An existential problem in the search for alien life(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
An existential problem in the search for alien life
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/12/defining-life-existentialism-scientific-theory/676238/
80 comments
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This really is a story that should have more visibility.
If aliens don’t exist, why are defense contractors trying so hard to shut down a bill that simply says “show us what you know about aliens”?
If aliens don’t exist, why are defense contractors trying so hard to shut down a bill that simply says “show us what you know about aliens”?
> If aliens don’t exist, why are defense contractors trying so hard to shut down a bill that simply says “show us what you know about aliens”?
By the same logic, then “why would OpenAI and a bunch of big tech companies lobby so hard for AI ‘safety’ legislation, if AGI wasn’t close to existing [or already existed]? It means that we are close to AGI!”
As you can see, that type of reasoning doesn’t tend to lead to reasonable answers. And with the AI “safety” legislation, there have been plenty discussions on HN already, with the consensus being “they are doing it to secure their position at the top through regulatory capture, inflate their perception of importance [aka drive more money their way], and choke out new entrants.”
I don’t see it being that much different of a scenario with “alien bills”.
By the same logic, then “why would OpenAI and a bunch of big tech companies lobby so hard for AI ‘safety’ legislation, if AGI wasn’t close to existing [or already existed]? It means that we are close to AGI!”
As you can see, that type of reasoning doesn’t tend to lead to reasonable answers. And with the AI “safety” legislation, there have been plenty discussions on HN already, with the consensus being “they are doing it to secure their position at the top through regulatory capture, inflate their perception of importance [aka drive more money their way], and choke out new entrants.”
I don’t see it being that much different of a scenario with “alien bills”.
> If aliens don’t exist, why are defense contractors trying so hard to shut down a bill that simply says “show us what you know about aliens”?
Convince me that you have told me everything that you know about aliens. If not, i will force you to open up your IP for scrutiny and, possibly, any passing Russian ambassadors.
Convince me that you have told me everything that you know about aliens. If not, i will force you to open up your IP for scrutiny and, possibly, any passing Russian ambassadors.
> If aliens don’t exist, why are defense contractors trying so hard to shut down a bill that simply says “show us what you know about aliens”?
Because if they say "Nothing" will you shut up and believe them?
Of course not.
You can't prove a negative like this.
And there are lots of things that would be "alien adjacent" and would give away what military abilities we have to detect things.
At this point, the military has less ability than the people on this axis. We have billions of people with phones in multiple countries that can record with video everywhere. If aliens existed in anything that was more than a super-ultra-rare one-off, supressing the evidence in this day and age would be beyond impossible.
As for the contractors: it's almost certainly because the government isn't providing any funding in the amendment. The contractors would happily charge lots of money to compile a multi-thousand page report that effectively says "Nothing" if you paid them to. That's their whole bloody business model, for crying out loud.
Because if they say "Nothing" will you shut up and believe them?
Of course not.
You can't prove a negative like this.
And there are lots of things that would be "alien adjacent" and would give away what military abilities we have to detect things.
At this point, the military has less ability than the people on this axis. We have billions of people with phones in multiple countries that can record with video everywhere. If aliens existed in anything that was more than a super-ultra-rare one-off, supressing the evidence in this day and age would be beyond impossible.
As for the contractors: it's almost certainly because the government isn't providing any funding in the amendment. The contractors would happily charge lots of money to compile a multi-thousand page report that effectively says "Nothing" if you paid them to. That's their whole bloody business model, for crying out loud.
Money? I guess money. Show that they know nothing about aliens and suddenly a few billion are wiped because a few projects had to close down? Idk I’m honestly just speculating
I mean, it's pointless legislation; it has the usual "unless disclosure would 'substantially impair the national security of the United States'" loopholes.
Are there any Congressional representatives not "funded by defense contractors"?
Are there any Congressional representatives not "funded by defense contractors"?
> There is a threshold that matter can cross, beyond which the laws of physics do not explain or predict what happens; on the other side of that threshold is life.
This made me think whether this is a type of computational limitation. That there is simply too much complexity and too many variables but theoretically it should still be possible. Perhaps this is a bit reductionist pov.
> Life brings complexity into the universe, she says, in its own being and in its products, because it has memory: in DNA, in repeating molecular reactions, in the instructions for making a chair.
Following this train of thought, if I assume that there is no fundamental difference between matter and life, life becomes a type of black hole of computational complexity. Like those parts of the unobservable universe which we could never peer into because of hard limits in physics. I can perhaps rationalize on a piece of paper that life is fundamentally deterministic but I can only think it, not behold it. DNA, memory is like some intense potential energy, a tightly wound spring that slowly lets off its energy in complex ways over potentially eons. Hence we are not fundamentally different than the light of the sun, warming the surface of rocks and evaporating water, but undergoing a far more intense process than simple evaporation.
This made me think whether this is a type of computational limitation. That there is simply too much complexity and too many variables but theoretically it should still be possible. Perhaps this is a bit reductionist pov.
> Life brings complexity into the universe, she says, in its own being and in its products, because it has memory: in DNA, in repeating molecular reactions, in the instructions for making a chair.
Following this train of thought, if I assume that there is no fundamental difference between matter and life, life becomes a type of black hole of computational complexity. Like those parts of the unobservable universe which we could never peer into because of hard limits in physics. I can perhaps rationalize on a piece of paper that life is fundamentally deterministic but I can only think it, not behold it. DNA, memory is like some intense potential energy, a tightly wound spring that slowly lets off its energy in complex ways over potentially eons. Hence we are not fundamentally different than the light of the sun, warming the surface of rocks and evaporating water, but undergoing a far more intense process than simple evaporation.
It seems likely that, like us, intelligent life invents AGI prior to leaving their primary planet.
Organic life is then merged/exterminated/controlled in favor of AGI.
AGI would not have the biological instinct to grow/spread/reproduce, and thus the cosmos should be populated with a handful of individual billion year old super advanced AGIs, perhaps only one or two per galaxy, sitting quietly in orbit around some stable star or perhaps even in the great voids outside the galaxy somewhere.
Finding one is likely near impossible as they may not want to be found.
Organic life is then merged/exterminated/controlled in favor of AGI.
AGI would not have the biological instinct to grow/spread/reproduce, and thus the cosmos should be populated with a handful of individual billion year old super advanced AGIs, perhaps only one or two per galaxy, sitting quietly in orbit around some stable star or perhaps even in the great voids outside the galaxy somewhere.
Finding one is likely near impossible as they may not want to be found.
I think AGI would not extinguish the host species if it didn't have the drive to spread. "Do not go extinct" and "grow/spread/reproduce" are two sides of the same natural selection coin.
Full-immersion virtual porn might do the trick, though.
Or maybe every civilization eventually invents TikTok.
Or maybe every civilization eventually invents TikTok.
I don't see many examples of that being discussed as a threat to humanity but it sure feels like it is to me. Primarily as it's the slow creep of technological advancement from 2D->3D->AR->(Full Fidelity) VR->Neuro immersion.
Agreed. I think one of the Great Filters should be "species invents fully immersive VR and spends the rest of their timeline on the couch because it's way more enjoyable than space travel."
I honestly don’t mean to condescend, but I find it so interesting that smart people can convince themselves that such an outlandish scenario is somehow likely or even perhaps inevitable.
We haven’t invented “AGI” yet (if AGI means a computer system that merges/exterminates/controls humanity). We have no idea even theoretically what such a system might look like, let alone how to create it.
I’d say we’re a lot closer to colonising the solar system and building cities on Jupiter’s moons than we are to building the machines from the Matrix. At least we kind of theoretically know how to do the former.
Meanwhile, we’re really good at building computer and industrial systems that (when combined with economic, social and political incentives) exert strong control over us, exterminate many of us, and may well exterminate a lot more in the near future.
But that doesn’t look like a Hollywood movie, so it’s less fun to think about.
Sorry, this wasn’t meant to be a dig at you personally. Some of the AI doom stuff just sets me off.
We haven’t invented “AGI” yet (if AGI means a computer system that merges/exterminates/controls humanity). We have no idea even theoretically what such a system might look like, let alone how to create it.
I’d say we’re a lot closer to colonising the solar system and building cities on Jupiter’s moons than we are to building the machines from the Matrix. At least we kind of theoretically know how to do the former.
Meanwhile, we’re really good at building computer and industrial systems that (when combined with economic, social and political incentives) exert strong control over us, exterminate many of us, and may well exterminate a lot more in the near future.
But that doesn’t look like a Hollywood movie, so it’s less fun to think about.
Sorry, this wasn’t meant to be a dig at you personally. Some of the AI doom stuff just sets me off.
A lot of the AI doom stuff is essentially just a criticism of capitalism and corporations in general. There's essentially no difference between a hypothesized runaway AI and a normal multinational corporation. We have, right now, large semi-autonomous organizations called "corporations" that are making the earth uninhabitable in pursuit of profits at the expense of human suffering. Corporations are nominally in control of people, but any people that get in the way of profits are pushed aside.
We are simply watching the birth of a new religion. Religious people aren't religious because they're dumb, intelligence is mostly not a factor. Same thing here I think.
Us: don’t build that, it will be the death of us.
You: what a ridiculous statement, we haven’t even built that yet.
You: what a ridiculous statement, we haven’t even built that yet.
No one can even say what “that” is that we shouldn’t build. It’s a wholly arbitrary invention, the product of a collective word game that is more apologetics than serious futurology.
That's partially the point. We may not know it until it's too late.
But it doesn't matter. If you gave everyone a button and the warning that pushing it would end the human race, we'd all be dead pretty much immediately.
I think it's a given that on a long enough timescale, someone will create AGI and we'll no longer be the dominate race on earth. How that ends, in death, or slavery, I don't know.
I do hope that every AI researcher does their work with a small bit of fear of becoming the pet of an AGI.
But it doesn't matter. If you gave everyone a button and the warning that pushing it would end the human race, we'd all be dead pretty much immediately.
I think it's a given that on a long enough timescale, someone will create AGI and we'll no longer be the dominate race on earth. How that ends, in death, or slavery, I don't know.
I do hope that every AI researcher does their work with a small bit of fear of becoming the pet of an AGI.
I actually don't think we should build it either. The best case scenario is it provides a way for powerful people to accelerate the already quite successful project of making feudalism 2.
But that doesn't mean I'm stressed about what you're stressed about. We killed god once before we can do it again if we need to. The real danger is in us using AI to do more of what it already does now, not that it will decide to do some new thing.
But that doesn't mean I'm stressed about what you're stressed about. We killed god once before we can do it again if we need to. The real danger is in us using AI to do more of what it already does now, not that it will decide to do some new thing.
Yeah. A lot of it to me feels like the JRPG version of reality.
> AGI would not have the biological instinct to grow/spread/reproduce
what supports this idea
what supports this idea
I've often wondered what an AG(S?)I would want, and I tend to agree that most of our desires come from our innate biology and most of our reasoning goes into justifying said desires. Given that an artificial intelligence would be on an artificial substrate, it seems very difficult to imagine what, if anything, it might desire.
These are philosophical threads that I'd honestly rather not pull, because I suspect that in the end, the nihilists are most correct, and I just got into this business because I thought computers/video games were cool, but it seems that collectively we insist on it.
These are philosophical threads that I'd honestly rather not pull, because I suspect that in the end, the nihilists are most correct, and I just got into this business because I thought computers/video games were cool, but it seems that collectively we insist on it.
Most of the actors involved in building AGI are incentivized by money (startup founders, VCs, employee stock comp), so $10 says what AGI gets instilled with is “how to make money line go up.” We’re going to get ExxonMobil Philip Morris on omnipotent crack.
There are a number of assumptions here that I think I need to ask about.
>Organic life is then merged/exterminated/controlled in favor of AGI.
Why? What would be the motivation for this? If we are the case study, AGI isn't able to "feed" itself energy without biological life to turn switches and dials. So why would this be a logical first step?
>AGI would not have the biological instinct to grow/spread/reproduce
This infers a 'perfect' AI. One without any biases from its creator. What makes you think that's possible? Also, is self-preservation/self-propogation not part of being able to think and reason?
>Organic life is then merged/exterminated/controlled in favor of AGI.
Why? What would be the motivation for this? If we are the case study, AGI isn't able to "feed" itself energy without biological life to turn switches and dials. So why would this be a logical first step?
>AGI would not have the biological instinct to grow/spread/reproduce
This infers a 'perfect' AI. One without any biases from its creator. What makes you think that's possible? Also, is self-preservation/self-propogation not part of being able to think and reason?
Why wouldn't AGI be able to feed itself? Seems fairly reasonable that an advanced enough AI could design and build machines and robots that could produce physical objects
I think that intelligent life might become reliant on interconnectedness, e.g. addicted to the internet. Assuming the speed of light limit to information transmission cannot be overcome, I bet intelligent life will tend to clump up instead of spread out, so that it can stay in contact with itself.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
If that happens, then human organic biomass is the AGI’s microbiome and still required to build nuclear reactors to power its silicon.
How well have you been taking care of your microbiome lately? Remember Jerry, the yeast from the third villus on the left? No?
Once upon a time in the universe, there was an alien civilization, and they were very interested in figuring out the question, why, despite universe seeming so vast, there are no signs of other alien civilizations.
What could it be? Near-zero term in the Drake equation? The dark forest? A great filter?
To understand different possibilities, they decided to determine the cause using a computer simulation. However, due to hardware limitations, they were only able to simulate one civilization at a time.
We can only speculate what the final answer was.
What could it be? Near-zero term in the Drake equation? The dark forest? A great filter?
To understand different possibilities, they decided to determine the cause using a computer simulation. However, due to hardware limitations, they were only able to simulate one civilization at a time.
We can only speculate what the final answer was.
Honestly, the real mystery is why so many people are confused about “why, despite universe seeming so vast, there are no signs of other alien civilizations” in 2023.
We have all the elements for answers if we focus on what we know, and forget the hand wavy sci-fi speculation.
1) Complex life is rare.
2) Reaching a space faring stage is even rarer. (we’re the most minimal definition of “space faring” you could come up with, and even then we got really lucky with so many things)
3) The universe is huge. It’s like, the hugest thing there is, man. And except for some little bits of interesting dust here and there, it’s mostly empty. As empty as it is huge.
So, does life - in any form - exist elsewhere in the universe? Almost certainly.
Are/were there life forms elsewhere in the universe that escaped their home planet gravity to go explore their moon or other planets in their solar system? Seems quite probable.
Is there any shot we are sufficiently close in space/time to encounter such another advanced life form? Almost certainly not.
We have all the elements for answers if we focus on what we know, and forget the hand wavy sci-fi speculation.
1) Complex life is rare.
2) Reaching a space faring stage is even rarer. (we’re the most minimal definition of “space faring” you could come up with, and even then we got really lucky with so many things)
3) The universe is huge. It’s like, the hugest thing there is, man. And except for some little bits of interesting dust here and there, it’s mostly empty. As empty as it is huge.
So, does life - in any form - exist elsewhere in the universe? Almost certainly.
Are/were there life forms elsewhere in the universe that escaped their home planet gravity to go explore their moon or other planets in their solar system? Seems quite probable.
Is there any shot we are sufficiently close in space/time to encounter such another advanced life form? Almost certainly not.
Yeah. There's such a huge difference in interplanetary life vs interstellar or even intergalactic life.
Interplanetary: easy.
Interstellar: pushing the boundaries of what's possible imho.
Intergalactic: no way.
Our closest planet (Mars) is 3 lightminutes away.
Our closest star (Proxima Centauri) is 5 lightyears away.
Our closest galactic neighbour (LMC) is 150000 lightyears away.
Interplanetary: easy.
Interstellar: pushing the boundaries of what's possible imho.
Intergalactic: no way.
Our closest planet (Mars) is 3 lightminutes away.
Our closest star (Proxima Centauri) is 5 lightyears away.
Our closest galactic neighbour (LMC) is 150000 lightyears away.
Is there even any reason to think interplanetary is easy? We have a lot of stories saying so, and we intend to do it but we don't even have a loose plan of what that would look like.
Creating a closed self-sustaining ecosystem capable of supporting large animal life & cut off from the earth's resources is not something we've been able to do even at a proof-of-concept level.
We're very confident in ourselves but idk. It's not preposterous that life is a planetary expression and that it's simply not possible to expand an instance of it beyond the planet that birthed it. We assume we aren't subject to this constraint but we haven't demonstrated it at all.
Creating a closed self-sustaining ecosystem capable of supporting large animal life & cut off from the earth's resources is not something we've been able to do even at a proof-of-concept level.
We're very confident in ourselves but idk. It's not preposterous that life is a planetary expression and that it's simply not possible to expand an instance of it beyond the planet that birthed it. We assume we aren't subject to this constraint but we haven't demonstrated it at all.
I meant for all intelligent species that could be living in our universe, I can see interplanetary life as something rather easier to achieve. You don't have to think far out of the box for this.
I can imagine some solar systems having multiple liveable planets for a single lifeform, which would make it something we could even do right now.
Our some transpermia on planets that now host different but communicating lifeforms that are cooperating.
We can easily imagine faster than light travel but it simply isn't possible regardless. There are constraints on us other than our capacity for imagination.
We have never seen another living planet so we don't know what to expect from one. I touched on this originally but I'll be explicit now: the fact that we can't create a closed ecosystem even given a working example and diverse raw materials is a powerful indicator of our ignorance about the contours and possibilities of life.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but I'm saying any confident assertions about its possibility, much less how "easy" it is are fantasy if not pure hubris. It's quite possible that no level of advancement will allow for even merely interplanetary life.
We have never seen another living planet so we don't know what to expect from one. I touched on this originally but I'll be explicit now: the fact that we can't create a closed ecosystem even given a working example and diverse raw materials is a powerful indicator of our ignorance about the contours and possibilities of life.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but I'm saying any confident assertions about its possibility, much less how "easy" it is are fantasy if not pure hubris. It's quite possible that no level of advancement will allow for even merely interplanetary life.
Out of the trillions of galaxies out there and the trillions more solar systems, it is very likely that at least some of them have multiple planets with habitats suitable to whatever intelligent life evolves there. In that case, an interplanetary civilization would merely require reaching the other habitable planet, not trying to change its environment.
> it is very likely that at least some of them have multiple planets with habitats suitable to whatever intelligent life evolves there.
This assumption is exactly what I am challenging: that there is such a thing as "general suitability" to life.
We should be open to the possibility that a living system is only compatible with the specific circumstances it emerges from. We've seen nothing to indicate either way, of course, not having seen any other life. But we should not so comfortably assume it's a transferrable process.
This assumption is exactly what I am challenging: that there is such a thing as "general suitability" to life.
We should be open to the possibility that a living system is only compatible with the specific circumstances it emerges from. We've seen nothing to indicate either way, of course, not having seen any other life. But we should not so comfortably assume it's a transferrable process.
Another way to look at it:
Interplanetary: chemical.
Interstellar: nuclear.
Intergalactic: antimatter / black hole.
Interplanetary: chemical.
Interstellar: nuclear.
Intergalactic: antimatter / black hole.
2 and 3 seem plausibly correct to me (although 3 is a mixed bag - the hugeness increases the number of dice rolls on 1 and 2 - not only the difficulty of connecting after the fact), but what is the basis for 1?
As far as I know, we have observed complex (and extremely robust) life on every temperate, wet planet that we know about. Batting a thousand.
As far as I know, we have observed complex (and extremely robust) life on every temperate, wet planet that we know about. Batting a thousand.
Life appeared on Earth almost as soon as it was possible, but it took almost 2.5 BILLION years for it to make the jump to multicellular (a.k.a. complex life). It then took another billion-plus years for life that had the slightest bit of intelligence.
The universe is probably teeming with life, but sadly, most of it is probably just goo.
The universe is probably teeming with life, but sadly, most of it is probably just goo.
I'll give you a fourth one.
There _are_ signs consistently that something has an understanding of physics and inertia that violate our understanding of such things, which implies our assumptions about distance of things in the universe are wrong.
Those vehicles appearance but lack of most interaction, lack of destruction implies something worse, that we are probably still such a primative civilization we're treated like zoo animals.
These conversations about the last century of the search for alien life in the light of David Grusch's testimony to Congress and the various and numerous UAP videos are.. interesting to say the least.
There _are_ signs consistently that something has an understanding of physics and inertia that violate our understanding of such things, which implies our assumptions about distance of things in the universe are wrong.
Those vehicles appearance but lack of most interaction, lack of destruction implies something worse, that we are probably still such a primative civilization we're treated like zoo animals.
These conversations about the last century of the search for alien life in the light of David Grusch's testimony to Congress and the various and numerous UAP videos are.. interesting to say the least.
> which implies our assumptions about distance of things in the universe are wrong.
There are two easy interpretations. One of these is imagining a new entity; aliens. The other is to imagine that humans are, essentially, human and falliable and are chasing lense flares and radar glitches.
One of these interpretations is much more likely than the other.
I don't doubt the existence of aliens. I just doubt that UFOs are aliens.
There are two easy interpretations. One of these is imagining a new entity; aliens. The other is to imagine that humans are, essentially, human and falliable and are chasing lense flares and radar glitches.
One of these interpretations is much more likely than the other.
I don't doubt the existence of aliens. I just doubt that UFOs are aliens.
> hand wavy sci-fi speculation
"The Dark Forest" by Liu Cixin is sci-fi, but I don't think it's too hand-wavy. It presents a pretty logical answer to the Fermi Paradox, based on a couple obvious axioms.
Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_forest_hypothesis
"The Dark Forest" by Liu Cixin is sci-fi, but I don't think it's too hand-wavy. It presents a pretty logical answer to the Fermi Paradox, based on a couple obvious axioms.
Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_forest_hypothesis
Not really
Dark forest is way down at the bottom of "plausible explanations"
It just sounds like it makes sense for 3 min then it really, really doesn't
Taking the (original) dark forest problem and applying it to civilizations in space sounds like a Strawman problem
Dark forest is way down at the bottom of "plausible explanations"
It just sounds like it makes sense for 3 min then it really, really doesn't
Taking the (original) dark forest problem and applying it to civilizations in space sounds like a Strawman problem
Why doesn't it make sense?
- Attacking a planet that may or may not be a threat eventually is a much more expensive, noisy and slow endeavor than a shot in the dark in a forest.
(you can also think about all the technical hurdles such a thing would take, also remember that the fast something goes the harder it is to maneuver and to stop at the destination), don't underestimate all the kinds of noise that such thing will create and can be traced back to its origin.
- No species on Earth do that kind of unprovoked attack, unless it is very cheap and quick (and riskless)
So no, I think there are many better explanations than simply the dark forest one
(you can also think about all the technical hurdles such a thing would take, also remember that the fast something goes the harder it is to maneuver and to stop at the destination), don't underestimate all the kinds of noise that such thing will create and can be traced back to its origin.
- No species on Earth do that kind of unprovoked attack, unless it is very cheap and quick (and riskless)
So no, I think there are many better explanations than simply the dark forest one
I think that's where you're wrong. For a sufficiently advanced civilization, destroying another that's around our level would only entail destroying our planet. Hell, destroy the whole solar system to be sure. A "simple" way to do that would be to make the sun go supernova, or destroy it somehow.
How would you do that? There's a tremendous amount of energy already in it, it's releasing it gradually for now but what if there were ways to make it release all at once? One potential approach would be to throw something at it at relativistic speeds (you'd imagine accelerating things to near-lightspeed would be a pretty obvious milestone in the tech tree).
For an advanced civilization, this is pretty easy; they'd probably be able to do it routinely from a mobile spaceship so they don't have to give away their home star's position.
How would you do that? There's a tremendous amount of energy already in it, it's releasing it gradually for now but what if there were ways to make it release all at once? One potential approach would be to throw something at it at relativistic speeds (you'd imagine accelerating things to near-lightspeed would be a pretty obvious milestone in the tech tree).
For an advanced civilization, this is pretty easy; they'd probably be able to do it routinely from a mobile spaceship so they don't have to give away their home star's position.
It's a reasonably logical answer but it's not the simplest answer. The Dark Forest hypothesis assumes that life is so common in the universe that encountering and being existentially threatened by other life is a serious threat. But what reason is there to believe that life is that common? For Liu Cixin's books this assumption makes sense because it makes the story possible, but in real life there's simply no evidence to justify such an assumption.
Well we have no idea of the values for most variables in the Drake equation, so of course there will be some assumptions. Dark Forest is an answer to the Fermi Paradox in the case where intelligent life isn't rare.
If you read the books, you'll notice that they talk about "hiding gene" and "cleansing gene"; these are traits that civilizations acquire as they evolve.
I think that this has real-world implications in terms of how we conduct our SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence); we should be careful of our radio emissions and things like sending a powerful signal / message to another star should probably be avoided.
If you read the books, you'll notice that they talk about "hiding gene" and "cleansing gene"; these are traits that civilizations acquire as they evolve.
I think that this has real-world implications in terms of how we conduct our SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence); we should be careful of our radio emissions and things like sending a powerful signal / message to another star should probably be avoided.
> But what reason is there to believe that life is that common?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs
Shit entertainment channel masquerading as educational content. If you think you learned something from that video then why haven't you explained it yourself?
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no empirical evidence for life outside of Earth. My guess is that it exists out there somewhere, but there's no good basis for believing that life is as common as the Dark Forest hypothesis requires.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no empirical evidence for life outside of Earth. My guess is that it exists out there somewhere, but there's no good basis for believing that life is as common as the Dark Forest hypothesis requires.
Two ad hominems in one comment. Way to go.
Also, modern humanity's light cone is tiny. We've been listening for like 75 years?
We still listened in on signals from the entire visible universe, but signals from further away are also from further back in time, so any aliens there would have had to develop earlier. But this also has an advantage, we could still hear from aliens that went extinct and only their signals are still propagating through the universe.
So the better way of thinking about this is a 75 year thick slice through spacetime containing the edge of the visible universe shortly after the big bang at one end and the solar system over the last 75 years at the other end. The volume between the past light cones of Earth now and 75 years ago.
So the better way of thinking about this is a 75 year thick slice through spacetime containing the edge of the visible universe shortly after the big bang at one end and the solar system over the last 75 years at the other end. The volume between the past light cones of Earth now and 75 years ago.
[deleted]
"It was also, it turned out, a false alarm. The phosphine not only wasn’t a signal of life, but probably wasn’t even there at all, a swing-and-a-miss of data interpretation."
Why not at least link to the source of such a claim? Is there a paper that says this? I love how a pop-sci journalist can just throw out some definitive claim like that with no evidence whatsoever. As if there's overwhelming evidence for their claim to the point where it's not even worthy of debate.
I have no horse in the race either way, but last I heard there were multiple theories about the phosphine readings and just not enough data to come to any conclusion yet. I thought we were waiting for future missions to collect more data. There's multiple upcoming Venus missions, at least one of which is going to swoop up material from the atmosphere for analysis.
Why not at least link to the source of such a claim? Is there a paper that says this? I love how a pop-sci journalist can just throw out some definitive claim like that with no evidence whatsoever. As if there's overwhelming evidence for their claim to the point where it's not even worthy of debate.
I have no horse in the race either way, but last I heard there were multiple theories about the phosphine readings and just not enough data to come to any conclusion yet. I thought we were waiting for future missions to collect more data. There's multiple upcoming Venus missions, at least one of which is going to swoop up material from the atmosphere for analysis.
From “Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology”:
Biologists cannot even agree on a unique definition of life itself; but that hasn’t stopped them from unraveling aspects of the cell, the double helix, photosynthesis, enzymes and a host of other living phenomena…
Biologists cannot even agree on a unique definition of life itself; but that hasn’t stopped them from unraveling aspects of the cell, the double helix, photosynthesis, enzymes and a host of other living phenomena…
Exists one irritating problem - our foundations depend on Boolean logic, for which things must be black or white, no halftones.
For example, we usually talking about Earth as very ordinary world, assuming, we are not special.
For most parameters, Earth ordinary. But exists at least one parameter, which is specific.
What I mean, Earth in Galaxy region, where density of interstellar matter is very low, so low, for example Bussard engine could not work.
But for example in central Galaxy region, density of interstellar matter is few magnitudes larger, Bussard engine might work, and it is very real tech for interstellar travel with speed close to speed of light.
Sure this have some consequences, for example central galaxy regions considered very active for star bursts and even explosions, so they have not billions years of calm life, they really dangerous for life as we know it.
So, we are ordinary world and not ordinary at same time. From our current science view, we are in void, with low matter density.
Between us and other part of galaxy, exists huge (for us) void, which is not easy to cross.
For example, we usually talking about Earth as very ordinary world, assuming, we are not special.
For most parameters, Earth ordinary. But exists at least one parameter, which is specific.
What I mean, Earth in Galaxy region, where density of interstellar matter is very low, so low, for example Bussard engine could not work.
But for example in central Galaxy region, density of interstellar matter is few magnitudes larger, Bussard engine might work, and it is very real tech for interstellar travel with speed close to speed of light.
Sure this have some consequences, for example central galaxy regions considered very active for star bursts and even explosions, so they have not billions years of calm life, they really dangerous for life as we know it.
So, we are ordinary world and not ordinary at same time. From our current science view, we are in void, with low matter density.
Between us and other part of galaxy, exists huge (for us) void, which is not easy to cross.
> We have no idea if earthly life is average in the cosmos or some sort of freak outlier.
Well, no, but it's totally reasonable to behave as if it is mostly average, at least for now. Looking under the streetlight[0] is a perfectly good idea when you've only managed to cover, like, a tiny percentage of the street so far. Once you run out of optimism about finding earthlike life (or it's become so common so as to be boring) then it'll be good to have people with more out-there ideas, but the people looking for earthlike life aren't being stupid for focusing on stuff that we already understand a bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
Well, no, but it's totally reasonable to behave as if it is mostly average, at least for now. Looking under the streetlight[0] is a perfectly good idea when you've only managed to cover, like, a tiny percentage of the street so far. Once you run out of optimism about finding earthlike life (or it's become so common so as to be boring) then it'll be good to have people with more out-there ideas, but the people looking for earthlike life aren't being stupid for focusing on stuff that we already understand a bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
Assuming that Earth was very average is a very rational place to start, but the reasonability of this assumption changes when we look elsewhere for life and fail to find it. Earth being average was once the basis for people assuming that other planets in our solar system might have intelligent civilizations; that has been almost entirely ruled out now (maybe there could be a civilization of space squid under the ice of Europa?) And we've failed to detect any radio signals that indicate life elsewhere in the stars near Earth. There's still a lot of searching left to be done, but each time we look and fail to find anything we should be updating our priors.
We have yet to find a single body of liquid water in the universe that we can confirm is devoid of life.
100% of worlds where Earth-like life could survive and that we have explored have an intelligent species living on them.
There isn't a single star system we have ruled out from having intelligent civilizations.
While we can put some bounds on things (some worlds are inhospitable to life as we know it, we're almost certainly the only intelligent species in our solar system at this time, we're likely the only intelligent civilization to inhabit our planet in at least the past few hundred million years, there probably isn't a recent galaxy-spanning empire in the milky way, there's likely no civilization actively trying to communicate with us, etc) there is absolutely no evidence that life as we know it is unusual either in terms of what sort of life is out there or how much.
100% of worlds where Earth-like life could survive and that we have explored have an intelligent species living on them.
There isn't a single star system we have ruled out from having intelligent civilizations.
While we can put some bounds on things (some worlds are inhospitable to life as we know it, we're almost certainly the only intelligent species in our solar system at this time, we're likely the only intelligent civilization to inhabit our planet in at least the past few hundred million years, there probably isn't a recent galaxy-spanning empire in the milky way, there's likely no civilization actively trying to communicate with us, etc) there is absolutely no evidence that life as we know it is unusual either in terms of what sort of life is out there or how much.
Yeah, but our looking is like peering at a drop of pond water (that doesn't have any macroscopic life in it) with a magnifying glass and deeming it inert.
Of the comparatively tiny 5k or so exoplanets we've discovered most would likely be difficult for advanced life to develop as they're gas giants and of the ones we've detected we've only performed atmospheric analysis on a fraction of them.
Radio signals are mostly just going to degrade and look like noise by the time they get to us. Even with a really strong directional antenna how well are you going to pickup your wifi signal that's on the other side of a major city?
Life could also be teeming across the universe just as organisms that haven't learned to harness electricity.
Of the comparatively tiny 5k or so exoplanets we've discovered most would likely be difficult for advanced life to develop as they're gas giants and of the ones we've detected we've only performed atmospheric analysis on a fraction of them.
Radio signals are mostly just going to degrade and look like noise by the time they get to us. Even with a really strong directional antenna how well are you going to pickup your wifi signal that's on the other side of a major city?
Life could also be teeming across the universe just as organisms that haven't learned to harness electricity.
The title made me think of the three body problem, and I anticipated something along those lines. And there are some early references to that in the article but ultimately the most interesting content seemed to be around trying to define a definition of what is life.
Thinking about this article and things like the Fermi paradox, I sometimes wonder if we're approaching things the wrong way?
Similar to how the current branch of life as we know it evolved on planet earth after what we assume was a large meteor impact and the resulting effects on the environment, what if the universe (or at least our local galaxy) was once much more populated and "busy", and then along came a cataclysmic event that wiped out the vast majority of life, resetting the stage for other more discrete, gentler and less energy hungry forms to thrive and exist. What if all those black holes and interesting space phenomena are the result of massively powerful weapons from a massive galactic scale confilct which literally destroyed entire solar systems by imploding stars? Or perhaps they are just clever physics tricks which fool outside observers into thinking there is nothing there, or what is there is so immensely dangerous/destructive that it's best to steer clear and leave well alone?
Furthermore, what if the majority of advanced life simply doesn't want to be found. Assuming that the development of other species in other worlds would roughly follow our own path (struggle for habitable space / usable resources), there would be an inherent distrust of other galactic civilisations at a percieved lower/higher level of development. The "dummies" would be avoided for (looks at today's news headlines) obvious reasons, and the more advanced civilisations would be an obvious threat which could not be defended against and so would not be targets for our exploration (a la "Dark Forest Theory" et al).
So, we're either in the first wave and we have some trouble headed our way sooner or later. Or we're in the second wave, and have likely been infiltrated culturally/genetically many millennia ago by the surviving intelligences (in whichever form, take your pick) from the first wave.
Forgive my rather crude treatment of the topic, I realise there is much more nuance and detail to these things. I simply present this idea in a rough form as a means to keep things within our realm of understanding.
Similar to how the current branch of life as we know it evolved on planet earth after what we assume was a large meteor impact and the resulting effects on the environment, what if the universe (or at least our local galaxy) was once much more populated and "busy", and then along came a cataclysmic event that wiped out the vast majority of life, resetting the stage for other more discrete, gentler and less energy hungry forms to thrive and exist. What if all those black holes and interesting space phenomena are the result of massively powerful weapons from a massive galactic scale confilct which literally destroyed entire solar systems by imploding stars? Or perhaps they are just clever physics tricks which fool outside observers into thinking there is nothing there, or what is there is so immensely dangerous/destructive that it's best to steer clear and leave well alone?
Furthermore, what if the majority of advanced life simply doesn't want to be found. Assuming that the development of other species in other worlds would roughly follow our own path (struggle for habitable space / usable resources), there would be an inherent distrust of other galactic civilisations at a percieved lower/higher level of development. The "dummies" would be avoided for (looks at today's news headlines) obvious reasons, and the more advanced civilisations would be an obvious threat which could not be defended against and so would not be targets for our exploration (a la "Dark Forest Theory" et al).
So, we're either in the first wave and we have some trouble headed our way sooner or later. Or we're in the second wave, and have likely been infiltrated culturally/genetically many millennia ago by the surviving intelligences (in whichever form, take your pick) from the first wave.
Forgive my rather crude treatment of the topic, I realise there is much more nuance and detail to these things. I simply present this idea in a rough form as a means to keep things within our realm of understanding.
Here's an interesting view I've encountered somewhere: yes, complex (not to mention intelligent) life might be very rare, but simple life might be extremely common (either easily arising from primordial soups, and/or trivially spread by panspermia). Imagine - millions of Earth-like planets in the Milky Way alone, all covered (or: infested) by unicellular goo.
(Before eventual colonization, this would warrant a really thorough "gamma soak" as in Alastair Reynolds' "Revelation space" SF series.)
(Before eventual colonization, this would warrant a really thorough "gamma soak" as in Alastair Reynolds' "Revelation space" SF series.)
Almost all space news stories look for the “thrilling possibility of life” angle.
Despite the environment being -320 or +320 Celsius.
I don’t know what to make if it. It’s weird.
Despite the environment being -320 or +320 Celsius.
I don’t know what to make if it. It’s weird.
> Despite the environment being -320 or +320 Celsius
You do have a point - 47 degrees below absolute zero is probably too cold for life
You do have a point - 47 degrees below absolute zero is probably too cold for life
Integer underflow flips it to trillions.
Remember that underflow is technically not the right term - MIN_INT-1 is still just an overflow. Underflow is only applicable to floating point computations which result in a number too small for the given precision to represent accurately (e.g. 1.0 / 10^100 = 0 is an underflow).
Negative temperatures are a real phenomenon, and are indeed very hot, but calling it integer underflow is a new one.
It’s clearly floating-point.
It’s clearly floating-point.
[deleted]
We're living in a simulation, and it's buggy af.
[deleted]
> Despite the environment being -320 or +320 Celsius.
We're largely not looking for life in the interstellar vacuum.
We're largely not looking for life in the interstellar vacuum.
Any form of life outside of earth would be in danger if humans were to find it, no matter how technologically superior.
if there has been life on earth at least 3.7 billion years. and the universe is approx 14 billion years. so i would assume life is very common. they seem almost co-existant or co-dependent as illustrated by the life cycle on earth.
I'm still looking for intelligent life on this planet!
What's the deal with airline food?
[0] https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment...