Live data from Hacker News

Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

arxiv.org

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#21
post #13

TL;DR: "We don't know how often abiogenesis happens, and our uncertainty for its rate is extremely large. The error bars extend so far into 'effectively zero' that we could or could not be alone, it's a toss-up". Seriously, this paper hinges entirely on the prior distribution for the abiogenesis rate. Longer comment: The paper considers each parameter of the Drake as a probability distribution over some range. Notabl…

Basically, they've replaced ass-pulling the factors in the Drake equation with ass-pulling probability distributions for those factors.

[deleted]

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#22
post #5

"When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable." Opinions like these (I stop one step short of calling them findings, as this is spe…

It's not religious. If anything the opposite is true. Believing we're the only intelligent life in the universe is an epic violation of the Copernican Principle. There are so many other explanations for Fermi Silence - from the reality of extremely limited sampling to the creeping suspicion that we're too mediocre and underdeveloped to recognise truly intelligent life - that grand assumptions about our specialness se…

Some religions: From the Book of Moses 1:33, a Mormon scripture

> And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#23

The paper basically says that the Drake equation is just a guess, and if we’re going to guess, we might as well do so using probabilistic models. Their model puts the Great Filter behind us. This makes intuitive sense too — an early Great Filter simply has to stop life from occurring, while a late Great Filter has to deal with the complexity of preventing life from doing what it does best (surviving and spreading in…

I'm fairly confident the great filter is ahead of us. It won't be long (20-50yrs) until any hacker minded 14yr old can create a virulent virus in their bedroom and release it to the world when their girlfriend/boyfriend dumps them or just for the lulz.

And that's just one of the many ways coming where any average person can decide to ruin the world. It's already possible today for a single rich person, if they wanted to, to destroy the world. I don't remember exactly how. Something like buy 1k airplanes and have them seed the atmosphere IIRC. Those kind o things get cheaper and cheaper until their in reach of your average joe

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#25

I have a personal theory about the great filter: The great filter is evolution converging to a local maxima and not evolving creatures capable of higher intelligence. We're scared about the mass extinctions on Planet Earth while at the same time they were the ones that cleared the field for different animals to evolve. Case in point, the Dinosaurs going bust paved the way for small mammals (then large mammals, etc) "…

The only problem I see here is that if intelligence has a large evolutionary advantage over non-intelligence (or lesser intelligence), then intelligence should always emerge given a large enough population over a large enough time-scale.

Given the galaxy, and given billions of years, the Great Filters that seem most likely are the ones that occur on the edges of the timeline: before multi-cellular life begins, or after a hyper-dominant intelligent species arises.

Having said that, I think you’re absolutely right about mammals and societies. If the Great Filter does occur in between life and intelligence, it seems like it would happen where the first signs of intelligence begin. And for earth, that means mammals and the arms race of mind-modeling that their social lives initiated. No other type of animal on earth has parental-care so fully built into its biology: milk glands and placentas force mammals to be social from the start.

A great book that doesn’t deal with intelligence and mammals directly, but provides a key connection, is “Consciousness and the Social Brain.” The book makes a strong argument that consciousness sprung from evolutionary pressures that were essentially social — that being able to model (and predict) the mind of another is essential for communication and cooperation. But one can only model the mind of another if you first model your own mind, and thus, consciousness (which I would argue is just another name for general intelligence).

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#26
If we just stop for a moment and think how little we can “receive” from our surrounding (100 hundred light year max?) and how vast the universe, even our galaxy is and how incredible long the time span between the birth of the first stars and the birth of our petite civilization then we will realize we still can deduce nothing about the existence or non-existence of other civilizations.

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#27

If we just stop for a moment and think how little we can “receive” from our surrounding (100 hundred light year max?) and how vast the universe, even our galaxy is and how incredible long the time span between the birth of the first stars and the birth of our petite civilization then we will realize we still can deduce nothing about the existence or non-existence of other civilizations.

What do you mean? Why can't we receive signals from more than "100 hundred light year" away?

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#28
post #23

The paper basically says that the Drake equation is just a guess, and if we’re going to guess, we might as well do so using probabilistic models. Their model puts the Great Filter behind us. This makes intuitive sense too — an early Great Filter simply has to stop life from occurring, while a late Great Filter has to deal with the complexity of preventing life from doing what it does best (surviving and spreading in…

I'm fairly confident the great filter is ahead of us. It won't be long (20-50yrs) until any hacker minded 14yr old can create a virulent virus in their bedroom and release it to the world when their girlfriend/boyfriend dumps them or just for the lulz. And that's just one of the many ways coming where any average person can decide to ruin the world. It's already possible today for a single rich person, if they wanted…

The Sum Of All Fears was partly about this. In that case it was atomic weapons being in reach of wealthy individuals, but the same principle applies. The barrier to entry is just getting lower every year.

That experiment/art project with E. Coli on a penicillin gradient a few years back was terrifying.

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#29

The paper basically says that the Drake equation is just a guess, and if we’re going to guess, we might as well do so using probabilistic models. Their model puts the Great Filter behind us. This makes intuitive sense too — an early Great Filter simply has to stop life from occurring, while a late Great Filter has to deal with the complexity of preventing life from doing what it does best (surviving and spreading in…

It seems fairly obvious to me that the vast majority of civilisations will wire head themselves and disappear into virtual worlds of their own making. It takes a very rare soul to forsake eternal bliss and an eternal world of your own creation.

Most civilisations will have just enough of a life support to keep the machines running. They might be spurred into action each time a sun burns out, but other than that why bother with the outside world?

Re: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

#30
post #23

The paper basically says that the Drake equation is just a guess, and if we’re going to guess, we might as well do so using probabilistic models. Their model puts the Great Filter behind us. This makes intuitive sense too — an early Great Filter simply has to stop life from occurring, while a late Great Filter has to deal with the complexity of preventing life from doing what it does best (surviving and spreading in…

I'm fairly confident the great filter is ahead of us. It won't be long (20-50yrs) until any hacker minded 14yr old can create a virulent virus in their bedroom and release it to the world when their girlfriend/boyfriend dumps them or just for the lulz. And that's just one of the many ways coming where any average person can decide to ruin the world. It's already possible today for a single rich person, if they wanted…

You paint a compelling picture here. But if we extend this picture to a galactic timescale and space, then even a minuscule chance of surviving distributed technology would mean a galaxy full of intelligent life. So if we can imagine even a small chance of humanity surviving itself, then we’re no longer dealing with a Great Filter, but a Small (and in the aggregate, Ineffective) Filter.

We don’t really have to imagine ourselves, since enough science fiction novels have already been written where humanity nearly extinguishes itself (sometimes multiple times) but then finally gets its act together. There would have to be something more fundamental than technological power being too cheap and widespread for a late Great Filter to get to 100% effectiveness. The only thing I can think of is that every super-intelligence checks out of our universe for some reason — that the ultimate end of technology is always effectively (if not literally) suicide. But this goes against the very nature of technology — to reshape existence to fuel the battle against entropy. Perhaps every Singularity sees that this battle can’t be won, and decides to call it quits? Maybe. But it seems more likely it would fight until heat-death itself.

In fact, there’s a great short story about that too.

If there’s hope in our imagination, I think it’s likely there’s hope in our reality too.

Post reply on HN