10 unsettling answers to the fermi paradox

[Sour Masher]

I am not sure I believe it or not, but I definitely did not state it. The galaxy, in contrast is far from infinite. That, I said.

J

As you can see, you did state that the universe is not infinite, neither in time nor space.

[onejayhawk]

As you can see, you did state that the universe is not infinite, neither in time nor space.

I will concede I misspoke and should have said the galaxy or the universe we can see. As I said in your quote, that does not get you much.

Time is not infinite. It has a definite starting point.

J

[Sour Masher]

Time is not infinite. It has a definite starting point.

J

That is the prevailing theory at the moment. But we don't actually know that either. And I'm not sure how space could be I figured it if time is not as well. So, you are again stating that the universe is not infinite. Maybe you are right, but my point is we don't know. And we don't know that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. In fact, it is extremely unlikely we are.

[Steve 2.0]

That is the prevailing theory at the moment. But we don't actually know that either. And I'm not sure how space could be I figured it if time is not as well. So, you are again stating that the universe is not infinite. Maybe you are right, but my point is we don't know. And we don't know that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. In fact, it is extremely unlikely we are.

J knows. Just ask him.

[onejayhawk]

That is the prevailing theory at the moment. But we don't actually know that either. And I'm not sure how space could be I figured it if time is not as well. So, you are again stating that the universe is not infinite. Maybe you are right, but my point is we don't know. And we don't know that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. In fact, it is extremely unlikely we are.

That's established physics. Bear in mind that we are using time in the observable sense, meaning it only goes into the past. Since there is a starting point, it is finite.

Space is different since it could be open or it could be closed. We cannot tell. Is space the same as the universe or does it contain the universe? We don't know. I suspect that space contains the universe and that it is bounded. A parallel would be a black hole. The matter is contained within the event horizon. Each black hole in our universe is a universe unto itself.

You keep saying that it is extremely unlikely we are not the only intelligent life, yet Fermi's filter is a strong argument that we must be.

J knows. Just ask him.

I don't know. I can only quote expert opinion.

You seem certain of some things you cannot know. Why ask me?

J

[Steve 2.0]

That's established physics. Bear in mind that we are using time in the observable sense, meaning it only goes into the past. Since there is a starting point, it is finite.

Space is different since it could be open or it could be closed. We cannot tell. Is space the same as the universe or does it contain the universe? We don't know. I suspect that space contains the universe and that it is bounded. A parallel would be a black hole. The matter is contained within the event horizon. Each black hole in our universe is a universe unto itself.

You keep saying that it is extremely unlikely we are not the only intelligent life, yet Fermi's filter is a strong argument that we must be.


I don't know. I can only quote expert opinion.

You seem certain of some things you cannot know. Why ask me?

J

Actually, the only thing I'm certain of is that I don't know. You were the one earlier in the thread stating absolutes.

[onejayhawk]

Actually, the only thing I'm certain of is that I don't know. You were the one earlier in the thread stating absolutes.

Not true. Here's one.

J knows. Just ask him.

J

[Steve 2.0]

Not true. Here's one.



J

I notice you only debunked the part about me. I stand corrected.

Edit to say: Actually, I was sitting down when I typed that.

[Sour Masher]

That's established physics. Bear in mind that we are using time in the observable sense, meaning it only goes into the past. Since there is a starting point, it is finite.

You keep saying that it is extremely unlikely we are not the only intelligent life, yet Fermi's filter is a strong argument that we must be.

J

It is amusing to me that while there are legitimate physicists who put forth theories of a possible infinite multiverse in which the big bang we know of is not the beginning of all that there is, you are content to accept the prevailing theories on this issue--I can appreciate that. However, you deny the overwhelming consensus based on much, much firmer evidence that man made global climate change is real and a really big problem.

As far as Fermi, you seem to accept his filter as gospel, and I still don't understand, even if you firmly believe there is no other intelligent life in our galaxy how Fermi applies at all to life in other galaxies. There are at least 2 trillion other galaxies. Even Fermi's math allows for the possibility that even if only one intelligent species has emerged in our galaxies that it is certainly possible that more have emerged in other galaxies. I know of know possible way intelligent species could engage in intergalactic travel, or no possible reason why they would be motivated to expend the tremendous amount of time and resources to do that given the vastness of resources available in a single galaxy.

I know you are a sci-fi fan (I am too). Maybe reading so much of it leads you to believe that faster than light travel is a foregone conclusion for a more advanced species, but I don't think it is. A lot of your thoughts seem based on it being obtainable. Galaxies are millions of light years apart from each other. Some are 10s of millions of light years apart. Some are billions of light years apart. The idea that aliens are not hanging out on earth is evidence that no intelligent life exists billions of light years from us is absurd to me.

[onejayhawk]

I do not accept the filter as gospel. I accept it as a compelling argument that we are alone, really, REALLY alone. So much of speculative fiction is consumed by explanations why we have not detected other advanced life forms that a rigorous argument is important.

As to repeating universes, they are by nature closed, hence not infinite. This defeats the point of arguing for an infinite variety of growing environments.

FTL travel is not necessary on the scale of a galaxy. Sublight is easily fast enough.

J

[Sour Masher]

I do not accept the filter as gospel. I accept it as a compelling argument that we are alone, really, REALLY alone. So much of speculative fiction is consumed by explanations why we have not detected other advanced life forms that a rigorous argument is important.

As to repeating universes, they are by nature closed, hence not infinite. This defeats the point of arguing for an infinite variety of growing environments.

FTL travel is not necessary on the scale of a galaxy. Sublight is easily fast enough.

J

I just want to be clear on your claims. You don't believe there is other intelligent life in the galaxy, but will you admit that Fermi's paradox does NOT offer compelling evidence that we are alone in the whole universe?

ETA: Also, I'm not talking about a repeating universe. Check out Brian Cox's theory of a potential multiverse. It isn't a closed system.

[Steve 2.0]

I do not accept the filter as gospel. I accept it as a compelling argument that we are alone, really, REALLY alone. So much of speculative FICTION is consumed by explanations why we have not detected other advanced life forms that a rigorous argument is important.

As to repeating universes, they are by nature closed, hence not infinite. This defeats the point of arguing for an infinite variety of growing environments.

FTL travel is not necessary on the scale of a galaxy. Sublight is easily fast enough. ****WTF?****

J

I have uppercased, bolded, italisized, and underlined my main concern with your post.

***WTF?**** means exactly what you think it does.

[Kevin Seitzer]

That's established physics. Bear in mind that we are using time in the observable sense, meaning it only goes into the past. Since there is a starting point, it is finite.

Space is different since it could be open or it could be closed. We cannot tell. Is space the same as the universe or does it contain the universe? We don't know. I suspect that space contains the universe and that it is bounded. A parallel would be a black hole. The matter is contained within the event horizon. Each black hole in our universe is a universe unto itself.

Space and time are aspects of the same thing. They are not separate things. What you perceive as time some other observer elsewhere in the universe perceives as space, and vice versa.

[Steve 2.0]

Space and time are aspects of the same thing. They are not separate things. What you perceive as time some other observer elsewhere in the universe perceives as space, and vice versa.

Mind blown!!!!

(I mean in general, not just by your post)

[rhd]

Space and time are aspects of the same thing. They are not separate things. What you perceive as time some other observer elsewhere in the universe perceives as space, and vice versa.

Also, it has been said that everything travels at the speed of light, not just light itself. It's just that matter is travelling at the speed of light thru time while radiation is travelling at the speed of light thru space.

Also, some say that space is not continuous but is made of discrete units (perhaps a kind of "string").