The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox
Currently, the main hypothesis explaining the Fermi paradox is that the life is too rare at our universe, other civilizations are too far from us. One of the versions of this hypothesis is that abiogenesis is too low-probable. I have already criticized this hypothesis, separating rarity in space and rarity in time. And here is another reasoning - the anthropic principle. As far as I understand, the idea of a multiverse, or a multitude of universes with different laws of nature, is mainstream in modern science. So it turns out logically that there should be "universes with the Fermi paradox" and "universes without it", i.e. in the first universes life is rare in the metagalaxy, and in the second - often. And it should be so that since in the second universes there are more universes with inhabited planets - then for us the probability of being born in a universe of the second type is higher, i.e. we should see many extraterrestrial civilizations around us. And since we dont see this, this turns out to be a refutation of the hypothesis about the rarity of life in the universe. We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.
Comments (51)
Nonsense! If they truly existed, they would find a way to contact us, the same way we had been trying for decades now. "harm" is non-knowledge, it is one human cop out explanation for why things didn't happen. No existents would erase their civilization willingly so other civilization could thrive.
Just think of dinosaurs, which were on a different wavelength than us. They did not willingly go on extinction.
I see. So, I'm inclined to conclude that, as members of this forum, we have not been paying attention to much of what were posted here.
This is from @Wayfarer's thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12247/james-webb-telescope/p1
It could peek into the distant past of 13.7 B years.
It could also turn out to be a glass on the wall of a deaf/mute couple discussing Einstein's theories, absolutely useless.
If we do not know their method of communication, we might never stumble upon the thousands of cold calls their insurance companies have been making to us. We might even have blocked them without knowing it.
Extra question: Is the Fermi paradox actually a paradox? Or just two statements about different topics?
Ah, fair point. Their method of communication might be different. And yet, radioactivity is the universal language of the entire universe.
There are 118 known elements in the universe, 92 found on Earth. Apparently, if there undiscovered elements, our scientists could predict what they are.
If aliens exist, they don't have much freedom as to what radioactivity they could emit -- they don't have the smorgasbord of elements to combine into their supersignal so that, like you said, we could block or trace them.
I strongly believe that we have not blocked them.
Now, there are regions of the universe without matter, otherwise known as perfect vacuum. I don't suppose we will find the aliens there.
You suppose, entirely without any base, that they are at least as advanced as we are.
Quoting L'éléphant
Since it is actually just about a hundred years ago that other galaxies were proven to exist, it might just be there are many more that they could not predict yet.
At any rate, having this knowledge is in no way a guarantee that we have similar methods of communication. I thought that I had made that obvious in the comment about the glass and the deaf mute people on the other side of the wall. But you could also try giving that data to a tribesman in the Amazon and see how far you get with communication.
Quoting L'éléphant
And exactly what is their "supersignal" going to be like? And what would we need to do to receive it?
Edit: "Advanced" as we are? I don't know if I've given that impression -- but I had implied that if there signs of intelligent life, we have the technology to pick it up.
Normally, signs of intelligent life include but not limited to living beings and their tools. Bottom line -- they could be more advanced or less advanced but we have not shown that either exists out there.
Quoting Sir2u
Possibly.
Quoting Sir2u
But we are referring to the same universe you and I exist in. That's what I meant when I said, there's not much signals except the radioactivity because the universe is made of those elements.
Quoting Sir2u
I made up that name to make a point that if they are giving signals, the Hubble and JW telescope could trace them.
From a 2020 thread Aliens!
Quoting 180 Proof
The fact that we have not received any signals does not mean that they are not out there, it just means that we have not received signals. We are in no position to say that we know all about the possible methods of communication between the stars.
What if they are still using smoke signals, live under water, have invented some sort of faster than light method, live on a planet that never has a direct line of sight with the earth, or are telepathic. Maybe they don't believe in extraterrestrial beings and see no point in trying to communicate.Just because they live in the same universe does not mean that they are like us in any way. Or maybe they just don't care.
I think that one of the biggest problems would be in the alien home world itself. It is doubtful that very many of the radio type signals leaving the earth are actually being received by anyone out there, so it is doubtful that they even know we are here.
Contrary to what a lot of people believe it is probably not that easy to detect soap opera transmissions over in the next solar system unless they are really trying. To reach over the distance between stars a very high powered, tight bean signal would need to transmitted over a long period of time directly at the target planet for them to detect it and figure out it was a signal to them. But they would need to be listening in the right direction as well. How much would it cost to be either listening for or transmitting these signals. Do you think that the earths economy would support such endeavors?
Then they would have to overcome language barriers first, to translate the data into something recognizable.
Yes. Or maybe we have received their signals but our systems lack the sensitivity and/or bandwidth to distinguish those signals from the cosmic background noise (e.g. maybe they use neutrinos rather than EM waves). That would also filter us out as still too primitive (e.g. one of many Kardashev Level less-than-1 species) to reveal themselves to.
Yes, that is basically what I said to L'éléphant. But it might even be possible that they use fermions. That would be a more appropriate.
Yes, they probably would.
One question though, would you be interested in investing in an expensive blue-ray machine just in-case a company in Russia might release a movie with that technology in the next 20 years? Or possible buy a wax cylinder manufacturing company in-case some music company plans to release songs on them in a couple of decades.
Maybe they feel the same way.
Just how trivial do you think it might be? The ability to do something like sending probes to other parts of the universe in no way implies the need, want, or even financial capability to do so.
As I asked earlier, are you prepared to spend money on something that might not give any results or benefit?.
There is another good reason that might explain why the have not communicated with us, maybe there goods have convinced them that they are alone in the universe so they are not interest in looking.
Judging other species by human standards is the first mistake, even human tribes have shown to have great differences in their way of thinking, seeing and doing things.
Is there any guarantee that other highly intelligent and knowledgeable species would be space fairing?
Even if the greatest members of an alien species are capable of space travel, there is no guarantee that the rest of the population will let them do it. NASA was almost shut down several times because of the expenses and only a few private ones are running.
If a very intelligent alien species develops on a planet that does not have the natural minerals and elements necessary for space travel, what would they do?
If they developed on a world where there were no predators and that they were at the top of the ladder from day one, would they have defensive reflexes like humans do?
To call humans space fairing is a bit of a misnomer I think, even if Musk make it to Mars in a couple of years.
I know several very intelligent people that have little or no curiosity at all, so we cannot even say that it is common in humans.
Quoting RogueAI
So you think that it might be possible for life to develop on more that one planet in the same solar system? I did not say that they would look for life in other galaxies, just in other parts of their own.
And one last possibility, how about a very intelligent race that has no appendages. They could quite easily conquer their own world, but operate tool? How would they become technologically advanced? There might be hundreds of planets containing intelligent life out there, why would we be so sure that they can or want to communicate with other species? Maybe there are even others like us, listening to the skies and wondering why no one is calling but do not know how to receive the messages either. I use WhatsApp, you use Telegram, how do we arrange a meeting?
Man should stop thinking the universe runs in his image, cuase it just don't.
Concepts of defense and self-preservation are going to be universal.
:100:
And probably, imo, "they" are not even are no longer "species" but instead spacefaring AI probes (operationally independent of their long ago left behind biological makers)..
You will be assimilated whether you fucking like it or not. :rofl:
Quoting RogueAI
Technical advancement is a funny thing, it tends to go in the direction of needs. On a world that has a high population and a late start in technology, they might be 100% towards feeding and housing their people. I cannot imagine the cost of a tight beam of neutrinos being directed at a distant planet would cheep thing to accomplish for a planet. Even if the know how to do it they would probably spend their resources creating better methods of producing food..
Quoting RogueAI
I might agree with self preservation if you agree that it means keeping yourself alive and reproducing. Defense implies there is something to protect from, what if there are no dangers where the super intelligent being live. Would the instinct still develop?
Quoting Linkey
Another reason they don't come looking for us, we only have 2 legs and are not cute enough to be pets. :rofl:
There are always dangers in this universe. Wandering black holes, gamma ray bursts, solar flares, and of course, a possible nearby alien civilization more powerful than oneself.
Yes indeed, all of those do exist. Not all stars have solar flares as intense as our sun, and it would make for an even more ideal place for life to evolve.
How many times has humanity had to deal with the rest of these dangers? Why would it be different for them?
But I am glad that you think there are others out there, even if you believe that they will be bad guys that we need to defend ourselves from.
It is seeing whole galaxies, not planets, much less detecting radio waves coming from them.
I agree with everything you said.
I tend to wonder about why so many believe technologically advanced life is SO probable, that we're like to find it (or vice versa). Are they assuming teleology- that intelligent life is "meant to be?" Are they overly influenced by watching science fiction?
No doubt. \\//_ :nerd:
I read and watch a lot of Sci-Fi, but I try hard to remember that they are fiction, even the hard Sci-Fi stories based on real facts.
No idea about that, but just because we don't understand it does not mean it is not possible. We did not even know there were other galaxies until a 100 years ago.
Quoting Relativist
How much life there is out there, I have no idea either. So many movies and books have beings that are literally monsters, blobs, massive spiders and scorpion like things, and the drive space ships with tools and instruments that look as if they are made for humans.
If you think about it, humanoid is the ideal type of being for developing technology. Crab like pincers, sucker cups, long claws and so on would probably not get far inventing tools let alone high tech stuff.
Hands of some sort I think would be a necessary part of tool development.
It's logically possible, just like it's logically possible we could work magic, or summon demons, if we just had the right incantation. There's really not much difference, when we start considering possibilities that contradict science that is as well established as relativity.
Quoting Sir2u
The best guess is that conditions need to be similar to earth's: goldilocks zone orbiting a star liquid water, heavy elements in sufficient abundance.
And that's just for life. We humans are the unlikely consequence of a series of environmental/evolutionary accidents- so the probability of life with similar intelligence seems quite low.
Even if there may be life with such intelligence, it's not inevitable that it would be inclined toward science and technology - particularly the relevant technology that would make itself known, or travel - instead of making its lives richer in other ways, or self-destructing (like we might).
That life is improbable is supported by the fact that we're nowhere close to figuring out abiogenesis. This suggests it requires a narrow set of conditions.
It is not the possibility of intelligent life that I'm arguing, it is its probability. Only one species developed our level of intelligence on earth, and I see no reason to think that was inevitable. (If intelligent design is true, then it may indeed be probable, but I'm very skeptical of that).
Absolutely it's probable there's other intelligent life somewhere in this vast, old universe. The issue is whether or not it exists close enough to us (in both time and distance) to even be detectable. For the reasons stated above, I think that's highly improbable. If you think I'm wrong, give me some basis to think it's probable.
Events that are unexplainable by current science is usually indistinguishable from magic. Or do you think our scientists know all about the universe already?
Quoting Relativist
https://www.littlepassports.com/blog/space/how-many-stars-are-in-the-universe/
https://access-ci.org/billions-and-billions-of-stars/
Considering that the Milky Way, our home galaxy, has over 100 billion stars in it.
100% = 100,000,000,000
1% = 1,000,000,000
0.1% = 10,000,000
0.01%= 1,000,000
If we count only one hundredth of one percent of the stars in the Milky Way as possibly having a planet in the Goldilocks zone, that is still a million planets that might contain the elements of life. If we count only one hundredth of one percent of those as possibly containing life, that still leaves us with a hundred possibilities. Obviously the one percent possibility of there being intelligent life on any of those planets could explain us being here. And all of those without looking outside of our galaxy.
Quoting Relativist
That is what I have been saying all along, We might just be the poor people in the neighborhood and so they ignore us.
Hardly. None of them had a human level of intelligence.
Quoting tim wood
The most well-supported hypothesis is the Universal Common Ancestor, which implies life began under exactly one environment. The oxygen catastrophe was a consequence of life that was already present, and changed the environment - sending evolution into another direction. There are a host of environmental changes that occurred in the evolutionary sequence from abiogenesis to humans, and thus many accidents that collectively/sequentially led to our existence. As I said, we're improbable.
You're conflating "unexplainable events" with fanciful possibilities.
Quoting Sir2u
We could only possibly look for such planets within a relatively short distance from us: a sphere centered from earth out to a fraction of the volume of the Milky Way. I would not be much surprised if we DID find life eventually, but intelligent life seems many orders of magnitude less probable.
[Quote]Obviously the one percent possibility of there being intelligent life on any of those planets could explain us being here. And all of those without looking outside of our galaxy.[/quote]
Detecting life outside the galaxy seems extremely far fetched. 1% probability of intelligence developing seems grossly optimistic. On earth, only 1 out of 8.7 Million species have a human level of intelligence.
More pertinent: I see intelligence as just one (complex) trait that life can possibly develop out of an uncountably large number of possible traits. This implies an extremely low probability.
And you are conflating unknown possibility with improbable probabilities. I think you missed the point.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke
Earths scientists still do not know a lot about earth itself, no one can say what might be possible in other parts of the universe. Even if the laws of the universe are standard, we still do not know all of them.
Quoting Relativist
So how can anyone be so sure that there are no other intelligent beings out there?
Quoting Relativist
A million stars is only about one tenth of one percent of the stars in the Milky way. Once again, we still know very little about our own planet
https://www.the-sun.com/tech/12417100/bluestreak-cleaner-wrasse-self-awareness-mirror-study-japan/
Quoting Relativist
But even low probabilities are not the same as impossibilities.
Maybe you don't realize what I was talking about. I was referring to faster than light travel and traveling through hyperspace. The former is physically impossible if General Relativity is true. GR is one of the best established, and most verified, theories in physics establishing it as a law of nature, describing something fundamental about the universe.
Regarding hyperspace- that's pure speculation that it both exists and is traversible. Again, it's logically possible, but there's no basis to consider bare possibilities like these as plausible.
Clarke's claim doesn't apply. He was referring to unexplained things we observe. We haven't observed FTL travel or hyperdrive. It's not an excuse to treat the implausible as plausible.
Quoting Sir2u
We are able observe galaxies at the edge of the visible universe, and have encountered no evidence inconsistent with GR. If there are island universes beyond ours (another speculation) it's moot to the discussion because they are clearly out of reach.
Quoting Sir2u
Of course, but l'm talking probabilities.
There is a broader epistemological issue regarding how we treat possibilities. If you're going to take one bare possibility seriously, then shouldn't you take all of them seriously?
Most of the species that were listed had brain sizes closer to chimpanzees than to humans. But OK, let's step back in the taxonomy. All are genus homo. So only one genus out of 300,000 genera. And the common ancestor of genus homo came to exist because of the environment in which some accidental, random genetic mutations happened to have a survival advantage. Same with its ancestry: a survival advantage at each stage in its evolutionary history.
So 1 out of 300K genera, but that doesn't really identify the probability that the specific series of random genetic mutations from its abiogenetic ancestor on down to the first genus homo, made the genus probable.
[I]"Maybe life developed in multiple environments and then interacted. "[/i]
Speculation. The fact is, we haven't figured out how abiogenesis occurred, despite decades of work, so the set of conditions that can produce life is narrow enough to have escaped all our research.
[Quote]Maybe life developed in multiple environments and then interacted. The problem is that you have guesses and an apparent bias, all of which you think is knowledge. And it isn't. Maybe they're good and educated guesses, but not knowledge.[/quote]
OK, straighten me out to correct the bias you perceive.
Do you consistently treat propositions that are merely logically possible as worth giving serious consideration?
Or perhaps you can identify some epistemic warrant I'm overlooking that establishes the possibilities that you bring up as something more than a bare logical possibility?
I ask, because my "bias" is to give no consideration to propositions that are merely logically possible. I need something more, and that seems the most reasonable approach. That's why I don't take conspiracy theories seriously: someone jumps to a biased conclusion and then applies confirmation bias in seeking facts to support the theory.
It is logically possible there's an elephant in your backyard, but I doubt you would treat this possibility as worthy of consideration. Now imagine a person who's obsessed with elephants, who would be delighted to encounter one. He might give it more consideration.
Quoting tim wood
Sure, it's logically possible there are many ways life could arise. How do you factor this additional bare logical possibility into the analysis? It's also logically possible Yahweh directly created life on earth, and that this is the only way life can begin. Explain whether that possibility is worth equal consideration.
From your PM:
Point me at such a video. I could only find videos and articles that support what I said. (Examples: https://youtu.be/BhG_QZl8WVY?si=U7OH2jr-APmkv8E3, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light)
I hope you aren't confusing the universe's expansion with travel within the universe.
I'm perfectly fine with you exposing an error in my thinking. That's how we learn. In this case, it seems that we disagree regarding how much consideration we give to bare logical possibility, OR there's some factor I'm overlooking that shows these possibilities are more than merely logically possible.
Ok, but I seem to remember reading about a time when gravity was an absolute law and then man found a way to overcome it and even use it to their benefit. Could it be in some way possible that humans are capable of overcoming or even utilizing other laws of the universe to their own benefit? And again we still do not know all of the laws.
I also seem to remember that Quantum physics is not entirely compatible with GR and that there are several theories being proposed to unite them. String theory proposes several dimension, which leaves quite a lot of possibilities for future discoveries.
You're conflating folk wisdom with a theory developed through the methodologies of science. Folk wisdom is a product of inductive inference (seeing no exceptions to observation) and assumed true without testing and with no attempt to establish a scientific basis for the assumption.
Scientific theories are developed through abduction: proposing hypothesis that explains something that lacks explanation, testing that theory against known facts, and making predictions that are beyond current empirical evidence - and then experimentally verifying those predictions. Relativity made a number of predictions that no one previously anticipated: the deflection of light by large gravitational fields,gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, black holes, red shift; time dilation, the big bang.
Quoting Sir2u
Once again, you're conflating logical possibility with plausibility. I also sense a bit of wishful thinking in there. Are you a theist?
Quoting Sir2u
Right - general relativity breaks down in the conditions of the very early universe, when the diameter of the current visible universe was around 1.5 meters (see this). But we're dealing with the universe in its current state - where no exceptions to relativity have have been discovered and many predictions have been confirmed.
The speed of light (C) is a physical constant that corresponds to the light's velocity in a vacuum. The scenario in the video does not entail exceeding C, it entails slowing down light to a level that can be exceeded by non-light.
Quoting tim wood
Same thing. It's described here::
[i]"Cherenkov radiation ... is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium (such as distilled water) [u]at a speed greater than the phase velocity (speed of propagation of a wavefront in a medium) of light in that medium[
Quoting tim wood
Entanglement is instantaneous, but irrelevant to travel and communication. (see this).
Quoting tim wood
You got me: I was using an incorrect statistic, but my point stands that there's no basis to assume intelligence is probable. You ignored my more relevant point: the probability that the specific series of random genetic mutations from its abiogenetic ancestor on down to the first genus homo suggests intelligence is low probability.
Quoting tim wood
My idea of life is pretty basic: molecules that self-replicate with some degree of accuracy. Do you have a less restrictive definition?
I don't get why you bring up teleology. I earlier noted that if teleology is true, then life is more probable. However, I don't think it's true, and I've implicitly treated that as a premise in everything I've said.
Useful fictions are useful in helping to understand something, but are red herrings in a discussion where I've already indicated ~teleology is a premise.
Quoting tim wood
You're verging on being rude. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were trying to be funny, but try a little harder to avoid saying things that could sound demeaning.
Quoting tim wood
Sounds like you agree with me that something more is needed than mere logical possibility to make it worth considering.
This is consistent with what I told you earlier:
Quoting Relativist
Quoting tim wood
I chose to ignore the insult, but instead responded to the sense of what you said: "I'm perfectly fine with you exposing an error in my thinking."
The only error you've exposed was in my incorrect statistic about the number of "intelligent" species, and I acknowledged that. I could nitpick your claim about "1 in 10 planets have life", because we've examined some exoplanets as well. I saw no need to do that, because I think I understood the gist of your point.
Was it perhaps also the "speed of light" thing - that I didn't explicitly refer to the constant C (because I assumed it would be understood, given the context of FTL travel - flying faster than C). You could easily have said, "oh, you must mean the constant "C", because it's well known that light travels slower in a medium". So your making an issue of it seems disingenous.
Quoting tim wood
Then what is it that you disagree with me about? Is it just that I exercised "too little care" when I said only one species developed human-level intelligence, and/or that I didn't make it clear that by "FTL travel", I was referring to traveling faster than C?
:gasp: That might work in Russia, not sure about the rest of the world though.
Quoting Relativist
Ok. You are set in your way of thinking. You have no faith in humanities abilities to solve problems that are supposed to be unsolvable. Even though science is still young we have made great strides in understanding the universe.
As for wishful thinking, I think that there are many scientist that are STILL studying and investigating methods of FTL travel so maybe they are guilty of it. To me personal, I really don't care either way, I am too old to be able to take a trip to the stars.
And no I am not.
Quoting Relativist
I don't think I suggested that GR was in anyway wrong, But it is most likely still incomplete. Just as GR did not disprove Newton's theories, I would expect a newer theory to expand upon it. I cannot really believe that at some point in the future someone will not be able to complete a theory that explains everything about the universe and maybe show how FTL travel could be accomplished.
Edited
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scientist-disputes-big-bang-actually-171036722.html
Dark forest doesn't work because you can't hide the biosignatures your planet has been giving off for the last billion years.