Life Was An Intentional Act

[mks]

@mks, nowhere did i say that time wasn't factored into Drake's equation, i was responding to hugh. you really thought i was unaware of it as a concept/prediction? what's next? E = mc² in a vacuum?

No, you hadn't even mentioned the Drake Equation but you mentioned time which is a HUGE factor in the probability mathematics and I completely agree with you there. I brought up the Drake Equation because I knew time was one of the variables, but like Hugh said, it really only applies at the galaxy level, certainly not at the universal level of determining how much life is out there.

[knell]

oh, i see... well, the Drake equation is nice and all, but i prefer my formulae to have a few more logically concrete variables unassociated with "best estimates". it's a philosophical tool (imo) at this point, and nothing more

[hugh]

The Drake equation is really not applicable even if the constants are clearly defined.

[mks]

The Drake equation uses time to determine galaxy age which is kind of irrelevant to the grand-scale of the universe. The Drake equation is a lot more practical when we are talking in smaller scales such as Galaxies.

The universe is so vast that you might as well start at the galaxy level. Everything about the universe is still just a hypothesis.

The Drake Equation, if anything, just shows that the rate of civilizations rising and falling is so fast compared to the age of the galaxy, that it would be pretty difficult to locate any other sentient species in our galaxy.

You can't just say that like it's true! We are talking about the inevitability of life, and when addressing this issue you absolutely MUST observe that the Universe is infinitely large, because it is used as a covariant in statistical analyis... You can't just replace it with the size of a Galaxy and expect it to work in the same way. It won't. Even when working with the upper estimate of the number of stars in the Milky Way (I think it was 800 billion but can't remember, doesn't matter too much anyway) you are working with a number that is totally dwarfed by the total number of stars in the whole universe, which is potentially infinite.

I agree with you 100% on this. That was more of a reference to the Drake Equation which was done in 1961, and that we really don't know that much about our own galaxy, let alone the whole universe. Also the fact scientists are still doing work at the smallest level, like the Higgs Boson for instance.

[knell]

The Drake equation is really not applicable even if the constants are clearly defined.

it also assumes that life somehow steers itself towards intelligence, something that you can argue away by looking at any internet forum

[hugh]

The Drake equation is really not applicable even if the constants are clearly defined.

and it also assumes that life somehow steers itself towards intelligence, something that you can ration away by looking at any internet forum

yep, I imagine the majority of life in the universe doesn't get far past single cell stage tbh

[mks]

but i prefer my formulae to have a few more logically concrete variables

Please show me this.

[volcanogeorge]

stopped watching the video in OP 8 seconds in after the guy who claims to be a scientist used "light years" as a unit of time.

basic shit.

[knell]

but i prefer my formulae to have a few more logically concrete variables

Please show me this.

e.g. for any right triangle, the sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs is equal to the area of the square of the hypotenuse

or did you mean that you literally want me to illustrate it?

[mks]

I'm talking about your formula for the universe or at least one that you subscribe to.

[knell]

i don't have either, i didn't mean to imply that i do.

[LACE]

drake equation is a waste of time, with every step being a guess, the calculation no matter the context is just meaningless. seems only practical to be able to take into account the likelihood of contacting a planet like earth with earth-like life. the terms are just a conditional probability of an outcome given that all the other conditions are met. obviously, you can't find evidence for the supposed values, so it's just obsolete. guessing plausible values still equals a guess. interesting to talk about, but it ends there.

[_v_]

Continuing on from the suger in space.

There is also alchohol in space.

A real Champagne Supernova in the sky.

Free booze for all if we could get up there.

http://io9.com/5911365/how-alcohol-is-f ... y-in-space

[Molzie]

Continuing on from the suger in space.

There is also alchohol in space.

A real Champagne Supernova in the sky.

Free booze for all if we could get up there.

http://io9.com/5911365/how-alcohol-is-f ... y-in-space

Lol this comment

This is how to get Americans back into the space program. Tell them there's booze out there.

[EliteLennon117]

This is how to get Americans back into the space program. Tell them there's booze out there.

or oil

[knell]

or asteroids rich in precious metals

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ous-metals

[Terpit]

or asteroids rich in precious metals

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ous-metals

I wish that had been a link to Avatar

[nowaysj]

A couple of pages back, when everyone was sharpening sticks, hehe, I think much of the confusion came from me intentionally misquoting Hugh.

Never has a troll been so successful and unintentional. IDIC.

[hugh]

A couple of pages back, when everyone was sharpening sticks, hehe, I think much of the confusion came from me intentionally misquoting Hugh.

Never has a troll been so successful and unintentional. IDIC.

omg I just saw what you did you little shit! haha

[SCope13]

I'm talking about your formula for the universe or at least one that you subscribe to.

Hahaha yeah that put up some red flags for me too.