Why isn't the observable universe awash in signals of ET civilizations?

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 23:44:01 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?

I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.

Robert Carnegie

2018-03-04 15:34:09 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 23:44:01 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?

A fictional scientist mentions it in Asimov's _Gur Tbqf Gurzfyirf_
(ROT13 code).

An alien culture is transmitting *spoiler* [1] into our space
to our eventual detriment.

The remedy is that we transmit it into a different space
in our turn.

Or something like that. I think this would be frowned on
in _Star Trek_; there are Voyager episodes about space-trucks
full of waste antimatter dumping it where it's going to...
you know, I think it works better as allegory, that time,
than as futurology.

[1] Actually I've forgotten what, but it probably is also
a spoiler.

Post by J. Clarke

I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.

The Zygon

2018-03-05 02:35:04 UTC

Post by J. Clarke

The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?

I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.

Agreed. I used the word too loosely. What speculations have you heard?

J. Clarke

2018-03-05 02:51:39 UTC

On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 18:35:04 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

Post by J. Clarke

The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?

I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.

Agreed. I used the word too loosely. What speculations have you heard?

Everything from the "ET Greenies don't want to pollute our pristine
environment" to "Some Mysterious Force is preventing interstellar
travel". My own view is that it just costs too much for anybody to
bother.

m***@sky.com

2018-03-03 11:26:27 UTC

Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?

I'm going to assume that you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

I don't think people thought about this in early Science Fiction - Wikipedia dates one of the related arguments to 1981 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

I've seen a couple of stories talking about civilizations in hiding, regarding each other as lethal threats - Cixin Liu's "The Dark Forest" and to some extent Les Johnson's Mission to Methone (just finished that - want to reread)

In Honsinger's Man of War series there was a civilization in this neighbourhood busily wiping out intelligent species as they evolved, to stop future threats - until other species decided that was bad form, and wiped it out in its turn. Thus a breathing space ensued in which humanity and assorted other species could survive and come to roughly the same stage of development at roughly the same time.

I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire threat to stay in their own home system.

If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?

Chris Buckley

2018-03-03 16:09:14 UTC

An somewhat related early treatment of this (1969) is Piers Anthony's
_Macroscope_, where civilizations are forcibly kept apart by "The Destroyer"
until they are mature enough not to regard each other as lethal threats.

_Macroscope_ is Anthony's one serious science fiction book I would
recommend. It's an incredibly ambitious work that attempts to unify
all sorts of things at all sorts of levels, going in scale from within
the brain (in several different aspects, including brain enzymes) to
intergalactic intelligence, with major parts set within a framework of
astrology! It doesn't completely succeed, but it is thought provoking.

Chris

Ahasuerus

2018-03-03 21:00:20 UTC

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:26:35 AM UTC-5, ***@sky.com wrote:
[snip]

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]

I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

The notion that a species that:

1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime

would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...

Post by m***@sky.com
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring
technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an
existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to
their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species
gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire
threat to stay in their own home system.

ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.

Post by m***@sky.com
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't
involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to
alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from
star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle
to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find
cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each
of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other
unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?

It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.

The Zygon

2018-03-05 04:23:16 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]

I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime
would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...

ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.

It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.

Fermi was famous for his "back of a napkin" calculations. And it was remarkable that they did not turn out to be pure crap given how quickly he did them and simple math he used and the complexity of the problems he tackled. But they were often not "close, though you may read that a lot. They only close given how roughly they were done - and that is not the same thing.

In this case, we really have no idea how close he was. So his paradox may be no paradox at all. There could be literally billions of technologically advanced species in the universe and still all be millions of light years away from us. The universe is that huge. An average of less than one technologically advanced species per galaxy, but close to would produce that result.

nuny@bid.nes

2018-03-05 07:29:28 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]

I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

But but, current human civilization is the Pinnacle Of Creation, and the customs of our tribe are the laws of Nature!

Even ignoring things like FSK-modulated (flavor-shift keyed) neutrino communications channels we do not know for sure how to tell a random signal (natural noise) from an extremely complex signal in an encoding scheme we haven't invented.

I'm thinking here of people who are certain the Voynich Manuscript is not a hoax because of the frequency distribution of the various characters- it "looks like" natural language rather than noise, but they can't even say which language group much less which language.

Post by Ahasuerus

ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.

Cramer's _Twistor_ really needs a sequel or five.

Post by Ahasuerus
It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.

I'd like to know how you're supposed to avoid the populated ones without visiting them first- see Laumer's _Worlds Of The Imperium_.

Mark L. Fergerson

Dorothy J Heydt

2018-03-05 14:34:19 UTC

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]

I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

But but, current human civilization is the Pinnacle Of Creation, and
the customs of our tribe are the laws of Nature!
Even ignoring things like FSK-modulated (flavor-shift keyed) neutrino
communications channels we do not know for sure how to tell a random
signal (natural noise) from an extremely complex signal in an encoding
scheme we haven't invented.
I'm thinking here of people who are certain the Voynich Manuscript is
not a hoax because of the frequency distribution of the various
characters- it "looks like" natural language rather than noise, but
they can't even say which language group much less which language.

Post by Ahasuerus

ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.

Cramer's _Twistor_ really needs a sequel or five.

Post by Ahasuerus
It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.

I'd like to know how you're supposed to avoid the populated ones
without visiting them first- see Laumer's _Worlds Of The Imperium_.

The way you're supposed to recognize them in the first place, by
radio emissions or whatever?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

Peter Trei

2018-03-05 17:42:17 UTC

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]

I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

But but, current human civilization is the Pinnacle Of Creation, and the customs of our tribe are the laws of Nature!
Even ignoring things like FSK-modulated (flavor-shift keyed) neutrino communications channels we do not know for sure how to tell a random signal (natural noise) from an extremely complex signal in an encoding scheme we haven't invented.
I'm thinking here of people who are certain the Voynich Manuscript is not a hoax because of the frequency distribution of the various characters- it "looks like" natural language rather than noise, but they can't even say which language group much less which language.

The problem is, that while 'natural' languages contain a great deal of
redundancy and repeated data, allowing this kind of frequency analysis to
work, 'engineered' languages don't have to. Data compression ideally should
produce an output indistinguishable from noise; if there's a predictable
pattern in the data, you can improve the compression by removing the
pattern and regenerating it on reception.

...and that's not including things like CDM (Code division multiplexing) where
you deliberately mix your signal with high-frequency pseudorandom noise.

I don't think its clear that even if we were to receive an alien's
transmissions, that we could recognize it as such.

pt

The Zygon

2018-03-05 02:48:27 UTC

I'm going to assume that you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I don't think people thought about this in early Science Fiction - Wikipedia dates one of the related arguments to 1981 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft
I've seen a couple of stories talking about civilizations in hiding, regarding each other as lethal threats - Cixin Liu's "The Dark Forest" and to some extent Les Johnson's Mission to Methone (just finished that - want to reread)
In Honsinger's Man of War series there was a civilization in this neighbourhood busily wiping out intelligent species as they evolved, to stop future threats - until other species decided that was bad form, and wiped it out in its turn. Thus a breathing space ensued in which humanity and assorted other species could survive and come to roughly the same stage of development at roughly the same time.
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire threat to stay in their own home system.
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?

==
Thanks for those story references. I like them. I will check them out.

I had heard of the hiding society speculation. But the welcoming party. It is hard to imagine highly advanced societies which are not curious, and curious but behaving according to that speculation.

Even the hiding society theory does not work. Some time before they thought to hide or able to, they would have radiated into space quite freely.

Also, I was not thinking of space travel. I don't think that interstellar travel is impractical. I think that the light-speed limit is real.

Jack Bohn

2018-03-05 16:16:05 UTC

I had heard of the hiding society speculation. But the welcoming party. It is hard >to imagine highly advanced societies which are not curious, and curious but behaving >according to that speculation.
Even the hiding society theory does not work. Some time before they thought to hide >or able to, they would have radiated into space quite freely.

John Michael Godier has several YouTube presentations on the subject. One, "Sleeping Giants", points out some cosmological thoughts that conditions near the end of the universe will be more conducive to life, or at least computer simulations of such. A civilization might suspend itself to wait to take advantage of that. Meanwhile, they'd not want others to use up all the resources. So they'd have automated probes (designed not to be complex enough to develop into a competitor) seek out and snuff out aliens. For tough infestations, it can raise a Great Old One (one, so as not to be tempted to start its own family/dynasty in advance of all the sleeping ones.

Another one, "The Great Filter", takes sort of a pessimistic view of the Drake Equation, that one factor must nearly zero everything out. It could either be something we passed to get to our current development, or something in our future. It takes the view that nothing in our past could be so hard that noone else could pass it -after all, we did- so there is a tough test in our future, and how can we be the only ones to pass it?

--
-Jack

Sjouke Burry

2018-03-03 13:44:38 UTC

Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.

So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000

When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.

a425couple

2018-03-04 04:07:26 UTC

Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said
that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them.
Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a
working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact
that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and
which do you find credible?

Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.

Your above reasons, especially your last two ideas
stated above, are close to what I think.

The Zygon

2018-03-05 02:56:03 UTC

Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.

In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an expectation of millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers, probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.

As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any planet within a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.

a425couple

2018-03-06 20:09:16 UTC

Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.

In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an expectation of millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers, probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.
As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any planet within a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.

This citation, seems to indicate that is a limited number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_exoplanets

The Zygon

2018-03-07 00:25:47 UTC

Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.

In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an expectation of millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers, probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.
As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any planet within a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.

This citation, seems to indicate that is a limited number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_exoplanets

Understood. But my point was more about our ability to detect and identify "unnatural" electromagnetic sources than about the probability of life in that volume of spc

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

2018-03-06 23:43:42 UTC

Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist
once said th

at physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of
them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum,
grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what
explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET
civilization?

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no
evidence of ET

civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most
persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which
we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the
range that we are able to detect.

Post by The Zygon
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you
heard and

which do you find credible?

Post by Sjouke Burry
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the
usable lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their
history, the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same
time period, is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or
primordeal slime or very old ruins is what you probably will
find.

In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an
expectation of

millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers,
probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.

Post by The Zygon
As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any
planet within

a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we
have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.

Post by a425couple
This citation, seems to indicate that is a limited number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_exoplanets

Understood. But my point was more about our ability to detect
and identify "unnatural" electromagnetic sources than about the
probability of life in that volume of spc

And that is a very good point. Stars put out a lot of EM radtiation
anyway, and the direction that computer communications are going is
more towards encryption and compression. Both of which look more
and more like random noise, as the technology improves.

Or maybe they don't use radio any more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

David DeLaney

2018-03-05 10:22:17 UTC

Ah, but our detection systems are constantly getting more nuanced & powerful.
(See: the exoplanet searching we're now successfully doing.)

Post by Sjouke Burry
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.

? Don't confuse the usable lifetime of a planet, which is MUCH longer than
that, with the "usable lifetime" of a _species_, which usually is indeed
limited to around millions of years.

Dave, same answer, different show-your-work

--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Ted Nolan <tednolan>

2018-03-03 16:26:03 UTC

Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are
not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and
which do you find credible?

That's the way The Arena likes it..

--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

David Goldfarb

2018-03-03 20:52:04 UTC

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.

I agree with that. You've probably heard of the Drake Equation, which
attempts to capture all of the factors leading to intelligence with
technical civilization, to work out the number of such civilizations
in our galaxy.

The equation includes some parameters which are known to be large
(the number of stars in the galaxy, the number of years in the age
of the universe) and others that are completely unknown, but are
potentially quite small (the proportion of life-bearing planets
on which that life achieves sapience). Since it multiplies together
large factors with ones that might or might not be small, most
likely the solution to the equation is either very large -- Isaac
Asimov once estimated some numbers and came out with one on the
order of 10^8 -- or else very small, much smaller than one; it is
unlikely that it just happens to be on the order of 10^0 or 10^1.

Now, it's tempting to consider that our own existence means that
the lower bound is in fact 10^0. But that's wrong: it could be
that the solution is in fact very small, 10^-3 or even 10^-6. It
could be that you would have to search a thousand galaxies to find
one with intelligent life. And the Milky Way just happens to be
that one.

On my good days, I think that the chance of life developing intelligence
is simply very very low. On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself. For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --

Of course I should not be a carbon chauvinist, but I don't know enough
about any other way of putting life together to speculate for them.

--
David Goldfarb |"The Carson/Johnson Law of Human Behavior:
***@gmail.com | 80% of all questions that begin with the word
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | 'why' can be answered with the phrase
| 'People are stupid.'" -- Ted Faber

Quadibloc

2018-03-03 22:11:01 UTC

Post by David Goldfarb
On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself. For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --

Not every civilization is doomed to be stupid or unlucky. On another planet, the
equivalent of World War II might have left *only* democracies among the
industrialized nations, instead of having Stalin's Russia around... hence, no
worries about nuclear war.

And we have atomic energy to indulge ourselves with without filling the air with
carbon dioxide.

Thus, even if we don't survive, survival was an option for some of the races out
there.

Because technology wasn't going to result immediately from having big brains,
and big brains have a large metabolic cost, our big brains came about as the
result of an evolutionary accident. Like the horns of the Irish Elk, like the
tail of the peacock, they're the result of sexual selection.

Bipedalism made human courtship... very complicated... as described in Elaine
Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_.

It could be that other intelligent species are, like ourselves, *flawed*
species. Species that are in a serious disequilibrium with their environment and
between their members, even before the effects of disproportionate technical
power enter the picture.

With multiple independent political units, instead of one World Government, it
can happen that a necessity is seen, and the appropriate course of action is
technically feasible, and yet we cannot act on it - because while one polity can
act, it cannot compel the other polities to cooperate.

And, yet, those who say that a World Government will likely become a world
dictatorship, stifling progress forever, are probably right. The solution is not
simple.

John Savard

J. Clarke

2018-03-03 22:41:26 UTC

Post by Quadibloc

Or maybe your hypothesis that there is something magic about
"democracies" that makes it impossible for them to blow each other to
Kingdom Come is in error.

Post by Quadibloc
And we have atomic energy to indulge ourselves with without filling the air with
carbon dioxide.

What were you saying about "democracies"? It seems to have escaped
your notice that the major obstacle to widespread adoption of nuclear
energy is the fears of the demos.

Post by Quadibloc
Thus, even if we don't survive, survival was an option for some of the races out
there.

Unless it wasn't. Something you are missing is that our ability to
fuck up is in its infancy.

Post by Quadibloc
Because technology wasn't going to result immediately from having big brains,
and big brains have a large metabolic cost, our big brains came about as the
result of an evolutionary accident. Like the horns of the Irish Elk, like the
tail of the peacock, they're the result of sexual selection.
Bipedalism made human courtship... very complicated... as described in Elaine
Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_.
It could be that other intelligent species are, like ourselves, *flawed*
species. Species that are in a serious disequilibrium with their environment and
between their members, even before the effects of disproportionate technical
power enter the picture.
With multiple independent political units, instead of one World Government, it
can happen that a necessity is seen, and the appropriate course of action is
technically feasible, and yet we cannot act on it - because while one polity can
act, it cannot compel the other polities to cooperate.
And, yet, those who say that a World Government will likely become a world
dictatorship, stifling progress forever, are probably right. The solution is not
simple.
John Savard

The Zygon

2018-03-05 03:07:07 UTC

Post by Quadibloc

Not every civilization is doomed to be stupid or unlucky. On another planet, the
equivalent of World War II might have left *only* democracies among the
industrialized nations, instead of having Stalin's Russia around... hence, no
worries about nuclear war.
And we have atomic energy to indulge ourselves with without filling the air with
carbon dioxide.
Thus, even if we don't survive, survival was an option for some of the races out
there.
Because technology wasn't going to result immediately from having big brains,
and big brains have a large metabolic cost, our big brains came about as the
result of an evolutionary accident. Like the horns of the Irish Elk, like the
tail of the peacock, they're the result of sexual selection.
Bipedalism made human courtship... very complicated... as described in Elaine
Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_.
It could be that other intelligent species are, like ourselves, *flawed*
species. Species that are in a serious disequilibrium with their environment and
between their members, even before the effects of disproportionate technical
power enter the picture.
With multiple independent political units, instead of one World Government, it
can happen that a necessity is seen, and the appropriate course of action is
technically feasible, and yet we cannot act on it - because while one polity can
act, it cannot compel the other polities to cooperate.
And, yet, those who say that a World Government will likely become a world
dictatorship, stifling progress forever, are probably right. The solution is not
simple.
John Savard

Yes. One speculation I have read which I like is the one which says that in evolutionary terms, intelligence is a trap. That intelligent species are quite likely to kill themselves off because they become too successful and crash their ecologies.

The other way in which they crash, of course, is by war. They speculate that a species which is not aggressive enough will be destroyed by others - assuming that its adaption is as generalized as humans. And if it is aggressive enough, it would be too aggressive for technological civilization. The jury is out as to whether we will survive either of these traps.

Greg Goss

2018-03-04 03:13:18 UTC

Post by David Goldfarb
For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --
Of course I should not be a carbon chauvinist, but I don't know enough
about any other way of putting life together to speculate for them.

I wonder if coal is inevitable? I've been told that trees evolved the
structural compounds that let them reach for the sky long before
bacteria evolved the ability to break down those compounds. So the
dead wood just piled up and got buried instead of rotting.

If the bacteria got luckier in their evolution, then the wood would
rot before it had time to get buried.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Leo Sgouros

2018-03-04 19:30:47 UTC

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.

I agree with that. You've probably heard of the Drake Equation, which
attempts to capture all of the factors leading to intelligence with
technical civilization, to work out the number of such civilizations
in our galaxy.
The equation includes some parameters which are known to be large
(the number of stars in the galaxy, the number of years in the age
of the universe) and others that are completely unknown, but are
potentially quite small (the proportion of life-bearing planets
on which that life achieves sapience). Since it multiplies together
large factors with ones that might or might not be small, most
likely the solution to the equation is either very large -- Isaac
Asimov once estimated some numbers and came out with one on the
order of 10^8 -- or else very small, much smaller than one; it is
unlikely that it just happens to be on the order of 10^0 or 10^1.
Now, it's tempting to consider that our own existence means that
the lower bound is in fact 10^0. But that's wrong: it could be
that the solution is in fact very small, 10^-3 or even 10^-6. It
could be that you would have to search a thousand galaxies to find
one with intelligent life. And the Milky Way just happens to be
that one.
On my good days, I think that the chance of life developing intelligence
is simply very very low. On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself.

You must have a different definition of "intelligent life" than I do!

Quadibloc

2018-03-06 00:37:53 UTC

Think clever life, as opposed to wise life.

Lynn McGuire

2018-03-06 23:19:58 UTC

Post by Quadibloc
Think clever life, as opposed to wise life.

Dude, feel free to quote a minimum of what you are replying to.

Lynn

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

2018-03-06 23:14:12 UTC

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
Think clever life, as opposed to wise life.

Dude, feel free to quote a minimum of what you are replying to.

This is Quaddie. Neither think, nor clever, nor wise is within his
ability. Life is arguable.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Christian Weisgerber

2018-03-03 21:30:37 UTC

The state of SETI appears to be rather... basic.

I'll quote you this sobering section from a paper on Tabby's Star:

| 2.5. Radio SETI
|
| The Allen Telescope (SETI Institute) performed a series of KIC
| 8462852 radio observations during the Elsie dimming event. These
| were subsequent to the observations in 2015 (Harp et al. 2016).
| From 2017 July 8 through 2017 August 8, 1022 separate 92-s observations
| were performed which resulted in scanning 1419 MHz to 4303 MHz for
| radio signals. No narrow-band radio signals were found at a level
| of 180–300 Jy in a 1 Hz channel, or medium-band signals above 10
| Jy in a 100 kHz channel, which would correspond to transmitters at
| the distance of KIC 8462852 having effective isotropic radiated
| power (EIRP) of (4–7) × 10^15 W and 10^19 W for the narrow-band and
| moderate-band observations. While orders of magnitude more powerful
| than the planetary radar transmitter at Arecibo Observatory, 2 ×
| 10^13 W EIRP, the actual power requirements would be greatly reduced
| if emissions were beamed directly at Earth.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.00732.pdf

In plain English, this means we now know that
(1) there is no ginormous interstellar radio beacon being operated
in that system, and
(2) nobody there was beaming a powerful signal right at us when we
checked.

Radio chatter of an advanced civilization? No idea, we can't tell
at that distance.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de

Michael F. Stemper

2018-03-03 22:49:03 UTC

Several reasons come to mind, some of which have already been
mentioned:

1. Space is big. Really big. Even if there are a million
technological civilizations in the Milky Way, that leaves
about 8 million cubic parsecs for each (assuming a
galactic disk with r = 50 kpc and h = 1 kpc). In other
words, a cube just about 200 pc on a side.
2. Some searching showed me that 100 kW is the output of a
fairly high-powered radio station. If that power is put
out completely symmetrically, at 1 AU, its strength will
be down to about 4E-19 W/m^2. (See the _Venus Equilateral_
stories.) We won't even talk about how faint it'll be by
the time it's spread out over a sphere 1 pc in radius. And,
as somebody else mentioned, the Earth is very close to
something that's pumping out roughly 10^26 W.
3. Humans are improving antenna designs so that all that
power isn't sent into space, but aimed towards where an
audience might be. It's reasonable to expect that these
other civilizations would do so as well, since energy
isn't free.
4. Ever increasing amounts of communication are being
converted to point-to-point: cell tower repeaters,
optical fiber, and so on. Again, it's highly likely
that other civilizations would do this (or equivalent)
for the same reasons that we are.

Bottom line: It appears that the amount of time that (really
faint) signals are inadvertently sent into space will be under
two centuries for us.

Another possibility is that they're all afraid of the Berserkers
(Saberhagen) or Inhibitors (Reynolds).

--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.

Michael F. Stemper

2018-03-03 23:34:42 UTC

Post by Michael F. Stemper
1. Space is big. Really big. Even if there are a million
   technological civilizations in the Milky Way, that leaves
   about 8 million cubic parsecs for each (assuming a
   galactic disk with r = 50 kpc and h = 1 kpc). In other
   words, a cube just about 200 pc on a side.

Sorry, wrong galaxy. 15 kpc is a better radius for the old Milky Way
than is 50 kpc. That only(!) leaves about 700,000 cubic parsecs for
each civilization, which is a cube a mere 90 pc on a side.

My bad.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

Butch Malahide

2018-03-04 08:22:27 UTC

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

David Johnston

2018-03-04 09:04:46 UTC

They do? With no evidence?

No. There's evidence. We first of all know that life is possible on a
planet with the right characteristics. And we know that planets are
very common among any stars that are close enough to study. And we know
that there are lot of stars out there.

The Zygon

2018-03-05 03:16:21 UTC

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than another technological species? And how can any specific single idea constitute a religion?

And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.

Patok

2018-03-05 14:36:21 UTC

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.

Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).

It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.

--
"Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."

The Zygon

2018-03-06 01:17:26 UTC

Post by Patok

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is. That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.

J. Clarke

2018-03-06 03:06:32 UTC

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:17:26 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

Post by Patok

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

It's called the "null hypothesis".

Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.

I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.

Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.

David Johnston

2018-03-06 04:17:11 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:17:26 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

Post by Patok

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

It's called the "null hypothesis".

Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.

I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.

It would but that would require aliens to not just exist, but to have a
fast and economic means of interstellar travel which does not strike me
as so easy.

The Zygon

2018-03-06 07:02:20 UTC

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

It's called the "null hypothesis".

Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.

I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.

1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.

2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.

J. Clarke

2018-03-06 11:39:38 UTC

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

It's called the "null hypothesis".

Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.

I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.

1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.

Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".

Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.

Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.

The Zygon

2018-03-07 00:04:08 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

It's called the "null hypothesis".

Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.

I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.

1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.

Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".

Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.

Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.

It is objectively not easy compared to anything we know about. We have no idea how to do it.

J. Clarke

2018-03-07 03:05:44 UTC

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:04:08 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon

They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?

What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.

Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."

==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

It's called the "null hypothesis".

Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.

I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.

1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.

Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".

Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.

Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.

It is objectively not easy compared to anything we know about. We have no idea how to do it.

We don't have to, that is ET's problem to solve. And you seem to be
conflating ease of transport with ease of falsification.

David Johnston

2018-03-07 03:56:59 UTC