I'm not sure I agree with that analysis. While the matter near us might be the same age, the stars near us don't have to be the same age. If they formed by gravitational attraction of space junk, then one star might get a head start if it starts with a more massive collection of space junk. Small differences upfront could lead to large differences in when the star gets enough mass to start shining; similarly for the ages and development of planets that might be orbiting the stars. barfo
I was referring to the other barfo, but I hear he goes by the name ofrab and comes from a planet called Ork that's full of comedians.
For all we know some planets are dominated by dinosaur like species or a civilization once flourished in a different galaxy and is now extinct. There are many possibilities. Perhaps we are the most advanced civilization in the universe? Nobody ever talks about that. Most people think of Aliens as little green guys that can fly in ships that travel as fast as the speed of light. Maybe and maybe not. There is absolutely no way anyone can prove or disprove whether or not life exists outside of our solar system. It's just something we won't know unless we're ever able to harness enough energy to travel between solar systems and galaxies. Even then the universe is so big that we still wouldn't come up with a definite answer.
Is our definition of life as narrow as the exact characteristics of a Steven Hawking, from DNA to haircut? I suppose you're saying if Hawking is one in six billion, why aren't we one in seventy sextillion? Eventually you can narrow the scope of your search to the point where it is rather unlikely that you'll find a match. Considering how little we actually know about the origins of life on our planet I think it is a mistake to be overly specific/demanding in our criteria.
Of course our definition of life isn't that narrow. My question is about the reasoning behind why there must be life elsewhere - a numbers game. If it's simply a matter of odds (the universe is so big, there's 'x' sextillion stars with 'y' sextillion planets, thus there must be life), then why isn't it likely there's another Hawking? Or more than one? Could it be the odds of there being life at all are 1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and we're just damn lucky? We don't know where all the water on earth came from either
Because searching for another Hawking is almost infinitely specific. You can't filter search results with near infinite criteria. Sure there might not be one solitary microbe throughout the universe other than what's here now but just saying that sounds unlikely, at least to me.
I hear them filter "life" with "intelligent life" all the time. If the numbers are the sole source of the argument, and they appear to be, then the shear enormity of it all would make the Hawking question quite valid. If we knew how life starts, then there'd be a real case to be made, IMO. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, then the laws for life starting would be, too. But those laws of physics are clearly identifiable and not based upon chance. Like "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
