We Might Be Alone in the Universe

[Marcus]

Okay, so I did some research and found some fatal flaws with your interpretation.

Here are some points you should consider:

1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.

2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."

3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years.

…I am the only one required to back up my arguments with peer-reviewed research.

No, but you do manage to make grave errors quite regularly in your interpretations.

Start with your Point 4:

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years.

What do you base your conclusion of which interpretation is “unlikely” on? Because that’s not what the authors say in the study you are referencing:

We suggest two interpretations of our result….According to [the first] interpretation, the periodic stars are in the high-activity regime, while the stars without known periods are either also in transition, or are in the low-activity regime. The second possible interpretation is that…[because], For example, the Sun could alternate between epochs of low and high activity on timescales longer than 9000 years.

Our analysis does not allow us to distinguish between these two interpretations.

Additionally,

Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years.

The authors of the study you are referring to do:

Solar cosmogenic isotope data indicate that in the last 9000 years the Sun has not been substantially more active than in the last 140 years (8).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.01401.pdf

Your point 4 is wildly incorrect due to cherry-picking, as well as a bizarre formation of the question itself. 1-3 are not documented and in my opinion, reflect similar cherry-picking and lack of understanding, so there’s no point in continuing.

[Gadianton]

I watched Kipping's video and totally agree with it. I thought it was great.

I disagree with these statements:

The "We are alone" hypothesis contradicts D&C 76:24, unless apologists want to claim that D&C was talking about worlds in some other universe.
If we are alone in the universe, that would be a big blow to the Fine-Tuning for life theory.

In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common.

Kipping's video basically said that we don't know anything about Florida, the likelihood for life to arise, and so we just can't say how common life is. He says we should be agnostic. He punctures arguments that are too optimistic for there being other life. He tries to correct the bias FOR other life back to neutrality. DT has gone the other direction, and taking Kipps to bias the case towards us being alone totally, in the entire universe. All Kipping says is that what we've observed so far is consistent with us being alone. It's not saying much.

D&C 76 is just fine if it is talking about other life in our universe. God knows how fast we'll progress, he wants to keep us separate and so wherever or whenever he put other civilizations, he knows they won't find each other in 7,000 years of temporal existence. The variability of Florida is so vastly huge that what we've discovered so far means nothing.

The second statement misstates what Kipping says --- he does not say intelligent life in the universe is not very common. He says we have no idea how common it is.

really shades? "Florida" = F l. the parameter in Kipping's simplified Drake equation.

[malkie]

I watched Kipping's video and totally agree with it. I thought it was great.

I disagree with these statements:

The "We are alone" hypothesis contradicts D&C 76:24, unless apologists want to claim that D&C was talking about worlds in some other universe.
If we are alone in the universe, that would be a big blow to the Fine-Tuning for life theory.

In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common.

Kipping's video basically said that we don't know anything about Florida, the likelihood for life to arise, and so we just can't say how common life is. He says we should be agnostic. He punctures arguments that are too optimistic for there being other life. He tries to correct the bias FOR other life back to neutrality. DT has gone the other direction, and taking Kipps to bias the case towards us being alone totally, in the entire universe. All Kipping says is that what we've observed so far is consistent with us being alone. It's not saying much.

D&C 76 is just fine if it is talking about other life in our universe. God knows how fast we'll progress, he wants to keep us separate and so wherever or whenever he put other civilizations, he knows they won't find each other in 7,000 years of temporal existence. The variability of Florida is so vastly huge that what we've discovered so far means nothing.

The second statement misstates what Kipping says --- he does not say intelligent life in the universe is not very common. He says we have no idea how common it is.

really shades? "Florida" = F l. the parameter in Kipping's simplified Drake equation.

You can use yaytext to prevent expansions, so, for example, 𝙁𝙡 does not get expanded to Florida.
https://yaytext.com/bold-italic/

[Marcus]

The variability of Florida is so vastly huge that what we've discovered so far means nothing.

Out of the mouths of auto-correct babes…

[Res Ipsa]

I watched Kipping's video and totally agree with it. I thought it was great.

I disagree with these statements:

The "We are alone" hypothesis contradicts D&C 76:24, unless apologists want to claim that D&C was talking about worlds in some other universe.
If we are alone in the universe, that would be a big blow to the Fine-Tuning for life theory.

In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common.

Kipping's video basically said that we don't know anything about Florida, the likelihood for life to arise, and so we just can't say how common life is. He says we should be agnostic. He punctures arguments that are too optimistic for there being other life. He tries to correct the bias FOR other life back to neutrality. DT has gone the other direction, and taking Kipps to bias the case towards us being alone totally, in the entire universe. All Kipping says is that what we've observed so far is consistent with us being alone. It's not saying much.

D&C 76 is just fine if it is talking about other life in our universe. God knows how fast we'll progress, he wants to keep us separate and so wherever or whenever he put other civilizations, he knows they won't find each other in 7,000 years of temporal existence. The variability of Florida is so vastly huge that what we've discovered so far means nothing.

The second statement misstates what Kipping says --- he does not say intelligent life in the universe is not very common. He says we have no idea how common it is.

really shades? "Florida" = F l. the parameter in Kipping's simplified Drake equation.

Thanks. I'm not surprised. That's entirely consistent with the subset of his papers we have discussed. I agree that the evidence we have today is consistent with the absence of other intelligent life in the universe. And I think I would continue to agree as long as we haven't actually discovered other intelligent life. I also agree that we don't know anything about the likelihood for life to arise, which means that the evidence we have is also consistent with the presence of other intelligent species. If the question is about knowledge to any degree of certainty, I wouldn't quibble with a position of agnosticism.

But I would still bet on both life and intelligent life based on three things: (1) We know of one location that produced intelligent life; (2) If we include planets that don't orbit stars and moons, there are as many as 10^31 locations where life could form. (3) Because, as Kipping and others point out, we don't know anything about the likelihood for life to arise, we cannot rule out any significant portion of those possible locations with any level of certainty. Even if we assumed that (1) it is impossible for life to form except in the solar system with a Jupiter analog; (2) it is impossible for life to form in a system with a super earth among inner planets; and (3) it is impossible for life to form in a solar system around a G2 star that is currently more variable than our sun, at best we've reduced the number of possible locations by a few orders of magnitude. That's not enough to significantly shift the law of large numbers. Even if all that were true (which we have absolutely no reason to assume), I wouldn't change my bet. If DT has accurately quoted Kipping's bet, I doubt he would either.

[Res Ipsa]

The variability of Florida is so vastly huge that what we've discovered so far means nothing.

Out of the mouths of auto-correct babes…

Damn, who knew that the key to understanding Florida was the autocorrect feature?

[doubtingthomas]

Up to this point, you've made some pretty strong claims without this type of qualification. I'll be watching closely for goalpost shifting.

Here's what I said in the opening post, "In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common."

I did not say, "the evidence is overwhelming that life is very rare"

I also said, " If the solar system is "a cosmic oddity", then that would be a strong hint that life is extremely rare in the universe".

And "Nobody knows ... what the odds for life are. It's better to be agnostic about this." Page 2

And "If there's a really big multiverse, then alien life is likely to exists in other universes."

DT has gone the other direction

I have to disagree.

[Res Ipsa]

Up to this point, you've made some pretty strong claims without this type of qualification. I'll be watching closely for goalpost shifting.

Here's what I said in the opening post, "In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common."

I did not say, "the evidence is overwhelming that life is very rare"

I also said, " If the solar system is "a cosmic oddity", then that would be a strong hint that life is extremely rare in the universe".

And "Nobody knows ... what the odds for life are. It's better to be agnostic about this." Page 2

And "If there's a really big multiverse, then alien life is likely to exists in other universes."

DT has gone the other direction

I have to disagree.

Still waiting.

[Gadianton]

And "If there's a really big multiverse, then alien life is likely to exists in other universes."

why? we have no idea about the distribution of life in multiverses just like we have no idea about the distribution of life in our universe.

I have to disagree.

you said:

In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common.

Please refer me to the part of the video where Kipping said this.

[Res Ipsa]

Start with your Point 4:

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years.

What do you base your conclusion of which interpretation is “unlikely” on? Because that’s not what the authors say in the study you are referencing:

We suggest two interpretations of our result….According to [the first] interpretation, the periodic stars are in the high-activity regime, while the stars without known periods are either also in transition, or are in the low-activity regime. The second possible interpretation is that…[because], For example, the Sun could alternate between epochs of low and high activity on timescales longer than 9000 years.

Our analysis does not allow us to distinguish between these two interpretations.

When citing papers as a source of authority, it’s important to distinguish between what the paper says and what you are arguing based on what the paper says. That can be done by physically separating the two by starting a new paragraph or using words that distinguish between the two. DTs point 4 doesn’t indicate which claims are his and which are the authors.

The other thing that’s important to track is where one is in the argument. DT made a claim, citing the paper. I argued that the paper didn’t support the claim he made. That doesn’t place on me any obligation to prove the truth of the author’s claims. I’m not asserting the truth of the author’s claims — I’m asserting that the paper doesn’t stand for what DT cited it for. His demand that I prove claims in a paper that he brought forward as authoritative is an example of the red herring fallacy.

The authors offer two alternatives, neither of which is that our sun is somehow unique. They say they cannot determine which possible explanation is correct. If DT wants to argue that one of the two scenarios is unlikely, it’s his burden to support his claim.