We Might Be Alone in the Universe

[Res Ipsa]

And "If there's a really big multiverse, then alien life is likely to exists in other universes."

why? we have no idea about the distribution of life in multiverses just like we have no idea about the distribution of life in our universe.

I have to disagree.

you said:

In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common.

Please refer me to the part of the video where Kipping said this.

And, how are you defining “Not very common.” Put a range of percentages on that.

[Physics Guy]

The evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life is not both very common and also very willing and able to reveal itself to its neighbours. If it were both of those things, then we would surely have had obvious signs of alien intelligence by now, and we haven't. It could conceivably be, though, that intelligent life is very common, to the point where all nearby stars have it near them, but for some reasons we might not yet even imagine, nobody can or nobody wants to let us know they are there.

If intelligent life is anything but extremely rare, then some alien civilisations will surely have been out there for a few billion years already. What the heck can they have been doing all this time? Playing Sudoku? It boggles the mind.

It would be depressing to think that we happen now to be close to the ultimate technological ceiling, and that even a billion more years of progress won't give us much more than some new skins for Fortnite. It seems more natural, given our past couple of centuries, to imagine that a billion more years will bring unimaginable wonders. And then it's easy to suppose, given unimaginable wonders, that it would have been easy for those unimaginably wondrous aliens to drop us a card at least once in a billion years.

Perhaps, though, by the time aliens have accumulated enough wonders to make it easy for them to contact us, they will also inevitably have lost all interest in doing so. We don't go out of our way to try to leave messages for bugs and worms.

[malkie]

The evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life is not both very common and also very willing and able to reveal itself to its neighbours. If it were both of those things, then we would surely have had obvious signs of alien intelligence by now, and we haven't. It could conceivably be, though, that intelligent life is very common, to the point where all nearby stars have it near them, but for some reasons we might not yet even imagine, nobody can or nobody wants to let us know they are there.

If intelligent life is anything but extremely rare, then some alien civilisations will surely have been out there for a few billion years already. What the heck can they have been doing all this time? Playing Sudoku? It boggles the mind.

It would be depressing to think that we happen now to be close to the ultimate technological ceiling, and that even a billion more years of progress won't give us much more than some new skins for Fortnite. It seems more natural, given our past couple of centuries, to imagine that a billion more years will bring unimaginable wonders. And then it's easy to suppose, given unimaginable wonders, that it would have been easy for those unimaginably wondrous aliens to drop us a card at least once in a billion years.

Perhaps, though, by the time aliens have accumulated enough wonders to make it easy for them to contact us, they will also inevitably have lost all interest in doing so. We don't go out of our way to try to leave messages for bugs and worms.

Could be that the hyperspace bypass through the Milky Way simply comes nowhere near our solar system.

[doubtingthomas]

Your point 4 is wildly incorrect due to cherry-picking, as well as a bizarre formation of the question itself.

You simply hate me for sharing the diabetes studies. I am surprised you haven't called me a sexist yet.

What do you base your conclusion of which interpretation is “unlikely” on? Because that’s not what the authors say in the study you are referencing:

Here's what the study says, "The second possible interpretation ... In this case, the measured solar distribution is different only because the Sun did not exhibit its full range of activity over the last 140 years."

Translation: "This raises the question whether the sun has been going through an unusually quiet phase for several millennia."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150211.htm

Solar cosmogenic isotope data indicate that in the last 9000 years the Sun has not been substantially more active than in the last 140 years (8).

Same translation: "This raises the question whether the sun has been going through an unusually quiet phase for several millennia."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150211.htm

If the Sun frequently has quiet periods, then it would mean the Sun is unusual compared to other Sun-like stars.

You are a Professor of Statistics, you know better.

[doubtingthomas]

It could conceivably be, though, that intelligent life is very common, to the point where all nearby stars have it near them, but for some reasons we might not yet even imagine, nobody can or nobody wants to let us know they are there.

Wouldn't we see Apex predators, destruction, advanced probes, and space junk in a Dark Forest? And isn't it hard to imagine that all civilizations decide to stay quiet?

Perhaps, though, by the time aliens have accumulated enough wonders to make it easy for them to contact us, they will also inevitably have lost all interest in doing so. We don't go out of our way to try to leave messages for bugs and worms.

Wouldn't some alien scientists be interested in observing and doing experiments with bugs and worms?


If intelligent life is very common, wouldn't you expect some civilizations to expand? It's just hard to imagine that no civilization is willing to expand. The galaxy is old enough to have been colonized long ago by at least one civilization.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

At what timestamp does he address the Dark Forest theory?

I'll find it and give you a timestamp later.

DT,

Can I get that time stamp?

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

DT,

Can I get that time stamp?

- Doc

I haven't finished listening to it I'll have to listen to it a second time (after I am done listening to all of it) to give you a time stamp.

However, according to Universe Today,

"Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers from an inherent flaw that is capable of unraveling the whole thing. Like many other Fermi-related hypotheses, it only takes one exception to this rule to prove it wrong."
https://www.universetoday.com/149410/be ... ypothesis/

Fraser Cain is the owner and publisher of Universe Today.

[doubtingthomas]

It could conceivably be, though, that intelligent life is very common, to the point where all nearby stars have it near them, but for some reasons we might not yet even imagine, nobody can or nobody wants to let us know they are there.

I would like to read your opinion about this

"Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers from an inherent flaw that is capable of unraveling the whole thing. Like many other Fermi-related hypotheses, it only takes one exception to this rule to prove it wrong."
https://www.universetoday.com/149410/be ... ypothesis/

[doubtingthomas]

In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that intelligent life in the universe is not very common.

Please refer me to the part of the video where Kipping said this.

I am using multiple sources. Kipping said, "My bet is that life is common, but intelligent life may be rare"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLbbpRYRW5Y

why? we have no idea about the distribution of life in multiverses just like we have no idea about the distribution of life in our universe.

True, but a big multiverse would explain extremely improbable formations. The multiverse is an untestable theory, but it can explain many things.

[Marcus]

Your point 4 is wildly incorrect due to cherry-picking, as well as a bizarre formation of the question itself.

You simply hate me for sharing the diabetes studies. I am surprised you haven't called me a sexist yet.

What do you base your conclusion of which interpretation is “unlikely” on? Because that’s not what the authors say in the study you are referencing:

Here's what the study says, "The second possible interpretation ... In this case, the measured solar distribution is different only because the Sun did not exhibit its full range of activity over the last 140 years."

Translation: "This raises the question whether the sun has been going through an unusually quiet phase for several millennia."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150211.htm

Solar cosmogenic isotope data indicate that in the last 9000 years the Sun has not been substantially more active than in the last 140 years (8).

Same translation: "This raises the question whether the sun has been going through an unusually quiet phase for several millennia."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150211.htm

If the Sun frequently has quiet periods, then it would mean the Sun is unusual compared to other Sun-like stars.

You are a Professor of Statistics, you know better.

And you still missed their final sentence:

What do you base your conclusion of which interpretation is “unlikely” on? Because that’s not what the authors say in the study you are referencing:

We suggest two interpretations of our result….According to [the first] interpretation, the periodic stars are in the high-activity regime, while the stars without known periods are either also in transition, or are in the low-activity regime. The second possible interpretation is that…[because], For example, the Sun could alternate between epochs of low and high activity on timescales longer than 9000 years.

Our analysis does not allow us to distinguish between these two interpretations.