Fly 2.4 billion light years in 2 minutes (page 2)

seattleniceguy

Pope, I believe they used DivX compression, which I believe (not sure) is a proprietary format used to compress DVDs. You usually get the codec when you install DVD software. Can you play DVDs on your computer?

SNG

tetrapod.sapien

How did you guys play the movie???

i downloaded divX from http://www.divx.com/divx/download/ and just installed it. it worked fine after that.

i can't stop watching the movie. the feeling of awe is kind of overwhelming. like sagan's "Billions and Billions". i can't stop thinking about it...

SNG,

your run down of probability is very well done. concise and obtainable. thanks.

tetrapod.sapien

does anyone know what the main tree-like "formation" that the simulation rotated around for quite a while, is?

Terry

If something happens by chance at a given rate, and the number of opportunities is significantly higher than that rate, then it is likely for that thing to happen. For example, if a coin comes up heads one out of two times on average, then we can say confidently that if we flip it one hundred times, we are extremely likely to get heads many times.

Yep, That I understand.

But, I don't see it that way.

For one thing; when you flip a coin...you flip THE EXACT SAME COIN. The only variance is in when and how you flip.

But, with conditions for life on this planet....extrapolating the same conditions to other locations that are not this planet I think the analogy is stretched a bit thin.

I grasp the concept but find it unconvincing.

Back to the coin. The coin is binary.

Life and no life are not binary although they APPEAR to be.

The difference between no life and life is absolutely and mind-bogglingly vast.

The two are not even opposite.

T

Carmel

Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 162)

The earth has its inhabitants, the water and the air contain many living beings and all the elements have their nature spirits, then how is it possible to conceive that these stupendous stellar bodies are not inhabited? Verily, they are peopled, but let it be known that the dwellers accord with the elements of their respective spheres. These living beings do not have states of consciousness like unto those who live on the surface of this globe: the power of adaptation and environment moulds their bodies and states of consciousness, just as our bodies and minds are suited to our planet.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 114)

OldSoul

Thanks, SNG. Very interesting.

Drake's equation seems inadequate to me, because we have no means by which to determine what "life" means except in terms of carbon or silicate-based life forms. Every planet may be capable of sustaining life, the challenge may be in our capacity to comprehend what form (if any) life takes on a particular planet.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Pole

Terry,

But, with conditions for life on this planet....extrapolating the same conditions to other locations that are not this planet I think the analogy is stretched a bit thin.

It is stretched a bit - just as any probabilistic model accounting for reality. Howerver it's not streched as much as you may think:

Back to the coin. The coin is binary.
Life and no life are not binary although they APPEAR to be.
The difference between no life and life is absolutely and mind-bogglingly vast

True. I don't think you and SNG differ that much in this respect. SNG allows for this "mind-bogglingness"by assuming that:

there is a one-in-a-billion chance of any particular planet having the necessary features for life

This may still not mean that life will occur a billion times. It simply means there may potentially be 1 billion planets with "life-friendly" environment. Do you find 1 billion different life-development scenarios mind-boggling enough?

On the other hand, we shouldn't forget that there are different probabilistic models which have different success rates with accounting for reality. So you are right in saying a nominal-binary model like: life occurs: yes/no is not a very good model of the origins of life on a universal scale.

What's more even with real coins, it's hard to find one that would be perfectly "fair". In fact whether you get heads or tails in real world is governed by millions of factors which we tend to disregard.

As I said earlier pure mathematical enthropy (level of randomness) is severly limited by real-world factors.

Sorry, I need to leave now. Interesting thread anyway.

Pole

seattleniceguy

Back to the coin. The coin is binary.
Life and no life are not binary although they APPEAR to be.
The difference between no life and life is absolutely and mind-bogglingly vast.

The differences between a planet that will not sustain life and one that will are not as deep as the life-versus-non-life dichotomy. If we define a number of traits that a planet must have to be life-hospitable, then it is a certainty that some planets will fulfill them all.

For example, the WTS makes a big deal about how perfect our distance is to the sun. We'll ignore the fact that this distance is only "perfect" from our view because we have developed to be unfit for life elsewhere. Let's imagine that there really and truly is a limited range of host star sizes and distances from those stars that a planet must be to support life. Let's say a star must be between 80% and 120% of our star's size, and that the planet must be between 80% and 120% of our planet's distance to the sun, from that star.

Now, we can assume that planets are distributed fairly evenly in star systems. Look at our system. We have at least 10 (now) planets at various distances from the sun. Go to another star system, and you'll find a bunch of planets at different locations. Clearly, if we look at enough star systems, we should find another planet orbiting a star similar to ours at a distance similar to ours.

If we allow that there really are a billion billion planets, it is well-nigh impossible that no other planet would have the necessary ingredients for life. And this whole discussion doesn't even take into account the very real possibility that life can exist in forms other than what we know!

Again, Terry, unless you believe that God magically did it, then you believe that life arose because the environment was right for it. Do you believe that the environment was right only one place in the entire universe? Are the requirements for a life-hospitable environment that stringent?

SNG

Pole

SNG,

What do you mean by "life"? (other than life on earth)

Pole

seattleniceguy

Well, for the purposes of this discussion, I mean life that is similar to life on earth. On earth, all life is united by metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, development, inheritance. Those things would suffice for me, even if the exact mechanics (for instance, inheritance via DNA/RNA) were different.

SNG

Fly 2.4 billion light years in 2 minutes

Share this