It's an interesting subject for sure. Fermi's paradox does a good job of using math to argue that the universe should be teeming with life. According to the numbers, we should see signs of life practically everywhere. But we don't. Hence the paradox.
Personally I think it's just as likely that no other life exists, as it is that other life does exist (mathematically everywhere) and we somehow can't find it. There's just no way to know.
One of those things that will remain a complete mystery until the day it isn't any more.
English
-
Well we haven't seen very far compared to the size of the universe. Not to mention we cannot see through atmosphere with telescopes and we couldn't see satellites if they were there. I've always thought of the FP as weak for that reason.
-
I believe the point of the paradox is that life should be so abundant we wouldn't need to see very far at all to find it. And considering that our solar system only took something like 4.6 billion years to develop life, while our galaxy is nearly 15.5 billion years old... the numbers also strongly suggest that there should be lots of life far more advanced than ours within our own galaxy. Possibly as much as 10 billion years more advanced. But like Fermi famously said.. "Where is everybody?"
-
13.8 billion As I said, even if we have observed a planet we life, we cannot see what is happening on the planet itself. As for why we haven't been visited, unless there is a way to bend space, travel can only go to light speed. We are too far apart.
-
I'll take your word for it, I was going off old memory. Point remains the same either way. A species billions of years more advanced than us should have left an impact seen everywhere. I'll remain skeptical until evidence presents itself.
-
Fair enough position!