The Fermi Paradox - Science/Technology - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Science/Technology / The Fermi Paradox (4168 Views)
| The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 10:24am On Mar 16, 2016 |
Hello guys, I want to introduce you all to the Fermi Paradox. Below, is a thorough exposition of this hugely enlightening concept. I culled the article from Waitbutwhy.com. I will post them in parts. Enjoy. Everyone feels something when they’re in a really good starry place on a really good starry night and they look up and see this:[First Image below] Some people stick with the traditional, feeling struck by the epic beauty or blown away by the insane scale of the universe. Personally, I go for the old “existential meltdown followed by acting weird for the next half hour.” But everyone feels something. Physicist Enrico Fermi felt something too—”Where is everybody?” ________________ A really starry sky seems vast—but all we’re looking at is our very local neighborhood. On the very best nights, we can see up to about 2,500 stars (roughly one hundred-millionth of the stars in our galaxy), and almost all of them are less than 1,000 light years away from us (or 1% of the diameter of the Milky Way). So what we’re really looking at is this:[Second Image below] When confronted with the topic of stars and galaxies, a question that tantalizes most humans is, “Is there other intelligent life out there?” Let’s put some numbers to it— As many stars as there are in our galaxy (100 – 400 billion), there are roughly an equal number of galaxies in the observable universe—so for every star in the colossal Milky Way, there’s a whole galaxy out there. All together, that comes out to the typically quoted range of between 10 and 10 total stars, which means that for every grain of sand on every beach on Earth, there are 10,000 stars out there. The science world isn’t in total agreement about what percentage of those stars are “sun- like” (similar in size, temperature, and luminosity) —opinions typically range from 5% to 20%. Going with the most conservative side of that (5%), and the lower end for the number of total stars (10 ), gives us 500 quintillion, or 500 billion billion sun- like stars. There’s also a debate over what percentage of those sun-like stars might be orbited by an Earth- like planet (one with similar temperature conditions that could have liquid water and potentially support life similar to that on Earth). Some say it’s as high as 50%, but let’s go with the more conservative 22% that came out of a recent PNAS study. That suggests that there’s a potentially- habitable Earth-like planet orbiting at least 1% of the total stars in the universe—a total of 100 billion billion Earth-like planets. So there are 100 Earth-like planets for every grain of sand in the world. Think about that next time you’re on the beach. Moving forward, we have no choice but to get completely speculative. Let’s imagine that after billions of years in existence, 1% of Earth-like planets develop life (if that’s true, every grain of sand would represent one planet with life on it). And imagine that on 1% of those planets, the life advances to an intelligent level like it did here on Earth. That would mean there were 10 quadrillion, or 10 million billion intelligent civilizations in the observable universe. Moving back to just our galaxy, and doing the same math on the lowest estimate for stars in the Milky Way (100 billion), we’d estimate that there are 1 billion Earth-like planets and 100,000 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is an organization dedicated to listening for signals from other intelligent life. If we’re right that there are 100,000 or more intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, and even a fraction of them are sending out radio waves or laser beams or other modes of attempting to contact others, shouldn’t SETI’s satellite dish array pick up all kinds of signals? But it hasn’t. Not one. Ever. Where is everybody? It gets stranger. Our sun is relatively young in the lifespan of the universe. There are far older stars with far older Earth-like planets, which should in theory mean civilizations far more advanced than our own. As an example, let’s compare our 4.54- billion-year-old Earth to a hypothetical 8-billion- year-old Planet X. If Planet X has a similar story to Earth, let’s look at where their civilization would be today (using the orange timespan as a reference to show how huge the green timespan is): The technology and knowledge of a civilization only 1,000 years ahead of us could be as shocking to us as our world would be to a medieval person. A civilization 1 million years ahead of us might be as incomprehensible to us as human culture is to chimpanzees. And Planet X is 3.4 billion years ahead of us… There’s something called The Kardashev Scale, which helps us group intelligent civilizations into three broad categories by the amount of energy they use: I'll continue them in the comment sections. 4 Likes 3 Shares
|
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 7:09pm On Mar 16, 2016 |
Continue brother... |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 5:20pm On Mar 17, 2016 |
johnydon22: Oh. I didn't know the thread was successfully created. I tried twice and was given an error message that their server was overwhelmed. I'll continue shortly, bruv. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by Nobody: 6:54pm On Mar 17, 2016 |
So where is the fermi paradox? |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 9:37pm On Mar 17, 2016 |
There’s something called The Kardashev Scale,
which helps us group intelligent civilizations into
three broad categories by the amount of energy
they use: A Type I Civilization has the ability to use all of the energy on their planet. We’re not quite a Type I Civilization, but we’re close (Carl Sagan created a formula for this scale which puts us at a Type 0.7 Civilization). A Type II Civilization can harness all of the energy of their host star. Our feeble Type I brains can hardly imagine how someone would do this, but we’ve tried our best, imagining things like a Dyson Sphere. A Type III Civilization blows the other two away, accessing power comparable to that of the entire Milky Way galaxy. If this level of advancement sounds hard to believe, remember Planet X above and their 3.4 billion years of further development. If a civilization on Planet X were similar to ours and were able to survive all the way to Type III level, the natural thought is that they’d probably have mastered inter-stellar travel by now, possibly even colonizing the entire galaxy. One hypothesis as to how galactic colonization could happen is by creating machinery that can travel to other planets, spend 500 years or so self- replicating using the raw materials on their new planet, and then send two replicas off to do the same thing. Even without traveling anywhere near the speed of light, this process would colonize the whole galaxy in 3.75 million years, a relative blink of an eye when talking in the scale of billions of years: Continuing to speculate, if 1% of intelligent life survives long enough to become a potentially galaxy-colonizing Type III Civilization, our calculations above suggest that there should be at least 1,000 Type III Civilizations in our galaxy alone —and given the power of such a civilization, their presence would likely be pretty noticeable. And yet, we see nothing, hear nothing, and we’re visited by no one. So where is everybody? _____________________ Welcome to the Fermi Paradox. We have no answer to the Fermi Paradox—the best we can do is “possible explanations.” And if you ask ten different scientists what their hunch is about the correct one, you’ll get ten different answers. You know when you hear about humans of the past debating whether the Earth was round or if the sun revolved around the Earth or thinking that lightning happened because of Zeus, and they seem so primitive and in the dark? That’s about where we are with this topic. In taking a look at some of the most-discussed possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox, let’s divide them into two broad categories—those explanations which assume that there’s no sign of Type II and Type III Civilizations because there are none of them out there, and those which assume they’re out there and we’re not seeing or hearing anything for other reasons. Explanation Group 1: There are no signs of higher (Type II and III) civilizations because there are no higher civilizations in existence. Those who subscribe to Group 1 explanations point to something called the non-exclusivity problem, which rebuffs any theory that says, “There are higher civilizations, but none of them have made any kind of contact with us because they all _____.” Group 1 people look at the math, which says there should be so many thousands (or millions) of higher civilizations, that at least one of them would be an exception to the rule. Even if a theory held for 99.99% of higher civilizations, the other .01% would behave differently and we’d become aware of their existence. Therefore, say Group 1 explanations, it must be that there are no super-advanced civilizations. And since the math suggests that there are thousands of them just in our own galaxy, something else must be going on. This something else is called The Great Filter. The Great Filter theory says that at some point from pre-life to Type III intelligence, there’s a wall that all or nearly all attempts at life hit. There’s some stage in that long evolutionary process that is extremely unlikely or impossible for life to get beyond. That stage is The Great Filter. If this theory is true, the big question is, Where in the timeline does the Great Filter occur? It turns out that when it comes to the fate of humankind, this question is very important. Depending on where The Great Filter occurs, we’re left with three possible realities: We’re rare, we’re first, or we’re bleeped. 1. We’re Rare (The Great Filter is Behind Us) One hope we have is that The Great Filter is behind us—we managed to surpass it, which would mean it’s extremely rare for life to make it to our level of intelligence. The diagram below shows only two species making it past, and we’re one of them. This scenario would explain why there are no Type III Civilizations…but it would also mean that we could be one of the few exceptions now that we’ve made it this far. It would mean we have hope. On the surface, this sounds a bit like people 500 years ago suggesting that the Earth is the center of the universe—it implies that we’re special. However, something scientists call “observation selection effect” suggests that anyone who is pondering their own rarity is inherently part of an intelligent life “success story”—and whether they’re actually rare or quite common, the thoughts they ponder and conclusions they draw will be identical. This forces us to admit that being special is at least a possibility. And if we are special, when exactly did we become special—i.e. which step did we surpass that almost everyone else gets stuck on? One possibility: The Great Filter could be at the very beginning—it might be incredibly unusual for life to begin at all. This is a candidate because it took about a billion years of Earth’s existence to finally happen, and because we have tried extensively to replicate that event in labs and have never been able to do it. If this is indeed The Great Filter, it would mean that not only is there no intelligent life out there, there may be no other life at all. Another possibility: The Great Filter could be the jump from the simple prokaryote cell to the complex eukaryote cell. After prokaryotes came into being, they remained that way for almost two billion years before making the evolutionary jump to being complex and having a nucleus. If this is The Great Filter, it would mean the universe is teeming with simple prokaryote cells and almost nothing beyond that. There are a number of other possibilities—some even think the most recent leap we’ve made to our current intelligence is a Great Filter candidate. While the leap from semi-intelligent life (chimps) to intelligent life (humans) doesn’t at first seem like a miraculous step, Steven Pinker rejects the idea of an inevitable “climb upward” of evolution: “Since evolution does not strive for a goal but just happens, it uses the adaptation most useful for a given ecological niche, and the fact that, on Earth, this led to technological intelligence only once so far may suggest that this outcome of natural selection is rare and hence by no means a certain development of the evolution of a tree of life.” Most leaps do not qualify as Great Filter candidates. Any possible Great Filter must be one- in-a-billion type thing where one or more total freak occurrences need to happen to provide a crazy exception—for that reason, something like the jump from single-cell to multi-cellular life is ruled out, because it has occurred as many as 46 times, in isolated incidents, just on this planet alone. For the same reason, if we were to find a fossilized eukaryote cell on Mars, it would rule the above “simple-to-complex cell” leap out as a possible Great Filter (as well as anything before that point on the evolutionary chain)—because if it happened on both Earth and Mars, it’s almost definitely not a one-in-a-billion freak occurrence. If we are indeed rare, it could be because of a fluky biological event, but it also could be attributed to what is called the Rare Earth Hypothesis, which suggests that though there may be many Earth-like planets, the particular conditions on Earth— whether related to the specifics of this solar system, its relationship with the moon (a moon that large is unusual for such a small planet and contributes to our particular weather and ocean conditions), or something about the planet itself— are exceptionally friendly to life. 2. We’re the First For Group 1 Thinkers, if the Great Filter is not behind us, the one hope we have is that conditions in the universe are just recently, for the first time since the Big Bang, reaching a place that would allow intelligent life to develop. In that case, we and many other species may be on our way to super- intelligence, and it simply hasn’t happened yet. We happen to be here at the right time to become one of the first super-intelligent civilizations. One example of a phenomenon that could make this realistic is the prevalence of gamma-ray bursts, insanely huge explosions that we’ve observed in distant galaxies. In the same way that it took the early Earth a few hundred million years before the asteroids and volcanoes died down and life became possible, it could be that the first chunk of the universe’s existence was full of cataclysmic events like gamma-ray bursts that would incinerate everything nearby from time to time and prevent any life from developing past a certain stage. Now, perhaps, we’re in the midst of an astrobiological phase transition and this is the first time any life has been able to evolve for this long, uninterrupted. 3. We’re _Fucked (The Great Filter is Ahead of Us) If we’re neither rare nor early, Group 1 thinkers conclude that The Great Filter must be in our future. This would suggest that life regularly evolves to where we are, but that something prevents life from going much further and reaching high intelligence in almost all cases—and we’re unlikely to be an exception. One possible future Great Filter is a regularly- occurring cataclysmic natural event, like the above- mentioned gamma-ray bursts, except they’re unfortunately not done yet and it’s just a matter of time before all life on Earth is suddenly wiped out by one. Another candidate is the possible inevitability that nearly all intelligent civilizations end up destroying themselves once a certain level of technology is reached. This is why Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom says that “no news is good news.” The discovery of even simple life on Mars would be devastating, because it would cut out a number of potential Great Filters behind us. And if we were to find fossilized complex life on Mars, Bostrom says “it would be by far the worst news ever printed on a newspaper cover,” because it would mean The Great Filter is almost definitely ahead of us— ultimately dooming the species. Bostrom believes that when it comes to The Fermi Paradox, “the silence of the night sky is golden.” 4 Likes 1 Share
|
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 9:38pm On Mar 17, 2016 |
Tomorrow(21st, March), I shall make a thread about Artificial Intelligence. It's a hugely interesting topic and I hope to get you guy's input on it. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 9:26am On Mar 19, 2016 |
OneManLegion: Carry on brother ... I am enjoying it.. Try give spaces between paragraphs to make the post clearer |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 10:14am On Mar 19, 2016 |
johnydon22: Err...*coughs!* Scratches head... I'm done, actually. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 10:17am On Mar 19, 2016 |
OneManLegion: My god damn reply came late to your earlier mention... When am through reading i'll give you my own submissions .. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 10:30am On Mar 19, 2016 |
johnydon22: Okay, boss. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 1:07pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
This is quite an interesting i must say, one that almost makes one speechless considering the enormous variable we are dealing with here. Almost inclines me to lean towards the last quote "The silence of the night sky is golden" when it comes to Fermi's paradox. But i am one of those that insist something should be known if it ever can, at least we cab try.. Mankind will never be at ease without solving the question "Are we alone?" and secondarily "Are we the only species up to the level of technological intelligence" |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 9:19pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
johnydon22: Those are the two most important questions in the history of mankind; little wonder then, that they are yet to be answered satisfactorily. Personally, my belief is that the universe is too unreasonablly large and too confusing to have just happened. For Every question science answers, about two more questions pop up, which make the previous question seem like a joke. Question: How did the universe come to be? Scientific Answer: The big-bang theory. Question: what caused the big-bang theory? Scientific Answer: The fusion of matter and Anti-matter on a massive scale(probably). Question: What created matter and anti-matter? *No answer* Question: What was before anything was? *No answer* My submission is, our brains may never be able to comprehend the true mysteries of the universe. An ant can't be made to understand that a 200-storey sky-scraper isn't a natural structure because it can't wrap it's little mind around anything or body CREATING something that massive. It can't not just build a sky-scraper, it's physical and mental limitations make it impossible for it to imagine ANYTHING actually CREATING it. I dunno if you get my drift by now, but I think there might be extra-terrestrial civilisation or beings who are as above us as we are above ants. Hence, the belief in "God". 5 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 9:59pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
OneManLegion: There are unanswered questions "Yes" and that gap left by our ignorance is not meant to be filled by an assumption that feels good. Our intellectual progress should be measured by the sincerity of our question and the depth of our answers and our tendencies to agree with what is true rather than what feels good. If the unanswered questions of the universe is filled up with extra-terrestrial being somewhere in another plain (Universe or anything) you may called them "Gods" .. This still doesn't answer the questions you pointed out. -What then caused that plain in which this civilization evolved from -what still was before everything was. Still no answer because these extra-terrestrial beings still doesn't add up the answer. If you assert a race of eternal extra-terrestrial beings that is highly improbable and irrational and is murdered by the infinity paradox. and secondly how can such complexly functional intelligent beings just out of no where be there without having to be already caused by something else but the functional complexity of the universe is being used to stick a designer to it's tag. That to me is a philosophy of Ignorance if i am to use the words of my Role Model Neil DEGRESS Tyson. Science is a philosophy of discovery. That we do not know something or may not know something at all still doesn't call for it to be filled by assumptions that still doesn't answer the question but rather postpones it. Don't you see that such invocation of superstition to fill the void still does not fill it.. -What was before everything? and if you say "Gods" highly intelligent species of conscious beings.. -How exactly? remember the question was "everything" and "god" is something therefore part of "everything" Why not Energy in the simplest most fundamental form if "something" should be excluded from "everything" as regards the question.. **That'd be far more logical** If "everything" is removed then you can also come to that point in the infinite loop where "God" needs to come out from "nothing" or "no where" fully developed and complexly functional. I'd rather go with the simplest most fundamental level of energy frequency that went through long long long gradual and consistent development to get to a more complex point .. Just like "nature" has always shown to be a development from simpler values to more complex values and not a sudden emergence of a perfect already functional complex system. On a last note Belief is not same as knowledge or certainty and so this belief in God(s) still will have no place in human scientific enquiry neither does it sum up to knowledge because scientific method is about enquiry and discovery not belief. it is simply what it is "belief" If we employed belief in place of knowledge then what is the need for study in the first place since we could simply fill every gap of ignorance with any assumption that comes to mind and believe it. Let us throw away the idea of belief and try to find things out. That we do not have all the answers is not a pocket to be filled by assumptions, that mankind still has not answered questions that needs to be answered is not an avenue to assume up Gods. Or you will see this your "God" hypothesis will always be a receding factor in the face of scientific advancement. Ptolemy was an incredibly intelligent fellow but when faced with the depth of the celestial motion he invoked the work of Zeus (God). Ptolemy has reached the limit of his knowledge, the limits of where his answers runs so just like you have done now, he invoked Intelligent design in the person of God (zeus) Newton went further than Ptolemy, developed better maths in explaining motion but yet reached a climax of his knowledge, a curtain of ignorance, the limit of his knowledge h invoked intelligent design. Leplace went further ahead of Newton and Ptolemy in celestial motions, he went pass the limits of their knowledge and that "gap" newton and Ptolemy filled with "God" replace figured it out and threw the "god" of Ptolemy and Newton out of the equation. When asked "where God fitted in his work of motion mechanics" he only answered "I have no need of that Hypothesis" because he figured it out and didnt filled up the "gap" left by "ignorance" with that assumption of "god did it" just like Newton and Ptolemy did. You see "God" was not an answer, only a placeholder for ignorance Newton and Ptolemy employed. Leplace didn't need "God" anymore because he figured it out so that "God" assumption was discarded by him. So areas of scientific ignorance is not to be filled by assumptions, if only you will place "God" at only a place shielded by scientific ignorance then as scientific advancement has always displaced that "god" factor, it will keep receding with advancement of discoveries. Remember also invoking a "God" to explain the universe, still doesn't answer the question if that "God" must not need another to create it. It doesn't answer the question, it compounds it and produces unnecessary twists that are only rooted in assumptions. So the questions remains "OPEN" and do not require a belief in God ... If you propose "God" as a possible hypothesis among countless others then fine that's ok but you also will remember nobody goes about accepting a hypothesis that has not being proven. Hence the unbelief in the God hypothesis lets figure things out rather than believing in assumptions. Cc. LoJ teempakguy RobinHez Hahn Shollyps Plaetton dekatron 4 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 10:01pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Bro OneManLegion Please you posted the second post of the OP twice.. remove one!! Boss lalasticlala and mynd44 we need more people to say something over this ...Please homepage we implore thee |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 10:52pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
[quote author=johnydon22 post=43955592] There are unanswered questions "Yes" and that gap left by our ignorance is not meant to be filled by an assumption that feels good. Our intellectual progress should be measured by the sincerity of our question and the depth of our answers and our tendencies to agree with what is true rather than what feels good. If the unanswered questions of the universe is filled up with extra-terrestrial being somewhere in another plain (Universe or anything) you may called them "Gods" .. This still doesn't answer the questions you pointed out. -What then caused that plain in which this civilization evolved from -what still was before everything was. Still no answer because these extra-terrestrial beings still doesn't add up the answer. If you assert a race of eternal extra-terrestrial beings that is highly improbable and irrational and is murdered by the infinity paradox. and secondly how can such complexly functional intelligent beings just out of no where be there without having to be already caused by something else but the functional complexity of the universe is being used to stick a designer to it's tag. That to me is a philosophy of Ignorance if i am to use the words of my Role Model Neil DEGRESS Tyson. Science is a philosophy of discovery. That we do not know something or may not know something at all still doesn't call for it to be filled by assumptions that still doesn't answer the question but rather postpones it. Don't you see that such invocation of superstition to fill the void still does not fill it.. -What was before everything? and if you say "Gods" highly intelligent species of conscious beings.. -How exactly? remember the question was "everything" and "god" is something therefore part of "everything" Why not Energy in the simplest most fundamental form if "something" should be excluded from "everything" as regards the question.. **That'd be far more logical** If "everything" is removed then you can also come to that point in the infinite loop where "God" needs to come out from "nothing" or "no where" fully developed and complexly functional. I'd rather go with the simplest most fundamental level of energy frequency that went through long long long gradual and consistent development to get to a more complex point .. Just like "nature" has always shown to be a development from simpler values to more complex values and not a sudden emergence of a perfect already functional complex system. On a last note Belief is not same as knowledge or certainty and so this belief in God(s) still will have no place in human scientific enquiry neither does it sum up to knowledge because scientific method is about enquiry and discovery not belief. it is simply what it is "belief" If we employed belief in place of knowledge then what is the need for study in the first place since we could simply fill every gap of ignorance with any assumption that comes to mind and believe it. Let us throw away the idea of belief and try to find things out. That we do not have all the answers is not a pocket to be filled by assumptions, that mankind still has not answered questions that needs to be answered is not an avenue to assume up Gods. Or you will see this your "God" hypothesis will always be a receding factor in the face of scientific advancement. Ptolemy was an incredibly intelligent fellow but when faced with the depth of the celestial motion he invoked the work of Zeus (God). Ptolemy has reached the limit of his knowledge, the limits of where his answers runs so just like you have done now, he invoked Intelligent design in the person of God (zeus) Newton went further than Ptolemy, developed better maths in explaining motion but yet reached a climax of his knowledge, a curtain of ignorance, the limit of his knowledge h invoked intelligent design. Leplace went further ahead of Newton and Ptolemy in celestial motions, he went pass the limits of their knowledge and that "gap" newton and Ptolemy filled with "God" replace figured it out and threw the "god" of Ptolemy and Newton out of the equation. When asked "where God fitted in his work of motion mechanics" he only answered "I have no need of that Hypothesis" because he figured it out and didnt filled up the "gap" left by "ignorance" with that assumption of "god did it" just like Newton and Ptolemy did. You see "God" was not an answer, only a placeholder for ignorance Newton and Ptolemy employed. Leplace didn't need "God" anymore because he figured it out so that "God" assumption was discarded by him. I do understand these. I'm not a religionist. Lol. Easy on the assumptions na. Perhaps the 'belief' I used was what threw you off. By 'belief', I meant 'suspect' or 'have an intuition that'...not the kind of belief you think. By the way, about the super-intelligent, super-sentient beings that I said "religionists" might tag God because of their advancement over and above us, you got the wrong notion too. I didn't say they might have been responsible for creation for that would have been simple of me, I just presume they might know way more about the origin of the universe and may be way more powerful beyond our comprehension just the way we seem to the ants. I keep an open mind; loyal only to facts, which only science has been able to supply so far. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 12:01am On Mar 21, 2016 |
OneManLegion: Yes we should all keep an Open mind and be accommodating to new ideas.. Imagine in this planet every life on earth share at least few percentages of DNA similarities and these differences in these DNA calibrations give rise to distinct characteristics in these organisms. Our closest relatives in this planets being the great apes Chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas which we share up to 98%DNA similarities with. Neil Degress Tyson said Just 2% difference and watch how different we are from these other primates. Just 2% difference and we reached a level of technological advancement, we reaches a point our intelligence can be classified one of rare magnitude on earth (technological intelligence). Owing to the fact that just one species out of millions in this planet reached that point of technological intelligence. Now imagine since we are 2% ahead of Chimpanzees and our intellect with theirs cannot be compared, the difference in intellect is so enormous that 2% becomes a whole lot. Now imagine if there are species 2% ahead of us just like we are ahead of the chimps. Our intellect would be a Child's play for them. Our greatest Physics problem would be "Home work" for their Primary school Pupils. We would simply be simpletons compared to them. And they would grasp the universe way better than we ever can hope to. Most ancient religions of which these new ones are built are based on this bed rock of beings of far superior intelligence (Though i don't buy that theory) So "Yes" it is open that there MIGHT be far more intelligent species than us out there that could have figured the universe out more than we have but surely their knowledge still would not be infinite and this also leaves more problems. -Questions will also remain unanswered still but less  Like the Fermi paradox asked "Where is everybody?" Neil Degress Tyson suggests maybe they are "ignoring us" Just as we see ants and ignore them, knowing there is nothing they can teach us because we believe we know better, we are higher so we don't go bother establishing communication with them cus they wouldn't understand either way. Maybe these super-intelligent beings are ignoring us because we are to them in intellect what ants are to us therefore there is no need to establish communication.. Hence "where is everybody?" might have been because "Everybody is ignoring those they dim lesser than they are"  |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by plaetton: 9:13am On Mar 21, 2016 |
johnydon22: Simply brilliant. 1 Like |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 11:09am On Mar 21, 2016 |
johnydon22: The whole crux of this article on the Fermi Paradox is to show that, on the conservative estimate, there should be at least, 1,000 type III civilisations out there in our Milky Way Galaxy. A type III civilisatiion, as far as we're concerned are like gods. Remember the theoretical planet X which had a 3.4 million years headstart on us? Picture the kind of technological advancement the human race would have undergone in 3.4 million years(if we make it), we'd almost certainly have mastered inter-stellar travel. Do you know about the Dyson Sphere? |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 8:00am On Mar 22, 2016 |
OneManLegion: Yes i understand but i am only suggesting maybe these "Gods" are ignoring us because they see us as we see ants in terms of intellect therefore there is no need for them to establish contact because there isn't anything to say. -there is nothing we can teach them just like we think there is no miniscule knowledge about the universe the small ants we are superior to in intellect can teach us and if we try to teach them Physics, will they understand? So why bother. Maybe that's the way they see us.. So even they might have mastered interstellar travel, they still do not see need to establish any communication with young simpletons like us. We are just trying to provide a rational answer to the paradox.
A little bit ... |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 8:27am On Mar 22, 2016 |
johnydon22: Yeah. I've read about someone who shares that view too; I have to say it's credible too. Our ignorance is just frustrating. I wish we could master inter-stellar travel soon. That would help a great deal. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 8:36am On Mar 22, 2016 |
OneManLegion: -There is no shame in Ignorance. we only need consistency in learning. What the ancient men knew about the universe is but a Child's knowledge to what we know now. Aristotle thought the reason why objects in motion slow down and eventually stopped is because they get tired ... Imagine that  Back then it was their highest level of scientific and logical deduction and was widely accepted But now we know better. So with consistent study and time the intellectual evolution of man will always take us higher. Coming generations will have more answers than we do now!!! 4 Likes 3 Shares |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 8:49am On Mar 22, 2016 |
johnydon22: Lmfaoo @Aristotle's explanation. Imagine that. Yeah, we can only improve. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 8:50am On Mar 22, 2016 |
OneManLegion: Where is lalasticlala and mynd44 .. Help us here bosses .. we need more input. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by taurus25(m): 11:25am On Mar 23, 2016 |
nice thread op..............here's what i think 1.maybe life is difficult to start and evolve to an intelligent and technologically advanced stage and were the only ones. This is highly unlikely but not impossible tho. 2. Advanced civilisations destroy themselves on short timescales. If extraterrestrials are anything like us, then it likely that they might have destroyed themselves after a few million years of advancement. Take earth for example , life have been evolving for billions of years but after just few thousand years of technological advancement we could end it all....now this is a serious issue. 3. They have no desire to communicate 4. what is actually nothing can go faster than light...and there are super intelligent beings billions of light years away 5. maybe a proof of intelligent beings is the fact that they havnt come here 6. maybe we dont have the technology to detect their message yet......ermm we just detected gravitational waves recently ......who knows the kind of tech ETs might have/use7.,were the first?? le.me stop here...below is a fraction of the night sky......so where can they possibly start
|
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 11:35am On Mar 23, 2016 |
taurus25: You have very cogent points brother!!! 1. Is very likely- take earth for example, Only 1 out of all intelligent species on earth got to the stage of "technological intelligence" .. this shows maybe "technological intelligence" is quite rare and has slim chance of emerging in the universe. 2. very correct!!! |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by taurus25(m): 11:50am On Mar 23, 2016 |
johnydon22:we should never stop looking tho...i believe somewhere in the universe exist beigns that are different or maybe similar to us.....whats more important is that we preserve our race to maybe be the ones conquer the universe someday |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by johnydon22(m): 11:53am On Mar 23, 2016 |
taurus25: Survival first .. Nature is a dangerous whole to itself so its always changing for the good or bad (human perspective though ) So surviving is the first thing cus i doubt if the human race will survive that long!!! |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by taurus25(m): 12:02pm On Mar 23, 2016 |
johnydon22:sure!........on a lighter note theres this interesting article on wikipedia(dont know if youve seen it tho).....lemme share for everyone....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future ........its quite long tho |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by Nobody: 3:02pm On Apr 02, 2016 |
Extra-Terrestials  Nah.......Wait........... Nah..................... All we have on that subject is half washed stories and "sightings"..... But then again, this falls into a sort of Infinitum/Ignoratium argument. |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by OneManLegion(m): 9:50am On Apr 03, 2016 |
I did a bit of snooping around yesterday and my gut instincts tell me there almost certainly ARE extra-terrestrial sentient beings. Sometimes, these conspiracy theorists just have a point. Who's read on "The Ariel Event"? Happened in Zimbabwe, on the 14th of September 1994. Cc. SirWere Johnydon22 Taurus25 |
| Re: The Fermi Paradox by taurus25(m): 3:24pm On Apr 03, 2016 |
OneManLegion:well honestly, till date that is one of the most convincing ive read about coupled with the fact that no rational explanations have been given ......i think a movie about it is in production. if atall there are truly aliens then maybe its high time they stop their hide and seek game |
Is This What The Nigerian "Bush Baby" Animal Looks Like? (photos) / Prepaid Meter Is Displaying "No Ack" After Inputing Token / Amazing Facts About Your Birth-month
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 171 |