• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Fermi Paradox


Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
So I was watching this documentary recently:
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6422637PW4Za5YP
(You will need to download the veoh web player)
It features a number of well known scientists discussing the possibilities of extra-terrestrial life and I found it to be thouroughly educational. However, towards the end of the show (at 41.35 if you don't have time to watch the whole show and want to skip through) all of the scientists including paracast fan favourite Seth Shostak seem baffled by the Fermi Paradox.

If you dont have time to even watch the last ten minutes of the show, the Fermi Paradox basically is:

"We know from astronomy that there are Suns that are billions of years older than our, and we think that life should be fairly abundant in the universe (relatively speaking). Surely some of these lifeforms who have millions to billions of years head start on us should be flying all over the galaxy.
If this is the case, then why havent we met them? Why arent they here?"

Most of the scientists either come to the conclusion that either life is too thinly spread in the Universe, or we are the only life, or space travel just isnt possible.
Seth Shostak in particular always says that of course they are not here, because the first thing they would do is come down to meet us.

What are peoples opinions on this Paradox?

Mine is that they likely have been here, but we are so insignificant that they just drop by for a quick look, like we might stare down at an interesting insect, and then just move on. Think about it, if they really do have interstellar travel, they will have seen many other civilisations along the way.... we might be just another insect.

Furthermore, I believe that perhaps when they first set off and found another civilisation less advanced as them, they might have dropped by and 'landed on the white house lawn'. In this situation I think there is a high chance that their presence would have had a very negative effect on that culture (for many reasons which I can go in to) and as a result they probably would try to remain anonymous from further 'backward' civilisations that they meet.
Ironically it is Seth himself who says "we better hope they dont land if they do arrive as every time an advanced civilisation has met a lesser advanced civilisation in human history its been bad for the cavemen" (para-phrasing). So by saying this ,I think he has pointed out the one reason why UFO's do remain anonymous they way they do and actually backed up their case for existance.

Now of course of all this is just my theory, but it sems the most likely one to me...

If you are interested in watching the two follow up docs to the one I posted, here they are:
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6422638eJmFbz9N
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6422639p3q6GGmQ
 
Perhaps there's quite a simple explanation. Say an advanced civilisation switches to an energy based form based on pure information, with abilities far beyond anything we could experience. Such a being may be able to travel anywhere (any time?), perhaps only limited by such constants of physics as the speed of light. Such a being would have no need for craft, or if it did it would be a craft which was unlike anything we know. Also, they could travel anywhere undetected, and any display of their presence would be completely on their terms and take any form they wisheded. They would not have any need to move stars or create gigantic space ships.

Just a thought.

 
I think the fermi paradox is complete bullshit. It also pisses me off that none of those scientists - in their arrogant and ignorance - didn't even think to ponder the idea that maybe someone else HAS been here, and that there is something to the UFO issue after all.

I tell what pisses me off even more than the Fermi paradox though... the goddam useless POS that is the Drake Equation.

That people take that seriously is just absolutely hilarious to me.
 
I think the fermi paradox is complete bullshit. It also pisses me off that none of those scientists - in their arrogant and ignorance - didn't even think to ponder the idea that maybe someone else HAS been here, and that there is something to the UFO issue after all.

I tell what pisses me off even more than the Fermi paradox though... the goddam useless POS that is the Drake Equation.

That people take that seriously is just absolutely hilarious to me.

Perhaps some of these scientists do think they are here, but don't admit it for fear of ridicule, one of the scientists in that doc looked like they were slightly inclined. I actually think the Fermi paradox lends weight to the UFO phenomena
 
In fact Bernard Haisch and I think it was Bruce Macabee tried to publish a scientific paper using the Fermi paradox as supporting evidence for UFO's
 
I read a book by a guy called Stephen Baxter, a British Sci-Fi writer with a degree in physics who writes hard ScifFi, ie. everything in his novels are based on science and science speculation. He wrote the Manifold trilogy - brilliant books.

Anyway, the book I read was called "Deep Future". It was non-fiction, and it tried to imagine a deep future for humanity, assuming we last that long. He deals with the Fermi paradox. He gives two or three possibel solutions. Though he eventually goes with "we are truly alone, and life is a chance occurance"(for the purpose of the book, with regards to our current understanding of the universe), he does deal with what he calls the "Roswell Hypothesis". Basically, they are hiding their existance for some reason, and that is why we haven't seen their signs. He expresses incredulity at the way these aliens go about abducting people, and teh bizarre nature of the UFO phenonema, but, as he says, it fits in with the fermi paradox, so don't completely dismiss it.

Perhaps that's the best we can hope for
 
So you recommend that trilogy? I wouldnt mind getting into a good sci-fi series.

It's class. Heavy going, a lot of descriptions of technology and such, but the characters are really good and the plot is as epic as any Sci-Fi book I've ever read. And you don't really have to read one to read the other. Without ruining it, they're linked thematically, but aren't straight sequels to each other. And yet they are ... you probably better off reading them one after the other ("Time", Space" and "Origin") but it isn't vital.
 
Yeah I get what you mean in as much as theyre not direct sequels to each other. They could be set in the same universe with familiar characters and cause and effect relationships... but each book is a self-contained story. If you read them all youll get much more out of each book, but its not required.

Sound good.
 
I think the fermi paradox is complete bullshit. It also pisses me off that none of those scientists - in their arrogant and ignorance - didn't even think to ponder the idea that maybe someone else HAS been here, and that there is something to the UFO issue after all.

The flip side of that is that the Fermi paradox is built solely on the conceit that aliens would be interested in communicating with us directly in the first place.
 
Should not the disease issue be factored, also, into these ponderings?
It could pose serious problems. However much they may be able to cut down the risks they may not be very inclined to take the risks that may remain.
Many people seem to assume that a technologically advanced race would be, biologically speaking, superbeings; we should not take this for granted.
 
I can think of a lot of things wrong with Fermi's paradox about why we dont see the universe teeming with life.

- It asumes that life is not extremely rare in the Universe - perhaps only 3 advanced species exists in the entire universe.
- It assumes Et's would want to interact with us. Perhaps they fear contact or deem us not worthy of interaction.
- It assumes Et's would want to explore the galaxy or travel from their home system.
- It assumes that if Et's did want to explore the galaxy they are doing it now, not millions of years ago. Perhaps they did visit Earth in the distant past but found nothing of interest.
- It assumes Et's would be exploring the Universe with technology/methods that we can comprehend/detect. Who says Et's are operating in the geometry of spacetime we are restricted to? Or that they are emitting radio waves. Or those radio wave sources are not billions of light years away.
- It assumes that Et's would not make every effort to avoid detection if they did have technology similar to our own but advanced far enough to allow interstellar travel
- It assumes that Et's would increase in population over time (this geometrically increasing the number of explored planets) - perhaps there are advanced beings but they exist in small numbers and have not been in our neck of the galaxy for quite some time.
- Perhaps we are in an ET zoo where only limited contact with the specimens is allowed
- Perhaps Et's have been here with us all along but are disguised or hidden.
- Perhaps life is not common in this area of the galaxy or universe
- Perhaps our "owners/wardens/keepers" ward off any potential visitors from third party ET's

These things can combined or stacked:

For example, what if 2 million years ago Et's came to Earth and surveyed this planet and left and have now stopped exploring space all togther and their home system is 20,000 light years away and their planets emits no radio waves. We will never ever know of their existence.
 
I can think of a lot of things wrong with Fermi's paradox about why we dont see the universe teeming with life.

I was going to respond much the same way you just have, but you've done it better!:p
The Fermi Paradox is based on so many assumptions that I don't think it's very relevant even to talk about these days.
 
I think that we would like to dismiss paradox by saying there are too many assumtions, but lets face it, it's a very hard one to dismiss without evidence to the contrary. I don't like it as much as the next person, but it's still a paradox which cannot be satisfactorily answered. Stephen Baxter points out that it is the timescale of the universe that is the problem. Too much time for too much to happen with regards to intelligent races (even if there are only a few in the universe). We cannot dismiss it offhand, no matter how much we'd like to.
 
I don't like it as much as the next person, but it's still a paradox which cannot be satisfactorily answered.

But that's the whole point of my post.. it's not a paradox when you postulate a theorem or describe a "paradox" based on incorrect or missing data. It's just a falsely assumed correlation.

For example..Here's my Lord of the Rings paradox: If you have not seen Lord of the Rings, you must not be intelligent.

Let me explain. Lord of the Rings is a great movie that has been out for several years. Millions of people have seen it. All smart people will surely have seen it by now.. Indeed any SMART person would seek out and watch a film so clearly entertaining. I'm intelligent, and that's' what I would do. Wait, you say you HAVEN'T seen it? That can't be.. it's a paradox. Perhaps you are not smart after all, or perhaps Lord of the Rings doesn't actually exist. The fact that you have not seen that film proves that you can not be too smart.

Of course it's not a paradox at all.. the initial question is framed in such a way that it ignores many aspects of the situation. The explanation is mundane (ie. you hate fantasy movies) and does not prove that you are not intelligent.
 
Yes, but we can easily go and find out about Lord of the Rings. The paradox may be based on simplistic assumtions, but taht in itself is a telling thing about the paradox. It CANNOT be answered at this point in time on anything based on well tested evidence. If it could, then I'd be the first one to jump for joy. I think it's a good thing that we speculate on possible refutations of the paradox. But we cannot deny that it is still unanswerable, therefore still a paradox, no matter how simplistic it is. It seems to indicate that we are missing something fundamental when approaching the question.

The mandelbrot equation shows a very simple mathematical equation which is self relicating, becoming amazing looking fractals which seem to go on forever replicating similar, but not quite the same shapes as you zoom in on the image. If simple maths can come up with this, and maths is the language of the universe, then this could be an equation which emerges on planets under certain circumstances to create life. If the equation is simple enough, then maybe life is everywhere?

But if it is everywhere, why haven't we seen, heard or made contact with anyone else out there? There has been plenty of time for it to happen. That, essentially, is the Firmi Equation. It shouldn't be dismissed. And there may be a really good answer to it too.
 
Assuming that this is a paradox, I think we can throw a few more items into the list.

1 - Humans have poor generational memories and even worse skill at documenting and preserving historical information. Perhaps they have communicated with us in the past.
2 - Maybe they do not know yet how to communicate to us. Hence the study. What language do they use? Whom do they approach? What customs should they follow when doing so? Hell, humans struggle with these same issues and we are the same species.
3 - Maybe we do not know how to listen and respond. For all we know, they could be screaming at us in their form of communications and we absolutely do not notice.
4 - Time, maybe we have been noticed and they have not yet made the time and effort to drop by.

There are probably a million more. The truth is we don't know what we don't know. I think it is important to ponder these things but only time can show if we are right, wrong, or whatever. The problem is that we will all be long dead before its answered.
 
Yes, but we can easily go and find out about Lord of the Rings. The paradox may be based on simplistic assumtions, but taht in itself is a telling thing about the paradox. It CANNOT be answered at this point in time on anything based on well tested evidence.

Well its just a matter of degree. If we had starships we could easily find out the answer. But the important thing about my analogy was not "does Lord of the Rings exist" ... but WHY haven't you seen it? Both "paradoxes" postulate a dilemma where none exists. There are numerous reasons why we would not see evidence of UFOS or why you haven't seen a movie. So just because we haven't seen life as we expected to find it yet that says nothing about the fundamental "truth" of the situation or prove that life cannot exist or be relatively plentiful.

Both questions are framed assuming a ton of assumptions that may not be true ie: ALL rational people would do what I would do and go see that movie. Doing what I would do is not the criteria for rationality, and behaving like humans is not the criteria for ET's.

What bothers me about the Fermi paradox is that it starts out with the human conceit that if our current science doesn't have an answer, then it must be untrue. If the answer doesn't fit the pattern we expect then it must not be an answer of the answer is "no". Science is not immune to those types of errors because of the nature of paradigms and the scientific method. It isnt necessarily always a bad thing, but science needs to realize its own frame of reference and biases when asking questions of that type. Modern science is obviously the starting point, but due to our limited knowledge we can not declare it as the end point just yet.

But if it [life] is everywhere, why haven't we seen, heard or made contact with anyone else out there? There has been plenty of time for it to happen

Simple..the idea/theory/assumption that life is governed by mandelbrot equations may be totally wrong. Thus no paradox.
 
Simple..the idea/theory/assumption that life is governed by mandelbrot equations may be totally wrong. Thus no paradox.


Okay. Fair enough. That was my little flight of fancy. But life emerged here once, and how ever unlikely it was, similar conditions could exist somewhere else in the vastness of the universe. The Drake equation is a very conservative equation in the fact that it rules out binary stars, any other type of life (ie. not on an Earth type planet), the likelyhood of earthlike planets producing life, and it lasts long enough to reach an intelligent stage, then that it gets out to the stars. This equation comes out with a surprisingly high number. It's all based on statistics, and it is just speculation, but the next sensible question is, why haven't we seen them, etc. Answer that any way you want. But the question still stands. Perhaps you're right in saying it isn't a paradox. Rather, it is an unsettling question.
 
Back
Top