e.t.: yay or nay

[ikkarus01]

A question mainly for caspian_x and thebruce0: What are your opinions regarding extraterrestrial sentient life? Are we the only intelligent life in the universe? I swear this isn't some kind of trap or argument-bait. I'm genuinely curious to find out what you guys think about this topic and how your religious beliefs may inform your opinions. It's one of those

Comments

[k_sui]

Isn't there some sort of famous equation about this? Damn, undergrad physics was so very long ago. Let me see if I can find it.

[k_sui]

Ah-hah! There is a famous equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

(I'll shut up now.)

[ikkarus01]

That's pretty damn fascinating.

[thebruce0]

ah yes, the Drake equation. I lvoe this :)

see once again, it's an equation that starts with assumption - that life will develop on other planets.

On variable is:
fℓ
= the fraction of the above (potential life supporting planets) that actually go on to develop life at some point
= 1 (100% of the planets will develop life)

This is an assumption based on the belief that because Earth evolved life, then it can and does and will happen elsewhere. So really, the Drake equation only applies if you believe in Evolution. If I did, I would stand by Drake most certainly.

...I'm really not trying to start a Creation/Evolution debate again :P haha! Just pointing out the responses and reasoning I hold to regarding 'proofs' or mathematical 'certainties' about potential ET life.

[thebruce0]

to further quote...

fl
* Estimated by Drake as 1.
In 2002, Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis (at the University of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Astrobiology) estimated fl as > 0.13 on planets that have existed for at least one billion years using a statistical argument based on the length of time life took to evolve on Earth. Lineweaver has also determined that about 10% of star systems in the Galaxy are hospitable to life, by having heavy elements, being far from supernovae and being stable themselves for sufficient time.[4]

Make the bold = 0 (my stance), and the chance, even by Drake's equation, becomes zero. The equation is based on one's beliefs about the origin of life on earth.

It's still an intriguing area of exploration though...

[thebruce0]

The criticism section of the wikipedia page has a number of good arguments as well, though unfortunately still under the basis that life developing naturally is still a proven variable (or at least don't refer to that probability).

[ubersaurus]

I prefer the other part of the equation, the window of communication. Because let's face it, if there is indeed other intelligent life, for us to communicate it would have to be using the same sort of transmission and recieving equipment and in such a way that we'd be able to tell it was an intelligent signal. And radio signals degrade out there, so I don't know if anything could be made of them if anyone ever got ours.

That, I think, is the bigger hurdle. Finding life is hard, especially when you only have one example of what life is like-your own planet!

[k_sui]

Oh, I think the presumption is made pretty clear. I thought the overriding point of the Drake equation was to show how limited we are in our ability to carry on the entire debate in scientific terms.

[thebruce0]

yeah, that seems to be the most significant point made in the criticism section.
Though unfortunately, there are many that still hold to and quote that equation as firm evidence for extra-terrestrial life.
*shrug*