https://iopscience.iop.org/.../10.3847/1538-4357/ab8225

That's not news, billions of stars out there...

I call BS. This research paper is being used to generate clickbait headlines like "Scientists Say There Are at Least 36 Intelligent Civilizations in Our Milky Way Galaxy"
bullfluff!
I can't see behind the paywall but they seem to be inferring that they know the upper and lower limits of their 'Astrobiological Copernican Weak and Strong conditions'
They're going to make predictions and form a hypothesis based on a sample size of one?
They admit exactly that shortcoming in their own words:
"These assumptions are based on the one situation in which intelligent, communicative life is known to exist—on our own planet"
Better to just admit "i dunno" than to just pull stuff out of yer ass

There are far better discussions on the subject

Like here:
https://youtu.be/AC-6okOWXLs

and here:
https://youtu.be/PqEmYU8Y_rI

and
B⭕NUS

+1

Triggered

-1

LOL how do you know its not your bias talking?

I've looked at both those videos and they do make a good case. I have also heard good arguements that we are probably not alone than this 36-outta-their-fluffs- figure :)

If you read the papers behind those videos you just linked tho, there is a more nuanced discussion about what the probabilities of each of the prerequisites to intelligent life are and its quite clear that there are unknowns in there, and the paper meerely suggest that one or several of those steps might have requirements that have infinitessimally small probabilities. The first life for instance perhaps require circumstances that are so rare it will never happen again, and indeed we have not been able to replicate them. This is also just pure speculation tho and its not impossible that we figure out within our lifetimes a set of circumstances in which a primordial soup can generate life and calculate within a confidence interval the likelyhood that an exoplanet can live up to those circumstances.

As I see it both these ways of thinking present the extreme model either of which could be closer or further to reality. But assuming the science behind either of them is not either flawed or disproven there is no way yet to objectively determine which is closer to reality at this moment in time. It will just be subjective opinion that determines what you believe.
If we find evidence of life on Mars, on Europa or in some asteroid within the next few decades that may give a clue, as will it if our primordial soup cooks come up with a recipe. Until then we can only guess, as have the authors. :)

The universe is so vast and old, I'd be shocked if there wasn't another intelligent set of species out there, it's the universe, we are in it.

I thought this thread was an anti-emo campaign. Now that is something I could back.

they are intelligent enuf not to reveal themselves for us.

If I was on the outside looking in, I'd steer my ship the fluff away from this fluff show lol

^^agreed!!

That 2nd video I linked is from the Columbia University Dept of Astronomy youtube channel. In it, the jailhouse thought experiment gives excellent perspective. It begins here:
https://youtu.be/PqEmYU8Y_rI?t=575

All I'm saying is that we don't have the data needed to make an assumption one way or the other.

We cannot assume that given even the 'right' conditions abiogenesis is inevitable, or likely, or even a one out of a trillion chance. You are correct, we don't have the necessary data needed to lean one way or the other. So what is my bias? Whatever it is, you seem to have it too. :)
My argument with this research paper is that the authors admit their assumptions are based on a sample size of one.
I could write dozens of research papers based on a sample size of one, but that is not good science, and it makes for ridiculous dumbing-down clickbait.

OMG, the Heathen are coming. Pope Francis is going to have to wash their feet. Holy Moley whee will we put them?

When I meet them I'll let you know if they are intelligent.

Until then, fluff the galaxy, if there is nothing out there then that is a miserable waste of space.

(The same goes for Poland, Finland and sweden, ha!)

The study Marshal posted about proposes a model equally as likely to be a good representation of reality as does the ones your videos talk about, as far as we now know. My point is that you seem to believe more the hypothesis in your videos and seemingly dismiss the hypothesis put forth in the new study with no real data to back up your obvious position.

My position is that we don't have enough information to select the most likely hypothesis yet. The test to see if I'm biased or not comes in the future when im presented with evidence favoring one hypothesis over the other. If I can accept it after some modest scrutiny and change my view according to better data I will have passed the test. :)

Nine thousand galaxies away if there is nothing but rock or gas then I feel really let down.

Also what science will we never witness let alone understand.

We all smoking pot or what?

I like to think about the simulation theory!

Multiple and parallel universes is interesting too!

KoH I’ve been down that rabbit hole on YouTube before. Some super interesting theories.

Fascinating, I loved Interstellar, what a great movie!

In one unit verse requ is ko

We pretend to know physics and elements as universal but nine billion universes away we can't even imagine.

I can't get all of you to agree on water pressure for fluffs sake

I'd have woken her up, too!

Far from home. The story of Voyager i and ii is amazing.

The hypotheses put forward in the videos I linked? They boil down to this, simply; we don't have enough data to know.
So if being intellectually honest about the question is what you call bias, then fine call me biased on the side of evidence.
I get the feeling you are forming your opinion about 'my bias' based on the titles of those videos, not the content of those videos and not what I have stated here on this thread.

It's not unusual or wrong to think "there must be intelligent life out there because there are so many stars and planets and time is so vast" but these videos attempt to show that statistically that is not necessarily so.
The research paper linked by the OP admits it bases its conclusions on only our planet's present circumstance; assuming it fits with the Copernican principles of mediocrity. I find it incredible that the authors of the paper seemingly ignore the observations made over time that indicate conditions leading to present day earth are rare and our home star the Sun also is by any measure, quite rare.
The paper states that it is that the closest CETI (communicating extraterrestrial intelligence) civilizations would most likely be found on a class M star but that seems rather preposterous to me. Class M stars are much smaller and less massive and far less luminous than our Sun, a class G star.
Class M stars make up about 77% of all the stars in the universe, yet are too dim for any to be seen from earth with the naked eye. The smaller mass and lessened luminosity of a class M star would bring the habitable zone much closer, perhaps 20x closer, to the star. Class M stars also flare more than our Sun, and with the habitable zone so close that means there would be frequent threats to any emerging life on the hypothetical planet of a class M star. And because of the close proximity, the planet would quite likely be tidally locked so that one side of the planet always faces the sun, and any atmosphere would likely be torn away by frequent flaring of the star.
Those are just a few reasons I have a problem with the link Marshal posted. IMO the authors of that research paper are biased to an extreme.
Oh here's another one, a big one - by assigning upper and lower limits to the Copernican ToM, the authors are arrogantly filling in some blanks on the Drake equation.
We don't have the data for dat!

I think the arbitrary definition of what is considered 'intelligent life' means that there is no answer to this question.

The simple abstraction that e.g "a human is intelligent life" glosses over the components that go to make up a human being. In many ways a human organism is the "emergent behaviour" of those components.

I suspect many of you will have seen the time-lapse video that makes it looks like the earth is breathing e.g https://www.space.com/...-earth-breathe-video.html

At this scale I would argue that the earth could be considered a living organism that is the "emergent behaviour" of cellular organisms that you might say inhabit it (I would say *are* are it).

This fractal nature of things taken to its extreme, leads me to conclude that the universe is in fact one living thing. A "lifeless" rocky body orbiting a star, at a moment in time as we perceive it looks indeed lifeless. If you reframe the observation of that stellar system so that you consider it from inception to ultimate heat "death" then there is a richness of activity in the emergent behaviour that arises from the (as we understand them) physics involved.

To flip it on its head. At the micro scale, imagine perceiving time x10e-38 times slower. A human cell would seem to be a be a fixed, inanimate, "lifeless" structure. The perception of "life" at these timescales might be observing the ebb and flow of quantum particle interactions and behaviours. Something that in our frame of reference happens almost immeasurably quickly.

My conclusion therefore is that there is no such thing as "not life".

Here is an interesting question... We are all made up of non-living materials. At what point does our non living atoms, molecules (whatever) become living?

Also is consciousness part of the physical self (brain) or is it separate?

Are we just simply the universe observing itself?

Also there is a chance that there has been other life in our galaxy possibly but that given the length of time that we think the universe has been around there was enough time for them to develop grow then disappear without us ever knowing.

In order for us to find other life, if it exists, we have to not only be at the same place in space but also the same time which is significant when we are talking billions and billions of years.

Unless you're super religious or something if life happened at least once (us) it could happen again. Especially if you believe the universe is infinitely large.

The great thing about these subjects is none of it is settled science and must of it is still under debate and investigation. Some theories may be better than others though. I say take them all in, think about them and have some fun :p

Exactly!

All I know is I’ve never been alone! (For we are many)...;)

Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.... Now here's Tom with the weather.

Lmao