On 4/29/2024 11:49 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>
> "I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein
>
> vs
>
> "who are you to say what god does and does not do with the universe?" -
> Niels Bohr

Einstein was stating an opinion.

Bohr responded by questioning Einstein's opinion. But, especially at
that time, there was no need for the "who are you?" slight. I'd say
Einstein was then at least as qualified as Bohr.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
> built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.

Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard of
a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but carbon.

If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the chemists
in our family.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/29/2024 11:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> ... However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For example, the
>> numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
>> values:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.
>
> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a justification for
> "Intelligent Design" arguments

Yes, one of the justifications. Those opposed have sometimes proposed
instead that there were an infinite (?) number of universes that
spontaneously sprung into being, and that those whose constants didn't
jibe self-destroyed, or perhaps spawned other attempts at universes,
until the one (?) we enjoy managed to succeed. Survival of the fittest
on a greater than universal scale.

To me, that sounds no less hypothetical, no less lacking in evidence
than an extra-universe being who willed it into existence.

IOW, choose your myth. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/29/2024 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 11:49 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>
>> "I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" -
>> Einstein
>>
>> vs
>>
>> "who are you to say what god does and does not do with the
>> universe?" - Niels Bohr
>
> Einstein was stating an opinion.
>
> Bohr responded by questioning Einstein's opinion. But,
> especially at that time, there was no need for the "who are
> you?" slight. I'd say Einstein was then at least as
> qualified as Bohr.
>

Both were well qualified but Mr Bohr's point was that
competence and omnipotence are different things.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/29/2024 11:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 11:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> ... However, there are plenty of other things in our
>>> environment
>>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For
>>> example, the
>>> numerical values of the physical constants control so
>>> many things that
>>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves
>>> that suggest
>>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets
>>> their
>>> values:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will
>>> fall apart.
>>
>> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a
>> justification for "Intelligent Design" arguments
>
> Yes, one of the justifications. Those opposed have sometimes
> proposed instead that there were an infinite (?) number of
> universes that spontaneously sprung into being, and that
> those whose constants didn't jibe self-destroyed, or perhaps
> spawned other attempts at universes, until the one (?) we
> enjoy managed to succeed. Survival of the fittest on a
> greater than universal scale.
>
> To me, that sounds no less hypothetical, no less lacking in
> evidence than an extra-universe being who willed it into
> existence.
>
> IOW, choose your myth. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.
>

Which returns the topic to extraterrestrial life.

Such exists or does not, regardless of our knowledge or of
our opinions.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/29/2024 12:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 11:49 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>
>>> "I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein
>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>> "who are you to say what god does and does not do with the universe?"
>>> - Niels Bohr
>>
>> Einstein was stating an opinion.
>>
>> Bohr responded by questioning Einstein's opinion. But, especially at
>> that time, there was no need for the "who are you?" slight. I'd say
>> Einstein was then at least as qualified as Bohr.
>>
>
> Both were well qualified but Mr Bohr's point was that competence and
> omnipotence are different things.

Ditto omniscience. Right?

But I don't believe Einstein pretended to either omnipotence or
omniscience. The science was progressing. Einstein stated an opinion.
Bohr should have been more diplomatic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/29/2024 12:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 11:49 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>
>> "I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein
>>
>> vs
>>
>> "who are you to say what god does and does not do with the universe?"
>> - Niels Bohr
>
> Einstein was stating an opinion.
>
> Bohr responded by questioning Einstein's opinion. But, especially at
> that time, there was no need for the "who are you?" slight. I'd say
> Einstein was then at least as qualified as Bohr.
>

Yes, that was exactly the point. Einstein express his opinion, and Bohr
expressed his, Neither opinion was more valid than the other. Also bear
in mind they were solidly speaking in terms of metaphysics, not physics.

--
Add xx to reply

On 4/29/2024 12:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 11:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> ... However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
>>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For example, the
>>> numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
>>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
>>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
>>> values:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.
>>
>> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a justification for
>> "Intelligent Design" arguments
>
> Yes, one of the justifications. Those opposed have sometimes proposed
> instead that there were an infinite (?) number of universes that
> spontaneously sprung into being, and that those whose constants didn't
> jibe self-destroyed, or perhaps spawned other attempts at universes,
> until the one (?) we enjoy managed to succeed. Survival of the fittest
> on a greater than universal scale.
>
> To me, that sounds no less hypothetical, no less lacking in evidence
> than an extra-universe being who willed it into existence.

Mathematical models give credibility to multiverse theory. ID, not so much.

>
> IOW, choose your myth. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 4/29/2024 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the known elements
>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth.  "Carbon atoms are
>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>
> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard of
> a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but carbon.
>
> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the chemists
> in our family.

https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common

No offense to anyone in your family, but this goes far beyond plain ole
chemistry

>

--
Add xx to reply

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:33:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/29/2024 11:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 11:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> ... However, there are plenty of other things in our
>>>> environment
>>>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For
>>>> example, the
>>>> numerical values of the physical constants control so
>>>> many things that
>>>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves
>>>> that suggest
>>>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets
>>>> their
>>>> values:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>>>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will
>>>> fall apart.
>>>
>>> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a
>>> justification for "Intelligent Design" arguments
>>
>> Yes, one of the justifications. Those opposed have sometimes
>> proposed instead that there were an infinite (?) number of
>> universes that spontaneously sprung into being, and that
>> those whose constants didn't jibe self-destroyed, or perhaps
>> spawned other attempts at universes, until the one (?) we
>> enjoy managed to succeed. Survival of the fittest on a
>> greater than universal scale.
>>
>> To me, that sounds no less hypothetical, no less lacking in
>> evidence than an extra-universe being who willed it into
>> existence.
>>
>> IOW, choose your myth. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.
>>
>
>Which returns the topic to extraterrestrial life.
>
>Such exists or does not, regardless of our knowledge or of
>our opinions.

Like I said, que sera, sera. I don't need to know what I cannot ever
know.

On 4/29/2024 12:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 12:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 11:49 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>
>>> "I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" -
>>> Einstein
>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>> "who are you to say what god does and does not do with
>>> the universe?" - Niels Bohr
>>
>> Einstein was stating an opinion.
>>
>> Bohr responded by questioning Einstein's opinion. But,
>> especially at that time, there was no need for the "who
>> are you?" slight. I'd say Einstein was then at least as
>> qualified as Bohr.
>>
>
> Yes, that was exactly the point. Einstein express his
> opinion, and Bohr expressed his, Neither opinion was more
> valid than the other. Also bear in mind they were solidly
> speaking in terms of metaphysics, not physics.
>

+1 to that
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/29/2024 1:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:33:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/2024 11:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2024 11:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> ... However, there are plenty of other things in our
>>>>> environment
>>>>> and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For
>>>>> example, the
>>>>> numerical values of the physical constants control so
>>>>> many things that
>>>>> are responsible for making our universe and ourselves
>>>>> that suggest
>>>>> intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets
>>>>> their
>>>>> values:
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
>>>>> Change any of these even slightly and our universe will
>>>>> fall apart.
>>>>
>>>> AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a
>>>> justification for "Intelligent Design" arguments
>>>
>>> Yes, one of the justifications. Those opposed have sometimes
>>> proposed instead that there were an infinite (?) number of
>>> universes that spontaneously sprung into being, and that
>>> those whose constants didn't jibe self-destroyed, or perhaps
>>> spawned other attempts at universes, until the one (?) we
>>> enjoy managed to succeed. Survival of the fittest on a
>>> greater than universal scale.
>>>
>>> To me, that sounds no less hypothetical, no less lacking in
>>> evidence than an extra-universe being who willed it into
>>> existence.
>>>
>>> IOW, choose your myth. Maybe it will be true, maybe not.
>>>
>>
>> Which returns the topic to extraterrestrial life.
>>
>> Such exists or does not, regardless of our knowledge or of
>> our opinions.
>
> Like I said, que sera, sera. I don't need to know what I cannot ever
> know.

+1
We stoics get that.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/29/2024 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the known elements
>>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth.  "Carbon atoms are
>>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>>
>> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard
>> of a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but
>> carbon.
>>
>> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the
>> chemists in our family.
>
> https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
>
> No offense to anyone in your family, but this goes far beyond plain ole
> chemistry

Not much there to run by a chemist! Lots of vague hypotheticals,
claiming some simple results that may possibly, possibly do something
more complicated.

So I've still not heard of a detailed proposal.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.

>Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard of
>a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but carbon.
>
>If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the chemists
>in our family.

Did you search for "silicon based life"? There is quite a bit on the
possible existence of Silicon based life:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>

"On the Potential of Silicon as a Building Block for Life"
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7345352/>
We're probably not going to find silicon based life on a water planet:
"We find that in a water-rich environment silicon’s chemical capacity
is highly limited due to ubiquitous silica formation..."
However, if the planet has sulfuric acid oceans:
"Sulfuric acid, surprisingly, appears to be able to support a much
larger diversity of organosilicon chemistry than water."
The section on "carbon planets" is also interesting.

If silicon based life is not your cup of tea, here is a list of
alternatives:
"Hypothetical types of biochemistry"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry>
We already have a life form on Earth that's built on silicon. Marine
diatoms extract silicon oxide from sea water and use it to build their
sea walls.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#Silicon_biochemistry>

Note that astronomy has shown that carbon is about 10 times more
abundant in the universe than silicon. If carbon based life were to
compete with silicon based live for an ecological niche, I would bet
that carbon would win. However, not on planet earth, where silicon is
28% of the earth's crust and carbon is only 0.02%"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust>

"What If Alien Life Were Silicon-Based?"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469chceiiUQ>
The author proposes that the silicon based life is possible, but only
in very specialized environments.

Lots of possibilities, but no "detailed proposal". That's because we
would need to build a self replicating structure based on silicon
before we can speculate on the chemistry involved in energy
production, assimilation of food, breaking down the food into
something that could be oxidized, providing a template for
self-reproduction (RNA/DNA), etc. One step at a time please.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/29/2024 7:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
>>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
>>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>
>> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard of
>> a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but carbon.
>>
>> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the chemists
>> in our family.
>
> Did you search for "silicon based life"? There is quite a bit on the
> possible existence of Silicon based life:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>

I've read about the possibilities of silicon for decades now, but I've
never seen details on exactly how it would form the hugely complex
molecules necessary for life, let alone self-replicate them.

Those are the details I'd like to run by the chemists I know.

Most of the articles I find on quick search say silicon based life _may_
be possible, but is highly unlikely.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:03:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/29/2024 7:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
>>>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
>>>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>>
>>> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard of
>>> a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but carbon.
>>>
>>> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the chemists
>>> in our family.
>>
>> Did you search for "silicon based life"? There is quite a bit on the
>> possible existence of Silicon based life:
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>

>I've read about the possibilities of silicon for decades now, but I've
>never seen details on exactly how it would form the hugely complex
>molecules necessary for life, let alone self-replicate them.

That's easy. Take a complex hydrocarbon, probably an amino acid, rip
out the carbon atom and replace it with a silicon atom. Keep the
results away from water. The double helix zipper should work as well
for silicon as it does for carbon.

The possibilities of human powered flight goes back to the Greeks and
Icarus in approx 8 CE. It wasn't until 1898, when Otto Lilianthal
built a glider that worked more than once. The first human powered
flight was in 1961 by Derek Piggot using pedal power. During those 19
centuries between mythology and something that actually flew, humanity
wasn't idle. The wise and the brave made their attempts and usually
failed. That didn't discourage their successor. Everyone knew that
it could be done. They just didn't know how. Eventually, the magic
formula for human powered flight was discovered and progress lurched
forward at an incredible rate. For 19 centuries, progress was
measured in false hopes, crashes, fatalities and discouragement from
those who should have known better:
"Premature Judgment"
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
There are about 10 quotes, from the eminent luminaries of their times,
indicating that flight was impossible. For example:

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin

I suggest you print a copy of the above quotes, and read them whenever
you fell compelled to discourage progress or claim that something is
impossible, impractical or useless. I also read it when dealing with
a long succession of failures and dismal results. The road to success
it littered with the wreckage of past failures. The trick is to not
trip over the wreckage.

>Those are the details I'd like to run by the chemists I know.

Why? Are they sufficiently imaginative to contrive a solution to the
silicon life problem? That's the problem with experts. If they can't
design something that works, they immediately assume that nobody else
can. That's what Dr Lindemann did when he analyzed the aerial photos
of the V2 on the ground and declared that it was too heavy to get off
the ground because he assume that it was powered by cordite, not
ethanol and LOX.

>Most of the articles I find on quick search say silicon based life _may_
>be possible, but is highly unlikely.

You don't need an expert to tell you that silicon based life is
impossible. You only need an expert to verify that your proposed
solution has a chance of working. That's what design reviews are for.
Also, if you are sufficiently desperate that you need the advice of an
expert, then you are not sufficiently informed, educated or
experienced about the problems. Ask your expert to explain to you the
problems involved in creating a silicon based life form on earth and
in a possible alien environment. You're likely to learn more from a
list of potential problems and possible solutions than from an
expert's summary judgment.

Now, print out the premature judgment list in the above URL. Most of
the names listed were at the peak of their profession in their day.
Look them up with Google to convince yourself that they are real. Ask
yourself "what were they thinking when they said that?" In some
cases, they had good reason to give the wrong advice, usually the
result of being involved in a previous failure. Like Lindemann, they
assumed that if they had failed, then everyone after them will also
fail.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:03:17 -0400,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 7:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the
> >>> known elements are present in roughly the same distributions
> >>> throughout the universe, there's a good chance that
> >>> self-replicating life processes will be built using the same
> >>> elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are unique
> >>> because they can bond together to form very long, durable
> >>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and
> >>> often contain thousands of carbon atoms."
> >>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf> The emergence
> >>> of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements but
> >>> the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom
> >>> that will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to
> >>> other atoms.
> >
> >> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not
> >> yet heard of a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life
> >> built on anything but carbon.
> >>
> >> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by
> >> the chemists in our family.
> >
> > Did you search for "silicon based life"? There is quite a bit
> > on the possible existence of Silicon based life:
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>
>
> I've read about the possibilities of silicon for decades now,
> but I've never seen details on exactly how it would form the
> hugely complex molecules necessary for life, let alone
> self-replicate them.
>
> Those are the details I'd like to run by the chemists I know.
>
> Most of the articles I find on quick search say silicon based
> life _may_ be possible, but is highly unlikely.

My initial impression was that silicon could possibly substitute
for oxygen given it's immediately adjacent to carbon in the same
periodic table family--but that perhaps steric effects could be a
barrier (due to silicon's relatively larger size, with a 3rd
valence electron shell).

However, this relatively recent article...

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/10/6/84

....titled "On the Potential of Silicon as a Building Block for
Life" makes a reasonable case of it being improbable--at least in
settings with water present (due to favored formation of silicas).

--
Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> West Lafayette, IN, USA

On Sat Apr 27 10:12:58 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 03:32:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
> >I'm amazed that so many people are gullible enough to believe the BS.
> >I see the talking head morons report it on TV news along with their
> >other nonsense.
>
> Don't blame the messenger. The TV news regurgitators are paid to
> deliver whatever message their management finds profitable. For TV,
> it would be whatever the audience wants to see, such a death, doom,
> destruction, disaster embellished with a little science fiction. If
> there's any time left, it goes to promoting the sponsors products. The
> only attribute required from the TV personality is to deliver the
> message in a convincing manner. This is not easy and only a few
> announcers and commentators are able to do it effectively. That's why
> Walter Cronkite was called "the most trusted man in America":
> <https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/brinkley-walter-cronkite/index.html>
> In many cases, the announcer or commentator has no knowledge of the
> material he's delivering. All that's important is that he delivers it
> in a convincing manner. As a group, announcers are not unintelligent
> morons. If they were, some of their lack of intelligence would
> eventually leak through to the viewers. Think of them as actors, who
> are paid to present a fanciful tale in a believable manner.
>
> For myself, absence of (UFO) evidence does not constitute evidence of
> absence. Show me some believable proof, and I will magically
> transform into a believer. I can wait.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Well unlike you I've gotten all of the spring races and even Chris Horders observations of them. In the later evening I watch thge cooking shows and Call the Midwife while you are digesting the same propaganda on climate change and how effecient electric cars are and other such pablem that the feed NAZI's in every tyranncy. But don't worry, you're not developing cancer as you write from the GMO vaccines that were illegally produced to rid this planet of a large portiuon of the sheep.

On 4/29/2024 11:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:03:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/2024 7:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the known elements
>>>>> are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
>>>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
>>>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are
>>>>> unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>>>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
>>>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
>>>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
>>>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.
>>>
>>>> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not yet heard of
>>>> a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on anything but carbon.
>>>>
>>>> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by the chemists
>>>> in our family.
>>>
>>> Did you search for "silicon based life"? There is quite a bit on the
>>> possible existence of Silicon based life:
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>
>
>> I've read about the possibilities of silicon for decades now, but I've
>> never seen details on exactly how it would form the hugely complex
>> molecules necessary for life, let alone self-replicate them.
>
> That's easy. Take a complex hydrocarbon, probably an amino acid, rip
> out the carbon atom and replace it with a silicon atom. Keep the
> results away from water. The double helix zipper should work as well
> for silicon as it does for carbon.
>
> The possibilities of human powered flight goes back to the Greeks and
> Icarus in approx 8 CE. It wasn't until 1898, when Otto Lilianthal
> built a glider that worked more than once. The first human powered
> flight was in 1961 by Derek Piggot using pedal power. During those 19
> centuries between mythology and something that actually flew, humanity
> wasn't idle. The wise and the brave made their attempts and usually
> failed. That didn't discourage their successor. Everyone knew that
> it could be done. They just didn't know how. Eventually, the magic
> formula for human powered flight was discovered and progress lurched
> forward at an incredible rate. For 19 centuries, progress was
> measured in false hopes, crashes, fatalities and discouragement from
> those who should have known better:
> "Premature Judgment"
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
> There are about 10 quotes, from the eminent luminaries of their times,
> indicating that flight was impossible. For example:
>
> "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
> -- Lord Kelvin
>
> I suggest you print a copy of the above quotes, and read them whenever
> you fell compelled to discourage progress or claim that something is
> impossible, impractical or useless. I also read it when dealing with
> a long succession of failures and dismal results. The road to success
> it littered with the wreckage of past failures. The trick is to not
> trip over the wreckage.
>
>> Those are the details I'd like to run by the chemists I know.
>
> Why? Are they sufficiently imaginative to contrive a solution to the
> silicon life problem? That's the problem with experts. If they can't
> design something that works, they immediately assume that nobody else
> can. That's what Dr Lindemann did when he analyzed the aerial photos
> of the V2 on the ground and declared that it was too heavy to get off
> the ground because he assume that it was powered by cordite, not
> ethanol and LOX.
>
>> Most of the articles I find on quick search say silicon based life _may_
>> be possible, but is highly unlikely.
>
> You don't need an expert to tell you that silicon based life is
> impossible. You only need an expert to verify that your proposed
> solution has a chance of working. That's what design reviews are for.
> Also, if you are sufficiently desperate that you need the advice of an
> expert, then you are not sufficiently informed, educated or
> experienced about the problems. Ask your expert to explain to you the
> problems involved in creating a silicon based life form on earth and
> in a possible alien environment. You're likely to learn more from a
> list of potential problems and possible solutions than from an
> expert's summary judgment.
>
> Now, print out the premature judgment list in the above URL. Most of
> the names listed were at the peak of their profession in their day.
> Look them up with Google to convince yourself that they are real. Ask
> yourself "what were they thinking when they said that?" In some
> cases, they had good reason to give the wrong advice, usually the
> result of being involved in a previous failure. Like Lindemann, they
> assumed that if they had failed, then everyone after them will also
> fail.

Lots of good advice there. And I like the list of Premature Judgment
quotes.

Since I'm actually not the one trying to construct silicon based
extraterrestrial life forms, I'll pass all this on to ... um, whatever
entity is involved in that effort.

Do you happen to have its email address? ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:54:49 -0000 (UTC), Ted Heise <theise@panix.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:03:17 -0400,
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 7:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >>> I beg to partially differ. If we assume that all the
>> >>> known elements are present in roughly the same distributions
>> >>> throughout the universe, there's a good chance that
>> >>> self-replicating life processes will be built using the same
>> >>> elements as on planet Earth. "Carbon atoms are unique
>> >>> because they can bond together to form very long, durable
>> >>> chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and
>> >>> often contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>> >>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf> The emergence
>> >>> of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements but
>> >>> the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom
>> >>> that will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to
>> >>> other atoms.
>> >
>> >> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've not
>> >> yet heard of a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life
>> >> built on anything but carbon.
>> >>
>> >> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it by
>> >> the chemists in our family.
>> >
>> > Did you search for "silicon based life"? There is quite a bit
>> > on the possible existence of Silicon based life:
>> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>
>>
>> I've read about the possibilities of silicon for decades now,
>> but I've never seen details on exactly how it would form the
>> hugely complex molecules necessary for life, let alone
>> self-replicate them.
>>
>> Those are the details I'd like to run by the chemists I know.
>>
>> Most of the articles I find on quick search say silicon based
>> life _may_ be possible, but is highly unlikely.
>
>My initial impression was that silicon could possibly substitute
>for oxygen given it's immediately adjacent to carbon in the same
>periodic table family--but that perhaps steric effects could be a
>barrier (due to silicon's relatively larger size, with a 3rd
>valence electron shell).
>
>However, this relatively recent article...
>
> https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/10/6/84
>
>...titled "On the Potential of Silicon as a Building Block for
>Life" makes a reasonable case of it being improbable--at least in
>settings with water present (due to favored formation of silicas).

Nice article and close to what Frank was looking for. It's not a
research paper but rather a research summary, which reports on the
current state of research in the area (planetary science).

A few comments:

The PDF version is much easier to read (47 pages):
<https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/life/life-10-00084/article_deploy/life-10-00084.pdf?version=1591790960>
So far, I just skimmed the contents but will try to read it later this
week.

Reviewer comments are useful:
<https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/10/6/84/review_report>
Well, the first review is interesting:
<https://susy.mdpi.com/user/review/displayFile/12379177/SJO1iGHh?file=author-coverletter&report=7448275>
The 2nd review, not so interesting:
<https://susy.mdpi.com/user/review/displayFile/12495084/9kmnwXot?file=author-coverletter&report=7541150>
No PDF is provided so you'll need something that can read MS Word DOCX
files such as LibreOffice Writer.

One problem with such discussions is that it's much easier to disprove
something than to prove it. To prove something correct, it is
necessary to prove ALL the claims. If one claim suspected of being
wrong, all the other claims become suspect and are likely to be
summarily dismissed as also wrong. That makes disproving something
much easier as only one false or suspect claim is all that's necessary
for the house of cards to collapse.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:58:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/29/2024 11:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>Since I'm actually not the one trying to construct silicon based
>extraterrestrial life forms, I'll pass all this on to ... um, whatever
>entity is involved in that effort.
>
>Do you happen to have its email address? ;-)

Sure. The authors of the survey paper, provided by Ted Heise, are
listed near the start of the paper:
<https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/10/6/84>
Correspondence goes to Janusz Jurand Petkowski at MIT.
(jjpetkow@mit.edu).
Ask him for direction and links to anything new in the past 4 years.
<https://www.januszpetkowski.com>
Nice. He's from Poland.
<https://astrobio.pl/en/start-en/>
<https://astrobio.pl/janusz-petkowski/>

Drivel: If it hadn't been for WW1, the Polish cavalry would have
conquered the most of Europe.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/30/2024 10:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 11:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:03:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2024 7:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the
>>>>>> known elements
>>>>>> are present in roughly the same distributions
>>>>>> throughout the universe,
>>>>>> there's a good chance that self-replicating life
>>>>>> processes will be
>>>>>> built using the same elements as on planet Earth.
>>>>>> "Carbon atoms are
>>>>>> unique because they can bond together to form very
>>>>>> long, durable
>>>>>> chains that can have branches or rings of various
>>>>>> sizes and often
>>>>>> contain thousands of carbon atoms."
>>>>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
>>>>>> The emergence of life is possible with comparatively
>>>>>> inferior elements
>>>>>> but the main building block will mostly likely be a
>>>>>> stable atom that
>>>>>> will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to
>>>>>> other atoms.
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. I confess to low talent for chemistry. But I've
>>>>> not yet heard of
>>>>> a detailed proposal for a chemistry of life built on
>>>>> anything but carbon.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone here has such a proposal, I'd happily run it
>>>>> by the chemists
>>>>> in our family.
>>>>
>>>> Did you search for "silicon based life"?  There is quite
>>>> a bit on the
>>>> possible existence of Silicon based life:
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=possibility+of+silicon+based+life>
>>
>>> I've read about the possibilities of silicon for decades
>>> now, but I've
>>> never seen details on exactly how it would form the
>>> hugely complex
>>> molecules necessary for life, let alone self-replicate them.
>>
>> That's easy.  Take a complex hydrocarbon, probably an
>> amino acid, rip
>> out the carbon atom and replace it with a silicon atom.
>> Keep the
>> results away from water.  The double helix zipper should
>> work as well
>> for silicon as it does for carbon.
>>
>> The possibilities of human powered flight goes back to the
>> Greeks and
>> Icarus in approx 8 CE.  It wasn't until 1898, when Otto
>> Lilianthal
>> built a glider that worked more than once.  The first
>> human powered
>> flight was in 1961 by Derek Piggot using pedal power.
>> During those 19
>> centuries between mythology and something that actually
>> flew, humanity
>> wasn't idle.  The wise and the brave made their attempts
>> and usually
>> failed.  That didn't discourage their successor.  Everyone
>> knew that
>> it could be done.  They just didn't know how.  Eventually,
>> the magic
>> formula for human powered flight was discovered and
>> progress lurched
>> forward at an incredible rate.  For 19 centuries, progress
>> was
>> measured in false hopes, crashes, fatalities and
>> discouragement from
>> those who should have known better:
>> "Premature Judgment"
>> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
>> There are about 10 quotes, from the eminent luminaries of
>> their times,
>> indicating that flight was impossible.  For example:
>>
>> "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
>>     -- Lord Kelvin
>>
>> I suggest you print a copy of the above quotes, and read
>> them whenever
>> you fell compelled to discourage progress or claim that
>> something is
>> impossible, impractical or useless.  I also read it when
>> dealing with
>> a long succession of failures and dismal results.  The
>> road to success
>> it littered with the wreckage of past failures.  The trick
>> is to not
>> trip over the wreckage.
>>
>>> Those are the details I'd like to run by the chemists I
>>> know.
>>
>> Why?  Are they sufficiently imaginative to contrive a
>> solution to the
>> silicon life problem?  That's the problem with experts.
>> If they can't
>> design something that works, they immediately assume that
>> nobody else
>> can.  That's what Dr Lindemann did when he analyzed the
>> aerial photos
>> of the V2 on the ground and declared that it was too heavy
>> to get off
>> the ground because he assume that it was powered by
>> cordite, not
>> ethanol and LOX.
>>
>>> Most of the articles I find on quick search say silicon
>>> based life _may_
>>> be possible, but is highly unlikely.
>>
>> You don't need an expert to tell you that silicon based
>> life is
>> impossible.  You only need an expert to verify that your
>> proposed
>> solution has a chance of working.  That's what design
>> reviews are for.
>> Also, if you are sufficiently desperate that you need the
>> advice of an
>> expert, then you are not sufficiently informed, educated or
>> experienced about the problems.  Ask your expert to
>> explain to you the
>> problems involved in creating a silicon based life form on
>> earth and
>> in a possible alien environment.  You're likely to learn
>> more from a
>> list of potential problems and possible solutions than
>> from an
>> expert's summary judgment.
>>
>> Now, print out the premature judgment list in the above
>> URL.  Most of
>> the names listed were at the peak of their profession in
>> their day.
>> Look them up with Google to convince yourself that they
>> are real.  Ask
>> yourself "what were they thinking when they said that?"
>> In some
>> cases, they had good reason to give the wrong advice,
>> usually the
>> result of being involved in a previous failure.  Like
>> Lindemann, they
>> assumed that if they had failed, then everyone after them
>> will also
>> fail.
>
> Lots of good advice there. And I like the list of Premature
> Judgment quotes.
>
> Since I'm actually not the one trying to construct silicon
> based extraterrestrial life forms, I'll pass all this on to
> ... um, whatever entity is involved in that effort.
>
> Do you happen to have its email address?   ;-)
>

No one's claiming the UFO pilots are silicon based beings.

The point was merely that the universe is larger than we can
fully comprehend and life could possibly exist in ways
different from us.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:44:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
(chomp)
>No one's claiming the UFO pilots are silicon based beings.

Pilots? A sufficiently advanced UFO will probably be run by a
computer and navigated using AI (artificial intelligence). Why give
control of the UFO to something with a limited service life, limited
intelligence and is asleep at the wheel 1/4th of the time?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_error>

>The point was merely that the universe is larger than we can
>fully comprehend and life could possibly exist in ways
>different from us.

True. The problem is also getting worse because the universe is still
growing larger. Bigger isn't always better.

If we ever meet galactic neighbors, they are unlikely to be like us,
but also very different from how science and social fiction portray
aliens. Man's predictions of what heaven, hell, nirvana, various
utopias, foreign countries, etc will be like have consistently been
wrong. Since robotic exploration of the neighboring planets started
about 40 years ago, the textbooks had to be adjusted to comply with
reality. I'm not too worried about dealing with aliens that are
similar to humans. I do worry about aliens that look like my worst
nightmare, are the size of insects or mountains, function along a
different set of dimensions, eat or disintegrate just about anything,
count with a base 60 number system and operate with different values,
assumptions, logic, priorities, ethics, etc. "Kill them and eat them"
seems like an easier way to greet the aliens than try to communicate
and negotiate with something we'll probably never be able to
understand.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun Apr 28 14:29:37 2024 AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
> >> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
> >> have a lot of those here!
> >
> > Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
> > to the tourists.
> >
> >> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
> >> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
> >> Human innovation rocks.
> >>
> >> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
> >> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
> >> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
> >> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
> >> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
> >> badly.
> >
> > Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
> > more digestible.
> > "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
> > The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
> > that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
> > even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
> > many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
> > are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
> > and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
> > unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
> > traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
> > they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
> > it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
> > decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
> > raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.
> >
> > Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
> > the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
> > radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
> > commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
> > change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
> > spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
> > decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
> > raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
> > predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
> > what he indirectly accomplished.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
> drive here early today.
>
> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
> beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
> unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
> own planet would ever encounter one another.
>
> Add in the time constraint and it's virtually impossible. By
> time constraint, I'm thinking of civilization durability
> over galactic time periods. If one posits a couple of very
> successful life forms which each develop over say 50,000
> years in different parts of this or another galaxy or
> galaxies, it's unlikely they would be contemporaries. This
> is again on top of the geography problem, so multiplying
> probabilities you start to approach zero here.
>
> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
> in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
> life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded. There's no
> reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
> respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
> range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
> outside of carbon chemistry.
>
> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
> one man's opinion.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> am@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>

It is EXTREMELY unlikely that there is any intelligent life anywhere else. Even if you're not religious, the details that were necessary for life to form are so vaste and finely detailed that for life to form anywhere else is such a long shot that it isnearly impossible and for intelligent life to form so close to impossible that you might as well assume that there is none anywhere else.

Flying saucers are someone's drunken imagination.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun Apr 28 14:29:37 2024 AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
>>>> sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
>>>> have a lot of those here!
>>>
>>> Yep. Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
>>> to the tourists.
>>>
>>>> Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
>>>> production rises every year on less land with less labor.
>>>> Human innovation rocks.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
>>>> great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
>>>> declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
>>>> Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
>>>> results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
>>>> badly.
>>>
>>> Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
>>> more digestible.
>>> "The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q> (21:52)
>>> The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting. Note
>>> that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
>>> even propose a short term trend. When there were benefits to having
>>> many children, birth rate and fertility increase. When the benefits
>>> are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
>>> and fertility decrease. What happens when the aliens arrive is
>>> unknown. If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
>>> traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens. If
>>> they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
>>> it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
>>> decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
>>> raising kids. Toss a coin on that one.
>>>
>>> Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
>>> the manner initially intended. What it actually did was produce a
>>> radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
>>> commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
>>> change China's political system in the slightest. The result was a
>>> spectacular increase in the standard of living. The birth rate is now
>>> decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
>>> raise large families. It took a while longer than Mao would have
>>> predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
>>> what he indirectly accomplished.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
>> drive here early today.
>>
>> IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
>> beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
>> unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
>> own planet would ever encounter one another.
>>
>> Add in the time constraint and it's virtually impossible. By
>> time constraint, I'm thinking of civilization durability
>> over galactic time periods. If one posits a couple of very
>> successful life forms which each develop over say 50,000
>> years in different parts of this or another galaxy or
>> galaxies, it's unlikely they would be contemporaries. This
>> is again on top of the geography problem, so multiplying
>> probabilities you start to approach zero here.
>>
>> And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
>> in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
>> life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded. There's no
>> reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
>> respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
>> range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
>> unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
>> outside of carbon chemistry.
>>
>> All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
>> one man's opinion.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> am@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>
>
> It is EXTREMELY unlikely that there is any intelligent life anywhere
> else. Even if you're not religious, the details that were necessary for
> life to form are so vaste and finely detailed that for life to form
> anywhere else is such a long shot that it isnearly impossible and for
> intelligent life to form so close to impossible that you might as well
> assume that there is none anywhere else.
>
> Flying saucers are someone's drunken imagination.
>

>
Intelligent life is probably rather low probability after all doesn’t seem
to have happened more than once here.

Life is another thing, and could be more numerous though distances and time
both of which are significant.

Roger Merriman