction-level events which killed off the previous dominant life forms. And we happened to have binocular vision and opposable thumbs, which are awesome for manipulating objects.

Or, some advanced NHI has been part of that history for a long long time. Some don't believe the "luck" we experienced was not assisted. It's an interesting idea.

 

[JeffS7444]

Another challenge for any would-be sentient species is: How to fuel a large brain?

And if living conditions are easy, why develop a big brain in the first place?

 

[Chester]

Your reading comp, as well as your manners, needs work. That's out of context to the entire thought/sentence I made on the topic.

That’s a direct quote from you…..you wrote it. It’s not misinterpreted. Granted, your post made little sense but you did write that.

If it’s out of context to your entire thought on the topic, as you’ve suggested, then I apologise. I can’t read or interpret your thoughts, of which I am quite thankful.

 

[Chester]

Or, some NIH has been part of that history

Non Intelligent Human?

 

[WillBrink]

That’s a direct quote from you…..you wrote it. It’s not misinterpreted. Granted, your post made little sense but you did write that.

Which you cut intentionally, or just poor reading comp. Take your pick there. As you have no interest in anything but looking for "gotcha" BS vs discussing the topic, added to ignore file.

 

[WillBrink]

Another challenge for any would-be sentient species is: How to fuel a large brain?

And if living conditions are easy, why develop a big brain in the first place?

That's in line with the Q of whether given life and enough time, is intelligence a normal aspect of evolution? Opposable thumbs, forward eyes, and language are the traits that they think lead to the higher intelligence, at least according to Dr Kaku:

 

[terryforsythe]

Hominids like us got a series of incredibly lucky breaks, such as surviving extinction-level events which killed off the previous dominant life forms. And we happened to have binocular vision and opposable thumbs, which are awesome for manipulating objects.

From Wikipedia:

"A 2016 study published in The Astrophysical Journal, led by Christopher Conselice of the University of Nottingham, used 20 years of Hubble images to estimate that the observable universe contained at least two trillion (2×1012) galaxies."

"Galaxies, averaging an estimated 100 million stars,[3] range in size from dwarfs with less than a thousand stars,[4] to the largest galaxies known – supergiants with one hundred trillion stars, each orbiting its galaxy's center of mass."

Multiplying 2 x 10^12 for the number of galaxies, and 1 x 10^8 as the average number of stars per galaxy, that gives us 2 x 10^20 stars. That is in the observable universe alone, and does not even consider galaxies and stars outside of the visible portion of the universe. The total number of galaxies and stars could dwarf those numbers.

We did have a series of incredibly lucky breaks, but given the number of stars in the universe, it is unlikely we are the only ones that have been so lucky. As the Copernican principle states, Earth is not the center of the universe and humans are not privileged observers of the universe.

 

[Petrushka]

And we evolved early enough to hopefully become a multi planetary species before the sun engulfs the earth.

Not saying it’s likely or unlikely, just that a lot of things have had to align for us to be where we are today. How often that happens, we do not know.

I forgot to mention that civilization emerged with less than ten percent of the earth’s history left. In a few hundred million years, we’ll be cooked.

 

[Petrushka]

From Wikipedia:

"A 2016 study published in The Astrophysical Journal, led by Christopher Conselice of the University of Nottingham, used 20 years of Hubble images to estimate that the observable universe contained at least two trillion (2×1012) galaxies."

"Galaxies, averaging an estimated 100 million stars,[3] range in size from dwarfs with less than a thousand stars,[4] to the largest galaxies known – supergiants with one hundred trillion stars, each orbiting its galaxy's center of mass."

Multiplying 2 x 10^12 for the number of galaxies, and 1 x 10^8 as the average number of stars per galaxy, that gives us 2 x 10^20 stars. That is in the observable universe alone, and does not even consider galaxies and stars outside of the visible portion of the universe. The total number of galaxies and stars could dwarf those numbers.

We did have a series of incredibly lucky breaks, but given the number of stars in the universe, it is unlikely we are the only ones that have been so lucky. As the Copernican principle states, Earth is not the center of the universe and humans are not privileged observers of the universe.

There are something like 10^30 microbes in your gut.

Your number seems big, but it isn’t.