4 ms·

My favorite answer to Fermi's Paradox is a paper (which I do not have on hand) showing that it can be explained by the approximation error in doing a raw produc

My favorite answer to Fermi's Paradox is a paper (which I do not have on hand) showing that it can be explained by the approximation error in doing a raw product of probabilities. If, instead of doing a product of the probability of each event, you actually take the various distributions into account (nowadays you can easily test a wide variety of distributions with monte carlo methods) then, the probability of getting into contact with another life in the universe becomes vanishingly small.

pdimitar 5y ago
What would that be a "favorite" answer? It's just one of the hypotheses. Drake's equation and how exactly must it be applied has been fiercely discussed for decades. Unless, of course, saying it's your "favorite" is your way of saying "I like to believe in this one hypothesis".
- nestorD 5y ago
  It removes the paradox without requiring additional hypotheses, just refining the math. That makes it the most convincing solution to the paradox for me.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    I disagree. It looks like you simply choose to believe one of the hypotheses. Or need I mention other areas of life where choosing one hypothesis eliminates all others? Hint: it's the "R" word. ;)
taejo 5y ago
I guess this is the paper you're talking about: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404 https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jeremysalwen 5y ago
My interpretation of that paper is that it is saying "We don't have hard enough bounds on the parameters of the Drake Equation, so one (or more) of the parameters could be much lower than expected". But without specifying which parameters are much lower than expected, the paper is just saying "our current understanding/uncertainty about the universe is consistent with someone solving the drake equation in some unknown way at a later point in the future". Which I don't think is actually a solution. The real question we are interested in is which parameters are lower than expected and why.

pdimitar 5y ago

What would that be a "favorite" answer? It's just one of the hypotheses. Drake's equation and how exactly must it be applied has been fiercely discussed for decades. Unless, of course, saying it's your "favorite" is your way of saying "I like to believe in this one hypothesis".

nestorD 5y ago
It removes the paradox without requiring additional hypotheses, just refining the math. That makes it the most convincing solution to the paradox for me.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  I disagree. It looks like you simply choose to believe one of the hypotheses. Or need I mention other areas of life where choosing one hypothesis eliminates all others? Hint: it's the "R" word. ;)

taejo 5y ago

I guess this is the paper you're talking about: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404 https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jeremysalwen 5y ago

My interpretation of that paper is that it is saying "We don't have hard enough bounds on the parameters of the Drake Equation, so one (or more) of the parameters could be much lower than expected". But without specifying which parameters are much lower than expected, the paper is just saying "our current understanding/uncertainty about the universe is consistent with someone solving the drake equation in some unknown way at a later point in the future". Which I don't think is actually a solution. The real question we are interested in is which parameters are lower than expected and why.