A Fermi Paradox Solution

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
One (part of the) solution could be advanced spacefaring civilisations tend to congregate and cooperate.
This in turn narrows down the divergent choices civilisations would have made otherwise.

What do you think? I haven’t heard/read this particular solution before.
Anyone else have any other solutions?





#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
What is that paradox 
Topic's author
#3
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The contradiction between the estimation of aliens being abundant in the universe and the lack of evidence of their existence.
#4
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
We haven't properly examined most of the universe, we don't have means of proper hypothesizing, there could be other factors limiting our understanding of why life isn't forming, the alien life could still be in it's solely-unicellular era, life could still be developing, this isn't a paradox.
Topic's author
#5
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Alright I’ll  try to simplify some numbers for you. 

For comparison:

The known universe (how far we can see) has existed for almost about 14 billion years.  

Human progression:

Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years.
Human civilisation began about 5000 years ago.
Technologically we went from the steam engine to the rocket engine within 200 years.

Habitable exoplanet estimation:

50-70 sextillion habitable planets have been estimated to exist.
That’s 50-70 with 21 zeros.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Are you beginning to understand the variables?








#6
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
ESTIMATED. We do not have concrete numbers, we do not concrete measuring tools, we do not have concrete anything in this regard, humans? The earth existed for 4 billion years before we even came close to existing, and only through mutation does evolution work, so it is very possible that evolution if it is in effect, is still in a very minor regard. Not to mention you have no at all answered the other solution (not being able to accurately test it)
Topic's author
#7
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
ESTIMATED. We do not have concrete numbers, we do not concrete measuring tools, we do not have concrete anything in this regard, humans?
What? Your question is weird, especially towards the end.
Anyway, would you say the same thing if we were arguing about how many grains of sand are on Earth? 
There comes a point where “concrete” doesn’t really matter.


The earth existed for 4 billion years before we even came close to existing
Yeah, and there’s a lot of planets out there to say the least. Also 4-8 billion years before us is still a lot of time.

and only through mutation does evolution work, so it is very possible that evolution if it is in effect, is still in a very minor regard.
Yeah planets are pretty big for life to diversify and compete. And also you know, the number of planets there are.

Not to mention you have not at all answered the other solution (not being able to accurately test it)
What other solution are you referring to?












































#8
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
What? I am answering the question: Here are some reasons that we have no discovered life yet:

A) We have no capacity to even be near half of the things we are studying, and while bigger things (like the big bang) are still easily provable and such, other things such as the literal biochemistry of a planet is out of our capability to accurately measure. In other words: There may be life and we have missed it because our tools are relatively shitty.

B) Evolution is a process driven by the environment, to assume that every habitable planet has the same natural selection factors as earth is to not understand evolution, the specific environments could very well be hindering evolution to the point where life has not evolved past unicellular life, again, mutations are what make evolution go round. 

C) Relating to A, in the regards that our tools are relatively shit, there may be other factors that limit how, when, and where life forms in other star systems that we do not understand yet, so, to assume that just because we are still studying and haven't found the statistical life just yet is fallacious, because it discounts further research as well as our lack of knowledge. 

D) Statistical life isn't the same as found or experimented life. In philosophy, you learn a great deal about how statistics are used to provide the impacts of an argument. There is an analogy I like particularly well: If you have two cars, a red and a blue one, and the blue one is 75% likely to be the one that was speeding, and the red one had a 25% to be speeding if we were to just use statistics to evaluate this, we would conclude that it was the blue one that was speeding. But that excludes the 25% chance you might ask, and that would be correct, but finding what is likely is all statistics do, it is the job of the thinker to support it with further warrant. 

This is a rebuttal and a contention
Topic's author
#9
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
A) We have no capacity to even be near half of the things we are studying, and while bigger things (like the big bang) are still easily provable and such, other things such as the literal biochemistry of a planet is out of our capability to accurately measure. In other words: There may be life and we have missed it because our tools are relatively shitty
We don’t have to be on a  planet to measure said chemistry. We’re able to do so from the light it produces through its atmosphere. I forgot what it’s called. Anyway there’s nuances as well such as methane. On gas giants methane is common while on Earth-sized planets, not so much. The thing is on Earth, methane is overwhelmingly produced by biology.

Is it alright if we can do one at a time?
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
A reasonable suggestion might be that if universal progression is governed by physical laws, then evolutionary progression is governed by the same laws.

To that end, why should  it be expected that any other sentient organic civilisation/s, would be more advanced in terms of acquired knowledge and technology?.....Isn't that just the expectation of science fiction?

I would therefore suggest that if "alien" civilisations do in fact exist, then they are just as likely to be stranded by the vastness of a solar system and outer space, as we are.
Topic's author
#11
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
A reasonable suggestion might be that if universal progression is governed by physical laws, then evolutionary progression is governed by the same laws.

To that end, why should  it be expected that any other sentient organic civilisation/s, would be more advanced in terms of acquired knowledge and technology?.....Isn't that just the expectation of science fiction?
Just by shear numbers of how big the freaking universe is. 

I would therefore suggest that if "alien" civilisations do in fact exist, then they are just as likely to be stranded by the vastness of a solar system and outer space, as we are.
Warp drives are mathematically possible. They’ve been researched extensively. I don’t know why people tend to overlook them. 
#12
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
We don’t have to be on a  planet to measure said chemistry. We’re able to do so from the light it produces through its atmosphere. I forgot what it’s called. Anyway there’s nuances as well such as methane. On gas giants methane is common while on Earth-sized planets, not so much. The thing is on Earth, methane is overwhelmingly produced by biology.

Is it alright if we can do one at a time?
First off, you wanted solutions, there they are, second of all, still no. You can measure certain aspects of the planet sure, but you can't accurately map out an environment and all chemicals and properties of the organic matter, non-organic matter, unicellular life that may exist. So no, you cannot get the entire biochemistry of a planet, and again, these aren't indicative of all of the planets, we can't even accurately measure how the light travels in a lot of instances. 

Getting the supposed climate of a planet and the atmospheric composition is only one small part of the puzzle, there is a lot more before you can get to: obviously there is no life here. Even our own measurements of climate can be flawed here, hence the need for more advanced tools to measure. Again, you don't know what could be causing that methane on other planets, neither do scientists in some cases, none of this is a problem, its not a paradox at all.
#13
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Reece101
interesting
Topic's author
#14
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
First off, you wanted solutions, there they are,
Hmm, not very good solutions. 

second of all, still no. You can measure certain aspects of the planet sure, but you can't accurately map out an environment and all chemicals and properties of the organic matter, non-organic matter, unicellular life that may exist. So no, you cannot get the entire biochemistry of a planet, and again, these aren't indicative of all of the planets, 
You’ve moved the goal post to all chemicals. You don’t need all chemicals. All you need is enough pixels to make out a picture.

we can't even accurately measure how the light travels in a lot of instances
What do you mean? Does it matter if all we’re looking at are results? 

Getting the supposed climate of a planet and the atmospheric composition is only one small part of the puzzle, there is a lot more before you can get to: obviously there is no life here.
I’m looking at it from a different prospective of “obviously there could be life here.” Depending on what we find the atmosphere could be a massive part of the puzzle. Some chemicals can only be manufactured. We might see evidence of industry. 

Even our own measurements of climate can be flawed here, hence the need for more advanced tools to measure. Again, you don't know what could be causing that methane on other planets, neither do scientists in some cases, none of this is a problem, its not a paradox at all.
This is really weird. You’re saying the Fermi paradox isn’t a paradox, or are you saying these issues you’re nit picking aren’t paradoxes? 
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
One doesn't doubt the "freaking" size of the universe.....That wasn't the point.

I was suggesting that all those freakingly possible civilizations, might all share a universal and evolutionary commonality....That is to say that none of those civilisations has yet developed the capability of interstellar or intercalactic travel.

And no one is overlooking the fact that warp drives might be mathematically possible. But perhaps you are ignoring the fact, that as yet we are nowhere near developing warp drive technology....And so for the same reasons as above, it is  likely that  other civilisations elsewhere in the universe, have also not developed warp technology.

Maybe in the future, but probably not in our lifetimes Jim.
Topic's author
#16
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
And now you’ve lost sight of how old the known universe is. Advanced alien civilisations could be billions of years older.
Humans went from the steam engine to the rocket engine within 200 years. Do you understand? 
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Yep.... And do you understand my point.

Irrespective of how old the Universe is, matter has developed at the same rate, as governed by the laws of the universe. And therefore it is reasonable to suggest that intelligence and intelligent civilisations would have also developed at the same rate.

Unless you are proposing a multi-stage creation and universe....Though I think that the consensus is, that it all happened in one go.
Topic's author
#18
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I’ve been trying to figure out where to begin with this train wreck.

Saying matter has developed at the same rate, irrespective of other constructs, is meaningless when talking about relativity.
#19
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
There is no life on other planets. The chance of a living cell forming from random chemical interactions is 1/10^25.
The number of planets is 10^25.
Topic's author
#20
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
How did you come to that conclusion? Was the only factor planets? What about time?

#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
No, I'm saying this is no paradox, chemicals, molecules, cellular life, such as ATP, Amino Acids, NADP, Polysacharides, Monosachirades, and even atomic structure are essential in testing for life, you must have no idea what you're talking about in this regard, else you would know that "we see no life" doesn't mean there is no life, and no, it is not likely that life that we can see has formed at all, provide your evidence for that, Unicellular life is not something you can get, a single pixel, does not prove life, you A) Do not understand how life works on an evolutionary scale, B) How the statics actually work, and C) How we would detect that life.
Topic's author
#22
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Be honest. Are you guys trying to misconstrue stuff? I’ve been asking questions and you guys have been talking straight passed me.

#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
What? No it's not even necessary to answer those because your interpretation of how this is done is flawed fundamentally, that has to be rectified before anything else, I answered the last question and this one, "What do you mean? Does it matter if all we’re looking at are results?" I'm not quite sure what you were addressing given the small snippet of my response, but Im guessing that you mean in reference to atmospheric conditions. My point there was that we cannot always accurately measure our atmosphere, and this would be doubly so for planets that we can't test more directly, so more mistakes are likely to be made, more errors, and flaws. Therefore we can't even get an accurate representation of life from the atmosphere. 

Also, are you acting in bad faith? You haven't even answered half of my criticisms yet.


Topic's author
#24
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? No it's not even necessary to answer those because your interpretation of how this is done is flawed fundamentally, that has to be rectified before anything else
Alright let’s start with this. 

your interpretation of how this is done is flawed fundamentally,
Interpretation of what?
#25
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Interpretation of how we look for and life and what type of life the statistics are talking of
Topic's author
#26
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
How is my interpretation of looking for life fundamentally flawed? 
Which statistics have I misinterpreted?
#27
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
You said, "only enough to get a single pixel" unicellular life would not be detectable with that, at least not comparable, not in any way you could verify, you actually need to be able to sample the substance, images will do nothing. If there is other life it is most likely unicellular is my point, not civilizations or anything like that, and that small life is what the statistics are speaking of, actually, not even that, but the potential of life.
Topic's author
#28
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
You said "only enough to get a single pixel"
No I did not. I said all you need is enough pixels to make out a picture.
 Are my perceptions fundamentally flawed, or are yours?