The reasons and scenarios listed so far have been rather tame. Here's
some more exotic explanations of the Fermi Paradox.
minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Jupiter_Brains
http://en.wikipedia.org/Matriosha_Brains
human mind: estimated 10^16 ops/second
human species: 10^26 ops/second
matrioshka brain: 10^42 ops/second
Such an entity would have no more interest in talking to us than we
would in "talking" to an amoeba. It could run simulations of us and/or
observe us from afar with solar-system sized telescopes, to know
everything about us it would need to know.
Interstellar expansion for these entities is not very profitable,
because the huge distances between stellar systems makes data
transmission very slow.
2. They don't expand into the galaxy, because they won't need to:
expansion into "inner space" (cyberspace).
Computers have been getting more and more powerful, smaller and
faster for the last 60 years (Moore's Law). Eventually they could run
simulations of all physical phenomena in the observable universe--
including us (technological civilizations). They could do this
instead of going to the fuss of going to see us. Related to (1).
3. They don't expand into the galaxy, because there are more
interesting places to go: other universes.
According to certain theories in physics, there are other universes.
Using wormholes a sufficiently advanced technology could tunnel into
these, or even create them with properties more sanguine for life
than this one.
4. They don't expand into the galaxy, because they have evolved value
systems beyond ours that are non-expansive.
We've noticed that more evolved creatures here on Earth tend to
make less offspring. Also, birth rates have been declining for the
advanced nations of the world.
A more advanced species might see expansion into the galaxy as just
a huge magnification of the problems they already have in their
planetary system--the endless cycle of population increase, and the
subsequent scramble for resources this makes.
On Jan 25, 2007, at 16:38 UTC, William wrote:
> some more exotic explanations of the Fermi Paradox.
Exotic, yes, but not very plausible. They require each and every
civilization, and all members thereof, to go along with whatever
non-colonizing alternative you're proposing. Even if 99.9999% of
Galaxians have concluded that navel-gazing (or whatever) is the highest
form of achievement, it's hard to believe that there won't be SOME
backwater where they prefer to live in (and expand into) the real
universe.
> 3. They don't expand into the galaxy, because there are more
> interesting places to go: other universes.
This one is remotely more believable, though it requires new physics
far beyond our current understanding. And once you start invoking what
is essentially magic, then anything is possible, and there's not much
point in further discussion. :) However, it could be that our
universe is empty (except for us) because every civilization eventually
learns how to leave it, and get a universe all to themselves, and they
do this in such a way that none of their members can be left behind.
Seems far-fetched, but maybe.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William
> minds.
> 2. They don't expand into the galaxy, because they won't need to:
> expansion into "inner space" (cyberspace).
> 3. They don't expand into the galaxy, because there are more
> interesting places to go: other universes.
> 4. They don't expand into the galaxy, because they have evolved value
> systems beyond ours that are non-expansive.
The difficulty with these and other similar explanations is that one
must assume that EVERY technical species heads down the path proposed
WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Moreover, one has to assume that every conceivable
descended subspecies follows this path, every culture of each
subspecies, and indeed each and every INDIVIDUAL of every culture. All
it takes is a small number of conservatives who happen to think becoming
a Jupiter brain would be icky or blasphemous, or who consider this
universe more interesting than others, and some contrarians might take
off down a high-growth path. And all it takes is one group to result in
a galaxy filled with descendants of the stubborn nonconformists.
> A more advanced species might see expansion into the galaxy as just
> a huge magnification of the problems they already have in their
> planetary system--the endless cycle of population increase, and the
> subsequent scramble for resources this makes.
Yes, and there might even be 99 advanced species which might chose to
view it this way. But if one views it differently, their descendants
will make a population which will make the populations of the other 99
pale to insignificance.
Regards,
Mike Combs
On 1/25/07, William wrote:
(...)
> 1. They are not interested in us: planetary and stellar-system sized
> minds.
another message.
(...)
> Such an entity would have no more interest in talking to us than we
> would in "talking" to an amoeba. It could run simulations of us and/or
> observe us from afar with solar-system sized telescopes, to know
> everything about us it would need to know.
That's not true - there are physical limitations on what can be
learned from scopes. If such an entity was interested in really
learning everything about us, it would have to send probes here.
However, given strong nanotech, we wouldn't even notice that we are
being watched by an alien probe. The "probe" would hit earth like a
meteor and "infect" the planet with a network of nanomachines. Those
would gather information (probably even from the inner workings of our
minds) and in time they would regroup, form another probe and send it
back to the mother entity.
> Interstellar expansion for these entities is not very profitable,
> because the huge distances between stellar systems makes data
> transmission very slow.
On the other hand those entities would be eternal and completely
inhuman, and so issues of slowness would hardly have any meaning for
them. Besides, interstellar communication just has huge latency times,
but you can get vast bandwidths using data transportation probes.
> 2. They don't expand into the galaxy, because they won't need to:
> expansion into "inner space" (cyberspace).
(...)
The vastness of those cyberspaces would however be ultimately limited
by the amount of available hardware, and at some point even converting
the entire "cold" matter of a solar system in computronium may not be
enough. At that point those creatures/minds/uploads/whatever would
think that perhaps expanding to somewhere else is a good idea.
> 3. They don't expand into the galaxy, because there are more
> interesting places to go: other universes.
>
> According to certain theories in physics, there are other universes.
> Using wormholes a sufficiently advanced technology could tunnel into
> these, or even create them with properties more sanguine for life
> than this one.
That's an interesting alternative, though highly speculative at this point.
BTW, it is interesting to note that a Universe that only allows
creation of wormholes going to other space-time continuums is also a
Universe that guarantees chronology protection.
> 4. They don't expand into the galaxy, because they have evolved value
> systems beyond ours that are non-expansive.
(...)
Well, as many posts have already hinted here, that seems highly
unlikely, given that Darwinian competition eventually always breaks up
conservationist civilizations/species/whatever.
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:38 AM, William wrote:
>
> 3. They don't expand into the galaxy, because there are more
> interesting places to go: other universes.
>
> According to certain theories in physics, there are other universes.
> Using wormholes a sufficiently advanced technology could tunnel into
> these, or even create them with properties more sanguine for life
> than this one.
>
3.5. They don't expand because the "second coming" has already
occurred for them and they're all in heaven now. There is no argument
against either the alternate universe or the heavenly rapture points.
Might be, might not be. How could we know?
doug
Pardon me if anyone is offended by this, but I don't think religion
has any merit here.. At least I would hope not.. Except for in the
context of discussion about societal issues.. I haven't been in this
group very long, but I thought this was a "scientific" discussion..
Religion is only useful as an abstract theory for behavior in my view
and has nothing to do with actual science.. In fact.. Religion is the
lack of science.. Basically... "If you can't prove it".. "Worship
it".. That's just plain____...... Well, I'll just leave it there...
Jake, I think that is exactly the point that Douglas
May was trying to make. We have not observed other
universes, nor have we observed wormholes going into
them. So, speculation that aliens might have visited
there have as much scientific basis as their version
of the rapture: none.
--- Jake wrote:
On 1/26/07, Jake wrote:
(...)
> Pardon me if anyone is offended by this, but I don't think religion
> has any merit here.. At least I would hope not.. Except for in the
> context of discussion about societal issues.. I haven't been in this
> group very long, but I thought this was a "scientific" discussion..
> Religion is only useful as an abstract theory for behavior in my view
> and has nothing to do with actual science.. In fact.. Religion is the
> lack of science.. Basically... "If you can't prove it".. "Worship
> it".. That's just plain____...... Well, I'll just leave it there...
(...)
talk about "second comings".
>
> The reasons and scenarios listed so far have been rather tame. Here's
> some more exotic explanations of the Fermi Paradox.
>
alliens are hidding from us. Why would they? We would be no treat to
theirs civilization at all, given they have one-million years
advantage on us at the very least.
Besides, any large scale technology will produce, one way or the
other, electromagnetic waves that we would capture. Civilizations are
noisy, whether they like to be or not.
The only thing clear is that alliens are "dissapearing" quite fast
while we explore the universe. They are retorning form where they came
in the first place: human imagination.
Omar
OK.. My apologies..
I read a few previous post in other threads that sounded like some
were including this way of thinking in their arguments.. In some ways
I guess I was hoping to "out" some of these people so I could know who
they were.. I'm pretty sure who their not.. So thanks..
wrote:
I don't think it's pathetic at all.. In fact just the opposite..
Pathetic would be infecting themselves or us with alien bacteria and
viruses.. OR creating more competition for themselves for resources..
These are just a few examples, but the truth is pretty basic.. Even
our own space agencies have strict sterilization policies..
fantasize about "space explorers" like most sci-fi suggest, but I
think "space prospectors" would be more accurate.. There's no reason
they wouldn't be driven by the same things we are.. "Resources"..
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:
I was still thinking about the other thread "Aliens need more time to
find us", but the same driving factors apply.. If there is
"competition" in the galaxy, I don't think you would be wanting to
advertise yourself too much..
On Jan 25, 2007, at 18:01 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:
> aliens are hiding from us. Why would they?
Most likely that'd be because they don't want to disrupt our cultural
development. And why would the want to avoid that? Maybe because we
make for more interesting anthropological studies that way (it's not
every day you find a new civilization emerging), or maybe just as a
result of their ethical system -- maybe new civilizations are
considered inherently valuable and are to be left alone until they
reach a certain point.
> We would be no treat to theirs civilization at all, given they have
> one-million years advantage on us at the very least.
I assume you meant "threat" in which case I'd certainly agree. But
it's an interesting typo, because a newly emerging civilization
probably WOULD be a treat to an ancient one. All the more reason for
them to leave us alone so they can see what we do.
> Besides, any large scale technology will produce, one way or the
> other, electromagnetic waves that we would capture. Civilizations are
> noisy, whether they like to be or not.
Not necessarily. Noise is inefficient, and it seems reasonable that an
advanced civilization would have eliminated such waste.
However, it does seem likely that there would be mega-engineering
projects that we'd be able to detect or infer somehow. It's possible
that we're seeing these and not recognizing them, but that seems
unlikely. So I tend to agree that they're probably not out there at
all.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
I'd like to avoid finger pointing or claiming one thing better than another,
but I thought this was more of an economic discussion than a scientific
one. Science didn't explore North America, people did. By the way the
discussion Janet was reffering to was discussing how to get a trillion people
in the solarsystem. I personally did not like the idea of forcing women...
but I was happy to hear discussion of artifical technologies for this and
various starategies for education etc.
Mike P.
Jake wrote:
Pardon me if anyone is offended by this, but I don't think religion
has any merit here.. At least I would hope not.. Except for in the
context of discussion about societal issues.. I haven't been in this
group very long, but I thought this was a "scientific" discussion..
Religion is only useful as an abstract theory for behavior in my view
and has nothing to do with actual science.. In fact.. Religion is the
lack of science.. Basically... "If you can't prove it".. "Worship
it".. That's just plain____...... Well, I'll just leave it there...
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 18:01 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:
>
> > Sorry for saying the following but it is pretty pathetic to think
the
> > aliens are hiding from us. Why would they?
>
> Most likely that'd be because they don't want to disrupt our
cultural
> development. And why would the want to avoid that? Maybe because
we
> make for more interesting anthropological studies that way (it's not
> every day you find a new civilization emerging), or maybe just as a
> result of their ethical system -- maybe new civilizations are
> considered inherently valuable and are to be left alone until they
> reach a certain point.
>
> > We would be no treat to theirs civilization at all, given they
have
> > one-million years advantage on us at the very least.
>
> I assume you meant "threat" in which case I'd certainly agree. But
> it's an interesting typo, because a newly emerging civilization
> probably WOULD be a treat to an ancient one. All the more reason
for
> them to leave us alone so they can see what we do.
>
> > Besides, any large scale technology will produce, one way or the
> > other, electromagnetic waves that we would capture. Civilizations
are
> > noisy, whether they like to be or not.
>
> Not necessarily. Noise is inefficient, and it seems reasonable
that an
> advanced civilization would have eliminated such waste.
>
> However, it does seem likely that there would be mega-engineering
> projects that we'd be able to detect or infer somehow. It's
possible
Oops, here's the correct url's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriosha_brain
Also, here's one of the places where these ideas came from:
http://www.accelerating.org/articles/answeringfermiparadox.html
Oops, here's the correct url's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriosha_brain
Also, here's one of the places where these ideas came from:
http://www.accelerating.org/articles/answeringfermiparadox.html
--in spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> The difficulty with these and other similar explanations is that one
> must assume that EVERY technical species heads down the path
> proposed WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
discussing the Fermi Paradox, have the mindset of a *single* factor
which is the proverbial one big reason for why interstellar
civilizations are so rare.
I think it's probably multiple factors, which collectively make it that
way.
As a simplified model: if there are 39 different factors, each of
which halves the number of interstellar civilizations in the galaxy,
then the number of interstellar civilizations in the galaxy would go
down to just 1 (the number of stars in the galaxy, ~400 billion,
divided by 2^39). Even though none of these is an absolute impass to
interstellar civilizations.
It is analogous to the life of a salmon: many millions born in the
stream, but only a few make it back to that stream to spawn again.
There isn't any one process which does all that elimination, but many
put together.
--in spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "joe@..." wrote:
>> 3. They don't expand into the galaxy, because there are more
>> interesting places to go: other universes.
>
> This one is remotely more believable, though it requires new physics
> far beyond our current understanding.
> And once you start invoking what is essentially magic, then anything
> is possible, and there's not much point in further discussion. :)
debated among physicists right now. Be sure to tell those particle
physicists they forgot to bring their pointed hats, robes and magic
wands before they attend their next meeting :-).
Actually, it's the *technology* for doing this which might have to be
far beyond our current capabilities. I've heard figures of an entire
jupiter-mass being converted into energy, in order to build even a
1-meter radius wormhole. In other words, about the same amount of
energy as a supernova. This would require a civilization somewhere
beyond Kardashev Level-2, which means an already large-scale
spacefaring culture.
> However, it could be that our universe is empty (except for us)
> because every civilization eventually learns how to leave it, and
> get a universe all to themselves, and they do this in such a way
> that none of their members can be left behind. Seems far-fetched,
> but maybe.
Not that they *can't* be left behind, but only that it would be
*easier* to emigrate to other universes than having to resort to
interstellar travel in order to find living space/resources. Any
future population pressures would be handled this way, instead of
space flight.
--in spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho" wrote:
> That's not true - there are physical limitations on what can be
> learned from scopes. If such an entity was interested in really
> learning everything about us, it would have to send probes here.
> On the other hand those entities would be eternal and completely
inhuman, and so issues of slowness would hardly have any meaning for
them. Besides, interstellar communication just has huge latency
> times, but you can get vast bandwidths using data transportation probes.
For gathering data, yes. But not for the expansion of the being
itself. This would make for an interesting sci-fi scenario, giant
ships speeding through interstellar space--not to settle the galaxy with
creatures--but nothing more than huge memory banks.
> The vastness of those cyberspaces would however be ultimately
> limited by the amount of available hardware, and at some point even
converting the entire "cold" matter of a solar system in
> computronium may not be enough. At that point those creatures/minds/
uploads/whatever would think that perhaps expanding to somewhere else is
a good idea.
But then we run up against the same bandwidth problems arising from
interstellar distances, that would occur with a star-system brain.
The increase in computational ability then possibly goes in some other
direction: finding new substrates for computronium, not based around
solid-state matter, which would allow higher storage densities and higher
processing speeds. After all, for the last 60 years, we have not been
making *bigger* computers, but ones with denser logic and memory.
On 1/30/07, William wrote:
(...)
> How about simulations?
to implement them. And you can't get nothing but some generic,
high-level data if you use just scopes.
(...)
> The increase in computational ability then possibly goes in some other
> direction: finding new substrates for computronium, not based around
> solid-state matter, which would allow higher storage densities and higher
> processing speeds. After all, for the last 60 years, we have not been
> making *bigger* computers, but ones with denser logic and memory.
(...)
It is generally agreed though that we will eventually hit physical
limitations and *then* have to make larger computers. Moore's Law is
just a descriptive curve, not an actual physical law or something.