I don't believe there is any physical life out in space. I do believe there is life in space, but it's not life that we will ever discover, because we are searching for physical life.
I also find it interesting that we study our own world to try to understand the foreign worlds beyond Earth.
What do you guys think?
| totage wrote: |
| I don't believe there is any physical life out in space. I do believe there is life in space, but it's not life that we will ever discover, because we are searching for physical life. |
Sorry, not sure at all what it is you are attempting to say.
| totage wrote: |
| I also find it interesting that we study our own world to try to understand the foreign worlds beyond Earth. |
If you are suggesting that we are searching for extraterrestial life somewhat similar to our own carbon-based life-forms, when we should rather be attempting to find a broader definition for this term, then you may be correct. What would you suggest we look for? | MaxStirner wrote: |
| totage wrote: | | I don't believe there is any physical life out in space. I do believe there is life in space, but it's not life that we will ever discover, because we are searching for physical life. |
Sorry, not sure at all what it is you are attempting to say.
| totage wrote: | | I also find it interesting that we study our own world to try to understand the foreign worlds beyond Earth. |
If you are suggesting that we are searching for extraterrestial life somewhat similar to our own carbon-based life-forms, when we should rather be attempting to find a broader definition for this term, then you may be correct. What would you suggest we look for? |
Everything 
| liljp617 wrote: |
| MaxStirner wrote: | | totage wrote: | | I don't believe there is any physical life out in space. I do believe there is life in space, but it's not life that we will ever discover, because we are searching for physical life. |
Sorry, not sure at all what it is you are attempting to say.
| totage wrote: | | I also find it interesting that we study our own world to try to understand the foreign worlds beyond Earth. |
If you are suggesting that we are searching for extraterrestial life somewhat similar to our own carbon-based life-forms, when we should rather be attempting to find a broader definition for this term, then you may be correct. What would you suggest we look for? |
Everything |
Let me rephrase that 
: How would we even begin to describe a lifeform so different from our own? We can of course look for emissions of all sorts (and are doing so) which would (perhaps) identify an intelligent life form at or above our technological level, but how would we identify simpler organisms? I recall someone (was it Carl Sagan?) speculating on this and questioning if non-carbon life forms were even feasable. Apparently carbon, through its abundance as well its ability to chain in order to construct more complex structures is nearly unique. The articles below contain some speculations, but I haven't seen a serious attempt to describe such a life-form in any detail. Are we simply unable to imagine this?
Nasa: Ask an Astrophysicist
Non-Carbon Lifeforms -Why We May Overlook Extra-terrestrial LifeI agree with the assessment that any life we find on another planet will probably not be a carbon-based life form. There is so much we don't even know about our own biologies that it would be foolish to assume our form of life is the only one. We often get drawn into our own little circle of thinking others are just like us; we can see it simply at looking at other cultures; we are very ethnocentric or culturally centric and many differences between our own is frowned. This is the reason why we are entrenched in the carbon-based life form view. It is only naturally to extend our personal centric views to alien life forms.
We will be shocked by the first alien life forms we encounter. I wouldn't be surprised if the first life form is hydrogen or helium based as they have a very large abundance in the universe. I don't expect our first findings to be human sized yet. Maybe someday in my lifetime, I'll be proven right or wrong.
So...you are saying there are possibly existing forms of life that are not made up of matter, such as ourselves?
I believe that any life out there is more of a spiritual life.
Or maybe there is life forms of a substance we don't even know exists yet. I believe that it is almost certain that there is life out there. There are many planets in similar positions to our own. I also agree that it is unlikely that they would be carbon based life forms. It is unlikely that the same elements making up our Earth and atmosphere were also present in the same amounts on other planets.
| lagoon wrote: |
| ... It is unlikely that the same elements making up our Earth and atmosphere were also present in the same amounts on other planets. |
Is it unlikely? Stars produce nitrogen, oxygen and carbon in abundant quantities.
One thing does bother (or I should say surprise) me a bit. If we assume that we are not alone in the universe but that our development is (in perhaps quite differing ways) mirrored elsewhere, why have projects such as SETI been unable to find an inkling of this? With the immense quantity of solar systems in the billions of galaxies, shouldn't we have a plethora of signals that, even if we were unable to understand them, we could at least assume they were produced by intelligent / sentient beings? | MaxStirner wrote: |
| One thing does bother (or I should say surprise) me a bit. If we assume that we are not alone in the universe but that our development is (in perhaps quite differing ways) mirrored elsewhere, why have projects such as SETI been unable to find an inkling of this? With the immense quantity of solar systems in the billions of galaxies, shouldn't we have a plethora of signals that, even if we were unable to understand them, we could at least assume they were produced by intelligent / sentient beings? |
No, not necessarily. One has to consider a couple of factors.
Firstly there is the distance. Secondly there is the 'coherence' of the signal. We have to assume that beings have sent signals within a certain time-frame (from our perspective) for us to receive them. Given that other galaxies are millions or billions of light years distant then we have to assume that life evolved millions/billions of years ago in such galaxies in order for their signals to reach us - that is a dodgy assumption.
Then we have to assume that their signals would still be coherent at the point of reception (here on earth). That involves a few assumptions - firstly that we are looking in the right frequency range; secondly that the signal has 'survived' any interference; thirdly that it was of sufficient broadcast strength to reach us.What if we do not have the technology to detect the signals they are sending? What if they have already found and studied us, and determined they do not wish to contact us? What if we are so differebt we will never find each other or be able to communicate with each other?
If you think about nietzsche, and what he said about eternal recurrence, then you'd think that maybe there should be some sort of other life out there. As far as my limited understanding goes, he said that in an infinite time span, the universe would repeat itself exactly- I understand that we're not talking about universes being repeated exactly, but out universe is so enormous, that is it so illogical to think that the scenarios that led to human life, however small the chances, were repeated elsewhere?
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| ... why have projects such as SETI been unable to find an inkling of this? ... shouldn't we have a plethora of signals that, even if we were unable to understand them, we could at least assume they were produced by intelligent / sentient beings? |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| We have to assume that beings have sent signals within a certain time-frame (from our perspective) for us to receive them. Given that other galaxies are millions or billions of light years distant then we have to assume that life evolved millions/billions of years ago in such galaxies in order for their signals to reach us - that is a dodgy assumption. |
True. But on the other hand, this fact gives us the opportunity to scan not only wide areas of space but also lets us look back in time so we are receiving a nice cross-secion of both, giving us perhaps an even better chance of getting results.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Then we have to assume that their signals would still be coherent at the point of reception (here on earth). That involves a few assumptions - firstly that we are looking in the right frequency range; secondly that the signal has 'survived' any interference; thirdly that it was of sufficient broadcast strength to reach us. |
I found little data about this online so, although I certainly understand this objection, I don't know how much of a difficulty this would represent? Are there any assumptions / numbers as to how far our own signals are traveling before they are lost in interference? And on a different note, would not a civilization at or above our technological level, make as effort to communicate, using the highest possible signal strength and designing content so that it can easily be recognized as "intelligent" (i.e. I liked the 'prime number' bursts sent in the film 'Contact').
| totage wrote: |
| What if we do not have the technology to detect the signals they are sending? |
It is certainly possible. On the other hand, would "they" not consider this and do their best to make it as easy as possible for us, using not the most complex and modern but rather the most simple and common technology?
| totage wrote: |
| What if they have already found and studied us, and determined they do not wish to contact us? |
This argument is of course one that is often heard. Even assuming that a cosmic U.N. is out there (since such a black-out would assume a concerted effort of sorts), why would they want to put up a "firewall" and "cloak their ports" so as not to give themselves away?
| totage wrote: |
| What if we are so differebt we will never find each other or be able to communicate with each other? |
Again, anything is possible and I don't even have a way of determining how realistic or unrealistic such an assumption would be, but I do find it difficult to believe that they are so different that they have no use for prime numbers, that universal (?) constants such as PI or that description of the structure of basic elements such as hydrogen or oxygen would not give us sufficient common ground to at least recognize each other as intelligent beings. | MaxStirner wrote: |
| I found little data about this online so, although I certainly understand this objection, I don't know how much of a difficulty this would represent? Are there any assumptions / numbers as to how far our own signals are traveling before they are lost in interference? And on a different note, would not a civilization at or above our technological level, make as effort to communicate, using the highest possible signal strength and designing content so that it can easily be recognized as "intelligent" (i.e. I liked the 'prime number' bursts sent in the film 'Contact'). |
The following graph gives some idea about this
The wiki article this comes from is also a good basic starting point I think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI
Thank you, that is very interesting. I am astounded how limited the SETI search actually is (was). Some years ago, I used to offer processor time to SETI@home, and I did look into the project a bit out of curiosity and, for some reason, assumed that the range was much longer than that chart indicates.
The references to the METI (messages to extraterrestrial intelligence) efforts were also, at least in detail, new to me. Especially the attempts to quantify the potential dangers of an active search (or even a passive one if one considers computer viruses as a danger source) as expressed in the San Marino Scale are perhaps not as farfetched as one might assume. I believe that there is life in space. They have discovered that Mars might have been suitable for Carbon-based lifeforms. And if 1 other planet in out solar system have been suitable for life, why should NO other planet in the universe, consisting of thousands of galaxies with thousands of solar systems in each of them be suitable?
EDIT: If we'll ever find them is another question though, and I'm not very sure of it.
Interesting find Bikerman
Well, our own planet itself is alive in some ways. It is constantly changing/evolving. The weather is always changing, and changes the earth itself with erosion, and what not.
Could that be a form of life? The changing of a planets surface due to volcanic activity, a weather system of some sort, etc.?
That wouldn't be intelligent life, but it would be life, wouldn't it?
What exactly qualifies as life?
Does it necessarily have to be some sort of being that can transmit some sort of signal, or can it be more than that?
The Sun for example sends signals to us, it has some sort of life, with storms, and sunspots, and such.
I presume you are talking about some form of 'Gaia' whereby all living and non-living components of Earth (or another planet) are considered part of a greater whole?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
I don't think it would be accurate to describe the non-living components of the system as 'alive' in any real sense. Living things generally share certain characteristics - reproduction being perhaps the most important. It is, however, perfectly valid to look at the entire planet as a 'system' and this is the basis of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. Interesting... I've never heard of the Gaia Hypothesis before, but it does seem interesting.
I believe as well that there is life beyond the physical in space although I do not want to entirely rid the idea that there might also be physical life in space as well. Energy and life are essentially the same to me. Anything that vibrates as a certain energy can be considered a part of life. The planets in the universe radiate energy, just like every other piece of matter that floats in the endless abiss of space. I truely believe that there is greatness beyond our understanding out there. We are so small compared to the immensity of the universe. Sometimes I get so lost in thought thinking about whats out there. You know what really cracks me up though. us. We, as humans are sooo rediculous sometimes. We take ourselves so seriously. Wouldn't it be funny if there were being that lived on pluto that took themselves as seriously as we do? We get so wrapped up in our own drama and our life, when in reality there is such a bigger part to us. I know i would be a better person if i jumped out of the bubble that I live in sometimes and saw the world for what it is in all its entirety and beauty. Think about this. Wouldn't it be wonderfully peaceful to be floating in space and to look back at this blue world that we live in? It would be so silent, so peaceful. And then I'd think..wow look thats the world i live on, the root of every problem is in that beautiful planet. I experience joy, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, peace, love, and understanding all in that crazy beautiful yet mystical place.
| pslakey wrote: |
| I believe as well that there is life beyond the physical in space although I do not want to entirely rid the idea that there might also be physical life in space as well. Energy and life are essentially the same to me. Anything that vibrates as a certain energy can be considered a part of life. The planets in the universe radiate energy, just like every other piece of matter that floats in the endless abiss of space. I truely believe that there is greatness beyond our understanding out there. We are so small compared to the immensity of the universe. Sometimes I get so lost in thought thinking about whats out there. You know what really cracks me up though. us. We, as humans are sooo rediculous sometimes. We take ourselves so seriously. Wouldn't it be funny if there were being that lived on pluto that took themselves as seriously as we do? We get so wrapped up in our own drama and our life, when in reality there is such a bigger part to us. I know i would be a better person if i jumped out of the bubble that I live in sometimes and saw the world for what it is in all its entirety and beauty. Think about this. Wouldn't it be wonderfully peaceful to be floating in space and to look back at this blue world that we live in? It would be so silent, so peaceful. And then I'd think..wow look thats the world i live on, the root of every problem is in that beautiful planet. I experience joy, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, peace, love, and understanding all in that crazy beautiful yet mystical place. |
I couldn't have said it better myself. Life is such a mysterious and fascinating thing.I don't see how you can rule out the existence of other physical beings in the universe. To be able to do so, you'd also need to rule out the possibility of such life on Earth also, and... yeah. Obvious problem there.
Earth isn't unique. Far from it. Therefore other such planets have the same chance of supporting life as the Earth does. Given the number of similar planets, the odds of that happening somewhere are greater than not.
If you don't believe in god, Live in space makes sense...
for 2 reasons:
1 : We were created by chance a series of reactions wich lead to our development so somewhere else the same could have happend
2 : look how big the universe is... it would be a waste of space don't you think :p
If you do believe in god...
Live in space would be less easier to believe in...
Because most believes think that we are created by god and that he as a father looks over us... so it would be kinda hard to go around the entire galaxy and check upon all his children
@ Poetsunited
Well, one theory is that the universe is a part of God. Or that God is in every aspect of the universe.
Jesus said: "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all
came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
But yeah, I don't believe, so that's not my problem. But it does mean that God could overlook all things simultaneously. Therefore other worlds could have also been created with the intent of spawning life.
