Recent study shows strong likelihood we are the only intelligent life in the universe

[Parson]

The only definitive thing we can say is that we have not found any extra-terrestrial life. We can calculate the likelihood of there being on not being extra-terrestrial life by any number of probabilities and statistical abstract, but until we actually make contact extra-terrestrial life must remain something which is unknown. Pretty much amounting to nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

As to what makes intelligent life.... we've been down this rabbit trail more than once before and basically the answer is: We don't know. There is no established minimum ability that denotes intelligence. In it's own way every piece of life has some intelligence, but we all know that a usable definition needs to be more exclusive to have any real meaning.

 

[Lucien21]

The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.

- Carl Sagan

 

[Fivestrings]

There are too many variables for life (as we understand it) to exist on other planets. The "Goldilocks zone" theory is extremely limiting, but I suppose not impossible, as we are here. Also the possibility that life could evolve in a different area of the periodic table to our own echo system, which is now more widely considered.

And as someone else mentioned, what are they classing as "intelligent"? An already highly technological and space fairing species, I'm guessing.
However, I would class a species that is maybe 1000's of years away from achieving that, but has the the ability of innovation, adaptability, and rational thought, to be intelligent.

Either way, I feel we will never know for sure, unless the human race can live on for a few thousand more years, and advance to dizzying heights of exploration.

The idea of interstellar aliens feels quite 1950's to me.
Beings from other dimensions is maybe just as plausible.

 

[awesomesauce]

It actually strikes me as the reverse: either life is a process that arises naturally from the physically laws of the universe, or it's a singular miraculous event that happened only on Earth. The former seems the more logical presumption, the latter more one of faith.

As far as I can tell, the main source for this assumption that earth is the only planet where life exists is a cultural artifact from archaic texts that predate the optics which showed us the existence of other planets. It's super recent that we've even been able to positively identify exoplanets. (Same source for the "man is different/special/not an animal" and "we are the definition of intelligent life" ideas.)

Also most of our ideas about detecting "intelligent life" are based on the assumption that life would be using technologies similar to ours, at levels we've already achieved, so we know what to look for (like radio waves). It seems like a pretty big leap, and a very narrow categorization of "intelligent life" to assume that they would have the same sensory apparatus as us that would lead to them evolving and using technology similar enough that we would be able to identify it, from tens or hundreds or millions of light years away, as the product of a civilization.

Anyway. It seems like hubris to declare ourselves the only intelligent life in the universe when we've barely begun to explore our own solar system in any depth. The more places we go and look, the increasingly likely it seems we're going to find other life.

Scientists posit microbes on Esceladus and Mars.

 

[Justin Swanton]

As far as I can tell, the main source for this assumption that earth is the only planet where life exists is a cultural artifact from archaic texts that predate the optics which showed us the existence of other planets. It's super recent that we've even been able to positively identify exoplanets. (Same source for the "man is different/special/not an animal" and "we are the definition of intelligent life" ideas.)

I'm not aware of any archaic texts that state Earth is the only planet that harbours life.

Also most of our ideas about detecting "intelligent life" are based on the assumption that life would be using technologies similar to ours, at levels we've already achieved, so we know what to look for (like radio waves).

One thing we can say with absolute certitude about any alien civilisation is that it is part of the same physical universe we inhabit, hence composed of the same matter hence constrained by the same physical laws. We already know the nature of the particles/waves that can travel across space. We know that they disperse and gradually blend into background radiation and become indistinguishable from it. Any technology is constrained by this fact, just as any technology cannot project anything faster than the speed of light, no matter how weird and wonderful the alien intelligence that created it.

Anyway. It seems like hubris to declare ourselves the only intelligent life in the universe when we've barely begun to explore our own solar system in any depth. The more places we go and look, the increasingly likely it seems we're going to find other life.

What makes it increasingly likely? If one makes the assumption that life spontaneously arose from inorganic matter and intelligence is just a function of biology, then it is a near-certitude that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this universe. But if one cannot make that assumption then there is no gauge by which one can determine how likely life is on other planets.

Scientists posit microbes on Esceladus and Mars.

Scientists using their imaginations rather than doing science.

 

[Onyx]

But if one cannot make that assumption then there is no gauge by which one can determine how likely life is on other planets.

I think this is the product of long experience: When we think irrationally, the universe shrinks to a tiny human infested place where we act abonibally toward each other, and when we apply the tools of rationality we become much less significant and polite.

Most of us prefer the polite, so the association with being the Omega beings has become a rather distasteful point of view. Regarding our origin more humbly has led to much more prosperity, dignity and advancement, so it feels like a winning formulation that is worth more pursuit.

If we ignored superstitious belief, approaching reality without pride-of-place and things went really badly every time, we'd probably be much more suspicious of observation and reason. I doubt that is going to change without the kind of influences you're talking about coming to us without prophets, numerology, uncontestable texts, valiant acts of martyrdom and pageantry. Instead, the assumption that any question about the nature of reality can be answered is what cures diseases, signs peace treaties and grows more potatoes.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Ok, I am going to give this a go...

By training, I am a philosopher and theologian, not a scientist, so I may look at things a bit differently than most. More to the point, the burden of proof I demand for anything I affirm is exponentially higher than the scientist would. A scientist is typically satisfied with a theory that is internally consistent and matches the available physical data. People of my background typically demand that it not only does this, but matches the data (not just physical data) in ways better than any hypothetical alternate explanation. This is why philosophy goes slower than science (it may take a couple hundred years to formulate the alternate explanations), but can address questions which science is incapable of addressing. Not that there is anything wrong with science, but every field has its limits.

All that to say, things like the Drake paradox are unvetted, and quite honestly poor, philosophy under the guise of science, at least when it is used to establish that there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life. There are myriad possible reasons we haven't discovered them yet, so this confuses our ability to detect something with its actual existence. Any philosopher worth his/her salt would cry foul, unless they held to the belief that reality itself is relative, but this is not a widely held position (for good reason). All that is required to defeat the paradox in logic is to posit that there is a plausible reason we have not detected them (what that reason is doesn't need to be defined). The entire paradox falls apart with that, so I reject that paradox as drivel from the outset.

But, this does not mean that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist, either. Simply dispelling an argument against it does not constitute an argument for it. We must suspend judgement until there is evidence one way or another, and being this is dealing with the physical universe, the evidence which should be sought is scientific. But, given the barriers present to detecting this, I wouldn't be surprised if humanity never discovers life outside of this planet. As such, it remains a source of opportunity for SF writers, either in denying or affirming their existence.

Now, religious texts have been brought up, presumably the Bible (though it could include the Koran as well). I only wish to touch briefly on this here, and will happily discuss this further in PMs if anyone is interested, but there is nothing in the Bible which addresses the question of extraterrestrial life one way or another, either explicitly or implicitly. It does mention humanity being in some way Imago Dei, but there are three major theories on what is intended, and only one of them has anything to do with cognition (and it is not broad intelligence, but moral agency which is in view). But, this does not preclude life, even intelligent life, elsewhere. So, while some armchair theologians may argue otherwise, the discovery of extraterrestrial life is in no way incompatible with the Bible. Any other discussion on this topic I would prefer to keep off the main forum, as this easily leads to arguments.

So, I think we should adopt an agnostic attitude toward alien life, and create worlds where one or the other option is true.

 

[night_wrtr]

It actually strikes me as the reverse: either life is a process that arises naturally from the physically laws of the universe, or it's a singular miraculous event that happened only on Earth.

But the problem is that you are making an assumption based on no statistical knowledge. Maybe the appearance of life was miraculous (please note I'm not saying it was) but without other evidence we can neither make a case for that or against it.

We have no idea how likely or unlikely intelligent life is per unit number of stars.

Thinking that we are the only intelligent life reminds me when the earth was the center of the universe. Not exactly the same thing, I know. We have observed that to be false through scientific advancement. The probability and potential for life-sustaining planets is completely unknown, true, but that is due to our level of capability for finding it. So, right, we can't really go for or against here.

Attempting to avoid certain debate, thinking in terms of the natural world, the default should be life is a natural process, correct? If our planet had all of the ingredients, why wouldn't others? We don't know how many plants there are in the right zone for cradling life. Forgive me for a very short google here, but there is an estimated one hundred billion galaxies in the universe. Each universe has how many habitable planets? We don't know of course. I tend to place myself in the middle of an argument rather than for or against, but when I think about the potential of life elsewhere, I slide my opinion a bit further toward for.

 

[Harpo]

And one interstellar teapot

 

[night_wrtr]

And one interstellar teapot

Dragon in the Garage sounds cooler.

 

[Vertigo]

To be fair I don't think anyone in this thread or on the linked articles has made the argument that we are the only life, intelligent or otherwise, despite that being the point that so many people are arguing against. We have only made the argument that there is no evidence to suggest life is going to be common throughout the universe. We have so far only one example and that is insufficient evidence to make such a claim. It is also insufficient evidence to make the claim that we are likely the only intelligent life. It is all pure speculation. The scientific method demands that we avoid such claims but rather focus on trying to find additional data.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Wonder how far out into space one could spot an A-bomb test. You would think that a probe heading out of the solar system would take a reading of Earth so we could see how badly our EM signature of authenticity is degraded over distance. Maybe it all jumbles together into meaningless static or maybe our harnessing of energy is so crude that an intelligent life form might never do it that way.

 

[Onyx]

Wonder how far out into space one could spot an A-bomb test. You would think that a probe heading out of the solar system would take a reading of Earth so we could see how badly our EM signature of authenticity is degraded over distance. Maybe it all jumbles together into meaningless static or maybe our harnessing of energy is so crude that an intelligent life form might never do it that way.

You might be able to see it from quite a few light years, but were you looking at that second? It's like catching wink if you aren't looking directly at the person.

 

[Vertigo]

You might be able to see it from quite a few light years, but were you looking at that second? It's like catching wink if you aren't looking directly at the person.

I've always considered that one of the fundamental problems of SETI. It would only be able to detect anything from more than a few light years out if it was directed at us in a tight beam so given how many targets there are in the galaxy to direct such a beam what are the chances of us looking at just the right system just when they happen to be transmitting in our direction.

It's actually one of the more interestingly plausible things in The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu in that he arranges for a signal to be sent out by using the Sun as a transmitter. Though I must say I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the plausibility of the physics of his proposed mechanism.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The timing situation could be the biggest obstacle. I've often wondered what the pictures of objects 10 billion light years away look like today, all new stuff or just empty.

 

[M. Robert Gibson]

Obligatory Douglas Adams quote:

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

 

[Parson]

Obligatory Douglas Adams quote:

A perfect example of why I've never read any of Douglas Adams.

 

[Onyx]

A perfect example of why I've never read any of Douglas Adams.

Nor is he preachy in the good way.

 

[Justin Swanton]

"Infinite amount of space"- Einstein wouldn't like that.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Obligatory Douglas Adams quote:

Actually, he is just flat wrong. You aren't dividing a finite number by infinity; you are dividing infinity by a finite number, which leaves you with infinity. In other words, if there are an infinite number of planets, and a finite percentage of them are inhabitated, there must be an infinite number of inhabited planets.

The ironic part of his whole argument is that, should it hold true, he would actually be proving with absolute certainty some form of Creationism. DeCarte proved that one thinking must exist (even if all of the physical world were an illusion, someone is being shown that illusion, and therefore, that someone exists in some sense), and given that arbitrary self-exceptionalism is rightly excluded in logic (oneself isn't the exception to the rule unless there is an adequate reason to suspect oneself is), this must be true of other thinking entities as well. Therefore, anyone you meet cannot be a product of a deranged imagination.

If, however, the probability of an inhabited planet were actually zero, as he suggests, there cannot be a natural explanation of inhabitants anywhere. Therefore, there must be a non-natural or supernatural explanation for the fact that we do exist, even if the actual nature of our existence is outside of our ability to perceive. Thefore, if he is right, an inhabited planet required Creationism.

Therefore, unless this is his intention, he may wish to abandon this line of logic. And, if he were to, Creationists would be wise to avoid this argument, as he still has his math backwards.