4 ms·
This doesn't contradict the conclusion of the paper, it makes no difference as to whether we're going to find anybody we can have a conversation with, ("hey, ho
by monkeycantype 6y ago
This doesn't contradict the conclusion of the paper, it makes no difference as to whether we're going to find anybody we can have a conversation with, ("hey, how annoying is light speed?") but I think our definition for simple and complex life is off.
eg "more likely to find simple life on Mars."
That ape and octopus exist, says that earth didn't win the intelligence lottery, we are watching the long slow grind of compound interest.
When you look at our world we see that the lipid bilayer is preserved, that rna is preserved in every living thing, but eyes have evolved independently many times. That the last common ancestor of octopus and human was a little wriggly thing, leads me to believe that forming a boundary between self and non self is hard (the bilayer), that forming a system of heredity is hard (first rna then dna). That the accumulation of processes that use energy, resources and information from the environment in new ways is a long relentless grind. The basic body form, multicellularity and a gut were, big difficult changes, but maybe intelligence is just paint on a hard won foundation.
- joe_the_user 6y agoYeah, in the discussion of "where is the intelligent life", you seldom see the argument that it really does takes 11+ billion years to produce that intelligence life. With a universe "only" 13 billion years old and possibly chaotic, this factor, rather than any specific "filter", might why we're not seeing any other intelligent life.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoConsistent with that, evidence suggests that it may have taken billions of years for the precursor molecules of the first Earth-based life to emerge/evolve: https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/04/15/113741/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/04/15/113741/moores-la...
- joe_the_user 6y agoThanks, I remembered the article but couldn't find the link. This is a really neat argument.
- Nbox9 6y agoWhere are you getting the 11 billion years from, when Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
- tuatoru 6y agoThe Earth is made of elements that were formed in supernovas. We had to have several generations of stars formed out of the remains of older stars that blew themselves apart, to have more than trace amounts of any element apart from hydrogen and helium. Earliest you could get rocky planets is probably a couple of billion years after the Big Bang. But more time is better.