I interpreted "I don't doubt that" as "I am certain that". Was I wrong?
Established Member
I interpreted "I don't doubt that" as "I am certain that". Was I wrong?
Order of Kilopi
How technical can we get with a single example of advanced civ, one that has yet to move off planet?Originally Posted by Lonewulf
I think it is the extra terrestrial hypothesis for a reason, based on speculation as it is.
Well, that and some back of the envelope calculations as it were.
Perhaps I should've phrased myself differently...
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Not unless you really thought we'd wandered out of speculative territory and I had evidence of a galactic civilization.
When I said "I don't doubt," in my mind, I was thinking "we don't know enough either way, it's entirely plausible."
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
There is nothing anthropocentric about saying that a species simply has not advanced sufficiently to indulge in interstellar travel - either they have achieved the necessary level of technology or they have not. If not then they are not going to be around here any time soon.
As for saying they have not "budgeted" for it whilst I may be using a human fiscal expression that is simply a "shorthand" way of stating the obvious that interstellar travel will require the allocation of resources (probably considerable resources) regardless of the type of species and whatever passes for culture among them. Starships don't come for free, regardless of whether you are humanoid, insectoid, hive intelligence or any other type of multi-cellular lifeform. Therefore it is quite possible that any such species may well choose to use those resources for other purposes (purposes that we humans might find difficult to comprehend) than sending some of its biological components on a journey of many light years. There is nothing anthropocentric about that either, just that for any complex organism considering insterstellar colonisation "there is no free lunch".
Established Member
Oh well. I suppose it's an idiom with which I am unfamiliar.
Order of Kilopi
Yeah, I should've phrased it differently.
Oh well.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Fine, though this still doesn't change the fact that your starting assumption- "You cannot apply the Fermi Paradox as proof that there are lots of spacefaring species but they just decide to avoid contact with us." - was wrong.
Did I apply it as "proof" of anything or was I asking someone else's opinion as to whether or not it too constituted an "assumption with little basis?"
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
Well when you said this earlier
That sounds very much like someone trying to tell us that assuming there are aliens species "buzzing" around us is the obvious position to take.
I say that given the unconvincing "evidence" to the contrary it is equally credible to assume that we may well be one of the most advanced species as yet to evolve in our Galaxy. The few that have progressed further than us may only be a little more advanced and certainly not able to buzz around us now or 4,000 years ago. Quite frankly to suggest otherwise is an act of faith not reasoning. Of course we might in distant millennia discover that we were the very first species to transport itself beyond the atmosphere of it's home planet, who knows. There could be aliens "buzzing" around the stars, but to claim that it is more probable than we are the first, is to apply reasoning that is not supported by hard fact.
Established Member
Have the search for alien life really made any progress at all? Can there be anything between evidence of it and non-evidence?
The best pro-argument: it is unbelievable earth is the only "living" world among so many billions of billions logically lead to the following: it is unbelievable there is not very "similar" worlds to our own (at least some of them should be very like earth in many resopects).
Established Member
Until we have bigger space based telescopes we cannot determine what the odds are of finding earthlike planets (right size, right mass, right temperature, with water in liquid form) for all we know it could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 star systems. I think it is reasonable to assume that earth is not only planet like this in the whole galaxy but how many planets like this are there? At the moment that is anyone's guess.
Where a planet like this exists then we are still unable to determine how probable is it that biological activity gets started. Once again we only have our sample of one. It might be reasonable to assume that given enough time some form of life may well get started. What becomes more difficult is to determine if it ever develops the complexity to become a technological species. There have been large multicellular life forms on this planet for nearly 600 million years. For most of that time the "Wild Life" got along just fine without much intelligence. And if one particular group of "tree swingers" had not needed to adapt to climate change at a critical point in the history of life they would never have gone on to develop stone tools, fire, steam engines and the internet. It is perfectly possible that were it not for some little chance event in geology and climate then this planet today would have no roads or cities but just "wildlife". I think we must be prepared to accept that there are a fair proportion of planets that may develop large multicellular species but which never go on to evolve spacefarers before their sun finally scorches them at the end of its life.
Order of Kilopi
Not so, 3rdvogon; what you left out in quoting my post is the final "IMHO."
So, not only am I not telling you it's the obvious position to take (it's my opinion), I didn't apply Fermi's paradox as "proof" as you had suggested.
And so you have "hard fact" supporting a higher probability that we are the first?I say that given the unconvincing "evidence" to the contrary it is equally credible to assume that we may well be one of the most advanced species as yet to evolve in our Galaxy. The few that have progressed further than us may only be a little more advanced and certainly not able to buzz around us now or 4,000 years ago. Quite frankly to suggest otherwise is an act of faith not reasoning. Of course we might in distant millennia discover that we were the very first species to transport itself beyond the atmosphere of it's home planet, who knows. There could be aliens "buzzing" around the stars, but to claim that it is more probable than we are the first, is to apply reasoning that is not supported by hard fact.
Or do you base that notion on your perception of the "unconvincing evidence to the contrary?"
To me, suggesting we may be the first and/or only advanced civ in the galaxy flies in the face of the copernican principle.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
No I do not have hard facts either way and to suggest that one scenario is more probable than any other given the available evidence is wishful thinking.And so you have "hard fact" supporting a higher probability that we are the first?
Or do you base that notion on your perception of the "unconvincing evidence to the contrary?"
To me, suggesting we may be the first and/or only advanced civ in the galaxy flies in the face of the copernican principle.
You are so fond of throwing about the "Copernican Principle" as it comes up so many times in your posts though I doubt its real relevance to this debate.
As I have said before in other posts all we can say is "WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET". To simply suggest that intelligent life must be common or that we have to be the only intelligent life in the Galaxy is to overstate the either case. We cannot produce probability estimates based on the limited data we currently have and that is the end of it until we know more.
Order of Kilopi
"Wishful thinking" or simply optimistic / pessimistic viewpoints?
The copernican principle (or more pertinent to the ETH, mediocrity principle) is entirely relevant to how we perceive ourselves and our planet in this universe.You are so fond of throwing about the "Copernican Principle" as it comes up so many times in your posts though I doubt its real relevance to this debate.
And so you know, antithetical to the mediocrity principle is rare earth hypothesis.
I agree we don't know yet and have never said otherwise.As I have said before in other posts all we can say is "WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET". To simply suggest that intelligent life must be common or that we have to be the only intelligent life in the Galaxy is to overstate the either case. We cannot produce probability estimates based on the limited data we currently have and that is the end of it until we know more.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
Even if intelligent life should happen in multiple places eventually,
there has to be someplace where it happened first
Doesn't necessarily contradict the Copernican principle.
Order of Kilopi
I can agree with this but I have a problem thinking the universe waited 10Gyrs before producing intelligence.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
"Fermi's Paradox" could be better termed "Fermi's Baseless Speculation". There is really nothing to it but assumptions that we don't have enough data to confirm or deny.
Established Member
Based on direct observations of life. Life moves and colonizes/adapts to new environments. It's not unreasonable that life will eventually develope a way to colonize the galaxy.
Myths and religious texts offer only answers. Whether or not they are the right answers, is a matter of opinion.
I don't doubt that eventually a civ will colonize the galaxay.
I don't doubt they already have.
Where are they?
Good question, I guess.
While unproven it seems they're still here buzzing around in our skies.
Why?
Better question.
While unconvincing it seems ancient mythic and religious texts can proffer some insight.
IMHO, of course.
And are you suggesting the airlines are a form of alien life?
Order of Kilopi
Hi Jason.
While I personally don't agree there's a paradox I wouldn't go so far as to term it "baseless speculation."
Do we know the approximate age of the universe?
Are our estimates for the number of stars in the MW galaxy or the universe accepted, or are they vastly overestimated?
Does Earth hold a special place in the cosmos?
I think these are the bases on which Fermi raised his question.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Direct observations of life on Earth, yes. This does nothing to support the theory that they came from outer space.
Panspermia has nothing on Earth-based Abiogenesis, through simple use of Occam's Razor.
Panspermia makes far too many assumptions. While it is not impossible, there is nothing available that makes it any better a theory than simply life evolving here on Earth, with no need for a peripheral "seed".
Order of Kilopi
Quite right.
Indeed, which is why I included the "IMHO."Myths and religious texts offer only answers. Whether or not they are the right answers, is a matter of opinion.
No.And are you suggesting the airlines are a form of alien life?
The remark on them being here buzzing around in our skies regards UFOs et al.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
Never said anything about Panspermia and it is well know, amounst the halls of Yale, that Occam did indeed have a long beard and he rarely shaved.
Life's purpose is to exist? Is it not?
Established Member
Probably not. We have an estimate based on a very limited observation point.
They might very well be, and we have no idea at this point, of the incidence of planets that can support life around those stars.Are our estimates for the number of stars in the MW galaxy or the universe accepted, or are they vastly overestimated?
Unanswerable until we know how rare or plentiful Earthlike worlds really are.Does Earth hold a special place in the cosmos?
As I said, there is a lot of speculation involved here, and very little hard facts.
Order of Kilopi
Can I infer then, that you don't accept the BBT as it is?
I agree much speculation is involved but again, I wouldn't call it "baseless speculation;" rather, I'd say it is educated guessing.They might very well be, and we have no idea at this point, of the incidence of planets that can support life around those stars.
Unanswerable until we know how rare or plentiful Earthlike worlds really are.
As I said, there is a lot of speculation involved here, and very little hard facts.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
It's not so much that I don't think it's a possibility as that I feel we are still extremely ignorant in cosmology in general - due to the fact that we really only have one observation point and have only been making scientific observations for a few hundred years.
But you've only pointed out the most solid portions of the paradox. Other speculations that are part of the paradox, such as how quickly a technologically advanced civilization should appear, what constitutes a technologically advanced civilization (the signs it is theorized we should be able to detect - radio signals, megastructures, etc.), and the idea that intelligent life would chose to colonize the galaxy or contact other intelligences, have only one sample case, which in my opinion isn't enough data to call a "base". Hence my referring to it as "baseless".I agree much speculation is involved but again, I wouldn't call it "baseless speculation;" rather, I'd say it is educated guessing.
Order of Kilopi
I see.
I also think we don't know as much as we think we do about our place in the cosmos.
A single example indeed does not constitute a data"base" so I concur.
Thinking outside the box is difficult, and often frought with conjecture, when we don't even know how big that box is...
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
The mediocraty principle really has no validity, unless you have other good reasons to believe mediocraty is more probable than extremes. ie every planet in our solar system is unique in several ways. Mercury has a very thin plasma atmosphere. Venus is hottest even though it is not closest to the Sun. and rotates slowest and backwards. Earth has over 6 billion intelligent beings. Jupiter is biggest, most mass, and radiates significant amounts of internal heat. Saturn has a spectacular ring system, and the lowest average density. Uranus rotates at about a 90 degree angle with respect to the plane of the orbit of Uranus. Neptune, Earth and Pluto have very large moons in proportion to the size of the planet. There are ways in which each planet is mediocre, but I'm sure there are other properties which are unique, if not extreme, for each planet. I also think Achem's razor, and Fermii's paradox are seriously over rated. Stone's idea that man can achieve what man can conceive is likely nonsense. Neil
Order of Kilopi
Hi Neil.
I disagree.
Mediocrity principle is based on Copernican Principle, which underlies most of cosmology, no?
"We are not the center of the universe" expressed with Cosmological Principle: "Nobody is the center of the universe."
I think it appropriate, and valid, to apply mediocrity to Life in the universe.
Similar ingredients in similar environments produce similar results.
Are earth-like environments rare and extreme?
Of course we don't know, but I wouldn't suggest such based on our technological inability to "see" whether or not there exist similar exoplanets.
Regards
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
I think life is a very special thing. It may or may not be unique to Earth, but even if it is on every ball of mud to orbit a hot ball of gas, it is special. Unfortunately, we don't know much yet.Yes, we can speculate, conjecture, ponder, hypothesize, muse, and guesstimate till the sun goes all red giant on us, but in my view, much of that time would be better spent looking, observing, and finding out. First we check out the neighborhood. Venus, Europa, Titan, everywhere, see if there is life anywhere in the solar system. Then, and while, we check out the stars, first through telescopes, then bigger telescopes, then probes, and then, hopefully, people. At the moment we are like Johnny Five, we definitely need "More Input!". Otherwise these arguments are just going to keep going in circles, as they are presently doing.
Established Member
How do we know there isn't a center? And how do we know we aren't in it?
Order of Kilopi
Good question, I suppose, but are you suggesting a geocentric model?
Is there a "center" of the universe according to BBT?
If so, where do they say it is?
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote