Fermi paradox?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#4
DF96 said:
There are a lot of assumptions underlying the Fermi paradox. It only needs one assumption to be wrong and the paradox falls. For example, the mediocrity principle - which is disputed.
Click to expand...

Its interesting..

Quote from the Wiki..

Mediocrity principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deutsch refers to Stephen Hawking's quote that "The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.", noting that our neighborhood in the universe is not typical (80% of the universe's mass is dark matter) and that a concentration of mass such as our solar system is an "isolated, uncommon phenomenon".

Regards
M. Gregg
 
#5
Once we accept that any travel, communication or interaction will be limited to sub-luminal velocities a very practical problem arises. Aside from listening passively, any investment in exploration and outreach requires that those making the investment spend the money while fully expecting that they will not live to see results. Interstellar voyagers who can surmount the funding issue do so while condemning themselves and their progeny to lifetimes out of touch on a one way voyage. Despite the military impetus that was behind our early spacefaring the clear trend since is a lack of public interest, funding or determination to take even the small steps that might lead to broader exploration. The only interstellar voyaging that gets attention does so with imaginary space-time warping that makes the galaxy broadly accessible in short timeframes.

If we accept the mediocrity principle, that earth is ordinary and humans are humdrum, and we examine our dwindling exploratory impetus and our increasingly shorter attention span as a culture we should conclude that intelligent life may naturally evolve in directions that elevate reality TV and doom interstellar outreach.
 
#7
The paradox projects the current 100 year span of our technology which could conceivably bridge interstellar distances and assumes infinitely more advanced civilizations still pound megawatts into the air for entertainment. Maybe something we don't yet understand impedes signals, who knows?
 
#9
Once probability was given a place in the real world, rather than just in our understanding of it, all sorts of weird inferences became possible.

Mediocre is value-laden; what's wrong with normal?

Surely we are normal, and special, simply because we are us? Elsewhere there is not us, and that is normal too. We can't rule out a possibility that life exists elsewhere, but we have no way of estimating what the probability is until we have some evidence. We're not evidence because we're us.
 
#10
PlasticIsGood said:
Surely we are normal, and special, simply because we are us? Elsewhere there is not us, and that is normal too. We can't rule out a possibility that life exists elsewhere, but we have no way of estimating what the probability is until we have some evidence. We're not evidence because we're us.
Click to expand...

Yes however,

Think of the impact of knowing either..

A.There is nothing else..just us.

B.There is other life..

Can "A" ever be answered without "B" ?

Assuming the universe is infinite<<<it might not be..then we could only say well there is nothing everywhere we have observed or visited.

Here is a thought...if advanced aliens were sending out messages using quantum entanglement would we know about it? Would an advanced race use a communication that was limited to the speed of light over vast distances?

Cavemen listening for a shout across the valley..with no radio reciever?

The universe should be teaming with messages...so why isn't it?
Even if the messages were the low tech kind before they advanced..
So what does it mean if there is only us? Is it impossible to advance beyond a technological point..ie can we know all there is to know?

Regards
M. Gregg
 
Last edited:
#15
The longest range signals sent from the Earth (VHF TV) are unlikely to be detectable beyond 100 LY. Modern digital signals won't make it more than a few LY and look too much like noise to detect easily.
While we can do paper design of fairly fast ships using ground laser or nuclear fusion drives, these have to be stripped down in weight far too much to shield the crew for centuries of interstellar radiation
 
#16
davidsrsb said:
The longest range signals sent from the Earth (VHF TV) are unlikely to be detectable beyond 100 LY. Modern digital signals won't make it more than a few LY ....
Click to expand...

Covering a city with an electronic transport medium detectable from distant stars is incredibly primitive and inefficient. Since this paradox was first advanced TV antennas were largely replaced by cable and analogue NTSC by lower powered ATSC transmitters. In many cases the power difference is three orders of magnitude.
This is over the span of 50 years. In the millions forming the foundation of Fermi's objection it's impossible to know, and far from a given to predict, how more hypothetically advanced civilizations will move information.
 
Last edited:
#17
M Gregg said:
Yes however,

Think of the impact of knowing either..

A.There is nothing else..just us.

B.There is other life..

Can "A" ever be answered without "B" ?

Assuming the universe is infinite<<<it might not be..then we could only say well there is nothing everywhere we have observed or visited.

Here is a thought...if advanced aliens were sending out messages using quantum entanglement would we know about it? Would an advanced race use a communication that was limited to the speed of light over vast distances?

Cavemen listening for a shout across the valley..with no radio reciever?

The universe should be teaming with messages...so why isn't it?
Even if the messages were the low tech kind before they advanced..
So what does it mean if there is only us? Is it impossible to advance beyond a technological point..ie can we know all there is to know?

Regards
M. Gregg
Click to expand...


The universe isn't infinite.
Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#18
chris661 said:
The universe isn't infinite.
Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

This would also be reflected in string theory..

Michio Kaku Explains String Theory - YouTube

However life across the universe is going to be much older than at this point.
So where are the ships as big as planets? The constant chatter of communication?

Just a few thoughts..

If the universe was "like" a drop of pond water ie it is conducive to life then if you could see it under a microscope it should be teaming with microbes and life should be abundant..ie like earth everywhere we see life..if life could exist everywhere it would be in space like an ocean..
We think life can exist anywhere by looking at the depths of the ocean..then we go to the moon..nothing...mars nothing yet...so life can't exist anywhere..its selective.<<<how selective..

If life came from comets then they must have hit other worlds so why not on the moon or mars?

How many hand types (not human) can you think of that could build something...to communicate you have to theoretically build a transmitter.
Every scifi film I see I have to think well they have another species that build the technology..because their hands could not build the things in the space craft or wepons like hand guns etc. Small components or robotics<<who builds the robots? Yes our equipment is built partly by robotics..but its single task ie the robot hand is for a specific job.

Regards
M. Gregg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom