Are we alone on our galaxy? Are we even alone in our universe?Statistically impossible.

Note: 'Statistically impossible' is provocative.
'Statistically highly unlikely' is the better phrasing.

The probability that we are alone in our universe is lower than
1/200 billion. The probability that we are alone in our galaxy is
lower than 1/billion. Of course these numbers are wild guesses
and a challenge to start a fierce(?) discussion.

With 200 billion galaxies, each with over 100 billion stars, there
are
roughly 20,000 billion billion stars in our visible universe.
That is 20,000 - 000,000,000 - 000,000,000 stars.

Of course, it could be 2,000 or 200,000 billion billion stars.
These numbers are very rough estimates only, as billions of stars
and even billions of galaxies are not visible.

Let's assume there are 20,000 billion billion stars.
Also assume each galaxy has at least one planet with intelligent life
on it (at our level or better) (this is a very very conservative
guess)
then there are 200, 000,000,000 civilizations in the visible
universe.

How many of these would be 1 million or 10 million or 100 million
years ahead of us, assuming the universe is approximately 15 billion
years old and 100 million years is only 0.66% of this total time
span?

100 million years is only 0.66% of the total time span!

So it is easy to contemplate that there can be millions of those
civilizations 1% or 1 or 10 million years or more ahead of us. Of
course, out of the 200 billion civilizations 99% or more may have
been destroyed or have become extinct.

So if we assume that only 1% avoided destruction, that still
leaves 2 billion civilizations that survived, colonized other
galaxies
and/or are still traveling through space for millions of years.

Assuming some are in galaxies over 1 billion light years away from
our Milky Way galaxy, then if they traveled e.g. in cryogenic
state for over 500 million years at the speed of light, they still
would not have reached us. This assumes that speed of light is the
upper limit.

Traveling in cryogenic state would also not age the travelers.
In addition, these travelers would basically be immortal,
being able to grow organs, limbs, etc., whenever needed. In addition,
they could return to their home galaxy after millions of years (if
they
wanted) and still find the beings/friends they left behind as those
would
not have aged either. Mind boggling.

In a nutshell, the numbers are so huge, even if you multiply a very
low probability factor times a very large number you will get a
sizable
number. And I think that that probability factor is not that
small, but much higher than one advanced planet per galaxy of
100 billion stars.

That means we are not alone in our own galaxy with its 200-500
billion
stars. If I assume one 'more-advanced' civilization per 10 million
stars,
there would be 20,000 - 50,000 of such 'more-advanced' civilizations
in
our own galaxy.

Of course, all these numbers are wild guesses/speculations but
it is an illustration of the fact that when we talk about our galaxy
and our visible universe the numbers are 'astronomically' huge.

As the numbers are so huge = Carl Sagan's billions and billions,
or better billions TIMES billions, I believe that most galaxies
have many millions of habitable planets with life.

Many people do not understand very large numbers and
are not trained in statistics, and would immediately reject such
ideas. They cannot understand what billions TIMES billions
really represents. Even with low probabilities and massive
destruction of civilizations, the remaining numbers most
likely are still huge.

If you asked me to guess how many 'more-advanced' civilizations
there are in our own Milky Way, I would say many more than 20,000.

If you asked me why 'they' have not contacted us, I would say I don't
know, maybe we are not advanced enough - yet.

I find it a very exciting and intriguing idea that we most likely
have
tens of thousands of advanced civilizations right in our own galaxy.

I also realize the vastness of the universe and even the vastness
of our own galaxy. Our own galaxy's rough diameter is estimated
at over 100,000 light years! That means it takes light 100,000
years to travel from one side to the other side. Mind boggling.
And it takes a multiple of 100,000 years to travel to the nearest
large galaxy Andromeda. Even several million years - to the
nearest large galaxy! And billions of years to travel
to the other side/'far side' (if there is one) of our universe.

Many people think we are alone in our galaxy, even in our universe.

However I am convinced that life (biological reproduction)
gets created from material processes probably via intermediate
self-reproducing and interlinking molecules to
self-reproducing organisms and then to more complex
organisms, etc. Nowhere is a unique all-powerful creator
needed. Given billions of material processes, statistically
a few molecular structures will by chance have self-
reproducing properties. Via that property these structures
will mushroom into billions of structures, etc., etc..

So wherever there is matter and the right environment and
millions or billions of years, life will evolve from matter.
That means we are not unique, not uniquely created by a single
all-powerful God: We are here by chance.

Why we are here by chance, why matter exists, why we made
from matter exist, cannot be answered. However, although
we cannot answer that question, we do not need to
invent a powerful creator to explain it. Not being able
to answer a mystery is no argument for the
existence of a single powerful creator.

As I am convinced life can evolve from material processes,
life is abundant in our galaxy and abundant in our universe.
Even intelligent life. As primitive life competes for
resources, the more primitive civilizations likely will be
violent. Many advanced civilizations that have reached
biological immortality may not be, but I am not sure.
(I'll read Asimov on this soon)

With regards,
Michael M. Terra

On 26/05/2011 9:59 AM, Carl Sagan's billions wrote:
Note: 'Statistically impossible' is provocative.
'Statistically highly unlikely' is the better phrasing.

The probability that we are alone in our universe is lower than
1/200 billion. The probability that we are alone in our galaxy is
lower than 1/billion. Of course these numbers are wild guesses
and a challenge to start a fierce(?) discussion.

OK, let's start on the calculation.

1. Probability that life arises when conditions are suitable.

Er.....?

Sylvia.

On Jun 19, 10:35*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/05/2011 9:59 AM, Carl Sagan's billions wrote:

Note: 'Statistically impossible' is provocative.
'Statistically highly unlikely' is the better phrasing.

The probability that we are alone in our universe is lower than
1/200 billion. The probability that we are alone in our galaxy is
lower than 1/billion. *Of course these numbers are wild guesses
and a challenge to start a fierce(?) discussion.

OK, let's start on the calculation.

1. Probability that life arises when conditions are suitable.


Well, that's what people don't understand about probability though.
Digital Computers were built basically because the
odds of small things are even smaller than biologists think.




Er.....?

Sylvia.

On 28/07/2011 5:03 PM, jim wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:35 pm, Sylvia wrote:
On 26/05/2011 9:59 AM, Carl Sagan's billions wrote:

Note: 'Statistically impossible' is provocative.
'Statistically highly unlikely' is the better phrasing.

The probability that we are alone in our universe is lower than
1/200 billion. The probability that we are alone in our galaxy is
lower than 1/billion. Of course these numbers are wild guesses
and a challenge to start a fierce(?) discussion.

OK, let's start on the calculation.

1. Probability that life arises when conditions are suitable.


Well, that's what people don't understand about probability though.
Digital Computers were built basically because the
odds of small things are even smaller than biologists think.


Though in this case our problem is that the nearest we can pin down the
probability is that it lies somewhere between vanishingly small, and
pretty much a sure thing.

Sylvia.

On Jul 28, 9:01*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/07/2011 5:03 PM, jim wrote:





On Jun 19, 10:35 pm, Sylvia *wrote:
On 26/05/2011 9:59 AM, Carl Sagan's billions wrote:

Note: 'Statistically impossible' is provocative.
'Statistically highly unlikely' is the better phrasing.

The probability that we are alone in our universe is lower than
1/200 billion. The probability that we are alone in our galaxy is
lower than 1/billion. *Of course these numbers are wild guesses
and a challenge to start a fierce(?) discussion.

OK, let's start on the calculation.

1. Probability that life arises when conditions are suitable.

* * Well, that's what people don't understand about probability though.
* * Digital Computers were built basically because the
* * odds of small things are even smaller than biologists think.

Though in this case our problem is that the nearest we can pin down the
probability is that it lies somewhere between vanishingly small, and
pretty much a sure thing.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There again these probabilities would be conjecturous. The two
questions: "Is there an afterlife?" and "Why is the universe silent?"
are both two sides of the same coin.

Abdul Ahad
"I did not invent the system. The system invented me."

On Jul 28, 9:01*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 28/07/2011 5:03 PM, jim wrote:





On Jun 19, 10:35 pm, Sylvia *wrote:
On 26/05/2011 9:59 AM, Carl Sagan's billions wrote:

Note: 'Statistically impossible' is provocative.
'Statistically highly unlikely' is the better phrasing.

The probability that we are alone in our universe is lower than
1/200 billion. The probability that we are alone in our galaxy is
lower than 1/billion. *Of course these numbers are wild guesses
and a challenge to start a fierce(?) discussion.

OK, let's start on the calculation.

1. Probability that life arises when conditions are suitable.

* * Well, that's what people don't understand about probability though.
* * Digital Computers were built basically because the
* * odds of small things are even smaller than biologists think.

Though in this case our problem is that the nearest we can pin down the
probability is that it lies somewhere between vanishingly small, and
pretty much a sure thing.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There again these probabilities would be conjecturous. The two
questions: "Is there an afterlife?" and "Why is the universe silent?"
are both two sides of the same coin.

Abdul Ahad
"I did not invent the system. The system invented me."

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:46:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by AA Institute
:

snip

...The two
questions: "Is there an afterlife?" and "Why is the universe silent?"
are both two sides of the same coin.

Not quite. We have irrefutable evidence that intelligent
life (for some value of "intelligent") exists and is
therefore possible; we have no such evidence for an
afterlife, of any sort, for any species.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless