6 ms·

The whole reasoning seems to boil down to one of the standard answers to the Fermi paradox: We did not encounter any alians, because we are in our stellar neigh

The whole reasoning seems to boil down to one of the standard answers to the Fermi paradox: We did not encounter any alians, because we are in our stellar neighbourhood either the first or anyone else is hiding. To "explain" that, we need to reason about the Drake equation, or rather a modification of it, since the original Drake equation did not include the possibility that an alian species colonizes other solar systems. In our context the question is at what time in the history of our galaxy colonization might start (if ever) or might have started and what the typical expansion rate is. Something like the Grabby Aliens simulation can only teach us how such a presumed colonization might proceed roughly under the most simplified[1] model. But it seems to tells us next to nothing about the parameters to fill into the (modified) Drake equation to solve the Fermi paradox. -- Or did I miss something? [1] I do not think that the simplifications are problematic, as long as one is aware of them. It is rather the opposite: Running a simulation with a simplified model helps us to observe some basic principles at work. Later we might refine and enrich our models and simulations. To use an analogy: If we want to study the movement of objects under the influence of the Earth's gravity, we should start with cannonballs and not with feathers.

api 4y ago
The problem with the dark forest / everyone is hiding explanation is that you can't hide. For over a billion years Earth has been broadcasting a very powerful signal screaming "likely biosphere here" in the form of its albedo spectrum. It's a wet, warm planet that for almost two billion years has had a heavily oxidizing atmosphere. There are few natural explanations for that that don't involve life, since it strongly implies that something is doing work to maintain an energy differential. If there are "reaper" aliens around in any form, it would be logical for them to start firing relativistic kinetic weapons at any candidate biosphere immediately. Why wait for intelligence to even get a foothold? Just whack any potential competitor while it's nothing but goop and creepy crawlies. So if there are ancient powerful hostile or "grabby" aliens around, we should not be here. It's a pretty powerful argument for one of: (1) We are very early. (2) Intelligent complex life is extremely rare, occurring less often than e.g. once per galaxy per ten billion years. (A bit different from being very early since it implies we might never find another even after billions of years.) (3) Something weird is going on, e.g. our solar system is being kept as a wildlife preserve and/or there is a "prime directive" or something. (4) Something even weirder is going on, which explodes into a long tail of possibilities. Maybe we are wrong about our basic cosmology. Maybe continued advancement in intelligence leads places very different from space flight such as traversing dimensions or converting oneself into some more exotic form invisible to us (like the "ascension" trope in sci-fi). ... and so on.
- ajuc 4y ago
  (5) the great filter is between simple life and complex life - so it's not worth it to preemptively strike at every complex life candidate because there's too many candidates
- bsenftner 4y ago
  As good an explanation as any: I like to imagine God is really lonely, and we are in a specifically constructed empty universe with one life bearing planet for the purpose of evolving God a peer. It's lonely on top, ya see.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Why is this greyed out? If you say aliens got lonely on here people will engage you, but if you say God got lonely you get downvoted. Honestly though, these discussions are talking about things past our knowledge. An intellectually honest discussion should be able to include this stuff. It reminds me of people who hate the idea that a omnipotent being created us, but are fascinated by the idea a hyperintelligent being simulated us
    - bsenftner 4y ago
      Exactly, if we're discussing evolution why does that discussion become non-intellectual and unworthy when including the obvious endgame of evolution?
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Evolution has no endgame, so the precise moment you assume any kind of endgame (especially an "obvious" endgame), the discussion becomes non-intellectual and unworthy. Also, if you want to discuss what God is or wants of us, pick a God and we can discuss, based on holy books and revelations, what His/Her/its intentions may be. Just saying "God" doesn't mean anything at all - there is little similarity to be found for example between YHWH, Brahman, and Amaterasu that could see a meaningful discussion.
    - 4y ago

api 4y ago

The problem with the dark forest / everyone is hiding explanation is that you can't hide. For over a billion years Earth has been broadcasting a very powerful signal screaming "likely biosphere here" in the form of its albedo spectrum. It's a wet, warm planet that for almost two billion years has had a heavily oxidizing atmosphere. There are few natural explanations for that that don't involve life, since it strongly implies that something is doing work to maintain an energy differential. If there are "reaper" aliens around in any form, it would be logical for them to start firing relativistic kinetic weapons at any candidate biosphere immediately. Why wait for intelligence to even get a foothold? Just whack any potential competitor while it's nothing but goop and creepy crawlies. So if there are ancient powerful hostile or "grabby" aliens around, we should not be here. It's a pretty powerful argument for one of: (1) We are very early. (2) Intelligent complex life is extremely rare, occurring less often than e.g. once per galaxy per ten billion years. (A bit different from being very early since it implies we might never find another even after billions of years.) (3) Something weird is going on, e.g. our solar system is being kept as a wildlife preserve and/or there is a "prime directive" or something. (4) Something even weirder is going on, which explodes into a long tail of possibilities. Maybe we are wrong about our basic cosmology. Maybe continued advancement in intelligence leads places very different from space flight such as traversing dimensions or converting oneself into some more exotic form invisible to us (like the "ascension" trope in sci-fi). ... and so on.

ajuc 4y ago
(5) the great filter is between simple life and complex life - so it's not worth it to preemptively strike at every complex life candidate because there's too many candidates
bsenftner 4y ago
As good an explanation as any: I like to imagine God is really lonely, and we are in a specifically constructed empty universe with one life bearing planet for the purpose of evolving God a peer. It's lonely on top, ya see.
- tsol 4y ago
  Why is this greyed out? If you say aliens got lonely on here people will engage you, but if you say God got lonely you get downvoted. Honestly though, these discussions are talking about things past our knowledge. An intellectually honest discussion should be able to include this stuff. It reminds me of people who hate the idea that a omnipotent being created us, but are fascinated by the idea a hyperintelligent being simulated us
  - bsenftner 4y ago
    Exactly, if we're discussing evolution why does that discussion become non-intellectual and unworthy when including the obvious endgame of evolution?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Evolution has no endgame, so the precise moment you assume any kind of endgame (especially an "obvious" endgame), the discussion becomes non-intellectual and unworthy. Also, if you want to discuss what God is or wants of us, pick a God and we can discuss, based on holy books and revelations, what His/Her/its intentions may be. Just saying "God" doesn't mean anything at all - there is little similarity to be found for example between YHWH, Brahman, and Amaterasu that could see a meaningful discussion.
  - 4y ago