[pfdietz]

It's only unlikely that we are first if it's likely there are others. But we don't know that it's likely that there are others.

The argument "there's lots and lots of stars, therefore it's unlikely we are alone" is mathematically bogus. It presumes the chance that life arises at any given star can't be "too small". But there is little basis for making that assumption.

[Timon3]

Since we're in a thread that started with:

> if other life exists, the chances of us being first would be really low given the size and age of the universe

I assumed that I didn't have to re-state the assumption that other life exists as the basis for my argument.

[pfdietz]

That quoted statement is weird, since it doesn't make any use of the "size and age of the universe". I was assuming it was a poorly worded way of saying the size and age of the universe implied it was likely other life exists.

[Timon3]

I'm not sure what your problem with the statement is. If there is other life (as well in, through the whole lifespan of the universe life starts somewhere aside from earth) it is incredibly unlikely we are the first. If there is no other life, we are the first. What is weird about it?

[pfdietz]

It's weird because if there are others, it's unlikely we are first, regardless of the age of the universe. So why was the age mentioned? (And size also, unless the universe were so extremely small there couldn't be very many others.)

[Timon3]

You'd have to ask the person who mentioned the age. I disagree with that person, and I am not responsible for what they write.