{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/14/2017 11:17:35 PM
26
It's statistically unlikely, given the size and age of the universe, that we are the only life to exist.
English
-
I agree that there is probably other life in the universe but the Fermi Paradox is really interesting.
-
Relevant.
-
The problem with the Fermi Paradox is that it fails to take into account humanity's insignificantly small sphere of influence on our galaxy. Our earliest radio signals would have only reached a few hundred light-years away by now. We have yet to send even an unmanned mission to our closest neighbouring star. Unless they happen to look closely at one particular rock orbiting one particular star, even an advanced interstellar civilization would be hard pressed to find us.
-
Edited by Flynn: 7/17/2017 3:00:21 PMIn a way, that almost adds credence to there not being life that's intelligent enough to detect us. If there are billions of stars similar to our sun (in our galaxy, alone) that are billions of years older than Earth, then there is a higher probability that some of these stars have Earth-like planets. Some of these Earth-like planets could develop interstellar travel. Even at a pace similar to what we have here on Earth for developing interstellar travel, it's estimated that the entire Milky Way could be traversed in a few hundred million years. So with that said, it renders your point null because it doesn't matter how far our earliest radio signals have reached. With the probabilities laid out in the Fermi Paradox, an [i]intelligent[/i] species should have found us by now. This goes back to my original point in that there's most likely other life out there, but I don't personally believe it's intelligent enough yet.
-
Let's look at our timeline. First, let's assuming that there was not already some form of life prior to the Big Bang, a pretty safe assumption based on all we think we know. The Big Bang occurred about 13 billion years ago. The Earth formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Life on Earth first appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. Homo Sapiens evolved roughly .0002 billion years ago. Homo Sapiens first escaped from their world's atmosphere less than .0000001 billion years ago. Homo Sapiens are expected to walk on another world in the next .0000001 billion years. Assuming that other Earth-like worlds would follow a similar timeline, they would have billions of years head start on us when our sun was not even formed. But, given that Homo Sapiens seem to be advancing exponentially, a world which formed even a mere .000001 billion (or one thousand) years before our Earth, if it followed an identical timeline, could have already produced an interstellar species. My point is, we started out behind. Even if we're the most advanced species within that 2-3 hundred light-year sphere of influence, having evolved and advanced at an extraordinarily rapid pace compared to other organisms on other planets, beings with older homeworlds orbiting older stars would undoubtedly have had a tremendous head start on us.
-
You just laid out the entire point I was making. Because of that head start, other advanced civilisations (if there were any) should have found us by now, regardless of how far our first radio signals have reached. This is the Fermi Paradox in a nutshell.
-
Ah. I understand now. Still, my guess has always been that, rather than always continuing to expand and explore, sentient species reach a point where they essentially enter the matrix because they get bored with their current reality. Basically, they've solved all the problems that can be solved, so they decide to play hyper-realistic VR games for the rest of eternity in order to have more problems to solve. Either the precursor aliens are out there but they've stopped looking for us, or [i]we're[/i] the precursor aliens and we don't even know it. Just a bunch of conjecture, but I know that if I was basically a god, that's what I'd do.
-
Well, sure, but that's kind of the point to all this. Both scenarios are possible. In one case, you could say, "the universe is too big and old for there not to be intelligent life out there". Using the same exact reasoning behind that, one could argue, "the universe is too big and old for intelligent life to not be able to find us by now". I find both scenarios fascinating, regardless. I just think it's important to keep them in mind because nothing is certain.
-
Just universal constants limiting information transfer.
-
The thought of possible universes intrigues my inner science feels.
-
You worded this in a way that can easily confuse people to think you're saying that you don't believe it. Might wanna clear it up a bit.
-
[quote]It's statistically unlikely that we are the only life to exist, given the size and age of the universe.[/quote] This would be better imo, same thing, less confusion.
-
This is proof that people disagree with you to just to disagree with you.
-
Given the size and age of the universe makes it even more possible for there to be intelligent life.
-
The Fermi Paradox disagrees with this. While I believe there is life elsewhere, based on exactly what you just stated, it is unlikely that it is intelligent.
-
[quote]Given the size and age of the universe makes it even more possible for there to be intelligent life.[/quote]...yes, that's what I said.
-
Just read it again. Sorry.
-
[quote]It's statistically unlikely, given the size [/quote] giant [quote] and age of the universe[/quote] A long time.
-
[quote][quote]It's statistically unlikely, given the size [/quote] giant [quote] and age of the universe[/quote] A long time.[/quote] Indeed.
-
-
[quote]Nah[/quote] ...ok? What do you mean "nah"?
-
Nah means no.
-
What does no mean
-
NO MEANS NO
-
