/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10215841
>Fermi Paradox
Not a paradox

>>10215841
>Fermi Paradox
popsci garbage, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>10215863

Would they not transcend tho?

>>10215841
I would expect a civilization with singularity level tech to be sending out satellites to every star just out of curiosity. I think the solution to the fermi paradox is that intelligent life is so rare that there may only be 1 intelligent civilization in a galaxy if that many. It's possible that life at all is so rare that we are the most advanced civilization in the entire universe.

>>10215928

apparently a singularity level tech civilisation wont need to send anything out because technically they would be all knowing like gods.

They would have created their own multiverse with everything played out billions of times over.

>>10215841
I've always figured the best solution to the fermi paradox was time. We may not hear from aliens for another 100, 200, or even 500 years from now. Seems like a long time for us, but that's not shit in galactic timescales.

There is no Fermi Paradox our galaxy is just a shithole.

>>10215969
>apparently a singularity level tech civilisation wont need to send anything out because technically they would be all knowing like gods
Popsci garbage. That implies that any of those feats are physically possible which they may not be. It also supposes to predict the singularity, which, in an intellectual singularity is functionally impossible.

>>10216316
>tfw you're from the Milky Way galaxy
>encounter on your way some extragalactic civilization
>"uhhhh yeah guys we're from this galaxy called Milky Way"
>"Milky Way??? Hhahahahahahah that is literally our Universe's gutter, you worthless flesh creatures"
>pic related feel

/pol/ already figured it out.

>>10216350
typical midwit bloviating

Isn't Earth only sensitive to signals beamed directly at it?
The galaxy is pretty fucking big and intelligent life is probably quite rare.
It's only because of freak occurrences that the planet is covered with giant pea brained lizards and it's only because of all that oil in the ground that we were able to advance the way we did.

Our radio bubble is only 100 light years out and grows weaker and weaker as its propagates.
Who's to say civilizations don't average out 100,000 light years apart?
Who's to say we aren't the leading force of our galaxy?
Who's to say we wont suddenly start picking up signals one day in the future?

The universe is really really really big. How ever big you think it is, it's a quadrillion times bigger. You can't even begin to fathom how big and sparse it is.

If the moon was the size of 1 pixel on your screen

https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

>>10215841
I just assume life is a process in which it eventually dies like a star

>>10215841
But once self-propagating systems have attained global scale, two crucial differences emerge. The first difference is in the number of individuals from among which the "fittest" are selected. Self-prop systems sufficiently big and powerful to be plausible contenders for global dominance will probably number in the dozens, or possibly in the hundreds; they certainly will not number in the millions. With so few individuals from among which to select the "fittest," it seems safe to say that the process of natural selection will be inefficient in promoting the fitness for survival of the dominant global self-prop systems. It should also be noted that among biological organisms, species that consist of a relatively small number of large individuals are more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals. Though the analogy between biological organisms and self-propagating systems of human beings is far from perfect, still the prospect for viability of a world-system based on the dominance of a few global self-prop systems does not look encouraging.

>>10216524
The second difference is that in the absence of rapid, worldwide transportation and communication, the breakdown or the destructive action of a small-scale self-prop system has only local repercussions. Outside the limited zone where such a self-prop system has been active there will be other self-prop systems among which the process of evolution through natural selection will continue. But where rapid, worldwide transportation and communication have led to the emergence of global self-prop systems, the breakdown or the destructive action of any one such system can shake the whole world-system. Consequently, in the process of trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, it is highly probable that after only a relatively small number of "trials" resulting in "errors," the world-system will break down or will be so severely disrupted that none of the world's larger or more complex self-prop systems will be able to survive. Thus, for such self-prop systems, the trial-and-error process comes to an end; evolution through natural selection cannot continue long enough to create global self-prop systems possessing the subtle and sophisticated mechanisms that prevent destructive internal competition within complex biological organisms.

>>10216527
Meanwhile, fierce competition among global self-prop systems will have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the Earth's climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of its oceans, and so forth, that the effect on the biosphere will be devastating. In Part IV of the present chapter we will carry this line of inquiry further: We will argue that if the development of the technological world-system is allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, then in all probability the Earth will be left a dead planet-a planet on which nothing will remain alive except, maybe, some of the simplest organisms-certain bacteria, algae, etc.-that are capable of surviving under extreme conditions.

>>10216528
The theory we've outlined here provides a plausible explanation for the so-called Fermi Paradox. It is believed that there should be numerous planets on which technologically advanced civilizations have evolved, and which are not so remote from us that we could not by this time have detected their radio transmissions. The Fermi Paradox consists in the fact that our astronomers have never yet been able to detect any radio signals that seem to have originated from an intelligent extraterrestrial source.
According to Ray Kurzweil, one common explanation of the Fermi Paradox is "that a civilization may obliterate itself once it reaches radio capability." Kurzweil continues: "This explanation might be acceptable if we were talking about only a few such civilizations, but [if such civilizations have been numerous], it is not credible to believe that every one of them destroyed itself" Kurzweil would be right if the self-destruction of a civilization were merely a matter of chance. But there is nothing implausible about the foregoing explanation of the Fermi Paradox if there is a process common to all technologically advanced civilizations that consistently leads them to self-destruction. Here we've been arguing that there is such a process.

Is it that hard to accept that life is just extremely rare?

>>10215863
>the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Wrong

>>10215928
Intelligent doesn't mean able to break laws of physics and spam out to all the universe. If you're just making shit up then maybe they can also make themselves invisible. The universe is indisputably filled with life however we will NEVER meet it. The distances are too vast even if we became interplanetary.

>>10215928
>it is possible we are the most advanced civilization in the entire universe
I'm frightened over the thought of that.

>>10216634
It's also probably wrong. However people just shit out the sci fi books they've read and say if we don't see that no advanced species exist. There's probably several other groups right now who've spread across a couple of their solar system planets. However that may well be all that's possible.

The problem with the concept of singularity is, that if we create a truely higher form of intelligence by chance, we probably won't be able to identify it as such. If we create an intelligence that we can identidy as such, than it is not truely a higher form of intelligence (more calcs per second does not mean smarter than us) and thus will not be the super-god that can instantly self-improve to infinity like a lot of people make you believe.

>>10215928
It's not like we could detect such satellites, because they are way too small. Oumuamua is almost a kilometre across, and we only found it by pure luck. No chance we would find something much smaller than that. Microsatellites might even be in earth orbit and we wouldn't know.

>>10216649
More calcs per second factor into being smarter. Modern computers are in some domains smarter than we are, however they have no generalized intelligence or mind. We'd also be well able to recognize something as smarter, manifest by it's success. We may not know how or what it is doing but we would appreciate it is beyond us.

Then again black people see other races' success and think it's just treachery and no one is smarter than them so maybe we'd be like that to the machines.

>>10216652
Microdicks may be posting ITT and we would never know (dont worry anon i won't tell)[/privatespoiler].

>>10215841
A barbaric civilization in the wild is a precious study material, and it makes perfect sense to observe it an isolated environment and see if niggers can make it and why if not.

>>10216350
Totalitarian government is incompatible with space travel, so it's a big no-no for the jews.

>>10215841
To make more paper clips.

You guys don't know how big the universe is do you. It's so big that if a star was a sand corn it would not be enough sand corns on earth to compensate for how many stars there is. And you still do not believe in extraterretrial life. And the harder and rarer coincident sentient life. And even harder with ressources we have plenty of here on earth. We actually do have all types of elements here in plentieness which are extremely rare and hard to comprehend that is true. So there are two ways this will lead and that is the universe is so big that life almost must happen sooner or later, but there are so little chances that it's hard to believe that it will occoure sooner or later. And for life to reach it's climax need a whole lot of other coincidents that will not ever occour again ever if the universe behaves normally as it does. So the chances are minimal but the universe is collosal and marwelous. So you take a guess. Truth or no truth. And what does it matter when we can sooner or later create new life here on earth that has all the variations it may occour to be. To me it's a mix of hope, luck and likelieness in a mix of all possible coincidence so take a guess and see. What can i say. Be or not to be theres no maybe. Life is a variation of all principles and variations the universe can possibly reach. One must think it is it's only purpose to do so. And that kinda gives us a higher meaning to it and life itself. God didn't make life, the universe did. Then man made god by wondering about itself and studying the surroundings of itself. To land on unreasonable logic based on to little evidence. But that was science once and science is just hypotosises until proven wrong or right. God is proven wrong now and new evidence prove that there is something else going on. But it's the same as lifes likelyness. So either you believe or you do not believe. I think it's better to know our true nature then be unlikely dissapointed that you could be very wrong and unlikely

>>10216625
>The universe is indisputably filled with life
>There's probably several other groups right now who've spread across a couple of their solar system

>>10217030
It is not even just a numbers game. It is a religious proposition: if you are truly humble, if God, whatever it may be and however it may have come into being, does truly exist, you as a worshipper are necessitated to believe that this world was not created just for you. The biggest failing of Christianity and Islam is that they failed to teach their adherents that when they talked about "God's children," they weren't just talking about us.

>>10217079
You actually take what's written in the bible serious? The bible is just an compendium of people in a sand hole alone in the desert figuring up urban stories with absolutely zero knowlege nor wisdom or the lack of aquentance to tell about some lacking moral about things the came up with to attach their illusions to their reality with magical proportions. So was about whos had most fantacy back then when they wrote it. The bible is the most garbage man has ever written and is utter total shit. It fucking lack everything and the moral is that everything is bad to do so it really fucks people up completely in a really devestating way. But people who believe in the bible would probably have complexes against alot of shit anyway but it dosent help to give them more fables. So the universe and the bible has little to none in common the aquaintance of the bible is so wrong and low and bad quality that it has no perception of what's going on in the universe at all. The universe is pure randomness in mathematics and scientifically proven physics that works in a certain harmonic to adapt through mass suggestion in the melody of the syntax that moves through oblivion of life like matter that proposes to serve real lofe in the end of a randomized event of causes and reactions to customize it's true purpose to create life and sustain life and develop life in it's most adaptive and complex meaning of all that exists. So it is deep, it is very very deep and you can't say it has a religious proportion when we can se that it's pure logical exponation to it and everyrhing with it. No compound is static with the universe so a perfect version would not exist all it needed was to fulfill a purpose so it needed to be dynamic to adapt. In the principle the universe could be perfect but that's one chance of every possibility and that's almost impossible to do but what is perfection then. Life on every planet or one planet with fully perfected sentient. Or what it actually is.

I remember seeing a paper posted on here that the fermi paradox has been solved.
The gist of it was that life really is just that rare.

>>10216668
>Then again black people see other races' success and think it's just treachery and no one is smarter than them so maybe we'd be like that to the machines.
And whites say the same about jews.
And whites say that asians "bugpeople with no empathy or creativity"

>>10217245
The original universe. The offspring of an endless cause and effect that became sentient to. Human not fully developed and perfect but in rare cases almost perfect e.g super geniuses. And we don't even need that to gain the deepest of wisdom and knowlege. There is more ways to see the truth now than ever before. And we don't need to see it either. So that eliminates the higher purpose to know ones true self and to know the universe. One only need to see that everything is connected and that there is orrder in chaos and everything is set and done and dealth with to realize that this version of the universe is the perfected one the original and the only. It's not like there are many more universes and a competition. What I csn say personally is that life is extremely rare and precious and amazing so one could almost believe there is some magic to it but it's not magic it's a repetitiously randomized happenings of events that eventually went right all the way and is the impossible variation of fidility in the life suportive complexity of variations. Ultimately what it is so it at least went right. And for you to be you and me me is just no words. It's the most unbelieveable thing that has ever occoured in time and space and all of existence and should be respected, treated carefully and to do good. It's like you didn't come here by purpose or anything but you adopted in matrix of oblivion to have life as a gift not a punishment. To have it good. And to do good. So you can at least try to do good. And appreciate it. At least most of it. Plus all the ressources and thing we now have to make life easier and better. Just think. To think is actually a privelage to have. So it's kinda bitter sweet all of this. When you think of everything through time that didn't go right and didn't plsy well or had harmony. But at least we got there here now as we are fully aware and adaptable awake in this besutiful shaped universe. Just fantastic.

>>10216668
100 black people can do more calcs per second than 1 einstein can, but still 100 black people will never be able to create something like the relativity theories. calcs per sec are in fact not very important.

>>10215841
>AI is only the solution to the Fermi Paradox

Assuming you meant "AI is the only solution..."

Nonsense. One obvious "solution" is that intelligent life is rare enough that nobody else is within a detectable range of us.

>>10215863
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

A hypothesis makes predictions. The hypothesis that life is as common as dirt in the galaxy, and that such life will tend towards producing intelligent life, makes some predictions -- a testable one being that we would detect the various things intelligent species do. But we have not.

This is not proof that the galaxy is not swarming with intelligent life. But it is a bit of evidence against the hypothesis.

It is not proof of absence, but it is a bit of evidence of absence.

>>10216316
In the Greater Universe, we are the Sentinel Island of galaxies.

>>10216625
>The universe is indisputably filled with life

Interesting assertion. Please provide supporting data.

>>10216303
There may not be any intelligent aliens alive anywhere near us. The nearest civilization could be thousands of light years away, in which case it would be thousands if not millions of years if we ever hear from them at all, which might be unlikely simply due to the fact that it's not worth the effort to scan every single planet in the universe.

>>10217030
>You guys don't know how big the universe is do you.

Maybe you don't understand how big the universe is, and how difficult it is to traverse. Sure there's billions of stars in our galaxy, most of them are completely out of reach by any theoretical technology we have today. All we can do is see their star, and only because the star is an extremely bright light source.

>>10215841
> Two interstellar aliens have come to assess the life-forms of Earth.

Apprentice: Why are these humans so quarrelsome? Even their so-called entertainments are mostly fights disguised as plays and games and sports.

Surveyor: This is because they were never designed; they evolved by competing with tooth and claw. Evolution on Earth is still mainly based on the competition of separate genes.

Apprentice: Their genetic systems can't yet share their records of accomplishments? How unbelievably primitive! I suppose that keeps them from being concerned with time scales longer than individual lives.

Surveyor: We ought to consider fixing this - but perhaps they will do it themselves. Some of their computer scientists are already simulating 'genetic algorithms' that incorporate acquired characteristics. But speaking of evolution, I hope that you appreciate this unique opportunity. it was pure luck to discover this planet now. We have long believed that all intelligent machines evolved from biologicals, but we have never before observed the actual transition. Soon, these people will replace themselves by machines - or destroy themselves entirely.

Eukaryotic cells have only existed for 20% of the time life has existed on earth.
The creation of eukaryotes was likely a freak accident.

The answer to the Fermi Paradox is a combination of that and this >>10217341

Intelligent life is rare and spread out.

>>10215928
> It's possible that life at all is so rare that we are the most advanced civilization in the entire universe.

We are the most degenerate civilization in the entire universe not the most advanced.

>>10217454
Well, judging from earth's history prokaryotic cells develop absoluetely everywhere where liquid water oceans are a thing, and there are surely at least a couple of billions of those in the milky way alone. So even if the chances of prokaryotic cells becoming eukaryotic cells in 1:1.000.000, there should be thousands of civilizations just in the milky way.

>>10217493
Which is 50,000 light years large and extremely difficult to traverse.

Finding a planet with life is difficult. Finding a planet with intelligent life would be extremely difficult. Not only that, to his point, time is a factor. There could be thousands of civilizations in the galaxy, but the chances of them occurring at the same time is small. Human civilization will not last forever. Let's say for some reason Russia gets completely destroyed tomorrow. Humanity now has no means of traveling into space without developing new technology, when 50 years ago we were walking on the moon.

There's also the theoretical limit of travel, which is the speed of light. It's very likely impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, so it would take thousands of years between finding any planet with promise.

I've posted in another thread like this, don't know if anyone noticed it. It's more interesting to examine life from the Great Filter angle.

Our solar system is at least second-generation, we were formed out of supernova remnants. We're also a single, yellow star. On that alone,more than 80% of large (100x mass of ours) are binary, but 75% of stars in our local area are red dwarfs. Life has a chemical composition, and this would be preferable only in a small range of stellar formations. Too much heavy metals, and DNA wouldn't be very stable. Too few metals, and although you could have some life, it would be quite sparse and might take millions/billions of years before it concentrates enough to Earth-like densities, but only in limited regions. Evolution would take drastically different courses, just on mineral compositions. Then we have to talk about atmospheres/surface. Not only are compositions different, densities would change, affecting organic reactions and availability for further reactions. Oxygen binds readily to most metals, so for aerobic life, you'd need an evolutionarily stable period long enough to develop life that can free oxygen, as well as process it again. Carbon dioxide stabilized Earth's atmosphere for a long time during early periods, and it's likely a big portion of our earth-friendly stuff came came from collisions (collision with the moon breaking stuff into hot organic-like matter, water from comets). It took around 3.5 billion years (about 25% the age of the universe) just to go from water to the Cambrian explosion. There's a LOT that can go wrong in 3.5 billion years, that fortunately didn't happen to us: high energy radiations that annihilate DNA, low energy radiation/mass ejections that strip atmosphere, planetary destruction in itself from a large body collisions, or stealing if a body like Jupiter came too close.

>>10217353
Apprentice: Why are these people so huge? Where is their nanotechnology? By all rights they should be smaller than we, in view of their limited memories should - yet we weigh a hundred trillion times less. It is expensive enough to send ourselves on these one-way interstellar voyages, but humans are so massive that it would be unthinkable to send one back - despite all their stories in Daily World News.

Surveyor: That is just another result of an early wrong turn in evolution. Instead of using assemblers, each animal of planet Earth must build itself from the inside out. So every cell has to contain a complete duplicate of the whole construction mechanism. Then later when the animals got too large to be nourished by diffusion, they had to evolve all those pipes and pumps - which made them grow yet larger still. Another mistake was in using energy-intensive forms of computation - instead of thermally reversible S-matrix logic. This made them need more structures for disposing of heat.

Apprentice: Which in turn made them need to find additional fuel to replace all that wasted energy. What frightful inefficiency!

Surveyor: The extraction beam will scan us soon, so I'm afraid it is time to wrap this up. Get ready to summarize your impressions.

>>10216340
We are literally inside a void 2 billion light years across.

https://www.space.com/37191-we-live-in-a-cosmic-void.html

>>10215841
>AI is only the solution to the Fermi Paradox
Wrong. GTFO brainlet.

>>10217326
Yes we don't tend to describe intelligence as an accumulative trait so your sentence was entirely a waste of time.

>>10217291
Neither is wrong.

>>10215841
Here's a radical idea, the conditions for complex life is extraordinarily rare and for them to survive long enough from natural selective pressures and develop in such an anthropogenic way that we would be able to detect them is even rarer so they either don't exist or at least in any meaningful way.

>>10217749
Not really. Life itself is a purely inevitable natural property in certain circumstances. With the number of planets there will be billions with basic life. In enough time intelligence will arise as it is a clearly superior trait. The sheer number of planets makes intelligent life a certainty.

>>10217749
> the conditions for complex life is extraordinarily rare and for them to survive long enough from natural selective pressures and develop in such an anthropogenic way
What do you mean by this? Humans came not relatively long after multi-cellular life.

>>10216533
Doubtful.
Intelligent life probably is though.

>>10217461
We evolved to what we are by playing natures game. Not by being faggot hippies.
Anything else out there would have had the same battle.