Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 LastLast
Results 751 to 780 of 816

Thread: What do you think is the most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox?

  1. #751
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If you mean, for the Fermi "paradox", how would it explain that?
    I don't know until I find out what the transcendental knowledge actually is.

  2. #752
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,946
    By "real truth" I mean what is the full and accurate "Encyclopedia of Science and Technology".
    I have an IQ of 126. I tried to be an astronomer, but I could not quite handle the advanced mathematics for a professional astronomer. Now other people, with higher IQs, can. Say I am the mental equivalent of a six foot man. There are seven foot men (say IQ 150) who could handle who could handle this math in a breeze, and eight foot tall men (IQ 180) who could invent it de novo. But the limit might be IQ 200 (nine feet tall). There are no recorded men over nine feet tall. Maybe the discovery of the "real truth" needs someone "twelve feet tall" (IQ 300) and that is not possible for Homo sapiens.
    Now yes, I know IQ is not really like a ruler, but I am using this as an illustration of my argument.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  3. #753
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    By "real truth" I mean what is the full and accurate "Encyclopedia of Science and Technology".
    I have an IQ of 126. I tried to be an astronomer, but I could not quite handle the advanced mathematics for a professional astronomer. Now other people, with higher IQs, can. Say I am the mental equivalent of a six foot man. There are seven foot men (say IQ 150) who could handle who could handle this math in a breeze, and eight foot tall men (IQ 180) who could invent it de novo. But the limit might be IQ 200 (nine feet tall). There are no recorded men over nine feet tall. Maybe the discovery of the "real truth" needs someone "twelve feet tall" (IQ 300) and that is not possible for Homo sapiens.
    Now yes, I know IQ is not really like a ruler, but I am using this as an illustration of my argument.
    Not only is it not really like a ruler, I don't know that it directly correlates to math aptitude! At least the few abstracts and scientific articles I've read about it seem to suggest they are not well correlated.

    CJSF
    "Off went his rocket at the speed of light
    Flying so fast there was no day or night
    Messing around with the fabric of time
    He knows who's guilty 'fore there's even a crime

    Davy, Davy Crockett
    The buckskin astronaut
    Davy, Davy Crockett
    There's more than we were taught"

    -They Might Be Giants, "The Ballad Of Davy Crockett (In Outer Space)"


    lonelybirder.org

  4. #754
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    The Fermi paradox.
    So how exactly would the Simulation scenario explain it?

    Never mind, I saw post #751. No explanation. It's a sidetrack.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #755
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So how exactly would the Simulation scenario explain it?

    Never mind, I saw post #751. No explanation. It's a sidetrack.
    Of course the simulation scenario could explain it. If the simulation is designed this way then that is the way it is.

    But the transcendental explanation has history in SF. "Childhoods End" by Arthur C. Clarke for example. It goes back a long way.

  6. #756
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Hypothesizing that we live in the Matrix is irrelevant to this topic. We could ask instead what kind of signal, deliberate or accidental, we would accept as evidence of a technological civilization.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  7. #757
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Hypothesizing that we live in the Matrix is irrelevant to this topic. We could ask instead what kind of signal, deliberate or accidental, we would accept as evidence of a technological civilization.
    Hang on Roger, the topic is what do you think is the most likely explanation of the Fermi paradox.

    I would argue your subject is further away from this question -probably should have its own thread. Unless you are arguing there are many things that could be signals, but we are not recognising them as such? That could be relevant.

  8. #758
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    Hang on Roger, the topic is what do you think is the most likely explanation of the Fermi paradox.

    I would argue your subject is further away from this question -probably should have its own thread. Unless you are arguing there are many things that could be signals, but we are not recognising them as such? That could be relevant.
    Per the research paper I posted above on 1/25 at 9:12 am, that is exactly what i am arguing. Is it possible we have detected a signal we don't at present recognize as a technosignature? If we think outside the box, what might fall in the range of being an ET signal? Some Sf stories suggest a purely random signal is likely a technosignature. However, a nonrandom pulse could be a navigational beacon.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  9. #759
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Tabby's Star produces random light changes, causing intense interest, and another star was recently scanned for technosignatures after seemingly random planetary transits were seen. We also talk about Kardashev II civilizations. What could we look for other than Dyson spheres?
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  10. #760
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Recent SETI projects include searches for vanished stars and galaxies, and sudden appearances of intense infrared sources. These would be byproducts of techno cultures using Dyson structures to collect energy. Maybe we have not searched long enough for the "paradox" to exist yet.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  11. #761
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    Of course the simulation scenario could explain it. If the simulation is designed this way then that is the way it is.

    I don't understand how that relates to the Fermi Paradox. Can you expand on it?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #762
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    ... Is it possible we have detected a signal we don't at present recognize as a technosignature? If we think outside the box, what might fall in the range of being an ET signal? Some Sf stories suggest a purely random signal is likely a technosignature. However, a nonrandom pulse could be a navigational beacon.
    So you list the following as 'possibilities':

    - a (not) technosignature 'signal';
    - purely random signal;
    - a non random pulse;
    - random light changes (eg: Tabby's star observations);
    - seemingly random planetary transits;
    - other than Dyson spheres;
    - vanished stars and galaxies;
    - sudden appearances of intense infrared sources.

    Then you assert (about the last two of these) that: 'These would be byproducts of techno cultures using Dyson structures to collect energy'.
    .. Huh? How did that happen?
    Dyson spheres are, as yet, unevidenced hypotheticals. They thus cannot be said as existing until you have constrained the measurements down to there being no other possible alternatives (even taken into consideration the possibility of misinterpretations).

    If fact, all the items in your entire list have been presented as unconstrained 'possibilities' in the first place.

    This highlights another explanation for the so-called 'paradox' .. ie: that none of what we're looking for, is sufficiently constrained to be 'looking for' in the first place .. so how can the non-observation of any of that, form any basis for claiming there is any 'paradox' to be accounted for?

  13. #763
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    This highlights another explanation for the so-called 'paradox' .. ie: that none of what we're looking for, is sufficiently constrained to be 'looking for' in the first place .. so how can the non-observation of any of that, form any basis for claiming there is any 'paradox' to be accounted for?
    THANK you!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #764
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    This highlights another explanation for the so-called 'paradox' .. ie: that none of what we're looking for, is sufficiently constrained to be 'looking for' in the first place .. so how can the non-observation of any of that, form any basis for claiming there is any 'paradox' to be accounted for?
    Interesting. What would you consider to be a valid technosignature? Everything we look for is a hypothetical.

    Good point that I misspoke when I said "would be" instead "might be". Thanks.

    I think our SETI programs are too young, too shallow, and have been in place for too little time to produce any valuable results. We have a very limited view of what constitutes a valid technosignature. The paradox is not. It is a search that has too tiny a chance at present to succeed. The fault is not in the stars. It is with us.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  15. #765
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Per the research paper I posted above on 1/25 at 9:12 am, that is exactly what i am arguing. Is it possible we have detected a signal we don't at present recognize as a technosignature? If we think outside the box, what might fall in the range of being an ET signal? Some Sf stories suggest a purely random signal is likely a technosignature. However, a nonrandom pulse could be a navigational beacon.
    We should have conspiracy theorists analyze the data. They think outside the box.

  16. #766
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Interesting. What would you consider to be a valid technosignature?
    Interesting .. but I don't really have to 'consider' such a thing because there is abundant objective evidence of only one: human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore
    Everything we look for is a hypothetical.
    An objectively testable hypothetical must be constrained because that's how you test it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore
    I think our SETI programs are too young, too shallow, and have been in place for too little time to produce any valuable results. We have a very limited view of what constitutes a valid technosignature. The paradox is not. It is a search that has too tiny a chance at present to succeed. The fault is not in the stars. It is with us.
    I think Jill Tarter might disagree with you.
    SETI is about researching the contexts of our own communications technologies.

  17. #767
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    SETI is about researching the contexts of our own communications technologies.
    Um, read the name?

    As for methods, we are indeed limited by our current communication, observation, and analytical methods and technologies. That doesn't mean we should stop looking. And yes, having an objective to aim for (even though you may disdain the goal as "unconstrained") is still a valid motive.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  18. #768
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    This highlights another explanation for the so-called 'paradox' .. ie: that none of what we're looking for, is sufficiently constrained to be 'looking for' in the first place .. so how can the non-observation of any of that, form any basis for claiming there is any 'paradox' to be accounted for?
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    I can see your point, but it is not a fair answer to the paradox. That is because we are not looking for subtle effects. On the contrary, we are wondering why the solar system is not already occupied by a galaxy spanning intelligence, long before humans existed.

  19. #769
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    We should have conspiracy theorists analyze the data. They think outside the box.
    The problem is called the Cosmic Gorilla Effect and there are published papers on it.

    Currently there is a square within a triangle on Ceres. What do we make of that?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...9457651931392X

  20. #770
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    I can see your point, but it is not a fair answer to the paradox. That is because we are not looking for subtle effects. On the contrary, we are wondering why the solar system is not already occupied by a galaxy spanning intelligence, long before humans existed.
    ...Because intelligent spacefaring life is rare and the nearest one is not in our part of the Universe? Because the local intelligence expands much more slowly than the maximum speculated speed and have not reached us yet? Because they did their thing billions of years before we came along, and now they've left/died off/gone Matrix/are alive and well in a liquid helium lake on Pluto/become one with the Universe?

    All we currently know is, we haven't seen any evidence of anyone else. The reasons for that are not only unknown, but at the present time unknowable. Potential explanations range from "nobody's home" to "they just don't like us".
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #771
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Three papers that I take to show that SETI is still in its infancy, and we are still exploring exactly what we are looking for and where to look for it, using what instruments. Two of Jill Tarter's papers are among these.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08992

    Our Sky now and then − searches for lost stars and impossible effects as probes of advanced extra-terrestrial civilisations
    Beatriz Villarroel, Iñigo Imaz, Josefine Bergstedt
    (Submitted on 29 Jun 2016)

    Searches for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) using large survey data often look for possible signatures of astroengineering. We propose to search for physically impossible effects caused by highly advanced technology, by carrying out a search for disappearing galaxies and Milky Way stars. We select ∼ 10 million objects from USNO-B1.0 with low proper motion (μ < 20 milli arcseconds / year) imaged on the sky in two epochs. We search for objects not found at the expected positions in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) by visually examining images of ∼ 290 000 USNO-B1.0 objects with no counterpart in the SDSS. We identify some spurious targets in the USNO-B1.0. We find one candidate of interest for follow-up photometry, although it is very uncertain. If the candidate eventually is found, it defines the probability of observing a disappearing-object event the last decade to less than one in one million in the given samples. Nevertheless, since the complete USNO-B1.0 dataset is 100 times larger than any of our samples, we propose an easily accessible citizen science project in search of USNO-B1.0 objects which have disappeared from the SDSS.

    ==

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06568

    Science with an ngVLA: SETI Searches for Evidence of Intelligent Life in the Galaxy
    Steve Croft (1), Andrew P. V. Siemion (1 and 2 and 3), James M. Cordes (4), Ian S. Morrison (5), Zsolt Paragi (6), Jill Tarter (3) ((1) UC Berkeley, (2) Radboud University, (3) SETI Institute, (4) Cornell University, (5) Curtin University, (6) JIVE)
    (Submitted on 15 Oct 2018 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2018 (this version, v2))

    Radio SETI experiments aim to test the hypothesis that extraterrestrial civilizations emit detectable signals from communication, propulsion, or other technologies. The unprecedented capabilities of next generation radio telescopes, including ngVLA, will allow us to probe hitherto unexplored regions of parameter space, thereby placing meaningful limits on the prevalence of technological civilizations in the Universe (or, if we are fortunate, making one of the most significant discoveries in the history of science). ngVLA provides critical capabilities in the 10 - 100 GHz range, and will be a valuable complement to SKA in the southern hemisphere, as well as surveying the sky at frequencies underexplored by previous SETI experiments.

    ==

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02426

    Machine Vision and Deep Learning for Classification of Radio SETI Signals
    G. R. Harp, Jon Richards, Seth Shostak Jill C. Tarter, Graham Mackintosh, Jeffrey D. Scargle, Chris Henze, Bron Nelson, G. A. Cox, S. Egly, S. Vinodababu, J. Voien
    (Submitted on 6 Feb 2019)

    We apply classical machine vision and machine deep learning methods to prototype signal classifiers for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Our novel approach uses two-dimensional spectrograms of measured and simulated radio signals bearing the imprint of a technological origin. The studies are performed using archived narrow-band signal data captured from real-time SETI observations with the Allen Telescope Array and a set of digitally simulated signals designed to mimic real observed signals. By treating the 2D spectrogram as an image, we show that high quality parametric and non-parametric classifiers based on automated visual analysis can achieve high levels of discrimination and accuracy, as well as low false-positive rates. The (real) archived data were subjected to numerous feature-extraction algorithms based on the vertical and horizontal image moments and Huff transforms to simulate feature rotation. The most successful algorithm used a two-step process where the image was first filtered with a rotation, scale and shift-invariant affine transform followed by a simple correlation with a previously defined set of labeled prototype examples. The real data often contained multiple signals and signal ghosts, so we performed our non-parametric evaluation using a simpler and more controlled dataset produced by simulation of complex-valued voltage data with properties similar to the observed prototypes. The most successful non-parametric classifier employed a wide residual (convolutional) neural network based on pre-existing classifiers in current use for object detection in ordinary photographs. These results are relevant to a wide variety of research domains that already employ spectrogram analysis from time-domain astronomy to observations of earthquakes to animal vocalization analysis.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  22. #772
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Three papers that I take to show that SETI is still in its infancy, and we are still exploring exactly what we are looking for and where to look for it, using what instruments. Two of Jill Tarter's papers are among these.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08992

    Our Sky now and then − searches for lost stars and impossible effects as probes of advanced extra-terrestrial civilisations
    Beatriz Villarroel, Iñigo Imaz, Josefine Bergstedt
    (Submitted on 29 Jun 2016)
    Updating this work:

    The Vanishing & Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations project: I. USNO objects missing in modern sky surveys and follow-up observations of a "missing star"

    "We find about ∼ 100 point sources visible in only one epoch"

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.05068

  23. #773
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    By "real truth" I mean what is the full and accurate "Encyclopedia of Science and Technology".
    I have an IQ of 126. I tried to be an astronomer, but I could not quite handle the advanced mathematics for a professional astronomer. Now other people, with higher IQs, can. Say I am the mental equivalent of a six foot man. There are seven foot men (say IQ 150) who could handle who could handle this math in a breeze, and eight foot tall men (IQ 180) who could invent it de novo. But the limit might be IQ 200 (nine feet tall). There are no recorded men over nine feet tall. Maybe the discovery of the "real truth" needs someone "twelve feet tall" (IQ 300) and that is not possible for Homo sapiens.
    Now yes, I know IQ is not really like a ruler, but I am using this as an illustration of my argument.
    If we can believe it, there will come a point where AI overtakes humans and further progress in AI will then be exponential.

    This path of ever-increasing "IQ" is open to all species on Earth-like planets.

  24. #774
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    ...Because intelligent spacefaring life is rare and the nearest one is not in our part of the Universe? Because the local intelligence expands much more slowly than the maximum speculated speed and have not reached us yet? Because they did their thing billions of years before we came along, and now they've left/died off/gone Matrix/are alive and well in a liquid helium lake on Pluto/become one with the Universe?

    All we currently know is, we haven't seen any evidence of anyone else. The reasons for that are not only unknown, but at the present time unknowable. Potential explanations range from "nobody's home" to "they just don't like us".
    At some point, all intelligent races make self-replicating nanobots and everything promptly turns to grey goo.

    At some point, all AI becomes "Skynet" and promptly wipes out the species which gave rise to it. It then has no reason to do anything further so there is no sign of it.

    All species that come to the attention of self-replicating probes in the galaxy are exterminated. Therefore any surviving ETs are hidden.

    There's loads of possibilities.

  25. #775
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,946
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    If we can believe it, there will come a point where AI overtakes humans and further progress in AI will then be exponential.

    This path of ever-increasing "IQ" is open to all species on Earth-like planets.
    Are we intelligent enough to make an AI more intelligent than we are? Is it possible to construct an intelligent entity more intelligent than the constructor?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  26. #776
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    Updating this work:

    The Vanishing & Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations project: I. USNO objects missing in modern sky surveys and follow-up observations of a "missing star"

    "We find about ∼ 100 point sources visible in only one epoch"

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.05068
    Thanks! Will look this up.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  27. #777
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    That is because we are not looking for subtle effects. On the contrary, we are wondering why the solar system is not already occupied by a galaxy spanning intelligence, long before humans existed.
    I think you nailed something there.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  28. #778
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Three papers that I take to show that SETI is still in its infancy, and we are still exploring exactly what we are looking for and where to look for it, using what instruments. Two of Jill Tarter's papers are among these.
    Both of the Tarter etal papers emphasise my point that SETI is about researching the contexts of our own communications technologies:

    From: 'Science with an ngVLA: SETI Searches for Evidence of Intelligent Life in the Galaxy'

    'The unprecedented capabilities of next generation radio telescopes, including ngVLA, will allow us to probe hitherto unexplored regions of parameter space, thereby placing meaningful limits on the prevalence of technological civilizations in the Universe'

    Ie: its a study which focuses on the constraints of comms technologies (ie: 'the limits'). This is the context I refer to above. I accept that the ngVLA is a new implementation of long understood telecommunications physics for achieving this goal, (so pursuing knowledge of its limits is a routinely achievable and tangible goal).

    The second reference 'Machine Vision and Deep Learning for Classification of Radio SETI Signals':

    says: 'We apply classical machine vision and machine deep learning using methods to prototype signal classifiers ..'
    which again, is focused on the method of constraining the context of comms technologies.

    You present nothing here in defence of your claim that 'SETI is still in its infancy' .. and yet both papers include Jill Tarter as a co-author and both studies return useful data on the constraining contexts of classifiers, faciliated by using new human technologies .. (and exactly zip on the unconstrained, speculated so-called: 'other technological civilisations').

  29. #779
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    At some point, all intelligent races make self-replicating nanobots and everything promptly turns to grey goo.

    At some point, all AI becomes "Skynet" and promptly wipes out the species which gave rise to it. It then has no reason to do anything further so there is no sign of it.

    All species that come to the attention of self-replicating probes in the galaxy are exterminated. Therefore any surviving ETs are hidden.
    It doesn't even have to be all. Just "all the ones we humans could see from here".

    And then add "so far" to all of them, since there's always the possibility of something new coming along and breaking the pattern. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations, as Gene Roddenberry used to say. Infinite possible reasons why we see nothing, and no way to rule out any of them.

    (Occam's Razor = we see nothing because nothing's there to see. But absence of evidence, etc.)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #780
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    ... As for methods, we are indeed limited by our current communication, observation, and analytical methods and technologies. That doesn't mean we should stop looking. And yes, having an objective to aim for (even though you may disdain the goal as "unconstrained") is still a valid motive.
    Many motives are considered 'valid' and that particular criteria, itself, is also unconstrained. How many of such criteria (and associated activities) do you think might be sufficient?

    Oh, and I don't recall ever having argued about stopping useful research .. rather, just recognise what useful returns it actually achieves, whilst noticing the irrelevance of the beliefs motivating it, when it comes to the actual returns of the research.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •