Why everyone should stop folding and go SETI

[Fred]

DCs argument is fundamentally more sound, since it takes current estimates on the Drake eqn. I would say a plurality of scientists agree with him.

If you had asked me two years ago about the same thing, I would have echoed his sentiments.

However, since I currently work in Astrophysics, I have been exposed to a bunch of anthropic theories. Frankly, I hate them and so do a lot of other people. The current trend is to get rid of them with theories with actual mechanisms to get rid of finetuning and the like.

The best bet in this case is to say, I don't know. The parameters are poorly understood, including abiogenesis. However, as time goes on, the direction of error seems to increase the probability of life, not the other way around.

Consider that maybe 8 years ago, hardly any scientist would accept the likelihood of Mars having any life whatsoever, nevermind actual planets being observed. Now it seems more like intelligent life is the buzzword.

Either way, it is surely grey science, way too much faith and not enough hard numbers.... Yet!

 

[Bigus Dickus]

The best bet in this case is to say, I don't know. The parameters are poorly understood, including abiogenesis. However, as time goes on, the direction of error seems to increase the probability of life, not the other way around.

This rather closely echoes my viewpoint. Though, in a thread like this where everything is speculation and people are "taking sides" with nothing to lose (other than being wrong), I'll choose "team life."

I wouldn't put much money on it, but that's the side I see as more likely being correct. I understand DC's position, which is essentially 'until you show me proof of ET life, I'll remain skeptical that it exists.' This is the stance I typically take, but in an area like this where everything is still essentially a guess based on unknowns, I don't feel like a "nutjob" going out on a limb and taking the non-skeptical viewpoint.

 

[DemoCoder]

My position is a little more nuanced than that. Out of all the possible arrangements, of say, 300 atoms, how many represent self replicating molecules. Next, out of the configurations of self replicating molecules, how many initial condition arrangements (under time evolution) can lead to these configurations?

If you can prove "many", then perhaps spontaneous emergence of self replication is inevitable given reasonable time and conditions.

If only very few, then indeed, the odds are in fact astronomical.

Let us keep in mind that even in simple cellular automata, such as Conway's life, 20 years of simulations have still not been able to produce a spontaneous generation of a glider gun. (and we are talking about TRILLIONS of years of simulated evolution) The holy grail of the artificial life movement is to spontaneously generate self replicators, and no one has achieved it yet that I'm aware.

All of this tends me to believe that self replication is an uncommon configuration to end up in, and not inevitable. Research in automata has shown that even incredibly simple systems (much similar than physics) are sufficient to be universal, and such systems can support self replicators (designed by humans) that are quite short sequences.

So if universality is so common, and self replicators short, why can't they get random initial conditions to evolve into self replicators?


All I'm saying is, it's a hard problem, and simply sweeping stuff under the rug with a hand wave by appealing to the size of time and space doesn't eliminate the fundamental questions that research into molecular dynamics and cellular automata pose about the nature of evolving self replicating structures.

 

[Sabastian]

heh, I thought that this was one of Kilers famous "joke" threads.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

heh, I thought that this was one of Kilers famous "joke" threads.

That was the plan.

Plans change.

 

[zidane1strife]

If you can prove "many", then perhaps spontaneous emergence of self replication is inevitable given reasonable time and conditions.

all shall be... unveiled... in due time...

Let us wait and see...

 

[Dave Baumann]

Heh - I just noticed this in my referrals list:

http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/postdisplay.cgi?forum=Forum2&topic=000291

 

[Ilfirin]

"Christian Coders"? Most coders I know think they are God.

(Heck, my name takes after this - Ilfirin is Elvish for Immortal (the nick I had since the early BBS days, but ended up getting too popular))

 

[CosmoKramer]

What a disturbing site/thread (the ccn one).

I'd like to ask DemoCoder, aren't you really an agnostic rather than an atheist?

 

[DemoCoder]

Logically I have to be an agnostic. I certainly cannot rule out Einstein's deist God (God creates laws of physics, big bang, then is out of the picture. no afterlife, no supernatural interference. This is God as programmer/engineer of the universe)

To me, religion is just irrelevent. I am not concerned about the afterlife or Gods. I wanna concentrate on this life.

Frankly, if there was a designation it would be "I just don't carist"

 

[CosmoKramer]

That's what I thought. I agree btw.