Solutions to the Fermi Paradox

[Heyo]

It took us roughly 3.5+/- billion years to go from building blocks of life to today.

With the universe being 13.5+/- billion years old, that leaves a 10 billion year head start before life here was even a single cell.

That's a naïve calculation. There were no essential elements 13.5 billion years ago. For life to be possible two generations of stars had to die and disperse the heavier elements which then had to coalesce into planetary disks for planets like Earth to form. So, no 10 billion years head start, maybe four.

Roughly 97% of the universe is unknown to us. One thing we know for sure is that under the right conditions life can arise and unless earth is a very special one of a kind place, there is no telling what could be out there, if anything.

That is the rare Earth hypothesis. And Earth is somewhat unique with its large moon.
Not my favorite explanation, though. My money is on rare technology. From the 3.8 billion years we have had life on this planet, about 100 had technology and it seems that we might not have it much longer.

 

[We Never Know]

That's a naïve calculation. There were no essential elements 13.5 billion years ago. For life to be possible two generations of stars had to die and disperse the heavier elements which then had to coalesce into planetary disks for planets like Earth to form. So, no 10 billion years head start, maybe four.

That is the rare Earth hypothesis. And Earth is somewhat unique with its large moon.
Not my favorite explanation, though. My money is on rare technology. From the 3.8 billion years we have had life on this planet, about 100 had technology and it seems that we might not have it much longer.

"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope precisely measured the mass of the oldest known planet in our Milky Way galaxy. At an estimated age of 13 billion years,"

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2003/news-2003-19.html#:~:text=NASA's%20Hubble%20Space%20Telescope%20precisely,as%20a%20planet%20can%20be.

 

[Heyo]

This is why we don’t colonise the Moon, and even less so on Mars, because of the resources that would require for landing missions with crews.

This is why, if we are going to colonize space, we wouldn't drop down a gravity well once we climbed out of that of Earth. The Moon, asteroids and other moons are good for resources, basically everywhere where gravity is low and the atmosphere is thin. Mine it, shoot it into orbit with a linear accelerator and assemble into stations.

 

[Heyo]

"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope precisely measured the mass of the oldest known planet in our Milky Way galaxy. At an estimated age of 13 billion years,"

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2003/news-2003-19.html#:~:text=NASA's%20Hubble%20Space%20Telescope%20precisely,as%20a%20planet%20can%20be.

"Globular clusters are deficient in heavier elements because they formed so early in the universe that heavier elements had not been cooked up in abundance in the nuclear furnaces of stars." - from your link.

No life possible on that planet.

 

[We Never Know]

"Globular clusters are deficient in heavier elements because they formed so early in the universe that heavier elements had not been cooked up in abundance in the nuclear furnaces of stars." - from your link.

No life possible on that planet.

I was just pointing out planets formed quite early on. Some early planets may have been different but eventually met the fate earth will one day meet.
We don't even know for sure if we know of all the planets in our solar system(I think I read where one might be lurking somewhere) and we know very little about the biggest majority of the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

What are your solutions to this paradox? I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

A number of random catastrophe events occurred in Earth's past which allowed life to develop. So not only would it have to be a goldilock planet but a number of other unique events would be necessary for to form.

Next some species would need to survive long enough to develop a technology comparable to our own. Many species were not able to adapt and died out including several humanoid species.

You need a goldilocks planet which the odds are against.
You need life to develop which the odds are against.
You need life to develop a level of intelligence which the odds are against.
Finally you need the development of space travel capable of traveling to other planets.

We haven't even got that far. We may not get that far. Humans may become extinct before then.

As far as communication goes, there is no guarantee that life on other planets, even if intelligent uses the same methods/spectrum of communication we do. Developed the same ability to perceive the universe as we do. Perhaps they have sent out their own intelligent broadcasts across the distance. We would simply be unable to perceive it and they our attempts at communication.

Sure there is a vast quantities of systems out there that even though rare such life is likely to exist but the distance between systems is also vast. The odds seem greatly against ever meeting intelligent life.

 

[Heyo]

You need a goldilocks planet which the odds are against.

Not that much. Most systems have at least one planet in the habitable zone. So, while the number of planets within the habitable zone of their home planet is low(er), the number of systems with a planet in the habitable zone is quite high.

You need life to develop which the odds are against.

According to the only example we have, not that much. Life on Earth developed basically the moment it was possible.

You need life to develop a level of intelligence which the odds are against.

Yep. Most species did pretty well without intelligence. Otoh, intelligence has developed in diverse classes like primates and birds and even in different phyla like molluscs. It seems rare but also inevitable.

Finally you need the development of space travel capable of traveling to other planets.

We haven't even got that far. We may not get that far. Humans may become extinct before then.

I think that's the big hurdle. There might be life, multicellular life, even intelligent life just a few hundred light years away but without them having technology to communicate, we wouldn't know.

 

[ratiocinator]

You need a goldilocks planet which the odds are against.

This really is a bit of a non-problem. There are estimated to be about 10²⁴ stars in the observable universe, with an average of about one planet per star, so even if planets in the goldilocks zone were extremely rare, one in a billion, let's say (which is probably way too low), we'd still have 10¹⁵ (1,000,000,000,000,000) goldilocks planets.

 

[Nakosis]

This really is a bit of a non-problem. There are estimated to be about 10²⁴ stars in the observable universe, with an average of about one planet per star, so even if planets in the goldilocks zone were extremely rare, one in a billion, let's say (which is probably way too low), we'd still have 10¹⁵ (1,000,000,000,000,000) goldilocks planets.

Being in this goldilock range is only part of what led to the existence of life on earth. There were 10 known extinction levels events that could have killed all life on earth as well as necessary for the emergence of intelligent life. If things had happen differently earth could have been devoid of all life or at least devoid of "intelligent" life capable of developing technology.
10 Catastrophic Events that Transformed the Earth - Earthly Universe

IMO, intelligent life developing on earth itself beat the odds.

Now, we humans have developed technology that is capable of destroying the earth. Maybe it wouldn't destroy all life but certainly capable of destroying ourselves. So far we've managed not to but no guarantee we won't destroy ourselves before we develop space travel capable of traveling to other inhabitable planets. I'd expect the technology need to develop such technology will make the possible destruction of our planet even easier.

So it not only that life is possible on these planets but also that whatever life does develop doesn't end up destroying itself along the way. Something we still may end up doing before developing the necessary technology capable of travel to distant planets.

So however likely it is that life develops on any number of planets close enough for us to interact with perhaps it is even more likely catastrophic extinction level events happen or that intelligent life manages to reach a level of technology that ends up destroying itself.

When if alien life manages to reach earth, they may find a dead planet and face their own Fermi Paradox.

 

[leroy]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

What are your solutions to this paradox? I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

A solution that I find interesting is that it could be that intelligent life is not “curios” they simply don’t care about finding other planets with life, perhaps they haven’t even ask the question of “are we alone”?

Aliens could be very intelligent, good in math, good in solving problems, good in creating technology etc…………. but perhaps they lack the “philosophical brain” that humans have, perhaps they don’t even ask the big existential questions of life

Artificial intelligence is getting more intelligent as we speak, but they don’t care about deep philosophical stuff…………… perhaps this is the most common type of intelligence in our universe.



After all, why would natural selection select “philosophical brains” that are arguable too complex (require many energy) and have few if any selective benefits over scientific brains.

 

[excreationist]

A solution that I find interesting is that it could be that intelligent life is not “curious” they simply don’t care about finding other planets with life, perhaps they haven’t even ask the question of “are we alone”?

.....

Artificial intelligence is getting more intelligent as we speak, but they don’t care about deep philosophical stuff…………… perhaps this is the most common type of intelligence in our universe.

Elon Musk wants to create an AI that is very curious - that would care about deep stuff....

Elon Musk, who has warned of AI's potential for 'civilisational destruction', launches own AI startup

The startup, called xAI, will be led by Mr Musk, who is already the CEO of electric car maker Tesla, CEO of rocket launch company SpaceX and owner of Twitter.

www.abc.net.au

Rather than explicitly programming morality into its AI, xAI will seek to create a "maximally curious" AI, he said.

"If it tried to understand the true nature of the universe, that's actually the best thing that I can come up with from an AI safety standpoint," Mr Musk said.

 

[leroy]

Elon Musk wants to create an AI that is very curious - that would care about deep stuff....

Elon Musk, who has warned of AI's potential for 'civilisational destruction', launches own AI startup

The startup, called xAI, will be led by Mr Musk, who is already the CEO of electric car maker Tesla, CEO of rocket launch company SpaceX and owner of Twitter.

www.abc.net.au

I´ll bet that AI will never be curios (real curiosity)

At best one can simulate curiosity, but machines will never be self aware and therefore will never be curios. (my pprediction)

In my view Curiosity is a property of the mind (non material thing) and not a property of the brain, such a machine would refute my world view, because ethta would imply that the mind doesn’t really exist as an independent entity (independent from the body)

Lets see if Elon can refute my world view,,,,,,

 

[excreationist]

I´ll bet that AI will never be curios (real curiosity)

At best one can simulate curiosity, but machines will never be self aware and therefore will never be curios. (my pprediction)

Do you think a curious kitten is genuinely curious or is it simulating curiosity? And do you consider it to be self aware?

In my view Curiosity is a property of the mind (non material thing) and not a property of the brain, such a machine would refute my world view, because ethta would imply that the mind doesn’t really exist as an independent entity (independent from the body)

Lets see if Elon can refute my world view,,,,,,

Sometimes brain damage can affect behaviour, personality and memories.... do you consider those things to be part of the mind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Globular clusters are deficient in heavier elements because they formed so early in the universe that heavier elements had not been cooked up in abundance in the nuclear furnaces of stars." - from your link.

No life possible on that planet.

Or perhaps not life as we know it on Earth. I am not sure if heavier elements are necessary for abiogenesis. That is outside of my wheelhouse.

 

[YoursTrue]

A solution that I find interesting is that it could be that intelligent life is not “curios” they simply don’t care about finding other planets with life, perhaps they haven’t even ask the question of “are we alone”?

Lol.

Aliens could be very intelligent, good in math, good in solving problems, good in creating technology etc…………. but perhaps they lack the “philosophical brain” that humans have, perhaps they don’t even ask the big existential questions of life

Artificial intelligence is getting more intelligent as we speak, but they don’t care about deep philosophical stuff…………… perhaps this is the most common type of intelligence in our universe.



After all, why would natural selection select “philosophical brains” that are arguable too complex (require many energy) and have few if any selective benefits over scientific brains.

Yes I was wondering if some think that evolution in other realms of the universe as postulated by some would produce beings that look like those on earth...chances are...um... possible? I doubt it but I guess the fights may begin...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol.

Yes I was wondering if some think that evolution in other realms of the universe as postulated by some would produce beings that look like those on earth...chances are...um... possible? I doubt it but I guess the fights may begin...

The odds of that are very very low. Though the females would be green and very sexy.

 

[ppp]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

What are your solutions to this paradox? I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

I think that it is that species don't last.; either thru violence or senescence. There may have been dozens of civilization over lapping our local space, but not our local time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

I kind of disagree that there is no evidence for any.
Sure, there is no direct evidence of any.

But considering all we know about life, the universe, planets, stars, chemistry, physics,.... I'ld say that this large body of evidence makes extraterrestrial life very very plausible.

What are your solutions to this paradox?

We have only investigated the equivalent of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of..........(etc) ...of a pixel of the ultra high definition image of the universe.

I like how Neil deGrass Tyson once said it:

"Imagine scooping a glass of water from the ocean and then looking inside and not seeing any fish in it. Imagine then saying 'how come there are no fish in there? Are there no fish in the ocean?"

Consider that we BARELY only made it out of our own cosmic backyard, does it REALLY come as a surprise that we haven't encountered life "out there" yet?
Humans have visited exactly one celestial body: the moon.

Machines have landed on exactly one other body: Mars.

Sure, it would have been cool to find microscopic life there...
But the fact that we haven't... is that really then proper to then ask "how come we haven't found extra terrestrial life yet?????" as if that means something?

I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

When it comes to "advanced" civilizations (as opposed to any type of life) I think the same applies as above, if not even more.
Let's take earth as a blueprint....

It took 4 billion (!!) years of evolution for ONE species to have evolved to the point where advanced civilization was even an option.
We humans exist, what.... 120.000 years?
Now consider that we only have been capable of sending out signals into space for ~100 years.
Space travel (to the moon and back) only ~50 years.
Travelling to Mars, still our own cosmic backyard, is somewhat being planned, but don't count on it happening any time soon either - ambitious optimism aside.

So what that tells me is that while it might very likely be that life is abundant in the universe - "intelligent" life isn't.
Do I think it exists "out there"? I think again that it's very plausible - even only because of the sheer numbers involved (BILLIONS of galaxies, each hosting BILLIONS of stars and planets).

Say that 0.001% of planets with life on them produces "intelligent" life.
It did here, so it can happen elsewhere also.
The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years. Yet the "signals" we send out into space traveled no more then ~100 lightyears.

Let's suppose that 50 lightyears away, there's another intelligent species on some planet.
Considering it took us +100.000 years to get to a tech level where we can even "scan" space for these signals, chances are enormous that that species is still in "hunter gatherer" or "bronze age" stage. No signals will be send or received there.

So even IF we assume that there are BILLIONS of advanced civilizations spread out across the universe.... chances are enormous that each of them is thousands, if not millions, of light years away from all the others.

For all these reasons, I think it is:
- highly plausible that there exists life "out there"
- pretty plausible that some of that life is "intelligent"
- extremely implausible we will ever meet or know about them


So in other words.... I don't really think this is a paradox at all.
I don't think it requires special explanation.
I rather think that not finding / meeting / discovering them (should they exist) is exactly what I would expect.

Actually finding them is what would surprise me.

 

[wellwisher]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

What are your solutions to this paradox? I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

All the speculation about life on other planets, and the total lack of hard evidence, suggests that this is a type of Atheist religion; faith, based on dice. Their mythology replaces the gods with tech giants but the rest will follow the same archetypes; human brain firmware.

The paradox is that conventional religions have science on its side, since they assume just life on earth, which has not been falsified with any alien life evidence. We may need to defund this Atheist religious practice in science, due to separation of church and state. Government cannot promote any religion, with tax payer money. Faith is the belief in things not seen, which is all the unseen evidence that this science religion, says is its holy grail.

What is promising is this faith based science is allowing science to use new parts of the brain for science. That is useful since we can learn from internal faith processing. It stretches the philosophy of science into the unknown.

 

[metis]

All the speculation about life on other planets, and the total lack of hard evidence, suggests that this is a type of Atheist religion; faith, based on dice.

But you are an atheist, right? I have to think as such based on so many of your posts, especially in the political arena whereas you've staunchly supported a former president who talks and acts in ways that totally defies the scriptures.