4 ms·

The Fermi paradox relies on a false assumption. Intelligence is not binary. It's a continuum that we are likely very low on. You can communicate with civilizat

by _tom_ 4y ago

The Fermi paradox relies on a false assumption. Intelligence is not binary. It's a continuum that we are likely very low on. You can communicate with civilizations only at almost exactly your level. Us, a thousand years ago, could not even detect any of our modern communication methods. How could we expect to detect signal from a civilization a million years ahead of us? It's not that intelligence is rare. Intelligence at exactly our level is rare.

marcyb5st 4y ago
I don't agree to part of your argument.. Assuming that Dyson theory is right, we should be able to observe megastructures if out there there are supremely advanced civilizations. And to date we couldn't see any. And it seems that However, i agree that we can't communicate with primitive species, but it should be possible with more advanced ones that must have rely on electromagnetic signals. With that said, the problem I see is that our sphere of visibility is at most few tens of light years in radius and that assumes that the weak electromagnetic waves are noticeable at such distances even by advance technologies.
- vatys 4y ago
  Perhaps our electromagnetic communication would seem as advanced as cave paintings, and we have no means to identify more advanced communication.
  - marcyb5st 4y ago
    True, but I guess even an advanced civilizations would still scan the cosmos since they should have at least used them during their evolution and so might be on the lookout for more primitive species still using them. But you're correct. My point was that an advanced civilizations might be able to communicate with us if they wanted to. The opposite as parent comment said is not true.
    - roey2009 4y ago
      That might not be correct. You don't see military captains intercepting pigeons, in the chance that they contain messages. Though who knows. checking for radio frequencies might be a part of fundamental tests to any space faring surveillance systems.
nootropicat 4y ago
Communication is one thing, but most likely a highly advanced civilization would visibly transform its neighborhood.
- desertraven 4y ago
  Hmm yes, but what exactly is a neighbourhood in this context? Can an ant comprehend our neighbourhoods? Can it perceive or even conceive of them? It may be that we are looking in the wrong place entirely. What does another million years in the evolution of intelligence yield? What of the physics? Perhaps Dyson Structures are just what our limited imaginations can conjure of an advanced civilisation. It's all a bit airy-fairy I know, but having come such a long way in a mere thousand years - I feel like the ideas we have of super-intelligent beings may be primitive.
  - nootropicat 4y ago
    We don't need to know precisely into what, just that it's extremely unlikely nothing would be visible. All that energy radiated by stars into the void is wasted from the perspective of an advanced civilization.
    - desertraven 4y ago
      Are we not able to produce vast amounts of terrestrial energy without the sun (eg. nuclear)? I'd imagine a sufficiently advanced civilisation has solved the issue of energy, such that they have an abundance without creating giant structures around stars which would alert even the most primitive of civilisations (us) to their presence. Further, the dyson sphere concept stemmed from sci-fi, or rather the human imagination. It seems logical to us that an advanced civilisation would build structures around stars to harvest their energy, but our logic is limited to the bounds of a few kilograms of grey, wrinkled biological matter. The dog cannot understand the internal combustion engine. Alexander the Great wasn't thinking about the internet, or genetic engineering. We're quite sure of ourselves, and of what an advanced civilisation ought to be doing, and I think this is a mistake.
deltarholamda 4y ago
>It's a continuum that we are likely very low on. This is said often, but there is no evidence for this. It's just a kind of cynical self-hatred. A civilization that directly visits us, which would mean having some kind of interstellar travel, would be, yes, more intelligent. But we have no evidence of that. A civilization that has dispersed some kind of Von Neumann machine to watch over us, yes, would be more intelligent. But we have no evidence of that either. I've seen a few (optimistic) calculations using the Drake equation that puts anywhere from 2 to 50 possible intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. Those are some seriously large error bars. Stretch this out into the total number of galaxies, then yes, I can easily see there being another intelligent civilization in the Universe. But interstellar travel is already difficult. I'm pretty sure intergalactic travel is more than "just a little bit harder." But to assume that it is likely that we are low down on the intelligence scale is utterly without basis. It's just as likely that we're the best the galaxy has seen thus far.

by _tom_ 4y ago

marcyb5st 4y ago

I don't agree to part of your argument.. Assuming that Dyson theory is right, we should be able to observe megastructures if out there there are supremely advanced civilizations. And to date we couldn't see any. And it seems that However, i agree that we can't communicate with primitive species, but it should be possible with more advanced ones that must have rely on electromagnetic signals. With that said, the problem I see is that our sphere of visibility is at most few tens of light years in radius and that assumes that the weak electromagnetic waves are noticeable at such distances even by advance technologies.

vatys 4y ago
Perhaps our electromagnetic communication would seem as advanced as cave paintings, and we have no means to identify more advanced communication.
- marcyb5st 4y ago
  True, but I guess even an advanced civilizations would still scan the cosmos since they should have at least used them during their evolution and so might be on the lookout for more primitive species still using them. But you're correct. My point was that an advanced civilizations might be able to communicate with us if they wanted to. The opposite as parent comment said is not true.
  - roey2009 4y ago
    That might not be correct. You don't see military captains intercepting pigeons, in the chance that they contain messages. Though who knows. checking for radio frequencies might be a part of fundamental tests to any space faring surveillance systems.

nootropicat 4y ago

Communication is one thing, but most likely a highly advanced civilization would visibly transform its neighborhood.

desertraven 4y ago
Hmm yes, but what exactly is a neighbourhood in this context? Can an ant comprehend our neighbourhoods? Can it perceive or even conceive of them? It may be that we are looking in the wrong place entirely. What does another million years in the evolution of intelligence yield? What of the physics? Perhaps Dyson Structures are just what our limited imaginations can conjure of an advanced civilisation. It's all a bit airy-fairy I know, but having come such a long way in a mere thousand years - I feel like the ideas we have of super-intelligent beings may be primitive.
- nootropicat 4y ago
  We don't need to know precisely into what, just that it's extremely unlikely nothing would be visible. All that energy radiated by stars into the void is wasted from the perspective of an advanced civilization.
  - desertraven 4y ago
    Are we not able to produce vast amounts of terrestrial energy without the sun (eg. nuclear)? I'd imagine a sufficiently advanced civilisation has solved the issue of energy, such that they have an abundance without creating giant structures around stars which would alert even the most primitive of civilisations (us) to their presence. Further, the dyson sphere concept stemmed from sci-fi, or rather the human imagination. It seems logical to us that an advanced civilisation would build structures around stars to harvest their energy, but our logic is limited to the bounds of a few kilograms of grey, wrinkled biological matter. The dog cannot understand the internal combustion engine. Alexander the Great wasn't thinking about the internet, or genetic engineering. We're quite sure of ourselves, and of what an advanced civilisation ought to be doing, and I think this is a mistake.

deltarholamda 4y ago

>It's a continuum that we are likely very low on. This is said often, but there is no evidence for this. It's just a kind of cynical self-hatred. A civilization that directly visits us, which would mean having some kind of interstellar travel, would be, yes, more intelligent. But we have no evidence of that. A civilization that has dispersed some kind of Von Neumann machine to watch over us, yes, would be more intelligent. But we have no evidence of that either. I've seen a few (optimistic) calculations using the Drake equation that puts anywhere from 2 to 50 possible intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. Those are some seriously large error bars. Stretch this out into the total number of galaxies, then yes, I can easily see there being another intelligent civilization in the Universe. But interstellar travel is already difficult. I'm pretty sure intergalactic travel is more than "just a little bit harder." But to assume that it is likely that we are low down on the intelligence scale is utterly without basis. It's just as likely that we're the best the galaxy has seen thus far.