6 ms·

This is one of the topics that I find the most fascinating, and if I die before we learn more about life in the Universe other than on Earth, I will probably be

by GuiA 13y ago

This is one of the topics that I find the most fascinating, and if I die before we learn more about life in the Universe other than on Earth, I will probably be very sad that my life span did not coincide with its discovery. There's an entire body of knowledge that we cannot chart yet because we have no data to formulate it from. It seems likely and intuitive that if there are life forms on planets other than Earth, they are subject to evolution; but we cannot hypothesize much further than that. Under what conditions does sentient meta-cognizant life evolve? How does it develop culture, religion, mathematics, art, philosophy, language? (has the Church-Turing thesis been formulated identically somewhere else than on Earth?) Which of those are constants amongst such species, and for the ones who aren't, what leads to their creation? How intertwined are they to biology? (e.g., death and religion) How frequently does the notion of "gender" happen in complex living structures? Do principles of cultural development such as the ones presented in "Guns, germs and steel" hold for non-Earth civilizations? And if we find advanced sentient life that is much older than we are, that will be even more interesting. Are there events that this civilization went through/constructs that it built that are similar to ours? (various notions of democracy/freedom/government; mechanical transportation, "computers", electricity, digital communications, artificially expanding life (i.e. healthcare), etc.) "Xenopology" is going to be one fascinating subject[1]. And on a related note, if any one is aware of serious academic work in that field (it seems pretty much impossible right now, because we just don't have the data; but you never know), I'd love to hear recommendations :) [1] With fascinating consequences when it arises, too. We'll have to rewrite a lot of the more "meta" Wikipedia articles, for starters (Wikipedia is terribly anthropo-centered). And then, what will happen with our body of knowledge? We will merge human mathematics with xenomathematics? (if it's even possible) If they have a communications construct comparable to the internet, do we keep the two separate? Do we want them to be able to communicate at all on an individual level, much like any human on Earth can email any other human on Earth freely right now? Those are all of course very hypothetic considerations, but they're probable and fascinating to think about.

Wingman4l7 13y ago
> Do principles of cultural development such as the ones presented in "Guns, germs and steel" hold for non-Earth civilizations? I find this particularly fascinating, because it could lead to a corollary to the Drake equation. This equation would quantify the (possibly insurmountable) barriers that a species must overcome to become a space-faring civilization: strength of the planet's gravity well, ease of access to and total planetary quantity of rare elements required to build space hardware, etc. Basically, Guns, Germs, and Steel -- but on a planetary scale.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  The Great Filter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter. Note some "fun" consequences of this argument: -- quote -- With no evidence of intelligent life other than ourselves, it appears that the process of starting with a star and ending with "advanced explosive lasting life" must be unlikely. This implies that at least one step in this process must be improbable. Hanson's list, while incomplete, describes the following nine steps in an "evolutionary path" that results in the colonization of the observable universe: 1. The right star system (including organics and potentially habitable planets) 2. Reproductive molecules (e.g., RNA) 3. Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life 4. Complex (archaeatic and eukaryotic) single-cell life 5. Sexual reproduction 6. Multi-cell life 7. Tool-using animals with big brains 8. Where we are now 9. Colonization explosion. According to the Great Filter hypothesis at least one of these steps - if the list were complete - must be improbable. If it's not an early step (i.e. in our past), then the implication is that the improbable step lies in our future and our prospects of reaching step 9 (interstellar colonization) are still bleak. If the past steps are likely, then many civilizations would have developed to the current level of the human race. However, none appear to have made it to step 9, or the Milky Way would be full of colonies. So perhaps step 9 is the unlikely one, and the only thing that appears likely to keep us from step 9 is some sort of catastrophe or the resource exhaustion leading to impossibility to make the step due to consumption of the available resources (like for example highly constrained energy resources). So by this argument, finding multicellular life on Mars (provided it evolved independently) would be bad news, since it would imply steps 2–6 are easy, and hence only 1, 7, 8 or 9 (or some unknown step) could be the big problem. -- quote ends -- (emphasis mine) In other words, finding life on Mars would suggest that the Great Filter event may be ahead of us, so we're probably screwed.
  - sampo 13y ago
    I think it's illustrative to look at how long (as a percentage of the universe's age, 13.7 Ga) each of those steps has taken in our case: 1. 70% 2. 1–3% 3. 1–3% 4. 15% 5. and 6. 10% 7. 4% 8. 0.03%
  - 13y ago
Steko 13y ago
Under what conditions does sentient meta-cognizant life evolve? How does it develop culture, religion, mathematics, art, philosophy, language? (has the Church-Turing thesis been formulated identically somewhere else than on Earth?) Which of those are constants amongst such species, and for the ones who aren't, what leads to their creation? How intertwined are they to biology? (e.g., death and religion) How frequently does the notion of "gender" happen in complex living structures? Do principles of cultural development such as the ones presented in "Guns, germs and steel" hold for non-Earth civilizations? It could well be that all advanced civilizations decide that it's easier to answer these questions with simulations than observation. More interestingly if that is true and you also believe the odds of a singularity in our future is high, then the odds of us being in a simulation now are quite high.
- lukifer 13y ago
  The simulation theory would also explain some weirdnesses about quantum mechanics; I remember reading a piece by a quantum computing researcher[1] saying that the universe can be modeled as the largest ever quantum computer; at some point, simulated universe and real quantum universe become a distinction without a difference. [1] Pretty sure it was Seth Lloyd's "Programming the Universe": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe
  - wozniacki 13y ago
    Firstly I am - as others surely are - sufficiently interested in this premise. At first brush (and to the layperson who is not steeped either in digital physics or simulation theories) this seems like a good contender in the legion of theories of this sort that seek to explain the nature of our observable universe (as it appears to the human consciousness) I looked up the reviews of Amazon for the book, "Programming the Universe" and some reviews seems to suggest that the author largely treads on thin ice in several areas. For example: I've always admired the notion (first promulgated by Voltaire?) that the true measure of intelligence is the ability to simultaneously comprehend two mutually contradictory ideas. So I tend to take a mellow approach to ideas that I disagree with. However, this book angered me, not because of its ideas, but because of its serious flaws. The first serious flaw is that the author cannot keep his ego from seeping into the text. He regales us with triumphant tales of how he confounded his students with deep questions and then nobly revealed the true answers. Sheesh, man, why use the dialog approach using weaklings as your interlocutors? Pit yourself against somebody who can do more than behave as your straight man. Argue with yourself, if you have to! But presenting yourself as the all-knowing professor rubbed my fur the wrong way. The problem of author vanity permeates the entire book. At no point does the author admit to uncertainty, or present two sides of a case, or even admit that anything he writes is controversial. One gets the strong impression that everything is crystal clear to this author. That impression raises my hackles. The overwhelming self-assurance of the author explodes in his face when he gets it wrong. In the section "Exorcising Maxwell's Demon" in Chapter 4, he writes: "The full exorcism of the demon was not accomplished until recently. (I played some part in this ceremony myself.)" Perhaps Mr. Lloyd is older than I imagine. The exorcism of Maxwell's Demon was accomplished by Leon Brilloun, the physicist who patented the atomic bomb, in a paper published in 1951. Mr. Brilloun does not mention any contribution by Mr. Lloyd. It would appear that Mr. Lloyd is unaware of Mr. Brilloun's paper. Worse, his explanation of the exorcism of Maxwell's Demon is a turgid mess that makes no sense at all. Between claiming credit for another man's achievement and botching the explanation of Maxwell's Demon, I reached the limit of my tolerance. I literally threw the book away from me at that point. Perhaps the material after Chapter 4 redeems the book; I do not know, because I did not read it. The other serious flaw in the book is its smarmy vagueness. In attempting to avoid the intimidating reliance on mathematical and technical definitions, Mr. Lloyd resorts to poetic phrasings. These would be acceptable if they weren't so damned cute -- and if they made sense. For example, in attempting to make clear the difference between energy and information he writes, "Energy makes physical systems do things. Information tells them what to do." At first glance, that seems a pithy observation. But go back and read it again; what is the author really saying? Does energy give molecules speed, and information give them direction? Does the energy in an A-bomb make the bang and information tells it what to destroy? I was disconcerted by the author's fuzziness regarding information. He never defined it -- which is not necessarily a fatal flaw, given that a book for the educated public should not burden its readers with undue technical detail. But he used the term in such a myriad of ways that I started to think that he was using it to refer to any magically powerful force. Information, in this book, seems capable of performing wondrous feats. Physics is finally coming to terms with the concept of information as a physical concept. The change began after World War II and has been edging forward for fifty years; in the last ten years, progress has accelerated. A clearer concept of information and its relationship to the physical universe is emerging. Mr. Lloyd misses one of the most important factors in this process: that information itself is inextricably bound with the concept of time, in something like the way that mass and energy are bound together, only more complex. It is not information that is the fundamental quantity; it is information flow, or bandwidth. Source: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HXWI1JRL1M75/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1400040922&nodeID=283155&store=books http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HXWI1JRL1M75/ref=cm_cr_dp_tit... Is there a more authoritative piece of writing that tackles the key arguments against simulated reality, more comprehensively and perhaps more convincingly? Especially the arguments of a) Computationlism b) Computability of physics c) Nested simulations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Arguments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Arguments
incompatible 13y ago
It is fascinating. Imagine if we did detect a radio signal from intelligent life elsewhere. What sort of reply would we send them? I imagine it would be every sort of reply imaginable, as everybody with access to a radio telescope gave it their best shot. I expect a lot of new radio telescopes would be constructed also. If we don't receive any such signals, then finding life elsewhere is going to be a long, hard slog. It seems we don't yet have the energy/technology levels required to get a probe to another star within a reasonable amount of time (100 years travel time, would perhaps be reasonable? Could any of our equipment last that long?) Self-replicating space probes that could exponentially explore the entire galaxy seem to be right out of the question, at present.
- murtza 13y ago
  If you are interested in exploring this topic more, the fiction book Contact by Carl Sagan is based on the premise of detecting a radio signal from intelligent life. It is a great book that you will make you wonder what effects contact from intelligent life elsewhere would have on human behavior.
  - dandelany 13y ago
    And if you wonder about the opposite - how human contact would affect the behavior of intelligent life elsewhere - I highly recommend The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Self replicating space probes that could exponentially explore the entire galaxy (or universe) is one of the things that might indicate a sparsely populated universe, or at least one where any other forms of life is quite young. Assuming it is possible to make such probes for a relatively young civilisation, and most civilisations that reach that stage does send out even just one probe that starts relicating, if life is abundant around us we should expect to have swarms of them everywhere. Of course it could be we just can't detect them yet, or that life is abundant but that life old enough to be advanced enough to do this is rare for some reason.
- 13y ago
nikster 13y ago
It seems the most likely would be that most planets are inhabited by life forms that aren't intelligent. Out of 13Bn years, humans in any form have been around 1M years. Civilized societies only a few thousand. We'd find many more planets with Dinosaurs on them (they lasted 200M years).... The thought that 1 out of 7 suns has earth-like planets is still amazing though. Wouldn't it be rather likely that an advanced intelligence is watching us at that point?
- arrrg 13y ago
  Though we currently do not know how long civilization will last - but I would have to agree that from right here it seems too fragile to endure 200 million years.
- sampo 13y ago
  Or just microbial life, which lasted 3 billion years, which is 15x longer than the 200 million for dinosaurs.

by GuiA 13y ago

Wingman4l7 13y ago

> Do principles of cultural development such as the ones presented in "Guns, germs and steel" hold for non-Earth civilizations? I find this particularly fascinating, because it could lead to a corollary to the Drake equation. This equation would quantify the (possibly insurmountable) barriers that a species must overcome to become a space-faring civilization: strength of the planet's gravity well, ease of access to and total planetary quantity of rare elements required to build space hardware, etc. Basically, Guns, Germs, and Steel -- but on a planetary scale.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
The Great Filter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter. Note some "fun" consequences of this argument: -- quote -- With no evidence of intelligent life other than ourselves, it appears that the process of starting with a star and ending with "advanced explosive lasting life" must be unlikely. This implies that at least one step in this process must be improbable. Hanson's list, while incomplete, describes the following nine steps in an "evolutionary path" that results in the colonization of the observable universe: 1. The right star system (including organics and potentially habitable planets) 2. Reproductive molecules (e.g., RNA) 3. Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life 4. Complex (archaeatic and eukaryotic) single-cell life 5. Sexual reproduction 6. Multi-cell life 7. Tool-using animals with big brains 8. Where we are now 9. Colonization explosion. According to the Great Filter hypothesis at least one of these steps - if the list were complete - must be improbable. If it's not an early step (i.e. in our past), then the implication is that the improbable step lies in our future and our prospects of reaching step 9 (interstellar colonization) are still bleak. If the past steps are likely, then many civilizations would have developed to the current level of the human race. However, none appear to have made it to step 9, or the Milky Way would be full of colonies. So perhaps step 9 is the unlikely one, and the only thing that appears likely to keep us from step 9 is some sort of catastrophe or the resource exhaustion leading to impossibility to make the step due to consumption of the available resources (like for example highly constrained energy resources). So by this argument, finding multicellular life on Mars (provided it evolved independently) would be bad news, since it would imply steps 2–6 are easy, and hence only 1, 7, 8 or 9 (or some unknown step) could be the big problem. -- quote ends -- (emphasis mine) In other words, finding life on Mars would suggest that the Great Filter event may be ahead of us, so we're probably screwed.
- sampo 13y ago
  I think it's illustrative to look at how long (as a percentage of the universe's age, 13.7 Ga) each of those steps has taken in our case: 1. 70% 2. 1–3% 3. 1–3% 4. 15% 5. and 6. 10% 7. 4% 8. 0.03%
- 13y ago

Steko 13y ago

Under what conditions does sentient meta-cognizant life evolve? How does it develop culture, religion, mathematics, art, philosophy, language? (has the Church-Turing thesis been formulated identically somewhere else than on Earth?) Which of those are constants amongst such species, and for the ones who aren't, what leads to their creation? How intertwined are they to biology? (e.g., death and religion) How frequently does the notion of "gender" happen in complex living structures? Do principles of cultural development such as the ones presented in "Guns, germs and steel" hold for non-Earth civilizations? It could well be that all advanced civilizations decide that it's easier to answer these questions with simulations than observation. More interestingly if that is true and you also believe the odds of a singularity in our future is high, then the odds of us being in a simulation now are quite high.

lukifer 13y ago
The simulation theory would also explain some weirdnesses about quantum mechanics; I remember reading a piece by a quantum computing researcher[1] saying that the universe can be modeled as the largest ever quantum computer; at some point, simulated universe and real quantum universe become a distinction without a difference. [1] Pretty sure it was Seth Lloyd's "Programming the Universe": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe
- wozniacki 13y ago
  Firstly I am - as others surely are - sufficiently interested in this premise. At first brush (and to the layperson who is not steeped either in digital physics or simulation theories) this seems like a good contender in the legion of theories of this sort that seek to explain the nature of our observable universe (as it appears to the human consciousness) I looked up the reviews of Amazon for the book, "Programming the Universe" and some reviews seems to suggest that the author largely treads on thin ice in several areas. For example: I've always admired the notion (first promulgated by Voltaire?) that the true measure of intelligence is the ability to simultaneously comprehend two mutually contradictory ideas. So I tend to take a mellow approach to ideas that I disagree with. However, this book angered me, not because of its ideas, but because of its serious flaws. The first serious flaw is that the author cannot keep his ego from seeping into the text. He regales us with triumphant tales of how he confounded his students with deep questions and then nobly revealed the true answers. Sheesh, man, why use the dialog approach using weaklings as your interlocutors? Pit yourself against somebody who can do more than behave as your straight man. Argue with yourself, if you have to! But presenting yourself as the all-knowing professor rubbed my fur the wrong way. The problem of author vanity permeates the entire book. At no point does the author admit to uncertainty, or present two sides of a case, or even admit that anything he writes is controversial. One gets the strong impression that everything is crystal clear to this author. That impression raises my hackles. The overwhelming self-assurance of the author explodes in his face when he gets it wrong. In the section "Exorcising Maxwell's Demon" in Chapter 4, he writes: "The full exorcism of the demon was not accomplished until recently. (I played some part in this ceremony myself.)" Perhaps Mr. Lloyd is older than I imagine. The exorcism of Maxwell's Demon was accomplished by Leon Brilloun, the physicist who patented the atomic bomb, in a paper published in 1951. Mr. Brilloun does not mention any contribution by Mr. Lloyd. It would appear that Mr. Lloyd is unaware of Mr. Brilloun's paper. Worse, his explanation of the exorcism of Maxwell's Demon is a turgid mess that makes no sense at all. Between claiming credit for another man's achievement and botching the explanation of Maxwell's Demon, I reached the limit of my tolerance. I literally threw the book away from me at that point. Perhaps the material after Chapter 4 redeems the book; I do not know, because I did not read it. The other serious flaw in the book is its smarmy vagueness. In attempting to avoid the intimidating reliance on mathematical and technical definitions, Mr. Lloyd resorts to poetic phrasings. These would be acceptable if they weren't so damned cute -- and if they made sense. For example, in attempting to make clear the difference between energy and information he writes, "Energy makes physical systems do things. Information tells them what to do." At first glance, that seems a pithy observation. But go back and read it again; what is the author really saying? Does energy give molecules speed, and information give them direction? Does the energy in an A-bomb make the bang and information tells it what to destroy? I was disconcerted by the author's fuzziness regarding information. He never defined it -- which is not necessarily a fatal flaw, given that a book for the educated public should not burden its readers with undue technical detail. But he used the term in such a myriad of ways that I started to think that he was using it to refer to any magically powerful force. Information, in this book, seems capable of performing wondrous feats. Physics is finally coming to terms with the concept of information as a physical concept. The change began after World War II and has been edging forward for fifty years; in the last ten years, progress has accelerated. A clearer concept of information and its relationship to the physical universe is emerging. Mr. Lloyd misses one of the most important factors in this process: that information itself is inextricably bound with the concept of time, in something like the way that mass and energy are bound together, only more complex. It is not information that is the fundamental quantity; it is information flow, or bandwidth. Source: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HXWI1JRL1M75/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1400040922&nodeID=283155&store=books http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HXWI1JRL1M75/ref=cm_cr_dp_tit... Is there a more authoritative piece of writing that tackles the key arguments against simulated reality, more comprehensively and perhaps more convincingly? Especially the arguments of a) Computationlism b) Computability of physics c) Nested simulations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Arguments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Arguments

incompatible 13y ago

It is fascinating. Imagine if we did detect a radio signal from intelligent life elsewhere. What sort of reply would we send them? I imagine it would be every sort of reply imaginable, as everybody with access to a radio telescope gave it their best shot. I expect a lot of new radio telescopes would be constructed also. If we don't receive any such signals, then finding life elsewhere is going to be a long, hard slog. It seems we don't yet have the energy/technology levels required to get a probe to another star within a reasonable amount of time (100 years travel time, would perhaps be reasonable? Could any of our equipment last that long?) Self-replicating space probes that could exponentially explore the entire galaxy seem to be right out of the question, at present.

murtza 13y ago
If you are interested in exploring this topic more, the fiction book Contact by Carl Sagan is based on the premise of detecting a radio signal from intelligent life. It is a great book that you will make you wonder what effects contact from intelligent life elsewhere would have on human behavior.
- dandelany 13y ago
  And if you wonder about the opposite - how human contact would affect the behavior of intelligent life elsewhere - I highly recommend The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell.
vidarh 13y ago
Self replicating space probes that could exponentially explore the entire galaxy (or universe) is one of the things that might indicate a sparsely populated universe, or at least one where any other forms of life is quite young. Assuming it is possible to make such probes for a relatively young civilisation, and most civilisations that reach that stage does send out even just one probe that starts relicating, if life is abundant around us we should expect to have swarms of them everywhere. Of course it could be we just can't detect them yet, or that life is abundant but that life old enough to be advanced enough to do this is rare for some reason.
13y ago

nikster 13y ago

It seems the most likely would be that most planets are inhabited by life forms that aren't intelligent. Out of 13Bn years, humans in any form have been around 1M years. Civilized societies only a few thousand. We'd find many more planets with Dinosaurs on them (they lasted 200M years).... The thought that 1 out of 7 suns has earth-like planets is still amazing though. Wouldn't it be rather likely that an advanced intelligence is watching us at that point?

arrrg 13y ago
Though we currently do not know how long civilization will last - but I would have to agree that from right here it seems too fragile to endure 200 million years.
sampo 13y ago
Or just microbial life, which lasted 3 billion years, which is 15x longer than the 200 million for dinosaurs.