Life & The Fermi Paradox

[CraigS]

Here we go again !

New explanation postulated for Fermi paradox (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-explanation-postulated-fermi-paradox.html)



We've discussed the Fermi paradox a few times here lately. The Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) provides a really broad summary coverage of most of the various perspectives we've come up with, and then some.

I'm excited .. because this is the first time I've seen anyone legitimately paying any credence to the alternative possibility of no exo-life…



and then even my perspective on it all (a huge rarity, and yet the most supportable):


By the way, this guy, 'Adrian Kent', is no slouch in the Quantum Physics field. He was a member of the Cambridge Centre for Quantum Information and Foundations (CQIF), reflecting the broad range of its research activities. The Cambridge CQIF is based at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP), within the Centre for Mathematical Sciences.

The paper: "Too Damned Quiet" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0624v1), is well worth the read.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Very easy answer to that paper... for example, how does a tribe of isolated amazon jungle natives communicate with the rest of the world when their best technology for communication are clap sticks and smoke signals. What sort of response are they looking for??...a response using their methods of communication. Little do they know that all around them is a cacophony of noise and plethora of signals that they not only can't even detect, but would they even know what was being said even if they could detect them.

Here's another example....from Star Trek. The V'ger space probe sends a signal down to Earth. No one responds to the signal because no one even knows what the message is that's being sent. Spock figures out that the signal is a simple carrier wave message....radio. Everyone, including himself, is perplexed. How would you respond to such as simple technology. Luckily enough, they aren't too far ahead technologically speaking to have forgotten what a radio is and manage to be able to respond accordingly. What would happen if they had've been 1000, 10000, 100000 or more years ahead of that stage of technological development. How many people alive today can competently make a flint knife or stone tool. Haft a spear or even light a fire!!!!.

If you were flying over the Amazon, would you necessarily stop and go check out who was burning some wood on a fire in an isolated village 39000 feet down below??? Would you even bother to be interested???

The only extraterrestrial civilisations that would even bother with us would most likely be those relatively close to us in technological development and that had their own reasons for wanting to come here. Unless they were interested in the "primitive cavemen" in a scientific sense or had some vested interest themselves in Earth, those civilisations many millenia ahead of us would have little interest in wanting to interact with us. Do most people alive today particularly want to go and have an in depth philosophical conversation with isolated Amazonian tribes people??? I think you'll be able to answer that question quite easily yourselves.

[bartman]

Hey Carl,
Thank you for those examples!
Never thought of it in that way......


Me personally , I would be interested. I imagine that there are a lot of scientists out there that are just doing that......looking at some odd forms of communication. However Time, Money and Technology ( old or new) would be ( I guess) the hampering factor.

Craig I'm yet to read the three links provided ( I have skimmed over the wiki one) . You say that "legitimately paying any credence to the alternative possibility of no exo-life… ", yet you quote "Kent himself reminds us, pure speculation":confused2:
So how can it be ' legitimate' when it is all speculation.....or am I reading it wrong?

Bartman

[yusufcam]

i thought the comment in the wiki article about the drake equation (by Drake himself), that it was just a way to "organize our ignorance" was as apt if not more so, (and funny to boot) as anything else being said on the topic.

[renormalised]

That is spot on...the fact that despite knowing how ignorant they really are, they have a hide to then come out and make "grand" pronouncements on what is reality is nothing more than a massive case of hubris, academic or otherwise.

It's like saying "We don't really know what's going on here, but hey, we're the experts on this and you better listen to us because we know the answers".

[CraigS]

Bart, you have extraordinary perceptiveness ! I compliment you on it !
Amazing .. (I really mean this .. please take it as a compliment ..I'm making no attempts at sending you up … and I need to go out of my way to make sure of this, in this medium :) )

From an observation of the paper however, the "Comments: April 20011" section, has some awesome words which hit the nail right on the head (and, by some sheer co-incidence), reiterate my past words, precisely:



Right on the money !

Supports my new catch cry for participation in the Science Forum, (awaiting full ratification ;) :) ):



As far as the possibility of no exo-life, he says:

He later explains that his paper is not about these possibilities, so he doesn't develop his ideas on this further. None-the-less, he does acknowledge that no exo-lfe is possible.

:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

To be brutally honest, most of science is just speculation. We know a few things which, by consensus and relevant observation, we have concluded are facts. The rest is just assumptions thrown into the mix in order to try and explain what we think we see. No matter how successful an idea is in explaining something, it's still just speculation until all the ''i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed and the consensus agree with the matter. Even then further down the track the consensus can, and in most cases does, change and a new paradigm is created.

Here's the real crunch with this notion of no exo-life...if that is the case, then how do you explain the existence of life here, on Earth. Even given the statistics of such an occurrence with respect to the subject at hand, all things being equal we shouldn't be here to be having this conversation. Now, this brings up the touchy subject of intelligent design and divine intervention, because if you were hard pressed to come up with a scientific answer...one that was not only suitable but made scientific sense and could be verified, then you would be made to take the other course of explanation, no matter how distasteful and uncomfortable it might be. How could you prove or disprove of it, otherwise. Once you put a foot on that slippery slope, your whole rationale of science could be called into question. It'd probably get to the stage where we'd all be burnt at the stake for being heretics!!!!. Especially if some people got their way with things (the "moral majority", loony, fundamentalist far right wing of society).

Now, let's look at it in another perspective...for the sake of the argument, let's say that life and intelligent life are very common in the universe. All the scientists are saying "Where are they??!!!". What if they're already here and most scientists just don't want to handle the implications of this. So they dismiss (at least publicly) the whole idea out of hand and use their science to prove this is the case. They come up with things like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "it's all misidentification of manmade or natural objects...the planet Venus, optical illusions, car headlights etc etc", "it's all mass hallucinations or mass hysteria", "people have been watching too many B grade sci-fi movies", "Einstein's Theory says......and so it's impossible", and who knows how many other "explanations". What happens is the evidence that is present is just dismissed out of hand, or "studied" and then dismissed out of hand (e.g. the Condon Report, Project Bluebook etc). It's then ridiculed and made fun of by the mainstream press and other media. People then tend to makeup their own minds based on what's going on and what the "experts" have to say. Then you get the government types and the military-industrial complex making up our minds for us and hiding anything they may come across because they don't think the general public can handle the truth or is even entitled to know the truth. They want it and whatever they can get out of it for themselves. People start saying "oh it's conspiracy theory this and that....what a lot of rubbish, no one could keep a secret like that". Problem is, they can and do. Most of the public are too clueless to even figure it out and in any case, if you really want to hide something from everyone, the best place to do so is in plain sight. The whole idea of it being secret ends up a running joke and no one then believes it's true. Little do they realise they're being sold up the creek and hoodwinked so convincingly they mostly don't even know what's going on and other things can also be gotten away with the same impunity. No one knows what's really happening except those intimately involved with the whole enterprise.

Now, what if that scenario is the one being played out. You just don't know for a solid fact, do you. You can't know because you don't have access to all, if any, of the really pertinent information.

Makes the scientists look like idiots...mostly unintentional idiots, but idiots nevertheless because they're supposed to be the smarties here and know enough to prove or disprove this. Scientists are human, just like the rest of us and can be just as easily, if not more easily, hoodwinked. Even by their own ideas. Many just don't like to admit that.

Many also don't like to admit that the data on which many of their ideas are based is just as "flimsy" as any of the UFO reports and data are supposed to be in their eyes, and the eyes of other "experts".

In the final analysis, the only true way we're ever going to be 100% sure of anything is to go and see for ourselves. No use sitting on our collective rear ends pontificating about the merits, either way, of what we think is going on. That ultimately gets us nowhere. Like looking at minerals in rocks from an orbiting satellite around any planet, the only thing you're ever going to know for a fact that you're seeing something that's really there is go and see for yourself. Otherwise, all you're really doing is looking at an approximation of what might be there. Useful though that may be, and generally is what's there anyway, but still it's just an approximation.

[CraigS]

Ah Carl;

Glad you're back !
:)
I get a smile 'on me face' with some of your posts !
:)
I'll have to exclude myself from sharing your views on other people (like the scientists you mention in you previous posts), however … because of my new Science Forum catch-cry (which is pending ratification, of course ;) :) ).

You must be a fan of the X-Files, man .. Fox Mulder, Scully, the Smoking Man, Spender, AD Skinner, conspiracies everywhere … if you haven't ever gotten into it .. ya gotta, man! Its right down that same alleyway !
:)

Ok .. whilst you were away, I took a bold stand on all this and somehow (thanks to bartman, I think), I've become known as 'the Fence-Sitter'. My contention is that it is certainly not 'fence-sitting'. The only scientifically supportable position in all of these debates, is the one of asserting that the possibilities of exo-life are inherently unpredictable. This statement can be made with the assurance of 100% mathematical certainty. Sounds highly arrogant to many, (its not intended that way), but we are talking about mathematical certainty, here.

And I agree, that with the benefit of such assurance/confidence, that exploration is totally justified because of this, and I'm totally in support of exploration, with everything and every bit of technology we can muster !

My 2 cents worth.
:)
Cheers & Rgds

[renormalised]

"Fence Sitter"....I think it would be far more appropriate to call you "Capt' Chaos":):P:P:P

[multiweb]

And don't forget the SGC :lol: Jokes aside, I don't find it far fetched that a lot of well placed individuals have interests in keeping secrets from the masses whether it is for power, money or safety. Hell, pollies do it on a daily basis :P

[renormalised]

X-Files.....a really big fan of the show:):)

Also, been interested in UFO's ever since I was a kid. But don't hold that against me:):P

And what so funny about my posts!!!:):P:P

[CraigS]

Go and have another birthday beer, man !!
:P :)
That's why I love the X-Files !! .. It's sooooo credible !!
:)
Cheers

[CraigS]

Ooops ! I didn't think you were serious !!

Better pay better attention next time !

:P :)

Cheers

[sally1jack]

We don't need science to tell us that life possibly exists in the universe somewhere, thats just common sence. science has no more credibility on this subject than anyone else , which is zero.

I think the possibilities on this subject are beyond our capabilities to solve at this point in time.
I agree with carl, also the distances & time frame of the universe would allow other life to go undiscovered very easily. but this is just my opinion & i have nothing to back it up other than common sence
phil

[CraigS]

.. or Mr Complexity !! :screwy: :P :)

Kind of has a 'Je ne sais quoi' about it, don't you think ?

:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

I am serious...you'll know if I'm not:)

[renormalised]

Capt Chaos sounds better:):):P

[CraigS]

Phil, I think the point is, that science specifically does not say this.

The outcome of the mathematical statement is completely at odds with what our 'common sense' is telling us. Many things in science are counterintuitive. This is one of them.

What is actually supportable, is that:

i) we absolutely know, that we cannot say that exo-life exists.
And, also;
ii) we absolutely know, that we cannot say that exo-life doesn't exist.

I know its a bit tricky. But what this means is, that we cannot make use of statistical inferences about exo-planet candidates, or confirmed exo-planets, that are backed up with anything other than a human belief and speculation.
(Which is fine .. all we need to do is to accept this, and then go looking for it, in order to remove the uncertainty).

Cheers

[renormalised]

We can't say too much about the exoplanets we have found and confirmed, plus those others which are yet to be confirmed, simply because they're not a statistically significant sample of what might be out there. Given what they can deduce from the numbers and what they've found, even if all the candidates are confirmed as planets, what's 2000 or so planets going to tell you when the total number of planets just in this galaxy alone most likely numbers in the many billions. Not much at all. Even if only 1/10000 planets was habitable and actually inhabited, that would still be billions of inhabited worlds. We can only barely imagine what's out there. There'd be civilisations around that have been going for so long and are so advanced, to us they would be gods (well, at least the old definition of). Arthur C Clarke said, once, "Any sufficiently advanced technology would seem to be like magic"...we wouldn't even know where to start if we found anything technical from a civilisation that's been around for, say, a billion years. Even one only a million or so years ahead would be so much more advanced than us, we would be stumped to even know what they were on about. Hell, there's plenty of people around who are stumped with what we've managed to figure out!!!!:):P

As for mathematics, especially statistics...the equations are only as good as the people who design them and the data which is entered into them. You can make them say anything you like, but that doesn't make then true or have any veracity at all. That only comes with a great amount of trial and error, a lot of experimentation and the consensus as to their veracity by the whole body politic of the (in this case, science) community.

[sally1jack]

No it's not tricky at all,my point was nobody has any idea if there is life out there at all , no matter which way you want to phrase it

[joe_smith]

when I think of the Fermi paradox I often think about a time, a long time ago. A time when a man of history stood at the sea and wondered if there was any other island out there with life like his island. was it life like his or life totally different to his. To me we are still asking the same type of question. overtime his answer has been answered by a science he could never of imaged, but we are still waiting for our answer with that same science. But as its been pointed out, where and how do we look?

This is also my view first we have to find them to know why we couldn't hear them and why. I also believe that with our current understanding of the laws of physics we will never know with our current search methods. As the distance we would like to be able to travel are the same for the man on the island just a dream with our understanding of our universe in our point of time.

[CraigS]

In certain circumstances, this may be so.
Would you say with mathematical certainty that, 1+1=2 ?
If not, why not ?
This example is intended to demonstrate the absoluteness of a 'mathematical certainty'.
In statistics, even a probable outcome, is not a dead certainty.
Which is why statistics is not used, when it comes to statements involving mathematical certainties.
Chaos theory is able to make statements with certainty.
Which is why (I assert) we should be looking at this from this perspective.



Ok .. forget statistics. Chaos/Complexity doesn't rely on statistical inference.

I'll admit that the rationale for my argument is subject to some speculation. However, the speculation has observational evidence supporting it.

Here goes, (I hope I get this right … I'm still working on the wobbly bits, but its still way better than statistical inference methods):

i) "we can, by observation and inference, conclude that given the right conditions, life will inevitably occur … given the correct conditions." (This statement comes from Evolution Theory and the Laws of Physics and Chemistry, and has a working assumption that life began on Earth).

ii) given these exact same conditions, the same life (as we presently recognise it), may also not emerge; (This statement comes from Chaos Theory. The outcome of a chaotic system is critically dependent on the initial conditions. The working assumption is that the emergence of life follows a fractal process.)

iii) the exact environmental conditions for life to emerge, are not presently known. We are unlikely to ever know the exact environmental conditions, under which life (as we know it), originally emerged. Even the tiniest, seemingly insignificant factor in the initial conditions, can make all the difference to the outcome. Ie: life, no life, or different life. (The working assumption is that the emergence of life, is based on a fractal process).

iv) the environmental conditions throughout the solar system, galaxy and maybe, even the universe, are fractal in nature at the macro (observable) scales ... (courtesy of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and direct observational evidence at the macro scales). The home-based evidence is, that the various environmental combinations that may have given rise to life on Earth, (of which we are only partially knowledgeable about), are also subject to self-similarity, with both repeating and non-repeating outcomes. (Evidence for: life processes: replicatation, reproduction, respiration, metabolisation, etc function according to fractal rules, which have been demonstrated in computer simulations, biological sciences, etc)

v) the frequency of occurrence of repeating and non-repeating instances of the appropriate environmental conditions is unknown, certainly within a universe of infinite size, and is also unknown within our own observable universe. The pattern of combinations however, appears as a fractal pattern in nature.

vi) the exact same combinations of life-supporting environmental conditions, may also result in no life emerging. (One of the possible outcomes of combinations giving rise to fractals under the mathematical laws of fractal geometry).

vii) so, if both the occurrence of life-supporting environmental combinations AND the frequencies of occurrence of both life and non-life instances are unknown, we seek more data in the hope that we can draw statistical, probabilistic inference from. This approach is flawed when coming from the recognition of the fractal nature of the conditions for the emergence of life. This is because the end result of this approach, will always be subject to the reality that: "In statistics, even a probable outcome, is not a dead certainty".

Under this approach no predictions will deliver any certainty and what's more, will not lead to anything but more debate, due the the fundamental uncertainty which will always remain.

viii) Based on the above points, and with direct observational supporting evidence relating to the fractal nature of the environment, driven by the physical laws of the sciences, and based on the mathematical laws of fractal geometry (which is the hallmark of Chaotic/Complexity processes), we are also able to say with 100% assurance, that we cannot predict where or when life will emerge, even if we knew the exact environmental conditions, under which we think our own life emerged.

This is where I'm coming from, and why I feel Chaos Theory has delivered something very profound, which I think has been overlooked. "Look again !", is my reaction when I get these feelings. I have done this, and the most likely area, which may be subject to some debate I can see, is whether or not the emergence of life processes are fundamentally fractal in nature. Given that the other processes which life follows are fractal in nature, I get a very strong sense that something's going on here, which bears A LOT MORE attention.

I hope I got the steps right (in terms of rationality/logic). I am open to corrections on this aspect. I actually request it ! ..Wouldn't want to be accused of an obsessive religious behaviours or anything ! ;)

:)

Cheers, Captain Chaos.

PS: Take a look at my post #34 on the "Japan Earthquake Science" (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=709252&postcount=34) thread. Here is a (maybe) classic example, of how Classical deterministic approach to prediction of a fundamentally Chaotic System, has resulted in death of tens of thousands of lives ! Cheers.

[bartman]

Carl, is this part Occam's Razor?
Similar to (in) the movie Contact where McConaughey asks Sparks if she loved her father. Her response was yes, to which he said " prove it"


Plausible Deniability I think is the term;)

Sparks says to Palmer that there must be life out there...... to which he responds: "'Well, if not, it'd be an awfully big waste of space."
Mathematically/statistically would that last quote ring true?????

Bartman

[renormalised]

Occam's razor states that for all possible answers to a problem, the simplest answer is the most likely explanation. In Contact, where Joss confronted Ellie with proving her love for her father, that was a case of faith versus scientific rationalism. Or, faith vs knowledge, if you will. Yes, you could apply Occam's Razor to that instance...of course she did love her father...but that's not what he was asking of her.

Plausible Deniability is where you tell someone to do something, but ask them not to give you any of the details or even discuss what they end up doing. So that if someone starts asking you prickly question, you can deny even knowing about it....which technically you don't, but morally and ethically you did since you gave the order or asked for it to be done. Hiding something is plain sight is just what it says it is...keeping a secret by allowing others to know about and make wild speculation as to what they actually think it is you're hiding. It's the best way of keeping secrets. At least those you really don't want anyone to know about. It also helps to feed the "chooks" every now and then:)

[snas]

I think Carl alluded to this in that, given there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy and more galaxies than that across the universe, if we are the only place where there is life anywhere, then what are the odds of us being here? Does this then invoke the need for a supernatural creator of some sort? Since I am of an absolute certainty that such a thing does not exist (and not wishing to spark a debate, just making my point) then if were are the only life anywhere, we are then unbelievably lucky to be here.

That said, this does not prove or disprove anything re the odds of life elsewhere.

We can speculate all we like, but until find life elsewhere (if we ever do), it is all speculation. If we do find life elsewhere, I suspect that that probably indicates life is common throughout the universe.

Personally, I would really like there to be exo life because.......

Stuart

[CraigS]

Hi Stuart;
Your above words were proceeded by a caveat that they weren't intended to spark a debate (which is cool .. I've had my fill of that, this week myself), so, that being said, I offer the following (hopefully quiet) aside comment.

Surely we would only see ourselves as being 'lucky', if we thought our own existence had some sort of meaning. Things just happen .. luck is in the mind of some kind of beholder (ie: probably, us).
:)



I think this indicates that there is another instance of life. I also think extrapolation from two instances, is still fraught with the same issues.

Cheers & Rgds

[snas]

Craig

I get what you mean when you talk about 2 instances of life still being fraught with the same issues, and agree that 2 instances of life do not HAVE to make life common.

However, the suggestion has been made, (by people with more kudos in this field than I will ever approach) that if life can arise separately on 2 occasions in 2 different places, then it becomes far more likely that life is widespread throughout the universe than if life has only been found in one location, ie: Earth.

This is, like all of our thoughts on the exo life issues, very difficult to prove until we actually go out there and see for ourselves.

Regards

[CraigS]

Its very interesting eh, Stuart ?

I think for me, if someone found a second instance of life elsewhere, AND they could show that they hadn't contaminated this exo-site, I think I might start leaning in a similar direction, (as you mention). :question:

However for me, the really, really interesting questions would be: "How come there ?", Why there ?, What conditions there caused it to happen ?, Can we learn how it got started there (from what we know about the possible initial conditions here) ? Can this help us to prioritise what we're looking for, and where to look elsewhere for it.

The second instance may not be all that interesting on its own.
What it represents, may be a much more interesting for me. :question:

Interesting.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Instead of worrying about finding other life within the Solar System, after 4.56 billion years this neck of the woods is most likely thoroughly cross-contaminated, it would be a much better test if we found life elsewhere in the Galaxy. Bit hard to say we contaminated some other planet in a different system:) Especially if its got 2 or more legs, big teeth and claws and is almost up your rear end whilst you're trying to run away from it!!!:):P Bit hard to rationalise cross-contamination in that situation (neglecting Star Trek III's example, for instance):):P

[CraigS]

Yep. As I've said before its actually quite funny that having the capability of identifying what we know IS life, from robotic measurements is still very elusive.

I saw a picture of the next robotic probe for Mars the other day … such a feat of engineering ! But one really has to question whether it really is capable of returning us anything conclusive when it comes to detecting life ? :question:

Fascinating question .. that one !

Cheers

[renormalised]

Like I've said before, the only way we're going to be certain of it is to go there ourselves, take out equipment with us and use Mark 1 eyeball and brain to look for it. Hoping some dumb robot that takes 20 or more minutes to talk to depending on where Mars is in its orbit is not the way to go about being definitive w.r.t finding life there.

A giant Martian groc could beat the hell out of the robot and we'd be none the wiser if it never got any images of it and/or got off a transmission:):P