I'm going to cover that in a video soon. The galaxy shrinks when you live for thousands of years or more.

Or generational ships

We already have this covered with passage of knowledge between generations. How did you think the humanity progressed so far?

that's kinda what i believe. we are just a stepping stone for real sentient "life" to develop. maybe the machines and ai that we build are the ones behind the simulation as a scientific experiment to learn how they came to be. i don't personally believe this, but its a possibility. one of infinite others.

Based Leftist Tay is also a sci-fi nerd!? Man, it would be awesome to chat with you about politics and space over beers! 😄

Well said! So many go looking for a miracle, when they are standing right in it!

Its a gift and a curse

What, if through some unimaginable condition, the experience of life and consciousness is not a gift but a nightmare (which, for lack of context, we cannot yet fathom)?

Cheers to that!

" I , a universe of atoms, an atom in the universe." - Richard Feynman

Extinction events are not only helpful, but compulsory. A non-changing environment is a dead-end for evolution. So these events have nothing at all to do with Fermi unless all life-bearing planets suffer the same fate due to the Great Filter.

@Chris Davies No, it's not a misconception. The Fermi Paradox is a mathematical and logical problem. The Great Filter has to be real, it's the only plausible explanation for why we don't see any signs of Kardashev type II or type III civilizations. Either that or we live in a simulation.

It happens so much on a psychological Level concerning human interaction. We can be able to not fathom a certain person might be interested in spending time with us because we have not reached a new level in our development yet.

Unfortunately the only life we'd really be able to detect is life that is more advanced than us based on their mega-structures, but yeah while there's been PLENTY of time for that to happen life might be do rare and intelligent life so so so rare that we just can't detect it because there's nothing we can detect

That's not an "unfortunate" situation. It's much much simple than life being threatening because they have "megastructures".

Fortunately, relatedness would be quite easily testable, but of course that would be vastly dangerous, since something related to us might also infect us...

I imagine by examining the dna of Europa life we could at least have a fair idea if there is a common ancestry. Or what if it doesn’t even have dna? Then we definitely know it developed independently of our branch of life.

@@scottwooledge6387 Both outcomes are wild too. If we did have a common ancestor, then panspermia is real and perhaps life is extra solar! If we are not, then life should be very common and we are most likely in a zoo, or to add to the odds, one of the first to arise. I would say we would be grabby alien's too. But then add in about 900k years ago we went from 24 and me to 23 and me, perhaps we are a long running biology experiment.

Assuming if they were even humanoid creatures. Maybe not even mamal.

If it is reversed chirally, then it arose spontaneously, of not, then maybe

Example assumption is flawed. One anthill somewhere is likely more advanced and becomes noticeable or conqueres less advanced ants

I’m very tangled between this theory and religion. I strongly believe that space is only an illusion and God has placed us on this plane and we are the only life in the “universe”. And although the universe is real and observable, it’s only true meaning is for beauty and to provoke thoughts and questions. HOWEVER, if there IS other life out there, it should be accepted as fact that if WE are here there is a 99.99% chance there is SOMEONE else out there. I can’t decide between the two. It’s tough.

The universe may very well be teeming with life, but if that life is beyond our observable universe, what difference does it make? We will never know of their existence, and they us. And using your example, if it requires us to travel (insert grand number) of light years to see the other ants, then I both don’t see the point in spending such resources, nor do I think it changes the assumption that life is rare; even if only relatively so.

That assumes life exists apart from that one ant hill That Analogy assumes the same chemistry and everything What if we are the first Would that leave you with more existential dread than if we found another species who are almost space faring, or are a billion years ahead? What would make you worry more?

The problem is that if an ant was to do cartography, or explore, the distance between two ant hills is still within the realm of possibility. Just like how we were geographically bound before we had air planes and ships, but once we did -- we actually could traverse the seemingly infinite ocean. Space is not like this at all. It's not two neighboring ant-hills, or something we can fly over and get an overview of. In fact, the ant hill isn't even a metaphor, because an ant hill is pretty much equivalent to a planet when you're dealing with cosmic scales. So it's more like if these ant-hills were 2 billion light years apart, at that point it doesn't matter if you're a human, ant or the size of earth.

Ever since the concept of 3d printers came to my attention, I always figured that replicators were just hyper-refined printers and/or teleporters.

Yes, and they had to switch the Doctor off when things got really bad!

I don’t think replicators are implausible at all. Seriously.

That means they must have gotten part of their food from hydroponics or -- Soylent Green.

Entrance neelix

You're also assuming that seeds must have begun from inorganics. But what happens if WE were seeded from elsewhere? Sure. this system has been around about 4.5B years. but the observable universe has been around at least 3 times as long. LIFE as we know it could very well have existed eons before we ever came to pass... when this (or another) universe was much younger. Remember that we're only able to observe photons as well.

@@leecowell8165 just wtf are we? The more you break down the parts we're made of, and what those parts are made of, the more abstract the idea of a human is

Why does exoplanet life always come up given distance between stuff as still probable, why not the opposite is true just the same

Well said.

Sextillions really puts things in perspective.

I sort of agree even a Kardashev 2 civilisation using all of the energy from it’s star would be pretty hard to spot from another spiral arm of our own galaxy with the tech we have (the James web could come online and show up a heap of nearby infrared light sources) We could probably have spotted a Kardashev 3 civilisation forming within our galactic cluster by now. The greatest distance we could observe a civilisation from is about 8 billion light years (and they would have to be doing something pretty spectacular) because stars older than about 10 billion would not form with enough heavier elements to allow life and unless the intelligent life can form using very different chemistry there is no way it could develop in less than 2 billion years: the planet has to cool down and stop getting bombarded then the atmosphere has to get oxygenated to a high enough degree. Anywhere with the elements required for life as we know it would have a lot of iron etc in the oceans which would suck up a colossal amount of oxygen before the atmosphere could become oxidising.

All of this speculation depends upon the mechanism of life. Is it fundamental to the universe? Does it arise anywhere it can, and if so how? Until we have an answer to that very basic question everything else is philosophy.

I would add the hypothesis that every civilization that become advanced enough to industrialize, destroys their own planetary habitat before they ever get a chance to advance to interstellar travel.

Exactly. Thank you.

Which is precisely why I say it is not a paradox at all.

I agree with you on this. Although never say never devils advocate side.

Define common. Given the timescale of the universe, and the age of our civilization (10,000 years at most, 200 of higher technology) synchronizing similar aged civilizations would be extremely rare. The idea of a Star Trek type of star government would be nearly impossible.

Every other planet we've studied is a toxic waste dump from Hell.

That was James T. Kirk.

@@NPCHSN No, it wasn't, because human race had already made contact with Vulcans and other life forms before he was born.

Equally frightening*

Dudes a moto. master of the obvious🤦

Sounds like you have AT&T for internet?

You know, I started watching lost the TV series yesterday and was just watching an episode prior to coming to KZfaq to stumble upon this video to watch and John mentioned the island from the show. That surprised me!

maybe you died and are now existing in one of the other uncountable multi-verses.

What if I told you everything you knew was a lie ....... sounds like the matrix stopped for a few seconds for you

How's that working out for you? Being clever.

How close could it be? Could the difference be so small it was unrecognisable?

And the less close and less close to us copies, until there are vastly different versions xD Also, they say it's "copies of us", but actually what if we're the copies of others? But in reality no one would be a copy of one another, they're just similar by chance... or are they? * Insert spooky Space BGM here *

That theory only exists as a way out of the statistical miracle we represent in the universe. We're such an extremely unlikely occurrence that God becomes the only statistically likely answer, and people seem to not like that. So, they imagine an existence that eliminates low probabilities.

limited number of configurations of atoms in the observable universe ... there are 3 parallel earth theories

Yes, and in an infinite universe your chances of finding an Earth exactly like this one would be infinitely small, even though the exact copies would be infinite. Likewise, your chances of finding a close copy would be similar, as would your finding a not-so-close one. In fact, every possible world you could find would be as infinitely unlikely as the next, and you'd be right back to where you started: the chance of finding an exact copy of Earth in a finite universe.

I have believed since I was a child that our destiny lies amongst the stars. Rarely in sci-fi have I encountered offshoots of humans, let alone our evolved offspring. Thinking about this makes me think of Clan of the Cave Bear, where the child basically invents multiplication and the shaman is afraid of this new thing. Just two hundred years ago, we were barely even beginning to understand the nature of our planet. Hardly a century had gone by and we had mastered the concept of heavier than air flight. We just because we may not know of a thing does not mean it does not exist. Personally, the thought that we might not be alone scares me witless sometimes.

Conversely, if we are alone, then the idea that we are special, and that there is a higher mechanism (simulation or God) might become more likely. If life is everywhere, then we were not "put" here. If we are the only life, then maybe God or The Software is watching.

I stand with you and the little puppy.

Should we spread out and use earth to harvest more life to do the same thing As in elevate another life form to sentience be advanced as we were at leaving So like if Earth is the only place we're sentience is then progressively spreading out from it while more sentience develops may be a way to farm species that are able to work together with different thinking Like making new people by evolution When I'm leaving out is kind of the part where that means there could be someone that is ahead of us and it's just like watching and waiting for us to join The sentient species coalition Like people talk about aliens looking for stuff Maybe they're literally just waiting for us to reach that Planetary exodus stage Also if there is some sentient life just on some planet like we are and an extraterrestrial went to their planet Resources aren't the value, it's the nonsentient life and parasites For biotechnology! There's the science fiction show where they have this big white maggot looking thing and you put it in your mouth instead of brushing your teeth Like those toe cleaning fish We have face mites that organically evolved in a way that they utilize our excess resources, if we modify them they're biotechnology So instead of all war of the worlds it'd be more like cotton swabbing Also anal probing there's a bunch of bacteria in the gut that makes contact with neurons and it's a whole ecosystem that you cannot get to unless you get inside of a person Also we have proven evidence that humans have three minds the gut the heart and the Brain There's neurons that do things that we can associate with being a mind If you want to change the world then do it there's nothing to it

plus it means its our responsibility to seed life as far as we can... we would be the Great Old Ones

Yep. It's as if the "great filter" concept works differently if you're talking about microbial life, simple plant life, or just non-technological life in general.

It was divine intervention and intelligent design

Abiogenesis is only known to have occured once though. Those major extinction events shaped evolution though. Intelligent bipedal apes probably would not exist today if not for the extinction event 65 million years ago. The number of things that had to occur in geological history for us to be here using technology is astronomical. Abiogenesis is obviously extremely rare. The evolution of eukaryotes took billions of years. Most of life's history on earth was prokaryotic organisms. Eukaryotes became multicellular rather quickly. But the rise of animals took longer. Intelligence would seem to be a driver in animal evolution because of the prey/predator competition. But had all life used photosynthesis then intelligence would not be necessary. The jump from apes that could use stones as tools to a species that put man on the moon is great one. Homo habilis and later Homo erectus found themselves in a changing environment in which being upright had an advantage. They depended on social groups and intelligence to survive against predators on the ground in Africa. But this only happened because the conditions of the time forced it. Being bipedal and having opposing thumbs meant intelligence would also be a huge advantage. It was the use of fire and a large meat based diet that lead to erectus developing a larger brain. But erectus was only known to use a couple of basic stone tools. What follows erectus is likely our direct ancestor. We emerged in one lineage and Homo neanthertal in a parallel branch. Anatomically Homo sapiens emerged around 250,000 years ago ( give or take ). But 50,000 years ago sapiens developed a sudden increase in intelligence. The reason is not understood. Around 70,000 years ago sapiens almost went extinct. This was possibly due to the Toba eruption. Erectus did finally go but he had been around over 2 million years. Erectus is the longest lived human species. Neanthertal and a couple of other members of the genus homo stook around for a while with us. Perhaps climate change was the biggest factor in neanthertals extinction. But Homo sapiens may have contributed intentionally or unintentionally to their passing. But even with all that technology as we know it today was not a given. A lot of factors contributed. Most people don't ever think about the location of a star in its galaxy as important. But stars close to the galactic center would be hostile to life. Having a natural satellite the size of our moon stabilized the earths tilt and climate. Without Jupiter as a body guard life would likely have never happened or it would be just prokaryotic. The number of things that lead to these upright apes with cell phones is countless. The big question is this. Is the universe infinite? We simply do not know what is beyond the observable universe. The observable universe is 90 billion light years across. That is large and most scientists think it is actually much larger. Some think it may be infinite. The next question is this. Is it one infinite continuous universe in which the composition and laws of physics are the same for infinity? If our universe is one continuous infinite universe then I can guarantee life exist elsewhere. In fact in a very distant place there is a world like this one and I exist but I a married to Margot Robbie. In an infinite universe everything that can exist will. The difference in size between a universe that spans 100 trillion light years across and an infinite universe is literally infinite. It is really an impossible concept to grasp. Of course our universe may be finite. But even at 90 billion light years across there is a good chance abiogenesis has occured a few million times. And I suppose a species that uses cell phones is probably out there as well. But we are likely separated by millions or billions of light years.

@@bobbywise2313 wow your comment was deep. Enjoyed reading that on my day off. May I ask how you learnt all this stuff? Any videos that may be of interest to me perhaps you could link? I’m just trying to learn more about this. Thanks

You assume life existed on earth from the very start. I hate to step on your neck.. But life sudden appearance is around 600 million years ago..As earth was still recovering the first 3 Billion years when Theia hitting it..Hell earth didn't even have a moon till 2 Billion years ago..Much less water in all three states.

I don't think it's a moral question whatsoever, obviously if there is intelligent life on a planet we should help them, but if they are anything other than intelligent we can just take samples and create large artificial space habitats that hold entire ecosystems and then deconstruct the planet for resources (if we want, we wouldn't really have to since there would be so many other non-inhabited planets and bodies in space that have all the resources we could ever need)

@@smileyp4535yeah thays immoral. You litterally described the Plot to the movie Home dude. “Hey guys this planet is nice so we are going to make zoos for you to live in so we can destroy your planet for selfish purposes” Imagine we were put in zoos for an alien race to tear apart earth. you wouldnt like it. What you just said was just fucking stupid Done with my rant. I would see zero purpose for doing that. It would cost alot to make zoos For every living thing on a planet. Not only do we not know much about their ecosystem we have no clue about what the fuck is going on. We dont even know how to take care of our bodies even our own planet. We arent ready for any of that. Before we actually do anything to live planets we are going to r*** the shit out of planets until they are Floating Balls of swiss cheese

You think humans have morals? That's rich. 🤦 It's obvious the people in charge have no morals. And sorry to say, they'd be the ones to send/not send people out to colonize. Not people like us, the plebs.

I think it is our destiny as part of the life on Earth for us to spread that life to every possible corner of the universe because that’s what life does on our planet, it adapts and spreads as far as it can. As far as we can tell there’s no one else around to get mad about it.

How true. Intelligence is rare even here on earth :)

@@04stiger this was the best thing I’ve read all day lol

But it wrong, energy is here, and it didnt cost us anything. According to science's cause and efffect logic this is impossible, yet it happened, it can happen again, free coffee for all!

The rare coffee hypothesis .

It feels free if you have enough robotics and automation to do the planting, harvesting, transport, grinding and brewing. That’s the optimistic point of view.

What if you had a food synthesizer like the ones in Star Trek, hooked up to a vacuum energy power source? Then you would have free coffee anytime you wanted it. I hope someone invents it soon.

Yeah that hit a bit close home.

Two things. It's not a rabbit hole. JMG is not alive. It's an AI.

I can only see 2 tiny mistakes and one of them is common for native speakers to make so your english is pretty good here (the word "a" if put before a word starting with a vowel it becomes "an" as in "a boat" or "an elephant". Many native speakers don't even bother with this rule. also instead of none atmosphere the correct word would be "no atmosphere" but I cant tell you the rule to that one, I just know it lol")

The Martian Chronicles: Martian scientists had determined that life on Earth was impossible, as there was too much oxygen.

Wow what an answer, I'll save this comment, we could be doing the same with the exoplanets we've seen so far, and yet they could be full of life. That'd be funny because I'd mean we've got the discover of the century right in front of us but discarded it because our limited technology.

You can imagine but that isn't how astronomy works either here or anywhere else.

It is highly unlikely that a more advanced civilization knows less about intelligent life being born.

Τα συγχαρητήρια μου 👍

@@sadderwhiskeymann Ευχαριστώ!

Being first in the early universe sounds more terrifying then being surrounded by advanced aliens or being alone, the sheer weight of it all, we would be really bad precursors if we had to fill that role.

While it's just as possible as anything else, thinking we're the best breeds the wrong kind of thinking which makes it more difficult in the future. We should not think ourselves too special for no reason.

That's my personal theory.

If the "grabby aliens" argument is correct, and we manage to get the whole self-replicating machines thing down, we are almost certainly the first within a very large radius.

Yeah, a while back after seeing too many 'great filter' videos I started thinking about it more. Apply occams razor and a great filter is silly as exactly the same thing can be explained by a number of small filters. If you then think about it, you need only a few dozen halving factors to reduce the number of technological life forms in the galaxy to less then one. A few dozen doesn't sound outrageous to me. To come up with the small filters we fall victim to anthropocentric bias, so hard to definitely define them, but there certainly are a lot of steps between inorganic chemistry and us being here that could have gone wrong and can function as (very) small filters.

'waste of space' is a typical thinking for white heterosexual male west european protestants, and I am a white heterosexual male west european protestant, the space are as it is independent on how you think resources should be exploited, if the universe are empty from (intelligent) life it tell us something about the universe, and something about us

Aw I love that quote 😍

The Drake equation is misunderstood by many people. It can only tell us which factors come into play when considering the possibility of life elsewhere. It can't be used to calculate the probability because we simply don't know which values to plug in for some variables.

I think there a big difference between life existing in the galaxy, and intelligent life with civilization existing in the galaxy. It took 4.5 billion years and many unique circumstances for our intelligent and civilization life to evolve.

I don't remember where, but I heard someone ask the question: if we were to encounter extra terrestrial life, would we even recognize it as life?

@@benjaminshropshire2900 Along those same lines, here's a fun thing to ponder: being intelligent isn't necessarily the same thing as being self-aware. Like when you leave work at the end of the day and suddenly find yourself pulling into your home's driveway, not remembering the trip home because you were daydreaming -- during that drive you were intelligent, but not self-aware. It's possible we could encounter extraterrestrial life that is even intelligent, and yet still has no consciousness! There's a theory that the only reason humans have consciousness is because our senses ingest data faster than our brains can process the data, so we need a "filter" to decide what to pay attention to. It's that "filter" that leads to "self awareness". Now imagine an alien species whose brains could can process data just as fast as its senses: it might be perfectly intelligent, yet still have no sense of "self".

Indeed. A meatsack evolved to propel you safely through the canopy of your arboreal existence is not properly equipped (or made) to understand things outside of our planet. And that is why the future of humanity is as machine-based life, and not biology. The instant you ditch the shitty biology stuff, you unleash human potential for self-guided evolution, and intelligence goes straight to exponential.

On the brain of an ape. We're not just in a simulation we are simulations.

Na

That's an unsatisfying position to take. You're now left explaining who/what made the simulator. And then who/what made the makers. Turtles all the way down.

I think that has been clearly demonstrated, yet SETI looked coreward as there are more stars there. I think that was a mistake, as too much radiation, both cosmic rays and gamma rays.

It might be that most intelligent beings are physically unable to farm. Farming is really hard work. Humans were endurance predators, and we still top most animals in endurance. That endurance could be a necessary feature for a race of beings to even feasibly transition to agriculture. Just a random thought.

Technology develops through adversity, so perhaps because it seems we have evolved in a place that is less than perfect for life, a more perfect place would not produce technology either. Why develop agriculture if food is abundant everywhere? Why develop medicine if you're made of stern stuff that's hard to damage or has a very effective immune system? For instance, presumably an intelligent photo synthesizer wouldn't wouldn't need to develop farming. Without farming maybe they don't invent the wheel. It's pretty tough to make stuff without wheels of some kind be they roiling wheels or gears. Maybe a species who are innately great with math don't develop computers as there is no need. It's interesting to speculate anyway. Maybe being weak, soft skinned dumb monkeys is an advantage.

Imagine how a race of Amish might develop. They would be stuck in time for eternity, unwilling to accept any technological change.

We should invade their world and take their resources ... jk...

An intelligent aquatic species might never leave an ocean for example. I mean whales and dolphins are very close to being as intelligent as apes and humans.

Humans act like individuals, not as a group..

Good thing we have Elon Musk

This type of comment is on so many videos like this that it has become annoying and cringe. You're preaching to the choir. Most people watching will agree and give a free like. It's also irrelevant outside of your moral grandstanding for astronomy. I don't disagree, but your comment has *_barely anything to do with the video._* You said something generic everyone here is almost guaranteed to agree with, but with 'feel-good' language to seem profound. It's vapid pseudo-intellectual theatre and drama.

Hmmm..."Interesting questions answered" VS. "more wealth and power for a few"? When those decisions are made by the "few", it's unsurprising how they come out.

It's not "we", it's "them".

I've been watching/listening to videos (except music) at 1.5 speed, so it wouldn't be that long for me.

​@@sandal_thong8631I do that too.

And what if we are among the simpler and less intelligent of the intelligent beings who do inhabit the universe, what is we are considered less intelligent than a slug is to us ,just reacts to outside stimuli, but our conscience thoughts to these beings could be utter nonsense and gibberish compared to thier level of intelligence what we think as cutting edge they would look at it like it wasn't even stone tools or more than someone drooling on themselves

We don't even know if it's rare or not. We just haven't seen that much yet to make a determination about even just this one galaxy.

⭐ & 🍪

You completely missed the point of that line... Sure the galaxy that the events took place in is far away and was in different time but in that galaxy there were numerous species that knew each other and were in constant trade and communication, sort of like we are on our planet. There is no reason to believe yet that the same thing cant happen in our galaxy in some future time. Maybe we are on the precipice, as are other species, as we are about to venture into space... In thousand years our galaxy could be just like Star Wars one.

So what are UFOs then? Given enough time, faster than light travel is possible. What if an alien civilisation is 500,000 yrs ahead of us technologically.... Distance wouldn't really be a barrier....

Do you know some good hard SF?

​@@GrandremoneThe Expanse

Damn that was your reply? Mine would of been like caca or something worse to make my friends laugh lol

Could viruses be the "seeds" of life?

What a stupid answer, there is no life outside earth

Your science teacher seems to have missed the point. It's probably true that single-celled life is the most common in the universe. But that doesn't rule out multicellular types, complex animals and plants, or even intelligence. The universe is not bound by the limits of our imaginations.

@@ISCARI0T LOL...!!!

Maybe. But we should see in telescopes like Webb soon artifacts of intelligence if it exists

A very good point. I'd argue that we are almost incapable of asking the questions that might lead to our transcending the limitations of cosmology. We've observed the quantum world for a hundred years and we are no closer to explaining it. I think our observations of cosmology are in even worse shape. At least we have a good working description of the quantum world, but our cosmology is held together with gaffer tape and wishes. The James Webb telescope may help settle some arguments! [But will probably just lead to more.]

No. As a species we are at 98% to the end of science. In some of the sciences we are 99.9% to the end. That applies equally well to any imaginary intelligent alien species as the boundary for science for fantasy is the same as it is for humankind.

The vast majority of intelligent species in the universe may be stuck in their version of the paleolithic. Or be incapable of tool use completely if they live in an environment that does not allow it. Either water based or in the atmosphere of a gas giant.

The other assumption is that the discovery of nuclear explosives is not followed by the technical extinction of a civilisation a high percentage of time.

Thank you!

They say it's because the initial "ingredients" are present anymore.

Mostly because we don't have labs the size of a planet or funding to run the experiment for millions of years. If we did, we'd find it extremely easy

Easy is relative. The Earth may have taken millions of years to bring forth life. We've been trying to recreate abiogenesis for maybe 70 years, and on a very small scale.

Probably because scientists have been working on this for such a short period of time compared to the number of accidental experiments nature performed over millions of years.

@@MaxWindshear you’re example actually works against the point you are trying to make.

If it exists we would see it

Yes, to get to Orion’s Belt at light speed is around 736 Year’s. If the Pyramid builders are Aliens and have Light Speed space ships. Even if we have Light Speed Pay-phones it’s going to be ridiculous trying to talk to them yet trying to figure out their Language. If they don’t even shoot us first🤣

Whats your field of work? Just curious

In that case, it's quite likely that we are aliens.

You are expressing hope & faith.

That is all well and good, but what difference does all that make. The distance and the vastness of the universe makes your point irrelevant.

The question is, how much life evolved on water worlds (no meaningful land mass)? They won't develop fire, metallurgy, roads, or many of the enabling technologies for a technological civilization. As you allude, perhaps life evolves on a super earth with high gravity slows technology advance.

Yeah I also notice this absurd theory cropping up when even intelligent people discuss an infinite universe. Just because the universe has infinite matter and infinite space, doesn’t mean naturally that there would be exact copies of human beings on exact copies of Earth. There would just a be infinite variations of carbon-based intelligent life very similar to us.

This sound interesting. Where is the KZfaq video on this ?

That's true even for 2D random walks with drift. However - and it's a biiig however- a random walk has an infinite state-space, whereas each observable universe at a given point of time has a finite state-space. So a "near-copy" of Earth is a lot more likely in an infinite-universe scenario than a (non-stationary) random walk returning to its starting point.

I think your comment is both right and wrong at the same time. Wrong possibly because our limited human brains lack the capability to truly comprehend infinity, hence you're inability to be convinced. But correct in what you may be alluding to with probabilities. I agree with you in this way: there are some things which are "Totally Improbable", or if you like impossible, even given infinity exists one example is "absolute nothing". Nothing is totally improbable given infinity, for the simple fact that we observe something. Even if it is an illusion it is still not nothing. There are other examples. At the other end is the Total 100% probable. Something exists, observation exists and other examples. All other possibilities/probabilities fall in between these axioms. We are just more likely to observe what is more probable in the end. In my humble limited human opinion lol.

This seems wrong. Not all infinities are equal, that doesn't mean they aren't infinite. If you were to list numbers from 1 to infinity, it'd be a greater infinity than listing all the odd numbers from 1 to infinity, but both lists of numbers would still never end and be infinite. 50% of infinity is still infinity. A never endling list that has been cut in half still never ends. With the universe there is a finite number of combinations of particles, and one of those possible combinations is our observable universe. If our observable universe is possible, and exists in a larger infinite universe then that infinite universe would eventually have to repeat the same combination we have in our observable universe over and over again into infinity. The only way something wouldn't occur infinite times in an infinite universe is because it's physically impossible and can't happen even once. If there is a non-zero chance for something to happen, it'd happen an infinite number of times.

But those leave the same questions lying around, don't they? One of my favourite scientists is Fred Hoyle, and I think his instinct about the universe being infinite is the most likely explanation, even though he did withdraw his steady state model in the face of the evidence for expansion. An infinite universe, even one as strange as recently described by Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, seems like a much more likely scenario. But my simple human brain may well not be sufficient to the task of understanding what's really going on.

Abiogenesis didn't do it.

One theological interpretation when asked the question "what is an eternal God?" answers with "a contradiction in terms because eternal is too 'small'" . It accepts God as the "author" of the universe analogous to how Tolkien is the author of middle earth. The world, the timeline, the past and future, things before and things after; all of it exist because the author chose to create it. As such, something in the "story" calling the "author" eternal is meaningless at best. Comparing the timeline of the author and the timeline within the story is about as meaningful as trying to order orthogonal vectors or measure of mass and measure of distance relative to each other. There are ways to construct an answer, but they are simply arbitrary. (How old is Aunt Polly in the world of the book Tom Sawyer? Is she older now than when the book was written? How old was she when Mark Twain was born?)

Its a simple case of the Moon's orbit receding. Nothing fantastical about it. We just got lucky that this is the time our civilization developed.

Eclipses are only "perfect" seeming, if your in that zone of darkness when it passes by. It looks like a black dot moving across the surface of something much bigger....

Your question is like the Fermi paradox. You need people who read the comments, who reply to comments, who also rewatch these videos. Answer: no :-)

Idiot statement

It’s quite possible that it’s impossible. The concept of the first law of thermodynamics came about in 1850. Just because that was 170 years ago doesn’t mean it’s wrong now. Scientific advancement and time may not be enough to break some of the fundamentals of physics and the universe itself.

Cope

my life changed

I think we probably are. I don't expect to hear the news of intelligent life being found elsewhere at any point during my lifetime anyway. Maybe 3,000 years from now. But I don't think even then.

I would say , indisputable evidence we are alone, is scarier than believing we are not.