WHAT IS LIFE ?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
Yeah, and from your own quote...

He's proving the probability is 1 BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. See all of the MIGHTs?

Yes, I see the "mights". They are called "variables".

ANd if perhaps you had read a little bit further, gotten past the "mights", you would have read

Probability 1 delivers on its promise to prove Aczel's conjcture through a clearly explained application of known statistical theory to the chaos of the universe.

And "fear of big numbers" never impresses me as a disproof to things that HAVE HAPPENED.

[TeleMad]

He's proving the probability is 1 BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. See all of the MIGHTs? [/quote]

FreeThinker: Yes, I see the "mights". They are called "variables".

Yep, variables set to arbitrary values BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. Glad you agree.

FreeThinker: ANd if perhaps you had read a little bit further, gotten past the "mights", you would have read

*********************
Probability 1 delivers on its promise to prove Aczel's conjcture through a clearly explained application of known statistical theory to the chaos of the universe.
**********************

I did read it...it doesn't hold up since the dude is using at least some values that not empirically based. One can't PROVE anything using numbers that aren't solid. Here. let me PROVE that life only exists on Earth. The probability that life exists elsewhere is 0. There, I've PROVEN that life only exists here!

FreeThinker: And "fear of big numbers" never impresses me as a disproof to things that HAVE HAPPENED.

LOL! By all means FreeThink, please demonstrate to all of us that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the Universe! Go ahead, back up your ridiculous claim of things we supposedly know actually HAVE HAPPENED.


Simple fact is, no one can now PROVE that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the Universe, nor can anyone disprove it. We're back to each person being able to believe what he/she wants to on this and no one being able to be demonstrate their wrong. Now, if SETI succeeds tomorrow, then we'll know for sure; but pluggin speculative numbers into Drake's equations ain't gonna do it.

[TeleMad]

For those interested in the opposing viewpoint, there's "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe".

[Freethinker]

Ah. TeleMAD is living up to his name and reputation. Arguing with himself.

Originally posted by: TeleMad
He's proving the probability is 1 BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. See all of the MIGHTs?

FreeThinker: Yes, I see the "mights". They are called "variables".

Originally posted by: TeleMad
Yep, variables set to arbitrary values BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. Glad you agree.

Let's see if you can join OUR discussion, instead the one you seem to be having with YOURSELF.

To start we will let you show everyone where you get MY having said "arbitrary values BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS", which you CLAIM I "agree" with.

Or will you just show us all that it was YOURSELF that you are arguing with?

The option being that you just LIE about what I say and PRETEND I said it.

Well? Show us all MY quote you YOU claim I said

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
Unfortunately, what the book is going to boil down to, is "There MUST be other intelligent life somewhere in our Universe IF THE UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS I MAKE TURN OUT TO BE TRUE". Read the book if you want and enjoy it like any other good fiction novel.

I infer from your wording that you've not read the book. Are you not making unsupported assumptions now based on the title alone?

[Freethinker]

Not to be outdone, by HIMSELF! Telemud invents a SECOND argument between himself and... well... himself!

Originally posted by: TeleMad

LOL! By all means FreeThink, please demonstrate to all of us that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the Universe! Go ahead, back up your ridiculous claim of things we supposedly know actually HAVE HAPPENED.

I'll try to lay this out slowly for you.

1) you started your internal argument of rambling about RNA and how BIG and SCARY the numbers involving it's abiogenesis probability are! OOOOOOOOOoooooooo!

2) NOTHING in that RNA rambling mentions life ELSEWHERE. Just the probablity of RNA thru abiogenesis.

3) My mistake was in interupting your attempt at internal coherent thought. I commented that regardless of the % of probability, life HAS HAPPENED.

4) WE are that life. Or are you going to waste our time arguing that we are not alive? If that is your intent, keep THAT argument to yourself.

5) YOU reply

demonstrate to all of us that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the Universe!

??? Thats was NOT included ANYWHERE in your 1st RNA yada yada. You must have been having THAT part of the argument only in your head.

Let us all know when you want to DISCUSS things with US, not just argue in your own head.

[TeleMad]

I won’t reply to the many of the asinine and childish things “FreeThinker” (what an misnomer!) said. I'll pay attention to only his one main "point".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: TeleMad
He's proving the probability is 1 BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. See all of the MIGHTs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeThinker: Yes, I see the "mights". They are called "variables".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeleMad : Yep, variables set to arbitrary values BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS. Glad you agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeThinker: … To start we will let you show everyone where you get MY having said "arbitrary values BASED ON HIS UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS", which you CLAIM I "agree" with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, you show us where I said you said exactly that! I didn’t.

You agreed the mights were variables. Variables are placeholders that can take on different values. Now, if the actual values were known, they wouldn’t use variables: they’d use actual numbers. And, they wouldn't use "mights". So by your agreeing that they they use mights that are variables, you implicitly agreed that the true values aren’t known. Hence, one can't actually PROVE their MUST be other intelligent life in the Universe. Overall, in general, that supports my position...and I'm glad you agree with me.

[TeleMad]

[quote]
The Drake equation (also known as the Green Bank equation) is a famous result in the speculative fields of xenobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake in the 1960s in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.

The Drake equation is closely related to the Fermi paradox.

The Drake equation states that

N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L

…

Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, …

What evidence is currently visible to humanity suggests that fl is very high; life on Earth appears to have begun almost immediately after conditions arrived in which it was possible, suggesting that abiogenesis is relatively "easy" once conditions are right. But this evidence is limited in scope, and so this term remains in considerable dispute. …

fi, fc, and L are obviously little more than guesses.


…

Other assumptions give values of N that are << 1, in accord with the observable evidence.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) [q/]

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
For those interested in the opposing viewpoint, there's "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe".

Hahahaha, Oh this is almost TOO GOOD!

I figured that we would find, yet again, that Telemeds was going to argue with himself. We've seen it twice in the last couple posts already.

Remember how his big proof was the BIG SCARY numbers involved with the probablity of RNA abiogenesis and thus we would not find LIFE, ofcourse ignoring OUR existence, which later became, would not find life ELSEWHERE.... Again, because of a lack of abiogenesis for RNA.

So now he gives us

the opposing viewpoint

and even gives a source to check out.

Naturally this source would validate his PROOF that the chance of RNA coming thru abiogenesis is so extreme it would never happen!

And so what does the first review of his suggested book say?

Editorial Reviews
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
Amazon.com
"Do you feel lucky? Well do ya?" asked Dirty Harry. Paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee think all of us should feel lucky. Their rare Earth hypothesis predicts that while simple, microbial life will be very widespread in the universe,

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387...

You know "simple, microbial life" which of course would REQUIRE RNA as a precursor.

If you have actually read EITHER of these books, and you've so badly missed their contents, I suggest you find simpler material to read.

And for the record, I often read books that come from multiple sides of an issue. In this case, just as with Probability 1, there were reviewers that disagreed with the premise and even basic approach this book takes. Further it is even mentioned that THIS approach is the less popular one.

What we have not seen here yet from Telemat is specific examples of where Probablity 1 is WRONG. Ya lots of rambling as random nuerons fire, lots of accusations of what is wrong with the book. But not anything laid out for examination and review. Oh ya, the RNA thing. But that he disproved with his own

the opposing viewpoint

And finally, the ultimate outcome of Probablity 1 only needs ONE other intellegent life in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE for it to be correct.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
No, you show us where I said you said exactly that! I didn’t.

I'm sorry. I can't even make sense out of what you post anymore.

I find no value to this nonsense. If you didn't like Probablity 1, OK.

But I see no need to argue with you anymore.