←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
544 points mooreds | 4 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bikamonki ◴[21 Oct 24 23:55 UTC] No.41909790[source]▶
So many solar systems out there, life evolved in many planets for sure. No proof but no doubt.
replies(6): >>41909912 #>>41909966 #>>41910089 #>>41910409 #>>41911453 #>>41911920 #
ekianjo ◴[22 Oct 24 00:25 UTC] No.41909966[source]▶
Life? Probably. Something that has thinking capabilities? Much more doubtful.
replies(8): >>41909978 #>>41910006 #>>41910113 #>>41910249 #>>41910306 #>>41910347 #>>41910496 #>>41910637 #
6stringronin ◴[22 Oct 24 02:09 UTC] No.41910496[source]▶
So you're saying out of the trillions upon trillions of stars that the chances are no life can think but us?

I think the odds are that at least one of them does.

replies(2): >>41910770 #>>41910827 #
1. mcmoor ◴[22 Oct 24 03:06 UTC] No.41910827{3}[source]▶
We're multiplying a very large number (number of planets) with a very small number (chance of intelligent life). The margin can make the answer go either way.
replies(2): >>41911131 #>>41911830 #
2. colordrops ◴[22 Oct 24 04:15 UTC] No.41911131[source]▶
Why do you think the chance of intelligent life is a very small number? Considering we know of several million species, the chances are that we are right in the middle of the curve, and can't recognize the vastly more intelligent species the way an ant can't recognize our intelligence.
3. lnenad ◴[22 Oct 24 06:47 UTC] No.41911830[source]▶
You are basing the chance of intelligent life number on what? Reality is we have no clue what this number is.
replies(1): >>41912087 #
4. mr_mitm ◴[22 Oct 24 07:41 UTC] No.41912087[source]▶
Exactly, so we shouldn't say things like "no doubt" when it comes to the question of extra terrestrial life.