New estimate on probability of intelligent life...

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that little conclusion is false. A subset of an infinite set is not necessarily finite.
And yes, the universe isn't infinite either.
And yes, I know it is Douglas Adams and therefore not meant to be particularly logical or accurate.

And he put the division the wrong way round in order to get the zero population.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
And he put the division the wrong way round in order to get the zero population.

--- Penguin

No he didn't. He got that bit right. If there was an infinite number of uninhabited planets and a finite number of inhabited ones, the probability of a planet being inhabited would be essentially zero.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No he didn't. He got that bit right. If there was an infinite number of uninhabited planets and a finite number of inhabited ones, the probability of a planet being inhabited would be essentially zero.

Hmm.

To be mathematically rigorous, I think you'd need to say "as the number of planets approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero".

Originally posted by twhitehead
No he didn't. He got that bit right. If there was an infinite number of uninhabited planets and a finite number of inhabited ones, the probability of a planet being inhabited would be essentially zero.

I've never thought of it that way round, yes you are right.

In fact, does dividing the total number of planets by the number of inhabited planets, as I have been erroneously doing, give you anything meaningful at all?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I've never thought of it that way round, yes you are right.

In fact, does dividing the total number of planets by the number of inhabited planets, as I have been erroneously doing, give you anything meaningful at all?

--- Penguin.

A headache. 😏

Originally posted by Penguin
I've never thought of it that way round, yes you are right.

In fact, does dividing the total number of planets by the number of inhabited planets, as I have been erroneously doing, give you anything meaningful at all?

--- Penguin.

It gives you the reciprocal of the fraction of inhabited planets.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Hmm.

To be mathematically rigorous, I think you'd need to say "as the number of planets approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero".

Correct. Mathematically you cant really put infinity in an equation.
Douglas Adams shows us the result of doing so. The apparent conclusion of an infinitely small probability being equal to zero leads to the incorrect conclusion that the number of inhabited planets is zero leading to the conclusion that any inhabitants you meet are delusions.

But with calculus we can conclusively say that the probability is actually non-zero.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So for you 'science' has an independent existance outside of people?
I would have sworn it took people to make science. Go figure.
You love to obfuscate, that must be your favorite hobby.
Just because I made the post doesn't mean I agree with the assesment, where did you get that idea? Did you actually read the article in question and see what the rational is? If not, read it first before you give blanket condemnation.

No, for me all science just depends on people without people there is
no science. Reality does not depend on people, it is what it is without
any person thinking about it at all. People can think about something
paint it in their thinking anyway they want, right or wrong that will be
science until someone comes along and shows it wrong if it is wrong or
not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, for me all science just depends on people without people there is
no science. Reality does not depend on people, it is what it is without
any person thinking about it at all. People can think about something
paint it in their thinking anyway they want, right or wrong that will be
science until someone comes along and shows it wrong if it is wrong or
not.
Kelly

So you replied to part of my post but you still haven't said whether you have read the article and seen the rational for yourself. There are good solid reasons for his rational, I am not going to even give a synopsis here, I want you to actually read the work in question. I think you are the master of blanket condemnation so prove me wrong by reading the article and you tell ME what the rational is.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you replied to part of my post but you still haven't said whether you have read the article and seen the rational for yourself. There are good solid reasons for his rational, I am not going to even give a synopsis here, I want you to actually read the work in question. I think you are the master of blanket condemnation so prove me wrong by reading the article and you tell ME what the rational is.

No I did not read it. That does not change my complaint either no
matter what s/he said. Since no one knows how to create/build life
it is beyond our abilities to predict the odds of it occurring else where.
If we don’t know what all the necessary materials are, what conditions
are required, for how long, and a million other things. Without all of that
knowledge how can you predict it can happen else where, when you
do not know what materials are there, in what condition? It is sad on
many levels, but like many other things, people "project" *the word
of the day* what they think is true and run with it and others call it
science so we must believe. Shoot, if they had that type of knowledge
they could create life here without any issues by just creating the right
conditions, for the right amount of time, and mix the right material in
right amounts, and so on, but than that would be ID.
Kelly

What's life anyway?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I did not read it. That does not change my complaint either no
matter what s/he said. Since no one knows how to create/build life
it is beyond our abilities to predict the odds of it occurring else where.
If we don’t know what all the necessary materials are, what conditions
are required, for how long, and a million other things. Without all of that ...[text shortened]... e, and mix the right material in
right amounts, and so on, but than that would be ID.
Kelly

I rest my case. I am sorry for your delusions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I did not read it. That does not change my complaint either no
matter what s/he said. Since no one knows how to create/build life
it is beyond our abilities to predict the odds of it occurring else where.
If we don’t know what all the necessary materials are, what conditions
are required, for how long, and a million other things. Without all of that ...[text shortened]... e, and mix the right material in
right amounts, and so on, but than that would be ID.
Kelly

Firstly commenting on something without reading is extremely foolish, secondly commenting without understanding, or at least trying to understand is even more foolish. If your not even willing to read a presented article how on earth can you justify commenting on it?.

There is a famous phrase where I come from "Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference", talking to you has really brought that into a new light.

Oh and once again you are showing your ability to comment on a subject without any deeper understanding than that which you skim over in internet articles. Its true that we still don't understand the catalyst for creating life. But we certainly know what materials are required for Abiogenesis to occur, and what conditions each ingredient will form in. you seem to think otherwise, what are your sources for this statement?, I'd be interested in seeing the articles. To be honest my understanding of the topic is limited as I never took paleobiology to seriously, my interests lie elsewhere. Because of this I usually wouldn't comment too deeply, except to perhaps ask a few questions, however since your willing to comment so freely I have a strange urge to respond. I at least have read several papers on the topic and had to do some thinking/writing on it. Tell me KJ how much reading and research have you done on the topic, that allows you to comment so confidently?.

But our friend KellyJay is christian, isn't he?
Then he must be right, since god is on his side. 😀

Originally posted by Mexico
Firstly commenting on something without reading is extremely foolish, secondly commenting without understanding, or at least trying to understand is even more foolish. If your not even willing to read a presented article how on earth can you justify commenting on it?.

There is a famous phrase where I come from "Never argue with a fool, people might not kno ...[text shortened]... eading and research have you done on the topic, that allows you to comment so confidently?.

Great post🙂