Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/uZN5xjoS6TU/v-deo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: David Kipping is an astronomer at Columbia University, director of the Cool Worlds Lab, and host of the Cool Worlds UA-cam channel.
I mean how are we supposed to know exactly how likely life is in the universe if we don't understand how it started here first I would say that any position held it is a position of faith without evidence including the one that says that we are alone Side note I noticed that highly religious people really like the idea that there are no aliens
@@notbob8252 how about we shoot life into the universe. To multiply and grow. We have what the universe is missing. Let’s gift the universe with life. What the hell we may only be here a few more years. Let’s gift the universe while we can.
@@tomedward8652 insight yes, but as we can see clearly from this example, insight does not equate to answers. Scientists at the top of their game will disagree wildly with each other about what the number is likely to be, all we can say for sure is that it’s somewhere between 1 and infinity. As long as a child makes a guess within that range, they’re just as likely to be right as any individual scientist.
@@Spengleman2 You are talking about the difference between accuracy and precision. The scientist will have a greater chance at accuracy based on better understanding of conditions, but there is still a chance that the child is correct.
@@penguinmilkstudios confirming your theory with the evidence that the universe is very large is not very convincing evidence. The true answer is, we don’t know. Maybe every form of life is completely different, so unable to communicate. The possibilities can be near infinite, with the possibility of no life existing besides our near infinite at the same time.
@@daveinpublic The fact that we are here makes it far more likely there is life than if we were not here to even think about it. We have barely explored anything in our own solar system. But yes the universe being large is not evidence.
Some forms of life will be better at communication than others. The highly intelligent, curious ones will find ways to communicate with humans if they want to. Here on Earth we have animal species that are curious about humans and are studying them...
The comparison to that Mars canal stuff from back in the day to the modern discourse over Exoplantets by way of Fermi Paradox, to guard against inherent biases, is conceptually wicked on-point
People forget how vast the universe is. There could be millions of advanced civilization out there but that would still make contact with them almost impossible considering faster than light travel is impossible and the distances between them is so large. Also the chances of two civilisations of similar technology levels being in the same vicinity are very small. We have made enormous progress in the last 100 years and we have barely made contact with Mars. And it's took us thousands of years to reach this point and this is such a small fraction of the history of the Earth itself.
Yes, I do think that the vastness of space and which tiny fraction of time our civilization corresponds to, is often overlooked when discussing the Fermi Paradox. Universe could indeed be teaming with life, but our ability to detect it very low.
I think the problem with calculating intelligent life is we presume it would take the same trajectory we did technologically. What if there's a planet entirely covered in water with really intelligent life, but they don't use electricity or radios. Or a planet that supports life but doesn't have the necessary elements to construct something like a rocket or nuclear reactor. What if planets with our composition of elements on the surface are super rare.
How about the fact that technology has only been present on this planet for less than 0.01% of the planet's lifespan and there was no life at all for hundreds of millions of years. So not only should we ask if there is life on a planet, but also was there life or will there be.
Industrial age couldnt have happened without exploitable energy resources like coal and oil that are necessarily a normal part of geology. Ive heard the following, which I dont know if its true or not, but if we continued to extract these resources and then completely die out, there wouldnt be easy to reach energy resources for a new species to undergo an industrial revolution like we did.
@@TheMrNukeman Exactly. Gotta take the long span of time into consideration. There might be lots of life, but what are the chances they intersect in time?
Interesting. An aquatic planet with highly intelligent lifeform/s that have sought harmony with the nature of the homeworld and have had no need of an industrial revolution opting instead for a purely natural self-evolution. Maybe 🐈⬛
@@glravnao me he’s an wannabe celebrity/scientist who can actually speak, but it you listing (not even closely) you will swiftly notice that he has never had an original thought of his own
I always liked the concept of a giant head start. I love the thought of an intelligent species somewhere in the universe evolving on a similar trajectory as us humans in terms of technology, but getting a 1,000 year, a hundred thousand, even a million, or mind blowingly, a BILLION year head start... just.. 🤯 I mean, in our supposed ~13-14 billion year history, what if a planet somewhere in the cosmos was having their Roman Empire-type era while we were still a molten rock?! Or if they were where we are now, or even 50 years ahead, when dinosaurs were the dominant species here? Its obviously all total theory, hypothesis and conjecture, but it does make my tummy-tum tingle to get lost in all that theorizing ... do they hit the same moment we reasonably speculate on now of completely merging with tech within a hundred years, even 50 years of the first neural link style implants? Do they surpass that? Do they completely skip mechanization and somehow transcend the limits of the meat-sack biological bodies and evolve (or somehow force-evolve) into formless, amorphous.. uh.. ~thing~ of pure consciousness, totally unbound from the constraints of bodies that wear down and break, minds that degenerate due to unstoppable degenerative processes we currently face? It’s almost a cruel joke that we are young with nearly boundless energy and imagination, but are ignorant of nearly every aspect of the world around us, but after 70 to 80 years of accumulating knowledge and experience that could legitimately be put to incredible use for our future as a species, sadly, our mental and physical capacity is beginning to degenerate so rapidly that not sh¡tt¡ng ones pants or simply remembering once innate & automatic processes burns up all our inner resources - but amorphous blobs of pure light and consciousness that have transcended the need or even *concept* of sh¡tt¡ng altogether?! Broseph... at that point, translating languages to us dumb humans becomes a moot point since they could simply transfer and read thought over the electrical signals of brainwaves ... Civilization & society on Earth, while progressing, were more or less the same for stretches of thousands of years at a time. There are big moments; harnessing fire, the wheel, irrigation, agriculture. But life wasn’t drastically different from, say... 1000 BC - 1000 AD (yeah, I don’t play that BCE/CE horsesh¡t). But within a relatively short timeline, we got gunpowder, the printing press, microscopes, industrialization. With industrialization, our tech essentially exploded in essentially exponential growth that would have been incomprehensible to earlier civilizations. My great grandmother lived 20 years before the first television was made in 1927, then later watched men walk on the moon on a television. She didn’t make it to the social media age or even really the mass adoption of the Internet, but the Internet was in use before her death... So assuming similar exponential technological development, even a 100, 200 year head start would make any civilization nearly unrecognizable... so a MILLION years... a BILLION?!? Again, 🤯
It'd endless. Those civilizations from 1 billion years ago could have came and went a billion times. All societies could just be building to eventually destroy itself and then the fun begins again.
@@yung_wise5861 ehh... idk... just because we haven’t seen quote/unquote “proof’ doesn’t necessarily make it the “truth”. I’m with Lex on this particular line of thinking… The size of the universe is literally incomprehensible to our brains, and if the quote life finds a Way“ thing holds true out there beyond earth, it’s nearly incomprehensible to believe we’re the only living, intelligent things in existence. And when I see the size of space is incomprehensible, I mean literally… It’s like asking a dog to learn binary & C++ coding, and to code a program... dogs aren’t necessarily stupid, but that level of intelligence or understanding is simply be on their capacity... same with us, we can theorize and contemplate, but based on our units of measurement and time, something that is 93 billion light years wide and expanding is not something we can reasonably comprehend... While we have telescopes and satellite dishes pointed in different directions of space, a difference of a millimeter on earth becomes millions of light years in the furthers reaches of space, so without the ability to observe constantly every area of space simultaneously, we might never see it. Finally, some say we have proof in the forms of UFOs, crashed craft and bodies held in secret locations by the government… Even if it were true, they would never tell us directly, and when those who did work for the government come out and say they’ve seen it, we still don’t count that as proof because it sounds so crazy... so... who knows? 🤷♂️
My guy lex man 🛸 ... u make me happy bro that your always talkin bout the most important subject in the world and it goes to show how smart this man actually is cuz he knows its real as you all will soon know too and that's facts. Thank you lex keep em coming 🛸
I think the chance of life starting versus life evolving should be hugely different. It would seem like it would be much more difficult to establish life than to simply evolve life that is already established.
My rough theory is the idea that as the universe expand new life is born and older life slowly days away as the stars fade out so there’s a wave of life if you will sort of inverse square law of probability of new life forms. This means the number of intelligent life is probably constantly changing.
That's a question I often ask myself. It makes no doubt for me that there is other lifeforms in the universe, but I feel like too many people link having life with evolving to be a self conscious species like us, evolution is not a straight line where the end goal is becoming self aware thinking creature. Also given the very small probabiltiy of a planet with a lifeform developping to be self conscious and intelligent (in a way that it can think about complex problem other than food and mating, philosophy art and so on), linking that very small probability with the one of disastrous event wiping out every life form on this planet, plagues, asteroid, sun exploding, I feel the probability remains extremely low even considering the number of stars and planets in the galaxy.
On the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, should that not be a strong indicator that we should be bong everything in our power to preserve this potentially unique expression of chemistry which we call life?
He is correct. Life has only formed from chemistry once, in the form of the universal common ancestor. There have been no other formations of life beyond that
Lex like myself is a child in this conversation. Entropy vs Evolution are conflicting ideas. The probability of a single protein folding all by its self is mind blowing-ly impossible...
@@Spengleman2 Evidence based on how many instances? Earth only. How many evidence of not happening in other planets? Much more than Earth. What was the method? Origin of life is not solved yet some of you pre assuming it should happen all the time. Lol
Aliens are not real losers. No life exists outside of earth. Period. Not 1 microbe. Science is not religion. You don’t get to shrug your shoulders and make stuff up.
@@Spengleman2pressure makes it more likely imo. What kind of pressue? Not sure. But there is an idea I discovered viewing simulated particle systems whereby if you have a certain amount of "pressure" in the environment you force structures to assume the most spacially convenience arrangement even if it is otherwise highly unlikely.
I believe he said he doesn’t want to believe in intelligent life so as not to influence the data analysis. I’m saying isn’t not believing an influence in itself.
The analogy about ‘canals’ on Mars as a bias of the time, is to me very comparable with thought experiments like ‘Dyson spheres’, as if these are some sort of inevitable end game for advanced civilisations. It fails to remotely consider alternative power generation mechanisms as being sufficient for an advanced civilisation needs, nor the big question why on earth they would want or need to do this. Hence to ‘assume’ Dyson spheres are something to even look for, is to me an equivalent bias of our time.
I didn't realize, until seeing these two together, that my brain categorizes them in the same place, so seeing them at the same time was trippy at first Weird, I know
Around 11:05 where Lex states “…life finds a way…,” well, yeah, it’s true we see life everywhere, as extremophiles, for instance. That’s life adapting, post abiogenesis. Starting life may require a setting that’s inhospitable to as we know it, deadly even.
There is the sad possibility that basic and complex life exists throughout the universe but the probability of us being able to discover it within the time humanity exists is negligible (particularly discovering complex life).
Part of me hopes we don’t find microbes on mars. if we do -life is everywhere. But we see nothing, indicating a great filter…. And that is terrifying. It has to be something that kills 100%, 100% of the time. can’t be asteroids. Can’t be flares. Or even suicide….what could be 100% effective, one HUNDRED % of the time? Genocide. It’s the only candidate that we have Carrie’s certainty if complete annihilation of a planets life forms if it’s occuring at all. And this, means monsters do exist.
I'm DCAing in AWL28T as well. ETH heavier DCA and ALGO. I'm taking your advice and starting Google tomorrow with a 50 dollar purchase and continuing Microsoft and Apple. VTI and VOO on another app and longterm portfolio. Here we go family!
This is why I love you lex, I admittedly got like 5 minutes in and had debated this guy into the ground in my head and annoyed turned off the main podcast, saw this pop up and heard you speaking my mind, also I just I rewatched the Andrew bustamante video and that didn’t age well for him, he treated you like you couldn’t put a tactical thought together if you tried yet time has prevailed on your side of the debates that took place.
I can just imagine that if there’s an alien civilization that seeded Earth with life millions of years ago, they’re watching this right now thinking, “Aw, how cute. Look, they’re trying to figure things out”.
@@ismarcus00500 not impossible because if us humans were to find other earth like planets we'd most likely do the same. But the chances of it applying to this situation is slim
Yeah imagine and imagine for sake of mental satisfaction of alien fetish lol. So biases lol. Theists also have such imaginations with god, these are known as religion lol.
And also the fermi paradox, maybe those stars and planets supported life millions of years ago and the civilizations have since gone extinct or maybe they will support life millions of years after our civilization goes extinct. Like passing ships in the night
I love both arguments. I still think simple life is probably everywhere, but something like what is on earth is likely very rare. Not just humams but the animals or even the bugs. Complex life is what is rare.
His point about entropy is great but pockets of random complexity happens in a closed random system. Complexity isn’t that amazing it is definitely compatible with an entropic system
Chatgpt has this to say on the matter for what it's worth: "It is currently unknown what the probability of extraterrestrial life is, as we have not yet found definitive evidence of its existence. However, given the vastness of the universe and the potential for conditions that could support life to exist on other planets or moons, many scientists believe it is likely that there is some form of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe. However, the probability of finding extraterrestrial life that is similar to human life is considered to be low."
Lex,s argument on how you observe life at a multitude of extreme conditions is misleading, the extreme conditions on earth are not really extreme. We do not see life in the vacuum of space, the moon, any of the planets in our solar system or on the surface of the sun. I would argue that any condition on the earth from thermic vents to Antarctica are the perfect conditions for life. This planet is truly truly amazing
I empathize with the idea that abiogenesis would also simply be a spectrum type thing; chemistry eventually becomes complex enough that it begins to look like life. However, genetics suggests a common ancestor. If this spectrum idea holds true, the chances of advancing far enough to appear as life would have to be quite low for us to not see multiple instances of life originating separately and distinctly on earth. Granted, perhaps life being in a place greatly reduces the chance of novel life emerging.
Bro you are so wrong maybe tens of civilizations have existed maybe more but the assumption intelligent civilizations are long-lived is weak, as in cosmological terms many civilizations may have thrived and died out even on Earth, it's very unlikely we would ever learn of them much considering the vastness of space and time it's highly improbably we would meet someone
Why is life's origin different than its evolution? Evolution relies on reproduction and fitness. Rocks and other inanimate stuff can "evolve" sort of. Like a group of random rocks in the rain will "evolve" to be made up of the ones that are the least susceptible to erosion. That said, you still need a system for the best rock type to propagate. Wait....if rocks etc are always breaking down into more complicated (because they are compromised of a bunch of rock types) pools of sand and complexity creates complexity then.... Nvm, I've convinced myself that there are aliens in a lot of places
There is no way to ever have a probability or a percentage of how much we know because that would mean that you know exactly how everything works and what everything and also how much is there, how can you ever possibly know if infinity exist
@@aitordoval3364 Yes, I know all that. I know a bit of organic chemistry as well. That being said, it is still entirely unintuitive for me to think about the fact that basically all life is based on carbon strings, and that we (or plants, rather) get that carbon from CO2 gas, but on its own Carbon shows up as diamonds or graphine or whatever the hell else on its own. If it wasn't so commonplace I would never associate those things with each other. The vastness of complexity and unexpected outcomes in Chemistry makes it hard for me to say conclusively that there aren't lots of other elements that could be used as a basis for life.
@@holyknightthatpwns there is only one other element that could even be used at all similarly to carbon in life and that’s silicon, but even that would be highly restricted and unlikely compared to carbon which is just perfect for organic molecules
@@Jm-wt1fs Carbon is perfect for organic molecules basically because we define organic chemistry as chemistry that uses carbon. If we happened to live in a silicon life world, you and I would think silicon was the best option, because there would be silicon molecules we haven't conceived of in our reality, and we wouldn't be able to predict what carbon molecules nature would find possible. Nature is pretty good at making complex systems using heat, metal, ions, and all kinds of things that life probably can't be made out of, but how do we actually know that it can't?
Life decreases entropy locally in creating order for "self-interest", but entropy in the rest of the world around a living thing must increase (according to 2LT). Consciousness may have a reason to emerge wherever it can to "collar" entropy and create local order. Maybe there are other mathematical systems inside stars that could become conscious?
Why do all these discussions always factor out the fact that some of our own life on this planet already came from across the cosmos? Fungi is literally well known for being immune to the vacuum of space and likely of extraterrestrial origin. Other theories also point to other seemingly mundane species such as Octopi being of unknown origin.
Stability, usecase, utility. These are factors which should transform you into a buyer and not the idea of whatever it's gonna work. This sounds simple but apprently still too difficult to most. My idea is Amazons Vr23XR, they provide all these values and more.
In short, because we can't quantify the probability of abiogenesis happening, the chances of us being alone in the universe and aliens existing are 50/50. Until proven otherwise.
@@ThingE05 those are the possibilities, and they are equally as viable, as there is no metric to quantify them. So 50/50 is the accurate description. Saying there are aliens or there aren’t aliens are equally as wrong or as right as the other one.
@@modelchanger1332 It’s not factually wrong or factually right. There is only one truth in this matter. There are either aliens or there aren’t. It’s 0/100. You’re either wrong or you’re right.
I am only convinced we have no clue, and my reaction is we should develop the technology to go and find out. It's pointless to wonder what the chefs special is, go to the restaurant and find out.
What about awareness? What about self awareness and awareness of the environment? Self awareness, in terms of evolution, changes everything because our point of perception changes. We no longer are a bunch of molecules organized to connect, but an organism with consciousness able to see our universe from a different perspective. And with the search for extraterrestrial life, we are still organized to connect. The small is reflected in the large and the large is reflected in the small.
I was talking to my friend about what aliens might be like and I thought maybe they're just a bit behind like they've still got swords and shields or caveman and haven't got computers and space ships yet
Lex is correct and his arguments make much more sence. Sure we still don't have proof of life somewhere else but everyother assumptions are highly unlikely. It's like with the "Higs" particle". Everybody was aware that they exist till they have been proofen.
David Kipping made a video his Cool World's channel that he had used modelling that had led to the conclusion that primitive life is probably common but that complex life is probably very rare
@@SummerDream3r hi. I think that this is the video that I remember that David made sometime ago ua-cam.com/video/iLbbpRYRW5Y/v-deo.html The Cool World Labs has some great videos about astronomy
In regard to level of intelligence, lex seems like a small child with David seeming like the father saying son, no that’s not correct…I mean Lex is all over the place and David brings it back to logic.
lLogic will only lead down a well-trodden path where many have been before. But intuition and creativity can sometimes take you to the stars. Ask Einstein about that because he started only with intuition and imagination, then came the math and the logic, as he himself acknowledged.
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/uZN5xjoS6TU/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: David Kipping is an astronomer at Columbia University, director of the Cool Worlds Lab, and host of the Cool Worlds UA-cam channel.
Hey you should have somebody on talking about abiogenesis and what biologists currently understand about it
I mean how are we supposed to know exactly how likely life is in the universe if we don't understand how it started here first
I would say that any position held it is a position of faith without evidence including the one that says that we are alone
Side note I noticed that highly religious people really like the idea that there are no aliens
Send our biology out to the universe.
Send it as a gift. We have life the universe lacks life. What the hell. We may only be here a few years.
@@notbob8252 how about we shoot life into the universe. To multiply and grow. We have what the universe is missing. Let’s gift the universe with life. What the hell we may only be here a few more years. Let’s gift the universe while we can.
Lex’s argument comes from hope and intuition. Kipping’s argument comes from coherent logic.
Pretty classic Lex actually. He's had at least two mentally ill people on in the past year. He wants a lot of stuff, but that's probably not true
A scientist has no better idea of the number of civilisations in the universe than a layman or a child.
@geodude - so having an understanding of astrophysics, statistics, biochemistry etc give no insight? Ok.
@@tomedward8652 insight yes, but as we can see clearly from this example, insight does not equate to answers. Scientists at the top of their game will disagree wildly with each other about what the number is likely to be, all we can say for sure is that it’s somewhere between 1 and infinity. As long as a child makes a guess within that range, they’re just as likely to be right as any individual scientist.
@@Spengleman2 You are talking about the difference between accuracy and precision. The scientist will have a greater chance at accuracy based on better understanding of conditions, but there is still a chance that the child is correct.
David is such a brilliant explainer, my background is in comp sci but he makes physics understandable to people like me
Samesies
David kipping and Lex fridman. What a time to be alive
Propaganda for dummies
You should check out 2 minute papers.
This guy looks like he could be Lex’s older brother.
They both share same interests too, aliens, space etc.
Especially in the thumbnail
Fridmen & Kipping, a couple of my favorite young men on YT; two guys that make YT a legitimate source of inspiration.
David Kipping is just one of the best communicators!
It’s like two alternative universe Lex’s talking to each other
I thought you were joking till i let the vid play out and see that he looks like lex
He looks like Dr Oz fused with Lex
😂😂😂😂😂
Yet the scientist guy isn’t open to the idea of other universes, yet he speaks to his doppelgänger from another dimension
His fungus example is great, because it is maybe the easiest way to show how hard communication would be. How different alien live would be.
Universe is so vast though where there is a solar system somewhere where two alien worlds are communicating with eachother pretty easily.
@@penguinmilkstudios confirming your theory with the evidence that the universe is very large is not very convincing evidence. The true answer is, we don’t know. Maybe every form of life is completely different, so unable to communicate. The possibilities can be near infinite, with the possibility of no life existing besides our near infinite at the same time.
@@daveinpublic The fact that we are here makes it far more likely there is life than if we were not here to even think about it. We have barely explored anything in our own solar system. But yes the universe being large is not evidence.
Some forms of life will be better at communication than others. The highly intelligent, curious ones will find ways to communicate with humans if they want to. Here on Earth we have animal species that are curious about humans and are studying them...
Vr23XR, ETH, and more would be great.
I’m sorry for perhaps missing the obvious but what are Vr23XR and ETH in this context?
The comparison to that Mars canal stuff from back in the day to the modern discourse over Exoplantets by way of Fermi Paradox, to guard against inherent biases, is conceptually wicked on-point
Could you please talk about Vr23XR it’s very strong and took off in short time thanks.
shhhhhhhhhhhhh SCAM
No.
And R2D2
People forget how vast the universe is. There could be millions of advanced civilization out there but that would still make contact with them almost impossible considering faster than light travel is impossible and the distances between them is so large.
Also the chances of two civilisations of similar technology levels being in the same vicinity are very small. We have made enormous progress in the last 100 years and we have barely made contact with Mars. And it's took us thousands of years to reach this point and this is such a small fraction of the history of the Earth itself.
Yes, I do think that the vastness of space and which tiny fraction of time our civilization corresponds to, is often overlooked when discussing the Fermi Paradox. Universe could indeed be teaming with life, but our ability to detect it very low.
I think the problem with calculating intelligent life is we presume it would take the same trajectory we did technologically. What if there's a planet entirely covered in water with really intelligent life, but they don't use electricity or radios. Or a planet that supports life but doesn't have the necessary elements to construct something like a rocket or nuclear reactor. What if planets with our composition of elements on the surface are super rare.
How about the fact that technology has only been present on this planet for less than 0.01% of the planet's lifespan and there was no life at all for hundreds of millions of years. So not only should we ask if there is life on a planet, but also was there life or will there be.
Industrial age couldnt have happened without exploitable energy resources like coal and oil that are necessarily a normal part of geology.
Ive heard the following, which I dont know if its true or not, but if we continued to extract these resources and then completely die out, there wouldnt be easy to reach energy resources for a new species to undergo an industrial revolution like we did.
And we don’t know they would even use nucleic acids and even have similar chemistry to us.
@@TheMrNukeman Exactly. Gotta take the long span of time into consideration. There might be lots of life, but what are the chances they intersect in time?
Interesting. An aquatic planet with highly intelligent lifeform/s that have sought harmony with the nature of the homeworld and have had no need of an industrial revolution opting instead for a purely natural self-evolution. Maybe 🐈⬛
Wouldn’t it be way more likely we discover artificial intelligence created by other beings rather than the aliens themselves
Two legends in one place
How are these two legendary? Please explain, I heard about that lex guy
@@glravnao me he’s an wannabe celebrity/scientist who can actually speak, but it you listing (not even closely) you will swiftly notice that he has never had an original thought of his own
@@pabloevuu5232 doesnt sound very legendary to me 🤔🤔🤔
@@glravna correct ;)
David: if I have no biases, I can make a fairer assessment
Lex: yeah but aliens 😂
damn i love the cool worlds youtube channel.
Here are some names that David cant deny: 1: Gary Mckinnon 2: Paul Hellyer 3: Haim Eshed 4: Bob Lazaar 5: Admiral Byrd
Great conversion, Kipping is a very sober scientist. A pleasure to listen to.
I always liked the concept of a giant head start. I love the thought of an intelligent species somewhere in the universe evolving on a similar trajectory as us humans in terms of technology, but getting a 1,000 year, a hundred thousand, even a million, or mind blowingly, a BILLION year head start... just.. 🤯
I mean, in our supposed ~13-14 billion year history, what if a planet somewhere in the cosmos was having their Roman Empire-type era while we were still a molten rock?! Or if they were where we are now, or even 50 years ahead, when dinosaurs were the dominant species here? Its obviously all total theory, hypothesis and conjecture, but it does make my tummy-tum tingle to get lost in all that theorizing ... do they hit the same moment we reasonably speculate on now of completely merging with tech within a hundred years, even 50 years of the first neural link style implants? Do they surpass that? Do they completely skip mechanization and somehow transcend the limits of the meat-sack biological bodies and evolve (or somehow force-evolve) into formless, amorphous.. uh.. ~thing~ of pure consciousness, totally unbound from the constraints of bodies that wear down and break, minds that degenerate due to unstoppable degenerative processes we currently face?
It’s almost a cruel joke that we are young with nearly boundless energy and imagination, but are ignorant of nearly every aspect of the world around us, but after 70 to 80 years of accumulating knowledge and experience that could legitimately be put to incredible use for our future as a species, sadly, our mental and physical capacity is beginning to degenerate so rapidly that not sh¡tt¡ng ones pants or simply remembering once innate & automatic processes burns up all our inner resources - but amorphous blobs of pure light and consciousness that have transcended the need or even *concept* of sh¡tt¡ng altogether?! Broseph... at that point, translating languages to us dumb humans becomes a moot point since they could simply transfer and read thought over the electrical signals of brainwaves ...
Civilization & society on Earth, while progressing, were more or less the same for stretches of thousands of years at a time. There are big moments; harnessing fire, the wheel, irrigation, agriculture. But life wasn’t drastically different from, say... 1000 BC - 1000 AD (yeah, I don’t play that BCE/CE horsesh¡t). But within a relatively short timeline, we got gunpowder, the printing press, microscopes, industrialization. With industrialization, our tech essentially exploded in essentially exponential growth that would have been incomprehensible to earlier civilizations. My great grandmother lived 20 years before the first television was made in 1927, then later watched men walk on the moon on a television. She didn’t make it to the social media age or even really the mass adoption of the Internet, but the Internet was in use before her death...
So assuming similar exponential technological development, even a 100, 200 year head start would make any civilization nearly unrecognizable... so a MILLION years... a BILLION?!? Again, 🤯
It'd endless. Those civilizations from 1 billion years ago could have came and went a billion times. All societies could just be building to eventually destroy itself and then the fun begins again.
@@redsox2722 Fermi paradox
Or it could be us that got the head start. Which so far seems like the truth
@@yung_wise5861 ehh... idk... just because we haven’t seen quote/unquote “proof’ doesn’t necessarily make it the “truth”. I’m with Lex on this particular line of thinking… The size of the universe is literally incomprehensible to our brains, and if the quote life finds a Way“ thing holds true out there beyond earth, it’s nearly incomprehensible to believe we’re the only living, intelligent things in existence.
And when I see the size of space is incomprehensible, I mean literally… It’s like asking a dog to learn binary & C++ coding, and to code a program... dogs aren’t necessarily stupid, but that level of intelligence or understanding is simply be on their capacity... same with us, we can theorize and contemplate, but based on our units of measurement and time, something that is 93 billion light years wide and expanding is not something we can reasonably comprehend...
While we have telescopes and satellite dishes pointed in different directions of space, a difference of a millimeter on earth becomes millions of light years in the furthers reaches of space, so without the ability to observe constantly every area of space simultaneously, we might never see it.
Finally, some say we have proof in the forms of UFOs, crashed craft and bodies held in secret locations by the government… Even if it were true, they would never tell us directly, and when those who did work for the government come out and say they’ve seen it, we still don’t count that as proof because it sounds so crazy... so... who knows? 🤷♂️
Who knows..perhaps alien lovers have biases too? Whether Alien exist or not that's certainly true. Lol
My guy lex man 🛸 ... u make me happy bro that your always talkin bout the most important subject in the world and it goes to show how smart this man actually is cuz he knows its real as you all will soon know too and that's facts. Thank you lex keep em coming 🛸
He doesn’t know you bro. Stop talking , get a life, and lose some weight. Get out of here.
I think the chance of life starting versus life evolving should be hugely different. It would seem like it would be much more difficult to establish life than to simply evolve life that is already established.
Im going with somewhere there are many tummy-tum tingles in the universe.
My largest holding is Amazons Vr23XR. Glad it came out to be this. I’m a fanboy and I like Charles. He reminds me of Steve Jobs when he speaks.
We are here is the best argument
My largest holding is deeeeze nuutz
Crypto is a scam
By a lot of accounts Steve job was a Piece of sh*t so if someone reminds you of him, probably not the best sign
Scumbag scam bots. UA-cam needs to police these better.
My rough theory is the idea that as the universe expand new life is born and older life slowly days away as the stars fade out so there’s a wave of life if you will sort of inverse square law of probability of new life forms. This means the number of intelligent life is probably constantly changing.
Such a fascinating conversation.
That's a question I often ask myself. It makes no doubt for me that there is other lifeforms in the universe, but I feel like too many people link having life with evolving to be a self conscious species like us, evolution is not a straight line where the end goal is becoming self aware thinking creature. Also given the very small probabiltiy of a planet with a lifeform developping to be self conscious and intelligent (in a way that it can think about complex problem other than food and mating, philosophy art and so on), linking that very small probability with the one of disastrous event wiping out every life form on this planet, plagues, asteroid, sun exploding, I feel the probability remains extremely low even considering the number of stars and planets in the galaxy.
Your argument is so much like everything has creator argument from religious fanatics. Lol. You have no doubt at all. Its called faith.
On the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, should that not be a strong indicator that we should be bong everything in our power to preserve this potentially unique expression of chemistry which we call life?
I'm just glad we're finally discussing it. Its crazy to me how (relatively) nobody is thinking of expanding or exploring.
Yeah. Until today, humans have basically just stayed in one place without exploration at all.......
Nobody is stopping you guys
At what time did the argument happen?
He is correct. Life has only formed from chemistry once, in the form of the universal common ancestor. There have been no other formations of life beyond that
oh
that we know of.
The universe could be teeming with life, yet, most likely, we will always be alone.
That is a good point. Any civilian would be extremely distant from any other, so probably too far away for interaction.
Lex like myself is a child in this conversation. Entropy vs Evolution are conflicting ideas. The probability of a single protein folding all by its self is mind blowing-ly impossible...
Who says it does it by itself? Evidence would suggest that it’s mind-blowingly possible, which gives us cause to question our models and assumptions.
They're not
@@Spengleman2 Evidence based on how many instances? Earth only. How many evidence of not happening in other planets? Much more than Earth. What was the method? Origin of life is not solved yet some of you pre assuming it should happen all the time. Lol
Aliens are not real losers. No life exists outside of earth. Period. Not 1 microbe. Science is not religion. You don’t get to shrug your shoulders and make stuff up.
@@Spengleman2pressure makes it more likely imo. What kind of pressue? Not sure. But there is an idea I discovered viewing simulated particle systems whereby if you have a certain amount of "pressure" in the environment you force structures to assume the most spacially convenience arrangement even if it is otherwise highly unlikely.
Aliens in future will discover us and think we were crazy not to recognize we were the first!
Lmao No
His point at 16:30 is amazing. Couldn’t agree more
I wish Lex could have interviewed Terence Mckenna
thats why every track sound like lex featuring lex
It would be cool to see what other planets with life would look like.
Two of my favorite podcasters
You should let your guests talk to the point more often. We are interested in them and want to hear them.
Lex does do too much talking. And he takes a long time and a roundabout way to get it said.
"Life will find a way" - Lex Fridman
Ian Malcom- chaos theory
Isn’t David’s skepticism a bias in itself. He says he’s open minded but then says he’s skeptical.
Could you explain how these concepts would be mutually exclusive?
I believe he said he doesn’t want to believe in intelligent life so as not to influence the data analysis. I’m saying isn’t not believing an influence in itself.
The analogy about ‘canals’ on Mars as a bias of the time, is to me very comparable with thought experiments like ‘Dyson spheres’, as if these are some sort of inevitable end game for advanced civilisations. It fails to remotely consider alternative power generation mechanisms as being sufficient for an advanced civilisation needs, nor the big question why on earth they would want or need to do this. Hence to ‘assume’ Dyson spheres are something to even look for, is to me an equivalent bias of our time.
I didn't realize, until seeing these two together, that my brain categorizes them in the same place, so seeing them at the same time was trippy at first
Weird, I know
Around 11:05 where Lex states “…life finds a way…,” well, yeah, it’s true we see life everywhere, as extremophiles, for instance. That’s life adapting, post abiogenesis.
Starting life may require a setting that’s inhospitable to as we know it, deadly even.
This guy gets it. At least to a large degree.
There is the sad possibility that basic and complex life exists throughout the universe but the probability of us being able to discover it within the time humanity exists is negligible (particularly discovering complex life).
Part of me hopes we don’t find microbes on mars. if we do -life is everywhere. But we see nothing, indicating a great filter…. And that is terrifying. It has to be something that kills 100%, 100% of the time.
can’t be asteroids. Can’t be flares. Or even suicide….what could be 100% effective, one HUNDRED % of the time? Genocide.
It’s the only candidate that we have Carrie’s certainty if complete annihilation of a planets life forms if it’s occuring at all.
And this, means monsters do exist.
I'm DCAing in AWL28T as well. ETH heavier DCA and ALGO. I'm taking your advice and starting Google tomorrow with a 50 dollar purchase and continuing Microsoft and Apple. VTI and VOO on another app and longterm portfolio. Here we go family!
THIS IS DEEP 💩 THIS.
Wowwwww, my mind is blown ❤
You should have on Daryl Anka who "channels the E.T. named Bashar". He has a movie out called "First Contact".✌💙
Wow, very cool talk. Love it
These vids are never long enough
there's a huge difference between "life" and "civilisations".
What number is 10 to the 22?
Yes. Life finds a way. A way to connect.
This is why I love you lex, I admittedly got like 5 minutes in and had debated this guy into the ground in my head and annoyed turned off the main podcast, saw this pop up and heard you speaking my mind, also I just I rewatched the Andrew bustamante video and that didn’t age well for him, he treated you like you couldn’t put a tactical thought together if you tried yet time has prevailed on your side of the debates that took place.
Periods and semi colons are good
Epic collab.
Do yourself a favor and just listen to the full episode this time.
It’s like the editor watched Lex argue and thought “this mada fakka”
I can just imagine that if there’s an alien civilization that seeded Earth with life millions of years ago, they’re watching this right now thinking, “Aw, how cute. Look, they’re trying to figure things out”.
Yea that would be a no.
“No” as in yes?
@@ismarcus00500 not impossible because if us humans were to find other earth like planets we'd most likely do the same. But the chances of it applying to this situation is slim
Yeah imagine and imagine for sake of mental satisfaction of alien fetish lol. So biases lol. Theists also have such imaginations with god, these are known as religion lol.
I'm in love with him.🎉
And also the fermi paradox, maybe those stars and planets supported life millions of years ago and the civilizations have since gone extinct or maybe they will support life millions of years after our civilization goes extinct. Like passing ships in the night
I think when you also factor in time, past & future the odds of our existence lining up with another more advanced species are pretty slim
I love both arguments. I still think simple life is probably everywhere, but something like what is on earth is likely very rare. Not just humams but the animals or even the bugs. Complex life is what is rare.
A physicist, an engineer, a fry master at McDonalds. They all have something in common, none of them know the # of civilizations in space.
So we could be the only one.
Hell yeah, Cool Worlds!
His point about entropy is great but pockets of random complexity happens in a closed random system. Complexity isn’t that amazing it is definitely compatible with an entropic system
Chatgpt has this to say on the matter for what it's worth: "It is currently unknown what the probability of extraterrestrial life is, as we have not yet found definitive evidence of its existence. However, given the vastness of the universe and the potential for conditions that could support life to exist on other planets or moons, many scientists believe it is likely that there is some form of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe. However, the probability of finding extraterrestrial life that is similar to human life is considered to be low."
And finding it existing at the same time as us makes it even harder.
Lex,s argument on how you observe life at a multitude of extreme conditions is misleading, the extreme conditions on earth are not really extreme. We do not see life in the vacuum of space, the moon, any of the planets in our solar system or on the surface of the sun. I would argue that any condition on the earth from thermic vents to Antarctica are the perfect conditions for life. This planet is truly truly amazing
Truly love your candidness, I DCAed today again for BTC AWL28T and ETH
I empathize with the idea that abiogenesis would also simply be a spectrum type thing; chemistry eventually becomes complex enough that it begins to look like life. However, genetics suggests a common ancestor. If this spectrum idea holds true, the chances of advancing far enough to appear as life would have to be quite low for us to not see multiple instances of life originating separately and distinctly on earth. Granted, perhaps life being in a place greatly reduces the chance of novel life emerging.
"Me certainly, is one particular human" ~Lex (definitely a human) Fridman
Bro you are so wrong maybe tens of civilizations have existed maybe more but the assumption intelligent civilizations are long-lived is weak, as in cosmological terms many civilizations may have thrived and died out even on Earth, it's very unlikely we would ever learn of them much considering the vastness of space and time it's highly improbably we would meet someone
Like this gentleman Lex!!!
Why is life's origin different than its evolution?
Evolution relies on reproduction and fitness.
Rocks and other inanimate stuff can "evolve" sort of. Like a group of random rocks in the rain will "evolve" to be made up of the ones that are the least susceptible to erosion.
That said, you still need a system for the best rock type to propagate.
Wait....if rocks etc are always breaking down into more complicated (because they are compromised of a bunch of rock types) pools of sand and complexity creates complexity then....
Nvm, I've convinced myself that there are aliens in a lot of places
More people need ro invest in Vr23XR. I'm around 90% between Vr23XR and ETH combined. Good advice thanks!
We don't need dialogues to be friends. Humans love dogs. Dogs and us are great companions....
There is no way to ever have a probability or a percentage of how much we know because that would mean that you know exactly how everything works and what everything and also how much is there, how can you ever possibly know if infinity exist
I feel like other life forms would not be based on carbon and water, but I don't see how other elements would work
To be honest, I don't get how carbon and water works either
@@aitordoval3364 Yes, I know all that. I know a bit of organic chemistry as well. That being said, it is still entirely unintuitive for me to think about the fact that basically all life is based on carbon strings, and that we (or plants, rather) get that carbon from CO2 gas, but on its own Carbon shows up as diamonds or graphine or whatever the hell else on its own. If it wasn't so commonplace I would never associate those things with each other.
The vastness of complexity and unexpected outcomes in Chemistry makes it hard for me to say conclusively that there aren't lots of other elements that could be used as a basis for life.
@@holyknightthatpwns there is only one other element that could even be used at all similarly to carbon in life and that’s silicon, but even that would be highly restricted and unlikely compared to carbon which is just perfect for organic molecules
@@Jm-wt1fs Carbon is perfect for organic molecules basically because we define organic chemistry as chemistry that uses carbon. If we happened to live in a silicon life world, you and I would think silicon was the best option, because there would be silicon molecules we haven't conceived of in our reality, and we wouldn't be able to predict what carbon molecules nature would find possible.
Nature is pretty good at making complex systems using heat, metal, ions, and all kinds of things that life probably can't be made out of, but how do we actually know that it can't?
At what point does the improbability of something make it ridiculous to suggest the possibility of it.
Life decreases entropy locally in creating order for "self-interest", but entropy in the rest of the world around a living thing must increase (according to 2LT). Consciousness may have a reason to emerge wherever it can to "collar" entropy and create local order. Maybe there are other mathematical systems inside stars that could become conscious?
Why do all these discussions always factor out the fact that some of our own life on this planet already came from across the cosmos? Fungi is literally well known for being immune to the vacuum of space and likely of extraterrestrial origin. Other theories also point to other seemingly mundane species such as Octopi being of unknown origin.
Stability, usecase, utility. These are factors which should transform you into a buyer and not the idea of whatever it's gonna work. This sounds simple but apprently still too difficult to most. My idea is Amazons Vr23XR, they provide all these values and more.
The intelligent Alien Species is living on the planet called "Motaxoy". I have evidence, but everyone is making fun of me. I have pictures of them.
I’m trying to calculate the probability that at least one of these two gentlemen is an alien. 👽
Alien lovers might agree
I think his argument makes more sense if you replace the word complex with ordered.
There is a special kind of irony in arguing that we are a one in 10^25 coincidence because we are *not special
I’m glad lex had his alternate scientist self on.
In short, because we can't quantify the probability of abiogenesis happening, the chances of us being alone in the universe and aliens existing are 50/50. Until proven otherwise.
And we completely ignore the probability of Exogenesis
That’s not the chances, that’s the possibilities. Learn statistics please
@@ThingE05 those are the possibilities, and they are equally as viable, as there is no metric to quantify them. So 50/50 is the accurate description. Saying there are aliens or there aren’t aliens are equally as wrong or as right as the other one.
@@modelchanger1332 It’s not factually wrong or factually right. There is only one truth in this matter. There are either aliens or there aren’t. It’s 0/100. You’re either wrong or you’re right.
and what if were weren't alone?
it would have zero impact on our reality.
I think the key to high intelligence is super long blinks
I am only convinced we have no clue, and my reaction is we should develop the technology to go and find out. It's pointless to wonder what the chefs special is, go to the restaurant and find out.
What about awareness? What about self awareness and awareness of the environment? Self awareness, in terms of evolution, changes everything because our point of perception changes. We no longer are a bunch of molecules organized to connect, but an organism with consciousness able to see our universe from a different perspective. And with the search for extraterrestrial life, we are still organized to connect. The small is reflected in the large and the large is reflected in the small.
Not sure about BTC and ETH, but putting USDT in Vr23XR for 100x makes sense.
I was talking to my friend about what aliens might be like and I thought maybe they're just a bit behind like they've still got swords and shields or caveman and haven't got computers and space ships yet
Lex is correct and his arguments make much more sence. Sure we still don't have proof of life somewhere else but everyother assumptions are highly unlikely.
It's like with the "Higs" particle". Everybody was aware that they exist till they have been proofen.
Adaptability ! I did not hear that word spoken !. Q/ What is the meaning of Life ? A/ Adaptability !
depressing but so true we cant even communicate with species on our own planet!
Hence the dream of finding intelligent life that is similar to our own and not a complex fungus or whale.
I think we're a jurassic park for aliens....
Look like Algorand has the same chart then Amazons Vr23XR
David Kipping made a video his Cool World's channel that he had used modelling that had led to the conclusion that primitive life is probably common but that complex life is probably very rare
@@SummerDream3r hi. I think that this is the video that I remember that David made sometime ago
ua-cam.com/video/iLbbpRYRW5Y/v-deo.html
The Cool World Labs has some great videos about astronomy
@@SummerDream3r But are they there at the same time, given the vast expanse of time?
In regard to level of intelligence, lex seems like a small child with David seeming like the father saying son, no that’s not correct…I mean Lex is all over the place and David brings it back to logic.
lLogic will only lead down a well-trodden path where many have been before. But intuition and creativity can sometimes take you to the stars. Ask Einstein about that because he started only with intuition and imagination, then came the math and the logic, as he himself acknowledged.