[meteorite-list] Alien Contact Predicted

From: Meteorites USA <eric_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:41:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4A935D77.8030202_at_meteoritesusa.com>

Hi Rob, List,

Thanks for the reply.... Hmmm. Where to start...

"...Yes, it's a lot of rolls of the dice. But it still does not equate
to certainty that the right conditions for life will emerge in more than
one location at roughly the same time..."

Probability need not be compared to certainty. We're not talking about
certainty. You certainly exist physically. Philosophy is not certainty.

Philosophically speaking one could argue that I'm not really writing
this write now. Logically though I know I am, just as you can reasonably
assume that I wrote it because you're reading it. This argument is
infinite in it's scope, and our human minds are limitless as to the
philosophical axioms we can provide. Our truths are what our personal
beliefs make them out to be. And our beliefs are taught and created.
They are not natural, nor are they certain.

We're talking about probability of intelligence and evidence of life.
Not proof of thought or knowledge based on philosophical debate.

"...Infinitesimally small and zero are very far apart, mathematically..."

I don't really know how small infinitesimal actually is...
Mathematically speaking. ;)

"...The universe is large (not to mention growing), but it is
nevertheless finite..."

Really? Is there proof of it's limited scope? We can only see so far...
Every few years we can see further. Observationally speaking I'd like to
see if someone can prove that there is an end to the the universe. If it
is in fact expanding then it's infinite, since we don't know if it will
ever stop expanding. WE simply don't know, but we can make educated
guesses based on current knowledge. That knowledge though, changes over
time.

"...and we can only interact with a small fraction of it. So the size of
the entire universe isn't really germane to the question -- you must
restrict the statistics to our *observable* universe. It's still a huge
number of galaxies each containing billions to hundreds of billions of
stars...."

Exactly my point. Even though we have to restrict our knowledge to the
observable universe. That's enough for now. We've got the "space" for
lack of a better term, to study, and the chances of finding life in the
"reachable" universe is much more likely than our slim chance of finding
something at our observational limits.

My statement: "..."...if we think we're the only intelligent life form
in the universe, we are the most arrogant and ignorant aliens in the
universe...."..."

"... I have little doubt of the truth of the last 11 words above. ;-)..."

Very true... ;)

"...Be that as it may, there is as yet no evidence to show that life
exists..."

Yet! ;) However, I was referring to the probability of contact with that
life and not the probability of life itself.

"...However, I would not be in the least bit surprised if evidence *is*
found for primitive ET life (within our solar system) sometime this
century. That alone would be a remarkable discovery..."

Again, I agree that there is ancient life fossilized and preserved in
material floating around in our solar system right now. It most likely
came from our own planet though when Earth got smacked by ancient comet
and asteroid impacts.

The holy grail and largest challenge facing science of course is finding
life, or evidence of life that's not from our own world. If we even do
find a microbial lifeform in a space rock. How are we to know it didn't
originate from our own planet?

"...As for intelligent ET life, I'm not holding my breath. The number of
star systems that are close enough to even know WE exist as an
intelligent species number fewer than 20,000. Without our radio/TV/EM
noise, there is no way to distinguish our planet as being "noteworthy". ..."

Again, it's simply a matter of numbers and being in the rigt place at
the right time. Which could be considered luck but I would argue that
luck doesn't exist. Preparation proves luck doesn't exist.

When we study, research and question our known universe, that's when we
learn. Create an hypothesis and prove it scientifically. I only wish I
had the tuiition to study at university. I would love it! I would devour
the information and knowledge like a kid in a candy store.

Our existence in my opinion may not be solid proof of extraterrestrial
life, but I can say this unequivocally. Given the infinite vastness of
our universe our very existence proves it's possible!

The question is not if we will find life, but when it will be found, and
what that life form will be.

Regards,
Eric






Matson, Robert D. wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>
>> But I can tell you an unarguable fact. We exist.
>>
>
> Actually, this "fact" is indeed arguable from a philosophical
> standpoint,
> since your proof of existence involves the senses of the very entities
> you
> are trying to prove exist. So I'm afraid this sort of circular reasoning
> does not strictly hold up to logic. We may or may not exist, and there
> is
> probably no way to know for sure. But for argument's sake, I'll accept
> the
> premise that "life" *as we perceive it* exists, and go from there...
>
>
>> That simple fact when viewed from a perspective outside ourselves and
>> our known universe, it's very easy to see that the question is not IF
>> there is life out there. But that the chances that there is NOT
>>
> intelligent
>
>> life out there is so infinitesimally small as to be a non-issue.
>>
>
> Infinitesimally small and zero are very far apart, mathematically.
>
>
>> There are countless billions of stars (not unlike our Sun) in our
>>
> Milky
>
>> Way Galaxy alone. 100 billion or more according to some scientific
>>
> estimates.
>
>> I cannot fathom that large of a number.
>>
>
> Yes, it's a lot of rolls of the dice. But it still does not equate to
> certainty that the right conditions for life will emerge in more than
> one location at roughly the same time.
>
>
>> Our universe is bigger than we ever thought.
>>
>
> The universe is large (not to mention growing), but it is nevertheless
> finite, and we can only interact with a small fraction of it. So the
> size
> of the entire universe isn't really germane to the question -- you must
> restrict the statistics to our *observable* universe. It's still a huge
> number of galaxies each containing billions to hundreds of billions of
> stars.
>
>
>> I don't have the mathematical skill necessary to figure the
>>
> probabilities
>
>> and the Drake equation is Greek to me.
>>
>
> The Drake Equation is largely useless because it contains many
> parameters
> for which there are no good estimates. (You can't build good statistics
> for events which we've only observed to occur once.)
>
>
>> But I'm smart enough to figure out, that if we think we're the only
>> intelligent life form in the universe, we are the most arrogant and
>> ignorant aliens in the universe.
>>
>
> I have little doubt of the truth of the last 11 words above. ;-)
> Be that as it may, there is as yet no evidence to show that life exists
> (or has ever existed) outside our planet. However, I would not be in
> the least bit surprised if evidence *is* found for primitive ET life
> (within our solar system) sometime this century. That alone would be
> a remarkable discovery.
>
> As for intelligent ET life, I'm not holding my breath. The number of
> star systems that are close enough to even know WE exist as an
> intelligent
> species number fewer than 20,000. Without our radio/TV/EM noise, there
> is
> no way to distinguish our planet as being "noteworthy".
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
>
Received on Mon 24 Aug 2009 11:41:43 PM PDT