In his new book Little Book of Aliens, astrophysicist Adam Frank says that we now know almost nothing about aliens, but we will soon learn much more: Fermi saw that if technologically advanced, star-faring civilizations really were common, they should already be everywhere, including Earth. … Relative to the age of the galaxy, any spacefaring species should be able to reach anywhere in the galaxy in the cosmic blink of an eye, yet we have not seen any definitive sign of them here on Earth. If technologically advanced exo-civilizations are common, then we should already have direct evidence of their existence. … For [Hart], Fermi’s paradox meant that we are the only intelligent life in the entire galaxy, end of story …
These once-physicists think they don't need to learn read more when they publish in philosophy and social science, but when they do, it's very rare that they don't say foolish things. Frank is not one of those rare cases, though he's not worse than Michio Kaku.
The "we are early" argument is based on assumption that planets orbiting red dwarfs can support life. If it is wrong (and most likely it is), then there is no paradox, we live in an era when yellow dwarf stars are most numerous.
Both ''grabby aliens" theory and the Fermi's paradox itself are based on assumption that the level of technological capabilities far above ours is possible. Again, that is most likely wrong.
Does your recent conversion to the idea of rising and falling civilization influence the likelihood of “loud” aliens? It seems like the idea of loud alien civilizations depends on an assumption of largely continuing progress over millions or billions of years. If the assumption instead is cycles of rise and fall, possibly with some carry-over of ideas and technology between civilizations so that progress continues but at a slower and less predictable pace, does that influence your thoughts or calculations?
We're always framing these questions in familiarly Homo Sapiensish ways, as if we can really imagine what's going on 5 billion or so galaxies somewhere over there. I guess it sells books.
Does Frank discuss Liu Cixin's argument that alien intelligences would purposefully try to remain undiscovered in ordered to protect themselves? See his scifi novel the Dark Forest for details.
These once-physicists think they don't need to learn read more when they publish in philosophy and social science, but when they do, it's very rare that they don't say foolish things. Frank is not one of those rare cases, though he's not worse than Michio Kaku.
The "we are early" argument is based on assumption that planets orbiting red dwarfs can support life. If it is wrong (and most likely it is), then there is no paradox, we live in an era when yellow dwarf stars are most numerous.
Both ''grabby aliens" theory and the Fermi's paradox itself are based on assumption that the level of technological capabilities far above ours is possible. Again, that is most likely wrong.
Does your recent conversion to the idea of rising and falling civilization influence the likelihood of “loud” aliens? It seems like the idea of loud alien civilizations depends on an assumption of largely continuing progress over millions or billions of years. If the assumption instead is cycles of rise and fall, possibly with some carry-over of ideas and technology between civilizations so that progress continues but at a slower and less predictable pace, does that influence your thoughts or calculations?
We're always framing these questions in familiarly Homo Sapiensish ways, as if we can really imagine what's going on 5 billion or so galaxies somewhere over there. I guess it sells books.
Man, would love some headings in your posts. Or perhaps an abstract? I never know what it's about without diving in which is too much work.
Does Frank discuss Liu Cixin's argument that alien intelligences would purposefully try to remain undiscovered in ordered to protect themselves? See his scifi novel the Dark Forest for details.