|
I find the ET life question and 'test(?)' a
typical "SOWHAT?".
We have ~10-~14b years backwards to match OUR
status with others in the universe and andother ~200+b years ahead. You,
math.-impaired minds, find out the timing probability of these 1-2 centuries to
match any other occurrence. Then the quality?? If we restrict ourselves to the
terrestrial chemistry, we can find at least 25 atoms to build self-propagating
constructs with. Restrict the physical processes as well, not to our 1910, or
2o10, but the today's level, we have 3 type waves to bank on. Temperature,
gravity, time-flow, mental buildup, all have to match.
How long does a letter take to travel by 'less
than lightspeed', to the nearest solar-system planet? 140 years one way? I'll
wait.
I suggest to budget the money instead of that
navelgazing social entertainment to building better flood-dams.
John M.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:16
AM
Subject: What would be a Rosennean
exobiology test?
In Nature this
week, there is an article "Exobiology: It's life...isn't it?" which asks:
"Scientists find
it hard enough to pin down evidence of early life on our own planet. How on
Earth do we plan to determine whether life exists elsewhere?"
[doi:10.1038/430288a]
The article goes on to
examine the various attempts and proposals for some kind(s) of test(s) that
could be placed aboard a spaceprobe and be able to give a definite (or at
least, very strong) yes/no answer as to life beyond the
Earth.
All these tests rest upon
various kinds of chemistry, whether it be looking for by-products of
reactions, isotope rations, amino acid chirality,
etc.
But if Rosen is right that
the key to "what is life?" is not in a particular chemistry, but in
the organization of functional components, then none of these methods
will necessarily tell us anything. If there are myriad physical ways for a
function to be accomplished, then there are no guarantees that an exobiologic
organism's functions will be accomplished in ways that our tests might
detect. Further, since such tests cannot detect the actual
functional components or their organization, the confidence from a positive or
negative result from these tests would seem to be suggestive at best. To
me, that lack of result confidence is not encouraging for spending
millions of dollars and many years.
I propose the hypothetical
question that NASA might ask if they were interested in the Rosennean view of
"what is life?":
"1) could you come up
with a test to place aboard a spaceprobe that would more definitively answer
the exobiologic question by detecting function and its roganization, and 2)
if so, what would that test look
like?"
Anyone have any thoughts or
ideas?
Tim
|