From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Wed Jan 06 1999 - 11:58:05 MST
Billy Brown wrote:
>> Wouldn't the fact that we're here so early account for us being rare?
>
>No, it just explains why we aren't surrounded by billion-year-old elder
>races. If Earth's evolution is exactly average, and life is fairly common,
>we would still expect there to be lots of other races that beat us out by a
>few tens of thousands of years. So, at least one of those assumptions must
>be false.
Okay, here's a diagram:
BIG BANG! ------------------------------------------> Infinity
^
|
We are here
See that vast infinite space to the right, as cool and unyielding to life as
it may be there is a far better chance that life (that's us!) would be over
there. Thus, finding life so close to the Big Bang is unlikely. However, two
problems. Problem number one, as with the doomsday scenarios there's the
question of identity (sorry) and all that "is a rock an observer" crap will
persist. Problem number two, it seems to me that life would be unlikely
anywhere along this line. I have a feeling there's a problem in my line of
reasoning but my brains refusing to look for it, anyone?
Btw, Amir D. Aczel shows why we may be among the most advanced civilisations
in the universe using the 'inspection paradox' in his new book _Probability
1_. Basically you're more likely to be in one of the long-lived races (and
thus extraordinarily lucky) than a short lived one. (Could this also be a
counter to the doomsday scenario?)
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:43 MST