undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAlan_Dillman3y ago0 comments

Exactly.

This is why it is dumb when people say "The odds against life arising at random is astronomical."

It did happen, therefore, the convoluted path to life wasn't what the skeptic speaker thinks it was.

Multiple-endpoints fallacy and overly anthropomorphizing reality also makes a fool out of the Drake Equation, and the idea of "The Great Filter" is dumb too.

0 comments

wizofaus3y ago

Going on the evidence we have, it's certainly not impossible that our own planet (one out of something like 10^25 likely planets in the universe) happens to be the only one that life has arisen on, which I'd say qualifies as astronomical odds against for any random planet at least.

pixl973y ago

Let's give this one a few centuries and see how many exo-planets have life before deciding how rare it actually is.

vikingerik3y ago

Right. The odds against intelligent, industrial life arising at this star in this galaxy were astronomical. The odds against it arising somewhere among trillions of stars and galaxies are much less so.

But I'm not so sure about that last. The Drake equation and Great Filter do handle the multiple-endpoints question correctly. They ask, with so many possible occurrences in the scale of the universe, why don't we see any of them?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse