As of now, there is no definitive evidence confirming the existence of life beyond Earth. While scientists are actively searching for signs of extraterrestrial life through various means, including the exploration of Mars, the study of extreme environments on Earth, and the search for exoplanets in habitable zones, we cannot state with 100% certainty whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. The question remains open, and ongoing research may provide more insights in the future.

@Sandeep Jaiswal, your scientific reasoning and your references to religious scripture are both good, leading you conclude: "No — life does not exist beyond Earth."

Yet, I still feel that your question is fundamentally a question of personal Experience and Belief. You have not addressed the huge amount of popular/reported "evidence", such as personal testimonies of alleged alien contacts, governmental disclosures, and reported non-disclosures, as well as scriptural reports of Enoch and the 'vimanas'. I can't help but feel/believe that if but one of such reports were verified as 100% true, our answer would be: Yes, life does seem to exist beyond Earth.

However, your Conclusion is, imho, a Beautiful Reminder of part of our Purpose here on our eartHeart:

"This conclusion is not borne of cynicism, but of realism. It is not a verdict of isolation, but a call to deeper appreciation. The absence [or 'presence' - JAS] of life elsewhere underscores the sanctity of what we have here. It elevates our moral obligation to protect, nurture, and understand the fragile ecosystem we inhabit."

Beyond differing beliefs is wholeHearted agreement!

Aside from the career promoting, sensation seeking and spurious claims of the "scientists", "astrobiologists" etc., ad nauseum, with the theological belief of "life" in a "Big Bang" created finite universe; life on earth originated close to home, near the under-sea hydrothermal vents. Please see the following reference and others referred to, in it: Article Origin of Prebiotic Organics and Oxygen on Earth. A case for...

For a materialist dialectical view of life in an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe and taking the clue from its origin on earth, the presence of "life" is as certain as matter and motion in this infinite universe: The Limits of Mathematics/The Infinite: http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

And for one of the greatest dialectical materialist, “… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” F. Engels, “Dialectics of Nature”.

John A. Shuster

Dear John,

Thank you so much for your deeply thoughtful and generous response. Your words reflect a beautiful fusion of intellect, experience, and spiritual insight—and I’m truly honoured that you found resonance in the conclusion I shared.

You're absolutely right in pointing out that this question does not exist purely in the realm of logic or data, but inevitably intersects with personal experience, belief systems, and collective memory. The richness of human testimonies—from alleged alien contacts to ancient texts referencing vimanas and the mysterious travels of Enoch—cannot be dismissed lightly.

And yet, herein lies the paradox: while even one verified account would indeed tip the scale toward confirmation, what we face is a vast terrain of unverified and often inconclusive narratives. In contrast, the scientific method asks us to move from the repeatable and observable, even when the intangible whispers so loudly through our mythologies, emotions, and dreams.

I view these testimonies not as threats to truth, but as reflections of something deeper: our longing to connect, to transcend, to know we are part of a larger cosmic family. Whether metaphorical, psychological, or metaphysical, these stories speak volumes—but they await a bridge between experience and empirical evidence.

My current conclusion—“No, life does not exist beyond Earth”—is not a denial of possibility, but rather a statement of epistemological precision. It reflects where we stand today, grounded in all known science and metaphysical understanding. But if tomorrow, one single case is proven true with irrefutable clarity, I would be the first to embrace the new truth with open arms.

Your phrase “our eartHeart” is so poetically profound—it’s exactly the kind of awareness we need as we look outward while caring more deeply for the miracle we live within.

Let us keep this dialogue alive—not just for answers, but for the elevation of consciousness itself.

With respect, warmth, and the hope for more synergistic exchanges,

Sandeep S. Jaiswal

Sandeep, your reply is most generous to me and what I claim, especially when you write:

"I view these testimonies not as threats to truth, but as reflections of something deeper: our longing to connect, to transcend, to know we are part of a larger cosmic family."

Indeed, those "reflections" within a Reflexive Universe are, perhaps, indications of ONEness within our eartHeart, and our longing for that ONEness.

Re: "Your phrase 'our eartHeart' is so poetically profound". Thanks for such regard. I have always found it "poetic" that eartH ends with the H in which Heart begins. (Incidentally, I also rejoyce in how the word "profundity" has "fun" at it center -- perhaps as a reflection of a resonant Universe who continually and poetically speaks to (and smiles at) Us :)

Stephen I. Ternyik

Dear Stephen,

Thank you sincerely for your reasoned reply and thoughtful engagement in this profoundly important discussion. Your words reflect the scientific integrity and caution we must all uphold in a world of speculation and curiosity.

However, what I am offering—and what the article titled “The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?” (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445) presents—is not merely a “view” or a “belief,” but a culmination of every credible insight, discipline, and dimension known to us, synthesized into a single, evidence-rooted conclusion:

No — life beyond Earth does not exist.

Let me respectfully walk you—and others—through the final convergence of facts that make this not just a hypothesis, but a reasoned certainty within the boundaries of all current knowledge:

1. Scientific Data

We have now surveyed thousands of exoplanets, including those in habitable zones. We’ve sent rovers to Mars, probes to the outer solar system, and pointed the most sensitive instruments ever built—like JWST—at potential bio-havens like K2-18b.

And what have we found?

Zero confirmed biosignatures. Zero signals. Zero artefacts. Zero anomalous techno-signatures.

Even the strongest recent evidence—the DMS/DMDS signals from K2-18b—fall significantly short of scientific verification, failing to eliminate plausible abiotic sources or demonstrate repeatability. It is not lack of data—it is abundance of negative data across all disciplines.

2. Probability Does Not Favour Life

The Rare Earth Hypothesis reminds us that Earth is the perfect storm of improbabilities: stable orbit, perfect distance from a long-lived star, presence of a large moon for axial stability, tectonic activity for carbon recycling, a magnetic field for radiation shielding, and nearby gas giants like Jupiter to deflect asteroids.

Each of these factors may individually occur—but together? Their convergence is astronomically rare.

Moreover, life’s origin (abiogenesis) and the subsequent hard steps to intelligence—eukaryotes, multicellularity, cognition—represent a cascade of low-probability events. Earth may have simply won the cosmic lottery once.

3. SETI's Silence

The SETI project has now examined millions of stars. Radio silence. Optical silence. No Dyson spheres. No city lights. Not even interstellar static.

The Fermi Paradox is no longer a paradox. It’s a clear signal in itself: we may, in fact, be the only intelligent observers in this corner of the universe.

4. Metaphysics and the Ancient

From the anthropic principle to spiritual cosmologies—be it Vedic, Biblical, or esoteric traditions—the Earth is consistently depicted as the crucible of soul evolution, the plane where consciousness incarnates to grow.

Even in mystical traditions like Theosophy and Anthroposophy, other planets are seen as spiritual domains—not cradles of carbon-based life. There is no contradiction here with science; in fact, it is spiritual science that often preempted these findings.

5. Philosophy, Statistics, and Consciousness Complete the Circle

As a truth-seeking civilisation, we must recognise: absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence—but when all logical pathways, probabilistic models, and empirical attempts produce systematic silence, we must no longer hide behind open-ended ambiguity.

It is intellectually and ethically honest to state:

“Yes, with 100% certainty based on all current knowledge, life beyond Earth does not exist.”

And should new evidence arise in the future, we will revisit this truth with humility and openness—but until then, the highest scientific discipline demands we not leave the door ajar with wishful “what ifs.”

Final Reflection

This is not about limiting our wonder. It is about realising that Earth is not one among many—it is the one. The only known sanctuary of life, spirit, intelligence, and beauty.

This conclusion does not diminish the cosmos—it elevates Earth as the rarest gem in it.

I hope this offers clarity and resonance, Stephen—and opens space for continued dialogue with the entire community.

I deeply value your insight, your questioning, and your integrity. Let us continue this dialogue not just as scientific peers, but as guardians of a very precious truth.

With intellectual reverence and cosmic respect,

Sandeep S. Jaiswal (Author, The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?) 🔗 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul,

Thank you for your passionately articulated reply and the powerful citations rooted in dialectical materialism and the evolutionary arc of material thought. Your invocation of Engels’ “Dialectics of Nature” and the notion of an eternal, ever-transforming universe provides a profoundly philosophical frame—one that honours the dynamic, self-developing nature of matter itself.

Indeed, the vision you present—that matter, motion, and consciousness eternally emerge and fade across boundless time and space—is a noble and poetic one. And it aligns with one of humanity’s deepest hopes: that life is not a singular miracle but a cosmic recurrence.

However, may I respectfully offer an important clarification, grounded not in theology or sensationalism, but in the rigorous synthesis of science, logic, and metaphysical introspection?

Engels beautifully asserts that matter has the potential to evolve into consciousness repeatedly across space and time. But even dialectics does not assert that life must exist elsewhere right now, only that it can and may arise again.

In that sense, your own quotation concedes that:

“… it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.”

This implicitly accepts that at this present moment, there may only be one such occurrence—right here on Earth.

Your view honours the infinite nature of the universe, but the observable universe is finite—with known boundaries in time, space, and causality.

To this date:

• Not one verified instance of life beyond Earth has been found.
• No chemical system or biosignature outside Earth has met the criteria for biological life.
• Even the most promising candidate (K2-18b) lacks scientific validation of biogenic origin.

If we base our claims on what we know, then the only rational answer—until proven otherwise—is:

Life exists only on Earth.

This is not a negation of dialectics. It is dialectics applied to available data.

When I say with certainty that no life exists beyond Earth, I do so within the domain of:

• Scientific observation
• Statistical improbability of abiogenesis
• The silence of SETI and lack of empirical confirmation
• Spiritual and philosophical introspection that aligns with Earth's uniqueness

Just as Engels used the best dialectics of his era to understand evolution and energy, I too aim to use the best of ours—including quantum biology, planetary statistics, and metaphysical reasoning.

I fully acknowledge and respect the possibility of infinite material transformations.

But in the here and now, Earth remains the only known home of life, mind, and consciousness. That doesn’t diminish the infinite—it magnifies Earth’s sanctity within it.

And as I explore in my article (The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445), this realization only deepens our moral and philosophical responsibility to protect, understand, and cherish our fragile home.

Final Thought:

Abdul, I genuinely appreciate your dialectical challenge—it enriches this discussion. Let us not close the door on possibility, but also not blur the line between possibility and proof.

Let’s keep walking this cosmic dialectic together—with reason, rigor, and reverence for the truth as it unfolds.

Warm regards,

Sandeep S. Jaiswal

(Author: The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?) 🔗 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445

Sandeep Jaiswal : Thanks for your comment and the kind words addressed to me. But it seems that you are not aware of my position and the world view I hold and comment on in RG. If you knew me you would have either denounced me in all kinds of abusive way or would just have ignored me – the two forms of reactions I get in RG. So, some background information is necessary for you, before I answer your questions on the existence of life beyond earth in the universe!

Unfortunately, I have to speak about myself to give you a full picture of my basis. It is because my views specially on theoretical physics and cosmology on the one hand and biology and quantum physics on the other are based on what Hegel called “the view of reason” or dialectics as against the official and mainstream views of (for Hegel) “the view of understanding” or metaphysics (Causality). Metaphysics (of both idealist and/or materialist kinds, in philosophy); which is developed over history, primarily on classical mechanics (a mechanical world-view), since primitive men got control over one of the forces of Nature, namely heat (fire) and invented tools, the wheel, technology etc. This metaphysical view historically became the dominant epistemology, and also the ruling idea of human class society that essentially has been in force till today.

But this world view is a crude, approximate, confused and in the case of modern official theories of theoretical physics (also biology, quantum physics) and cosmology, particularly since Einstein are esoteric or false and have no basis in objective reality; but increasingly enforced by modern decadent, regressive and moribund monopoly capitalism. In one of my books, I described this “science” in the following harsh and (unavoidable in my view) unfortunately offensive way to most scientists and thinkers, “Gone are the days of the free thinkers, the passionate and creative giants who pursued their profession for the mere thirst of knowledge under the most severe conditions and more often under the threat of persecution and death. They are now replaced by troops of conformed scientist serfs (paraphrased by the Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore) who are totally dependent on monopoly capital for their livelihood, career and crafts and who toil mightily to bring out only expected and acceptable results”. These are nothing but brain-cooked theories and idealist mathematics/logic-based modern myths and Fairy Tales with contrived experimental "proofs"; for the gullible public!

Opposition and challenge to these “metaphysics-based” views of Nature and Life, arose early on, in history, with the Greek thinkers like Heraclitus and Epicurus. Substantial challenge was possible only after the Copernican revolution and the accumulation of positive knowledge with the development of natural sciences; which pushed humanity and epistemology forward. These developments necessitated the adoption of the dialectical (really scientific) view of the world for further developments. But the requirement of social class rule and a dominant ideology; so far kept the dialectical and scientific approach for acquiring positive knowledge of the world at bay and dormant.

But the dialectical view of the universe is pushing forwards, since Newton’s theology inspired and mathematical idealist view of the solar system and his theory of universal gravitational attraction, which in essence rules modern cosmology. In the present epoch, another theology inspired, Einstein’s theory of relativity only reinforced the mythical views of old metaphysics. But since Kepler’s three laws of the planetary system based on Tycho Brahe’s observation; the vis viva equation of Leibniz, Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, developments in chemistry and biology (particularly Darwin’s theory of evolution) and most of all the quantum phenomena and most recent developments in astrophysics and cosmology (particularly, Halton C. Arp’s ejection model), etc., have rendered the old metaphysical world -view obsolete and the dialectical world-view a necessary imperative.

If you see my profile and publications, you would have some sense of what I am talking about and also the reason why I have become a focus of censorship, suppression, abuse, demonization etc., not only from many in RG but also from the technologically powerful high priests of modern official science. But if you see even my recent comments in various RG forums, particularly on theoretical physics at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now

and cosmology, philosophy etc., you would see that my dialectical approach prevails and most of my virulent opponents are now silenced. Not only that, I can tell you with some satisfaction that my controversial views; with support and in collaboration with some famous scientists, mainly my (now Late) friends, Halton C. Arp (astrophysicist), Wolfgang W. Engelhardt (physicist) and Ragnarr Larsson (physical Chemist) are gaining slow but steady acceptance. Sigma Xi Society recently honoured me with “Full Membership”; RG honoured me by tolerating (against lots of complains from powerful elements) and even promoting one of my seminal and controversial publications. Support from individual scientists and thinkers are on the rise.

Sorry, I had to make this rather long statement to give the background of Engels’ and my dialectical view of the existence of life, which is the topic of this discussion. Both Engels’ and my views expressed in my comment above are based on scientific practise (so far) on terrestrial Nature – the only place known (so far), where life, consciousness and man as sentient and thinking-being exists. We can extend our thought and knowledge of the universe based on our practices and experience on earth of the solar system; the only way to gain positive knowledge of the universe and its contents. The next possible neighbours of our star is at least few light- hours, days, if not light-years away – impossible to be there even if we can attain the velocity of light. Through telescope, spectroscopy etc., we can only guess if a life-bearing planet like the earth exits within the visible universe. In a finite universe this may seem almost impossible, but in an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe (that dialectics asserts), there is no reason why thinking beings like us would not already have existed and perished before, exist now and/or are at various stages of evolution as we know about life on earth. This knowledge even if limited, gives us the understanding of a planet with particular chemical contents, favourable location in a solar system, the temperature range, the specific atmospheric, geological, hydrological etc. basic conditions., first for (bio-molecular) chemical and then the biochemical evolution of life; including the thinking brain of man! My support in favour of the dialectical perspective of life is based on my humble scientific contribution on both astrophysics & cosmology, quantum physics and on the chemical evolution and origin of life on earth.; as would be evident from my RG profile.

The official and the mainstream view on the question of the existence of life elsewhere other than the earth on the cotrary is based on metaphysics (causality) idealist or mechanistic (cause and effect); based on either God-given will and necessity (theological, including modern “Big Bang” cosmology) or on blind chance (materialist); but not on the dialectical (evolutionary) view of both chance and necessity as the “unity of the opposites, i.e. contradiction; as eluded to, by the quote from Engels and in my works. The mechanistic view of pure chance, is mainly based on French materialism of Descartes and the “L’homme Machine” of Julien Offray de La Mettrie. In modern times pure-chance (the so-called “materialist and atheist”) view is peddled by many, famously by Karl Popper, Jacques Monod, the crusader against God, Richard Dawkins et all and some astrophysicists. Monod was even awarded a Nobel Prize, for his mechanistic view of evolution of life. The metaphysical (causality) view requires a universe created in the finite past and also of finite extension as a logical requirement. But a causality-based description of the whole history of the evolution of life even on earth is impossible, without invoking God’s hand! Even Darwin, whose revolutionary theory of evolution (castigated by theology), which was inspired by the insights and the views of dialectical thinkers like Leibniz,, Lamarck et al and particularly by Hegel's dialectics , concludes his "Origin of Species" with the following words, “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several power, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one, and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved”.

Sandeep Jaiswal Many thanks for your response. As a man of faith and reason, I am inclined to believe that the universe, in all its grandeur and majesty, is not devoid of life. The wisdom of the Torah, as well as the observations of the natural world, suggest to me that the Creator of the universe is not likely to have created an vast, empty expanse devoid of purpose or significance. The universe is like a single, unified organism, with all its parts interconnected and interdependent.This perspective leads me to surmise that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe is not only plausible but also probable. I must temper my speculation with the humility of a man who recognizes the limitations of his knowledge. For, as the great Sage, Rabbi Akiva, once said, "The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know." Therefore, while I am convinced that the universe is replete with wonder and mystery, I must conclude that the question of life beyond earth remains a matter of faith, speculation, and ongoing inquiry, with respect to my first response.

Sandeep Jaiswal : The oldest known fossil records show that life in the form of very primitive cells came into existence about 3.7 billion years ago. The age of the earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years. Please consider the following copy of a recent comment on theoretical physics and cosmology, before you consider the possibility of life in a created universe; finite in time and also in extension; as asserted by modern official science.

Copy, [ Abdul Malek added an answer 55 minutes ago; Jan Slowak : Lorentz Transform, along with the "gamma factor", Minkowski's abstract 4D "spacetime", geometrical construct have absolutely no physical or scientific meaning even with or without Einstein's mathematical/logical mistakes. That Einstein made obvious mistakes in his own published work, has been demonstrated by many, including the extract from his own writing in the two references shown above, from this author.

But this debate (for or against) about Einstein's proficiency or mistakes in mathematics, in my opinion is totally meaningless; because of the fact that all the categories of Lorentz Transform are just brain-cooked mathematical/geometrical formulations, simply based on an (unscientific or rather theological) axiomatic "truth" that the velocity of light c is an absolute and universal constant (in vacuum). No other physical or logical considerations are necessary to derive these fictitious mathematical constructs. “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

And what is more, this axiom itself along with its derivation, including SR, GR, any "physics", "cosmology" based on SR and GR are myths, without any objective or scientific basis in reality. These should be thrown away in the dustbin of history without further ado!

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

What is Light, Really? A Quantum Dialectical View. Semantic scholar: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What-is-Light%2C-Really-A-Quantum-Dialectical-View-Abdul/9652dee62901f5ab9289cb4498f10fd01869181b

Please note: All these publications, except the first one listed in INSPIRE), are securely (without hostile tempering) available only from my RG profile.]

Stephen I. Ternyik

Dear Stephen,

Your words strike a beautiful harmony between reason, faith, and humility—qualities I deeply admire. The image of the universe as a unified, purposeful creation is profoundly meaningful, and I, too, revere its sacred complexity.

Yet, as I explored in my article what we can affirm today—based on all current scientific, philosophical, and metaphysical knowledge—is that Earth is the only known home of life.

This isn’t a rejection of cosmic possibility, but an appreciation of our unique place within it. If life were meant to be everywhere, its absence across the stars would be strange. That it exists here, and only here, makes Earth all the more sacred.

As Rabbi Akiva beautifully reminds us, the journey of knowledge is endless. And so, while I hold this conclusion with certainty today, I remain open, like you, to the unfolding mystery.

With regards, Sandeep S. Jaiswal

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul,

Thank you for sharing such a thorough and deeply personal reflection. I truly appreciate your willingness to offer not just your view, but the philosophical and scientific lineage that underpins it. Your dialectical framework, rooted in the tradition of Heraclitus, Hegel, Engels, and modern scientific dissenters like Halton Arp, is rich, challenging, and intellectually provocative. I see clearly now the foundation from which your views emerge.

What I would like to offer in response is not a refutation, but an epistemological refinement—a focus on what we can truly assert within the limits of present knowledge, which is the very demand that dialectical science also insists upon.

As you rightly state, all scientific understanding begins with our terrestrial experience. Life—so far—has been observed, evolved, and understood only on Earth. Our tools, whether empirical or philosophical, are all shaped by this unique sample. And in the dialectical sense, we are at the first real stage in the unfolding contradiction: life exists only in one known corner of an evolving totality.

This singularity is not metaphysical dogma—it’s the outcome of the unity of opposites: we long for universality, yet find ourselves grounded in an inescapable particular.

You beautifully argue for an infinite, ever-changing universe—a view I admire for its breadth and evolutionary optimism. However, the dialectical method also demands that we evaluate each stage concretely. The assumption that life “must” exist elsewhere because the universe is infinite is, in itself, not grounded in practice but in projection.

Until we see, detect, or interact with any form of life beyond Earth, the only scientifically and dialectically sound statement is:

Life, as far as we know through practice, exists only on Earth.

This is not a metaphysical denial of other possibilities—it is a clear-eyed view of the present contradiction: the cosmos is vast, but life is silent beyond our planet.

You critique the mechanistic metaphysics of mainstream science—and I agree with your concern about the dogma in both capitalist science and probabilistic materialism. But I would argue that the assumption of ubiquitous life without any empirical basis can also slip into idealist abstraction. Dialectics insists on grounding ideas in material and observable reality—and currently, that reality points only to Earth.

We must remember Hegel's caution: The real is rational, and the rational is real—but only when it manifests.

My paper, “The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?” (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445), ultimately concludes that:

No — life beyond Earth does not exist, based on all known science, reason, and spiritual insight.

This is not a fixed metaphysical claim—it is a conclusion within a moving, evolving dialectic. Should life be discovered elsewhere, the contradiction would resolve differently. But until then, this Earth remains the sacred node of life’s emergence, and we must treat it as such.

Abdul, your intellect, your courage in challenging prevailing narratives, and your commitment to dialectical clarity are admirable. Though we differ in conclusion, I believe our aims are allied: the pursuit of truth, unswayed by institutional dogma or blind ideology.

Let us continue this dialogue—not in opposition, but as fellow travellers along a shared and noble path.

With regards, Sandeep S. Jaiswal

Sandeep Jaiswal : Thanks again for your kind words for me for the support of my materialist dialectical views on the existence of life in the universe in particular and on natural science in general.

You are right in saying that Hegel’s dialectics is idealistic and his words, “The real is rational, and the rational is real—but only when it manifests.”; points to the dialectical and historical process of the realization of the “rational” or “ideal” to the “real”; but in reality it is the opposite way around!! I must qualify this with Hegel’s own assertion that the “real” proves itself also to be “necessary” in course of historical development/change/evolution etc., of Matter, Nature, Life, Man and Thought.

Hegel, with his encyclopedic and (positive) knowledge (not myths), his profound power of intuition (speculative) and his revolutionary thought (the exultation of “picture-thought” or “metaphysics” of classical idealist/materialist philosophy to the “thinking-thought” and the “negation” to “dialectics”); unwittingly, perhaps, gave a scientific (REAL) account of the process of the history of the evolution of Nature, Man and Thought on earth up to his time – a feat unparalleled in history! But as Karl Marx pointed out, Hegel’s dialectics was inverted and was standing on its head! “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness”! So, one just has to put Hegel’s idealist dialectics right-side up (on its feet) to get the profoundness of materialist dialectics! For Hegel his “Absolute Idea” (aka, God) is the only absolute truth of the universe. This “Absolute Idea” existed before the universe in some Platonic realms of thought by itself no matter how long or for eternity! Probably out of boredom, the “Idea” decided willy-nilly, to alienate itself in the crudeness of the abject material universe in some sort of “Big Bang” way and evolved (as modern physics described) through the evolution of the atoms, atoms to molecules, molecules to Nature, Life, Man and Thought (philosophy) and came back to itself again (as the “Absolute Idea”); unsurprisingly through the philosophy of Hegel himself! This is an illusion, unfortunately, this great thinker shares with ALL the idealist philosophers of history. As I noted in my article on the “Infinite”, mentioned in my comment above, Hegel’s “Absolute Idea is “Absolute” only in the sense that he has absolutely nothing to say about his “Absolute Idea” – a thing-it-itself!

But Hegel’s dialectics in reality is an endless process without a beginning or an end, ever; where the beginning and the end are together in a dialectical contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” (“being” and “knowing”, “object and “subject” etc.) as an eternal process of change, motion, evolution, development etc., without coming to an end. Hegel can bring an end to his dialectical process by bringing this historical process to a meaningless termination to his “Absolute Idea” (no contradiction) and starting the whole process all over again!

What Hegel in reality sought in his “Absolute Idea” and through his dialectics; in fact, his cherish for the progressive realization of the “Freedom of the Will” of subjective Man vis-a-viz blind Nature as a never-ending dialectical process. I have posted a comment on “Freedom of the Will” in a RG philosophy forum, a copy is presented below in a separate post.

Copy: [Abdul Malek added an answer 3 hours ago

They following text summarizes my dialectical perspective: “ What is the Most Fundamental Essence of Humanity?

[The most fundamental essence of humanity is to strive towards "the freedom of the will", based on real knowledge of the world and of itself– a subjectivity and the dialectical unity of the opposites of the objectivity of blind Nature (and as a part of Nature itself); in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. This essence is an acquired ability that allows man to effectively change the conditions of his physical, mental and social existence based on the positive knowledge of the world and of himself (as a social being); in such a way as to progressively reduce the contradiction between subjective man and objective Nature, between humanity and the world, but never completely eliminating it.

This necessarily is a complex of historical processes of “being” and “knowing”; mediated by dialectical chance and necessity and taking place in a temporarily life-harbouring celestial body where the subjectivity of life can evolve through discrete evolutionary leaps from blind non-living matter to the highest developed product of matter, namely the thinking brain of man.

The most decisive factor in the evolution of this subjective “being” came with the bipedal (erect) stature in man, which made his hands free (a giant leap towards freedom) for further subjective acts and developments; that enhanced both his “being” and his “knowing”. The final act through which man forever separated himself from the animal kingdom and towards more freedom; was the mastery over one of the forces of Nature, namely heat (fire). The development of the dexterity and the manipulating skills of the hand necessitated the revolutionary development of the brain and with it speech. The developed brain gave man enhanced ability for abstraction, reflection, introspection and communication etc. that in a reciprocal way led to the further development of the brain and also gave the hand “the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini”*.

But this journey towards freedom so far was not a smooth one-way process only, without any loss! On the contrary there were dialectical and historical twists and turns, ups and downs and the loss of many important specific traits (that are necessary for sustaining lower life forms); on the way to the evolution of man. Moreover, new and evolving constrains on knowledge and developments imposed both by Nature and by man himself stood in his way towards freedom. The more damaging were the self-made constrains known as the alienations. The alienations are creations of man for his own need of the time, but those creations at a certain stage of their development goes out of his control as if an entity coming from outside and like a Frankenstein Monster sets itself to control its creator. Historically; Myths, Religion, Class Division, Capital, State etc., were the most potent alienations that impeded the progress towards knowledge and freedom. In modern times the most dominant alienation is Capital, in its most regressive monopoly-finance form.

By the turn of the 20th century the social development of humanity and the accumulation of positive knowledge, created the sufficient stage from where man for the first time in history can envision the tangible contour and the clear path forward towards a mighty leap to freedom. But the vestiges of the old alienations, particularly decadent monopoly finance capitalism newly reinforced by the myths of obscurantist mathematical idealism stand in his way.

The accumulated knowledge, specially of the last few thousand years has given man the potential to vastly change the conditions of his existence by changing himself and Nature; thereby diminishing the contradiction between Nature and man; but at the same time also has equally given him enough potential to destroy himself and all other life forms on this planet in a nuclear or environmental holocaust!!]

* “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”; F. Engels, 1876

"Signs of life on a distant planet? Not so fast, say these astronomers.

Bold claims of ‘biosignature’ molecules trigger an outpouring of scepticism."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01264-z?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=1e7bf7bc99-nature-briefing-daily-20250422&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b27a691814-1e7bf7bc99-499297368

This is one of the examples that justifies my assertion (made in my comment above) that modern scientists ("scientist serfs" of the poet Tagore) under monopoly capitalism are easily corrupted and motivated by the lure of fame, fortune, funds and career-enhancement and are easily tempted to make sensation seeking claims of "discovery", "proof" of theories etc. (specially by the astrobiologists or physicists), that is in favour and/or support of the prevailing official paradigm.

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul,

Thank you once again for this profound exposition, offering an even deeper view into your philosophical landscape—a synthesis of dialectical materialism, evolutionary epistemology, and a critical social analysis of modern scientific practice. Your perspective is one that demands engagement with the highest rigour, and I am truly honoured to continue this dialogue.

I have carefully reflected on your message, and I find a powerful common ground between your dialectical approach and the framework underlying the conclusion I presented in “The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?” (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445).

Allow me, with utmost respect, to articulate the final convergence of our views, while firmly substantiating why, based on all available scientific, philosophical, and dialectical reasoning, the answer remains:

No — life beyond Earth does not exist, within the scope of objective, observable knowledge today.

You have beautifully outlined how freedom of the will, knowledge, and subjectivity emerge historically from blind nature, mediated through complex contradictions.

But what is the foundation of dialectical knowledge?

• It is empirical contact with material reality—
• Practice and experience—
• Not idealistic projection, not mathematical mysticism, and not speculative theology.

And what does our collective practice, our total empirical effort across centuries reveal today?

That life has manifested concretely only on Earth.

There is no verifiable instance of life, consciousness, or biochemical evolution beyond our planet as of this moment.

Thus, according to the very dialectical laws you uphold, the rational conclusion is that life beyond Earth does not exist—until empirical evolution at a future stage reveals otherwise.

Current dialectical reality = Earth is the singular cradle of life.

You rightly describe the universe as infinite, eternal, and ever-changing. But dialectics also teaches us stage-by-stage emergence.

Infinite potentiality must always be mediated through specific actuality.

Today’s actuality, grounded in practice, is the absence of detected life elsewhere. Thus, while infinite evolution is possible, current evolution remains Earth-bound.

Until another living node is found, dialectics compels us to accept the singularity of life here.

You passionately critique sensationalist claims, corrupted institutions, and the degradation of free scientific spirit under monopoly capitalism. I do not dispute this reality; I recognise it.

Indeed, the very scepticism now being raised regarding the K2-18b “biosignature” discovery—evident in the article you shared from Nature—only proves my argument:

That the so-called signs of extraterrestrial life are speculative, premature, and fundamentally unproven.

Thus, based on genuine, uncorrupted, dialectically honest science, no life beyond Earth has been found.

In your own dialectical framework, humanity’s journey toward freedom begins with concrete mastery of nature, from fire to knowledge.

Earth is where:

• Blind matter gave birth to life,
• Life gave rise to mind,
• Mind now aspires toward the stars.

It is on Earth alone that nature has, so far, reached self-consciousness.

To deny this hard-earned singularity without empirical proof elsewhere is not dialectics—it would be idealistic hopefulness, which you yourself have argued against in your critiques of metaphysics.

Thus, Earth is not merely a planet—it is the cosmic manifestation of life’s first great leap.

The True Dialectical Position Today

No — Life beyond Earth does not exist, as per current objective reality.

This is not a dogma. It is a recognition of the present stage in the dialectical unfolding of the universe.

Future contradictions may emerge. New discoveries may come. And then, as dialectical thinkers, we will revise our conclusions.

But until practice, observation, and experience demand it, we must affirm:

Earth is the singular oasis of life in an otherwise silent cosmos.

Abdul,

I sincerely thank you for elevating this dialogue to a level that very few are willing to reach. You are a true torchbearer of serious thought.

I believe that through our exchange, we are both serving humanity’s greatest essence:

The pursuit of truth, grounded in freedom, knowledge, and dialectical clarity.

With respect,

Sandeep S. Jaiswal Author, “The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?” 🔗 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445

John A. Shuster

Dear John,

Your response once again radiates the depth, sensitivity, and profound wisdom you bring to this conversation.

I absolutely resonate with your poetic insight—that within the “eartHeart” lies the longing for ONEness, the pulse of belonging that connects life, matter, spirit, and consciousness. It is no mere coincidence that Earth and Heartare linguistically intertwined, just as they are existentially entwined in the dance of life.

Your observation reflects a truth that science often overlooks but philosophy and higher awareness reveal:

The universe whispers to us not just through equations, but through poetry, resonance, and profound joy—the "fun" in profundity.

And yet, it is precisely this ONEness, this cosmic yearning, that also amplifies the sacred uniqueness of Earth. It shows us that this single living oasis, in the vast ocean of cosmic silence, is not a flaw in the universe—but its living, breathing masterpiece.

Thus, while the infinite calls to us and sings through us, life, as far as objective reality confirms today, remains rooted here on Earth—the Heart of Life itself.

In this view, there is no isolation. There is only a greater reverence. We are not merely “on” Earth—we are Earth. We are its consciousness, its song, its eyes opened to the stars.

Your poetic spirit beautifully complements the dialectical truth we are arriving at:

Earth, for now, is the singular cradle of life and consciousness.

And that realisation is not limitation—it is liberation.

Thank you once again, John, for bringing such spirit, humility, and joy into this exploration.

It is voices like yours that make this search not just an intellectual journey, but a deeply human and cosmic one.

With gratitude, fellowship, and eartHeart resonance,

Sandeep S. Jaiswal Author, “The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?” DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445

Sandeep, you are so kind. Yes, "whisper" is the perfect word. Our ONEdrous Cosmos gently whispers Its Truth in many ways. We must learn to Listen to Its virtual "siLent/s".

Sandeep Jaiswal > "No — Life beyond Earth does not exist, as per current objective reality."

Thanks again for your kind words for me. But sorry, I do not agree with your assertion quoted above! This is a narrow reflection of ordinary thought, metaphysics/theology or "Image-Thought" as Hegel called it - "the view of understanding". This is abstraction in our brain/mind as if from a static and series of instant photographic pictures of existing objects, only their "identity". But this reflection does not capture the total reality; which is turbulent, in constant motion, change, flourishing "life" in all its vitality etc.; hence is a poor reflection!

Dialectics or "the view of reason" for Hegel is "Thinking Thought" - a refinement, sharpness , a "negation" (contradiction), an exaltation etc., on the "Image Thought", by adding some inherent rationality of thought/mind itself! Hegel shows the difference in the following way: “But it is one of the fundamental prejudices of logic as hitherto understood and of ordinary thinking that contradiction is not so characteristically essential and immanent a determination as identity; but in fact, if it were a question of grading the two determinations and they had to be kept separate, then contradiction would have to be taken as the profounder determination and more characteristic of essence. For, as against contradiction, identity is merely the determination of the simple immediate, of dead being; but contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity”.

Even if I know that the dialectical view is unpopular, I therefore with full confidence (based on my own humble contribution to dialectics, astrophysics, chemical origin of life on earth etc.) agree with the passionate, articulate dialectical view of Engels (in the quote above), about the existence of life in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. And further assert that life and consciousness, like all other existence; eternally comes into being and passes out of existence in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe, due to inner conflict or contradiction; as Heraclitus envisioned. With as much certainty that the thinking mind evolved (came to existence) on this planet earth, it will go out of existence within a finite future; like the earth itself!

Please note: This would be my last contribution in this interesting forum. Thanks for the opportunity it provided me to contribute my dialectical perspective.