Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Boondala t1_iya2m6j wrote

Reply to comment by lego_office_worker in Extragalactic SETI looks for life beyond the Milky Way. But where? In game theory one solution is a Schelling point — a single event that draws different group's attention. A binary neutron star merger could act as one, because observers across the universe will all be looking in the same direction. by EricFromOuterSpace

I hope we cannot prove that we are alone. The sky just wouldn’t be as interesting anymore.

55

BreastMilkPopsicles t1_iya7s66 wrote

If we prove we are alone then I'd be far more inclined to believe the more "super natural" theories about the universe.

48

strikeelite t1_iyak1gs wrote

I have to disagree. There'd still be so much worth finding, both biological and otherwise. Finding out we're the only conscious beings would instill in all of us a deep purpose to spread consciousness everywhere. We'd be the primordial being, enshrouded in perpetual myth throughout the cosmos. 'The First Ones' .

Also, who knows how violent or immoral some other conscious being may be. We seem to be kind, for the most part. With a little more widespread knowledge and direct democracy, I think we could be very successful in our voyage to the stars.

26

MentalicMule t1_iyajttk wrote

Just need to read the 3 Body Problem series to make it feel better about being alone in the universe.

13

EricFromOuterSpace OP t1_iya45hd wrote

this did make me curious if there was some mathematical way to prove an absence of life. not sure how that would be possible tho.

3

varignet t1_iya6cf4 wrote

I think it’s a logical fallacy, you can prove the existence of something, but you cannot prove the non-existence of it.

17

HerbaciousTea t1_iyae90x wrote

There are some interesting models based on the formation speeds of stars and planets and how long they remain habitable, as to how prevalent life might be at the different stages of the universe.

They suggest that the peak of habitable worlds that have existed long enough for life to exist and evolve to an intelligent stage (given certain assumptions about the difficulty of that) is actually some billion years in the future, and that humanity could be relatively early on the bellcurve of the distribution for life. Not extremely early, but well before the theorized majority of opportunities for intelligent life.

It involves assuming that earth life is typical, or at least no an extreme outlier in terms of requirements and timeline to evolve, because it's the sole datapoint we have, and assuming humanity is special or unique would be a form of anthropocentrism.

10

CuddlePirate420 t1_iya5ofp wrote

You first have to define "life". There could be forms of life that we'd never consider or think possible and be nothing at all like any life we see on Earth. But if you do develope a working definition, it could be possible to disprove its existence by a form of proof by contradiction by proving the existence of things or conditions that would prevent your "life" from being able to exist.

4

grammarGuy69 t1_iya6i53 wrote

I think, unless we can literally colonize everything, it'll be sorta like the argument for/against God. Where are they/we can't know they aren't there. Both of which are technically valid.

3