May i recommend the Drake Equation as a way to calculate the probability of extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent one that uses communication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The correct value of each parameter in the Drake equation has been discussed for the last 52 years.

As a general comment, Drake equation's purpose is to boost critical thinking and scientific discussions. What Ziad has exposed goes along the same argument. Therefore, I will follow on the general aim of the exercise, critical discussions.

I will go along Ziad's argument but changing the random probabilities to match what is acceptable in industries which practice 6-Sigma philosophy in their control of variations of the produced goods under the condition that errors could be controlled down to 2 per billion (the 6-sigma tolerance which later on was upgraded to 3.4 per million errors in systems made by man).

Following the same trail of using the multiplicative rule in probability of events occurring simultaneously (same argument used by Drake or same argument we use in economics to study the impact of time series on economic facts), the number of errors (assumed by Ziad as lifes) elsewhere in the universe is 0.0002

Sure, all is relative, not possible to calculate acurately, and too many variables interfere.

But Ziad's second question about the fallacy of the argument and that if science is questionable on a cosmic scale.

I will create a counter argument based on how we see a business (representing planet earth) in its environment. The cosmos is similar to the eco-system of a business in its largest external environment. Any business has to deal with several layers of other businesses which each owns its own stellar orbit of service businesses, partners, suppliers, etc... Therefore, a business is found in a dynamic sea of thousands of other businesses all existing with the aim to create a dynamic partnership to share the existing resources and at the same time grow to mature and expand. An argument that simulates the behavior of earth among its neighboring stars.

However, to respond to Ziad's second argument. Businesses are run by humans, therefore, the behavior of businesses is subject to the decision making of humans. Looking into the question, can we forecast or study scientifically the behavior of the whole eco-system governed by man and his/her biases? The answer is clear science fails to explain the cosmos of the business eco-system. Simply because of one main factor the human's ego-centric behavior. No science can explain that.

If we look at the matter in question, is science questionable on a cosmic scale. The answer is yes because of the ambiguity of the inter-related variables needed to explain the behavior of the universe. Is there balance? The answer is yes, not because of science but because of the creator of all things He Who permits our minds to grow and understand little-by-little the ambiguities surrounding phenomena that we see and we do not understand..

Looking at my score to my contribution above I see that my argument caught the attention of somebody who I would like to hear from why he/she is in disagreement. The beauty about open discussions is that it brings together people charged with different poles a process that should bring to light constructive arguments and new ideas!

Thanks Bassam for your valuable comment!

In my opinion ... science will concentrate on the "HOW" and religion will concentrate on the "WHY". Nice division of labor. A famous quote (and pun with words) which i really like is "If there is no life out there, the universe would be quite a waste of space." (originally from Carl Sagan if I recall correctly, but most people know it from the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster).

It is so exciting to think that there is Life somewhere else.

And probably I will ask the same questions proposed by Willibald:

HOW and WHY?

Willibald believes it is a nice division of labor between scientists and religious to provide a response. The status quo is that a response will never come supported by consensus from such division of labor. In general, every party's stance is well known. To me, even with no evidence I believe we are not alone, at least confirming Sagan's words.

Nicely said Bassam - Happy New Year!

Ziad, within last month, Televisa (famous TV) of Mexico caught on film a flying object approaching the famous volcano which is showing volcanic smoke coming out, and then this object plunged inside the volcano leaving slight light behind. Experts confirmed that the film was authentic! Figure out.

Dear Hussin:

Thank you for your note - I have seen the video and I can say that it is quite interesting!

At present, there is a bias towards time intervals with short or long ranges of time to estimate the existence of life, complex life or intelligent life. Also, constant probabilities for those ranges of time; where, few time intervals and probabilities increase significantly the possibilities to find life, complex life or intelligent life. Although it seems at first glance that time intervals and iterations produce high probabilities of the existence of planetary life existence, this outcome is only possible if all arrangements are precisely tuned through enough iterations with the right ranges for every time interval and however, on each iteration complex life vanishes.  

Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...

Good post Diego. Then and as observed with time when phenomena are treated statistically, these will occur at sometime! The fact is, when we deal with such subjects there is always the chance that certain information is not shared with the public and consequently, relying on probability of events to occur, gain more use.