3 ms·
Another argument against the great filter, and one I'm surprised it's not considered more often, is the relativity of the space and time. We assume, long story
by Mahn 12y ago
Another argument against the great filter, and one I'm surprised it's not considered more often, is the relativity of the space and time. We assume, long story short, that the colonization explosion is rare because we can't see it, but what if all that we can observe in terms of space and time is a incredibly "microscopic" slice compared to all that there is/has been/will be out there? The way I see it it looks like we've concluded water must be commonplace on earth, but then we act puzzled when we can't find a lake down the street and assume water must be rarer than we thought.
- jeremyjh 12y agoWe're only talking about what we can observe. Just a few dozen billions of stars. That is sufficient for the Fermi paradox.
- Mahn 12y ago> That is sufficient for the Fermi paradox. Is it? How do we know it is?
- has2k1 12y agoThe Fermi paradox is based on the vastness of we can observe. It says nothing about that which may exist beyond (not hidden) what we observe.
- taygetea 12y agoThe terms we know in the Drake equation make it very difficult to say it is unlikely for intelligence to arise more than once. ~100 billion stars * ~100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Exoplanet surveys seem to be suggesting at least one planet per star on average. In addition, chemical self replication seems to happen fairly easily given the right chemical conditions, which don't appear to require much more than liquid water.