Life on Earth older than thought?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Don't you mean: "Skybird's current model explains entropy and
thermodynamics as paradigms", or don't you apply the same
standards to your meta-knowledge as you do to your knowledge?

(ed: not that I disagree with much of your above post, although I am a
little confused as to why you bought such issues up here)

What's the word surgery about here? Practically all theoretical statements of sciences are thought models and theories only, no ultimate truths and final answers, and where they form an influencing meta-theory, we call them a paradigm. Theories come and go, some stay long, others not as long, some get abandoned and given up, others get complemented. But always it is human mind's created order of thoughts that decides where we put that new observation that we just made. and this case of observation and this artificial order we created decides on our efforts how to make new observations.

Or to put it more poetically: all science is observations only that dances and plays with human mind.

You just said it yourself, Letum, in your reply to Aramike. You talked of what you believe theories are. Which is another theory - about theories.

I am not minimizing the value of theories in principle. I am all for making pragmatic use of them, to do things that are in our reach to do, and to think thoughts we are able to think. But a theory is nothing more than that, a theory. There are no nature's laws - just our assumptions about nature having this or that regularity. And that again is a theory, based on many observations.

Just too take it as granted that such theories are so unlimited and infinite in validity that they embrace all universe although we know close to nothing about this universe - that is a bit too much. With nature's laws it could very well be that we find out one day that it is with many of them like it is with Newtonian physics and quantum, physics: the one model works wonders to explain Pool, the other is useless. The latter theory is great according to our current standard of knowledge to explain subnuclear events, Newton sucks.

We live on just one little planet, and have thrown a couple of little toys into the air close to us. Let's not antropomorphise the rest of the universe altogether, and let's not fantasize that we really do any form of space travel really worth to be called that.

Most intelligent life out there probably will be eons older, than we are. Most of these intelligences will be so much superior in intelligence that we probably will be unable to even recognize them as what they are: intelligence, as long as they do not help us to recognize them. Like we are also unable to recognize an intelligence that is too much inferior to us. And if we have this problem of not recognizing inferior intelligence, why do we assume that other superior intelligences do not have the same problem in recognizing us? For all the others out there, "universe" will be something very different than for us. And the superior intelligences there are, probably are capable of means and abilities that for us border to pure magic. Astronomy tells us we live in those 10% of this galaxy's volume that are the youngest part of this galaxy. That means 90% of solar systems in this galaxy are much older than Earth. If anybody has dreams about us meeting others on a basis of same eye level or missionary superiority, Star Trek style, you better think twice. for that reason I have said farewell to the idea to send drones into space and trying to make active contact, and want passive listening being done only. Since most of those out there already are superior to us, what makes us assuming that they all are necessarily friendly? The example of human societies on planet Earth?