Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

I don't understand your argument/crticism. I thought SETI was looking at finding signals at our level of technology when they reached us. When they were sent, they were at that level of technology, and what happened to the aliens since, is a different issue altogether.

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

Then what does it matter if the signals are 2 million years old from (obviously) a far away star system? The benefit of this research is close to nil while the cost is the opportunity cost of not running something more practical. There's no basic science question to be answered with SETI, no practical policy question, no human health question, only a big "We're kinda curious to see if perhaps some alien civilization ever invented the radio and sent those waves into deep space" question. It's pointless.

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

Just because there're only 9 CPUs still working, does that mean I can't be proud of 2nd?

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then what does it matter if the signals are 2 million years old from (obviously) a far away star system? The benefit of this research is close to nil while the cost is the opportunity cost of not running something more practical. There's no basic science question to be answered with SETI, no practical policy question, no human health question, only a big "We're kinda curious to see if perhaps some alien civilization ever invented the radio and sent those waves into deep space" question. It's pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? The discovery that another intelligent species evolved somewhere else besides here has no scientific value? This fact alone has the potential to be world changing IMO. Then there is the knowledge to be gained by decoding the information contained within the signal. You must be trolling, right?

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

I'm not trolling. I don't think there is any valuable knowledge in those signals unless we can actually communicate with some alien civilization or learn something actually important from their signals. We have no ability to travel far in space (we can't make it out of our own solar system). And for all we know, whoever sent the signals may be long gone.

I'm pretty sure life evolved elsewhere, but the odds of us finding it by looking at radio waves is miniscule. And on top of that, getting useful information out from most likely really old signals is another longshot. Sure, there may be a tremendous upside if we can actually learn something, but this is worse than playing the lottery and winning twice in a row.

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

To put it bluntly, finding out IF there is intelligent life out there is meaningless. Any reasonable person would have to admit that of course we're not the only ones. But actually being able to learn something should be the real benchmark in spending massive computer power.

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To put it bluntly, finding out IF there is intelligent life out there is meaningless. Any reasonable person would have to admit that of course we're not the only ones. But actually being able to learn something should be the real benchmark in spending massive computer power.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at the 'any reasonable person' version of poisoning the well. There really is no basis in saying there are other life forms out there. We have absolutely no concept of the likelihood of the development of life. If its trillions to one, its going to be close.

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If its trillions to one, its going to be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all... near certainty.. get your numbers right.

Re: Do you belong to folding@home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its trillions to one, its going to be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all... near certainty.. get your numbers right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, whatever number you want. It makes no difference.

And actually, I'm not so sure I am wrong. I said the likelihood of developing life, which presupposes that the planet is even capable of developing life in the first place. If the odds against life developing on planets that are hospitable to life is trillions to one, it is nowhere near a certainty that life will develop. What estimates do you have that put 'hospitable planets in the universe' at any number way bigger than trillions?