Of course, it was more in response to assigning the probability of life to 1/infinity when NASA's Kepler team estimates 50 billion exoplanets, 500 million of which in earth like habitability zone in orbit around a sun.

thats right.

In part they come up with those numbers based on how atoms are thought to be formed. In stars. Given the fact that most stars can make carbon, oxygen, and some of the other row 1 and 2 stuff. I think even red dawrf can some of the stuff. These red darwf's make up most of the stars. Not main sequence ones. To be clear, stars that are out there, not ones we can see. This universe was going to have life.

i remember in the 80's saying "there are planets". People said "you can't say that." Based just on what we know about the P.T. I said, we will find planets.
Life is the same. It may be special. Maybe even scarce (gamma ray sterilizers) but it is out there.

(April 9, 2014 at 12:37 pm)archangle Wrote:

(April 9, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I just want to know how we've arrived at a statistical measurement of the probability of life occurring from a sample size of one.

real simple.
Look at the PT.
Look at life as we know it.

Look at where "carbon" and 'water" are formed. Look at the temperatures they can interact with each other and "stuff" around them.

These interactions are less than 10% of the known universe.

Your sample size of one does not fit observation. Even at the most basic level of "how do we know". There is more than one "place" these interactions can take place.

If its as simple as combining water and carbon they should have already been able to replicate it in the lab. It appears that abiogenesis requires more than just the coming together of ingredients. It requires a recipe.

The existence of water, wheat, salt, and yeast, make the existence of bread more likely.....but it certainly doesn't guarantee it.

(April 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 9, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Chas Wrote: You don't seem to know the difference between countable and uncountable infinities.

It is assumed that when talking about white balls/red balls, we are talking about countable infinities, the infinity of the natural numbers.

The infinity you are talking about with the rays is an uncountable infinity, the infinity of the continuum. That infinity is larger.

pay attention mash potato brains...were way beyond marbles....were talking about magical dice now.

BlowJob, go fuck yourself. I answered your post - try being constructive instead of being a total douche bag.

---

(April 9, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 9, 2014 at 12:37 pm)archangle Wrote: real simple.
Look at the PT.
Look at life as we know it.

Look at where "carbon" and 'water" are formed. Look at the temperatures they can interact with each other and "stuff" around them.

These interactions are less than 10% of the known universe.

Your sample size of one does not fit observation. Even at the most basic level of "how do we know". There is more than one "place" these interactions can take place.

If its as simple as combining water and carbon they should have already been able to replicate it in the lab. It appears that abiogenesis requires more than just the coming together of ingredients. It requires a recipe.

The existence of water, wheat, salt, and yeast, make the existence of bread more likely.....but it certainly doesn't guarantee it.

You left out all the other chemicals, but most importantly, you forget millions of years and the size of the earth.

(April 8, 2014 at 7:50 pm)tor Wrote: All life needs is 1 self replicating molecule and planet that make life possible.
Now take all the planets with conditions that make life possible.
Many.
Now take all the years those planets existed.
Many.
Now take all the molecules on all of those planets.
Many.

In order to have life all you need is 1 self replicating molecule.

Whats the chance of life appearing somewhere at some point? Big.

I think you are being too flippant. There is a vast gap between a self-replicating molecule and an organism of many molecules, most of which are not self-replicating in the strict sense of the word, that can nontheless systematically harness resources from its environment to create something like a duplicate of itself.

It is true the vast gap is nonetheless likely to be bridged in the time available to the geologically active life of a earth like planet. But that's no excuse to be flip about "all it takes".

Heywood why do you still fail?
The probability of life evolving on a planet is X. X is higher than 0 because it is possible for abiogenesis to occur.
If X is higher than zero then multiple attempts increase the chance of it happening. More planets = more chances = higher chance.

(April 9, 2014 at 5:41 pm)tor Wrote: Heywood why do you still fail?
The probability of life evolving on a planet is X. X is higher than 0 because it is possible for abiogenesis to occur.
If X is higher than zero then multiple attempts increase the chance of it happening. More planets = more chances = higher chance.

The probability that life (as we know it) will evolve is 1.

(April 9, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 9, 2014 at 5:41 pm)tor Wrote: Heywood why do you still fail?
The probability of life evolving on a planet is X. X is higher than 0 because it is possible for abiogenesis to occur.
If X is higher than zero then multiple attempts increase the chance of it happening. More planets = more chances = higher chance.

The probability that life (as we know it) will evolve is 1.

Really? Is there such a thing as a priori probability being 1?

Quote:The chances of that life being on our intellectual level or above, sadly nowhere near as high.

Really?

(April 9, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(April 9, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: The probability that life (as we know it) will evolve is 1.

Really? Is there such a thing as a priori probability being 1?

I'm using a definition for evolution here which is rather loose or broad......Basically I am thinking that evolution is just descent with change.

But you are correct, it isn't 1 because over any time specified time scale I suppose there is a probability that life as we know it can occur were there is descent but no change.

Thanks for prompting the thought.