---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
It all depends on how you look at the universe. A good description of reality won't depend on how we look at it. In fact, it's the aim of science to explain the universe and everything in it independent of our opinions and beliefs. If you think that the world is based in consciousness, Which I most definitely do not, that being a religious idea that explains nothing and in fact, makes things harder to understand because it requires an explanation as to how this consciousness came into being. then life is present in all of creation. The suns can be considered the manifestations of consciousness which can be seen as stars in the night sky from Earth. I don't think suns can be considered like that. They are after all, just massive nuclear fusion bombs. I can't see any way they might be conscious or manifestations of consciousness. Which isn't to say they aren't amazing, our sun burns off 4 million tons of its own weight every single second! That single fact on it's own is worth any amount of rubbish from the vedas which won;t tell you the first thing about stellar evolution. As suggested by Patanjali, these suns create planets that may or may not be situated in the "Goldilocks Zone". Astronomers recently have found that there are now several earthlike planets outside our solar system that can potentially have life, as we know it. Based on these variables, we can assume, but not conclusively prove, that human life can occur there as well. I don't know about human life but lets call any sort of intelligent, science creating, technological entity a 'person' any planet like ours can - technically - create life like ours but what are the chances of it, or of it becoming intelligent in the same way we are? If you understand the hoops we've had to jump through evolutionarily then you'll appreciate more that our existence was never a done deal. Based on our present technology, it's nearly impossible to visit these earthlike planets to prove that humanoids are living there. But we can make estimates based on probabilities of having humanoids in these planets. Specifically, astronomers have estimated recently that there are about 50 million earthlike planets in the Milky Way. If you set the criteria for having humans as one in a million, then there would be about 50 of these planets that would have humanoids in them. Why would you set the criteria there? Why not a billion to one or more? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : We are alone in the universe: Professor Brian Cox says alien life is all but impossible as humanity is 'unique' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html We are alone in the universe: Professor Brian Cox says a... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html The presenter and scientist blames a series of 'evolutionary bottlenecks' for the lack of extraterrestrial life on other planets, despite there being a vast... View on www.dailymail.co.uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html Preview by Yahoo I'm kinda with the prof here, but we don't know enough of the variables to be able to say it with any certainty. One thing is for sure though: there's no intelligent life in the Daily Mail comments section...
