4 ms·

> The year 300,000 will look similar to year 301,000 - despite being separated by a millennium - this is unthinkable at this point in time. The Fermi Paradox i

> The year 300,000 will look similar to year 301,000 - despite being separated by a millennium - this is unthinkable at this point in time. The Fermi Paradox is rooted in the idea that if alien intelligences were doing things that we could recognize, we should have seen them by now. Perhaps they do exist, but have progressed so deeply into the unthinkable that we can't even. Perhaps we will as well.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
There is a slim chance that we are the first ones with sentience ever. That would totally explain Fermi paradox. Why not? We are definitely the first on this planet, and we don't try to dispute this fact using probability measurements.
- fsloth 6y ago
  We are hardly the first species with sentience on this planet. We may be the first to believe in impossible things like gods, and things that don't exist like money, and this also gives us our capabilities to invent things like science.
- soulofmischief 6y ago
  The planet has an observable fossil record, whereas extra-solar heavenly bodies are still largely inscrutable.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Of course. But if we didn't have this evidence, the logic of the Fermi paradox would lead to conclusions that we just can't be the first ones because the probability for it is so impossibly low.
    - AlanSE 6y ago
      Low probability compared to what though? This makes less sense to me on closer inspection. I agree that there may be some meaningful observation in there, but it's hard to even figure out what the paradox or observation is. An individual (or hive mind, whatever) living in the year 300,000 AD may very much dispute the claim that progress has stagnated. It's entirely possible that civilization has continued an exponential expansion (within limits) from now until then. As such, history is one continued exponential. Provided that this civilization still is not bumping against the thermodynamic computational limits of space by several orders of magnitude, then the Fermi paradox is still a paradox. That's how an exponential works, every point sees itself as a privileged point, right before it increases massively.
      - soulofmischief 6y ago
        Right, on one hand I feel blessed to be alive, as with all of you, in what is certainly the most important time in human history. Beside the effects of every technological advancement which currently exists at a transitional period, the greatest moment of birth and rebirth in history could be upon us, thanks to the Holocene extinction event we have triggered. Whether or not we capitalize upon our special place in history remains to be seen. But I also know I'm missing out on the true space-faring age, the Humanitarian Revolution, the Quantum Age where we begin to fully exploit the laws of QM, the Last World War, extra-solar colonization, etc. Eventually, if we don't kill or exhaust ourselves with impatience, technology will be solved with respect to providing enough energy and resources for every conceivable human. Then, the real challenge begins. Providing for a population beyond its basic needs becomes an entirely political affair. We may be arrested on the lower levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for quite some time. Will humanity observe a similar exponential advancement in humanitarianism as it has with technology? How important is humanitarianism to Fermi's Paradox and the Drake Equation?
        AlanSE 6y ago
        Enough energy for every human individual is already a solved problem, although not necessarily sustainably. It's not even economically prohibitive to switch to sustainable options, there's just insufficient incentives at this time. The great travesty is that, when incentives are put in place, the Holocene damage will be difficult to stop and impossible to reverse. Our own survival chances seem to be a fraction not close to unity, but not close to 0 either. Give it 75% to be optimistic. After that, robotic seed space ships could be a buffer to protect from subsequent cataclysms. That does nothing to answer the questions of Fermi's paradox, unless you low-ball to 1.0e-6% chance of survival. Doomsayers guessing such a number are not generally taken seriously. Looking elsewhere, we have almost unlimited wiggle room in the chance of photosynthesis evolving. Traits that evolved multiple times in Earth's history are inadmissible to this discussion, but several critical traits evolved only once. Fertile but desolate planets are, based on current science, probably abundant. As a typical reasonable human, this is a perfectly sufficient speculative answer.
pmohun 6y ago
You may have seen this resolution to the Fermi Paradox, but if not I thought I'd post it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404 https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404 "The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe. The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations. We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters. We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it. This result dissolves the Fermi paradox, and in doing so removes any need to invoke speculative mechanisms by which civilizations would inevitably fail to have observable effects upon the universe."
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  Another explanation for the Fermi paradox I had heard, which certainly is less rigorous than the linked article but easier to understand is: The root of the paradox is that with so many planets in the universe (in the order of 10^24), there must be more life in the universe. But even with this unbelievably large number of potential planets, if creation of intelligent life on a planet requires only 24 independent parameters to be favourable, and each of them are favourable with a probability of 10%, then we should expect intelligent life in just one planet: ours.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

There is a slim chance that we are the first ones with sentience ever. That would totally explain Fermi paradox. Why not? We are definitely the first on this planet, and we don't try to dispute this fact using probability measurements.

fsloth 6y ago
We are hardly the first species with sentience on this planet. We may be the first to believe in impossible things like gods, and things that don't exist like money, and this also gives us our capabilities to invent things like science.
soulofmischief 6y ago
The planet has an observable fossil record, whereas extra-solar heavenly bodies are still largely inscrutable.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Of course. But if we didn't have this evidence, the logic of the Fermi paradox would lead to conclusions that we just can't be the first ones because the probability for it is so impossibly low.
  - AlanSE 6y ago
    Low probability compared to what though? This makes less sense to me on closer inspection. I agree that there may be some meaningful observation in there, but it's hard to even figure out what the paradox or observation is. An individual (or hive mind, whatever) living in the year 300,000 AD may very much dispute the claim that progress has stagnated. It's entirely possible that civilization has continued an exponential expansion (within limits) from now until then. As such, history is one continued exponential. Provided that this civilization still is not bumping against the thermodynamic computational limits of space by several orders of magnitude, then the Fermi paradox is still a paradox. That's how an exponential works, every point sees itself as a privileged point, right before it increases massively.
    - soulofmischief 6y ago
      Right, on one hand I feel blessed to be alive, as with all of you, in what is certainly the most important time in human history. Beside the effects of every technological advancement which currently exists at a transitional period, the greatest moment of birth and rebirth in history could be upon us, thanks to the Holocene extinction event we have triggered. Whether or not we capitalize upon our special place in history remains to be seen. But I also know I'm missing out on the true space-faring age, the Humanitarian Revolution, the Quantum Age where we begin to fully exploit the laws of QM, the Last World War, extra-solar colonization, etc. Eventually, if we don't kill or exhaust ourselves with impatience, technology will be solved with respect to providing enough energy and resources for every conceivable human. Then, the real challenge begins. Providing for a population beyond its basic needs becomes an entirely political affair. We may be arrested on the lower levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for quite some time. Will humanity observe a similar exponential advancement in humanitarianism as it has with technology? How important is humanitarianism to Fermi's Paradox and the Drake Equation?
      - AlanSE 6y ago
        Enough energy for every human individual is already a solved problem, although not necessarily sustainably. It's not even economically prohibitive to switch to sustainable options, there's just insufficient incentives at this time. The great travesty is that, when incentives are put in place, the Holocene damage will be difficult to stop and impossible to reverse. Our own survival chances seem to be a fraction not close to unity, but not close to 0 either. Give it 75% to be optimistic. After that, robotic seed space ships could be a buffer to protect from subsequent cataclysms. That does nothing to answer the questions of Fermi's paradox, unless you low-ball to 1.0e-6% chance of survival. Doomsayers guessing such a number are not generally taken seriously. Looking elsewhere, we have almost unlimited wiggle room in the chance of photosynthesis evolving. Traits that evolved multiple times in Earth's history are inadmissible to this discussion, but several critical traits evolved only once. Fertile but desolate planets are, based on current science, probably abundant. As a typical reasonable human, this is a perfectly sufficient speculative answer.

pmohun 6y ago

You may have seen this resolution to the Fermi Paradox, but if not I thought I'd post it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404 https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404 "The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe. The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations. We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters. We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it. This result dissolves the Fermi paradox, and in doing so removes any need to invoke speculative mechanisms by which civilizations would inevitably fail to have observable effects upon the universe."

smnrchrds 6y ago
Another explanation for the Fermi paradox I had heard, which certainly is less rigorous than the linked article but easier to understand is: The root of the paradox is that with so many planets in the universe (in the order of 10^24), there must be more life in the universe. But even with this unbelievably large number of potential planets, if creation of intelligent life on a planet requires only 24 independent parameters to be favourable, and each of them are favourable with a probability of 10%, then we should expect intelligent life in just one planet: ours.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]