Are We Alone?

[Denny Crane]

Is our definition of life as narrow as the exact characteristics of a Steven Hawking, from DNA to haircut? I suppose you're saying if Hawking is one in six billion, why aren't we one in seventy sextillion? Eventually you can narrow the scope of your search to the point where it is rather unlikely that you'll find a match. Considering how little we actually know about the origins of life on our planet I think it is a mistake to be overly specific/demanding in our criteria.

Of course our definition of life isn't that narrow. My question is about the reasoning behind why there must be life elsewhere - a numbers game. If it's simply a matter of odds (the universe is so big, there's 'x' sextillion stars with 'y' sextillion planets, thus there must be life), then why isn't it likely there's another Hawking? Or more than one?

Could it be the odds of there being life at all are 1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and we're just damn lucky?

We don't know where all the water on earth came from either

 

[speeds]

Of course our definition of life isn't that narrow. My question is about the reasoning behind why there must be life elsewhere - a numbers game. If it's simply a matter of odds (the universe is so big, there's 'x' sextillion stars with 'y' sextillion planets, thus there must be life), then why isn't it likely there's another Hawking? Or more than one?

Could it be the odds of there being life at all are 1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and we're just damn lucky?

We don't know where all the water on earth came from either

Because searching for another Hawking is almost infinitely specific. You can't filter search results with near infinite criteria. Sure there might not be one solitary microbe throughout the universe other than what's here now but just saying that sounds unlikely, at least to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because searching for another Hawking is almost infinitely specific. You can't filter search results with near infinite criteria. Sure there might not be one solitary microbe throughout the universe other than what's here now but just saying that sounds unlikely, at least to me.

I hear them filter "life" with "intelligent life" all the time. If the numbers are the sole source of the argument, and they appear to be, then the shear enormity of it all would make the Hawking question quite valid.

If we knew how life starts, then there'd be a real case to be made, IMO. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, then the laws for life starting would be, too.

But those laws of physics are clearly identifiable and not based upon chance. Like "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."