Are we alone out there?

[flenser]

I never liked the whole probability arguement to prove life exists out there.

I agree. Making statistical predictions with so many unknowns is little more than guessing, and physicists are just as bad as the rest of us at letting their wishes bias their beliefs. But at least a few physicists are guessing the opposite of the popular assumption...

Dissolving the Fermi Paradox (PDF)

Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Toby Ord
(Submitted on 6 Jun 2018)
The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe. The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations. We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters. We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it. This result dissolves the Fermi paradox, and in doing so removes any need to invoke speculative mechanisms by which civilizations would inevitably fail to have observable effects upon the universe.

Comments: Submitted to Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A; 4 supplements
Subjects: Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

 

[picholas]

I hear what you're saying. It's just not proof. You think if you flipped a coin a billion times you could get heads 10 times in a row? 100 times? Maybe. You think it would ever land on its edge? Never. Humans are like landing a coin on its edge.

I'm not saying life cant exist out there. But just because space is seemingly infinite isn't proof enough for me. What'd would you expect, for space to just end? For it to just stop at a certain point?

Its gonna go as far as we can observe, but the key is it takes an observer.

(And yes I see the irony in using probability to try and disprove an argument on probability)

Actually there is an edge of the universe, and it's still expanding.

 

[AnTabolic73]

Actually there is an edge of the universe, and it's still expanding.

What's on the other side of this edge?

 

[NorthMich]

We make decisions every minute based on probability. Do I run the red light? Do I steal this doughnut? Do I buy a lotto ticket? We calculate the probability of various outcomes and make a decision.

We’re fine with probability, because it allows for more informed decisions and perspectives.

 

[Eman]

and it's still expanding.

What is it expanding into if there is an edge?

 

[AnTabolic73]

We make decisions every minute based on probability. Do I run the red light? Do I steal this doughnut? Do I buy a lotto ticket? We calculate the probability of various outcomes and make a decision.

We’re fine with probability, because it allows for more informed decisions and perspectives.

I agree. I just dont see it as proof. We could use probability as an argument for continuing to look for life. We use it as an argument against the actual proof that we keep running into. That there might not be life out there.

 

[NorthMich]

Flenser- that article describes what the answer would be if you used a particular math model.

That paper’s not saying anything more. And I would bet my left nut that there’s a jesus fan behind this. Same sort of math model that shows the world is only 5000 years old. “Math” and “science” may or may not be the primary motive.

One dude’s math model doesn’t disprove other models.

 

[NorthMich]

I agree. I just dont see it as proof. We could use probability as an argument for continuing to look for life. We use it as an argument against the actual proof that we keep running into. That there might not be life out there.

Do you think we should keep scanning the skies looking for a doomsday meteor? The probability is very low that we’d ever be hit

 

[AnTabolic73]

Do you think we should keep scanning the skies looking for a doomsday meteor? The probability is very low that we’d ever be hit

Would we be able to send Bruce Willis up there to sacrifice himself for the survival of humanity? If so scan away. If not. Fuck that I'd rather not know.

 

[NorthMich]

Bruce is standing by. He says the probability is so astronomically small, though.

 

[flenser]

Flenser- that article describes what the answer would be if you used a particular math model.

That paper’s not saying anything more. And I would bet my left nut that there’s a jesus fan behind this. Same sort of math model that shows the world is only 5000 years old. “Math” and “science” may or may not be the primary motive.

One dude’s math model doesn’t disprove other models.

I didn't say they were correct. I said they were guessing like everyone else. They are guessing at least in part because no one can determine just what is needed for the creation of life. They can postulate and make up theories, but so far no one has been able to do it. Until they do so, assigning a probability to it is a fool's game. The only real evidence we have is the lack of observable signs of life making hash of previous statistical guesses of life being abundant in the galaxy.

 

[flenser]

We make decisions every minute based on probability. Do I run the red light? Do I steal this doughnut? Do I buy a lotto ticket? We calculate the probability of various outcomes and make a decision.

We’re fine with probability, because it allows for more informed decisions and perspectives.

Actually we make decisions based on perceived risk and reward. And perceived risk is based mostly on past experience. Past experience in this case being no aliens, the perceived risk of encountering one in your lifetime should be close to zero.

 

[NorthMich]

Perceived risk reward implies probability.

What’s the likelihood that I’ll encounter risk or reward

 

[flenser]

Perceived risk reward implies probability.

What’s the likelihood that I’ll encounter risk or reward

Perceived risk and reward are not necessarily probabilistic in nature. They are loosely defined terms and highly subjective at that. That's why there are so many rear end collisions at traffic lights.

Your perceived risk of encountering an alien should be close to zero, but the perceived reward of meeting one might just convince you to anticipate an encounter anyway.

Think of all the people who play state lotteries knowing full well they are extremely likely to lose. Even more people play when the jackpot gets unusually large, even though they know the odds of losing haven't changed. They do so because the perceived reward is enough to counter the perceived risk of losing.

 

[StillMind]

Not trying to go off on a government conspiracy. But I do believe if there is, which there probably is, extraterrestrial life forms, the government probably wouldn’t want us to know. There is already tons of classified information that we know nothing about and in some cases, whole towns have witnessed extraordinary events that are classified. Then the government turns around and makes it a tourist trap, such as Roswell and Area 51.

Either way, send Bruce Willis and Matt Damon up and have them figure it out.

 

[NorthMich]

Perceived risk and reward are not necessarily probabilistic in nature. They are loosely defined terms and highly subjective at that.

Not necessarily and we don’t usually consciencly weight it as probability, but on thoughtful things we often ask - “what are the odds?”

Think of all the people who play state lotteries knowing full well they are extremely likely to lose. Even more people play when the jackpot gets unusually large, even though they know the odds of losing haven't changed. They do so because the perceived reward is enough to counter the perceived risk of losing.

Sounds like probability conversation to me

 

[AnTabolic73]

Not necessarily and we don’t usually consciencly weight it as probability, but on thoughtful things we often ask - “what are the odds?”



Sounds like probability conversation to me

So you think our subconscious uses probably when it makes split second decisions for us?

 

[chileandawg]

People in 2018 still believe in a flat Earth, that the dinosaurs never existed and that a dude in the clouds created the Earth 5000 years ago. So yeah, I'm thinking there are still people small minded enough to think we're alone. Lol.

I believe.

But not the axis of the real discussion.

Skeptics" have the intention to fight against metaphysical dogmas,like the Aristotle's theories about the Creation.Skeptics dont fight against the aliens'it self.

 

[NorthMich]

So you think our subconscious uses probably when it makes split second decisions for us?

Nope. I’m not saying that. Reflexes are not conscious decisions.

Split second decisions, by definition, don’t have enough time for probability assessment.

Many other decisions are certainly assessing probability.

Anyway, I personally think there’s intelligent life out there due to several things, including the staggering statistical probability

 

[picholas]

Nope. I’m not saying that. Reflexes are not conscious decisions.

Split second decisions, by definition, don’t have enough time for probability assessment.

Many other decisions are certainly assessing probability.

Anyway, I personally think there’s intelligent life out there due to several things, including the staggering statistical probability

Actually Fight vs Flight is exactly that. A split second decision based on fast calculation of probability.

Ex 1: A rustle in the bushes, and out comes a........big fox!
Ex 2: A rustle in the bushes, and out comes a........big tiger!

1 might have you initially startled, but 2 you 180 and sprint away. You instantly in your head pitted yourself against that creature and determined the outcome before it occured.