DETERMINING MATH PROBABILITIES FOR LIFE OUTSIDE EARTH.
Preamble: I'm far from a brilliant mathematician. (at least I got this right!)
However, my again menial logic says, the math based probability for life outside earth is almost 'nil' - excepting only that every crevice, nook and corner of the entire universe being explored - and no rock unturned, and which is not possible. My logic requires mathematical conversions:
1. We have an actual poll of the known universe, derived from 4.5 Billion years of imprints, that no life exists. This is backed by earthly fossil imprints, telescopic determinations, manned and unmanned missions to our closest neighbours, voyager missions spanning over 50 Billion miles, signals sent by earth, etc. - with no positive results. Also, we have no imprints or indicators from out there to us.
2. This (1) says, the 'unknown' universe is more likely than not - like the 'known' universe: no life.
3. The known universe harbours all imaginable conditions, both for and against life occuring, with nil results. This does not mean the exacting conditions seen on earth ust prevail for its viability, but that the basic materials like gasses and matter is the same; water is a combination of two such gasses; water may not be the deciding factor for life by reason because it is so on earth. Adaptation would compel another life form to pursue different utility than that which is not available to it - else Adaptation has no meaning.
4. The issue of distance and time does not impact: it is unreasonable to assume all space bodies are too far. Some will be relatively close, and older than earth - which says if there is life, here the life would be more advanced (this is time dependent), and they should be able to make their presence known - else there is no meaning to the term 'advanced'.
5. Evolution may also not apply here. NS and Adaptation, if its definition applies as a universal constant (else why consider it elsehwere?), cannot mean that only earth's exact and critical conditions must prevail for life to emerge elsewhere - but that a life has to adapt and prevail in *OTHER* harsh conditions. This does not appear as has happened.
6. UNI VASTNESS. There is no other means of determing life out there, aside from logic, and it being based on the 'known' universe. Usually I find, vital factors like no imprints for 4.5 B years and other transcendent aspects, are not factored in equally, and lesser factors are made operatve. The generic theme seems to be, that the great vastness and size says there must be life out there. But this vastness, IMHO, works against, not for, the probability: with such a vastness - we should be seeing life as a commonplace occurence; that we don't, says the reverse of what is concluded of it! The Maths of it would be based on 'Probability', not pigs-can-fly 'Pssibility'.
So how would a mathematician assess, present and conclude it?