Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#141

Post by pasquinelli » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 3:54 PM UTC

scj wrote: post #120

Scientists thinking like scientists! I'd presume an advanced culture that can traverse the galaxy has many resources. Like humanity, I'd assume that with abundance, entertainment would be prioritized. We might be nothing more than a new source of fashion and novelty to them! They may like Rock & Roll, our food, our clothing, or even pogs. We might even be boring to them for the moment, but they're hoping for a future…

i think the reason people assume aliens would want to visit us is because they are vaguely aware of human history, which is characterized by more advanced societies, driven by a need to expand, subjugating or destroying less advanced societies. the very idea that aliens might exist and that they might be more advanced than us leads directly to the question, "would they do us like, say, europe did the americas?"

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#142

Post by smelter » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

behnamoh wrote: post #96

smelter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an ant, I am a mountain/ thunderstorm/earthquake/quasar.

Chances are ETs have transformed into a physical form that is undistinguishable from, say, planets, energy, even stars. After all, the ultimate level of technology design and sophistication is when it is not distinguishable from its surroundings.

Agreed - we do not even possess the instruments to define the nature of dark matter, and it is only by inference that we can suppose it exists.

It is amazing that Fermi, Einstein, et al were able to predict what they did without readily available modern computing hardware and search engines.

Some things are out of the realm of our perception.

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#143

Post by evilsetg » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

7thaccount wrote: post #122

op03 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I had a bunch of snails appear out of nowhere all over the garden. And I spent a whole lot of time, trying to figure out what they were feeding on, cuz some were getting really big. The whole thing was quite fascinating...like how the hell were they producing these huge ass shells without tearing all the plants apart? So I call a good buddy over (PhD in bio something or the other) thinking he would be as fas…

How did you know they were edible? I mean, I know people eat snails in certain parts, but how did you know these were safe?

That is what you have the bio something PhD for :-)

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#144

Post by anotherman554 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #76

bluGill wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is possible relativity is wrong, anything that replaces it must fit all the observations we have about the universe that we currently use to prove relativity. That leaves very little room for the replacement for relativity to be different. Newtonian physics is a special case of relativity when you keep relative speeds slow. We don't know how quantum mechanics fits in. There is a known hole in current physics…

I find it difficult to respond without emotion, to such a comment. We likely know very very little about physics right now. My point with Newtonian physics is that at the time, it was The Physics. According to observation capable at the time, it seemed to make sense, with a few little oddities. To them, they thought they had a small hole in current physics. Does that sound like your "small hole" in current physics to…

That fact that we are ignorant doesn't imply FTL is possible- that's optimism on your part. The universe doesn't care about your optimism and has no obligation to contain the physics that can make Star Trek a real thing.

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#145

Post by jp57 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

> Fermi’s paradox is pretentious in that it assumes we humans have some sort of cosmic significance.

Our significance as a species is actually irrelevant to the question of why we might or might not be visited. Even if we turn out to be somehow extraordinary, the aliens would have to visit first before they could know that.

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#146

Post by Retric » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #121

ballenf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that we're one of (large number) of ant colonies and there's nothing particularly interesting about us vs. any other ant colony. Even if ETs study ants generally, there's nothing unique about us to give us a greater than 1/(large number) chance of being studied.

That would imply that there are also lots of alien worlds that are similarly developed to us and those might be interested.

We don’t seem likely to leave the solar system any time soon, so that could easily be the case. Especially if there is any lag between detecting say radio waves or whatever they find interesting and a ship showing up.

The other consideration is visiting other stars may be possible and extremely expensive. Colonizing at say 0.001c is possible, but very slow and likely requires generation ships. Hardly worth it so your descendent can visit some primitive culture who might not be around when they get there.

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#147

Post by htfu » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #76

bluGill wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is possible relativity is wrong, anything that replaces it must fit all the observations we have about the universe that we currently use to prove relativity. That leaves very little room for the replacement for relativity to be different. Newtonian physics is a special case of relativity when you keep relative speeds slow. We don't know how quantum mechanics fits in. There is a known hole in current physics…

I find it difficult to respond without emotion, to such a comment. We likely know very very little about physics right now. My point with Newtonian physics is that at the time, it was The Physics. According to observation capable at the time, it seemed to make sense, with a few little oddities. To them, they thought they had a small hole in current physics. Does that sound like your "small hole" in current physics to…

> According to observation capable at the time, it seemed to make sense, with a few little oddities.

As bluGill says, according to observation right now it _still_ makes sense. With a few little oddities.

Your view appears to be one of relativity refuting, rather than further confirming (as far as the scales studied at that time) classical physics.

You cannot compare it to something allowing FTL. There's a major difference between "we don't know everything" and "everything we know is wrong".

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#148

Post by GistNoesis » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

avian wrote: post #131

GistNoesis wrote: post #77

It's all about computation. The computer running universe-simulations needs to be able to run fast. Regularities can be integrated quickly. Life not so much. Life can make computers which can ask computations which can't be reduced. Therefore as soon as a big enough computer is built somewhere in the universe, the whole simulation-time starts crawling to an halt because the inner computer use all the resources, and f…

You give life and computers some special place in the universe for being to able "ask computations which can't be reduced". I don't think that's warranted. In the end, it's all fundamental particles and forces and interactions. I don't see why life would be special in that regard. A small part of material in the core of a star "asks" many more questions each second than a piece of brain tissue or a silicon chip.

I give computation and consistency a special place once you assume you are in a simulation.

If a computer inside the universe runs some proof of work computation like in BlockChain, (aka finding a mathematical one-way function that when iterated is terminated by a big enough trail of zeros), this computation has to be done in the higher plane universe, or a witness from inside the universe could deem the universe not consistent.

The alternative are time-travel explanations where you substitute questions, by replacing questions for which you can have already an answer.

You can approximate a star or any collection of particle by while preserving its observable statistics aka effective-super-particle and get huge computational speed-up. Life are run-away processes for which you can't define statistics.

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#149

Post by taneq » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #9

nend wrote: post #2

>We may be a phenomenon as uninteresting to them as ants are to us; after all, when we’re walking down the sidewalk we rarely if ever examine every ant along our path. Not really the most convincing argument. There are professions that study ants. And I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum that has a casual interest in observing ants. Pretty sure aliens would still be interested in us even if we were as primi…

The point is that we're one of (large number) of ant colonies and there's nothing particularly interesting about us vs. any other ant colony. Even if ETs study ants generally, there's nothing unique about us to give us a greater than 1/(large number) chance of being studied.

> There's nothing particularly interesting about us vs. any other ant colony.

I'd hope not. 'Interesting' ant colonies sometimes get molten aluminium poured down them to make a cast of the nest.

Re: Why do we assume extraterrestrials might want to visit us?

#150

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

karteum wrote: post #138

There are also aspects that should be considered in my opinion 1°/ individual intelligence and technological innovation is not necessary an ultimate achivement that enables competitive advantage : human beings may be individually smart (compared to some other species) yet the collective intelligence of humanity is rather poor (which translates to the unability to solve collective problems such as sustainable manageme…

> even if some other intelligent species would exist, maybe they would not have the same need to communicate, the same need or will to travel, the same need or will to innovate, etc.

I think this is unlikely. It seems to me that some amount of curiosity would be a prerequisite for being able to make discoveries that lead to technological progress. Although I suppose it is possible such progress could be made through some kind of evolutionary mechanism as opposed to individual intellect.