Does the lack of extra terrestrial communication/contact

[hellokeith]

Since we have no webcam videos of ET saying hello, and no alien spacecraft wreckage on display in the Smithsonian, does it logically follow then that superluminal communication/travel really is impossible?

A few things to consider:

* Earth hasn't been sending physical things or powerful radio waves into space for very long, so maybe the aliens simply don't know we are here because the universe is a very big place and they can't just joy-ride around in their slipstream warp drive ships all the time.
* The aliens know we are here, visited, got a lousy t-shirt, and aren't coming back.

My own personal view is more of the Stargate "dial it up and see what's on the other side" mantra versus the Star Trek "no communication with non-warp-capable civilizations" directive. So I really think if there are aliens, and they know we're here, then they would have made overt contact with us a long time ago. So I must deduce that either:

A) There are no aliens or other intelligences.
B) The aliens know we are here but don't want to talk to us.
C) The aliens don't know we are here.
D) Superluminal communication/travel is impossible, so it is unlikely we will ever contact another intelligence due to the vastness of space

D seems like the most plausible explanation with C closely following, both of which support that superluminal communication/travel is impossible.

 

[l0cke]

How about the mass relay to Earth is orbiting frozen around pluto and they cannot access our planet because it is encased in ice?

 

[dinkumthinkum]

Aliens visited, gate-crashed a fancy party, and charmed away the girl you were trying to talk to by claiming to be from another planet.

 

[Cogman]

Question, If a being that travels faster then the speed of light doesn't want to be seen will he?

Next question. Would a creature that masters traveling faster then the speed of light, past countless meteors ect suddenly forget how to fly his ship and just crash land?

The fact that we haven't seen or heard about aliens means absolutely squat. Its like trying to say that life must be everywhere because out of the nine planets there is one planet that has life. or saying that it is nowhere because out of the nine planets there is only one with life.

The main stream media always seems to try and make aliens out to be some big dumb creatures that can be easily caught on tape. Blatantly ignoring their ability to transverse the cosmos.

If they have been here and wanted to be known, then we would. If they haven't then we don't know either way. And since we don't know either way, why speculate towards one way or another?

 

[Gannon]

Have you ever considered that if you have faster then light travel, you don't NEED to travel? You'd have detectors capable of observing everything from afar. Right now their are military sattelites that can resolve insane amounts of detail from space. Just look at google maps, and then ask yourself, as optical and other methods of detection and observation increase resoliving power of these devices, will there be anything someone can't observe from afar from even the most faintest of emissions?

In my opinion advanced civilizations wouldn't need to go to other places to observe them, they'd have detection technology so advanced they could pull highly refined data from the furthest and noisiest of places via high tech methods and mathematical reconstruction not yet invented by us.

We assume that we are smart, the truth is it's the exact opposite: We still have war and poverty FFS, people still are prejudiced towards one another, we are the opposite of advanced.

We are about as interesting to a faster then light civilization as BACTERIA is to us, a curiousity, nothing more. That's even assuming there isn't other universes besides our own that are better that they've found a way to move to!

Our science and imaginations are pretty limited in this respect.

 

[Leros]

Even if these super-intelligent beings have devices that can optically observe us, they are going to be seeing us from so long ago that no interesting human civilization existed yet. I'm not even sure humans would exist yet.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Leros
Even if these super-intelligent beings have devices that can optically observe us, they are going to be seeing us from so long ago that no interesting human civilization existed yet. I'm not even sure humans would exist yet.

You're totally forgetting that their science and understanding of natural phenomena is most likely vastly different from our own, their technology would not be based on our primitive science or understanding of the universe at present. Our models and understanding of the universe is vastly incomplete, the idea that we think we know a lot about the universe and it's phenomena is the big illusion in the room.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Leros
Even if these super-intelligent beings have devices that can optically observe us, they are going to be seeing us from so long ago that no interesting human civilization existed yet. I'm not even sure humans would exist yet.

You're totally forgetting that their science and understanding of natural phenomena is most likely vastly different from our own, their technology would not be based on our primitive science or understanding of the universe at present. Our models and understanding of the universe is vastly incomplete, the idea that we think we know a lot about the universe and it's phenomena is the big illusion in the room.

Well lets assume that time is a common factor. Our window of existence is rather short. Though the planet has had life on it for quite some time. Maybe our planet has been noticed, maybe not. We have not been around long enough to make a judgment on this subject.

Hopefully someday we will be visited and maybe learn something from a true extraterrestrial entity.

 

[Nathelion]

If competition between species is a universal fact of life, which i'm inclined to believe is the case, then I most certainly do hope that it is *us* that visits *them*, not the other way around...

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Nathelion
If competition between species is a universal fact of life, which i'm inclined to believe is the case, then I most certainly do hope that it is *us* that visits *them*, not the other way around...

This is all based on primitive thinking of human 1.0, I would submit: an advanced species grows out of competitiveness completely, via technology, etc. Video @ ted by steven pinker

http://www.ted.com/index.php/t..._myth_of_violence.html

More importantly the idea of competitiveness is western, darwinian and 21st century view of evolution, in other words: Primitive. The assumption of the OP was an advanced species, i.e. nowhere near as primitively minded and backward as we are.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
So I must deduce that either:

A) There are no aliens or other intelligences.

Unlikely. The Universe is so massive, that life has probably sprung up in some form several times. There's an equation (trying to remember the name) which lets you plug in a few variables for # of star systems in your desired search area and probabilities related to hospital environments. Long story short, even the most pessimistic values compute ~10 intelligent civilizations should exist in the Milky Way Galaxy.

I'm not sure if this takes time into account; i.e. some aliens may have lived in the time of the dinosaurs, some may still be in the dinosaur age now.

B) The aliens know we are here but don't want to talk to us.

Actually I would phrase this as, "Know we are here but either do not believe we are ready for contact, or respect the wishes of our leaders to not publically reveal themselves.

C) The aliens don't know we are here.
D) Superluminal communication/travel is impossible, so it is unlikely we will ever contact another intelligence due to the vastness of space

Maybe, but I hope not!

Originally posted by: Leros
Even if these super-intelligent beings have devices that can optically observe us, they are going to be seeing us from so long ago that no interesting human civilization existed yet. I'm not even sure humans would exist yet.

If they have flown through our solar system any time in the past 300+ million years, they would at least know our planet supported life and could check back from time to time.

 

[Paratus]

I think what you guys are looking at is Fermi's paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

 

[hellokeith]

Paratus,

That is an absolutely fascinating and informative read.. thank you!

Some key possible explanations from Fermi's Paradox:

* Light Speed is indeed the max, and due to the vastness of space, the "window" of technological opportunity for two advanced intelligent civilizations to communicate with each other would be very rare or perhaps never happen.
* Since the galaxy is not already colonized, and there appears to be no evidence on earth or elsewhere in the solar system of current or even ancient alien intelligences, then Earth is very isolated.. either due to its location + light speed limitation, and/or advanced intelligence(s) keep Earth isolated on purpose (we are in a preserved wildlife area of the galaxy).
* We are inside of a virtual reality purposely designed without any extraterrestrial life. The laws of physics are simply arbitrary constructs of the system to test this particular experiment.

It also linked over to The Great Filter which is a good read though a bit depressing.

 

[Foxery]

Nope, I found the one I was thinking of:
The Drake Equation

It attempts to estimate the number of single-star systems which might also have small, rocky planets, which also have organic compounds, which also come together to form basic life, which also... etc. etc. Anywhere from 10 to 5000 alien cultures depending on how likely you think the assorted variables are.

I don't like that he believed only 1% of intelligent life forms would develop communications (radio) technology. But the general point is that we should be somewhat rare, but not alone.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Nathelion
If competition between species is a universal fact of life, which i'm inclined to believe is the case, then I most certainly do hope that it is *us* that visits *them*, not the other way around...

This is all based on primitive thinking of human 1.0, I would submit: an advanced species grows out of competitiveness completely, via technology, etc. Video @ ted by steven pinker

http://www.ted.com/index.php/t..._myth_of_violence.html

There's no evidence of anything beyond "human 1.0," so anything else is largely speculation. We have no way to know iif anything beyond 1.0 is right or wrong. To put it another way it's not a scientific theory as it can't be disproven. To put it another way, human 2.0 might be gladatorial combat with light sabers or the matrix or androids...

Also, the video you link to is strictly about a fairly recent trend in intraspecies violence among Homo sapiens (at least as far as I got), while this conversation is about species vs. species competition... entirely different things.

More importantly the idea of competitiveness is western, darwinian and 21st century view of evolution, in other words: Primitive. The assumption of the OP was an advanced species, i.e. nowhere near as primitively minded and backward as we are.

What does "western" mean? Is that bad?

Darwinian? Does that mean it's wrong or right?

21st century? What century do you prefer?

Primitive? How do you know what's primitive, or, according to whose definition? Maybe an advanced species is very highly competitive, predatory and aggressive and views competition as the ultimate purpose of existence. According to this view, it's your ideas that are primitive. In other words, what's defined as "primitive" is largely subjective and contextual.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Also, the video you link to is strictly about a fairly recent trend in intraspecies violence among Homo sapiens (at least as far as I got), while this conversation is about species vs. species competition... entirely different things.
...
Primitive? How do you know what's primitive, or, according to whose definition? Maybe an advanced species is very highly competitive, predatory and aggressive and views competition as the ultimate purpose of existence. According to this view, it's your ideas that are primitive. In other words, what's defined as "primitive" is largely subjective and contextual.

Er, but humans are competetive intra-species. Just look at how many countries there are on a globe.

Not sure what exactly you are trying to argue here, but check out the link to Fermi's Paradox above; note especially the section titled, "It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself" as a possible explanation for why aliens haven't said hello.

Cliff notes: If intelligent life evolves via competition, (Darwinism) and then develops the technology to destroy itself, (e.g. Atomic weapons) then it might do so before communicating with anyone else. Humans happen to be a good candidate for this scenario. (e.g. The Cold War)

I had fun following links around Wikipedia for a while Von Neumann Probes sound like fun.

 

[The Odorous One]

Certainly something to chew on: http://www.bibliotecapleyades...._ancient_atomic_07.htm

Open mind

 

[Gannon]

More importantly the idea of competitiveness is western, darwinian and 21st century view of evolution, in other words: Primitive. The assumption of the OP was an advanced species, i.e. nowhere near as primitively minded and backward as we are.

What does "western" mean? Is that bad?

Darwinian? Does that mean it's wrong or right?

It means that natural evolutionary mechanism is blind, the 'competition' that happens is blind competition, and traditional evolutionary theory only cares about gene propagation, selection and whether or not you leave offspring.

As for western, the idea of competition is a human construct, in physics all there are are distributions of matter and energy. The whole idea of competitive evolution is a kind of Anthropomorphism of physics. Even without evolution, say you have one immortal organism, you still have a whole host of physics that naturally perturbs the structure of an organism and causes it to decay.

Next there are problems with a strict competitive view of evolution, for instance how does evolution describe apoptosis? There are many unanswered questions for a strict 'competitive' view of evolution, it is not the whole story by a long shot.

21st century? What century do you prefer?

I meant that we have a narrow and uninformed view of the universe which is informed by social constructs and bias's that can't be disentangled from our scientific conception of the world.

For instance we are about to develop the technology to intervene in our own development. The mechanism by which human development occurs (mere genetic recombination) will be altered significantly, i.e. it will no longer be darwinian, since we are consciously able to gut, redesign the molecules themselves and tell them what to do. So the mechanism of evolution can change from a competition to something else entirely by our intervention.

The whole assumption by the OP was an advanced species. The reason human beings have lived so long is that they have forgone MAD, despite having the weapons to wipe themselves out completely many times over.

It would seem to me that with weapons of mass destruction it hastens the development to root out obsolete genes and competitive phenotypes or simply replace human beings with a superior model not based on legacy of old genetic data, and unconscious patterns of pre-programmed thought that are not fit for a high tech world and species. It is no longer a darwinian mechanism by which a species evolves.

Once a species develops the technology to transform itself, it leaves the old theory of evolution behind entirely, imagine being able to scrap x86 and start again with a radically different approach, the same applies to evolution of a biological system, if you redesign the system you no longer use the blind darwinian mechanism of development.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Gannon
I meant that we have a narrow and uninformed view of the universe

According to whom? All the non-existent (so far) advanced alien races knocking on our door?

Originally posted by: Gannon
which is informed by social constructs and bias's that can't be disentangled from our scientific conception of the world.

How else should our view be informed? By the lack of scientific evidence? By somehow designing an objective non-human-influenced artificial intelligence and then asking it to give us guidance?

Originally posted by: Gannon
The whole assumption by the OP was an advanced species.

Well, to be more accurate, the assumption is an advanced technology, i.e. superluminal communication/travel. That technology requiring an advanced species is relative to your term "advanced". We (the human race) have had nuclear power for 70 years and went to the moon 35 years ago. We have robots running around on another planet (Mars) and space probes that have left out solar system (Voyager's). We aren't slackers. In very short order, we could send massively destructive weapons very accurately to another world. If the aliens are waiting for us to get to a certain level of advancement before contacting us, they best not wait too much longer because it might mean their end (how would they know for certain our intentions are benevolent or hostile?).

Thus we are left with what we can see, which is empty space void of other life and no alien postcards. No galactic empires, no wormholes or starbases.

So, based on our current observations, the only theories that fit are:
* Life in the galaxy is very very rare.
and/or
* Superluminal communication/travel is impossible.

Now the Fermi Paradox did suggest another interesting alternative. That other advanced intelligences exist but are so advanced that they are undetectable to us and have no interest in communicating with us anymore than we have an interest in communicating with ants. This would suck, because the end result is the same as what we see now.

 

[jbzx86]

The Fermi Paradox could be one possibility. Imagine if the only extraterrestrial lifeform within 10.000 light years is capable of telepathic communication. They would not require telecommunication / radio communication at all. Therefore, there would not be any radio waves to be received.

Otherwise, the other lifeforms in the galaxy have isolated us to prevent us from being used as puppets by any other race; perhaps to allow us to grow and evolve our own identity, much as we do here on Earth. Competition is not the driving force behind seperate countries co-existing -- we merely wish to identify ourselves seperately from other races.

Expanding on this theory, it is possible that there was a previous instance of an advanced alien race contacting a much more primitive race, resulting in the extinction of the more primitive race, or perhaps extinction of the advanced race. Anything is possible.

 

[JF060392]

ask carl sagan, wait, hes dead, watch or read cosmos.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gannon

More importantly the idea of competitiveness is western, darwinian and 21st century view of evolution, in other words: Primitive. The assumption of the OP was an advanced species, i.e. nowhere near as primitively minded and backward as we are.

What does "western" mean? Is that bad?

Darwinian? Does that mean it's wrong or right?

It means that natural evolutionary mechanism is blind, the 'competition' that happens is blind competition, and traditional evolutionary theory only cares about gene propagation, selection and whether or not you leave offspring.

As for western, the idea of competition is a human construct, in physics all there are are distributions of matter and energy. The whole idea of competitive evolution is a kind of Anthropomorphism of physics.

The idea of competition is a human construct? Science is also a human construct, right? Does that invalidate science?

Competition is real, as far as we can tell. Is there any evidence it's not real?

Even without evolution, say you have one immortal organism, you still have a whole host of physics that naturally perturbs the structure of an organism and causes it to decay.

Paraphrasing Stephen Weinberg: "reality is what you have to account for."
An immortal organism is not something any scientific theory has to account for as it remains unobserved.

Next there are problems with a strict competitive view of evolution, for instance how does evolution describe apoptosis? There are many unanswered questions for a strict 'competitive' view of evolution, it is not the whole story by a long shot.

Probably started as an addiction mechanism. Other genes were co-opted for regulation and from there it's an obvious benefit and thus selected for.
Probably a lot more sequencing needs to be done to get the whole story, and we might not ever know every exact detail of the historical events.

Evolution might not be the whole story, but I'm waiting to see evidence for any other part. As for unanswered questions, so what? That's why research is done, and it doesn't indicate the theory is wrong.

[/quote]

21st century? What century do you prefer?

I meant that we have a narrow and uninformed view of the universe which is informed by social constructs and bias's that can't be disentangled from our scientific conception of the world.

[/quote]

Are any viewpoints exempt from this criticism?

For instance we are about to develop the technology to intervene in our own development. The mechanism by which human development occurs (mere genetic recombination) will be altered significantly, i.e. it will no longer be darwinian, since we are consciously able to gut, redesign the molecules themselves and tell them what to do. So the mechanism of evolution can change from a competition to something else entirely by our intervention.

As long as we're using DNA to reproduce, we'll have evolution. I don't see anything replacing DNA in the foreseeable future.

The whole assumption by the OP was an advanced species. The reason human beings have lived so long is that they have forgone MAD, despite having the weapons to wipe themselves out completely many times over.

It would seem to me that with weapons of mass destruction it hastens the development to root out obsolete genes and competitive phenotypes or simply replace human beings with a superior model not based on legacy of old genetic data, and unconscious patterns of pre-programmed thought that are not fit for a high tech world and species. It is no longer a darwinian mechanism by which a species evolves.

Competition in the Darwinian sense implies a need for survival, and this can lead to altruistic behavior.

Frankly the concept of "obsolete genes" is ridiculous to me, unless you're talking about psuedogenes (and I'm pretty sure you aren't). We have about 20K genes, can you name one that's obsolete? Who gets to decide which genes are obsolete?
I'm equally wary of anyone deciding what "unconscious patterns of pre-programmed thought" are fit or unfit.

I would also argue that all phenotypes should be viewed as "competititve," it's just that some are more successful than others.

Once a species develops the technology to transform itself, it leaves the old theory of evolution behind entirely,

Or, maybe it doesn't.

Assuming it can and does happen: Perhaps this is be "great filter" referred to previously. In other words, it might be the worst possible thing to do, given that choice. How can we know?

imagine being able to scrap x86 and start again with a radically different approach, the same applies to evolution of a biological system, if you redesign the system you no longer use the blind darwinian mechanism of development.

Writing a new genetic code from scratch might be a very bad thing. Even in the best case scenario, you're probably going to reduce genetic diversity by several orders of magnitude and I think that's bad from most any perspective.

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: jbzx86
The Fermi Paradox could be one possibility. Imagine if the only extraterrestrial lifeform within 10.000 light years is capable of telepathic communication. They would not require telecommunication / radio communication at all. Therefore, there would not be any radio waves to be received.

Otherwise, the other lifeforms in the galaxy have isolated us to prevent us from being used as puppets by any other race; perhaps to allow us to grow and evolve our own identity, much as we do here on Earth. Competition is not the driving force behind seperate countries co-existing -- we merely wish to identify ourselves seperately from other races.

Expanding on this theory, it is possible that there was a previous instance of an advanced alien race contacting a much more primitive race, resulting in the extinction of the more primitive race, or perhaps extinction of the advanced race. Anything is possible.

Are we talking about the extinction of Neanderthalensis and the "evolution" of H. Sapiens < H. Erectus < Modern Man?

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

I don't see anything replacing DNA in the foreseeable future.

I believe that DNA communicates among itself (i.e.you & me, etc.) and it is the mysterious "link" that allows dogs, for example, to sense bad people or situations which causes them to growl &/or attack.
Imho, it is also responsible for actions by deer that "spook" them to flight the moment the arrow leaves the bow or the gun fires it's bullet.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
The idea of competition is a human construct? Science is also a human construct, right? Does that invalidate science?

Competition is real, as far as we can tell. Is there any evidence it's not real?

Is there any evidence that competition is a coherent concept outside of biology? Does a ball lose the 'competition' with gravity when it falls to the earth? Does the sun 'compete' with other stars for matter and energy? It's total anthropomorphizing of geometric objects and their interactions, we imbue the world with our intents, it doesn't mean the star is actually competing for anything, all it means is that given x amount of matter and energy, the geometry of such matter and energy will be x,y,z over a given period.

Just because humans think of the world in terms of competition, doesn't mean the concept objectively exists outside of human thinking. Try to represent the concept of competition as a series of points and lines in terms of geometry and it makes no fucking sense, all it means is a given configuration of matter an energy configured and copied itself or it stopped. Human beings can call this competition if they want to but I prefer to call it geometric transformation since although the human/animal/etc, died the matter and energy are still there. All that is gone is a particular geometric configuration of matter.

Paraphrasing Stephen Weinberg: "reality is what you have to account for."
An immortal organism is not something any scientific theory has to account for as it remains unobserved.

Molecules were once unobserved, this doesn't make them any less real scientifically, did electrons not exist 5000 years ago? My point exactly. Just because something goes unobserved by 'science' (i.e. human beings given a level of social and cognitive development), doesn't mean anything, humans can't even think straight (and science has lots of evidence that this is the case! and the foundation of science is the human mind, which is ... not very good, so if the minds it sits upon aren't good, we can and should ignore them because science says so! )

Next there are problems with a strict competitive view of evolution, for instance how does evolution describe apoptosis? There are many unanswered questions for a strict 'competitive' view of evolution, it is not the whole story by a long shot.

Probably a lot more sequencing needs to be done to get the whole story, and we might not ever know every exact detail of the historical events.

Biologists always have an escape hatch for data they don't particularly like.

[/quote]

For instance we are about to develop the technology to intervene in our own development. The mechanism by which human development occurs (mere genetic recombination) will be altered significantly, i.e. it will no longer be darwinian, since we are consciously able to gut, redesign the molecules themselves and tell them what to do. So the mechanism of evolution can change from a competition to something else entirely by our intervention.

Or, maybe it doesn't.

It does because the MECHANISM changes. The whole of evolutionary theory resides upon the current mechanism, as soon was we intervene, it is no longer the blind mechanism. We're injecting new information into the system and can erase the old information that we inherited.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)