• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why aliens haven’t visited Earth yet

It's possible that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components, within specific conditions. Of course this isn't evidence that life arose naturally. We don't know.

I could just as easily propose that given the sheer complexity of the simplest of life, it's rather probably that ExoLife does not exist. Point is, we don't have a clue.

We don't know that either.
Uh, no. Organic compounds are compounds that have carbon hydrogen bonds. Inorganic compounds do not have carbon hydrogen bonds. Oxygen and hydrogen bond together very easily.
 
Specifically, the evidence showed that organic molecules formed from inorganic components, is possible.

A great experiment, but there are far greater robstacles to understanding abiogenesis than the Miller experiment.
I'm simply following the evidence to where it leads. Obstacles do not necessarily invalidate the experiment.
 
How can something real exist in a simulation?

Why do you keep asking that?

it is adequate for anyone to conclude it is possible. Possible is not the same as probable. We are only talking about the possibility.

Talking about possibility is kind of meaningless. Pretty much anything you can imagine is "possible" in some abstract sense.
 
Close the car door on your hand.

This will verify whether or not you exist.

Or whether the simulation is simulating me closing the door on my hand.
 
Why do you keep asking that?



Talking about possibility is kind of meaningless. Pretty much anything you can imagine is "possible" in some abstract sense.

Because it is illogical. a simulation is not real. Something real is. It's like asking why can't a real person live in a book, or a TV show, or a movie.

Possibility, in this case. is not meaningless. It is the subject of the thread. No, everything that you can imagine is not possible, unless your imagination is severely limited. We can and do imagine many things that are impossible. This thread is not about imagining the possibility of something.
 
I'm simply following the evidence to where it leads. Obstacles do not necessarily invalidate the experiment.
It doesn't lead there. It's ok to want it to lead there really, really bad though.
 
It doesn't lead there. It's ok to want it to lead there really, really bad though.

You don't know where it leads. But so far, all physical evidence leads to physical causes. It's funny that way.
 
It doesn't lead there. It's ok to want it to lead there really, really bad though.
Actually yes, the evidence does lead there. It's not conclusive. But it does point that way.
 
Because it is illogical. a simulation is not real. Something real is. It's like asking why can't a real person live in a book, or a TV show, or a movie.

This is circular reasoning, a strawman, and a non sequitur all rolled into one.

I never said that a simulation is "real" in the sense that you presumably mean. I'm talking about the exact opposite - that it's possible none of this is "real" but rather just a simulation taking place in a very different reality.

Then again, something doesn't have to be "physical" to be "real," and in any event the data and processing that make up a simulation do in fact have a physical manifestation.

Possibility, in this case. is not meaningless. It is the subject of the thread. No, everything that you can imagine is not possible, unless your imagination is severely limited. We can and do imagine many things that are impossible. This thread is not about imagining the possibility of something.

No not really. The OP is directed to explaining the lack of contact by alien life despite the supposedly high LIKELIHOOD that it exists.
 
This is circular reasoning, a strawman, and a non sequitur all rolled into one.

I never said that a simulation is "real" in the sense that you presumably mean. I'm talking about the exact opposite - that it's possible none of this is "real" but rather just a simulation taking place in a very different reality.

Then again, something doesn't have to be "physical" to be "real," and in any event the data and processing that make up a simulation do in fact have a physical manifestation.



No not really. The OP is directed to explaining the lack of contact by alien life despite the supposedly high LIKELIHOOD that it exists.

No, it is none of what you called it.

But ok, if this is a simulation how does calling it one change anything at all? Are simulated characters in a game sentient beings? If they are, then nothing changes substantially if this is a simulation. It makes such an idea insignificant if we are unable to tell the difference.

The OP is about the possibility, not the likelihood, which just another word for probability. You are reframing the OP to make it what you want it to be. Seems to be a habit with you.
 
Because it is illogical. a simulation is not real. Something real is. It's like asking why can't a real person live in a book, or a TV show, or a movie.

This is circular reasoning, a strawman, and a non sequitur all rolled into one.

I never said that a simulation is "real" in the sense that you presumably mean. I'm talking about the exact opposite - that it's possible none of this is "real" but rather just a simulation).

Then again, something doesn't have to be "physical" to be "real," and in any event the data and processing that make up a simulation do in fact have a physical manifestation.

Possibility, in this case. is not meaningless. It is the subject of the thread. No, everything that you can imagine is not possible, unless your imagination is severely limited. We can and do imagine many things that are impossible. This thread is not about imagining the possibility of something.

No not really. The OP is directed to explaining the lack of contact despite the supposedly high LIKELIHOOD that it exists.
 
This is circular reasoning, a strawman, and a non sequitur all rolled into one.

I never said that a simulation is "real" in the sense that you presumably mean. I'm talking about the exact opposite - that it's possible none of this is "real" but rather just a simulation).

Then again, something doesn't have to be "physical" to be "real," and in any event the data and processing that make up a simulation do in fact have a physical manifestation.



No not really. The OP is directed to explaining the lack of contact despite the supposedly high LIKELIHOOD that it exists.

Broken record.
 
No, it is none of what you called it.

But ok, if this is a simulation how does calling it one change anything at all? Are simulated characters in a game sentient beings? If they are, then nothing changes substantially if this is a simulation. It makes such an idea insignificant if we are unable to tell the difference.

It's another possible explanation for why aliens haven't visited. Remember the topic of the thread?

The OP is about the possibility, not the likelihood, which just another word for probability. You are reframing the OP to make it what you want it to be. Seems to be a habit with you.

I can actually read. That's the only habit being demonstrated here.
It sounds like, from this article, that the universe is predisposed towards evolving life, just not merging it on planetary scales.


According to a new hypothesis posed by Dr Wong and Dr Bartlett: “We propose a new resolution to the Fermi paradox: civilizations either collapse from burnout or redirect themselves to prioritizing homeostasis, a state where cosmic expansion is no longer a goal, making them difficult to detect remotely.

“Either outcome — homeostatic awakening or civilization collapse — would be consistent with the observed absence of (galactic-wide) civilizations.”

The pair argue that the general principles of life are universal and that although the emergence and evolution of life on other planets remains speculative, it may be inevitable.

"The Fermi paradox is the conflict between the lack of clear, obvious evidence for extraterrestrial life and various high estimates for their existence."
 
Based on the age of our Galaxy relative to others, and the age of our solar system, it's entirely possible WE are the most advanced and intelligent life out there.
I think it's entirely plausible that humans developed a unique intellect far advanced on a universal evolutionary scale. But I also believe it's possible that nature has placed difficult obstacles to space travel. Home planets, alone, do not provide the necessary resources for a species to develop long enough to discover solutions to difficult scientific hurdles. Could be there's been, is, and will be a lot of alien life out there.
 
The odds that we are the only life forms or even the only intelligent life forms in all that "0"
I agree, but what is the thrust of evolution.

Starting with the Cambrian period here some 500 million years ago its goal was to weaponize biological life.

Big teeth and claws ruled until mammals who lived under T Rex's feet were allowed room to evolve because of a fluke asteroid.

Life yes, intelligent life in the universe, I doubt it.
 
Actually yes, the evidence does lead there. It's not conclusive. But it does point that way.
It certainly doesn't lead that life sprang up naturally on planet earth - if that is the argument. That some amino acids can be created in an environment that we now believe likely didn't exist, in a glass beaker that has now been shown to taint the results, doesn't even really point the way. If Miller did in fact "lead there" then we wouldn't now be looking at the vent possibility, panspermia possibility, and a host of other possibilities.
 
I think it's entirely plausible that humans developed a unique intellect far advanced on a universal evolutionary scale. But I also believe it's possible that nature has placed difficult obstacles to space travel. Home planets, alone, do not provide the necessary resources for a species to develop long enough to discover solutions to difficult scientific hurdles. Could be there's been, is, and will be a lot of alien life out there.
I agree, we're lucky to be here ..but for a fluke 6 mile wide asteroid bumped out of the asteroid belt some 66 million years ago ..we wouldn't be here.

Life in general has its limitations and IMO the natural evolution of life isn't necessary directed towards smarts but more in the direction of dog eat dog survival.
 
Uh, no. Organic compounds are compounds that have carbon hydrogen bonds. Inorganic compounds do not have carbon hydrogen bonds. Oxygen and hydrogen bond together very easily.
Are you saying amino acids aren't molecules? Or, methane or ammonia aren't inorganic components?
 
Are you saying amino acids aren't molecules? Or, methane and ammonia aren't inorganic components?
NO, I am saying that organic compounds are compounds with hydrogen/oxygen bonds, and molecues that don't have hydrogen/oxygen bonds are not organic. To try to make more of that then that definition is just overexaggerat9ing things.

It's just how chemists define things, nothing more
 
Back
Top Bottom