It is statistically impossible for life to exist on exactly one planet in the universe. Earth just isn’t that fucking special!
Edit:
A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
Yah, but it’s also statistically more likely that we have missed crossing paths with them or even seeing their signs by millions of light years, as well as millions of years of history.
Entire empires could have risen to galactic power and ruled vast portions of the galaxy and finally splintered, evolved or gone extinct in just the million years before humans invented stone tools. Or some thousands of years during the Devonian period or something. Or the nearest planet with life is still just boneless fish and will need a hundred million more years to develop radio.
We’re not only a microscopic dot in space, we’re also a microscopic dot in time. And our ability to even look out into space and detect anything is a tiny shaving of time off that dot.
As far as the history of the universe is concerned we are actually super early on in its lifespan. So in some ways it’s actually more likely that we will be one of the early civilizations that perish before the others show up.
Not to mention that this assessment only applies to the universe we can see, we’re missing a LOT so it’s really hard to say even the actual age of the universe (roughly) or if there’s a whole other angle to the universe we can’t observe like we’re seeing hints of with observations of dark matter and dark energy, plus the fact that every time we send up more powerful instruments we detect a whole lot more “stuff” broadly than we ever thought, and of course the bubble of observation we’re stuck in and have no way to know if our observable sphere of the universe is unique or odd in some way, or if there’s even a point in scale where the universe becomes homogeneous, for all we know it’s infinite and varied beyond description at the highest scales.
The things we don’t know outweigh the things we know by orders of magnitude, so it’s very, very hard to say if we even have the right foundational ideas when we ponder life in the universe besides us.
Also statistically most likely that no life form has ever been able to leave its solar system, huge limited the opportunity to have detected each other
Okay wait, listen to yourself. You expected Obama to give a reasonable answer, and of course he did. Gosh, wasn’t that nice? You might agree or disagree with his choices and priorities, but even his worst policies had SOME sort of reason behind them. And were stated in complete grammatical sentences that stayed in topic.
If we presume a functionally infinite universe sure life pretty much has to exist in multiple spots. That’s a big presumption by itself though.
After that, is said civilization on some dinosaur shit? Are they so far beyond us we look like cavemen in comparison? Are they looking around the universe and just missed us? Do we want them to find us? Historically humanity finds less advanced groups and kills, enslaves, or just robs them blind. No reason to think the alien conquistadors would be better then the Spanish ones.
It isn’t. Check out this talk by Dr. Kipping. If you role 1000 x D6, you might say it is statistically impossible to role that number. And you’d be close to right; it was very unlikely. But you did role it.
eta: The number of people supporting the phrase “statistically impossible” is troubling. This is why it is a problem that prominent scientists have made similar statements based on intuition. It isn’t based on statistics. We do not have sufficient data to make binary statements about Drake’s equation, nor even really to make any quantitative statements about the outcome, but certainly not binary ones.
It is statistically impossible for life to exist on exactly one planet in the universe. Earth just isn’t that fucking special!
Edit:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2049714/can-something-be-statistically-impossible#2049722
If I’m wrong about the definition, at least I’m not wrong alone.
Yah, but it’s also statistically more likely that we have missed crossing paths with them or even seeing their signs by millions of light years, as well as millions of years of history.
Entire empires could have risen to galactic power and ruled vast portions of the galaxy and finally splintered, evolved or gone extinct in just the million years before humans invented stone tools. Or some thousands of years during the Devonian period or something. Or the nearest planet with life is still just boneless fish and will need a hundred million more years to develop radio.
We’re not only a microscopic dot in space, we’re also a microscopic dot in time. And our ability to even look out into space and detect anything is a tiny shaving of time off that dot.
As far as the history of the universe is concerned we are actually super early on in its lifespan. So in some ways it’s actually more likely that we will be one of the early civilizations that perish before the others show up.
Not to mention that this assessment only applies to the universe we can see, we’re missing a LOT so it’s really hard to say even the actual age of the universe (roughly) or if there’s a whole other angle to the universe we can’t observe like we’re seeing hints of with observations of dark matter and dark energy, plus the fact that every time we send up more powerful instruments we detect a whole lot more “stuff” broadly than we ever thought, and of course the bubble of observation we’re stuck in and have no way to know if our observable sphere of the universe is unique or odd in some way, or if there’s even a point in scale where the universe becomes homogeneous, for all we know it’s infinite and varied beyond description at the highest scales.
The things we don’t know outweigh the things we know by orders of magnitude, so it’s very, very hard to say if we even have the right foundational ideas when we ponder life in the universe besides us.
The problem is the human mind cannot understand the concept of how far one single light year is. Even Fermi struggled.
Also statistically most likely that no life form has ever been able to leave its solar system, huge limited the opportunity to have detected each other
Statistically *improbable
Life is certain to exist, but multicellular life is less likely and intelligent multicellular who reaches for the stars is even less likely
Who said anything about multicellularity, intelligence, or space travel?
Point is, Obama’s answer was vacuously true, and the only answer a non-idiot could reasonably could have given.
…Okay, I admit he could have quoted Contact for extra style points:
But aside from that, the answer he gave was the only one he could reasonably have given.
Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
Arthur C. Clarke
Okay wait, listen to yourself. You expected Obama to give a reasonable answer, and of course he did. Gosh, wasn’t that nice? You might agree or disagree with his choices and priorities, but even his worst policies had SOME sort of reason behind them. And were stated in complete grammatical sentences that stayed in topic.
If we presume a functionally infinite universe sure life pretty much has to exist in multiple spots. That’s a big presumption by itself though.
After that, is said civilization on some dinosaur shit? Are they so far beyond us we look like cavemen in comparison? Are they looking around the universe and just missed us? Do we want them to find us? Historically humanity finds less advanced groups and kills, enslaves, or just robs them blind. No reason to think the alien conquistadors would be better then the Spanish ones.
Earth is special. More special than most of the other planets that exist. But it’s not the only special one.
More special than ones we’ve detected, but our detection methods have a very biased available dataset.
It isn’t. Check out this talk by Dr. Kipping. If you role 1000 x D6, you might say it is statistically impossible to role that number. And you’d be close to right; it was very unlikely. But you did role it.
eta: The number of people supporting the phrase “statistically impossible” is troubling. This is why it is a problem that prominent scientists have made similar statements based on intuition. It isn’t based on statistics. We do not have sufficient data to make binary statements about Drake’s equation, nor even really to make any quantitative statements about the outcome, but certainly not binary ones.
You’re substituting “statistically impossible” for “emotionally impossible.”