Fermi Paradox thread #314234234

Hi /x/

bait?

They all invent Mach effect drives an accidentally crash a ship into their home planets at .8c. They mostly do not grasp the risk of this, and neglect to develop proper countermeasure against relativistic projectiles. For example a deep layer of plasma surrounding the planet with powerful artificial magnetic fields to hold it in place and contain the plasma that results from any relativistic collision.

Probably this. I mean it would be nice to know you can visit a nearby star system to look around, if you really wanted to. But you probably wouldn't want to be bothered to visit all that often, when you have endless colonies and orbital habitats right here at home.

I'm not baiting but come on, if you've read enough books, the history, witness reports regarding the ufo phenomenon and theories circling around it, there's reason to believe we're already being visited by ets. Not going to say we are, but until we're allowed to see all those files I'll still hold my tongue before saying "we're the only ones present in the universe"

Why do you hate science

>tfw nobody saw aliens in the 1980's because they we're too busy seeing the Aurora

What paradox?
We can't detect another earth in the alpha Alpha Centauri if it was there. What makes you think that we would be able to detect AYYLMAOs?

>That's still 100 billion forms of intelligent life on average.
So we're back to the one or two within our own galaxy. Anything outside it might as well not exist, because distance.

The reasoning is that if ayylmaos existed they would already have converted a sizable portion of the galaxy into dyson spheres. We are to believe that they will expand outwards as fast as they possibly can, grabbing everything they can get their hands on to feed their insatiable hunger for Dyson spheres.

It's just really rare probably.
A lot of things had to go right on earth for humans to evolve.

We cant build a Dyson sphere. Why do you think AYYLMAOs could? Tech isn't magic. It WILL hit a physical wall.

Interstellar space travel isn't cheap and has no return value to those who send it out. Thus we can conclude that it would be extremely limited.

Not saying I believe the argument I quoted. That's just the common reasoning that is used. Aliens possible + billions of years of history = everything is dyson spheres.

Dyson spheres are not even gravitationally stable so it is a dumb argument.

>evidence of absence

Proof of absence.

When people say Dyson spheres they're really talking about Dyson swarms, which are perfectly feasible. Entire solar systems turned into hordes of little spinning O'Neill cylinders, housing trillions of aliens all shitposting together in post-scarcity bliss on their star system's space internet

O'Neill cylinders still require mass producible macro structures made of carbon nanotubes. Something that is unlikely to ever be a thing. I want space soaps to be real as much as the next guy but we have to be realistic.

IMHO technological stagnation due to physical and economic constraints is by far the most logical solution.

They realised that masturbating to VR waifus is better than exploring mostly empty and boring space and died out.

>O'Neill cylinders still require mass producible macro structures made of carbon nanotubes

Only if you make them fuck-huge. Just make them normal sized and you can use regular aluminum and steel.

they arrived somewhere around 800 A.D.
humans know them as "hungarians"

There is no Fermi "paradox" as there is literally no reason to believe aliens exist in the first place.

kys u bitch ass numb headed pea brain sized sleazy thot lookin ass soy boi.

This, but unironically. There’s literally no evidence that there’s life anywhere else but earth. You have people like that extrapolate probabilities of life existing from one point of data, which is retarded and intellectually dishonest. “There’s only one existence of life on a planet per universe, on average” is equally as valid because it’s all just conjecture. Show me evidence that there’s life elsewhere, I’m waiting. At least people that try to prove the existence of god admit that it’s supernatural and impossible. You people hide behind a facade of science when you have literally zero evidence that life exists on other planets.

Life on earth started quite early after its formation.
While not a conclusive proof it's still a tangible clue about life being probable when favorable conditions are met.

But what does that matter?

Could you build a "normal" sized one that would be able to spin fast enough to simulate a fair amount of Earth gravity out of aluminium and steel?

>You have people like that extrapolate probabilities of life existing from one point of data, which is retarded and intellectually dishonest. “There’s only one existence of life on a planet per universe, on average” is equally as valid because it’s all just conjecture. Show me evidence that there’s life elsewhere, I’m waiting
You missed my point.
You are right, currently there is no evidence that life exists on any other planets. We have only just started exploring other planets within our solar system but even within it there are some reasonable candidates where life could exist now, if not in the past.
But it is also a fact that we are discovering more and more exoplanets, ones within the habitable zones at that, so that it is starting to look more common for stars to have rocky planets than not.

Yes, it is possible that we are only forms of life (or specifically intelligent life) in the entire universe but all you would need is an average of one in 100 billion stars to have life in their systems and that would mean hundreds of billions of stars hosting life.

Think about it for another second, if we find other life within our solar system, then what would that say for the likelihood of further life within just our galaxy?

>>the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>...does not understand Bayes's Theorem

And you have no conclusive proof that they don't. As stated in this thread, absence of proof is not proof of absence. The first radio transmission went out in 1900. Even though that signal was not strong enough to carry into space, that means at most any evidence of life transmitting from Earth has only happened in the last 100 years. There are over 100 billion galaxies estimated in the universe, the closest to us being 4.5 million light years away. There may be proof, but it's going to be a while before we find it. However sitting on the other side of the fence and screaming "you don't have evidence of ET life!" is ignorant, because you have just as much evidence that life doesn't exist.

There is a paper which shows that if you take into account the uncertainty of the estimates, it is really not that surprising we did not find alien life so far.

Dissolving the Fermi Paradox
Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler & Toby Ord
Future of Humanity Institute
University of Oxford

Apart from that, there are a few interesting ideas

1. There is a great filter and it is ahead of us. Something like an LHC that blows us all up. Or maybe it is overwhelmingly likely that we run out of fuel before we get fusion working.

A more speculative idea is that we are in a multiverse. It seems likely that the vast majority of universes within the MV would be completely sterile of life (e.g. just a single black hole, or 100% photons).

And it would also be the case that the vast majority of universes that support life only barely do so. Our universe seems to fit the bill. Life is hardly anywhere, took billions of years to show up at all, multiple near extinctions. So it would in that case be likely that we are alone.

Bayes' theorem also states that the equation can be updated when new evidence arises. It's stated in his essay, which I'm sure you glossed over and just read regurgitated something your professor said once. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, just because we don't have the evidence now, does not mean Bayes' theorem completely discredits the paradox.

>Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If evidence would be expected given the hypothesis then its absence is indeed evidence against the hypothesis.

I have worked my way through three textbooks about Bayesian Statistics and other related work in ML and so forth.

In Bayes's terms, the failure for expected evidence to appear is data for which one should update. As in Sherlock Holmes's "dog that didn't bark in the night".

Or given Jesus's prediction that he would return within the lifetime of some of those present, his failure to show up is also evidence against claims made on his behalf that he was the anointed one (==Messiah/Christ).

Your failure to display an understanding the rudiments of Bayesian statistics is evidence that you know virtually nothing about it.

They abandoned their flesh for life as virtual intelligences. Existing in giant servers and barely interacting with the physical world.

So what you're saying is you took a bunch of college courses in stats, but haven't read Bayes' essay and just tried to appeal to authority by telling me you worked through a bunch of college course work. Sorry, but as I've said. It's clear you're never read his essay, especially in its entirety. Maybe excerpts here and there during your 4 years at Uni, but you definitely, 100% skipped the essay. There is no doubt in my mind.

Hey, user. Didn't read your convo but am interested in probability and it's philosophy. Is there a good rigorous textbook on this?

pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/21/1111694108

Yes, O'Neill's original design was about 8 km in diameter and 30 long, and gave 1g by spinning about once every two minutes. All worked out, all built from steel. The tensile strength of steel is quite sufficient. The carbon nanotube designs you're talking about are truly stupendously big, like a hundred times bigger than an O'Neill cylinder in every direction.

Who cares. Even if there are hundreds of intelligent species in the galaxy the likelihood of any of them interacting is minimal. There will never be a way for lifeforms to travel faster than the speed of light.

Well this came out of left field.

No, they came from outer space.

Doesnt the forumla use a bunch of made up stats? Sounds like we just dont quite know how likely life is by any real measure.

>no one has actually made a valid solution to the Fermi Paradox
Translation: I'm too stupid to understand the solutions people have proposed.

No they're not made up. There is 1 planet out of 1,000,000,000,000,000 that we know contains life. That means there's a 1 in however many chance that there is life on a planet. However, because we know of at least 1 planet that harbors life, until we check all of them there is still a small probability even if it is .0000000000000000000000000000000000001%, there is still a probability of life on other planets. That's basically the Fermi paradox in a nutshell.

>Fermi Paradox

The answer is in my picture

>There will never be a way for lifeforms to travel faster than the speed of light.
that we know of

as someone else was kind enough to point out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and likewise, not knowing of a feasible method of FTL does not mean it doesnt exist

>Bayes' theorem also states that the equation can be updated when new evidence arises.
So?

BASED magyar

The aliens have no interest in a planet infested with niggers.

>Proof of absence.
What are you trying to say?

>...does not understand Bayes's Theorem
What do you mean?

>I have worked my way through three textbooks about Bayesian Statistics
Then I highly suggest reading a fourth since the first three didn't do the trick.

>niggers
Why the racism?

Aliens are assholes dude.

It matters in that it is very unlikely that we will ever spot the one or two other civilizations in our galaxy. And we will never spot the ones in other galaxies.
Other than that it doesn't matter at all

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.658.238&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Can you not explain using your own words? I stopped reading at "Department of Philosophy".

>Can you not explain using your own words?
I can.

Aliens are racist. They never abduct niggers.

>I can.
There's an absence of evidence that you can, but it's not evidence of absence.

Wrong, see

>Wrong, see
Can you not explain using your own words? I stopped reading at "Department of Philosophy".

>Can you not explain using your own words?
See

>See
There's an absence of evidence that you can, but it's not evidence of absence.

See

>See
Can you not explain using your own words? I stopped reading at "Department of Philosophy".

See

>See
There's an absence of evidence that you can, but it's not evidence of absence.

I am interested to know what you think "evidence of absence" is. It might help the conversation with other user(s) if you stated it clearly and succinctly.

See

>See
Can you not explain using your own words? I stopped reading at "Department of Philosophy".

>I am interested to know what you think "evidence of absence" is.
An event E is evidence of absence for X if P(X|E)

See

>See
There's an absence of evidence that you can, but it's not evidence of absence.

See

How did we get a picture of the milky way?

Aliens.

>See
Can you not explain using your own words? I stopped reading at "Department of Philosophy".

See

>See
There's an absence of evidence that you can, but it's not evidence of absence.

I love it when people say nothing on purpose and think they're being correct.

>I love it when people say nothing on purpose and think they're being correct.
What is unsatisfactory about the definition? Can you propose an alternative that doesn't 'say nothing'?

Pretend we're on an interweb fishmonger forum and discussing something like, I don't know, say, the Fermi Paradox. Then you say, "You know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case," and someone asks you, "OK, then what would be evidence of absence?" And then you actually answer the question.

>You know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case
It has nothing to do with "this case", absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.

Can you propose an alternative to my definition that doesn't 'say nothing'?

See

>An event E is evidence of absence for X if P(X|E)

>Correct?
No.

>So E is evidence for ~X, which is the absence of X. Correct?
Yes, that's a trivial corollary.

I am not asking for a definition. I am asking for a characteristic example in the context of this discussion.

>I am not asking for a definition. I am asking for a characteristic example in the context of this discussion.
In the usual probability space modeling the toss of a die, the event {2,4,6} is evidence of absence for the event {1}.

We are not tossing dice. If you cannot exhibit any case for "here is what evidence of absence looks like" in the context of this discussion then I'm afraid you need to stop posting.

So the negation of an event is its absence in your model?

>If you cannot exhibit any case for "here is what evidence of absence looks like" in the context of this discussion then I'm afraid you need to stop posting.
In what context?