L8n1ght t1_itfgz5x wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:49 AM

Reply to comment by TheGreatArseholio in Signatures of alien technology could be how humanity first finds extraterrestrial life by WallStreetDoesntBet

Same goes for us looking at other stuff, it's just too far away to tell if there's intelligent life right now, we have to guess based on the circumstances of the planet in the past

Vancocillin t1_itfqy6w wrote on October 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM

What if human civilization had kicked off 200 million years ago instead of dinosaurs being cool? It's possible a sapient species could have been kicking around for millions of years by now.

Impossible_Garbage_4 t1_itg8mkx wrote on October 23, 2022 at 12:41 PM

With 100% certainty I can declare there is life elsewhere in the universe. Anything beyond that is speculation but it’s more than likely that single called organisms or their ET equivalent exists. Less likely to exist but still fairly likely is multicellular but still microscopic creatures. So on and so on it gets less likely the further up the stages you go. The chance of intelligent life existing elsewhere is infinitesimally small, but since the universe is so fucking vast the chance might as well be 100%. Now, the odds that we ever meet them is far lower, since they could be so far away that getting to them would be like driving your car to Pluto at highway speeds.

TheGreatArseholio t1_itggc9h wrote on October 23, 2022 at 1:50 PM

That’s part of the paradox, isn’t it? If we were to find a signature of alien technology like digital radio waves, we would be looking at technology from that many years ago (light years away). That intelligence life would either be that many years technologically more advanced than us or - if facing the same problems we’re facing as humans - could have already wiped itself out of existence.

uninterestingly t1_itgwpfm wrote on October 23, 2022 at 3:50 PM

I agree with everything here but your phrasing. Saying you can 100% guarantee something that you have zero proof of, even if it is overwhelmingly likely, is just mathematically wrong. 100% guarantees should very rarely be used, and yet people throw them around left and right. It's just one of my pet peeves.

Buscemi_D_Sanji t1_ith98z5 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:15 PM

Heh, I have quite a few pet peeves, like affect/effect and saying there's instead of there're when referring to plurals. But I've spent some time making sure my students know that there is no such thing as 100% certainty for things existing in the universe. But then, you can say "I'm 100% certain that one does not equal two" and that's true, so it's more about being conscientious of the language you use to describe reality.

Impossible_Garbage_4 t1_ith68g4 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:55 PM

I said 100% certainty, and I’m not a scientist. I can be certain of something and be wrong. Watch out for how statistics are phrased