Comments on Sentient Developments: The Fermi Paradox: Back with a vengeance

PPP Ukraine

2010-03-13T07:00:07.524-05:00

hello friend excellent post about The Fermi Parado...

2010-02-17T11:37:41.623-05:00

hello friend excellent post about The Fermi Paradox: Back with a vengeance, That's enough time, given exponential exploration, even for generation ships to do the job, let alone other stuff. So, intelligent life has been possible for 4.5GY. That's enough time for the Galaxy to have been colonized 4,500 times over. Where and I would like to know if you have any post about buy generic cialis
The kind of low-level detritus we would expect to see from survey missions is really hard to find - and the someone who finds it has to be in the right frame of mind to interpret and preserve it correctly anyway, and not just toss it aside.

Here's are the ways I look at it, but these are al...

2009-07-29T02:43:10.321-04:00

Here's are the ways I look at it, but these are already known variations of the Fermi Paradox.

1. Life is pervasive, but evolutionary fitness does not ensure the development of intelligence. For example, most living things on this planet are either microbes or insects. Or even going into higher species such as vertebrates, look at the good run the dinosaurs had. But what did they make of it?

So we're not alone in the universe, nor the galaxy. But we're not going to communicating anytime soon to critters not much smarter than the average house-cat.

2. Intelligence actually does develop, but conditions for technology to develop are much much rarer. In other words, we're the only kid in the neighborhood to have toys. On this planet, there are a few other animals besides the dominant hominid and the apes that would qualify as being higher-up on the earth-critter IQ chart. Look at the whales/dolphins/porpoises or even parrots for instance. However, they lack the physiology to manipulate their environment in any significant manner. Or take a look back at our own history. How long ago was the bronze age or the iron one? In terms of life on the planet, that's actually a pretty short while back. Also, where would we be if there wasn't much in the way of friable mineral resources? We'd probably still be rubbing two sticks together to make fire and talking about the upcoming hunt rather than reading this internet post exploring mundane ideas.

3. There are actually many other beings zipping around with all the sci-fi like technology and beyond, but we're intentionally kept out of the loop. This one's known as the Zoo-Hypothesis. And we're the monkeys in the zoo. In a way, this scenario would give some credibility to the UFO, alien sightings, and abduction phonemena. If they're here, they're only only doing observations and otherwise staying out of the way. Until we can get out of "the cage" in any meaningful manner, we're not really a problem nor worth communicating with. Of course a few animals in the zoo (including us) will experience the occasional veterinary services related to park management. The abductions are merely part of the health and fitness surveys, and the implants are equal to tag-and-release programs. (Not necessarily pleasant on the recieving end, but well intentioned otherwise.) Afterall, if our solar system is a "zoo", somebody has got to do the part of the park ranger or wildlife researcher.

I'd say 1 and 2 are likely enough because of the general chemistry that exists out there. Life should pop up somewhere else. It would be fun to know how many smart things are running around out there, but it's not like we can go to them anytime soon.

Number 3 seems unlikely, but is fun to consider. Yet if it's true, we won't be hearing anything until we figure out how to poke around and get outside our own solar system. When the caretakers are spotted or communicated with before then, it's not by protocol and something that they try to avoid. Pretty much they're not wanting to rattle the cage and having all the monkeys go ape****, if you know what I mean.

I'd rule out the hostile or other theories, simply because we're in existance and there isn't much to say anything has visited or communicated with us in a significant way.

In response to Zimbel & Mr. Anonymous, When disc...

2009-07-23T19:48:11.228-04:00

In response to Zimbel & Mr. Anonymous,

When discussing Fermi's paradox I'm often reminded of the quote, "Water, Water Everywhere But Not a Drop To Drink" or more appropriately in this case "... Not a Drop To Prove it."

The concept of UFO is broad, incorporating misidentifications, psychological components, possibly new atmospheric phenomena, and who knows what else. The argument that all UFOs represent misidentifications is a fallacy dispelled by USAF Blue Book Special Report 14.

It's fair to say that in some instances UFOs may in fact be non-human technological devices. Probably the best empirical evidence of this to date comes in the form of the 1957 RB-47 case analyzed by Brad Sparks. It's by no means a short read, but it does demonstrate something of a fairly extraordinary nature. I find it difficult to imagine a natural explanation for a radar-emitting ball of light that has the ability to pace a RB-47 and follow it across several states especially during course corrections.

This case stands out because it's tightly corroborated by verification from several passive radar sets, active radar detection on the ground, and mid-air /w visual observations. It's hard to imagine such a thing being an atmospheric or astronomical phenomenon.

It's amusing to think we're very likely ignoring evidence that might explain Fermi's paradox ("Where are they?" the answer being "Here") simply due to dogma and our inability to accept anecdotal / transient evidence.

The Drake equation has many factors missing that w...

2009-03-16T12:33:33.251-04:00

The Drake equation has many factors missing that would reduce the numbers dramatically that communication might be established between aliens.
For one, is the problem of the relative angular planes of rotation of systems/planets. This means the chance of observing communication from the surface of a planet is dramatically low.
Also the probablity of the existence of compatible communication technology existing simulatneously in a given time frame.

"Maybe "intelligent" life is never sustainable?It'...

2008-11-18T11:20:00.000-05:00

"Maybe "intelligent" life is never sustainable?

It's an old mistake to think of "intelligence" as a good thing in evolutionary terms. In fact it's just another thing.

It makes for very effective generalised exploiters of resources in the short term. However, such skills may well alwys result in unsustainable over-consumption, or in mistaking our perceived interests with actual evolutionary survival.

I think there's a good chance that "intelligence" is normally an evolutionary dead end. Such abilities may evolve frequently, but species may only be technologically sophisticated for a century or two before using up resources, or becoming too dependent on technology to adapt to new and unforseen evolutionary pressures.

Even if such flowerings of intelligence have been widespread in space, in order for us to meet up, we need to overlap in time as well. If we each get only a few decades of technological sophistication, it's not surprising we seem to be alone. Just now we probably are, at least in this bit of the Universe.".....

Could well be the truth :O( !

What if we are being watched, but the observers do...

2008-09-27T18:19:00.000-04:00

What if we are being watched, but the observers don't want us to know yet? They could be watching, waiting to see if making contact with us is desirable. Would you want to interact with us if you were an alien? We still fight among ourselves over skin color, gender, and cultural differences; how would we treat visitors from another planet?

the secret is they are hiding in the fifth dimensi...

2008-09-05T07:17:00.000-04:00

the secret is they are hiding in the fifth dimension.

Ooops! sorry..

Please, do not see this as a naive comment.What if...

2008-08-19T19:20:00.000-04:00

Please, do not see this as a naive comment.

What if the advanced civilizations would find a better return on investment on creating virtual realities in which to download and live? As you can see in our world, it doesn't happen at all that decisions are taken thousands years in advance, and the temporal horizon for decisions is sometimes barely the length of an administration. I.e. we all tend to decide for *now*, because that's what makes "economic" sense (in the broader sense).

So, would you spend your life traveling between stars constrained by speed or light, or would you prefer to spend your life inside a virtual world designed to satisfy your needs?

Maybe the civilization expansion is not toward outside, buy toward inside.....

Hi!I have created a forum where we can discuss the...

2008-08-14T06:39:00.000-04:00

Hi!
I have created a forum where we can discuss the Fermi paradox and related topics. I hope to see you at:
http://fermiparadox.forumup.com/

juhazone you wrote:"So... supposing that most civi...

2008-08-14T03:10:00.000-04:00

juhazone you wrote:

"So... supposing that most civilizations reach technological singularity before discovering interstellar travel, what would these superintelligent creatures want? What would be their motives? Would they bother to explore the universe and would they even bother to exist?"

I think this is an important point. If we assume there have been many civilizations in our galaxy to reach at least our level of technology, some universal killer must have stopped them from colonizing the galaxy.

It's reasonable to assume that artificial intelligence is necessary for interstellar travel. So that could be it.

What I find very frightening with the Great Silence is this: If we humans had the technology today to travel and colonize the galaxy, would we do it ? I'm very sure we would. It's human nature to explore the unknown, take risks.

But no Aliens have done it, so they must be very different from humans. Furthermore, our chances of surviving as humans and colonizing the galaxy are slim, since no creatures with the same urge to explore have done it in the history of the galaxy.

Will the human way of living and thinking be killed off by AI ?

I have been looking for people with the same interests as me, so we could exchange ideas etc. The subjects would be The Fermi paradox and the technological singularity. Maybe we could create a forum for discussions ?
Please contact me at andersen.martin@gmail.com

Martin Andersen

don't you know that the fuel for these "random" re...

2008-07-16T20:19:00.000-04:00

don't you know that the fuel for these "random" reactions are in most if not all newly formed solar systems try seti.com

The resolution of Fermi's Paradox is easy. Rando...

2008-07-03T12:45:00.000-04:00

The resolution of Fermi's Paradox is easy. Random evolution of sentient life is so rare that most galaxies never have any sentient life, and very few galaxies ever have 2. Humans are the only sentient life in the Milky Way and that will probably be true for billions of years.

Mosts atheists would say that lack of evidence is more than enough proof that God doesn't exist. Using the same criteria there are no other intelligent species in our galaxy.

http://www.spacetimestories.com/commentary/fermis-paradox/

Seems like Fermi Estimations can only be as releva...

2008-06-15T18:58:00.000-04:00

Seems like Fermi Estimations can only be as relevant and accurate as the assumptions they are based on. One could surmise the underlying assumptions we have about intelligent life and/or the universe are not complete enough to form the basis for performing this sort of analysis.

I have yet to see any "learned" reference to the f...

2008-04-17T16:45:51.632-04:00

I have yet to see any "learned" reference to the fact that planets and systems rotate at different speeds in varying planes and angles, sometimetimes with complex motion. This, and obscuring bodies/intersellar crap all conspire to make point to point communication extremely tricky even if two distant civilisations knew where to aim. Add another factor (Alignment) of < 0.0001 to Drakes equation

Andy R

I've solved it. Any alien species that cannot trav...

2008-04-12T20:05:00.000-04:00

I've solved it. Any alien species that cannot travel through space isn't intelligent enough to do so. Any alien species that can is intelligent enough to not make contact with humans.

Great topic and some really interesting posts here...

2008-04-08T15:28:00.000-04:00

Great topic and some really interesting posts here. I would like to add one, which is based on assumptions.

The Fermi paradox is based on many assumptons. One of them is that Evolution will breed intelligence, and intelligence is a higher order of life. And we offcourse are intelligent.

We are mortals. We have memories incapable of remembering a simple ten digit number without considerable effort. We think of ourselves as within our minds beeing like gods. According to Freud we are sex crazed paranoid schizofrenic and above all very influancable cyclebased nutcases. Sleep and death are all that keep us sane. (Sane as in our definition of it) Real intelligence surely would not bother to stay alive?

Maybe the civilizations that beamed radio signals ...

2008-02-12T18:06:00.000-05:00

Maybe the civilizations that beamed radio signals out into space attracted attention and were wiped out...

My little idea is somewhat similar to Talin's post...

2007-12-30T11:46:00.000-05:00

My little idea is somewhat similar to Talin's post (inward expansion of technological civilisations prevails over outward expansion).

It is that the total 'space' (of whatever type, virtual or physical) that is easily accessible for colonisation vastly exceeds the known universe. The probability of any two civilisations meeting in this larger space - which includes the known universe - is therefore *extremely* low.

A key factor in my reasoning is that such space is energetically and practically very easy to reach by beings only slightly more advanced than Homo Sapiens.

Isn't colonization (of the galaxy) a 19th century ...

2007-11-15T15:07:19.226-05:00

Isn't colonization (of the galaxy) a 19th century concept? Society is struggling to find its way towards living in balance with its environment, in a sustainable way. If we achieve this, what need is there for constant expansion? Isn't it being rather immature to always want more? So maybe ET societies just settle into comfortable middle age - of course, all it takes is one exception to the rule...

I agree that we simply don't have enough information to make even an educated guess at this time. It is interesting to note however, that in choosing a random point in the history of life on earth one is unlikely to see technological intelligence, so I suspect that intelligent life is exceedingly rare, and given our current problems, probably short lived.

I think it is hubris to state that the universe is "designed" to make the emergence of life inevitable. It is in fact extremely toxic to life - try living outside our thin strip of atmosphere! Even if certain cosmological values seem "fine-tuned", is this any different to an ant claiming that because the cracks in the pavement provide it with a benevolent environment, then the whole city must have been built to this end!

I doubt that fleshy water diffusion intelligence w...

2007-11-14T21:57:33.591-05:00

I doubt that fleshy water diffusion intelligence would travel. Even with the atmosphere-equivalent of 10 metres of ice shielding, the time-to-decay of secondaries would fry them.
ie you need that 10km of atmosphere to allow secondaries time to decay.
So that leaves solid-state, ie built, not grown intelligences.
Problem here is robot-drug-addiction. Lets say the robot has a "Travel is Good" register which keeps it on it's merry way. Because it has its own schematic, it knows the location of the "Travel-Dispersion = pleasure" register,, so it simply sets it to "Full = happy" and ceases to travel. Humans dont have schematics (yet) so crude Morphine loading isn't fully satisfying (ie. its boring, we need to find the "bored" register/accumulater and set it to "empty"? As Burroughs said, junkies are not interesting/interested, they sit around staring at their toes all day), and the rulers tend to throw you in prison if you use morphine every day.
How to keep that robot traveller travelling? Wetlife loves dispersion second only to reproduction, but its just an urge/itch, which solidlife will always (?) override?

Hi, just a passer-by here. Though I've not read mu...

2007-11-05T17:22:07.173-05:00

Hi, just a passer-by here. Though I've not read much about the simulation theory, as I currently understand it I have to object to it on moral grounds. How could a race seek to recreate all the suffering in its history?

I think that any possible earlier technological ET...

2007-10-31T13:37:01.132-04:00

I think that any possible earlier technological ET civilizations would become more efficient at using energy as they gained more knowledge of physics.
I also think that their efficiency with energy would make them subtle by nature, and not easily detected.
They could already be here in your bloodstream or in your brain, their mega society might have colonized all of humanity and all the biosphere but we might be too technologically primitive to detect them.
Either that or the prime real estate for profligate energy wasters is nearer the galactic core!

I think wow gold is better than world of warcraft ...

2007-10-21T03:17:57.459-04:00

I think wow gold is better than world of warcraft gold i always Buy WoW gold with cheap wow gold so u Do u like play nba live with nba live 2008 can play wow gold also then Buy WoW gold need to world of warcraft gold u can go google排名 or cheap wow gold i think its google左侧排名

I read that Fermi came up with his paradox equatio...

2007-09-23T19:43:34.326-04:00

I read that Fermi came up with his paradox equation over lunch, casually. If that's so, then he did it in less time than it's taken me to read through all these fascinating posts.

In other words, even though its been elaborated later, the so-called paradox itself has an inbuilt flaw - not half enough time was given to thinking through the variables and mitigating factors. We may be chasing our tails here (highly stimulating though that is!) trying to solve a paradox that is essentially only a semantic riddle or lunchbreak musing.

I suspect we're all still thinking within the box here - even though there are some thoughtful attempts to climb out. We are maybe - per Einstein's observation - trying to solve a problem at the level at which it is experienced, with the same tools that created it.

Maybe we are not wired to be able to think outside these bounds - who can truly imagine 10 dimensions of string theory? What if intelligent life is indeed absolutely teeming all around us in those dimensions? I could, I suppose, build an argument for that along the lines of 'nature never wastes anything': why would 'nature' waste all those vast tracts of space and all those billions of stars etc...? Perhaps all those stars are there for completely other reasons than we are able to imagine...? I don't know...maybe they generate the right quality of quantum fluctuations to sustain the right vibrations for all those strings...maybe they produce the right flavour of neutrinos to shoot off all over the universe and give just the right background hum for strings...?

Maybe it only looks to us that the universe is perfectly tuned for our evolution because we can't imagine that it's actually infinitely better tuned for intelligences that exist in higher dimensions?

Maybe humans or any intelligent life in 4 dimensions are simply a total aberration, a rare by-product - like 6 digits instead of 5 - when, in fact, the real party's in full swing amongst the strings....?