Do you think ET life exists elsewhere?

[kyphysics]

Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and Christian apologist. His assessment that the odds of life arising naturally are essentially zero, supports his belief in a Creator. One wonders to what extent his religious beliefs might impact upon his calculations.

He has written or contributed to a score of books and I am not clear in which one he lays out the 147 requirements for life. Without access to those 147 requirements it is impossible to address them, but we might be reasonably suspicious of how he has been able to assign specific and reliable numbers to each of the 147 requirments, when such specificity has eluded most experts across the number of fields they are likely to cover.

I'm not sure why a Christian faith would impact one's research into this area, though, Ophiolite. I don't know of a single Christian academic and apologist (though, I think some do exist ...they're just not respected ones from what I would surmise) who believes the Christian God necessarily only "created" humans on Earth. All of the top Christian academic apologists see no contradiction between Christianity and life having been created/developed elsewhere in the universe. And that's also the position of the world's most renowned academic Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.

But supposing it were true that there was a possible bias, it's not to say that one cannot be objective still. We do this all the time in other areas of life. In America, at least, racial bias is a very common unconscious bias. Numerous psychology, social psychology, and FMRI studies show that people have unconscious racial biases. Yet, we're able to keep them in check by first acknowledging that we have or may have these biases. Then we can actively ask ourselves questions like: "Would I think of this or that in the same way if the subject were of my own ethnicity/racial background or that of the dominant group?" Admittedly, it can be tough to always identify potential situations where our biases arise. But I think once you get into the mindset that we do often have them and actively try to combat them and attempt to be objective, then it's possible to control for them - all the more so when your work is in science, where results can often be easily proven/disproven.

By the eway, the 147 conditions figure is found in his book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men.

He also discusses that figure in this video interview on the same book:



There are some examples of specific conditions too...though he doesn't list all 147...which would take a long time and probably get boring too! It's around the 7 minute 50 second mark that he talks about this. Let me know what you think. Could be fun to discuss.

 

[Ophiolite]

I made my post in order to provide background and to note two areas where skepticism might be applied, not to initiate a discussion that could very rapidly breach forum rules. Thank you for the information on the source of the "147 requirements" and for the video link.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I note that one person has voted "I am not sure ". On reflection that is probably the most objective and scientific conclusion one can reach on current evidence.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure why a Christian faith would impact one's research into this area, though, Ophiolite. I don't know of a single Christian academic and apologist (though, I think some do exist ...they're just not respected ones from what I would surmise) who believes the Christian God necessarily only "created" humans on Earth. All of the top Christian academic apologists see no contradiction between Christianity and life having been created/developed elsewhere in the universe. And that's also the position of the world's most renowned academic Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.

That surprises me; I always thought the uniqueness of Earth was a requirement and aliens a can of worms best not opened. However, I know that there has been re-interpretation to keep the gulf between science and religion from getting too large. So maybe that has changed. I don't want to go into details though. What matters is this:

But supposing it were true that there was a possible bias, it's not to say that one cannot be objective still.

Certainly, but having a strong and directly applicable bias makes it hard to overcome.

I may wade into his 127 points a bit though...

 

[russ_watters]

Meanwhile, back on topic, I note that one person has voted "I am not sure ". On reflection that is probably the most objective and scientific conclusion one can reach on current evidence.

Meh. I hear that sentiment a lot from scientists, but I think it is overdone. Making predictions is what moves science forward and a prediction is by definition speculative so it doesn't require caveat when worded properly. It's already obvious that no one is sure.

I think what is really intended is true uncertainty even of the prediction (choice B, below). Worded better, I'd say:

Hypothesis: Alien life exists.
Question: what is your confidence level that this is correct?
A. 0-33% (probably/definitely not)
B. 33-67% (not sure)
C. 67-99.99...9% (likely/certainly)

 

[Khashishi]

Christians believe that God created man in his image (and women from men). If we find aliens, and they look like humans, it's a compelling argument for God. But if they don't look like humans, Christians will probably have to "reinterpret" the meaning of the passage.

 

[PeroK]

I would concur with Arman777 in that there are a large number of conditions that have to be met for life (of any kind) to be evolved and sustained such that it's wildly improbable that there is life elsewhere in the universe. And it's not just a large number of conditions, but conditions that must be narrowly defined too.

Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, has done calculations that would make it more likely for a person to win the lottery 1 million consecutive times than for there to be life elsewhere in the universe. He lists 147 conditions that absolutely must be met at minimum (with possibly more) for life to develop on a planet. The odds of all of those conditions occurring in the perfect planet are 10¹⁶⁴. By contrast, he says that the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe is 10⁷⁹. And for a more intuitive grasp of how improbable those odds are, he says the probability of someone being killed in the next few seconds by a sudden reversal of the second law of thermodynamics is roughly 1 chance in 10⁸⁰. But we know that it's such a ridiculously small probability that everyone is justified in not worrying about that chance happening to them at any moment.

Essentially, Ross says, "The probability is indistinguishable from zero."

I think most people are justified in thinking we're pretty much alone. It's not impossible for other life to exist, but the odds are against it.

The flaw in this argument is, of course, that to claim that something has a probability of zero, then there must be a zero probability that your calculations are wrong.

That condition cannot be met with a subject such as alien life.

That Ross could be wrong has a non-zero probability.

 

[symbolipoint]

Would you consider unicorns possible if you lived on a world where all large mammals have a single horn on their head.

Rhinoceros?

 

[nitsuj]

I answered "probably" to the question in the title, but you didn't specify intelligent life in the title. I would say that in the next 25 years we will discover life, but will likely not ever have two-way communication with another intelligent life form.
[Late edit; fixed quote]

I agree 100% with the distinction between human level intelligence & dexterity to that of the other life we know of being significant, add to that the exponential growth in "knowledge"...

 

[Evo]

I'll repeat this here because I think it's worth considering. We may think we are at the top of the intelligence chain, but maybe not.

Even if there was "intelligent" life, that doesn't mean we could communicate with it. Maybe it's far more advanced. Can intelligence operate on more than one level? I assume you are thinking of the current human level of intelligence. We could be like chimpanzees, or less, to a more advanced species.

Maybe there are very advanced/different intelligent species out there, maybe they are ignoring us or not recognizing the signals we are sending as intelligent.

 

[phinds]

Maybe there are very advanced/different intelligent species out there, maybe they are ignoring us or not recognizing the signals we are sending as intelligent.

Evo, I don't think that's likely. I certainly believe that there could be species that are more intelligent than us but I think any that have the level of communication expertise to receive our signals is VERY likely to realized immediately that they are not random noise and have to be from an intelligent species.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I don't think that's likely. I certainly believe that there could be species that are more intelligent than us but I think any that have the level of communication expertise to receive our signals is VERY likely to realized immediately that they are not random noise and have to be from an intelligent species.

Prove it. My oldest daughter is so far off the scale, I'd wonder. But she's brilliant and gifted.

I wonder if there is intelligence we don't recognize, or wouldn't be recognized, something so alien to us. Something we can't comprehend. Why would everything have to follow our rules? I know "laws of physics", etc..., but what if communication was random? Isn't it random? Some languages are nothing more than clicks.

And Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not sure why a Christian faith would impact one's research into this area, though, Ophiolite.

Because he included the word naturally.

We already have at least one example of life arising. Since that kinda flies in the face of his assertion that it would be equivalent to ' a million lottery wins in a row', he is certainly arguing that Earth life arose the only way he sees as probable: unnaturally.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even if there was "intelligent" life, that doesn't mean we could communicate with it.

If they are as advanced as, or more advanced than us, then they will have discovered mathematics.
They will know that a circle has a radius of 2*pi. They're know a bunch of other universal constants as well.

You can establish true/false, and then you can establish a number system and formulae. From there, you can establish more subtle things, such as more than/less than.

Once you have common ground, you can begin writing a common language.
It will be simple to start, but will very rapidly bootstrap.

Robert Sawyer walked through this in his book Starplex. It was very clever.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some languages are nothing more than clicks.

The manifestation of the language is not relevant. By definition, language will have content and meaning. And we can begin a common language.

I'll see if I can scare up Sawyer's take on it. His characters only communicated with the aliens using messaged blips -essentially binary or Morse or whatever. It doesn't matter. You establish meaning jointly.

Here's one.
Also, here's one.
One <> one ... true!
Here's two.
One <> two ... false!
One and one <> two ... true!
etc.

 

[Evo]

The manifestation of the language is not relevant. By definition, language will have content and meaning. And we can begin a common language.

I'll see if I can scare up Sawyer's take on it. His characters only communicated with the aliens using messaged blips -essentially binary or Morse or whatever. It doesn't matter. You establish meaning jointly.

Here's one.
Also, here's one.
One <> one ... true!
Here's two.
One <> two ... false!
One and one <> two ... true!
etc.

But will they recognize an established language? I'm not talking about trying to set up communications. Those are two very different things.

 

[DaveC426913]

But will they recognize an established language?

No.

I'm not talking about trying to set up communications.

Right. Agree that it is unfeasible (at least in a first contact phase). So why try?

The communication of ideas is the goal, not the language itself.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Since the "current best cosmological models of the universe indicate that the" universe is infinite, then I think the following maxim is applicable: If something can happen once, then it can happen again.

NOTE: Quoted text added above to avoid possible ambiguity.

However, regarding the Milky Way having life other than that on Earth, or any other randomly chosen galaxy, my guess is "maybe, but probably not." My reasoning is admittedly based on a controversial premise. I believe that our oversized moon played a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) role in the pre-life chemistry that led to life, and that such a moon happens extremely rarely.

 

[phinds]

Since the universe is infinite ...

You are stating that as a fact. It is not KNOWN to be true, it just seems most likely, so basing a conclusion on it is faulty.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

You are stating that as a fact..It is not KNOWN to be true...

Hi phinds:

I am a bit puzzled by this. If my understandings below are incorrect, please correct me.

1. I understand that in principle NOTHING IS KNOWN about physics (or also about all of science), in the sense that with respect to any current "knowledge" it is recognized that new observations and better models are always a theoretical possibility. Consequently, from time to time, old "knowledge" gets REPLACED by new "knowledge". (For example, with respect to the very large and the very small, Newtonian physics has been replaced by relativity and quantum mechanics.) Therefore, at any given time, it is understood that ALL "knowledge" is TENTATIVE and is never KNOWN to be true.

2. I also understand the BEST current astronomical information fits a model in which the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Furthermore, this model requires that the universe must be infinite.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[DaveC426913]

, at any given time, it is understood that all "knowledge" is TENTATIVE and is never KNOWN to be true.

Right. So don't state it as true. An infinite universe is not the best fit model, as we understand.

2. I also understand the BEST current astronomical information fits a model in which the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Furthermore, this model requires that the universe must be infinite.

An expanding universe does not, in any way, indicate that it is infinite.

In fact, kind of the opposite. Our best current theory puts the universe at (a mere) 96 billion light years across.More to the point: regardless of its extent, it is evolving. As it expands, it is getting more rarefied. No new material is being created.

So for any event that has happened (whent he universe was all packed together), it is quite possible that it can never happen again nce the universe has spread out).

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Our best current theory puts the universe at about 96 billion light years acorss.

Hi Dave:

I may be mistaken, but I believe you have confused "universe" with "observable universe". Also, I understand that some older models had the universe expanding with the possibility that the expansion might stop and be followed by contraction. Those models corresponded to a finite universe. However, I understand that the acceleration of the expansion can only occur in GR cosmological models that are infinite.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[DaveC426913]

Fair enough. Still, the Big Bang Theory - our best understanding of creation - constrains the size of the universe.

 

[phinds]

2. I also understand the BEST current astronomical information fits a model in which the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Furthermore, this model requires that the universe must be infinite.

No, it has no such requirement. Still, as @PeterDonis often points out, our best model does suggest that the universe is infinite in extent but I don't believe even he states it as a known fact, just the most likely model.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Fair enough. Still, the Big Bang Theory - our best understanding of creation - constrains the size of the universe.

Hi Dave:

Again this is (almost) true about the "observable universe, not the "universe. Also, with respect to the observable universe, out best cosmological models do not constrained it to any particular finite size. It's finite size continues to accelerate indefinitely at a rate that approaches exponential growth.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[DaveC426913]

... our best model does suggest that the universe is infinite in extent...

It seems I may have to go back and hit the books.

 

[phinds]

It seems I may have to go back and hit the books.

Do a search for Peter Donis' posts regarding this. He has mentioned it several times.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again this is (almost) true about the "observable universe, not the "universe.

I guess I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about.

You did say, in post 49 (point 2), "the universe is expanding". So, do you mean the universe - being infinite - is, at the same time, expanding?

 

[Buzz Bloom]

@PeterDonis often points out, our best model does suggest that the universe is infinite in extent but I don't believe even he states it as a known fact, just the most likely model.

Hi phinds:

As I understand from reading the @PeterDonis mathematical presentations about the current best model, his description of the best fit model does not specify the universe as being infinite or finite. However, I believe this is because the issue is not relevant to the math he was explaining.

I am getting the impression that the particular phrase I used in #47 may have suggested to some readers that I intended it to imply the current best model is the final model for all future time to explain the large scale cosmology. However, I think #49 makes it as clear as I can that I do not believe this, and did not intend that interpretation. However, I have edited #47 to improve understanding.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Buzz Bloom]

You did say, in post 49 (point 2), "the universe is expanding". So, do you mean the universe - being infinite - is, at the same time, expanding?

Hi Dave:

I have edited my original post to help clarify my intended thoughts. Although I am far from being an expert, I would now phrase what you have in italics as follows to avoid further misunderstanding. To clarify, it is the scale factor of the universe that is expanding and accelerating. The variable "a" in the Friedman equation represents the scale factor.

The universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. The Friedman equation (see below) together with the current best fit values of the four Ω coefficients corresponding to the current best model, implies that there is a relatively high degree of confidence that the best value of Ω_k is sufficiently negative that it specifies an open infinite universe, that is, either a hyperbolic universe or a flat universe. However, the probability is pretty small that Ω_k may at some later time, after new astronomical data is available, be part of a new best model with a positive value of Ω_k implying a closed finite universe.​

Regards,
Buzz

 

[nitsuj]

I guess I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about.

You did say, in post 49 (point 2), "the universe is expanding". So, do you mean the universe - being infinite - is, at the same time, expanding?

The universe is expanding at rates greater than c, the issue of observing it to being infinite. such a thing can only be modeled.

imo from a physics perspective if something is outside our "causal structure" what's the significance?