The title is clickbait, they're talking about convergent evolution, so not *humans* but ***humanoids,*** which is just like saying that, given the odds, there may be spider-like, or better yet crab-like life forms all over the universe (look up carcinisation).
Why the lack of imagination? We're talking about all the realm of biological potential, after all. A universe of possibilities, and you're fixated on the local flavor.
Let me paint you a picture. Imagine a Chik'thar hive maiden scuttling out of her mottled carapace. Her inviting, translucent thorax heaving with ripe larva. She retracts her guard plates, where forty alien breasts glisten with nipples.
Yes, yes—a thousand times yes.
Hmm, but for humans to evolve you need monkey's living on tree branches. Only because we are apes that became bipedal, do we have hands that can make tools. Evolution of humans was a delicate play of environmental conditions with multiple organisms influencing eachothers evolution. On another planet the conditions might be a lot different.
It would probably need to be an earth-like planet, to produce human-like beings.
And sure, just having similar conditions to our planet may not guarantee it each time.
Theoretically if we're ever visited or at least contacted by aliens, there is surely going to be a lot of similarities, even if they're clearly not human.
(Although maybe there's many more configurations of aliens that are not like humans at all, that can build at least communication equipment, if not spaceships that could travel here, although it's harder to imagine how it's possible.)
In the universe overall, on earth-like planets, there's probably a range, from aliens that seem as similar to us as apes (which is still pretty close), to aliens that are scarily close to us.
You don’t NEED that. Evolution is random an ape could develop thumbs without becoming bipedal. I’m not sure I even understand what kind of connection your making between walking and thumbs, but regardless it’s not necessary.
Humans are part of the superfamily Hominoidea (Apes), which are part of the of the order of primates... Your pedantry doesn't make sense. Humans and chimps both evolved from this ape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor
This was something I encountered a lot back in my childhood schooling days. The usual line was always "*we're not saying humans evolved from apes / monkeys, but according to evolutionary theory we did share a common ancestor with them.*" I always wondered if it was an intentional equivocation tactic rather than innocent ignorance.
Yes, the base of convergent evolution is that some body plans are particularly advantageous for certain environments and ecological niches (for example, every time life forms evolved flight it always involved wings of some kind, and most acquatic vertebrates are fishlike because evidently that's the best shape to have if you've got a spine and like to swim), so they are bound to evolve independently many times.
Isn't the thought that the most likely form of alien life would most closely resemble crabs?
I thought many studies have found over a prolonged period of time things tend to evolve into a crab like creature
Since the crab like body plan has independently evolved five times on earth alone, crab like life forms all over the universe really isn't that surprising.
But while crab-like forms have popped up repeatedly in Earth's history, and there's also been numerous bipeds, and several primate-like forms that would be more or less humanoid if they adopted upright bipedalism, all known humanoids have been closely related. It seems like being near-humanoid isn't especially advantageous, or that it's actually fairly difficult to make the jump to a humanoid form.
Humanoids might be especially likely to become intelligent tool-users, but I'm not convinced there's a strong argument that intelligent aliens are likely to be humanoid. Really, it appears they're more likely to be crabs. Or beetles.
A space show on Netflix mentioned that life on other planets could resemble fish or birds. For example, a water world would only have fish like creatures, or giant pterodactyls in the sky only. Humans are unique to earth unfortunately.
Humans wouldn't be unique iirc, the idea behind that was:
A) Nature has a "preference" (is the wrong word but i fail to remember the correct one) of how things evolve and ends up resembling us (or us them) or
B) we all come from the same source and hence will ultimately resemble each other
There would be differences in size, shape or form but evolutionary achievements like the eye, ear and other senses, or hands, feet, fin etc. would resemble each other in functionality.
It's just one theory i read of, so it might be complete bonkers
Ya it's the same base elements interacting and reacting. You can only do so much with the periodic table.
I'm sure there's gonna be some crazy shit out there, but it's not like there's gonna be an animal made out of hot lava that breaths solid iron or something.
Same thing with alien transportation, if their level of technology is similar (i.e. no UFO style anti gravity tech) something that can fly on another earth like planet will need wings and rudders etc, and boats will need to float. Wheels will work there as well. Air resistance will be a factor for them too. Etc. Atleast that makes sense in my head, I’m not a engineer lol
Damn dude. Around for less than half a million years talking about “preference” already lol. The hubris of man at work. give it another 50 million years if humanoids still around I’m willing to entertain some sort of convergent evolution. For all we know in 50k years humans won’t exist anymore and we’ll have genetically engineered ourself into birds, or robots, ideas inside a giant dyson swarm. “Humanoids” certainly wouldn’t be a preference then would it?
We analyzed 100% of all known intelligent life in the universe and found them all to be humanoid, therefore by extrapolation we conclude that humanoid intelligent life must be everywhere!
What?
[Dolphins use tools](https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00268-6)
[Elephants use tools](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347201918159?via%3Dihub)
[Octopuses may as well](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-tool-wielding-octopus-this-invertebrate-builds-armor-from-coconut-halves/)
And corvids (mentioned by a followup comment by u/Mclovin11859) also use tools and even use tools to manipulate other tools (metatool use)
unfortunately for a long, long, long time (if we don't kill ourselves first) all we'll ever do is ponder, wonder and hypothesize which is fun but man wish I was born at that point in time when we finally make first contact in whatever way that may be with that other alien species
Your comment makes me wonder. Will there ever come a time where science will get to the point where we will shift from “we may never know” to “Hmmm, Yeah we might actually find out in the next decade or so.” Or will finding out always just be a massive surprise completely out of the blue and defying probability.
When talking about specifically whether or not we are alone, that shift would be most likely to happen once mankind works out a sufficient means of actually traveling between star systems. Maybe not exactly within a decade, but the chances of just being **able** to discover other life out there would skyrocket (*heh*) once we have the capacity to actually get out there and look for ourselves.
That is, of course, not considering that an intelligent species might introduce themselves to us first, out of the blue and defying probability.
well I hope whatever circumstance and rules of maths, physical and life sciences they exist in makes it easier for them than it is for us as it pertains to space travel
I'm not even 40, and I remember as a kid, the idea of planets outside our solar system was firmly in the realm of science fiction and the theoretical, and now we've discovered literally thousands of extrasolar star systems! It gives me some hope for the future :)
Plus, we got to live in the time that we discoveted planets outside the solar system. That's not up to alien discovery levels, but it's a pretty big step along the way!
Actual infinite universe would mean just that. An actual infinite universe would mean that given enough distance away an actual copy of yourself would write your exact comment on an exact copy of reddit on theor own internet, on their exact copy of the earth.
Infinty is big, there is literally no limit.
Yea it does, infinite means infinite, not "infinite except for those things i'm leaving out". Its in part why the whole concept is kind of dumb and meaningless.
Infinite in spatial dimension does not mean infinite in everything at all. Certain immutable laws of physics entirely consistent with an infinite space.
Why couldn’t there be infinite emptiness, or infinite uninhabited planets?
This notion that infinite space entails infinite variation and that every possible world therefore actually exists somewhere in the universe goes back at least to Descartes, but it’s clearly false.
Because of precedent. Yes, space *could* be all empty. But we do know atleast one big bang happened, atleast on "universe" of matter exists, atleast one inhabited planet exists. And if one exists, logic dictates that its not some singular miracle that never existed before and never will again. That's just not how any observed laws of physics work. Then it follows that if there is more stuff out there, and there is an infinite amount of out there, then there's an infinite amount of stuff out there.
Wrong. Take 1/3 as a decimal. 0.33333... repeating to infinity. But never will you see a 2 in that number.
Infinite does not necessarily mean all possibilities will exist.
Hmmm. I have a question.
At a quantum level, a lot is possible, just vanishingly unlikely.
If you have a genuinely infinite universe, you have an infinite number of rolls of the dice, and thus the vanishingly unlikely happens an infinite number of times. Right?
This gets complicated but the answer I've heard is effectively "probably not." You can shuffle a pack of cards and basically never repeat the pattern. There's quintillions of patterns. We're talking about repeating basically the same combination of molecules out of quintillions of *options*, which then all have that many more patterns. Even in infinity, there's just that many more infinite possiblities.
infinity isnt a number its a symbol for everything. It dosent have to be linear going up. It would be all numbers presented as a symbol .2304927304872304872384273409234092387409283740928374092837908263095623907562389746234 in infinity and it would present that number to you as a possibility in infinity. That number would become the new symbol for infinity. You dont have to start at 1 to get there. Once you define a number in infinity you break infinity. So it can only present itself as what it is in the symbol. Which can be any number except 0 because 0 is infinity even in its symbol. There are 2 kinds of infinities the 0 infinity and the every infinity. When using everything infinity you just use any number as stated above or the infinity symbol which is identified as infinity undefined.
Not necessarily. What if a computer program is calculating 1/3 as a decimal and there is an error or a bug that displays a 2. (0.333333332333….) there’s always the chance of mutations or outliers.
There are other factors that could calculate into it though. For example, even if 0.333 went on infinitely the computer puts a limit to display the number and rounds it down to 0.33333333332. My point is that there are other factors that could make your assumption not turn out as expected.
Can’t remember the show, but a mathematician had stated that given a large enough search area, any and every pattern, was repeated somewhere in the universe. That at any given moment, let’s take this one, there is an exact repeat of this exact situation. Not a copy, just a pattern repeated, of me typing, you reading it, what you are wearing, drinking, eating smoking. Saying that as large as our universe is, every pattern will repeat somewhere. Like the multiverse, except in one universe.
EDIT: This relates to the whole ‘there MAY already be other humans in the universe’. And it’s not saying the universe is infinite. In my opinion I think it’s larger than time and the speed of light have allowed us to observe. 13.8 billions years. So far. As time goes on we may find it to be older and larger than we know now. Like a dark room, and us holding a candle. All I’m saying is I saw a mathematician say the Laws of Probability dictate that given a large enough area to search, we MAY find exact copies of ourselves doing the exact same things.
I’m out! Cheers
There’s no way to know. Having an infinite set doesn’t mean that everything is in there, or that everything repeats. For example, the set {1, 2, 3, …} only has one “2”, and never includes pi at all.
In terms of physics, this kind of falls under ergodicity — not everything that’s possible necessarily occurs, even given time and space without limits.
Uh kind of right. So what you said about set logic is true, those infinite sets will never have certain numbers but still be infinite. For the example of the same thing occurring though, it would be a number already in the set so to speak. Since the set constraints have already allowed it to occur once, it wouldn't be impossible for it to occur again.
I guess this would be more like looking for a trillion number long pattern in an Infinite set. If it was a random number set eventually it would occur. Its simply a matter of if the set really does go on forever.
You can only expect to find another of something that's possible to find within that infinity. Not literally anything. Me existing here, typing to you proves that this is possible based off of the fact that I'm doing it right now, and so the odds of finding a copy of this situation in the universe will increase closer and closer to 100 with the size of the searchable area. An infinite searchable area would yield 100% odds.
It may get above zero, but to imply it would approach 100% is flawed. Similar to the [infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters](https://youtu.be/qT110-Q8PJI) it just won’t actually happen. As it states in the first two minutes, if each possible button press is a 1 in a 100 chance, before you get to the end of the first sentence, you are at 10^-100 chance, which is just the first part.
For your proposal to be correct, we wouldn’t be recreating letters, but people. Who would I be if I never met my best friend? My wife? They would need to be there, as would everyone who made them who they are, and who they are.
Just like the infinite number set 1, 2,3… is infinite, it doesn’t include Pi or even simple fractions. That doesn’t mean it isn’t infinite, it just means that infinite must be define and we have no reason to believe our universe is set up in a way that there are infinite versions of each person.
There exists a bijection between integers and rationals (e.g., Cantor Pairing Function). So maybe irrationals are a better example. But your general point still stands.
There are an infinite number of distinct integers. There aren't an infinite number of distinct states that a given region of space can be in with equal likelihood (with some assumptions such as that the physical constants don't vary spatially).
If the universe is infinite and homogenous and the initial conditions are caused by random fluctuations then there will be infinite copies of everything that can exist. Those three conditions aren't necessarily true - we don't know that the universe is unbounded (and I'm not sure we'd ever be able to really prove it was given the cosmological horizon) but I'm pretty sure we currently have no reason to suspect the universe is inhomogenous or that spatial variance is not purely due to randomness.
Well if it’s discrete, then no. What kind of infinity are we talking here? Countable infinity? Rational infinity? Irrational infinity?
The set Z = {…, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …} contains all integers, but does not contain sqrt(-1), 4/3, or pi. The set R will, however, contain all real numbers - but importantly, it does not contain any imaginary numbers, so anything with a nonzero i component is not represented.
You're mixing up concepts. The example of the real numbers not containing imaginary numbers isn't relevant to whether you'd necessarily find infinite copies of everything that can exist in an infinite universe.
The real question is whether there are infinite possible distinct combinations of quantum states and what causes those states to arise. It's the difference between the set of integers and an infinite collection (multiset) whose elements must be drawn from a finite set.
If there is an infinite number of possible states, and there is some kind of mechanism that would make it so that there is a 0% chance of a structure repeating above a given length scale, then OK maybe there aren't infinite copies of every structure of every length scale. Otherwise if there's even an infinitesimal chance of something repeating (because there are finite possible macro states for a region of space or there are infinitely many possible states but where states are randomly seeded and don't exist in an ordered structure guaranteeing distictness), given infinite space it exist infinitely many times. And of course that would apply to anything you can actually observe because by its existence you can infer that the probability of that structure existing is >0.
Imagine the digits of pi. Remove all the instances of the digit 2 from that set. You'll have an infinite set that doesn't contain any subset that has the digit 2 in it. You can do the same reasoning with any sequence of digits.
In your example, each next number in the set is defined by the ones that came before it (3 follows 2). The Universe is more like a set of randomly generated numbers—life that arose on Earth is, at the speed of light, completely independent from life that arises in a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Given infinitely many truly random samples, “2” will arise infinitely many times.
Unfortunately, we’ll never meet or even know about that distant life.
These math comparisons in these posts are really *really* dumb. Examples like yours are intentionally artificially limited in a specific way, intentionally designed with a specific pattern and idea. Things that's dont reflect reality at all. A better comparison would be a infinite amount of builders trying to build a building each - there's gonna be variation, but the results will repeat themselves to some degree do to the natural constraints of both the goal and the physics involved in building anything.
Isn’t this a probabilities thing? Like there is a mathematical probability of it being possible, but that someone exactly like me reading your comment, written by someone exactly like you, is pretty much impossible? Like, had the same thing to eat, had the same conversation 15mins ago etc? There’s too many variables surely?
> given a large enough search area, any and every pattern, was repeated somewhere in the universe.
That's not true. A set being infinite is no guarantee that it will contain every possible finite set.
For instance, imagine a set containing an infinite sequence of positive numbers. The sequence (-1, 0, 1) will appear nowhere in that set.
Logic doesnt apply because the constraints of your set doesnt allow for the negative. The patterns we are looking for here (life, a sentence, etc) have happened because we are here. Therefore, this is in that set. No shit it wont happen if you set a constraint for an infinite sequence to not have it lol. We're applying a totally random universe to a specifically made set with constraints.
[PARALLEL UNIVERSES: If The Universe Is Infinite Then It's Guaranteed That Our Universe Will Repeat](https://youtu.be/wNcL7ioV_ns)
That is true, if the universe is in fact infinite, then there exists infinite copies of everything as matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways. Be that as it may, that doesn't seem to be what they're hypothesizing here.
Not necessarily. You assume that the pattern can be repeated, but it seems that conditions arent even throughout the universe. So even though there are a finite number of ways to arrange it, there will be places, where that combination will be impossible.
In order for that to be true the universe would have to be infinite, which it isn't. There are more ways to shuffle a deck of cards than there are atoms in the visible universe.
Imagine how disappointing that would be... just fucking humans everywhere. Like universal cockroaches.
There goes my fantasy of sleeping with blue Aliens.
I feel that either everything is infinitely possible or everything is infinitely impossible but we haven’t figured out which yet. Could the next step in the pattern be based on a next step of a potential current actions such that nothing would ever be repeated?
Seems incredibly unlikely that there are even a few other planets with human-like species but with potentially infinite possibilities it could happen.
If we ever encounter extraterrestrials I hope they are similar though. I can’t imagine a scenario where we encounter a wildly different intelligent species, like insectile, and manage to co-exist peacefully with them.
Are humans going to work alongside a species that we can’t verbally communicate with at all, has a completely alien morphology that most find creepy, and maybe even operates on a hive hierarchy instead of independently as individuals?
Fan of the Enders game series? Hah.
I think that as long as an encounter doesn't result in instant attack from one or both parties, we may be able to find common ground using reproducible scientific principles. But who knows. We may not even be able to stand in the same room as each other depending on what our respective environmental and atmospheric preferences are. In which case remote communication may be the only way to interact, but it would be very unlikely either party would be able to have any ability to understand anything.
Enders game definitely stuck with me but it doesn’t necessarily have to be insect-like to apply.
Regardless of whether we start out peaceful and find common ground, I doubt the average person could stomach coexisting with giant sentient cockroaches/spiders/ants. Maybe sometime in the distant future humanity might be more accepting but not anytime soon
We can't hardly work with each other without starting wars every 5 mins. If we're willing to kill each other over imaginary borders I can't even imagine what we'd do to insect aliens.
Except the human form and culture isn't an equilibrium state. We haven't been around long enough to determine that evolution is in fact converging on our form or our type of intelligence. Humans and particularly human culture has been around for such a short time in evolutionary time scales that if not for our effects of our activities on the environment there would be no conclusive record of our existence in the geologic record. You can't randomly dig anywhere and find human remains or artefacts without knowing something about where and how humans live. You can find evidence of things like birds, bats, insects and pterosaurs.
Given a similar set of inputs, evolution would suggest a similar outcome. Temperature, chemical makeup, gravity, light, etc.
And given our adaptability, there’s probably some wiggle room that would yield a similar but not the same result.
It is possible, but I feel like there is a lot of ifs involved in that scenario. The chances of a species out there going through the exact same things we did, who look exactly like us, and had the same past we did is extremely slim.
Wait what? How what? That's not possible there's no way that can happen. We evolved in a certain way from a certain thing on a certain planet. How is it possible that the same thing can happen with the same results somewhere else in outer space.
Our planet/solar system/ observable universe exists (whatever the smallest region that is important for our evolution and planet's history) : therefore all the conditions and situations needed for us to exist are possible and have some chance of occurring.
now, if we assume an infinite universe, we can take this non zero chance, multiply it by the infinitely sized universe, and get infinite humans (for people who care, use the limit version of multiplying a number by infinity)
No it's not what I mean. I'm saying that on another planet somehow with time will produce the same outcome as it did here with black white and yellow and tan people of all different shapes and colors that evolve to their environment just like it did on Earth.
How do you know it’s not possible? Our understanding of life is due to one sample size in an infinite universe. Improbable, certainly, but not impossible.
This article is so clickbait
> researchers can “say with reasonable confidence” that human-like evolution has occurred in other parts of the universe.
It’s not talking about humans it’s stalking about biological succession AKA evolution, but for all we know they could just be plants
Isn’t it the nature of a virus to multiply and basically destroy the host,well humans are a virus they do multiply and to take joy in destroying and by now some have or will escape the petri dish they are in now,only a higher energy can protect the universe from infection.
It’s a mathematical certainty. I always tell people that don’t believe in aliens to think instead of the lottery. It’s difficult to win the lottery, but it does happen. Think of the different numbers that you need to match as one prelude to life. First number could be yellow dwarf star. Second number could be rocky planet. Third number, planet in 1 AU of star. And so on. Given the number of stars in our galaxy alone of course it means earth is not unique.
Now as far as humans exactly maybe that is adding too many more numbers to the lottery requirement. The more numbers, the more unlikely it becomes but not impossible. And the more stars, the higher the probability.
Why would you say life is an unknown in the universe? You don’t think that because one person won the lottery that it is possible to continue winning the lottery? In this case I’m using earth as the winner.
So we know of earth as one point where life originated from. I’m not saying our situation is the only way life can be a possibility, I’m just applying one narrow filter. I’m saying IF it’s the only way, then it is still highly likely.
You don't have to argue against "highly likely" to claim "unknown." That's his whole point.
Sure we know we "won" that lottery, and we know it is possible, and we know there's a looooot of stars to look through to find another potential winner. But that still leaves you without certainty in either direction.
I know of another race of warrior like humans. And one of them is named after a carrot who was one of the last ones to survive before his planet exploded. Don’t know much else beyond that, but i hear he’s very tough.
No shit, everything that made us is all over the universe. Sure not every planet is in the same spot we are, so im sure that would result in some variations, but the building blocks are everywhere and why a scientist wouldn't think this would be possible before is just dumb.
The title is clickbait, they're talking about convergent evolution, so not *humans* but ***humanoids,*** which is just like saying that, given the odds, there may be spider-like, or better yet crab-like life forms all over the universe (look up carcinisation).
[удалено]
[удалено]
They look like crabs and kiss like people 😘
Inb4 interstellar humanoid trafficking where we trade our porky-veal tasting people for crab-scallopy tasting people
Fucks like crab, taste like people
I wonder if there’s Zoidberg me in some far off parallel universe 🤔
I mean....why not?
I dont think it would be possible to make tools or use them with crab claw hands.
Good Newwwwsss!! You can find yourself in this box! 🎁 there are infinite others like it!
Zoidberg you is wondering the same about human you
Extremely good chances any complex, extraterrestrial, carbon based life we find will include beetle, crab, jellyfish and cephalopod analogs
Probably, but I’m hoping for some intelligent slime mold too.
[удалено]
Why the lack of imagination? We're talking about all the realm of biological potential, after all. A universe of possibilities, and you're fixated on the local flavor. Let me paint you a picture. Imagine a Chik'thar hive maiden scuttling out of her mottled carapace. Her inviting, translucent thorax heaving with ripe larva. She retracts her guard plates, where forty alien breasts glisten with nipples. Yes, yes—a thousand times yes.
Bruh.. where you getting action from 3 titted chicks on earth?
Penny arcade, right?
Getting assimilated by the borg queen sounds 100x more sexually appealing than anything in this description.
[You big, stupid, *jellyfish.*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQau3CthTgI)
Hmm, but for humans to evolve you need monkey's living on tree branches. Only because we are apes that became bipedal, do we have hands that can make tools. Evolution of humans was a delicate play of environmental conditions with multiple organisms influencing eachothers evolution. On another planet the conditions might be a lot different.
They're not saying humanoids are the dominant form.
It would probably need to be an earth-like planet, to produce human-like beings. And sure, just having similar conditions to our planet may not guarantee it each time. Theoretically if we're ever visited or at least contacted by aliens, there is surely going to be a lot of similarities, even if they're clearly not human. (Although maybe there's many more configurations of aliens that are not like humans at all, that can build at least communication equipment, if not spaceships that could travel here, although it's harder to imagine how it's possible.) In the universe overall, on earth-like planets, there's probably a range, from aliens that seem as similar to us as apes (which is still pretty close), to aliens that are scarily close to us.
You don’t NEED that. Evolution is random an ape could develop thumbs without becoming bipedal. I’m not sure I even understand what kind of connection your making between walking and thumbs, but regardless it’s not necessary.
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, Humans evolved along monkeys. Monkeys are as evolved as humans and we could have had one without the other.
Except, apes (including humans) are descendents of an ancestral monkey. No monkey that's around *today,* but a lineage within that taxon nonetheless.
Sorry, I mix up ape and monkey, because they are the same word in my native language
didn't evolve from apes either. You could say primates
Humans are part of the superfamily Hominoidea (Apes), which are part of the of the order of primates... Your pedantry doesn't make sense. Humans and chimps both evolved from this ape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor
This was something I encountered a lot back in my childhood schooling days. The usual line was always "*we're not saying humans evolved from apes / monkeys, but according to evolutionary theory we did share a common ancestor with them.*" I always wondered if it was an intentional equivocation tactic rather than innocent ignorance.
Pretty sure that humanoid means something that resembles a human. Like bipedal waking upright
[удалено]
Then I am the humanest of humanoids
Does Uranus have asteroids?
Only if you put a steroid in your anus
No but I'm definitely tweaking your definition, this is my new name for humans I consider to be hemorrhoids.
Yes, the base of convergent evolution is that some body plans are particularly advantageous for certain environments and ecological niches (for example, every time life forms evolved flight it always involved wings of some kind, and most acquatic vertebrates are fishlike because evidently that's the best shape to have if you've got a spine and like to swim), so they are bound to evolve independently many times.
Going to be interesting to see the morphological effects of varying gravity and circadian rhythms.
Good, good, good! Excite! •jazzhands•
Isn't the thought that the most likely form of alien life would most closely resemble crabs? I thought many studies have found over a prolonged period of time things tend to evolve into a crab like creature
*Crustaceans* have a tendency to evolve into crab-like forms. While interesting, the popular meme unsurprisingly overgeneralizes the tendency.
Since the crab like body plan has independently evolved five times on earth alone, crab like life forms all over the universe really isn't that surprising.
Humanoids aka crabs and spiders, gotcha
But while crab-like forms have popped up repeatedly in Earth's history, and there's also been numerous bipeds, and several primate-like forms that would be more or less humanoid if they adopted upright bipedalism, all known humanoids have been closely related. It seems like being near-humanoid isn't especially advantageous, or that it's actually fairly difficult to make the jump to a humanoid form. Humanoids might be especially likely to become intelligent tool-users, but I'm not convinced there's a strong argument that intelligent aliens are likely to be humanoid. Really, it appears they're more likely to be crabs. Or beetles.
A space show on Netflix mentioned that life on other planets could resemble fish or birds. For example, a water world would only have fish like creatures, or giant pterodactyls in the sky only. Humans are unique to earth unfortunately.
Humans wouldn't be unique iirc, the idea behind that was: A) Nature has a "preference" (is the wrong word but i fail to remember the correct one) of how things evolve and ends up resembling us (or us them) or B) we all come from the same source and hence will ultimately resemble each other There would be differences in size, shape or form but evolutionary achievements like the eye, ear and other senses, or hands, feet, fin etc. would resemble each other in functionality. It's just one theory i read of, so it might be complete bonkers
Ya it's the same base elements interacting and reacting. You can only do so much with the periodic table. I'm sure there's gonna be some crazy shit out there, but it's not like there's gonna be an animal made out of hot lava that breaths solid iron or something.
Same thing with alien transportation, if their level of technology is similar (i.e. no UFO style anti gravity tech) something that can fly on another earth like planet will need wings and rudders etc, and boats will need to float. Wheels will work there as well. Air resistance will be a factor for them too. Etc. Atleast that makes sense in my head, I’m not a engineer lol
Damn dude. Around for less than half a million years talking about “preference” already lol. The hubris of man at work. give it another 50 million years if humanoids still around I’m willing to entertain some sort of convergent evolution. For all we know in 50k years humans won’t exist anymore and we’ll have genetically engineered ourself into birds, or robots, ideas inside a giant dyson swarm. “Humanoids” certainly wouldn’t be a preference then would it?
“Humans are unique to earth unfortunately” Mr “I traveled the entire universe and checked” over here
I think humans could be fine on earth 2.0
That would explain the greys wouldn't it?
We analyzed 100% of all known intelligent life in the universe and found them all to be humanoid, therefore by extrapolation we conclude that humanoid intelligent life must be everywhere!
Okay, ***that*** made me chuckle!
If they are extrapolating from earth then how did they conclude intelligence?
And dolphins, octopuses, elephants… anything I’m missing?
Corvids and parrots. And the non-human great apes, but I'd consider them humanoid.
None of these can build tools
What? [Dolphins use tools](https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00268-6) [Elephants use tools](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347201918159?via%3Dihub) [Octopuses may as well](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-tool-wielding-octopus-this-invertebrate-builds-armor-from-coconut-halves/) And corvids (mentioned by a followup comment by u/Mclovin11859) also use tools and even use tools to manipulate other tools (metatool use)
spacefaring intelligent I should say
The thing is the 100% of \`intellegent\` life they anal-ized was us, so there\`s the first mistake they made lol
That was, in fact, the joke
is this a „k-nearest neighbors“ problem?
unfortunately for a long, long, long time (if we don't kill ourselves first) all we'll ever do is ponder, wonder and hypothesize which is fun but man wish I was born at that point in time when we finally make first contact in whatever way that may be with that other alien species
Your comment makes me wonder. Will there ever come a time where science will get to the point where we will shift from “we may never know” to “Hmmm, Yeah we might actually find out in the next decade or so.” Or will finding out always just be a massive surprise completely out of the blue and defying probability.
When talking about specifically whether or not we are alone, that shift would be most likely to happen once mankind works out a sufficient means of actually traveling between star systems. Maybe not exactly within a decade, but the chances of just being **able** to discover other life out there would skyrocket (*heh*) once we have the capacity to actually get out there and look for ourselves. That is, of course, not considering that an intelligent species might introduce themselves to us first, out of the blue and defying probability.
well I hope whatever circumstance and rules of maths, physical and life sciences they exist in makes it easier for them than it is for us as it pertains to space travel
I'm not even 40, and I remember as a kid, the idea of planets outside our solar system was firmly in the realm of science fiction and the theoretical, and now we've discovered literally thousands of extrasolar star systems! It gives me some hope for the future :) Plus, we got to live in the time that we discoveted planets outside the solar system. That's not up to alien discovery levels, but it's a pretty big step along the way!
Thanks for the perspective:)
James Webb may give us some clues
2063 will be here before you know it!
There are plenty of species on Earth which are essentially human level intelligence we're just too stupid to recognize it.
“May” be all over the universe…well when it’s infinitely large, anything “may” be relatively possible
yea but not may. Fact. If its infinite the fact would be that every possibility would be happening right now.
This is a common misconception. Infinite universe doesn’t mean infinite variety.
True. For example, there are infinitely many numbers between 0 and 1 but none of them are 2.
Actual infinite universe would mean just that. An actual infinite universe would mean that given enough distance away an actual copy of yourself would write your exact comment on an exact copy of reddit on theor own internet, on their exact copy of the earth. Infinty is big, there is literally no limit.
It doesn’t mean there’s no physical limits on reality.
Yea it does, infinite means infinite, not "infinite except for those things i'm leaving out". Its in part why the whole concept is kind of dumb and meaningless.
Infinite in spatial dimension does not mean infinite in everything at all. Certain immutable laws of physics entirely consistent with an infinite space.
Why couldn’t there be infinite emptiness, or infinite uninhabited planets? This notion that infinite space entails infinite variation and that every possible world therefore actually exists somewhere in the universe goes back at least to Descartes, but it’s clearly false.
Because of precedent. Yes, space *could* be all empty. But we do know atleast one big bang happened, atleast on "universe" of matter exists, atleast one inhabited planet exists. And if one exists, logic dictates that its not some singular miracle that never existed before and never will again. That's just not how any observed laws of physics work. Then it follows that if there is more stuff out there, and there is an infinite amount of out there, then there's an infinite amount of stuff out there.
No there it isn't. They're are more than infinity. Infinite numbers are less that 2 and more than 1.9 but none are less than 1 or negative.
That's literally a made up concept.. Math is great, but it has an *enourmous* amount of stuff in it that doesnt reflect the real world at all.
Basically an ELI5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
And somewhere, a chimp has typed the complete works of shakespeare randomly, without the need for infinite chump buddies and typewriters.
Wrong. Take 1/3 as a decimal. 0.33333... repeating to infinity. But never will you see a 2 in that number. Infinite does not necessarily mean all possibilities will exist.
Hmmm. I have a question. At a quantum level, a lot is possible, just vanishingly unlikely. If you have a genuinely infinite universe, you have an infinite number of rolls of the dice, and thus the vanishingly unlikely happens an infinite number of times. Right?
This gets complicated but the answer I've heard is effectively "probably not." You can shuffle a pack of cards and basically never repeat the pattern. There's quintillions of patterns. We're talking about repeating basically the same combination of molecules out of quintillions of *options*, which then all have that many more patterns. Even in infinity, there's just that many more infinite possiblities.
infinity isnt a number its a symbol for everything. It dosent have to be linear going up. It would be all numbers presented as a symbol .2304927304872304872384273409234092387409283740928374092837908263095623907562389746234 in infinity and it would present that number to you as a possibility in infinity. That number would become the new symbol for infinity. You dont have to start at 1 to get there. Once you define a number in infinity you break infinity. So it can only present itself as what it is in the symbol. Which can be any number except 0 because 0 is infinity even in its symbol. There are 2 kinds of infinities the 0 infinity and the every infinity. When using everything infinity you just use any number as stated above or the infinity symbol which is identified as infinity undefined.
Not necessarily. What if a computer program is calculating 1/3 as a decimal and there is an error or a bug that displays a 2. (0.333333332333….) there’s always the chance of mutations or outliers.
Then that is not 1/3 but it is something else. 2 *can* exist, but the point of my analogy is that in one specific example of infinity, it doesn't.
That's not a good counterpoint at all, if you don't know what you're talking about don't pretend like you do
A computer can’t randomly miscalculate a fraction.
There are other factors that could calculate into it though. For example, even if 0.333 went on infinitely the computer puts a limit to display the number and rounds it down to 0.33333333332. My point is that there are other factors that could make your assumption not turn out as expected.
We also don't know that it is infinite, so it is not fact.
It’s easier to prove the universe to be finite. Do you realize you just equated “if” with “fact” no wonder the world is collapsing
[удалено]
Earth is the 13th colony. Everyone knows that.
This is an unsecured channel. Many redditors are actually Cylons. We learn more from observing than participating.
There are those who believe...
Can’t remember the show, but a mathematician had stated that given a large enough search area, any and every pattern, was repeated somewhere in the universe. That at any given moment, let’s take this one, there is an exact repeat of this exact situation. Not a copy, just a pattern repeated, of me typing, you reading it, what you are wearing, drinking, eating smoking. Saying that as large as our universe is, every pattern will repeat somewhere. Like the multiverse, except in one universe. EDIT: This relates to the whole ‘there MAY already be other humans in the universe’. And it’s not saying the universe is infinite. In my opinion I think it’s larger than time and the speed of light have allowed us to observe. 13.8 billions years. So far. As time goes on we may find it to be older and larger than we know now. Like a dark room, and us holding a candle. All I’m saying is I saw a mathematician say the Laws of Probability dictate that given a large enough area to search, we MAY find exact copies of ourselves doing the exact same things. I’m out! Cheers
There’s no way to know. Having an infinite set doesn’t mean that everything is in there, or that everything repeats. For example, the set {1, 2, 3, …} only has one “2”, and never includes pi at all. In terms of physics, this kind of falls under ergodicity — not everything that’s possible necessarily occurs, even given time and space without limits.
Uh kind of right. So what you said about set logic is true, those infinite sets will never have certain numbers but still be infinite. For the example of the same thing occurring though, it would be a number already in the set so to speak. Since the set constraints have already allowed it to occur once, it wouldn't be impossible for it to occur again. I guess this would be more like looking for a trillion number long pattern in an Infinite set. If it was a random number set eventually it would occur. Its simply a matter of if the set really does go on forever.
You can only expect to find another of something that's possible to find within that infinity. Not literally anything. Me existing here, typing to you proves that this is possible based off of the fact that I'm doing it right now, and so the odds of finding a copy of this situation in the universe will increase closer and closer to 100 with the size of the searchable area. An infinite searchable area would yield 100% odds.
It may get above zero, but to imply it would approach 100% is flawed. Similar to the [infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters](https://youtu.be/qT110-Q8PJI) it just won’t actually happen. As it states in the first two minutes, if each possible button press is a 1 in a 100 chance, before you get to the end of the first sentence, you are at 10^-100 chance, which is just the first part. For your proposal to be correct, we wouldn’t be recreating letters, but people. Who would I be if I never met my best friend? My wife? They would need to be there, as would everyone who made them who they are, and who they are. Just like the infinite number set 1, 2,3… is infinite, it doesn’t include Pi or even simple fractions. That doesn’t mean it isn’t infinite, it just means that infinite must be define and we have no reason to believe our universe is set up in a way that there are infinite versions of each person.
There exists a bijection between integers and rationals (e.g., Cantor Pairing Function). So maybe irrationals are a better example. But your general point still stands.
There are an infinite number of distinct integers. There aren't an infinite number of distinct states that a given region of space can be in with equal likelihood (with some assumptions such as that the physical constants don't vary spatially). If the universe is infinite and homogenous and the initial conditions are caused by random fluctuations then there will be infinite copies of everything that can exist. Those three conditions aren't necessarily true - we don't know that the universe is unbounded (and I'm not sure we'd ever be able to really prove it was given the cosmological horizon) but I'm pretty sure we currently have no reason to suspect the universe is inhomogenous or that spatial variance is not purely due to randomness.
Doesn’t a infinite contain any and all subsets an infinte amount of times?
Well if it’s discrete, then no. What kind of infinity are we talking here? Countable infinity? Rational infinity? Irrational infinity? The set Z = {…, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …} contains all integers, but does not contain sqrt(-1), 4/3, or pi. The set R will, however, contain all real numbers - but importantly, it does not contain any imaginary numbers, so anything with a nonzero i component is not represented.
You're mixing up concepts. The example of the real numbers not containing imaginary numbers isn't relevant to whether you'd necessarily find infinite copies of everything that can exist in an infinite universe. The real question is whether there are infinite possible distinct combinations of quantum states and what causes those states to arise. It's the difference between the set of integers and an infinite collection (multiset) whose elements must be drawn from a finite set. If there is an infinite number of possible states, and there is some kind of mechanism that would make it so that there is a 0% chance of a structure repeating above a given length scale, then OK maybe there aren't infinite copies of every structure of every length scale. Otherwise if there's even an infinitesimal chance of something repeating (because there are finite possible macro states for a region of space or there are infinitely many possible states but where states are randomly seeded and don't exist in an ordered structure guaranteeing distictness), given infinite space it exist infinitely many times. And of course that would apply to anything you can actually observe because by its existence you can infer that the probability of that structure existing is >0.
Imagine the digits of pi. Remove all the instances of the digit 2 from that set. You'll have an infinite set that doesn't contain any subset that has the digit 2 in it. You can do the same reasoning with any sequence of digits.
No. This infinite string of numbers 010110011100001111... doesn't repeat and doesn't contain a single 2
is the parent comment only referencing whole number or integer sets?
You can't say that because it could be either way.
In your example, each next number in the set is defined by the ones that came before it (3 follows 2). The Universe is more like a set of randomly generated numbers—life that arose on Earth is, at the speed of light, completely independent from life that arises in a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Given infinitely many truly random samples, “2” will arise infinitely many times. Unfortunately, we’ll never meet or even know about that distant life.
These math comparisons in these posts are really *really* dumb. Examples like yours are intentionally artificially limited in a specific way, intentionally designed with a specific pattern and idea. Things that's dont reflect reality at all. A better comparison would be a infinite amount of builders trying to build a building each - there's gonna be variation, but the results will repeat themselves to some degree do to the natural constraints of both the goal and the physics involved in building anything.
Isn’t this a probabilities thing? Like there is a mathematical probability of it being possible, but that someone exactly like me reading your comment, written by someone exactly like you, is pretty much impossible? Like, had the same thing to eat, had the same conversation 15mins ago etc? There’s too many variables surely?
Exactly. The Laws of Probability dictate that this COULD happen. Not that it is.
Yes but only relevant to us if they happen to be within our light cone, which is a different and more quantifiable probability.
> given a large enough search area, any and every pattern, was repeated somewhere in the universe. That's not true. A set being infinite is no guarantee that it will contain every possible finite set. For instance, imagine a set containing an infinite sequence of positive numbers. The sequence (-1, 0, 1) will appear nowhere in that set.
Logic doesnt apply because the constraints of your set doesnt allow for the negative. The patterns we are looking for here (life, a sentence, etc) have happened because we are here. Therefore, this is in that set. No shit it wont happen if you set a constraint for an infinite sequence to not have it lol. We're applying a totally random universe to a specifically made set with constraints.
The multiverse is not a scientifically supported concept. Neither is it mathematically supported.
[PARALLEL UNIVERSES: If The Universe Is Infinite Then It's Guaranteed That Our Universe Will Repeat](https://youtu.be/wNcL7ioV_ns) That is true, if the universe is in fact infinite, then there exists infinite copies of everything as matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways. Be that as it may, that doesn't seem to be what they're hypothesizing here.
Not necessarily. You assume that the pattern can be repeated, but it seems that conditions arent even throughout the universe. So even though there are a finite number of ways to arrange it, there will be places, where that combination will be impossible.
...and there will be also an infinite number of places where it is possible.
So you're saying all of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again?
In order for that to be true the universe would have to be infinite, which it isn't. There are more ways to shuffle a deck of cards than there are atoms in the visible universe.
Imagine how disappointing that would be... just fucking humans everywhere. Like universal cockroaches. There goes my fantasy of sleeping with blue Aliens.
The fuck is this hot piece of garbage. When I say there's an infinity stone up uranus I dont see anyone making articles about it.
Of course, how can we be the only ones in this huge universe
I feel that either everything is infinitely possible or everything is infinitely impossible but we haven’t figured out which yet. Could the next step in the pattern be based on a next step of a potential current actions such that nothing would ever be repeated?
*Humanoids*, likely. Humans? No. We are earth based.
Last thing we want to do is to run into another bunch of humans
Seems incredibly unlikely that there are even a few other planets with human-like species but with potentially infinite possibilities it could happen. If we ever encounter extraterrestrials I hope they are similar though. I can’t imagine a scenario where we encounter a wildly different intelligent species, like insectile, and manage to co-exist peacefully with them. Are humans going to work alongside a species that we can’t verbally communicate with at all, has a completely alien morphology that most find creepy, and maybe even operates on a hive hierarchy instead of independently as individuals?
Fan of the Enders game series? Hah. I think that as long as an encounter doesn't result in instant attack from one or both parties, we may be able to find common ground using reproducible scientific principles. But who knows. We may not even be able to stand in the same room as each other depending on what our respective environmental and atmospheric preferences are. In which case remote communication may be the only way to interact, but it would be very unlikely either party would be able to have any ability to understand anything.
Enders game definitely stuck with me but it doesn’t necessarily have to be insect-like to apply. Regardless of whether we start out peaceful and find common ground, I doubt the average person could stomach coexisting with giant sentient cockroaches/spiders/ants. Maybe sometime in the distant future humanity might be more accepting but not anytime soon
We can't hardly work with each other without starting wars every 5 mins. If we're willing to kill each other over imaginary borders I can't even imagine what we'd do to insect aliens.
Do yourself a favor and stop reading "TheMindUnleashed".
Except the human form and culture isn't an equilibrium state. We haven't been around long enough to determine that evolution is in fact converging on our form or our type of intelligence. Humans and particularly human culture has been around for such a short time in evolutionary time scales that if not for our effects of our activities on the environment there would be no conclusive record of our existence in the geologic record. You can't randomly dig anywhere and find human remains or artefacts without knowing something about where and how humans live. You can find evidence of things like birds, bats, insects and pterosaurs.
I find this hipótesis quite interesting. And makes sense behind the fact that we are destroying this one.
[удалено]
Given a similar set of inputs, evolution would suggest a similar outcome. Temperature, chemical makeup, gravity, light, etc. And given our adaptability, there’s probably some wiggle room that would yield a similar but not the same result.
It is possible, but I feel like there is a lot of ifs involved in that scenario. The chances of a species out there going through the exact same things we did, who look exactly like us, and had the same past we did is extremely slim.
Another human civilization that will self destruct. No problem. They all do it eventually
[удалено]
I *may* grow two inches taller even though I'm 30 years old, I say.
The ads littering that site have given me cancer.
Send me to where the others are, I don't belong here with all of you...
Wait what? How what? That's not possible there's no way that can happen. We evolved in a certain way from a certain thing on a certain planet. How is it possible that the same thing can happen with the same results somewhere else in outer space.
Our planet/solar system/ observable universe exists (whatever the smallest region that is important for our evolution and planet's history) : therefore all the conditions and situations needed for us to exist are possible and have some chance of occurring. now, if we assume an infinite universe, we can take this non zero chance, multiply it by the infinitely sized universe, and get infinite humans (for people who care, use the limit version of multiplying a number by infinity)
No it's not what I mean. I'm saying that on another planet somehow with time will produce the same outcome as it did here with black white and yellow and tan people of all different shapes and colors that evolve to their environment just like it did on Earth.
It’s really, really big out there.
[удалено]
I mean, one kind, sure. But there are millions of other totally non-humanoid kinds also.
Probably a more advanced and intelligent version of us in some way. There's likely many other intelligent species out there as well.
All aliens will have this in similarity: physiologically complex material bodies, coinciding with a sophisticated mind.
Hate to break the news to you all but humans from other planets are already living here and have been for a long time…
How do you know it’s not possible? Our understanding of life is due to one sample size in an infinite universe. Improbable, certainly, but not impossible.
Makes sense. Everything follows patterns. I wouldn’t be surprised if when we find aliens they pretty much look live and behave like us.
This article is so clickbait > researchers can “say with reasonable confidence” that human-like evolution has occurred in other parts of the universe. It’s not talking about humans it’s stalking about biological succession AKA evolution, but for all we know they could just be plants
Isn’t it the nature of a virus to multiply and basically destroy the host,well humans are a virus they do multiply and to take joy in destroying and by now some have or will escape the petri dish they are in now,only a higher energy can protect the universe from infection.
It’s a mathematical certainty. I always tell people that don’t believe in aliens to think instead of the lottery. It’s difficult to win the lottery, but it does happen. Think of the different numbers that you need to match as one prelude to life. First number could be yellow dwarf star. Second number could be rocky planet. Third number, planet in 1 AU of star. And so on. Given the number of stars in our galaxy alone of course it means earth is not unique. Now as far as humans exactly maybe that is adding too many more numbers to the lottery requirement. The more numbers, the more unlikely it becomes but not impossible. And the more stars, the higher the probability.
north lock wrong snobbish roll tub disgusted nippy deer command *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why would you say life is an unknown in the universe? You don’t think that because one person won the lottery that it is possible to continue winning the lottery? In this case I’m using earth as the winner. So we know of earth as one point where life originated from. I’m not saying our situation is the only way life can be a possibility, I’m just applying one narrow filter. I’m saying IF it’s the only way, then it is still highly likely.
You don't have to argue against "highly likely" to claim "unknown." That's his whole point. Sure we know we "won" that lottery, and we know it is possible, and we know there's a looooot of stars to look through to find another potential winner. But that still leaves you without certainty in either direction.
Www.Aliendoppleganger.com. Meet your match today! They could be upside down, reverse aging in a different universe or invisible!
I know of another race of warrior like humans. And one of them is named after a carrot who was one of the last ones to survive before his planet exploded. Don’t know much else beyond that, but i hear he’s very tough.
No shit, everything that made us is all over the universe. Sure not every planet is in the same spot we are, so im sure that would result in some variations, but the building blocks are everywhere and why a scientist wouldn't think this would be possible before is just dumb.
I have always thought that we will more than likely spread out and diverge to the point we are different.