Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Fermi Paradox


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1    Bracket

Bracket

    Evil Monkey Genius

  • Member
  • 3,968 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts

  • I'm the fourth wise monkey.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:02 AM

en.wikipedia.org said:

The Fermi paradox (Fermi's paradox or Fermi-paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

Posted Image Read more...


I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

*Note to self, need more henchman, good ones this time. Also, start auditions for new female lab assistant.

#2    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,192 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:26 AM

Personally, I have never understood why this is a paradox at all. Radio signals are attenuated relative fast  (on astronomical scales ~200 light years) to the extent where we cannot detect them and what if Einstein was correct (and so far all indications are that he was) that the light speed barrier is insurmountable. The Universe could be teeming with life and we wouldn't have the foggiest idea.  

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#3    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,079 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:26 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 13 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Personally, I have never understood why this is a paradox at all. Radio signals are attenuated relative fast  (on astronomical scales ~200 light years) to the extent where we cannot detect them and what if Einstein was correct (and so far all indications are that he was) that the light speed barrier is insurmountable. The Universe could be teeming with life and we wouldn't have the foggiest idea.  

Cheers,
Badeskov

This is the safe bet Badeskov` I hear ya and raise ya ten trillion giga-parsec`s The chances of us hitting the motherload and meeting T.E. or whom ever is very limited by our brain size at the moment. They are simpley waiting for us to grow up, not  Out like we seem to prefer.
Well Lets not give up ,Keep Looking  Up !justDONTEATUS

This is a Work in Progress!

#4    Redranger

Redranger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

  • Knowledge in the universe = 100,000,000
    Collective human knowledge = 4

Posted 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM

Can an ant understand humanity?
Ants are social insects, so they live in a colony. Ants operate as a unified entity, working together to support the colony.
So do you think they can comprehend education, electricity, government, cars or anything that we think, say, and do.
A possible explination for why we have no evidence proving other intelligent life exsists, is that those other organisms are so different that we can't comprehend them.
If I were to show a flashlight to an 18th century European he would think it was magic and accuse me of practicing witchcraft. He wouldn't be able to conceive it.
Clarke's third law states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
People don't believe in God because they say its impossible for someone to be raised from the dead or instantly be cured of an illness, etc.
Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it can't happen.
My point is that we aren't the only intelligent life in the universe, we just don't have evidence of it becuase we can't comprehend it.

History is never proved, only supposed. No matter how much evidence you collect, you're always guessing about cause-and-effect, and assuming things about dead peoples motives. Since even living people don't understand their own motives, we're hardly likely to do any better with the dead.
Keep testing your guesses against the evidence. Keep trying out new guesses to see if they fit better. Keep looking for new evidence even if it disproves your old hypotheses. With each step you get just a little closer to that elusive thing called "the truth." With each step you see how much farther away the truth is than you ever imagined it to be.

#5    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 10 May 2012 - 11:20 PM

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Can an ant understand humanity?
Ants are social insects, so they live in a colony. Ants operate as a unified entity, working together to support the colony.
So do you think they can comprehend education, electricity, government, cars or anything that we think, say, and do.

An ant cannot make a plasma television, Ants are not an intelligent species, they act on instinct. They have no capacity to understand such because they have not gone through an evolutionary change like hominids did. They are still adapting to their environment, we are adapting our environment.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

A possible explination for why we have no evidence proving other intelligent life exsists, is that those other organisms are so different that we can't comprehend them.

Or, one could consider that space is unimaginable vast and it takes massive resources and some genius to traverse it. If we can comprehend the signals from a pulsar, I feel we have reached a "contactable" Level. For Pete's sakes, we are now studying exoplanets. I do not feel that is "primitive" on any scale, even the most advanced species would be doing this as well.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

If I were to show a flashlight to an 18th century European he would think it was magic and accuse me of practicing witchcraft. He wouldn't be able to conceive it.

What if you explained it to him, how a battery works, and how it heats the element in the lamp? Alessandro Volta made a battery in 1800. I do not think that one could not help another understand.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Clarke's third law states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C Clark was a Sci Fi author.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

People don't believe in God because they say its impossible for someone to be raised from the dead or instantly be cured of an illness, etc.
Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it can't happen.

According to geological and fossil records, and advancements in astrophysics, we know God does not need to exist to have a Universe. Whilst that might not count an omnipotent being out of the picture, one wonders where such fits in.

People cannot be raised from the dead, the body is made to break down, Google Human Oxidation process.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

My point is that we aren't the only intelligent life in the universe, we just don't have evidence of it becuase we can't comprehend it.

We just do not know that. That's the rub. For all the evidence that we actually have, the argument is just as possible that we are the only species, I know that is unlikely, but when we break it all down, that is what we have got. And as I pointed out above, we listen to Pulsars and detect distant exoplanets, I feel that is a pretty decent accomplishment. If we can comprehend a Pulsar at distance, then I feel your idea is flawed. I think Badeskov has come up with the only answer to this question.

Edited by psyche101, 10 May 2012 - 11:24 PM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#6    Redranger

Redranger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

  • Knowledge in the universe = 100,000,000
    Collective human knowledge = 4

Posted 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 10 May 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

An ant cannot make a plasma television, Ants are not an intelligent species, they act on instinct. They have no capacity to understand such because they have not gone through an evolutionary change like hominids did. They are still adapting to their environment, we are adapting our environment.

What change would that be? What made that change come to pass?
If it happened to us why cant it happen to other creatures?

Or, one could consider that space is unimaginable vast and it takes massive resources and some genius to traverse it. If we can comprehend the signals from a pulsar, I feel we have reached a "contactable" Level. For Pete's sakes, we are now studying exoplanets. I do not feel that is "primitive" on any scale, even the most advanced species would be doing this as well.

You think the most adapted species is still using radios? Really?

What if you explained it to him, how a battery works, and how it heats the element in the lamp? Alessandro Volta made a battery in 1800. I do not think that one could not help another understand.

"Oh, it runs on batteries? Why didn't you say that in the first place?"

Arthur C Clark was a Sci Fi author.

And a very good one at that!

According to geological and fossil records, and advancements in astrophysics, we know God does not need to exist to have a Universe. Whilst that might not count an omnipotent being out of the picture, one wonders where such fits in.

Someone believes they can prove that? Ha, I'd like so see some evidence, post some links if you have any.

People cannot be raised from the dead, the body is made to break down, Google Human Oxidation process.

Not with our current technology.
According to who?

We just do not know that. That's the rub. For all the evidence that we actually have, the argument is just as possible that we are the only species, I know that is unlikely, but when we break it all down, that is what we have got. And as I pointed out above, we listen to Pulsars and detect distant exoplanets, I feel that is a pretty decent accomplishment. If we can comprehend a Pulsar at distance, then I feel your idea is flawed. I think Badeskov has come up with the only answer to this question.

What we've got isn't everything, we shouldn't assume without all the facts.
Fire was a decent accomplishment too..........

History is never proved, only supposed. No matter how much evidence you collect, you're always guessing about cause-and-effect, and assuming things about dead peoples motives. Since even living people don't understand their own motives, we're hardly likely to do any better with the dead.
Keep testing your guesses against the evidence. Keep trying out new guesses to see if they fit better. Keep looking for new evidence even if it disproves your old hypotheses. With each step you get just a little closer to that elusive thing called "the truth." With each step you see how much farther away the truth is than you ever imagined it to be.

#7    DBunker

DBunker

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,485 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • I prefer to know, not just to believe.

Posted 11 May 2012 - 01:15 AM

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

What we've got isn't everything, we shouldn't assume without all the facts.

Neither should you.


View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Fire was a decent accomplishment too..........

Man didnt invent fire..

Now that communications technology has made it possible to give global reach to the bizarre and archive it forever, it is essential for men and women of reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element. James S. Robbins

#8    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 11 May 2012 - 01:30 AM

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

What change would that be? What made that change come to pass?

The changes that made us jump down from the trees, seek nutrition and learn the most advantageous way to use it. The changes that made us overcome predation, an opposable thumb, a large brain, bipedal stance, the list goes one. All of these factors combined to make an intelligent species.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

If it happened to us why cant it happen to other creatures?

Physiology for the largest part. Hominids have a perfect body shape to manipulate objects. We went thorough a specific set of circumstances, if the same set of circumstance were applied to Chimps I guess it is conceivable they might have taken our place.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

You think the most adapted species is still using radios? Really?

Indeed, the cheapest and safest way to cross space. You think they have spaceships zipping around with no way to contact them? Logically to my mind, this is the way first contact should be initiated.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

"Oh, it runs on batteries? Why didn't you say that in the first place?"

That is pretty simplified, was I not descriptive enough for you?

The concept of electricity should not be hard to explain to an 18th century person. We have lightning as an example. If I can explain a torch to a 4 year old, why could I not explain it to an 18th century adult?

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

And a very good one at that!

Yes, yet still an author all the same. That is the big one here. His living relied on his imagination, nit what facts he could procure.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Someone believes they can prove that? Ha, I'd like so see some evidence, post some links if you have any.

OK.

LINK - Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe



In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”


View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Not with our current technology.
According to who?

Name me one person who has achieved immortality

You didn't google did you. Here Let Me Google That For you LINK

According to physiology. The very air we breathe eventually kills us.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

What we've got isn't everything, we shouldn't assume without all the facts.

Did you read the first line of my sentence? I said exactly the same thing to you! There might be other life, there might not! Nobody can prove this either way.

View PostRedranger, on 10 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Fire was a decent accomplishment too..........

Learning to control fire was a big step forward, one of the many. But it is not the mark of a space faring species. Listening to Pulsars and being able to determine what that signal is in my opinion a good reason to consider that we could recognise evidence, if it existed.

Edited by psyche101, 11 May 2012 - 01:32 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#9    Redranger

Redranger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

  • Knowledge in the universe = 100,000,000
    Collective human knowledge = 4

Posted 11 May 2012 - 01:39 AM

We are certian about certian things.


I should have been more clear, what I meant to say was that understanding fire for use in advancing our knowledge was a decent accomplishment

History is never proved, only supposed. No matter how much evidence you collect, you're always guessing about cause-and-effect, and assuming things about dead peoples motives. Since even living people don't understand their own motives, we're hardly likely to do any better with the dead.
Keep testing your guesses against the evidence. Keep trying out new guesses to see if they fit better. Keep looking for new evidence even if it disproves your old hypotheses. With each step you get just a little closer to that elusive thing called "the truth." With each step you see how much farther away the truth is than you ever imagined it to be.

#10    Redranger

Redranger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

  • Knowledge in the universe = 100,000,000
    Collective human knowledge = 4

Posted 11 May 2012 - 02:09 AM

The changes that made us jump down from the trees, seek nutrition and learn the most advantageous way to use it. The changes that made us overcome predation, an opposable thumb, a large brain, bipedal stance, the list goes one. All of these factors combined to make an intelligent species.


Dolphins are very intelligent. Theres more then one way to evolve into an intelligent species.





Indeed, the cheapest and safest way to cross space. You think they have spaceships zipping around with no way to contact them? Logically to my mind, this is the way first contact should be initiated.


Again neutrinos! Faster then light, and everywhere!
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15017484



The concept of electricity should not be hard to explain to an 18th century person. We have lightning as an example. If I can explain a torch to a 4 year old, why could I not explain it to an 18th century adult?


My point is that we often label things we don't understand as "magic" or "impossible."



Yes, yet still an author all the same. That is the big one here. His living relied on his imagination, nit what facts he could procure.



Fantasy is just streched reality.


OK.

LINK - Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe



In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”



According to him gravity is a law of the universe. So without the universe there isn't gravity. There isn't gravity if there isn't anything for it to affect.




Name me one person who has achieved immortality



No one on Earth has, but an alien species very well may have.


Did you read the first line of my sentence? I said exactly the same thing to you! There might be other life, there might not! Nobody can prove this either way.


Correct, no one can prove it with what knowledge we currently have.



Learning to control fire was a big step forward, one of the many. But it is not the mark of a space faring species. Listening to Pulsars and being able to determine what that signal is in my opinion a good reason to consider that we could recognise evidence, if it existed.


We wouldn't know how to listen if we didn't first learn to control fire among other things.

History is never proved, only supposed. No matter how much evidence you collect, you're always guessing about cause-and-effect, and assuming things about dead peoples motives. Since even living people don't understand their own motives, we're hardly likely to do any better with the dead.
Keep testing your guesses against the evidence. Keep trying out new guesses to see if they fit better. Keep looking for new evidence even if it disproves your old hypotheses. With each step you get just a little closer to that elusive thing called "the truth." With each step you see how much farther away the truth is than you ever imagined it to be.

#11    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,346 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 11 May 2012 - 02:11 AM

Yeah I hate that Ant analogy, doesn't fit at all.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#12    Redranger

Redranger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

  • Knowledge in the universe = 100,000,000
    Collective human knowledge = 4

Posted 11 May 2012 - 02:15 AM

View PostMentalcase, on 11 May 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Yeah I hate that Ant analogy, doesn't fit at all.

Spock used amoebas, I thought ants would be a better fit.

History is never proved, only supposed. No matter how much evidence you collect, you're always guessing about cause-and-effect, and assuming things about dead peoples motives. Since even living people don't understand their own motives, we're hardly likely to do any better with the dead.
Keep testing your guesses against the evidence. Keep trying out new guesses to see if they fit better. Keep looking for new evidence even if it disproves your old hypotheses. With each step you get just a little closer to that elusive thing called "the truth." With each step you see how much farther away the truth is than you ever imagined it to be.

#13    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,346 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 11 May 2012 - 02:19 AM

Isn't Spock fictional?

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#14    Redranger

Redranger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

  • Knowledge in the universe = 100,000,000
    Collective human knowledge = 4

Posted 11 May 2012 - 03:16 AM

Haha, yeah he is. :yes:

History is never proved, only supposed. No matter how much evidence you collect, you're always guessing about cause-and-effect, and assuming things about dead peoples motives. Since even living people don't understand their own motives, we're hardly likely to do any better with the dead.
Keep testing your guesses against the evidence. Keep trying out new guesses to see if they fit better. Keep looking for new evidence even if it disproves your old hypotheses. With each step you get just a little closer to that elusive thing called "the truth." With each step you see how much farther away the truth is than you ever imagined it to be.

#15    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 03:30 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 10 May 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

An ant cannot make a plasma television, Ants are not an intelligent species, they act on instinct. They have no capacity to understand such because they have not gone through an evolutionary change like hominids did. They are still adapting to their environment, we are adapting our environment.



Or, one could consider that space is unimaginable vast and it takes massive resources and some genius to traverse it. If we can comprehend the signals from a pulsar, I feel we have reached a "contactable" Level. For Pete's sakes, we are now studying exoplanets. I do not feel that is "primitive" on any scale, even the most advanced species would be doing this as well.



What if you explained it to him, how a battery works, and how it heats the element in the lamp? Alessandro Volta made a battery in 1800. I do not think that one could not help another understand.



Arthur C Clark was a Sci Fi author.



According to geological and fossil records, and advancements in astrophysics, we know God does not need to exist to have a Universe. Whilst that might not count an omnipotent being out of the picture, one wonders where such fits in.

People cannot be raised from the dead, the body is made to break down, Google Human Oxidation process.



We just do not know that. That's the rub. For all the evidence that we actually have, the argument is just as possible that we are the only species, I know that is unlikely, but when we break it all down, that is what we have got. And as I pointed out above, we listen to Pulsars and detect distant exoplanets, I feel that is a pretty decent accomplishment. If we can comprehend a Pulsar at distance, then I feel your idea is flawed. I think Badeskov has come up with the only answer to this question.

Well said!

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users