7 ms·

That's still enough time for it to have happened 3 times over in this universe.

the_af 2y ago
Three times doesn't exactly seem like a lot, right? And for UFOs-as-ETs, these intelligences would have had to spawn pretty near our solar system, and their existence overlap in time with mankind's tiny fraction of existence (truly a blip in the lifespan of the universe), and detect our existence (or at least our system as a worthwhile destination), and develop tech to take them here, and be interested in this undertaking, and have the resources for it, and not wipe themselves out in an accident, ecological disaster or global war, and after all of this choose to just do mysterious flybys and abductions and no formal contact with Earth. Too many "and"s for me...
- namaria 2y ago
  It might be like a lot if there could have been intelligent civilizations 8 billion years older then us.
  - the_af 2y ago
    I doubt any kind of lifeform can exist for that long, but even if it did, the rest of the objections apply. If it's in the other side of the universe, we will never meet. So it would have to be near, and [rest of my objections]. Seems very unlikely to me.
    - namaria 2y ago
      We're are extremely unlikely by any available measure.
      - the_af 2y ago
        What's the argument you're making?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        namaria 2y ago
        The universe is huge. Life seems to be unlikely since it's very concentrated. But the universe is very, very big and even if it is unlikely as it seems at the moment, it would be quite weird if it were unlikely to the point of only one living planet existing in 13 billion light years of space and yet we exist. Fascinating stuff really.
      - Vecr 2y ago
        Yeah? But that's an argument against seeing any aliens up close (if you believe in that kind of thing), because presumably they're extremely unlikely too. They're not there, or they're far away in time and space, with a remaining tiny chance that something incredibly unlikely happened.
- revscat 2y ago
  > had to spawn pretty near our solar system Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one? Let me propose a thought experiment. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that humanity has survived 100,000 years into the future. Now, let’s put you in a time machine and fast forward you to that distant future. Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? Barely remembered artifacts of humanity’s Stupid Ages? That new discoveries were made over those thousand centuries, discoveries that we 21st century humans can only vaguely begin to comprehend? Because you raised my biggest problem with modern cosmology: it’s arrogant assumption that Einstein is the end. But more importantly, that evidence indicating that relativity is not in fact the end — such as UAPs — is completely disregarded. And the reason it is disregarded? Because relativity is the end! It’s circular reasoning at its absolute worst.
  - the_af 2y ago
    > Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one? It doesn't have to be final, it just has to be reasonably descriptive of reality. Even if we review our understanding, the universe is still a massive place and humanity's existence a mere blip. It becomes more about statistics and probability than physics, but yeah, our understanding of physics also makes ETs visiting Earth very unlikely. If you mean to say "a major revision of physics would make it more feasible", I don't know. Maybe? Or maybe even less feasible! We have to approach this rationally, and so far reason and evidence both lean to "extremely unlikely". > Let me propose a thought experiment [...] Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? As a thought experiment it's a decent piece of science fiction, but as any sort of serious thought it seems like begging the question to me.
    - revscat 2y ago
      > It doesn't have to be final, it just has to be reasonably descriptive of reality. Which it only is if you limit cosmology to spectroscopy and ignore UAP. If you start to examine UAP as a real thing, and ask questions about “how”, then it all falls apart. Which is exciting.

Three times doesn't exactly seem like a lot, right? And for UFOs-as-ETs, these intelligences would have had to spawn pretty near our solar system, and their existence overlap in time with mankind's tiny fraction of existence (truly a blip in the lifespan of the universe), and detect our existence (or at least our system as a worthwhile destination), and develop tech to take them here, and be interested in this undertaking, and have the resources for it, and not wipe themselves out in an accident, ecological disaster or global war, and after all of this choose to just do mysterious flybys and abductions and no formal contact with Earth. Too many "and"s for me...

namaria 2y ago
It might be like a lot if there could have been intelligent civilizations 8 billion years older then us.
- the_af 2y ago
  I doubt any kind of lifeform can exist for that long, but even if it did, the rest of the objections apply. If it's in the other side of the universe, we will never meet. So it would have to be near, and [rest of my objections]. Seems very unlikely to me.
  - namaria 2y ago
    We're are extremely unlikely by any available measure.
    - the_af 2y ago
      What's the argument you're making?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - namaria 2y ago
        The universe is huge. Life seems to be unlikely since it's very concentrated. But the universe is very, very big and even if it is unlikely as it seems at the moment, it would be quite weird if it were unlikely to the point of only one living planet existing in 13 billion light years of space and yet we exist. Fascinating stuff really.
    - Vecr 2y ago
      Yeah? But that's an argument against seeing any aliens up close (if you believe in that kind of thing), because presumably they're extremely unlikely too. They're not there, or they're far away in time and space, with a remaining tiny chance that something incredibly unlikely happened.
revscat 2y ago
> had to spawn pretty near our solar system Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one? Let me propose a thought experiment. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that humanity has survived 100,000 years into the future. Now, let’s put you in a time machine and fast forward you to that distant future. Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? Barely remembered artifacts of humanity’s Stupid Ages? That new discoveries were made over those thousand centuries, discoveries that we 21st century humans can only vaguely begin to comprehend? Because you raised my biggest problem with modern cosmology: it’s arrogant assumption that Einstein is the end. But more importantly, that evidence indicating that relativity is not in fact the end — such as UAPs — is completely disregarded. And the reason it is disregarded? Because relativity is the end! It’s circular reasoning at its absolute worst.
- the_af 2y ago
  > Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one? It doesn't have to be final, it just has to be reasonably descriptive of reality. Even if we review our understanding, the universe is still a massive place and humanity's existence a mere blip. It becomes more about statistics and probability than physics, but yeah, our understanding of physics also makes ETs visiting Earth very unlikely. If you mean to say "a major revision of physics would make it more feasible", I don't know. Maybe? Or maybe even less feasible! We have to approach this rationally, and so far reason and evidence both lean to "extremely unlikely". > Let me propose a thought experiment [...] Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? As a thought experiment it's a decent piece of science fiction, but as any sort of serious thought it seems like begging the question to me.
  - revscat 2y ago
    > It doesn't have to be final, it just has to be reasonably descriptive of reality. Which it only is if you limit cosmology to spectroscopy and ignore UAP. If you start to examine UAP as a real thing, and ask questions about “how”, then it all falls apart. Which is exciting.