Do you believe in Aliens?

[Something Amyss]

Yes and maybe. The whole "going across the sky in chariots of fire" thing zeus had a habit of doing makes me feel like ancient Greece watched an alien ship fly overhead, maybe shooting "bolts of lighting".

There's no real basis for this, but it's an interesting thought.

Are you referring to the explanation for the sun?

Because I don't think we need much more than that.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Yes and No respectively for the reasons everyone has listed for me.

 

[Darkmantle]

Yes and maybe. The whole "going across the sky in chariots of fire" thing zeus had a habit of doing makes me feel like ancient Greece watched an alien ship fly overhead, maybe shooting "bolts of lighting".

There's no real basis for this, but it's an interesting thought.

Are you referring to the explanation for the sun?

Because I don't think we need much more than that.

I don;t know what you mean

I was just talking about how zeus was depicted in general lol

 

[Embz]

I defiantly believe that there is alien life somewhere in the universe, but have aliens visited earth.... I'm a bit sceptical of that lol

 

[thelittleman66]

It is mathematically impossible for aliens not to exist.
Whether they visited earth or not is a different question.

 

[imagremlin]

I'm with Stephen Hawkings on this one:

1) Given the size of the universe is pretty much certain that it supports life in multiple places

2) Add to that the age of the universe and how long we've been here and turns out its unlikely for them to exist right now and nearby.

3) Which is all for the better, considering that as far as we know, when an advanced civilization meets a more primitive one, things don't turn out good for the latter. Just ask the native americans.

 

[Bento Box]

I know I get overly pedantic about the word 'believe,' but what can I say, I think it's important.

No, I don't quite believe that aliens exist, because there's no reasonable evidence that they do. At the same time, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they could. For one: we do. We know that life can form on planets, and we have at least some semblance of an understanding of how it could have happened for this planet.

Going with just carbon-y stuff and early-mid planetary conditions, if all it takes to cause organic (big, important fact: 'organic' means 'carbon-based,' and not necessarily life) life to begin was heat and a lucky blend of organic materials, then it is far from unreasonable to suspect that it could and has happened for other planets. We certainly do know that there are other planets out there, in what we suspect to be the 'habitable' zones around stars. It's really not a far leap.

This is to say nothing of the fact that, just because carbon-based life is the only life we know, doesn't mean that it's the only life that could exist. As far as we're concerned, there's neither reason to believe or disbelieve that some other kind of compounds could form complex life. The big question is, would we recognize it if we saw it?

Extra super fun challenge: at what point does a computer cross what must be a blurry line by now, and count as silicon-based life? Well, assuming that computers continue to become more and more intelligent, eventually matching and surpassing us, I'd say that the only obstacle to being 'life' in the traditional sense, would be the ability to propagate cellularly. An advanced enough machine might well be able to do that. Imagine it: our revolutionary history, played out in reverse, as the computer race begins with intelligence, and works backward from there, until it creates its own form of a living cell.

 

[Peteron]

Yes. It would be ignorant to think of our lives as miracles, to excuse the possibility of another lifeform somewhere else in the universe.

 

[Randomperson9999999]

i believe in them but I don't believe the human race will ever see or meet them

 

[cdstephens]

Statistically speaking, assuming that we aren't in a virtual reality world, then it is extremely probable that there exists or has existed life that does not originate from Earth.

However, assuming that a) it is possible to make a virtual reality matrix this large, b) a species would not die out before making a virtual reality matrix, and c) they would have reason to make one for historical reasons or for research, then there is a 99.999999999% chance that we are in a virtual reality world, in which case they may not bother to put aliens in. If they were just simulating us and did not wish to clutter up the memory by simulating other life forms, then it would be probable that aliens don't exist.

So really it all depends upon whether we exist in a top level universe, so to speak, or only exist in one of the bottom level universes that is simulated by virtual reality. Unfortunately, the only way to disprove the latter would be to prove that it is impossible to make a virtual reality system this large.

 

[Bento Box]

It is a simplification, but its true.

Not really. It's true under lazy assumptions we have no basis assuming.

As for the mathematics I am using, they are Adamsian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek] mathematics.

No.

No, no, no.

These are not lazy, baseless assumptions.

Look:

We understand, relatively well, the properties of stars.
We understand our place as a planet, as compared to our star.
We understand the conditions necessary for many, many different forms of life on our planet, to survive.
We understand well enough, roughly where our planet would have to be in terms of distance from our star, to maintain those conditions.
We have a rudimentary understanding of the conditions that likely existed when life on our planet formed.
We have a constantly-growing understanding of how and why planets form, and what they look like throughout the process of maturity.

Put all of that understanding together, and you have the recipe for a hypothesis, and at least some informed speculation on how life might form on other planets which we conclude likely fit into the model of life-sustaining celestial bodies.

 

[dickywebster]

I do as i laugh at anyone who claims we're the only planet in the universe that can support life.

But they might be too far away to visit or taken one look and run as far away from this mess as they can, we may never know.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

We have, what? Nine planets? (I'm fully prepared for all the flame I'll get if I'm wrong on that.) If one out of nine planets are capable of sustaining life and there are THOUSANDS of solar systems in the universe, then that probably means that aliens are out there somewhere. However, since all those other solar systems are about a ka-jillion light years away, it's unlikely that we'll ever see them within our lifetimes.

 

[bulbasaur765]

Sure I believe they exist. If we managed get the lucky draw while in the Soup, then there's probably another sentient species out there somewhere who managed to get lucky as well. I doubt they'll visit us though. They're probably preoccupied with something right now.

 

[cdstephens]

We have, what? Nine planets? (I'm fully prepared for all the flame I'll get if I'm wrong on that.) If one out of nine planets are capable of sustaining life and there are THOUSANDS of solar systems in the universe, then that probably means that aliens are out there somewhere. However, since all those other solar systems are about a ka-jillion light years away, it's unlikely that we'll ever see them within our lifetimes.

That's terrible statistical analysis because a) the sample size is extremely tiny, and b) we know more planets than 9 that we can be reasonably be certain to not be able to sustain life.

 

[Voodoomancer]

If someone posted this already then I don't care, too lazy to check the whole thread.

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
f[sub]p[/sub] = the fraction of those stars that have planets
n[sub]e[/sub] = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
f[sub]e[/sub] = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
f[sub]i[/sub] = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
f[sub]c[/sub] = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

- - -

This is just for our one galaxy. Considering the billions of galaxies in the universe, statistical probability says we cannot possibly be alone in the universe. I agree with it.

Is any sentient life close enough to us to ever have a hope of us contacting one another? No clue.

 

[thequixoticman]

I don't buy into all these people saying that math or statistics proves alien life. Math and statistics would tell you that we have one and only one data point and that you can't extrapolate anything from that.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that amino acids can, and probably will, be formed naturally if given the right chemicals and some sort of energy source. So that means that there could easily be other proteins out in the universe. That said, what we've seen of the universe so far, most everywhere we've looked would kill just about any sort of life we can imagine. What's more, we know that life wouldn't exist on OUR planet if we weren't a certain distance from the sun and if we didn't have Jupiter out there redirecting asteroids, meteors, and comets away from us.

Someone mentioned this experiment! First person ive met other than me to hear about it, its an awesome arguement for abiogenesis too isnt it?

Yeah, the Miller-Urey experiment is awesome. Although it doesn't show that abiogenesis DID happen, it does show a way it COULD HAVE happened, which means life spontaneously arising from inanimate matter is possible and by way of Occam's Razor, which states that all things being equal the theory that requires the least new assumptions is the most likely, and abiogenesis can safely be put into the category of science instead of magic.

 

[thequixoticman]

If someone posted this already then I don't care, too lazy to check the whole thread.

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
f[sub]p[/sub] = the fraction of those stars that have planets
n[sub]e[/sub] = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
f[sub]e[/sub] = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
f[sub]i[/sub] = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
f[sub]c[/sub] = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

- - -

This is just for our one galaxy. Considering the billions of galaxies in the universe, statistical probability says we cannot possibly be alone in the universe. I agree with it.

Is any sentient life close enough to us to ever have a hope of us contacting one another? No clue.

There's a fairly large problem with trying to use the Drake equation in an argument. Of the seven variables used, we have an idea on how the numbers resolve for two of them. We have a good idea on rates of star formation and we can make fairly educated guesses about the fraction of stars that have planets. As for every other variable you mentioned, we have one data-point for life arising in the universe. We have no information on any of those other numbers.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Yes I believe, simply through maths.

Yeah. Statistics dictate that it is likely that other living organisms exist outside our own solar system. The only problem being that it is very unlikely we will ever be able to communicate with them, given the lack of solution concerning the impossibility for any message to go faster than the speed of light.

But do I think they have actually visited earth? Statistics dictate the chances are slim to none.

If someone posted this already then I don't care, too lazy to check the whole thread.

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
f[sub]p[/sub] = the fraction of those stars that have planets
n[sub]e[/sub] = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
f[sub]e[/sub] = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
f[sub]i[/sub] = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
f[sub]c[/sub] = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

- - -

This is just for our one galaxy. Considering the billions of galaxies in the universe, statistical probability says we cannot possibly be alone in the universe. I agree with it.

Is any sentient life close enough to us to ever have a hope of us contacting one another? No clue.

Also this. Even if we made an educated guess to put a value on some of these variables, the equation doesn't even take into account the fact that depending on the surrounding area of a solar system, and depending on the location of the solar system itself within the galaxy, the planets that could potentially bear life may have a higher, lower, or zero chance of actually developing some kind of life-form. Planets that are within solar systems located near the center of the galaxy have no chance to support life, because of all the activity in that area, for example.

 

[Abengoshis]

Yes I believe in aliens.
No I don't know if they're sentient or not. I went to a lecture in UCL about life in the universe recently and the points the lecturer made were understandable and backed up with science - he argues that while life will almost definitely exist out in the universe, the chances of eukaryotic cells forming to allow for complex multicellular life is low given the specific conditions needed for mitochondria to form and for prokaryotes and archaea to allow for a eukaryotic descendant. Something along those lines anyway, I'm terrible at communicating. >.<

Although, there could be a different "life" that we are unaware of which is adapted to its environment in the same way we are adapted to ours. I don't know though and I wouldn't bet on it.

Basically: I believe in alien life but I don't believe it has ever visited us and I don't believe it ever will. I also don't believe it is likely that multiple civilisations of intelligent beings exist, although I believe there is a small probability that there are others somewhere other than on Earth.