Talk:Fermi paradox

Archives
Talk archive 1 (1/2005 - 12/2005) Talk archive 2 (1/2006 - 5/2006)

"We," "our," and "us"...

Have been completely eliminated from the article per the FAC. Sorry Ved, if you are still watching :).

Well, I'm sure all the non-humans reading this will appreciate no longer being excluded.  :-) KarlBunker 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"They do not exist because...humanity is the first in the universe/...they do not exist yet

This keeps getting deleted. I put in my version yesterday, and it was deleted despite the fact that I clearly marked it as a stub. I couldn't cite anything because I was in a hurry and did not feel like searching for any citations. Since, I think, the purpose of this article is to be a full list of potential explanations of the Fermi paradox, as well as defining and describing the paradox itself, this cannot be ignored. Lockesdonkey 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

At least a second deletion along these lines has also occurred. (192.220.139.198) 24 September 2006

It's not the purpose of the article to include all potential explanations, because many potential explanations defy logic and/or science. The "humanity is the first", although obviously not impossible, isn't logical (and becomes stupefyingly illogical if one words it as "first in the universe" rather than "first in the galaxy"). At most, it might be worth a parenthetical aside in the "Rare Earth hypothesis" section (e.g. "Intelligent life has not arisen (or has not arisen yet) on other planets due to blah blah"). Even if you had a citation for this, I doubt it would be worth any more mention than that. KarlBunker 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't just handwave this possibility away with a quip. Life is extremely complex, and how do you know that it is not rare for this very reason? A soup full of potential amino acids along with other organic compounds is far, far more simple than a cyanobacteria, with both photosynthetic pathways, DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis, and the ability to build up many sugars, proteins, amino acids, fats, and possibly other membrane compounds or enzymes, often from scratch or carbon dioxide, with a few of the building materials possibly sometimes coming from other organisms. Most people on Earth do not know of any other planets upon which life has independantly arisen besides Earth, and the ultimate difficulty of abiogenesis is not necessesarily a completely known factor. First in the universe, well probably not, but first in the galaxy? This is at least one way to possibly explain the Fermi paradox and it is not genuinely intellectually honest to not include this possibility unless these factors are far more known and understood than they generally are. (192.220.139.198) 24 September 2006

I actually had thought of adding it myself to the "Do not exist and never did" section. To say we are the first is just another way of saying we are alone. In Rare Earth and elsewhere you do see it noted that the Universe's first stars would likely not have planets, generally as a matter of metallicity (the first stars would not have had enough iron etc. for planet formation). Marskell 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is only a special case of the "too far apart in time" concept. Doesn't matter if they come before and after, or just after, it is all just temporal displacement, and therefore is covered in the article already, otherwise we had better add "They do not exist because...humanity is the last in the universe/...they all died out already." as well - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Eugenian Hypothesis:They don't think like us!

What happens if aliens don't think like us? Or they don't see things as we do? What if they do not have the concept of communication, nor do they see the universe like we do? Always remember - everything we perceive to dictated by our senses.

Excellent point. Which is probably why it is already mentioned in the article - or at least it was. - Vedexent 12:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fermi_paradox#..._and_they_choose_not_to_communicate mentions it; from a different angle so does technological singularity. Marskell 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Eff Ay See!

Congratulations, Marskell, I see your hard work has paid off. You did a lot of excellent work on this article, and you also patiently jumped through a lot of hoops that were thrown in your path by FAC comments. What exactly does this mean, BTW? is the article going to be featured on the front page again, or has it only overcome its former "ex-FAC" status? Either way, congratulations again!! --KarlBunker 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Karl :). No, it doesn't get another round on the main page (unless we run out of FAs and need to start re-using them...). But having the star on the page is satisfying enough. Marskell 07:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument by scale (in popular terms)

The Fermi paradox can simply not exist until any human being can fully comprehend the entire scope of the universe, and that is not possible. There is much, much underestimation as to how big the universe is. It is absolutely possible there are millions of exact replicas of Earth, with differences as minor as a missing tree here or there. Just because we can label distances "astronomical units" or "light years", does NOT mean we can understand them. No further argument is required. Paradox solved. No physicist, no Albert Einstein, could even begin to imagine the absolute size of the universe. No human being could even grasp the full size of our sun, a medium sized star. The end.

"The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times over many years and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers.

The introduction begins like this:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..." and so on."

- Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 05:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

... because God created humans alone

Although not generally considered a testable scientific explanation, the belief that a creator deity has placed humanity at the unique focus of creation has broad historical support. The basis of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions maintain that human beings are unique in the universe, and thus must be viewed as the only physical creatures with intelligence and free will.

Although this belief is not a necessary outcome of the Rare Earth Hypothesis, like Rare Earth it is a variant of the anthropic principle. In this case, the principle becomes teleological: the universe has to be this way, or it was designed to be this way, for the express purpose of creating human intelligence.

I was about to challenge the statement that this belief is accepted by, let alone at the basis of, the monotheistic religions, but I see this has already been challenged with no response. So, I just huffed the whole section. 192.75.48.150 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the wording was much too absolute, and suggested that Christians/Jews/Moslems were prohibited from believing in intelligent ET life. I think my current edit fixes this KarlBunker 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does fix that. But I would still have to ask who responded to the Fermi paradox by taking this particular stance. The other alternatives are attributed, if not referenced. 192.75.48.150 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if any "reputable source" (i.e., someone who doesn't live in a bible belt trailer park) has ever voiced such an opinion. KarlBunker 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be tricky one to reference! Partly because many religions have a modern view that includes the possibility of extraterrestrial life. However, this view has historically been the belief of the Catholic Church (see the Church's problems accepting the work of Copernicus). Not so much that man is unique in the universe, but that the Earth is unique - i.e. a version of the rare earth hypothesis. I don't think there are many - if any - mainstream religions that preclude the existence of extraterrestrial life in modern times. I think that any examples that can be found of modern examples will be that of minority branches of such religions, small minority religions, or the stance of individual writers/preachers within these religions.

I still think the explanation is a logically valid one (I don't, personally, agree with it), and should be included in the article, but perhaps it should be mentioned that it is a minority opinion - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See "beliefs in extraterrestrial life" on the extraterrestrial life page for more. You do see the argument, if only in passing. The Webb book appears to have a chapter on it.

This section seems to bother people, for whatever reason. Marskell 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because (until and unless we find some) alien civilizations are a comfortably theoretical topic to most people. Religion, on the other hand, is an intensely personal topic - even among atheists who (in my experience) tend to be pretty vehement about their atheism.- Vedexent 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call the historical geocentric view a variant on the Rare Earth answer to Fermi's question, especially considering that the question was posed in 1950. I don't think this page is supposed to be about beliefs about aliens in general. 192.75.48.150 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a page which lays out the argument in more detail. Unfortunately, it's a personal page, so it wouldn't make for the best source but it has links to other sources if your curious. Marskell 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, but that's mainly about transhumanism, right? It only has a few sentences about what we're talking about here, and the only relevant link I see the one about how we don't see aliens because our universe is simulated (which I suppose is eligible for inclusion here). 70.30.114.149 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do want anon? That we remove the section? It's maybe half a K out of 50K. I'll use the Webb chapter as a source, if need be. Marskell 10:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I was not clear here, I didn't really mean to imply I had any concerns about disk space. (If I did, I've taken up more on the talk page than I'd be saving.) My first objection was answered last week, but it still looks like the discussion either needs a specific attribution or else it is needs to be moved (to extraterrestrial life? maybe?) or removed. It's currently in a section that begins:

Certain theoreticians accept that the apparent absence of evidence proves the absence of extraterrestrials and attempt to explain why.

192.75.48.150 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion about the possible existance of extraterrestrial life is limited in the different theories and religion-science discussion by our own concept of life as biological life. There might be plenty of forms. It goes as far as to the very same concept of life as some type of boilogical fenomenon, which is as science define it. For example, American Indians and other cultures of much higher spiritual intelligence, believe in the soul of things, which refers to something far away of our scientific understanding. Telescopes, and high radio frequencies, no matter how far they reach, maybe will never unswer to that question since they might be looking for our own shape in the mirror of universe, while the answer is in an other place. Remember that all important discoveries of humanities were made by those surpassing all recognaised limits of thought.

This is covered in Human beings are not listening properly, They are too alien, and other sections of the article. - Vedexent 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rare Earth Hypothesis

• Perhaps this should be moved into "resolving the paradox theoreticaly". It doesn't underpin Fermi's paradox, it tries to provide an answer (it is said to support "Fermi's principle" in the article, but what is that? This is the first mention.) The "Drake Equation" rightly belongs where it is.

• How is this a variant on the anthropic principle? At most, they are partners. I.e. Rare Earth tells us conditions for life are rare, and (Weak) Anthropic explains why we happen to be in one of those places. I note that the Rare Earth hypothesis article makes only brief mention of the anthropic principle near the bottom of the article. 192.75.48.150 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "related concepts". Marskell 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fermi principle

The belief that the lack of evidence conclusively demonstrates the non-existence of extraterrestrial civilizations is known as the Fermi principle.

I'm having trouble finding this. Anyone know how it got this name? Is this something Fermi agreed with? 192.75.48.150 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also dispute this, without a source I suggest mention of 'the Fermi principle' be removed. As far as I know Fermi had nothing to do with stating that the lack of evidence of anything conclusively demonstrates anything. A logical fallacy such as that seems to me to be foreign to any scientist or mathematician, and I can find no evidence to support its existence, therefore conclusively proving the non-existence of the Fermi principle. (forgive the jest) User:Pedant 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The anon already removed it. Marskell 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Copernican principle... suggests there is no privileged location ????

"This philosophical stance opposes not only "mediocrity", but the Copernican principle more generally, which suggests there is no privileged location in the universe." -This seems to mean that the Copernican principle suggests there is no privileged location in the universe. I'm pretty sure that is not the intent of the sentence. Could this be reworded to more clearly convey its intended meaning please? User:Pedant 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the intent of the sentence. Marskell 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Article non-compliance

This article reads more as an essay than an encyclopedic article. The tone is way off, and references are missing from most of the text. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny that it recently passed a peer review, the FAC process, and been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia then, isn't it? I also noted that you removed a question as POV. "way off" is hightly subjective. Maybe you should try your hand at constructive additions to the article? - Vedexent 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing constructive in this. Refs could be more, I agree, but "way off" tells us nothing. I'm removing the tag until specific issues are pointed out. Marskell 10:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just knocked off a k or two that had been taken on since the FA, and I agree BTW with Jossi's first removal of text, which was a recent, unneeded addition. I also took care of the fact request. If you want to place more, please do so—but at a pace we can handle. Marskell 11:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article needs a "Precedent of the paradox" and "in popular culture" section to make it less essay-like. CG 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In recent experience, I've noticed "in popular culture" sections take a beating from people at FA etc. as they are often trivia sections by another name. In fact, the reliance on sci-fi was greatly reduced in this one. "Precedent of..."--is "Basis of..." not sufficient? To reduce the essay-like feel (which isn't actually terribly obvious IMV), it should be picked through for OR sentences a bit more. Marskell 14:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "popular culture" section is superfluous. What I meant by precedents were related or alike theories and questions made by people before Fermi. Also, this article needs names of key people and works dealing with the paradox. In addition to the evolution of the reasoning in time (therefore it needs some dates). CG 09:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The lanauge is a bit too flowery, I think -- reads like it was written to impress rather than just with clarity in mind. Simplifying words and sentances should help. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quantum consciousness stuff

While watching the shuffling going around in the Human beings refuse to see, or misunderstand, the evidence section, I notice:

...if the human brain utilizes quantum mechanical processes in its operation (as theorized by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, and others) then it may be open to receiving some form of nonlocal "psychic" communication, perhaps using quantum entanglement. It has been proposed that some accounts of mystics, shamans, schizophrenics, and channelers may be such "garbled" communications, transmitted by non-human intelligences in this manner...

This really makes it sound like Penrose and Hameroff subscribe to the ideas of alien quantum communication, as opposed to just the idea that quantum physics plays a part in consciousness. Do they? And if neither of them do, who does? 192.75.48.150 11:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this page?

There is just no stopping the speculative anon tack-ons. I realize there's established material that needs better sourcing, but so that task doesn't grow wider I suggest we revert everything that does not arrive a source. OK? Marskell 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this topic is fundamentally speculative. Many such pages attract cruft, and not just from anons. It's to be expected, really. I wouldn't object to some housecleaning. Ironically though, this latest bit at least refers to a published source... not that I'm in favour of keeping it, Benoît Ariste Lebon is just some random author anyway. 192.75.48.150 14:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They are too alien

The paragraph They are too alien is mixing lots of quite different ideas

Alien psychologies may simply be too different to communicate with, and realizing this, they do not make the attempt (see: They're Made Out Of Meat)

It seems like the point was only made to quote the short story. The assumption that alien psychology might me different leads also to other conclusions. For example, alien life-forms could be NOT realizing the the differences between us and them and rather don't recognize us as life-forms at all.

It is also possible that the very concept of communication with other species is one which they cannot conceive. Human mathematics, language, tool use, and other cornerstones of technology and communicative capacity may be parochial to Earth and not shared by other life [32].

Here, two seperate thoughts are mixed. Not being able to conceive the concept of communication does not equal being unable to develop technology to do so. Just like autism is different from deafness although the symptoms might appear simmilar at fist.

Using Earth as an example, it is possible to conceive of dolphins evolving intelligence, but such an intelligence might have difficulty developing technology (and particularly key aspects of our sort of technology, for example fire and electricity). See also technological singularity above.

This example clearly refers only to the idea that aliens aren't able to develop the proper technology. Further, it seems a bit too speculative as it is difficult to extrapolate the resultung fictonal dolphin culture. Having no access to phenomenons like fire wouldn't necessarly impare the dolphin's abilities to develop technology for communication. IMHO, the example confuses rather then exlaining anything.