And as regards Bohm, luckily I have several friends who are highly-trained physicists with whom I’ll be able to discuss things.
truly fantastic Physics ... that may eventually bring Science & the Humanities together into one conception.I don't know. Actually, I'm pretty convinced, all the desperate grasping for a new physics to answer all our questions, is a chimera.
I don’t think math and physics has much more to offer that humanity can relate to, beyond what we’ve already learned. Which is way the hell more than most have taken the bother to become acquainted with.
Seems to me any conception that brings together science and humanities will need to come from a much deeper sober appreciation of Evolution right here on Earth. One that will open peoples eyes to their total connection with every other living thing and through the deep time. Knowing the inside of quark, or quantizing gravity, how’s that going to help anything or any one? Blast the potential new technology, considering the main thing new technology has done is make us lazier and more dissatisfied, always expecting the next big thing to become bored with before we even grasp what it’s about. Not to mention destroying our biosphere at a frightening pace.
Our time is running out fast, thanks to delusional thinking and seeking all answers in the heavens, rather than realizing, it’s all about the here’n now and we are it and this Earth is our home and life support system and all of our past and whatever future young generations can squeak out of the disaster we are leaving them with.
No other planet to escape to, no other civilization to save or destroy us, nor will any new physics make us any smarter - when the problem is that we are too in love with our own imaginations to really recognize Earth for what and who she is.
Ironically, this is the first post I started this morning, then put it aside, am glad I didn’t trash it.
Interesting stuff, but I’ve just come across some other interesting stuff about the Drake Equation, so hope you don’t me bringing back to the thread title
Never seen it laid out quite so nicely,
source and interesting article: www _ universetoday _com/139467/new-model-predicts-that-were-probably-the-only-advanced-civilization-in-the-observable-universe/
New Model Predicts That We’re Probably the Only Advanced Civilization in the Observable Universe
JUNE 21, 2018 BY MATT WILLIAMS
New Horizons Spacecraft Data Shows There Are Far Fewer Galaxies in the Universe Than Previously ThoughtBy SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE - JANUARY 12, 2021
New measurements of the sky’s blackness show galaxies only number in the hundreds of billions.
How dark is the sky, and what does that tell us about the number of galaxies in the visible universe? Astronomers can estimate the total number of galaxies by counting everything visible in a Hubble deep field and then multiplying them by the total area of the sky. But other galaxies are too faint and distant to directly detect. Yet while we can’t count them, their light suffuses space with a feeble glow.To measure that glow, astronomical satellites have to escape the inner solar system and its light pollution, caused by sunlight reflecting off dust. A team of scientists has used observations by NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt to determine the brightness of this cosmic optical background. Their result sets an upper limit to the abundance of faint, unresolved galaxies, showing that they only number in the hundreds of billions, not 2 trillion galaxies as previously believed. …
Never seen it laid out quite so nicely,source and interesting article: www _ universetoday _com/139467/new-model-predicts-that-were-probably-the-only-advanced-civilization-in-the-observable-universe/
New Model Predicts That We’re Probably the Only Advanced Civilization in the Observable Universe
Indeed, very clear illustration.
And the prediction that we are the only “advanced” civilization may well be true, but that does not identify the number of planets with “life” . I would speculate that number would be easier to calculate, using the Earth as a template for a habitable planet. AFAIK, the earth is just a very average planet, with commonly shared chemistry and natural laws. If an average planet has water it very likely has some form of life.
When there is life, the evolution of intelligent life is then only a matter of time, if the planetary resources permit it.
Using the incredible variety of life on earth it seems to me that a cinderella planet like earth has so many resources that it becomes “necessary” for life to emerge. I believe there is a theory that predicts the inevitability of life if sufficient resources are present.
New measurements of the sky’s blackness show galaxies only number in the hundreds of billions. How dark is the sky, and what does that tell … Continue reading .........New Horizons Spacecraft Data Shows There Are Far Fewer Galaxies in the Universe Than Previously ThoughtOnly a few hundred billion galaxies and each galaxy containing only a few hundred billion stars and each solar system containing only a few planets, and knowledge that a typical average planet like earth has spawned only a few hundred million species, suggests to me a very high probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe. But then I'm an optimist....
There’s the caveat, what kind of life are we thinking asking about.
I would agree, from all I’ve learned about biology and origins research, that very simple microbial life could well be relatively common, it wants to happen once the basic elements come together.
Simple creatures, perhaps not particularly rare either - but achieving what the human body and hands and mind achieved, that I could being a once in gazillion, gazillion event. Especially considering all the freak events that led to Earth turning out the way it did.
Perhaps it’s happened, the universe is very big and very old, so perhaps they are so rare that they don’t happen at the same time.
Who knows, except that we’ve seen nothing yet. Yet, microbes within our solar system wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
I agree, being that our extraordinary intelligence is the result of a very rare “beneficial genetic mutation”, rather than a gradual evolutionary process.
Consider the implication of the fact that of all the hominid species, only humans have 46 chromosomes, the result of fusion of two ancestral hominid chromosomes.
What is the connection between the Drake Equation and the various models of Universal beginnings?
Any equation should be compatible with a model and it seems unlikely that any of the alternate models from the BB would meet the current falsified knowledge of the beginnings.
Question: What can we learn from looking ahead instead of back. We cannot possibly know what came before the beginning, but we might be able to project the end?
Any thoughts?
In the absence of any artificially created communicative baseline value how can the Drake equation be of any practical predictive use?
Before an earthquake disturbed the geyser Old Faithful, it had been so regular, one could set their watch to it. But it was not generated by an intelligent deep earth creature. But all natural causalities are generated by associated mathematical values and functions and even a regular signal is no guarantee of being generated by living beings.
AFAIK there are no signals that are not associated with natural causal mechanics. Any regularities are always associated with a star or a star system. It would be easier to model an astrology chart than fashion a model of an artificially created signal.
If we are having trouble estimating the presence of life in the universe, what are the predictive odds of identifying a civilization able to communicate in the electro-magnetic spectrum?
our extraordinary intelligenceGrossly overrated, in my opinion. If there is anything we should have learned, it would be that unlimited growth is not sustainable; not in business, not in development, not in agriculture, not in population. All the worry over climate change tells me that our species is unlikely to survive long enough to develop space travel. So far we have not demonstrated any inclination to limit the growth of our population. The Earth is a finite resource. What is the point of finding ET if we will be extinct before we can communicate and/or interact with him?
Interesting post Bob. Interesting that you focus on other things that you do while also having this longer term perspective
ditto
If there is anything we should have learned, it would be that unlimited growth is not sustainable; not in business, not in development, not in agriculture, not in population.We have learned it, but we just ignore it from greed. As Prof. Albert Bartlett reminded us: The greatest problem humans will face is their inability to understand the "Exponential Function".
Interesting that you focus on other things that you do while also having this longer term perspectiveWhat other things?
Each of us does what it takes to be as comfortable as possible both physically and with our decisions. The longer term perspective for all is death. Science tells us the Earth will be vaporized by the Sun one day.
What other things? -- BobYour POV on transgender, welfare, protests
Here’s an interesting update.
How Did Earth Stay Habitable For 4 Billion Years? Science: LUCK
Go figure.
Chance played a role in determining whether Earth stayed habitable Toby Tyrrell - December 11, 2020 - nature.com Communications Earth & Environment volume 1, Article number: 61 (2020)
Abstract
Earth’s climate has remained continuously habitable throughout 3 or 4 billion years. This presents a puzzle (the ‘habitability problem’) because loss of habitability appears to have been more likely. Solar luminosity has increased by 30% over this time, which would, if not counteracted, have caused sterility. Furthermore, Earth’s climate is precariously balanced, potentially able to deteriorate to deep-frozen conditions within as little as 1 million years.Here I present results from a novel simulation in which thousands of planets were assigned randomly generated climate feedbacks. Each planetary set-up was tested to see if it remained habitable over a period of 3 billion years.
The conventional view attributes Earth’s extended habitability solely to stabilising mechanisms. The simulation results shown here reveal instead that chance also plays a role in habitability outcomes. Earth’s long-lasting habitability was therefore most likely a contingent rather than an inevitable outcome.
Introduction
The evolution of intelligent life on a planet requires not only that planetary conditions are conducive to life at the start, as it first evolves, but also that the planet remains habitable subsequently, without interruption. This is because there has to be enough time to allow life to increase in complexity from simple cells to more sophisticated single cells to multicellular life and eventually to intelligent life. …check out the entire paper
Devil is in the details.
Devil is in the details.Indeed. Thanks for excellent link.
I may have missed it but this article was only concerned with planetary climate evolution, which has various possible outcomes as exemplified.
But what it seemed to overlook is random mutations in the earth’s biology, rather than an incremental adaptive evolution of the inhabitants.
As Hellstrom posited in this excellent movie some organisms can adapt to any climate or environment. From extremophiles, to tardigrades, to insects, certain life forms are so hardy in fundamental properties that they can survive almost any natural environment.
This may be of interest
Speaking about numbers.
Are the numbers of planetary system applicable to all systems that appear to follow planetary trajectories?
From the Motion of Planets to Quantum Field Theory
The hidden symmetries of orbits, energy levels, and elementary particle interactions
What do the motion of the planets in our solar system, the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, and the interactions between subatomic particles have in common? Surprisingly, they are all governed by the same hidden symmetry principles. This is what Simon Caron-Huot (now Assistant Professor at the Niels-Bohr Institute, Copenhagen) and I found in recent work done as Members at the Institute. Symmetry is a very important notion in physics, for mainly two reasons. On the one hand, systems with a lot of symmetry are usually easier to solve and study, so that key properties can be understood analytically. On the other hand, and more fundamentally, in the development of physics, symmetry principles have often been a successful guiding principle toward theories relevant for describing nature. An example is Einstein’s equivalence principle that led to the development of general relativity.https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/henn-planets