←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
1413 points mooreds | 8 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 1.106s | source | bottom
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(8): >>41909912 #>>41909966 #>>41910089 #>>41910409 #>>41911453 #>>41911920 #>>41913384 #>>41923594 #
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 #
m3kw9 ◴[22 Oct 24 00:28 UTC] No.41909978[source]▶
One proof is that we are thinking, and so are dogs, cats and monkeys to a lesser extent.
replies(2): >>41909988 #>>41910686 #
kjkjadksj ◴[22 Oct 24 02:41 UTC] No.41910686[source]▶
That’s hardly proof considering these examples all share a common ancestor. I ask you, can you communicate with a slime mold? Even the slime mold is more similar to ourselves than any potential life we’d find elsewhere, as we share a common ancestor.
replies(1): >>41911149 #
1. colordrops ◴[22 Oct 24 04:18 UTC] No.41911149[source]▶
What's so important about "sharing a common ancestor"? It doesn't say anything about the spread of different types of life that could evolve, considering we have a sample size of one, and it also says nothing about how difficult it is for any particular form to evolve intelligence.
replies(2): >>41913856 #>>41915869 #
2. m3kw9 ◴[22 Oct 24 13:08 UTC] No.41913856[source]▶
Knowing physics is roughly same every where in the universe, same rules of biology will apply elsewhere where if conditions meet, maybe earth is one of many conditions that can form life.
replies(2): >>41916167 #>>41916886 #
3. kjkjadksj ◴[22 Oct 24 16:19 UTC] No.41915869[source]▶
Because there are probably an uncountable number of different turns life could have made instead to lead to dramatically different outcomes. Life iterates on itself. Mutations on top of mutations. Mitochondria could have just as easily never been enveloped by our eukaryotic ancestors and life would look a hell of a lot different today.
replies(1): >>41916883 #
4. kjkjadksj ◴[22 Oct 24 16:49 UTC] No.41916167[source]▶
Within those rules are a lot of things that can get by under them. Take two points in earths history bound by the same physical laws and life can look dramatically different. You can think of it like how we all use the same microsoft word but that doesn’t lead to the same exact book being written independently twice or more often. The amount of permutations to be taken along the way is a countless number probably far larger than the number of habitable star systems in the universe.
5. colordrops ◴[22 Oct 24 17:57 UTC] No.41916883[source]▶
Having a high cardinality of permutations doesn't say anything one way or another about the probability of life arising. it's just hand waving.
replies(1): >>41926656 #
6. colordrops ◴[22 Oct 24 17:58 UTC] No.41916886[source]▶
There's no reason to believe that because the physics are the same the biology will be the same. that's a big ungrounded assumption.
7. kjkjadksj ◴[23 Oct 24 16:30 UTC] No.41926656{3}[source]▶
I’m not arguing about life merely arising. I’m arguing about the unlikelihood of our idea of intelligence.
replies(1): >>41931835 #
8. colordrops ◴[24 Oct 24 04:13 UTC] No.41931835{4}[source]▶
"merely" arising. As if it were a simple process itself. Couldn't your argument be applied to either?