←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
1413 points mooreds | 5 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.613s | 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(8): >>41909912 #>>41909966 #>>41910089 #>>41910409 #>>41911453 #>>41911920 #>>41913384 #>>41923594 #
1. alok-g ◴[22 Oct 24 11:57 UTC] No.41913384[source]▶
>> No proof but no doubt.

There's still doubt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Range_of_result...

replies(2): >>41913619 #>>41913928 #
2. slekker ◴[22 Oct 24 12:37 UTC] No.41913619[source]▶
What we know about mathematics can't prove or disprove things we simply don't have any idea of. Think as if other beings would live in a different frequency plane (outside of our 3 spacial + 1 time), our instruments and theorems can't detect that.
replies(1): >>41913731 #
3. alok-g ◴[22 Oct 24 12:52 UTC] No.41913731[source]▶
That's right. But it does create doubt.

To prove, we would need to find such life.

To not have doubt, we need to have a reasonably high confidence that such life is there. However, the estimates are so wild and range from very unlikely to no-doubt. Thus, there is doubt (to the best we understand).

4. dwayne_dibley ◴[22 Oct 24 13:17 UTC] No.41913928[source]▶
ISn't the doubt simply the 'when' rather than the 'if'?
replies(1): >>41915811 #
5. alok-g ◴[22 Oct 24 16:14 UTC] No.41915811[source]▶
If you read through the link, the estimation for.probability of finding life elsewhere ranges from practically none to very high. When the former is also a.part of that range, could it not be that we actually do not have life anywhere else? I think it's not a question of when or a 'no doubt' case. We simply do not know enough.

If the calculations were to say there's very high chances of the universe teeming with life at many places, but life is not 'found' yet, then I would say it like 'no proof but no doubt'.