Life could be abundant in the Universe

I think one of the biggest reasons why people believe life on Earth is a 'lucky one-off' is that we don't see life on other planets. We appear to be alone in the universe. This gives support to the notion that life is arbitrary, without intent, without a plan. But could there be another explanation?

Limited perception is a common feature in Nature. For example, to you and me a field is a cacophony of insect noises, but to the grasshopper, who has a very narrow auditory range, a field is a silent lonely place in which he hears his own kind. This limited perception ensures his survival - for he can identify a mate or rival at distance without the interference of other insect noises.

We are well aware of auditory spectrums, visual spectrums and it is very possible that we live within a density spectrum, in which we only perceive that which exists within our spectrum.

We take for granted the fact that our visible spectral range represents a very small fraction of the full electromagnetic spectrum; and we take for granted the fact that our audible sound range represents a small part of the sound spectrum. We hear between 20-20,000 Hz. The bones of a dolphin's ear are almost identical to a human ear, but dolphins communicate at frequencies up to ten times the audible limit of the human ear. Bats communicate between 25-50kHz. Everyone has seen a dog or cat perk up their ears to a noise that completely evades us.

Science has discovered that we only perceive 4% of our universe. That means 96% we don't perceive! We know there is 'something out there' because of how the universe and bodies in the universe 'act'. The discovery of limited perception is important because it shows that matter acts like light and sound - there is a spectrum of perception and we only perceive that which lies within our range. Like grasshoppers in a field, our perception could be limited by Nature to ensure our survival.

There could be life on other planets in our solar system, on other planets in other solar systems that exist alongside us but within different density spectra. Our limited perception then becomes an identifying feature of evolution (which again is common in Nature) in that it acts like the shell of an egg - isolating us as we develop/evolve.

Edited by Vanessa, : as requested - to make myself better understood

I hope my additional paragraph helps to clarify my point.

NoNukes writes:

Does the term "density spectra" have meaning, or am I reading your OP too literally?

I mean it literally - just as we perceive within a sound spectrum and a light spectrum, so we perceive within a density spectrum.

RAZD writes:

From these information sections it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time.

Brilliant RAZD! I absolutely agree! Nature works by building up and breaking down. Life comes from life.

PS: Thank you for the link to your previous post, it is very long - I only skimmed the contents.

Edited by Vanessa, : No reason given.

Taq writes:

It is quite apparent to me that the universe ticks away without really caring if we exist or not. Past mass extinctions are a good example of this.

Mass extinctions are a bug in my bonnet. I assume you mean the mass extinctions that are used to explain the punctuations in our fossil record (i.e. the extinction of the dinosaurs from an alleged meteor strike). Mass extinctions do not explain how life came back more evolved. I believe we are wrongly interpreting a common procedure in Nature - development through transformation.

If we did not know that caterpillars transform into butterflies we would never put the two together. If we saw hundreds of caterpillars in a cabbage patch, then went away and returned a few days later and found all the caterpillars gone and a collection of webs, we would assume there was a mass extinction of caterpillars - spiders ate them all. If we returned a few days later and saw a cloud of butterflies, we would say the spiders moved on after consuming all the caterpillars and the butterflies were free to move in.

What we see in our fossil record is better explained as transformation - for not only do the organisms transform but the environment does as well. Again this is a common feature in Nature. If you look at the life cycle of most organisms, they often develop in one environment before living their adult life in another - a baby develops in a womb, inside a body, cut off from breathable air; many insects develop as larvae in water, in soil, in the body of another insect before their maturity in air; chicks form in eggs before they take flight.

What we are looking at in our fossil record is strikingly similar to this procedure. The first cells on Earth developed in a hydrogen rich environment that was incredibly cold - nowhere on Earth exists like that now. Many dinosaurs could not exist on the Earth now, they were too big and would be crushed by gravity. They could only survive in water but we have determined they roamed on dry land. The environment on Earth was different to as it is now but it was perfectly suited to the developmental stage required by the organisms throughout evolution. This is precisely in tune to how Nature works.

It is premature to believe that "the universe ticks away without really caring if we exist or not". This is the consequence of accepting an explanation that, at its core, says life is all for nothing. But that explanation has not been determined as true, we still do not know how life evolved - irregardless of anti-religious rhetoric. I have never been able to understand how an attack on religion can be used to support a scientific theory. Like saying - swallow this pill for your ailment, I have no proof it works but the only other option is praying. No! I insist we find the true explanation of evolution.

NoNukes writes:

... assuming that density is taken to mean mass per unit volume. You must mean something different than what I expect by the term.

I once heard that the human body contains only a teaspoon of actual matter (atoms). The movement of atoms create a larger volume than the individual elements provide. This is the point I am making. Steam is less dense than water which is less dense than ice. The same content is in each and yet their density is dependant on how tightly packed the molecules are.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Discovering that we can only see and hear certain wavelengths of light and sound, does not necessitate that some other specific thing must also exceed our perception.

Determining we only perceive a limited range of sight and sound does mean that it is plausible that we are limited in other areas of perception. It is foolhardy (and unscientific) to assume we don't and not investigate the possibility.

So then, it seems to me that we need to focus on improving technology more so that we can then discover these life's that might exist out there.

Our instruments to determine density spectra are quite likely to be limited to the density spectrum they are constructed in and will likely only perceive within that spectrum. The difference with perceiving the spectra of sound and sight is that there is a wide spectra of both on Earth (of which humans only perceive a limited range). I am proposing that life exists on other planets in different density spectra, that we can never perceive.

To make myself better understood I will use an example of scale: A cell on my leg may have a perception of me (I am anthropomorphising) but certainly cannot perceive nor likely conceive of the world I inhabit, nor the level of complexity and movement. Even greater it could never conceive of the universe beyond me. We are limiting ourselves if we think everything we see is all there is.

The astronomers who discovered dark matter and dark energy did not do so by perception but through deduction. It was the movement of galaxies (the fact that they didn't break apart when spinning at such vast speeds) that led astronomers to propose a limiting factor/energy that restricted the breaking up of galaxies. It is wrong to believe we must perceive something in order for us to believe in it. If that is the case then most of evolutionary science is made null and void.

jar writes:

Does ice float? Think before posting.

Good point! My example is lacking, did you nonetheless understand what I was saying?

jar writes:

No, I don't understand your point, if there is one.

Pixels on a computer screen only form an image if they are close enough to be perceived as one entity, otherwise they are simply a bunch of dots. The more dense the pixels the more obvious the image. The less dense the image the more likely we do not perceive it.

Rahvin writes:

The final thought that occurs to me is that you're really trying to describe something akin to the more popular idea of "higher planes of existence," where there may be "other dimensions" that we cannot yet perceive and yet which could contain other life that what we know. Something akin to the idea that all entities have a specific "vibration," and are only perceptible or capable of interacting directly with other entities of a compatible "vibration," leaving large stretches of a much larger Universe nearly imperceptible to human beings. Is this something akin to what you're actually trying to suggest?

Those terms smack of New Age explanations, which always seem too obscure to get a grip on. I do not mean to be obscure. I thought 'density spectrum' would be self-explanatory - the more dense something is, the more impenetrable it is. The less dense it is, the more ethereal it becomes. In comparison to Earth, Venus has a dense atmosphere, whereas the atmosphere of Mars is less dense than the Earth.

I think the problem is, as you say further in your post:

How do you think you know what you think you know?

This is where I am not been clear. In the mid-1980s, in the Far East, I learned a completely different explanation for evolution - no meteor strikes, cosmic collisions or mutations in sight. It was a fascinating and clever theory, with supporting evidence and argument. More importantly it made predictions, which at the time seemed far-fetched and now are proving true. It's time I put the explanation forward.

Rahvin writes:

While I;d very much like to see that hypothesis...

I will post it.

RAZD writes:

May I suggest a new thread for that...

Yes you're right. I will prepare it and begin a new post.

Edited by Vanessa, : No reason given.