4 ms·
I don't think the common form of argument is that because N is large enough, life must exist. The argument is generally that scale and probability favor the ex
by haswell 4y ago
I don't think the common form of argument is that because N is large enough, life must exist.
The argument is generally that scale and probability favor the existence of intelligent life, assuming Earth is not somehow exceptional in the universe.
Assuming Earth is exceptional seems just as problematic.
Welcome to the Fermi paradox.
- pfdietz 4y agoAnd for any N, if p is small enough, other life is very unlikely to exist. Why are you holding p fixed and allowing N to increase? You are implicitly assuming N is in that regime where N > 1/p. That's just assuming p > 1/N, and there's no good reason to make that assumption.
- gcanyon 4y agoI sympathize -- I've argued your side of this many times. I won't jump in today, but I just wanted you to know your words aren't falling on entirely deaf ears.
- pfdietz 4y agoI think observer selection falls into a cognitive blind spot many people have.
- nyokodo 4y agoThis fallacy has always bothered me so thank you for stating it so well!
- gcanyon 4y ago> I don't think the common form of argument is that because N is large enough, life must exist. The comment that started this thread: "That's 10^22 opportunities to get it right. We can't possibly be alone."