What do you think the solution to the fermi paradox is?

>the absence of evidence is not a proof of absence
Of course, since it isn't even evidence of absence then it's certainly not proof of absence either.

Make it from coal

THEY'RE ALREADY HERE

OPEN YOUR MINDS!

edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/12/19/ufo-department-of-defense-orig-lon-ak.cnn

If they existed they would need a good reason. Maybe they have nothing to gain from us as we could be viewed as an inferior species on an intellectual level and therefore not waste time with us but rather wait as we develop and are able to develop extraterestrial relationships. The only thing we are capable at is sending signals, observing the universe in a rather small distance. Maybe there are quite a lot of civilisations such as ours and also what if they just do not want to interfere and let us develop on our own thanks to some intergalactical alliance having some deal to not interfere because of some intergalactical rights act or some crazy shit. We may never know.

They could be around and we are not able to detect them. They could also deliberately avoid contact with us because it might fuck us over in some way, knowing there is a way more advanced civilization out there. It would immediately become the absolute center of our exietence.

The stupid part of the UFO movement is the business about coming all this way just to play peek-a-boo with isolated drivers. If you had technology to travel between stars, then if you didn't want to be seen you wouldn't be seen.

Notice that the incidence of "it circled my car but I didn't have a camera so I can't back up my story" has gone WAY down since everyone began carrying smartphones?
It's getting really hard to offer reasonable excuses. (Of course, the "I want to believe" types will accept unreasonable excuses.)

You need to read up on what the Fermi paradox really is. What you see as a problem is already discussed in the premise.

Realising that number of variables that have to be meet in precise order is like 500 thus making "Fermi paradox" into "Fermi sad reality of lonely universe"

I know exactly what Fermi said.
If Earth isn't unique (and he could see no reason we are) then aliens OUGHT to exist on at least some worlds. Matter of statistics.
The paradox is "why aren't they here?"

Many many possibilities. Frank Drake tried to reduce it to an equation, though even he admitted many of the quantities were stabs-in-the-dark. Life may be rare. Intelligent life even rarer. Technical civilizations short-lived. We don't know.

I offered my take. However many technically advanced aliens there may or may not be, very few will find it worthwhile to go traveling.
What do you think "I see as a problem which was already discussed in the premise?"

There are still way too many retards here for first contact. I mean imagine tomorrow an interstellar ship landing on earth and some super advanced creatures walking out. All the religious people (and there are billions of them on earth) would lose their shit and probably think judgement day is coming. All stock markets would crash because nobody would know what the world would look like a week from now. In that chaos some governments might panic and start preemptive wars. All in all, contact with an Alien civilization would probably spark chaos on earth and thats why they wre hiding until we are in a stage of development where contact will not kill us.

>muh cameraphone argument
Actually UFO photos have increased but nobody will take any seriously anymore because so has the ability to fake them.

The absence does rule some things out though.
We can rule out those aliens that satisfy the following 2 conditions:
1) They are capable of revealing unmistakable evidence of their existence to us.
2) They wish to do 1)

Let us do a proof by contradiction.
0) We do not have any unmistakable evidence of the existence of aliens.
If aliens that satisfy conditions 1) and 2) existed, by condition 2), they would perform 1). If they performed 1), we would have unmistakable evidence of their existence. This contradicts 0).
Therefore, aliens that satisfy conditions 1) and 2) do not exist.

The absence of evidence is evidence of some aliens' absence.

>very few will find it worthwhile to go traveling
Far enough to meet us, they can have a shitload of colonies around their homeworld.

There is no paradox. We don't know how rare technological civilisations or life in general are. We might very well be all alone in the galaxy

>using exajoules of energy to transport kilojoules of petroleum
Nice bait.

The chance of such evidence being found is nonzero.

Titan has a tiny gravity well you mongoloid.

>The chance of such evidence being found is nonzero.
then the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I don't think we've even been looking hard enough. We've only barely started to be able to detect exoplanets orbiting nearby stars within the last couple of decades. And SETI just looks at radio signals within an arbitrary and narrow frequency band. Alien civilizations probably wouldn't even use primitive broadcast radio technology to communicate.

And we can barely resolve much detail about these planets other than basic parameters like orbital period, orbital radius, mass, diameter. Maybe some crude spectral analysis of the atmospheres of some of the nearer planets.

If you looked at earth from 100 ly away using the same instruments and techniques that we're currently using, then you wouldn't even be able to tell that there's a civilization on earth. We would just look like a fuzzy speck.

So I don't think we've collected enough detailed data to rule out the possibility of life or civilizations around nearby stars. Once we are able to build giant telescope arrays in space that can actually resolve clear images of continents and oceans on exoplanets, THEN maybe we can start to collect meaningful data.

the great filter is so obviously nuclear fission (and resulting fusion in thermonuclear weapons).
think about the fact that shit holes like pakistan and india figured out how to make a nuke (and america did it in the fucking 1940s).
50 years from now, the average high school student will be capable of making a 100mt bomb in his bedroom.

Aliens dont exists, or if they do, they brainlets that can't get to us.
My choice: the dont exist or are like animals but not intelligent

>thinking that once we have advanced spaceships capable of hauling billions of tons of mass around the solar system, we'd still be using petroleum as our energy source and not solar + nuclear

If there is a chance of evidence being found and increasing the probability of aliens existing, then it not being found decreases that probability. Simple Bayesian probability.

Could be.
But habitable planets may be rare. Interstellar colonies won't relieve population pressure and they won't provide any economic benefit to the homeworld. Not much incentive for colonizing once you've gotten past the point of ensuring a single catastrophe won't wipe out your species. (Well, a gamma ray burster might still sterilize a swathe of the galaxy, but I'm thinking asteroid impact. Something limited to a single planet.)

And the galaxy is big. Even if we build starships someday, we may never run into someone else's "sphere of influence".

Fermi knew there HAS been sufficient time to one species to have colonized the galaxy, colony by colony, even if limited to a small fraction of lightspeed. The "paradox" (which is a misnomer since it does not involve a logical contradiction) is simply a question of why it hasn't happened. He didn't know and, despite having discovered many exoplanets, we don't know either.

>>thinking that once we have advanced spaceships capable of hauling billions of tons of mass around the solar system, we'd still be using petroleum as our energy source and not solar + nuclear
Who are you quoting?

Whoops. Meant to reply to

not him, but obviously was meant for

>If there is a chance of evidence being found and increasing the probability of aliens existing, then it not being found decreases that probability.
Proof?

you can never "prove" something doesnt exist, but you can prove that hiipothetical thing is not affecting you, or not present in certain area

One of the WORST, most insane SF stories I ever read involved importing oil from Titan in chemical-powered rockets. Probably in "If" or "Galaxy"; the editors didn't care much about technical feasibility. Wish I could find it again, if only as a horrid example of bad SF.

Oh, the plot? There's an accident, of course, and oil spills over everything. That's all I remember.

>you can never "prove" something doesnt exist
There's no rational representation of sqrt(2).

Every species sufficiently intelligent to build complex technology eventually builds waifu simulators and succumbs to their own autism. If there is any future for the species, it is with the war-like gigachads that will end the world with nukes.

It's pointless to go for a naturally habitable planet, if it's star gonna burn out in a few billion years. Red dwarfs are more valuable, even if some terraforming is needed.

"yeah we could waste a lot of resources, but what would we gain from having other people elsewhere?"

I don't get the problem, the first flight will cost you but the rest you can just use the free fuel.

>formal sciences are natural sciences

I like this new turtle-man wojak. Is it OC? Do you mind if I download it?

>>formal sciences are natural sciences
Who are you quoting?

I actually think that intelligent civilizations simply don't colonize.

We know one smart species, and that is us, so judging from our behaviour I don't think we will ever travel to distant solar systems. We already have the technology with which we could reach every planet in our solar system, and it would be relatively cheap to do so. Earth has a GDP of 80 trillion, visiting all the planets would cost like 200 billion a year, tops. That's 0,25% of our income, and yet we are not doing it.

I highly doubt this will change in the future. We have the technology, we could easily afford it, and yet we aren't doing it.

We are probably going to stay on this planet and, even if are still around when our sun is going to die, and we HAVE TO leave earth, we will probably only going to colonize only one new planet and leave it with that.

do it

This bait right?

you, faggot. You are comparing biology proofs to math proofs

Let E be evidence for X such that

P(X|E) > P(X)

P(~X|E) < P(~X)

If P(E) > 0, by Bayes' Theorem we have

P(E|~X) < P(E)

P(~E|~X) > P(~E)

Again utilizing Bayes' Theorem

P(~X|~E) > P(~X)

Thus by the definition of evidence that was our starting premise, ~E is evidence for ~X. In other words, the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X.

>you, faggot.
Why the homophobia?

youtube.com/watch?v=LS-VPyLaJFM

>There is no paradox. We don't know how rare technological civilisations or life in general are. We might very well be all alone in the galaxy
Us being alone in the galaxy would make us special which does conflict with the standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) because it's premised on the generalized Copernican principle that we aren't special.

>You are comparing biology proofs to math proofs
Where did I do that? You said "you can never "prove" something doesnt exist" and I proved you wrong.

>In other words, the absence of evidence for X is evidence for the absence of X.
This is a non-sequitur.

>the sqrt(2) is a thing, not an idea

If you have literally no evidence of something then it’s not true. Accept that.

Things can be incredibly likely, like the existence of extraterrestrial life, but until you have proof it’s still just a shot in the dark.

>If you have literally no evidence of something then it’s not true. Accept that.
I don't accept that.

>>the sqrt(2) is a thing, not an idea
Platonists are not welcome here.

this boarda is for sci/ence not sup/erstition

>this boarda is for sci/ence not sup/erstition
You're the one making divine leaps of faith in claiming something is false based on "literally no evidence".

I see this discussion has devolved into pedantry and bickering. Carry on.

If civilizations colonize, then every galaxy will have just one civilization, and the is the first that develops. All others will sooner or later be colonized, and since they are thousands or millions of years behind in technological development, they have no chance to resist colonisation. Since there is no sign of colonisers in the milky way, we can safely assume that we are the first civilization here.

Colonisation between galaxies is probably impossible, because ever for faster-than-light travel these distances are too big.

Oil alone isn't rocket fuel. You need an oxidizer to burn it in.
And what are the economics of a cargo transport which expends 99.999 percent of its mass? Compare the size of a Saturn 5 to the box of rocks they brought back. A Titan shuttle would be FAR worse.
Not to mention capital costs, interest, salaries, etc.

Most sane comment in the thread.

>pop science

nobody said we are sure. But we asume they dont exist, just like ghosts, god, gnomes, etc
>inb4 fedora
do you think maths has the same method as fisics? It doesn't, lad

This is the most autistic reasoning ever. It’s like saying why ever leave your house when you can just jack off, eat the bugs that live in your woodwork and drink faucet water.

>do you think maths has the same method as fisics? It doesn't, lad
What do you mean by "method"?

There is evidence in both maths and physics.

>nobody said we are sure.
see >If you have literally no evidence of something then it’s not true

Didnt the United States government recently (like December recently) admit that they have footage of an aircraft of unknown origin, or UFO if you prefer, defying the laws of physics as we know them? Isnt that some kind of proof? I mean it was measured from two separate radar facilities traveling over 7000mph and making instant 90 degree turns. Is it unreasonable to think this is beyond our technological ability to the point of ruling out a secret military project?

I would cite a source but literally every major news outlet on the planet ran a story about it and nobody seems to care.

But that's what I do.

Then why demand proof?

Provide me with one scrap of evidence showing for a fact that intelligent life exists out there. I’m not saying it doesn’t, nor that the possibility is nonexistent, but until you can prove it it’ll only be just that- a possibility.

>Then why demand proof?
Extraordinary claims such as "If there is a chance of evidence being found and increasing the probability of aliens existing, then it not being found decreases that probability" require something to back them up.

However, I don't see why me pointing out your non-sequitur has anything to do with why I asked.

>I’m not saying it doesn’t, nor that the possibility is nonexistent
Which is why I said I didn't accept that "it's not true" based on "literally no evidence".

no my but he is not that wrong. Anyways it is a retarded discusion, like god existance goes nowhere since nobody can prove aything.

Because there is no point to demanding period for a claim you believe to be a non sequitur. Fact is, it's not a non-sequitur since it destroys your argument that the Fermi paradox can be explained by"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" since this cannot be applied to a case like the Fermi paradox where evidence is expected.

My point is you cant prove the non existence of things like in math because thing are not done by completely known logical rules like math.

Can someone address this? Why is the Fermi paradox even being discussed? It seems like its been answered and we are not alone.

Hence why I said autistic.

>Because there is no point to demanding period for a claim you believe to be a non sequitur.
I don't know what you mean by this. If you could provide a proof without including what you're trying to prove as a non-sequitur then it would be fine (that's what I was hoping for when I asked for proof).

If there's no evidence, it's not true. This is grade school-level application of logic, user.

>If there's no evidence, it's not true. This is grade school-level application of logic, user.
Proof?

You're asking me for proof on how proof works?

>You're asking me for proof on how proof works?
No I'm asking for a proof of "If there's no evidence, it's not true."

>"If there's no evidence, it's not true."

That is proof. You need to prove something is true with evidence.

>If you could provide a proof without including what you're trying to prove as a non-sequitur
I proved what you asked me to prove, so how is it a non sequitur? A proof obviously contains what you're trying to prove as the conclusion.

>That is proof.
No, that's a claim. As you said yourself "You need to prove something is true with evidence." So what is your evidence that "If there's no evidence, it's not true."?

Wouldn't me not having evidence just prove my point?

>Wouldn't me not having evidence just prove my point?
No, because as you said "You need to prove something is true with evidence."

>I proved what you asked me to prove, so how is it a non sequitur?
Because what you we're meant to prove did not follow from the preceding lines.

Ok, then we are special in our own galaxy. There are still trillions of other galaxies

good post

I think you might actually be retarded.

>I think you might actually be retarded.
If "You need to prove something is true with evidence" then claiming "If there's no evidence, it's not true." is true without evidence is not a proof.

that video is fake as fuck, just seen it
metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/