7 ms·

The actual paper, linked from the top of this article, is very readable and I'd recommend taking the time for it. In summary, the traditional approach to the D

The actual paper, linked from the top of this article, is very readable and I'd recommend taking the time for it. In summary, the traditional approach to the Drake Equation has been to assign fixed values to each polynomial, sometimes an ass-pull and sometimes based off of best estimates from the observable universe. i.e., "0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1..." What these researchers did instead is try to account for the uncertainty of various parameters. They gave each polynomial values in the range of [0, 0.2] for example, ran Monte Carlo simulations on that, and came up with an empty universe 21.45% of the time. To put it another way: we consider it a certainty that some worlds will bear life, and a certainty that some of that life will develop into intelligent civilizations, and a certainty that some of those intelligent civilizations will explore their local system, and a certainty that some of those explorers will develop into massive hyper-intelligent, technologically-advanced, galaxy-spanning species. But we haven't got enough information to be certain about any of those within any reasonable order of magnitude. The probability of any one of those may in fact lie so close to 0 that it solves the Fermi Paradox. FWIW (and it's worth basically nothing), this has been my preferred solution to the Fermi Paradox for a long time now, and it's nice to have this paper to cite when it comes up in the future. I figured that it took Earth 4.5 billion years to produce humans, and humans are only barely space-faring at this point and I'm not certain we'll ever make it out of our solar system. Countless species have appeared and gone extinct in the meantime. It seems far from certain, to me, that evolution necessarily leads to intelligent life, and if I remember right, the latest thinking from evolutionary biologists supports this -- suggesting that modern human intelligence is largely accidental, rather than a byproduct of evolution. The age of the universe would seem to suggest that there's been time for at least a few other worlds to develop intelligent life even at very slow, unlucky paces, but then again, at astronomical time scales the universe has been too violent up until recently to foster that kind of development. The Fermi Paradox seems to have captured a lot of interest from people who like sci-fi and want to think about all kinds of fantastic ideas on why we appear to be alone. Is there a Great Filter? Is this a simulation? Are we in some kind of super-advanced stellar nursery? It's like nerd sniping (https://www.xkcd.com/356/ https://www.xkcd.com/356/) for a particular sort of nerd.

jerf 8y ago
I have no idea why, as I write this, the parent is greying out. It's the only reasonable comment on the article as I write this. I know you're really not supposed to tell people they need to read the article on HN, but the paper underlying the article may be the least understood primary source I've ever seen posted to Hacker News. (This beats out the previous record holder, monad tutorials based around an actively incorrect metaphor.) This is not just a standard reiteration of the Fermi Paradox with somebody's new numbers pulled out of the air. It is a legitimately interesting analysis of the problem as a whole. Read the article and/or the underlying paper, carefully, before just reciting the Standard Cant Against the Fermi Paradox, OK? (And downvoting the only person giving a decent explanation of it.) The Standard Cant is encompassed and superseded by the paper in question, with mathematics.
- reordering 8y ago
  I know I’m not supposed to pile on, either, but... how on earth is your parent still at the bottom? If you accept this paper’s conclusions, all the rest of the discussion here is about science fiction. There’s nothing about the theory or evidence that demands either explanation or refutation. And the one person who actually lays that out is being downvoted for, what, being too explainy? This is bizarre.
bena 8y ago
The one thing that bugs me on the surface about the Fermi Paradox is the assumption that it is possible or feasible to colonize the galaxy. The Drake equation stops at simply releasing detectable signals into space. The Fermi paradox assumes that interstellar travel will be cheap enough and fast enough to make traversing the galaxy a given. Yes, given a few million years, Von Neuman probes can span the galaxy. Ok. And? We, as a species, have a hard time thinking beyond a handful of years. Now we're talking about projects that have a time scales orders of magnitude in duration than anything we've even thought about doing before. I can't really get further than that on the Fermi paradox (or a couple of related ones) because I don't buy the premise to start with. Like the probability that we're in a simulation being likely. It assumes that we will have the power/understanding to simulate reality. I question that assumption. I don't think it's a given.

jerf 8y ago

I have no idea why, as I write this, the parent is greying out. It's the only reasonable comment on the article as I write this. I know you're really not supposed to tell people they need to read the article on HN, but the paper underlying the article may be the least understood primary source I've ever seen posted to Hacker News. (This beats out the previous record holder, monad tutorials based around an actively incorrect metaphor.) This is not just a standard reiteration of the Fermi Paradox with somebody's new numbers pulled out of the air. It is a legitimately interesting analysis of the problem as a whole. Read the article and/or the underlying paper, carefully, before just reciting the Standard Cant Against the Fermi Paradox, OK? (And downvoting the only person giving a decent explanation of it.) The Standard Cant is encompassed and superseded by the paper in question, with mathematics.

reordering 8y ago
I know I’m not supposed to pile on, either, but... how on earth is your parent still at the bottom? If you accept this paper’s conclusions, all the rest of the discussion here is about science fiction. There’s nothing about the theory or evidence that demands either explanation or refutation. And the one person who actually lays that out is being downvoted for, what, being too explainy? This is bizarre.

bena 8y ago

The one thing that bugs me on the surface about the Fermi Paradox is the assumption that it is possible or feasible to colonize the galaxy. The Drake equation stops at simply releasing detectable signals into space. The Fermi paradox assumes that interstellar travel will be cheap enough and fast enough to make traversing the galaxy a given. Yes, given a few million years, Von Neuman probes can span the galaxy. Ok. And? We, as a species, have a hard time thinking beyond a handful of years. Now we're talking about projects that have a time scales orders of magnitude in duration than anything we've even thought about doing before. I can't really get further than that on the Fermi paradox (or a couple of related ones) because I don't buy the premise to start with. Like the probability that we're in a simulation being likely. It assumes that we will have the power/understanding to simulate reality. I question that assumption. I don't think it's a given.