6 ms·

This is a really interesting topic, but I feel like it's ok to say "we don't know". The highlighted claim > "Advanced aliens really are out there, and we have

This is a really interesting topic, but I feel like it's ok to say "we don't know". The highlighted claim > "Advanced aliens really are out there, and we have enough data to say roughly where they are in space and time, and when we will see or meet them." is not proven. It's just some really smart people attempting to reach a conclusion I'm not sure is within reach. We just don't know.

fsloth 4y ago
I suppose if we take the philosophical position of Bayesian statistics, where even one sample is sufficient basis for estimating results from some sane priori model, I would say this topic is within reach of some sane postulation. Some factors we can take into account: 1. Life can evolve into us. Therefore life on other planets has p>0 to evolve agglomerations of matter we would call "alien civilization" 2. Evolution seems to be driven through external constraints, and seems to generate similar structures to solve similar problems. Hence it's not insane to postulate organelles and their function are a particular energy minima to a complex set of constraints - ie. evolution on any earth like planet might reach similar patterns as earth life. 3. Neurological function seems to be driven by laws of mathematical dynamics up to a point - if it's math, we will see it everywhere in the universe. What sort of math - I suppose nobody completely understands yet. 4. I use the above to postulate that familiar modes of existence and familiar neurological function can emerge anywhere in the universe 5. If a species is to survive, it needs to have innate drive to do so. Unless species innate drive to survive perishes, an intelligent species will realize it's chances of survival are better if it is not limited to one planet. Then, one solar system and so on. Therefore we can postulate a "natural tendency" to start interstellar expansion. 6. Humans have already launched an interstellar space craft (Voyager). Therefore p>0 that life can evolve to develop vehicles that exceeds the escape velocity form their home star Or something like that. The thing is, I don't understand the problem well enough to know if it's impossible to probe by statistics or not. I just know I'm not smart enough to solve the matter - when I did a course on Bayesian statistics the thing that left me astounded time and again was that one could create sane and accurate models from incredibly thin amount of data if one just had a good enough grasp of some of the factors at play.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  > If a species is to survive, it needs to have innate drive to do so.... It's worth pointing out, that's not how natural selection works. NS would be: If a species has an innate drive to survive, it will do so. Yes, subtle. But essential. That aside, how would you account for an asteroid strike?
- nl 4y ago
  Why is this any different to the Drake Equation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Drake_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Drake_equation
  - fsloth 4y ago
    I suppose it isn't, but the categorization is a bit different. For example, Drake takes a concept called "civilization" as given, wheres I stated it's plausible extraterrestrial life would take similar pathways as in terrestrial evolution, and that other terrestrial species have minds that give them in some ways behaviours quite similar to our own (hence increasing the likelihood of extrasolar life having familiar characteristics). The categorizations I listed were in the "self organization emerging from complex systems" tune of things while Drake equation is a bit more hierarchical. But yes, same thing I guess.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  For 1, Life has more chance to evolve in milliona of other species that dont o serve space, master fire or launch rockets. pretty bad odds once you look around you. plus we have been graced by having fairly mild cosmic conditions for a long time. other planets may not be so lucky
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    Sure, but space is mind-bogglingly large. Our galaxy alone has hundreds of billions of stars. Even one in a billion odds ends up with hundreds of systems that develop just like ours did. And that's just one galaxy out of billions. That however circles back to space being large. While a galaxy might host hundreds of civilizations just like ours at any given time, the distances between them can be insurmountable. Time is also pretty large so even a civilization that survives thousands or even millions of years might never overlap with another that they can contact.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
The adverb "roughly" is doing heavy lifting in that sentence, but basically I agree with it.
humanistbot 4y ago
Agreed. This is irresponsible science communication --- and at a time when public understanding of and trust in science has been dropping significantly.

fsloth 4y ago

I suppose if we take the philosophical position of Bayesian statistics, where even one sample is sufficient basis for estimating results from some sane priori model, I would say this topic is within reach of some sane postulation. Some factors we can take into account: 1. Life can evolve into us. Therefore life on other planets has p>0 to evolve agglomerations of matter we would call "alien civilization" 2. Evolution seems to be driven through external constraints, and seems to generate similar structures to solve similar problems. Hence it's not insane to postulate organelles and their function are a particular energy minima to a complex set of constraints - ie. evolution on any earth like planet might reach similar patterns as earth life. 3. Neurological function seems to be driven by laws of mathematical dynamics up to a point - if it's math, we will see it everywhere in the universe. What sort of math - I suppose nobody completely understands yet. 4. I use the above to postulate that familiar modes of existence and familiar neurological function can emerge anywhere in the universe 5. If a species is to survive, it needs to have innate drive to do so. Unless species innate drive to survive perishes, an intelligent species will realize it's chances of survival are better if it is not limited to one planet. Then, one solar system and so on. Therefore we can postulate a "natural tendency" to start interstellar expansion. 6. Humans have already launched an interstellar space craft (Voyager). Therefore p>0 that life can evolve to develop vehicles that exceeds the escape velocity form their home star Or something like that. The thing is, I don't understand the problem well enough to know if it's impossible to probe by statistics or not. I just know I'm not smart enough to solve the matter - when I did a course on Bayesian statistics the thing that left me astounded time and again was that one could create sane and accurate models from incredibly thin amount of data if one just had a good enough grasp of some of the factors at play.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
> If a species is to survive, it needs to have innate drive to do so.... It's worth pointing out, that's not how natural selection works. NS would be: If a species has an innate drive to survive, it will do so. Yes, subtle. But essential. That aside, how would you account for an asteroid strike?
nl 4y ago
Why is this any different to the Drake Equation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Drake_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Drake_equation
- fsloth 4y ago
  I suppose it isn't, but the categorization is a bit different. For example, Drake takes a concept called "civilization" as given, wheres I stated it's plausible extraterrestrial life would take similar pathways as in terrestrial evolution, and that other terrestrial species have minds that give them in some ways behaviours quite similar to our own (hence increasing the likelihood of extrasolar life having familiar characteristics). The categorizations I listed were in the "self organization emerging from complex systems" tune of things while Drake equation is a bit more hierarchical. But yes, same thing I guess.
ekianjo 4y ago
For 1, Life has more chance to evolve in milliona of other species that dont o serve space, master fire or launch rockets. pretty bad odds once you look around you. plus we have been graced by having fairly mild cosmic conditions for a long time. other planets may not be so lucky
- giantrobot 4y ago
  Sure, but space is mind-bogglingly large. Our galaxy alone has hundreds of billions of stars. Even one in a billion odds ends up with hundreds of systems that develop just like ours did. And that's just one galaxy out of billions. That however circles back to space being large. While a galaxy might host hundreds of civilizations just like ours at any given time, the distances between them can be insurmountable. Time is also pretty large so even a civilization that survives thousands or even millions of years might never overlap with another that they can contact.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

The adverb "roughly" is doing heavy lifting in that sentence, but basically I agree with it.

humanistbot 4y ago

Agreed. This is irresponsible science communication --- and at a time when public understanding of and trust in science has been dropping significantly.