Are We Alone In The Galaxy? Updated Drake Equation Suggests We Might Be

[CCoburn]

I believe a lot of this speculation about alien life elsewhere in the solar system, galaxy, or even more remote areas of the universe may be flawed. I say this because if the universe is in fact created and is a product of design then probability theories may not have any place pertaining to such a model and would amount to nothing more than some trivial mathematical gymnastics.

Either the universe was designed, or it wasn't designed - a logical tautology. Although perhaps it may have been designed with dynamic unknowns such as alternate forms of life elsewhere in the cosmos, but it seems to me that probability is more geared towards an order from chaos(or nothing) model, and I just don't believe that to be the case in the absence of any initial design element.

One might incorporate precision elements such as the existence of Goldilocks zones to fortify a design argument, but there is a bit more to it than that. It would appear that there MUST also be a 'preservation' element as well. The universe can be a very hostile place sometimes referred as a "Cosmic shooting gallery" although such analogies and their effects may not be as random as they appear.

If star systems and their precision quarters of evolution were left solely to the devices of chaos(totally random occurrences) and nothing else, then it seems that they would likely fall prey to an uncaring universe at some arbitrary point and not have any chance to evolve unscathed for the several billion years that they have.

There is roughly nine billion years between Earth and a primordial beginning. There can be a lot of things coming into existence and evolving for eons in that amount of time - all part of the plan. As a matter of fact, the initial designer(God if you will), may not even be directly responsible for life here on Earth, but it's possible that secondary or tertiary beings that came into existence within some point during that initial timeframe might be responsible for that.

I don't believe the vastness of the universe matters much either with virtual infinity as an upper limit. There could be reasons for the numerous parsecs of apparently 'dead' space. If there are other civilizations evolving concurrent to ours it might be implemented as a form of encapsulation to distance and prevent them from interfering with one another.

I would say that whatever created this evolutionary zone that we call Earth is likely watching over it as we speak - the "preservation" factor for as long as it remains the current agenda.

[K218b]

I believe a lot of this speculation about alien life elsewhere in the solar system, galaxy, or even more remote areas of the universe may be flawed. I say this because if the universe is in fact created and is a product of design then probability theories may not have any place pertaining to such a model and would amount to nothing more than some trivial mathematical gymnastics.

Either the universe was designed, or it wasn't designed - a logical tautology. Although perhaps it may have been designed with dynamic unknowns such as alternate forms of life elsewhere in the cosmos, but it seems to me that probability is more geared towards an order from chaos(or nothing) model, and I just don't believe that to be the case in the absence of any initial design element.

One might incorporate precision elements such as the existence of Goldilocks zones to fortify a design argument, but there is a bit more to it than that. It would appear that there MUST also be a 'preservation' element as well. The universe can be a very hostile place sometimes referred as a "Cosmic shooting gallery" although such analogies and their effects may not be as random as they appear.

If star systems and their precision quarters of evolution were left solely to the devices of chaos(totally random occurrences) and nothing else, then it seems that they would likely fall prey to an uncaring universe at some arbitrary point and not have any chance to evolve unscathed for the several billion years that they have.

There is roughly nine billion years between Earth and a primordial beginning. There can be a lot of things coming into existence and evolving for eons in that amount of time - all part of the plan. As a matter of fact, the initial designer(God if you will), may not even be directly responsible for life here on Earth, but it's possible that secondary or tertiary beings that came into existence within some point during that initial timeframe might be responsible for that.

I don't believe the vastness of the universe matters much either with virtual infinity as an upper limit. There could be reasons for the numerous parsecs of apparently 'dead' space. If there are other civilizations evolving concurrent to ours it might be implemented as a form of encapsulation to distance and prevent them from interfering with one another.

I would say that whatever created this evolutionary zone that we call Earth is likely watching over it as we speak - the "preservation" factor for as long as it remains the current agenda.

Who said anything about intelligent design ?

I think you started your reply with a huge assertion but nevertheless it's a good point for debate.

[CCoburn]

Who said anything about intelligent design ?

The quote feature I normally use doesn't seem to be available, so I'll just do two replies this time.

Apparently you just did. I might've been 'implying' it, but I never said it. I did say that probabilistic theories/formulas such as the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox would be less meaningful if there exists a "design element" at the core. 

Your quote that I'm replying here seems a bit lazy, pointless, and/or rushed. What difference does it make whether or not anyone previously "said anything" about it? I entered it into the discussion in forming a point which was conveniently ignored in paving the way for this flippant comment of yours.

---

I think you started your reply with a huge assertion but nevertheless it's a good point for debate.

I'm not exactly sure of its magnitude, and you seem to be a little off with your assessment here. In the context I provided it was more of a hypothesis or maybe even a theory, but not quite an "assertion", let alone a "huge" one.

It's true, I did go on about it a bit though, but it does seem relevant since design and probability do appear to be somewhat at odds with one another in a cosmological setting.

Probability is a dice roll, and to paraphrase Einstein "God doesn't roll dice with the universe.", or you could also say that a design element eliminates dice rolls altogether, which is not to say that there could not exist any trivial probabilities as part of a designed universe since we know this to not be the case, or one might even go so far as to hypothesize that even trivial probabilities are actually not even probabilistic at all but are in fact ingrained as part of a deterministic model.

[Maxmars]

Humans model everything.

Our efforts to formalize that compulsion by casting more and more fundamental concepts into the realm of modelling have brought us to a point where we have to accept that we can only be as successful as our current understanding encompasses.

The problem with the 'designed'  reality approach is that it complicates our ability to model.  We can discuss that gap between the theoretical and the practical in many ways, and we often do.  But in the context of this thread, the point I maintain is we can never forget that we don't know everything.

Every model, from Drakes equation to the theory of relativity is - in a very real sense - flawed.  The reason is simple simply because we don't know everything.  There is no reason to assume that intelligent communicative life must be as we see and understand it here, on Earth.  There is no reason to exclude non-carbon-based life, extra-dimensional processes, and even "spiritual" elements from the equation.  We just don't (or possibly can't) explain it, or understand it well enough to "model it."

"Impossible" is a word we have to embrace as a gross generalization... the universe is as close to infinite as we can imagine.  That being the case, we have to accept that neither the design theory, nor the 'scientifically modelled' universe theory can be declared "better."  Perhaps more 'acceptable' or more 'understandable'... but not 'better.'

That being said, Drakes's equation is only a means to an end.  That end?  To figure out why we haven't discovered other intelligences in the cosmos, and how likely is it that we can.  (After all, if it's not out there, you will never find it.)  All the author was trying to present was that according to some, it's less likely than initially assumed based upon the model because they have a 'tweaked' formula that changes the variables.

[K218b]

Humans model everything.

Our efforts to formalize that compulsion by casting more and more fundamental concepts into the realm of modelling have brought us to a point where we have to accept that we can only be as successful as our current understanding encompasses.

The problem with the 'designed'  reality approach is that it complicates our ability to model.  We can discuss that gap between the theoretical and the practical in many ways, and we often do.  But in the context of this thread, the point I maintain is we can never forget that we don't know everything.

Every model, from Drakes equation to the theory of relativity is - in a very real sense - flawed.  The reason is simple simply because we don't know everything.  There is no reason to assume that intelligent communicative life must be as we see and understand it here, on Earth.  There is no reason to exclude non-carbon-based life, extra-dimensional processes, and even "spiritual" elements from the equation.  We just don't (or possibly can't) explain it, or understand it well enough to "model it."

"Impossible" is a word we have to embrace as a gross generalization... the universe is as close to infinite as we can imagine.  That being the case, we have to accept that neither the design theory, nor the 'scientifically modelled' universe theory can be declared "better."  Perhaps more 'acceptable' or more 'understandable'... but not 'better.'

That being said, Drakes's equation is only a means to an end.  That end?  To figure out why we haven't discovered other intelligences in the cosmos, and how likely is it that we can.  (After all, if it's not out there, you will never find it.)  All the author was trying to present was that according to some, it's less likely than initially assumed based upon the model because they have a 'tweaked' formula that changes the variables.

You stand correct about what the authors tried to present in their paper. All they did is to give smaller values for the lower and upper bounds of the intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.

One objection though. The Drake Equation was created to give some numbers and not to answer why we haven't been visited yet. That's a very different issue and I have given some explanations as to why we haven't met anyone yet.

---

The quote feature I normally use doesn't seem to be available, so I'll just do two replies this time.

Apparently you just did. I might've been 'implying' it, but I never said it. I did say that probabilistic theories/formulas such as the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox would be less meaningful if there exists a "design element" at the core. 

Your quote that I'm replying here seems a bit lazy, pointless, and/or rushed. What difference does it make whether or not anyone previously "said anything" about it? I entered it into the discussion in forming a point which was conveniently ignored in paving the way for this flippant comment of yours.

---

I'm not exactly sure of its magnitude, and you seem to be a little off with your assessment here. In the context I provided it was more of a hypothesis or maybe even a theory, but not quite an "assertion", let alone a "huge" one.

It's true, I did go on about it a bit though, but it does seem relevant since design and probability do appear to be somewhat at odds with one another in a cosmological setting.

Probability is a dice roll, and to paraphrase Einstein "God doesn't roll dice with the universe.", or you could also say that a design element eliminates dice rolls altogether, which is not to say that there could not exist any trivial probabilities as part of a designed universe since we know this to not be the case, or one might even go so far as to hypothesize that even trivial probabilities are actually not even probabilistic at all but are in fact ingrained as part of a deterministic model.

From your posts I see you have introduced the notion of a creator and of intelligent design. I wasn't the one to refer to because I don't see any signs of intelligent design. There is zero evidence for it.

Your second paragraph in your first post clearly implies there could be some creator who is behind this design.

[Maxmars]

True, the comments about "intelligent design" was an addition of my own...

And the reason for the Drake equation was misstated, it was not to answer the question "why."  It's just how it is usually introduced in conversation that I experience, almost implying the answer would be there, if anywhere... my point is it is not to be found there.

[CCoburn]

From your posts I see you have introduced the notion of a creator and of intelligent design. I wasn't the one to refer to because I don't see any signs of intelligent design. There is zero evidence for it.

Yes, the premise is intelligent design versus chance which equates to the types of probability found in these formulas and paradoxes, but if you're looking for the up-close and personal type of "intelligent design evidence" then that dojo is two doors down and to the right, and I was going the other way.

---

Your second paragraph in your first post clearly implies there could be some creator who is behind this design.

Yes, I believe that is most certainly the case. A creator/architect without all the bells and whistles, absolutely.

[K218b]

Yes, the premise is intelligent design versus chance which equates to the types of probability found in these formulas and paradoxes, but if you're looking for the up-close and personal type of "intelligent design evidence" then that dojo is two doors down and to the right, and I was going the other way.

---

Yes, I believe that is most certainly the case. A creator/architect without all the bells and whistles, absolutely.

That's another conversation but it's still interesting to be honest. None of the physics we know of or biology and chemistry points to intelligent design. If anything it points to exactly the opposite of a creator. Unless you want to call nature as the creator but that's another conversation.

[CCoburn]

That's another conversation but it's still interesting to be honest. None of the physics we know of or biology and chemistry points to intelligent design. If anything it points to exactly the opposite of a creator. Unless you want to call nature as the creator but that's another conversation.

I just created another thread and threw up an intro for it. I don't think it's uncommon for topics like this to undoubtedly stray into other areas as if by necessity.

I think with this thread I just read the title and did a really quick skim and dove right into the writing - I do have a tendency to write more than I read.

[VulcanWerks]

Since I was a small child I have always assumed/felt that we are not “alone” in the universe.

I had this since before I became more aware that we’re “alone”.

To this day I hold that same stance.

I view us being alone as materially low-probability logically and mathematically.

Beyond that, just because we haven’t been told by a government that they exist doesn’t mean they don’t exist. In fact, the governments of the world saying something or not has little to no bearing on my stance.

There are lots of things that are true that most people think is false… and vice-versa.

So, I’m going to remain firmly in the camp that is being “alone” is very low probability. So low I highly doubt that’s the case when thinking at massive scale.