Hiding in plain sight? The argument for invisible aliens (2020)(now.northropgrumman.com)
now.northropgrumman.com
Hiding in plain sight? The argument for invisible aliens (2020)
https://now.northropgrumman.com/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-argument-for-invisible-aliens/
131 comments
> I think it's not unreasonable that we are sort of early to the party. Earth has existed for about 1/3 of the lifetime of the universe
(1) Supernovas creating heavy elements. At first, the universe is all hydrogen (and helium). It takes some generations of stars forming, and exploding as supernovas to create and spread around heavier elements, so that a planet like Earth can form, with all the minerals we have. Do we need 9 billion years for this, or could there have been planets with heavy elements, how much earlier? Is Earth among the first possible?
(2) It took 3 billion years of photosynthesis, by single-cell microbial life, to produce and accumulate enough oxygen. First the oxygen released into air would go and oxidize the minerals on Earth's surface. Only after the whole rocky surface was oxidized, would oxygen start to accumulate into the atmosphere. Somewhere around 10% or 13% atmospheric oxygen, it was enough that also other than flat, single-cell-layer multicellular macroscopic life could start to form, without the inner cells being starved of oxygen. 3 billion years of repetitive, grunt work by the microbes. (Then it took 0.5 billion years of evolution from the Cambrian evolutionary explosion, to humans.)
Compared to these two, the other steps took much less time.
Universe begins
| 9.2 billion years
Earth formed
| 0.5 billion years
First life
| 0.5 billion years
First photosynthesis
| 3.0 billion years
Enough oxygen in air for macroscopic life
| 0.5 billion years
Now
(1) Supernovas creating heavy elements. At first, the universe is all hydrogen (and helium). It takes some generations of stars forming, and exploding as supernovas to create and spread around heavier elements, so that a planet like Earth can form, with all the minerals we have. Do we need 9 billion years for this, or could there have been planets with heavy elements, how much earlier? Is Earth among the first possible?
(2) It took 3 billion years of photosynthesis, by single-cell microbial life, to produce and accumulate enough oxygen. First the oxygen released into air would go and oxidize the minerals on Earth's surface. Only after the whole rocky surface was oxidized, would oxygen start to accumulate into the atmosphere. Somewhere around 10% or 13% atmospheric oxygen, it was enough that also other than flat, single-cell-layer multicellular macroscopic life could start to form, without the inner cells being starved of oxygen. 3 billion years of repetitive, grunt work by the microbes. (Then it took 0.5 billion years of evolution from the Cambrian evolutionary explosion, to humans.)
Compared to these two, the other steps took much less time.
The lifetime of the universe is so long that it's hard to reason about intuitively. Saturn's rings were formed about 100 million years ago, which is cosmologically speaking a blink of an eye.
1 million years ago is 1/14,000th (0.007%) of the lifespan of the universe, so almost trivially miniscule in cosmological sense. If some sentient alien civilisation got 1 million years head-start on us wouldn't they basically already have achieved any technological advancement possible?
1 million years ago is 1/14,000th (0.007%) of the lifespan of the universe, so almost trivially miniscule in cosmological sense. If some sentient alien civilisation got 1 million years head-start on us wouldn't they basically already have achieved any technological advancement possible?
Also worth considering is that humanity is not the first major species to evolve on Earth. Dinosaurs came first, about 230 million years ago, went extinct ~60 million years ago, then humanity came about 1-2 million years ago.
Imagine some other planet in the universe (or even our galaxy) that went through similar geological processes as Earth and at roughly the same time, but on which the first species to evolve did not go extinct and instead went on to develop intelligence. That species would have a roughly ~200+ million year head start on humanity.
Further, consider the planets at the far edge of the observable universe from Earth, whose light emitted billions of years ago is only just now reaching us, and which are much older than the Milky Way. What if any of those planets went through a similar evolutionary process and developed intelligent life, but billions of years ago.
Such species would now be using science and technology completely incomprehensible to, and likely undetectable by, humanity. We're scanning for electromagnetic transmissions, while they're communicating via subspace, superstrings, ninth membrane, or whatever other exotic means. Everything we currently know about physics and the nature of reality would be useless in detecting and analyzing such advanced species. If they happened to detect and visit us, we wouldn't know unless they wanted us to.
It's possible there are many planets in the universe on which life evolved, and the subsequent emergence of intelligent life follows some distribution of trial and error. Most planets evolved intelligent life after one or more errors (dinosaurs and the like), but some small percent developed intelligent life first, ahead of the curve.
Imagine some other planet in the universe (or even our galaxy) that went through similar geological processes as Earth and at roughly the same time, but on which the first species to evolve did not go extinct and instead went on to develop intelligence. That species would have a roughly ~200+ million year head start on humanity.
Further, consider the planets at the far edge of the observable universe from Earth, whose light emitted billions of years ago is only just now reaching us, and which are much older than the Milky Way. What if any of those planets went through a similar evolutionary process and developed intelligent life, but billions of years ago.
Such species would now be using science and technology completely incomprehensible to, and likely undetectable by, humanity. We're scanning for electromagnetic transmissions, while they're communicating via subspace, superstrings, ninth membrane, or whatever other exotic means. Everything we currently know about physics and the nature of reality would be useless in detecting and analyzing such advanced species. If they happened to detect and visit us, we wouldn't know unless they wanted us to.
It's possible there are many planets in the universe on which life evolved, and the subsequent emergence of intelligent life follows some distribution of trial and error. Most planets evolved intelligent life after one or more errors (dinosaurs and the like), but some small percent developed intelligent life first, ahead of the curve.
> Such a species would now be using technology completely incomprehensible to, and likely undetectable by, humanity.
They are undetectable by us, but this isn't because of how good their technology is (though it may well also be that good), but simply because the universe is so large and the speed of light so slow. Even if their first "person" to create a powerful enough radio had the idea to beam a signal directly to earth, it still wouldn't have arrived. That signal would have been sent before I sun even started forming, so there is no reason for them to have had the idea, but even if they did anyway.
They are undetectable by us, but this isn't because of how good their technology is (though it may well also be that good), but simply because the universe is so large and the speed of light so slow. Even if their first "person" to create a powerful enough radio had the idea to beam a signal directly to earth, it still wouldn't have arrived. That signal would have been sent before I sun even started forming, so there is no reason for them to have had the idea, but even if they did anyway.
[deleted]
> If some sentient alien civilisation got 1 million years head-start on us wouldn't they basically already have achieved any technological advancement possible?
“Any technological advancement possible” (my emphasis) might exclude technological advances that would make us aware of intelligent life in other star systems.
Just because we can imagine things does not mean they are actually possible, even with lots of time to try.
“Any technological advancement possible” (my emphasis) might exclude technological advances that would make us aware of intelligent life in other star systems.
Just because we can imagine things does not mean they are actually possible, even with lots of time to try.
Somebody must be the first, though. It is worth noting that assuming that we're the first (or among the first) seems no less reasonable than assuming we're the only intelligent life. At least it seems like that to me, maybe I've missed some argument.
All cases of this are astounding. No other life - astounding. Live, but none other intelligent - astounding. We are first, but there will be more - astounding. There is lots of intelligent life - astounding. We are the last - astounding.
It's not unreasonable to assume we are alone. We have no evidence that we aren't. For me that's the strongest claim. What I'm saying is that not seeing any evidence doesn't reduce the probability of no other intelligent life existing that much. There is still a lot of unknowns and we are sort of still in the early phases of the universe, all things considered.
the fact we have only been bleeding EM radiation for the last hundred years or so only gives us a radius of 100ly for detection - another tiny fraction of the galaxy
At most. Radio waves follow the inverse square law for attenuation, most of the signals we have sent over the past 100 years are not detectable out that far.
It kind of blows my mind that of all time that will ever exist in the universe, our existence has been plonked right at the (almost) very very beginning. It somehow seems significant to me. I’m not sure if I could articulate it properly, but of all time that will ever exist, why/how is it we came to be right at the “start”, instead of any other time.
If we are speculating, then this one is my favourite: what if there are other universes out there? With sufficient time civilizations of another universe could move freely between universes. If they can do that, then they probably have tech to be "invisibles" as well. If the multiverse theory is true, then we have an infinite number of multiverses in which an infite number of civilizations could have developed tech to travel between universes and to be invisble. They are here already :D Nah, well, who knows.
Even if you have infinite time, is there enough energy to get between universes?
Spoken like someone who knows the answer :)
Is there another universe? Do you know what direction to go to get to this other universe or are you heading out hoping to hit one? How far apart is this other universe? How much energy does this infinite time society need? Probably other similar questions apply, i can't think of any now though.
If I knew all that I could go back to my physics textbooks and calculate. Without though, who knows.
If I knew all that I could go back to my physics textbooks and calculate. Without though, who knows.
Interesting thought experiment, but untestable with current tech. I’ve wondered if dark matter/dark energy couldn’t be organized into life. There’s 80% of mass we know next to nothing about. Any reason that can’t be organized into dark matter planets with dark matter people running around?
Interesting thought experiment but my 2c is physics limits space travel such that it can never be what we see in sci-fi. Any civilizations elsewhere - phosphorus based or otherwise- have just as hard a time getting off their rock as we do, if not harder (larger gravity wells). If they do, they have an even harder time getting off their star. Certainly getting beyond their galaxy is physically impossible. Makes lousy sci-fi but fits observations.
Interesting thought experiment but my 2c is physics limits space travel such that it can never be what we see in sci-fi. Any civilizations elsewhere - phosphorus based or otherwise- have just as hard a time getting off their rock as we do, if not harder (larger gravity wells). If they do, they have an even harder time getting off their star. Certainly getting beyond their galaxy is physically impossible. Makes lousy sci-fi but fits observations.
> Any reason that can’t be organized into dark matter planets with dark matter people running around?
Yes, there is a reason why this can't happen. Dark matter doesn't clump.
Yes, there is a reason why this can't happen. Dark matter doesn't clump.
Dark matter does not seem to interact electromagnetically, so that rules out all of chemistry.
Is dark matter some tangible "stuff," or is it more of an artifact of gaps in our observation?
Why do physicists, when confronted with the lack of observational evidence for the "dark matter" that their models predict, assume that "dark matter must exist?" Couldn't the model be wrong? At what point does the unproven prediction of dark matter call into question the many otherwise proven predictions of the Standard Model? How much of the experimental evidence supporting those predictions has an implicit dependency on the same invalid assumptions leading to the prediction of dark matter?
I remember reading an HN comment that described the Standard Model as a sort of legacy codebase with technical debt and strange abstractions to fix earlier errors. That resonates with me, and in fact seems applicable to the entirety of the human epistemological "tech tree." I sometimes wonder, what secrets might we uncover if we could start fresh, speed running different paths through the tech tree?
Why do physicists, when confronted with the lack of observational evidence for the "dark matter" that their models predict, assume that "dark matter must exist?" Couldn't the model be wrong? At what point does the unproven prediction of dark matter call into question the many otherwise proven predictions of the Standard Model? How much of the experimental evidence supporting those predictions has an implicit dependency on the same invalid assumptions leading to the prediction of dark matter?
I remember reading an HN comment that described the Standard Model as a sort of legacy codebase with technical debt and strange abstractions to fix earlier errors. That resonates with me, and in fact seems applicable to the entirety of the human epistemological "tech tree." I sometimes wonder, what secrets might we uncover if we could start fresh, speed running different paths through the tech tree?
My (completely unqualified, armchair level) understanding is that most think dark matter is actually real substance that interacts with gravity but not any other force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid...
"Tangible" might be the wrong word since our regular-matter senses and sensors could not "touch" it. Theories do exist that our model of gravity is just wrong at large scales. This falls under Modified Newtonian Dynamics, but has problems that don't match observation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics#Ou...
"Tangible" might be the wrong word since our regular-matter senses and sensors could not "touch" it. Theories do exist that our model of gravity is just wrong at large scales. This falls under Modified Newtonian Dynamics, but has problems that don't match observation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics#Ou...
Rules out chemistry that interacts with regular matter, but is it ruled out that there are forces that govern dark matter internally? Dark electromagnetism? Or can we tell from interaction with gravity that dark matter doesn't interact with itself in any way?
We are not even sure it exists, so anything is possible. All we know is there something we can’t see or detect in any way, except that it affects on how fast the galaxies spin. But it could be that our models are just wrong.
The core issue is that we have no idea how consciousness sparks into being. Everything we know indicates that you need something brain-like, which requires a particular set of environmental stimuli and developmental history to form.
Maybe there's another way to create consciousness, but we'll probably never find out.
Maybe there's another way to create consciousness, but we'll probably never find out.
There's no evidence that consciousness "sparks into being" at all. Self awareness probably needs something brain-like, but that's a different matter.
I just mean consciousness as opposed to no consciousness. We don't know what causes it or where it comes from.
My thoughts are that if we can measure [Thing A] sufficiently precisely, we can figure out a way to impact/harness [Thing A], regardless of what it actually is. Therefore, it's just a matter of developing appropriately advanced technology to be able to impact the base laws of physics. I think it's harder to get to that point than anyone could ever imagine just because of the natural tendency for species to destroy themselves.
I think that Ringworld had that part right - any species that is sufficiently advanced to be interstellar travelers would absolutely have to be able to identify, and nullify, naturally selected traits about themselves.
I think that Ringworld had that part right - any species that is sufficiently advanced to be interstellar travelers would absolutely have to be able to identify, and nullify, naturally selected traits about themselves.
[deleted]
Well, here's my hypothesis: The universe develops in superposition until the first observer emerges, causing the superpositions to collapse. Meaning, the first possible observer will not only be guaranteed to exist, they will also make their mark on the universe. Conversely, they also adjust the local universe to their causality, making it harder for other observers to emerge. – In other words, there we did something again, by launching the Webb telescope… ;-)
(PS: Here, the universe behaves like a path search for first possible observers and, thus, causality. Posing the question, if there is no possible observer in a given universe, does it even exist or is the search exhausted in what isn't even an instant? Anyway, let's call it the "race to causality" hypothesis.)
(PS: Here, the universe behaves like a path search for first possible observers and, thus, causality. Posing the question, if there is no possible observer in a given universe, does it even exist or is the search exhausted in what isn't even an instant? Anyway, let's call it the "race to causality" hypothesis.)
Here's my hypothesis: the quantum flux remains in a state of zero-point energy superposition until the power of quantum consciousness emerges through dark energy chaos and acts to select from the multiverse of madness the timeline curve to follow.
We're having a contest in who can string more meaningless physics-sounding words together, right?
To be less snarky: the word "observer" in physics has nothing to do with a self-aware brain. Photons are about as good at causing decoherence as you are.
We're having a contest in who can string more meaningless physics-sounding words together, right?
To be less snarky: the word "observer" in physics has nothing to do with a self-aware brain. Photons are about as good at causing decoherence as you are.
Regarding being snarky: I guess, you've observed the ";-)" annotation… ;-)
(Conventional meaning: this is irony/a joke and the author doesn't actually believe in this.)
(Conventional meaning: this is irony/a joke and the author doesn't actually believe in this.)
As this apparently requires some explanation: In this thought experiment of a hypothetical quantum-ontological universe, an (aware) observer would come with their very own sphere of causality, which not necessarily defines the entirety of the universe. While this may explain our apparent loneliness, it would also pose another, even more urgent question: What would happen as we expand our horizon, thus expanding our own sphere of causality into what may be already established realities that are not necessarily compatible with our own? Is everything going to collapse? Or, what forms of life will never be, just because we became aware of these parts of the universe? Is exploration even ethical? On the other hand, I enjoy the thought of a lone water bear floating into outer space and thus defining reality.
Like, I'm sorry, but this has no connection to anything in mainstream physics. There is no indication that causality is connected to observation. You appear to think that "observation" is a process involving awareness, which is just not what the word means, in the context of QM.
This is like a scifi story maybe, but none of what you've said has any rigorous meaning. "sphere of causality" would be a cool band name, though.
This is like a scifi story maybe, but none of what you've said has any rigorous meaning. "sphere of causality" would be a cool band name, though.
Cosmology isn't only physics, it has also (always) been a playground for thought experiments and philosophy. (Compare the rather well established field of science fiction.) But, even if it's just about physics, I'm pretty amazed how cosmology seems to mirror the current state of media, which is a cultural artefact. (E.g, we had theories like the holographic universe, the pixelated universe, etc, not to speak of the clock, quite in accordance with respective trends in media technology. In the end, this isn't really surprising, as it's always about us observing the universe, the ultimate medium.)
Do you mean observer as in a photon?
I believe this hypothesis assumes some sort of metaphysical property to consciousness. Also, Permutation City did it first (consider this a book recommendation).
Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. I'm just some random internet dude who likes learning things. My understanding is that a single photon wouldn't count as an observer. It doesn't even experience time (from the point of view of the photon, admission and absorption are simultaneous). Now if that photon is entangled with another photon, that can then be considered an observer. Someone please correct me if this is not accurate.
(Disclaimer: physics undergrad.) I honestly wish we could get away from the word "observer" - it's more or less a historical accident and it probably confuses more than it helps.
Talking about coherence and [decoherence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence) is IMO a lot more intuitive. Always keep in mind, if you're reading about quantum physics and there's anything in there about consciousness or subjective experience or whatever, then you're either reading something very fringe, or you've misunderstood what the paper is saying. Quantum physics is weird, but it's not that weird.
Talking about coherence and [decoherence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence) is IMO a lot more intuitive. Always keep in mind, if you're reading about quantum physics and there's anything in there about consciousness or subjective experience or whatever, then you're either reading something very fringe, or you've misunderstood what the paper is saying. Quantum physics is weird, but it's not that weird.
As in "an observer which/who requires causality and cannot exist in superposition". Whatever that is. Is causality a product of at least a minimal level of awareness? (We won't be able to tell, as exploring the concept of causality already presupposes awareness.)
It was a pretty confusing series but I think ultimately the plot of terra ignota is basically this?
The hypothesis of a prohibition on grabby aliens feels more plausible to me than most others. We’re relatively early on the scene. If one Von Neumann probe got out from a civilization it could mean no other species evolve again in the universe. That’s surely disastrous since the universe will be around for trillions of years and survival will require adaptation over that period. So maybe they’re around and watchful to allow species to evolve on their relative own.
Aside, I really wish we were already building the successor to JWST. And multiples of them for surety of success. For verification but also the universe is literally the largest thing we know. Lots of science to learn just by careful watching. It’s also work (astronomy) that does add to human knowledge with few negative externalities. So create jobs for astronomers!!
Aside, I really wish we were already building the successor to JWST. And multiples of them for surety of success. For verification but also the universe is literally the largest thing we know. Lots of science to learn just by careful watching. It’s also work (astronomy) that does add to human knowledge with few negative externalities. So create jobs for astronomers!!
I think VN probes are impossibly hard and extremely unlikely.
A working VN probe literally has to reproduce a significant part of an entire civilisation's industrial capacity - mining, refining, all levels of assembly - while improvising with a mix of raw materials which may not be similar to those available at source.
And it has to do it in a way that is 100% guaranteed free from software bugs, hardware failures, and general space wear and tear. Over millions of years. (Assuming FTL isn't possible.)
You may as well as just seed viruses everywhere and see what they evolve into. (What if we are the VN probe?)
A working VN probe literally has to reproduce a significant part of an entire civilisation's industrial capacity - mining, refining, all levels of assembly - while improvising with a mix of raw materials which may not be similar to those available at source.
And it has to do it in a way that is 100% guaranteed free from software bugs, hardware failures, and general space wear and tear. Over millions of years. (Assuming FTL isn't possible.)
You may as well as just seed viruses everywhere and see what they evolve into. (What if we are the VN probe?)
Even if the traditional image of a VN probe were impossible, and I doubt that, the effect of a traditional VN probe is unambiguously also achievable with a big enough group of humans and tools.
On this scale, 10 MT of industrial equipment and 100k people that self-replicates in 35 years, isn't particularly different from a fancy hypothetical atomic 3D printer that masses 1kg, needs another 1kg of support equipment, and which self-replicates in 6 months.
On this scale, 10 MT of industrial equipment and 100k people that self-replicates in 35 years, isn't particularly different from a fancy hypothetical atomic 3D printer that masses 1kg, needs another 1kg of support equipment, and which self-replicates in 6 months.
The VN probe thing was mostly a mechanism to make the point for having a prohibition on a civilization becoming too grabby. Maybe the UFOs and such are the local galactic “police” looking for civilizations that would want to participate in a vast diversity of life in the future universe and acting as a backstop in case someone gets too grabby.
> Maybe the UFOs and such are the local galactic “police”
Greg Bear had a series on this. I think this concept may depend on FTL travel/communication, though, at least in order to work well. Or at least on communication being much faster than travel. (In other words, if the speed of light is the limit, if VN probes are restricted to much slower speeds, the "Police" may be able to contain them, but if they're too fast, the probles will spread faster than the "Police" may stop the spread).
And if the Policing is not done by a single civ, but is something that was set up by a coalition of civs that may exists 100s of thousands of light years apart, I think FTL communication is basically required to be able to even create such a coalition in the first place.
My personal gut feeling, is that we're simply first in this area of Space.
Greg Bear had a series on this. I think this concept may depend on FTL travel/communication, though, at least in order to work well. Or at least on communication being much faster than travel. (In other words, if the speed of light is the limit, if VN probes are restricted to much slower speeds, the "Police" may be able to contain them, but if they're too fast, the probles will spread faster than the "Police" may stop the spread).
And if the Policing is not done by a single civ, but is something that was set up by a coalition of civs that may exists 100s of thousands of light years apart, I think FTL communication is basically required to be able to even create such a coalition in the first place.
My personal gut feeling, is that we're simply first in this area of Space.
> A working VN probe literally has to reproduce a significant part of an entire civilisation's industrial capacity - mining, refining, all levels of assembly - while improvising with a mix of raw materials which may not be similar to those available at source.
The optimization target here is a minimum-complexity design that's able to reproduce itself using in-situ materials. This is still an unsolved problem, but I don't see a reason the probe would have to "reproduce a significant part of an entire civilsation's industrial capacity" - it doesn't have to build anything else other than its own copy (and whatever it needs for that). It has to do one thing, and thus we could cut corners in the design.
> And it has to do it in a way that is 100% guaranteed free from software bugs, hardware failures, and general space wear and tear. Over millions of years. (Assuming FTL isn't possible.)
This is not a hard requirement. You don't need 100% reliability - you only need enough so that, on average, one probe turns into more than one. Beyond that, more reliability only speeds things up. This is how biology does it: reliability is achieved by doing more things than necessary and rejecting (recycling) failures.
The optimization target here is a minimum-complexity design that's able to reproduce itself using in-situ materials. This is still an unsolved problem, but I don't see a reason the probe would have to "reproduce a significant part of an entire civilsation's industrial capacity" - it doesn't have to build anything else other than its own copy (and whatever it needs for that). It has to do one thing, and thus we could cut corners in the design.
> And it has to do it in a way that is 100% guaranteed free from software bugs, hardware failures, and general space wear and tear. Over millions of years. (Assuming FTL isn't possible.)
This is not a hard requirement. You don't need 100% reliability - you only need enough so that, on average, one probe turns into more than one. Beyond that, more reliability only speeds things up. This is how biology does it: reliability is achieved by doing more things than necessary and rejecting (recycling) failures.
"You may as well as just seed viruses everywhere"
A virus needs a host cell to replicate, so they likey would not get far. But bacteria survive in space quite well, and I would just send them. Or like you said, maybe some asteroid with bacterias was send to us on purpose and got successful.
A virus needs a host cell to replicate, so they likey would not get far. But bacteria survive in space quite well, and I would just send them. Or like you said, maybe some asteroid with bacterias was send to us on purpose and got successful.
Life is a likely VN.
Edit-not that life is anyone in particulars VN probe. But it’s clearly self replicating and can evolve to various conditions. Kind of the obvious example to prove the existence of VN probes as a logical concept.
Edit-not that life is anyone in particulars VN probe. But it’s clearly self replicating and can evolve to various conditions. Kind of the obvious example to prove the existence of VN probes as a logical concept.
Life is self-replicating, but it can't just use any substrate. Nutrition and energy requirements are quite specific. Any life on earth that managed to survive an interstellar journey would need to find organic chemicals similar to what are found on earth in order to continue replicating, and I think at least water as well. There are only some tiny number of spores that can survive in a vacuum at all, and while I don't think it's impossible that something like them could actually survive an entire interstellar journey, I'm reasonably sure nothing we know of can do that. They also can't change course. Most space is empty, so the most likely place they end up is nowhere. The next most likely are the largest gravity wells, which are all stars and black holes, where they are not going to replicate. Then you get to planets, but giant gas planets are going to be the largest gravity wells among planets. Assuming even one manages to find a planet earth-like enough to support life like it, would it survive atmospheric re-entry? Spores don't have heat shields.
What you're describing is something like the protomolecule from the Expanse books, which is a nice concept, but it required its creators to have the technology to locally alter the laws of physics as we know them to work, making it possible to use an asteroid with no propulsion system as a carrier vehicle, with energy sucked out of a different universe they figured out how to gain access to (not something that is likely to actually be possible).
What you're describing is something like the protomolecule from the Expanse books, which is a nice concept, but it required its creators to have the technology to locally alter the laws of physics as we know them to work, making it possible to use an asteroid with no propulsion system as a carrier vehicle, with energy sucked out of a different universe they figured out how to gain access to (not something that is likely to actually be possible).
Fortunately water is extremely common in the universe, as are the other building blocks of life. Every proposal I've seen for life not based on carbon, water, and the other building blocks of life here relies on chemistry that is hard to pull off in a lab (or impossible, though in theory is seems like it should be possible). Water and Carbon have some very interesting chemical properties that make it the mostly likely building blocks for life.
Of course since we are talking about unknowns, I can't say for sure that life elsewhere isn't made of something else, but our current knowledge of chemistry makes the idea unlikely.
Of course since we are talking about unknowns, I can't say for sure that life elsewhere isn't made of something else, but our current knowledge of chemistry makes the idea unlikely.
Wikipedia has a quite interesting article about non-carbon-based lifeforms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemi...
You and I almost fit the definition of VN probes if you allow for mutation. Stephen Baxter's writing covers that notion on his book Evolution as a minor point.
Odd that Northrop Grumman are publishing this. Otherwise the point about phosphorous relative importance (in terrestrial biochemistry) vs abundance is new to me, very interesting.
WRT phosphorus: this article also brings up the microbes (found in Mono lake) which have allegedly substituted arsenic for phosphorous in their biochemistry. As far as I know, this claim has been refuted, or at least dialed back to their being remarkably arsenic-tolerant.
https://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lakes-arsenic-tolerant-m...
https://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lakes-arsenic-tolerant-m...
My first thought as well. What's in it for them? Planning a pivot toward space based defence assets perhaps? How forward thinking.
Honestly I'm questioning the quality of this website. Seems like it's largely one guy writing low-effort clickbait science articles, likely to raise public awareness of the Northrop Grumman brand and some of their focuses - space, sea, STEM, automation, cyber security, etc.
https://now.northropgrumman.com/aliens-in-the-ocean-is-sea-i...
https://now.northropgrumman.com/proof-of-mermaids-science-te...
https://now.northropgrumman.com/aliens-in-the-ocean-is-sea-i...
https://now.northropgrumman.com/proof-of-mermaids-science-te...
So, I went ahead and tried to read further about the author -- Doug Bonderud. Interesting that his articles are pretty much about aliens, "Aliens in the Ocean", "Proof of Mermaids", "Area 51: Aliens, or Just a Simple Myth-Understanding?", "What do Astronauts do in Space?", "5 Odd Theories of the Universe That Might Just Be True", "The Great Conjunction Curse: Creative Conjecture or Concerning Coincidence?"
What's odd to me is that this blog is sponsored by Northrop-Gruman.
I think we might see more and more forays into odd-ball theories by the likes of Northrop, Boeing, and other defense contractors/aerospace companies.
With the relatively new "Space Force" spinning up, it's in their best interests to have the American public talking about these things mainstream. They want money. How else to get money? Terrestrial terrors are sort of played out. So why not dip some low-cost toes into the wacky alien technology theories?
Alternate option; they know more than we do and are preparing for something.
Either way.
With the relatively new "Space Force" spinning up, it's in their best interests to have the American public talking about these things mainstream. They want money. How else to get money? Terrestrial terrors are sort of played out. So why not dip some low-cost toes into the wacky alien technology theories?
Alternate option; they know more than we do and are preparing for something.
Either way.
One used to seriously consider the existence of aliens, UFOs, etc. Since the Pentagon and armaments manufacturers started talking about them, these things have seemed much less plausible.
SEO spreads its tentacles even into the vast recesses of the military industrial complex.
An american Defense Contractor writing about this just reeks of slow preparation of the public for the eventual release of evidence that some of those Navy UAPs are in fact extra-terrestrial and we have no Idea what to do about it.
There are videos debunking them which are pretty damn convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs
More plausibly, they are seeding the Demon Haunted World theory to distract the populous from their immediate problems. I found the timing of resurgent UFO/UAP stories & official statements at the height of the pandemic quite dubious.
I did/do really enjoy the thought experiments posited in these comments. For more than a few minutes my mind's eye forgot that my finances have been a slow-motion trainwreck these last 3 years.
I did/do really enjoy the thought experiments posited in these comments. For more than a few minutes my mind's eye forgot that my finances have been a slow-motion trainwreck these last 3 years.
Or they are positioning themselves as a “thought leader” in order to win lucrative contracts to study those UAPs. For the public benefit, of course.
100% this. The releases by the government, these sorts of stories. I am 100% convinced it's just to chase defense contracts and to justify further US federal spending on this.
Sometimes the stupidest reason is the reason. Especially when it comes to money.
Sometimes the stupidest reason is the reason. Especially when it comes to money.
This is even better and more realistic!
Follow the money
> as noted by businessinsider.com
The pinnacle of trustable and verified information.
The pinnacle of trustable and verified information.
Let's imagine 1 civilization lasts 10 million years on a planet. Then it either blows itself out or moves away.
Let's imagine it takes another 10 million years for a new one to spawn out there.
Within 100 million years we could get 5 different civilizations, each unaware of the other ones, unless some long-lasting (> 10 my) relic can be found.
So, for two civilization to come in contact you need to be within the same space-time boundaries. Otherwise they could be either too far in time or too far in space. Provided that both civilizations can physically get in an effective contact.
I’d say any form of life out there would have to go through some form of capitalism that would extinct them before they’d be able to be advanced enough to get in touch, but also I always had this stupid idea, that if to develop an intelligent form of life it took a inhabitable planet then why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?
So, the traditional counter to this is that they have: the crows/ravens and parrots all have member species who are pretty smart, there's plenty of smart aquatic molluscs (squid, octopuses and cuttlefish), and then there's dolphins, etc.
No, none of them have developed technology to the extent humanity has - but it's not inconceivable that they would, if humanity weren't already around to mess with them. They just need another hundred thousand to million years of the right evolutionary pressure...
I've sometimes thought about how, if humanity goes extinct in the future, then some other intelligent species will replace us on earth. And that species would likely be descended from some pair of animals that is alive today.
There could be a couple of elephants in Africa right now who are the ancestors of a future intelligent species on Earth!
There could be a couple of elephants in Africa right now who are the ancestors of a future intelligent species on Earth!
Today I learned that cephalopods are molluscs
> why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?
i guess the earth has a few billion years left to find out...
> I’d say any form of life out there would have to go through some form of capitalism
This is anthropomorphizing at its best because we humans have largely decided that capitalist is the best "*ism". Alien intelligence could have basically unimaginable governments, societal norms, morals and/or motivations.
> (...) then why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?
The answer here is probably just evolution. Other intelligent species have developed on Earth thorough its history (e.g.: Neanderthals, Denisovans). They're not here anymore because we (Homo-Sapiens) killed them.
This is anthropomorphizing at its best because we humans have largely decided that capitalist is the best "*ism". Alien intelligence could have basically unimaginable governments, societal norms, morals and/or motivations.
> (...) then why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?
The answer here is probably just evolution. Other intelligent species have developed on Earth thorough its history (e.g.: Neanderthals, Denisovans). They're not here anymore because we (Homo-Sapiens) killed them.
Capitalism is the apogee of survival of the fittest which is the basis of evolution which, lacking plausible alternate routes, can be argued to be the basis of all life everywhere. So I accept the posts premise that "some form of capitalism" is required. Great apes have capitalism.
Do you really think that capitalism is the apogee of survival of the fittest? I am not sure, I personally don’t think that survival of the fittest is something to look out for, but I think that capitalism awards mental issues like greed, psychopaths, or people with good intelligence but poor genetics? I think as a system it rewards what is useful for the system but not necessarily only the fittest and also think that probably our species not focusing on the fittest has made us make a lot of advancements in fields like medicine
Advances in medicine are almost all driven by capitalism and thus survival of the fittest.
Capitalism is definitely not the apogee of survival of the fittest from the "evolution theory" side of things, only in the "society we created for ourselves" side.
Extrapolating from our current understanding of civilization and assuming that it will still be capitalism that rules a 1 million year old civilization is not (imho) a valid assumption.
Even now, a mere fraction of that time, we're already kind of predicting a time where, if not for some type of semi-utopian Star Trek'ian society with stuff like basic income, the future of many many jobs (if we agree that jobs/labor are at the core of a capitalistic society) are already at risk with automation and AI.
Extrapolating from our current understanding of civilization and assuming that it will still be capitalism that rules a 1 million year old civilization is not (imho) a valid assumption.
Even now, a mere fraction of that time, we're already kind of predicting a time where, if not for some type of semi-utopian Star Trek'ian society with stuff like basic income, the future of many many jobs (if we agree that jobs/labor are at the core of a capitalistic society) are already at risk with automation and AI.
I think I understood your message and I agree with you, was also thinking the same thing if the premise of me understanding the message is true, we’re losing a lot of value to the society due to capitalism, in terms of philosophers, thinkers, artists and such?
The overall wealth of society make possible the pursuits of philosophers, thinkers, artists and such.
> Great apes have capitalism.
Control of the "means of production". For grate apes, that would mean control of access to a fig tree.
Looking at the rate of technological progress, my bets are that intelligent life that spreads intergalactically takes extremely small time to do so (relative to the expected time to randomly spawn life from fluctuations). So the odds of two simultaneous fluctuations competing is nearly zero. We're just the first, and it is the normal thing to expect to be the first. With sufficiently high ratio between these two durations, most observers in most universes would be the first ones. Being first isn't special, it's actually the most common.
There is pbs space video https://youtu.be/uTrFAY3LUNw about topic.
Why do you conclude we’re the first?
Because we have no evidence to suggest we are anything but, and we don't know if there will be others.
Given that we believe the universe to be infinite, we could be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3 billionth, etc. But one thing is for sure, we're on the list, but our likelihood of correctly guessing our position on the list is 1/Infinity.
However, if we assume that there is SOME constraint, then that list is no longer infinite. Instead of our 'guess accuracy' being effectively 0, it's 1/<list length>.
If there are 3 billion, we might be 3 billionth, but if there are 2 billion, we are definitely not 3 billionth. The same follows all the way down to if there are only two, we may be either first or second. We know that there is at LEAST one, so if we guess first, we're at least certainly not guessing out of range.
The probability, without any other information to the contrary, of us being 'first' is higher than the probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
Therefore it is a more logical conclusion—although clearly it should not be parroted as a fact.
Given that we believe the universe to be infinite, we could be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3 billionth, etc. But one thing is for sure, we're on the list, but our likelihood of correctly guessing our position on the list is 1/Infinity.
However, if we assume that there is SOME constraint, then that list is no longer infinite. Instead of our 'guess accuracy' being effectively 0, it's 1/<list length>.
If there are 3 billion, we might be 3 billionth, but if there are 2 billion, we are definitely not 3 billionth. The same follows all the way down to if there are only two, we may be either first or second. We know that there is at LEAST one, so if we guess first, we're at least certainly not guessing out of range.
The probability, without any other information to the contrary, of us being 'first' is higher than the probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
Therefore it is a more logical conclusion—although clearly it should not be parroted as a fact.
> Because we have no evidence to suggest we are anything but
I'd say we do:
- we have plenty of evidence that at a given point of time, our knowledge/evidence is incomplete (consider the history of science) - so, since we are at a given point in time, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that we may still be in a position of non-omniscience.
- we have plenty of evidence that how things appear to people (say: no evidence) is very often other than how it really is
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...
> The probability, without any other information to the contrary, of us being 'first' is higher than the probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
This seems very unintuitive to me, is it possible to demonstrate this in some sort of a mathematical form (And: is the only possible probabilistic calculation one could do)?
I'd say we do:
- we have plenty of evidence that at a given point of time, our knowledge/evidence is incomplete (consider the history of science) - so, since we are at a given point in time, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that we may still be in a position of non-omniscience.
- we have plenty of evidence that how things appear to people (say: no evidence) is very often other than how it really is
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...
> The probability, without any other information to the contrary, of us being 'first' is higher than the probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
This seems very unintuitive to me, is it possible to demonstrate this in some sort of a mathematical form (And: is the only possible probabilistic calculation one could do)?
> it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that we may still be in a position of non-omniscience.
Not even reasonable, in fact, this is one of the premises of my statement.
If we knew for sure how many intelligent species have spread intergalactically, we would not need to be making estimates.
For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following:
I reach into a bag, and I pull out a die. The die has a one on it.
We have the following assumptions:
The specific number drawn represents humanity's place in the sequence.
Let's initially start with 1, single sided die.
Now let's imagine adding dice. We add one more.
We can throw 10 000 dice into the bag. There will be 10 000 opportunities to be 'first', 9 999 opportunities to be 'second' and so on.
Because we don't know how many dice are in the bag, 'one' is a better guess than 'ten thousand'.
[0]: It's worth noting we're not travelling intergalactically (or even interstellarly) just yet.
Not even reasonable, in fact, this is one of the premises of my statement.
If we knew for sure how many intelligent species have spread intergalactically, we would not need to be making estimates.
For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following:
I reach into a bag, and I pull out a die. The die has a one on it.
We have the following assumptions:
- The bag contains at least 1 die
- Dice can have 1 or more sides (let's call them 4D dice)
- All dice have at least one face with a 1 on it
The specific number drawn represents humanity's place in the sequence.
Let's initially start with 1, single sided die.
- What is my probability of drawing a 1 sided die? 1 out of 1.
- What is my probability of being position number 1 on the die? 1 out of 1.
Now let's imagine adding dice. We add one more.
- What is my probability of drawing a 1 sided die? 1/2
- What is my overall probability of drawing a 1? There are two 'ones' and one 'two', so 2/3
- What is my probability of drawing a 1 sided die? 1/3
- What is my overall probability of drawing a 1? There are three 'ones', two twos, and one three, so 3/6
We can throw 10 000 dice into the bag. There will be 10 000 opportunities to be 'first', 9 999 opportunities to be 'second' and so on.
Because we don't know how many dice are in the bag, 'one' is a better guess than 'ten thousand'.
[0]: It's worth noting we're not travelling intergalactically (or even interstellarly) just yet.
> For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
Technically, you are referring to your model:
a) it is possible that evidence can exist but a human does not have knowledge of it
b) it is possible that people have differences of opinions on what constitutes evidence, because that is largely a subjective matter, and humans are famous for being unable to reliably distinguish between objective and subjective matters
> I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following...
I think my (highly unusual) point of contention here is other than you intuit - your earlier comment ([emphasis] mine):
>> [The] probability, [without any other information to the contrary], of us being 'first' [is] higher than [the] probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
You have made a prediction about reality based on "a" model, but speak (and perhaps believed, at runtime) that it is "the" model.
As for your argument, while it's all true, I cannot see how this can cause reality itself to be a particular way. Statistics and thought experiments (~~propaganda~~ journalism, ideologies and ideology ~marketing, etc) can (and do[1]) certainly cause reality to appear a certain way, but that is something very different.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235
Technically, you are referring to your model:
a) it is possible that evidence can exist but a human does not have knowledge of it
b) it is possible that people have differences of opinions on what constitutes evidence, because that is largely a subjective matter, and humans are famous for being unable to reliably distinguish between objective and subjective matters
> I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following...
I think my (highly unusual) point of contention here is other than you intuit - your earlier comment ([emphasis] mine):
>> [The] probability, [without any other information to the contrary], of us being 'first' [is] higher than [the] probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
You have made a prediction about reality based on "a" model, but speak (and perhaps believed, at runtime) that it is "the" model.
As for your argument, while it's all true, I cannot see how this can cause reality itself to be a particular way. Statistics and thought experiments (~~propaganda~~ journalism, ideologies and ideology ~marketing, etc) can (and do[1]) certainly cause reality to appear a certain way, but that is something very different.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235
Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct?
That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Unless of course, the universe is deterministic, in which case the correct model will actually be a list. Or in case it turns out that coins land heads due to a fluctuation in the coin-toss field which we are not currently aware of, so the correct model would involve first observing the coin-toss field.
Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Unless of course, the universe is deterministic, in which case the correct model will actually be a list. Or in case it turns out that coins land heads due to a fluctuation in the coin-toss field which we are not currently aware of, so the correct model would involve first observing the coin-toss field.
Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
> Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct?
Not quite - I am noting that you speak as if you are not working from a model.
"For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence."
As I noted, you do not actually know if there is no evidence absolutely, you are describing the absence of evidence in your possession/knowledge.
> That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2.
Sure, but in this case we are not discussing a well known domain (coins), we are discussing a not known at all domain (aliens).
And even here in your simple thought experiment, there are facts that you do not have knowledge of (a rigged coin, that you do not realize is rigged (according to your description) because "based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads").
> Unless of course, the universe is deterministic...
Another matter that is not known, but broadly believed to be known.
> Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way.
Generally agree, but even here it's not that simple. Models can cause reality to appear a certain way (consistent with the model), and perceptions of reality are a very important component of reality (very often more important than "actual" reality, in that belief > truth when it comes to human action, which is what determines the end state of physical reality).
> A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Disagree. Some models are built to deceive - see: propaganda/journalism/etc.
> Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
Better models are possible: for example, it is possible to make epistemic status(es) a first class concept. Early 21st century humans tend to very much not like epistemology and logic, but it is there for our usage if we should ever change our ways.
Not quite - I am noting that you speak as if you are not working from a model.
"For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence."
As I noted, you do not actually know if there is no evidence absolutely, you are describing the absence of evidence in your possession/knowledge.
> That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2.
Sure, but in this case we are not discussing a well known domain (coins), we are discussing a not known at all domain (aliens).
And even here in your simple thought experiment, there are facts that you do not have knowledge of (a rigged coin, that you do not realize is rigged (according to your description) because "based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads").
> Unless of course, the universe is deterministic...
Another matter that is not known, but broadly believed to be known.
> Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way.
Generally agree, but even here it's not that simple. Models can cause reality to appear a certain way (consistent with the model), and perceptions of reality are a very important component of reality (very often more important than "actual" reality, in that belief > truth when it comes to human action, which is what determines the end state of physical reality).
> A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Disagree. Some models are built to deceive - see: propaganda/journalism/etc.
> Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
Better models are possible: for example, it is possible to make epistemic status(es) a first class concept. Early 21st century humans tend to very much not like epistemology and logic, but it is there for our usage if we should ever change our ways.
I mean solipsistically we could always argue that all of “reality” is purely our own perception.
You are of course correct that our models are incomplete, and that models can intentionally or otherwise mislead.
For the sake of discussion, what would an epistemological model look like?
You are of course correct that our models are incomplete, and that models can intentionally or otherwise mislead.
For the sake of discussion, what would an epistemological model look like?
I think that depends on the size of the universe. If the universe really is infinite, I don’t think we can say anything about where we are on the list. Even if only one star in a billion galaxies has intelligent life, there could already be an infinite number of civilizations ahead of us.
> The probability, without any other information to the contrary, of us being 'first' is higher than the probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.
That doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like, assuming we’re not the only ones and we’re randomly likely to appear in the list, we’re far more likely to appear in any other position than the first.
There’s also a separate interesting thing where “first” is kind of non sensical when you’re talking about the universe. There’s no global ordering of events.
That doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like, assuming we’re not the only ones and we’re randomly likely to appear in the list, we’re far more likely to appear in any other position than the first.
There’s also a separate interesting thing where “first” is kind of non sensical when you’re talking about the universe. There’s no global ordering of events.
It’s true, we’re more likely to appear in a position other than one (not “any other position” specifically though), but your assumption that we are not the only ones is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
The existence of life in the universe is clearly a non-0 probability event. Same for “intelligent” life. Although arguably almost all life on earth is intelligent so I’m assuming you mean human-level intelligence. Well, in which case we probably have a few contenders for at least getting fairly close if not matching given we have trouble defining intelligence (elephants, octopus, dolphin, some primates, crows etc). Let’s say life that can build technology and shape the world around them then.
If the universe is mathematically infinite, then it’s guaranteed we’re not the only ones because any low probability event will still happen infinitely many times in that case. So let’s say the universe is very very large but not mathematically infinite.
So then the question is a) what percentage of planets develop life b) what percentage of life develops a species capable of building technology c) what is the likelihood that species has access to resources on the planet to build that technology. We don’t know what a) is (just non-0) but using your equivalent argument for that of “we haven’t found any” I can counter by saying well, as far as we know b and c are 100% as the only planet we know to have life developed a intelligent technology-building species and the likelihood that that just happened by luck seems astronomically low (ie you’d need life to be extremely common and intelligent life not so but the odds seem against you if life is rare AND intelligent life is rarer still). I would argue that when life develops intelligent life is almost assured because pf evolutionary pressures. Now whether the right circumstances exist for them to evolve from basic tools to space ships, who knows. But that’s secondary.
So does life exist? Given the size of the universe it would be hard to bet against the argument that life has evolved somewhere out there in the universe. And given that it has, what are the odds that intelligent life came about? Again I’d say high because the same evolutionary pressures would exist to fill in niches that intelligence wins at.
So I don’t think it’s all that heavy a lift. Note that I’m not claiming they are space faring, have developed advanced mathematics, can communicate in any way that we’d understand each other or anything like that. I’m simply noting there’s multiple species even here on Earth who at a minimum come close to humans, which means the probability seems quite good unless our Earth is a magical place in the universe that is particularly special somehow at generating sentience. Thus the odds of there being intelligent sentient life out there seems to be the same as whether or not there’s any life out there. And since we know that’s non-0 and the universe is very very big, then it stands to reason there’s very likely intelligent life out there. Note even the observable universe itself is big enough that there’s likely other intelligent life within it. The total universe is much much larger than that and we’d never ever see evidence of life from there because we’ll never see anything from it because it’s forever outside of the expansion of the universe.
If the universe is mathematically infinite, then it’s guaranteed we’re not the only ones because any low probability event will still happen infinitely many times in that case. So let’s say the universe is very very large but not mathematically infinite.
So then the question is a) what percentage of planets develop life b) what percentage of life develops a species capable of building technology c) what is the likelihood that species has access to resources on the planet to build that technology. We don’t know what a) is (just non-0) but using your equivalent argument for that of “we haven’t found any” I can counter by saying well, as far as we know b and c are 100% as the only planet we know to have life developed a intelligent technology-building species and the likelihood that that just happened by luck seems astronomically low (ie you’d need life to be extremely common and intelligent life not so but the odds seem against you if life is rare AND intelligent life is rarer still). I would argue that when life develops intelligent life is almost assured because pf evolutionary pressures. Now whether the right circumstances exist for them to evolve from basic tools to space ships, who knows. But that’s secondary.
So does life exist? Given the size of the universe it would be hard to bet against the argument that life has evolved somewhere out there in the universe. And given that it has, what are the odds that intelligent life came about? Again I’d say high because the same evolutionary pressures would exist to fill in niches that intelligence wins at.
So I don’t think it’s all that heavy a lift. Note that I’m not claiming they are space faring, have developed advanced mathematics, can communicate in any way that we’d understand each other or anything like that. I’m simply noting there’s multiple species even here on Earth who at a minimum come close to humans, which means the probability seems quite good unless our Earth is a magical place in the universe that is particularly special somehow at generating sentience. Thus the odds of there being intelligent sentient life out there seems to be the same as whether or not there’s any life out there. And since we know that’s non-0 and the universe is very very big, then it stands to reason there’s very likely intelligent life out there. Note even the observable universe itself is big enough that there’s likely other intelligent life within it. The total universe is much much larger than that and we’d never ever see evidence of life from there because we’ll never see anything from it because it’s forever outside of the expansion of the universe.
> If the universe is mathematically infinite, then it’s guaranteed we’re not the only ones because any low probability event will still happen infinitely many times in that case.
This isn't really true in any meaningful sense.
What is the probability of me tossing a coin immediately after writing this comment, and it landing heads? As I write now, it is 1/2. However, it's clear that only one outcome is possible. EDIT: it was tails. It didn't come up heads, however infinite the universe may be, it just didn't.
(Note: there is a non-zero probability that a similar being sits in front of his computer in a similar shirt, having a similar online discussion, who tosses a similar circular disk which comes up a different way, but that being is not me).
> the likelihood that that just happened by luck seems astronomically low
It seems that way, but as you are arguing elsewhere, unlikely things can and do happen in the universe.
> Note that I’m not claiming they are space faring
That's part of OPs premise, but I don't mind leaving it out of the discussion.
I actually like your formulation:
The crux of my argument is really a). We don't know what percentage of planets develop life. But as yet, we are unique.
On a personal level, by the way, I do actually suspect that we are not alone in the universe, but that's a gut feeling, and I don't believe there's maths to support it.
EDIT: FWIW, it was tails.
This isn't really true in any meaningful sense.
What is the probability of me tossing a coin immediately after writing this comment, and it landing heads? As I write now, it is 1/2. However, it's clear that only one outcome is possible. EDIT: it was tails. It didn't come up heads, however infinite the universe may be, it just didn't.
(Note: there is a non-zero probability that a similar being sits in front of his computer in a similar shirt, having a similar online discussion, who tosses a similar circular disk which comes up a different way, but that being is not me).
> the likelihood that that just happened by luck seems astronomically low
It seems that way, but as you are arguing elsewhere, unlikely things can and do happen in the universe.
> Note that I’m not claiming they are space faring
That's part of OPs premise, but I don't mind leaving it out of the discussion.
I actually like your formulation:
a. what percentage of planets develop life
b. what percentage of life develops a species capable of building technology
c. what is the likelihood that species has access to resources on the planet to build that technology
The crux of my argument is really a). We don't know what percentage of planets develop life. But as yet, we are unique.
On a personal level, by the way, I do actually suspect that we are not alone in the universe, but that's a gut feeling, and I don't believe there's maths to support it.
EDIT: FWIW, it was tails.
Side note while I think about it, actually we have more evidence than we think. Even on a planet clearly adapted to support life in massive varieties, it seems that all life on earth evolved originally from a single organism. We have millions of years of geological and paleontological evidence, and thousands of years of recorded history, and we have no evidence that this happened more than once.
It does certainly seem from our limited evidence that abiogenesis (or going from not alive to alive) is at best extremely uncommon, or at worst, an isolated anomaly.
It does certainly seem from our limited evidence that abiogenesis (or going from not alive to alive) is at best extremely uncommon, or at worst, an isolated anomaly.
There are three time periods: before there is any intelligent life, during the spread of the first intelligent life, and afterwards where it's already extremely unlikely to be independent of the first life.
If you assume life spreads very fast, the first duration being much much longer than the second, and the third duration has no room for independent life to exist, it means in most universes most observers are the first. Only if a second life somehow develops during the second time window despite the expectation time being the first time window, you'll have a chance of not being the first. The time for a critical fluctuation to arise is much much longer than the time it takes for it to dominate, so most critical fluctuations are the first.
Universe isn't infinite because we know it started with the big bang. We're likely the first in whatever scale it is likely that life can spread to faster than develop independently. So we're likely be the first anywhere we'll ever be able to reach.
If you assume life spreads very fast, the first duration being much much longer than the second, and the third duration has no room for independent life to exist, it means in most universes most observers are the first. Only if a second life somehow develops during the second time window despite the expectation time being the first time window, you'll have a chance of not being the first. The time for a critical fluctuation to arise is much much longer than the time it takes for it to dominate, so most critical fluctuations are the first.
Universe isn't infinite because we know it started with the big bang. We're likely the first in whatever scale it is likely that life can spread to faster than develop independently. So we're likely be the first anywhere we'll ever be able to reach.
> Universe isn't infinite because we know it started with the big bang.
We don't know that whatever was created then was not infinitely large. Also, we don't know how large it is now, due to inflation phase of the big bang creating a space so large that we're still receiving light/signals today that were outside our visible space yesterday.
We don't know that whatever was created then was not infinitely large. Also, we don't know how large it is now, due to inflation phase of the big bang creating a space so large that we're still receiving light/signals today that were outside our visible space yesterday.
Hubris, bravado and ego most likely. There is no evidence of any sort that would indicate this so this thought has to have manifested itself from some fantasy.
> There is no evidence of any sort that would indicate this so this thought has to have manifested itself from some fantasy.
Actually I think you got that backwards. It’s not fantasy, considering that the only evidence that we have that life exists at all are ourselves and what we have on this planet. Of course it’s logical to assume that life exists elsewhere because the math and universe’s scale is staggering and it’s reasonable to assume that if there is life elsewhere some could be more advanced than us. However, until we find someone or something else, all the evidence we have is on this blue marble of ours…so if we are only going to believe what the evidence currently tells us…it’s that we are the only or first emergence of life.
All the rest—conjecture and faith. In essence other civilizations are the fantasy until more evidence is provided to the contrary.
Actually I think you got that backwards. It’s not fantasy, considering that the only evidence that we have that life exists at all are ourselves and what we have on this planet. Of course it’s logical to assume that life exists elsewhere because the math and universe’s scale is staggering and it’s reasonable to assume that if there is life elsewhere some could be more advanced than us. However, until we find someone or something else, all the evidence we have is on this blue marble of ours…so if we are only going to believe what the evidence currently tells us…it’s that we are the only or first emergence of life.
All the rest—conjecture and faith. In essence other civilizations are the fantasy until more evidence is provided to the contrary.
On the contrary, all the evidence supports it. We have spent significant time and resources looking for extraterrestrial life and found nothing.
This is an ad hominem argument. "If you believe this theory, you are a bad person, therefore the theory must be wrong."
Hmm i dont think so in this case. We dont really have any evidence for this theory, so the thought of "we are the first" might be coming from those adjectives he just said. Not that they are bad, but it might just be true.
I do think so. The motivation of the person stating the theory is entirely irrelevant to the correctness of the theory. Bringing it up is nothing but an attempt to disparage the theory by illegitimate means.
Is the zeroth I'm worried about.
We have one example of life beginning and zero examples of intelligent life that spreads intergalactically. About the most favorable thing one can say for your hypothesis is that we have insufficient data to rule it out.
I felt that the Strossian "Bandwidth Explanation" (from Accelerando, a not-great novel but a cornucopia of ideas) for the Fermi paradox honestly made more sense than just about anything else I've heard. The further you are from your planet, the dumber you get . . or, more precisely, the smaller / slower your mind is. So most stick close to the gravity wells and low-latency areas.
Anything that can store data in Planck lengths, that's going to be completely imperceptible, something built into the structure of the universe. Might as well listen to digits of Pi like in Contact.
Anything that can store data in Planck lengths, that's going to be completely imperceptible, something built into the structure of the universe. Might as well listen to digits of Pi like in Contact.
Aliens mean danger and danger means new, advanced and very expensive weaponry.
I like the idea that aliens are here but they reveal just enough of themselves to be at the top of our hierarchy without getting close enough to hurt us or make us hate them. They're here to passively observe, but they also want to make sure we don't expand beyond our solar system, or as Robin Hanson puts it "become grabby" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBZP4rLk6bk&t=6672s
Consider:
Woman forces emergency landing after biting passenger and claiming Jesus told her to open plane door mid-flight
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/woman-bites-passenger-thigh-tries-...
A victim of electromagnetic weaponry used by terrorists for covert crime. Religious figures don't talk to people "telepathically" to make them kill others, criminals posing as them do.
By using these same weapons and methods, they have managed to coerce people working in semiconductor industries into inserting backdoors into all your CPUs - albeit they would rather not be known that this is the case and prefer resorting to making people do what that woman did so killings look like human error instead of malicious sabotage.
"Aliens" is just one of the false narratives propped up so people keep looking up to the skies while weaponry buried on Earth's core (maybe by a previous civilization, "Silurian hypothesis") is used for total electromagnetic surveillance of this planet and sabotage of our science - like in the Three Body Trilogy.
Woman forces emergency landing after biting passenger and claiming Jesus told her to open plane door mid-flight
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/woman-bites-passenger-thigh-tries-...
A victim of electromagnetic weaponry used by terrorists for covert crime. Religious figures don't talk to people "telepathically" to make them kill others, criminals posing as them do.
By using these same weapons and methods, they have managed to coerce people working in semiconductor industries into inserting backdoors into all your CPUs - albeit they would rather not be known that this is the case and prefer resorting to making people do what that woman did so killings look like human error instead of malicious sabotage.
"Aliens" is just one of the false narratives propped up so people keep looking up to the skies while weaponry buried on Earth's core (maybe by a previous civilization, "Silurian hypothesis") is used for total electromagnetic surveillance of this planet and sabotage of our science - like in the Three Body Trilogy.
To add to this rather fun, hypothetical conversation…I join most Christians to believe in angelic beings - creatures who exist in an invisible universe alongside us. I see no difference between the Christian understanding of an “angel” and what we call “invisible aliens” in culture.
In fact, many religions accept a kind of shadow-world as part of their orthodoxy.
Perhaps it’s all superstition emerging from our biology but it is at least possible that someone knew something meaningful about a shadow-world and encoded that knowledge into religion.
In fact, many religions accept a kind of shadow-world as part of their orthodoxy.
Perhaps it’s all superstition emerging from our biology but it is at least possible that someone knew something meaningful about a shadow-world and encoded that knowledge into religion.
> In fact, many religions accept a kind of shadow-world as part of their orthodoxy.
Consider pre-scientific times: little did people know at the time that there was a whole world or "level of reality" all around them that could be seen, but only to those who knew how (which had to be discovered and developed). Consider also some of the reactions (powered by intuition) people would have back then if someone from the future ran some of the things we now know and take for granted by them, and compare that to how modern people react when propositions regarding unknown matters are presented to them.
It seems at least plausible that humanity in 2022 has not reached the pinnacle of potential knowledge and capability.
Consider pre-scientific times: little did people know at the time that there was a whole world or "level of reality" all around them that could be seen, but only to those who knew how (which had to be discovered and developed). Consider also some of the reactions (powered by intuition) people would have back then if someone from the future ran some of the things we now know and take for granted by them, and compare that to how modern people react when propositions regarding unknown matters are presented to them.
It seems at least plausible that humanity in 2022 has not reached the pinnacle of potential knowledge and capability.
[deleted]
we don't really know how and why life came about and how representative it might be of a broader phenomenon unfolding across the universe. but anything else of that nature happening around here would have to have a minuscule footprint in terms of the conventional physics / standard model to successfully evade serendipitous detection in any of the countless and very diverse measurements across physics, chemistry, biology and various engineering disciplines worldwide (and for more than a century)
missing pieces (as we now understand the world) show up only when the puzzle reaches cosmological scales. of-course it would be extremely exciting if something "invisible" had a faint trace in our lowly spacetime neighborhood. but as Feynman might have said, the Universe is what it is and it is not hear to entertain us (nor drive clicks onto aerospace company blogs)
missing pieces (as we now understand the world) show up only when the puzzle reaches cosmological scales. of-course it would be extremely exciting if something "invisible" had a faint trace in our lowly spacetime neighborhood. but as Feynman might have said, the Universe is what it is and it is not hear to entertain us (nor drive clicks onto aerospace company blogs)
From the universes timeline, there had to be a civilization which was the first. They pondered to themselves "the universe must be full of life, where is everyone?" But they were the first, hence they never encountered a more advanced species to themselves.
Maybe that's us.
Maybe that's us.
[deleted]
Meh, we can identify and reason about things we can't actually see.
This is an insane rant on hypercube levels. What did I just read??
Nobody wants to talk to meat.
I personally feel that the aliens are everywhere, only we can’t see them. Like shapeshifters, they come and go as they please [1].
[1] My Uncle Larry
[1] My Uncle Larry
I suspect there's probably intelligent life out there and some may be a lot more advanced than us. But I think it's not unreasonable to think that no life in the milky way quite made it to galactic domination yet. If that's even feasible. It's just very hard to find anything short of that right now. And, even if such life exists in other galaxies, it would be very hard to detect that as well. Plus, they are really far away, so their influence didn't quite have the time to reach here.