We Might Be Alone in the Universe

[doubtingthomas]

Maybe interstellar civilisations expand, but maybe they just don't. It could be, for instance, that life tends to adapt itself so well to its home planet, whatever that may be like, that very few other planets are useful to it. Perhaps it's a lot easier to build giant space arks than to colonise other planets. Perhaps ancient civilisations look like giant trailer parks, with thousands of huge space arks orbiting around their original suns.

All of that could be true.

However, let's assume there are one thousand advanced civilizations in the galaxy. Shouldn't we expect at least one civilization to be the exception? It's doubtful that all alien civilizations would behave the same way.

Which means, from what Kepler would have detected, the sun would have been in the non periodic... In other words, of the two subsamples, Kepler would have put our sun the subsample for which its behavior was not unusual at all.

Probably, but the authors don't know for sure if the Sun would be a non-periodic star. It's just their best guess.

it is you who is saying you know more about the author's paper than they do

Not me, but Kipping probably does know more than all of them. He interpreted the data.

Anyways, the second study doesn't take into account one important thing: The average age of non-periodic stars. If most non-periodic stars are older than the Sun, then the data makes a lot of sense.

[doubtingthomas]

Even the main scientist you are relying on for your argument admits that we don't know know anything about the conditions necessary for life.

I don't disagree.

[Physics Guy]

I think the Copernican principle has to try to say that there are aliens out there somewhere, but I don't see how it has to say that they are common. Things are still allowed to be rare, like supernovas and quasars—just not unique.

The simulation argument just seems naïve about how much resolution is needed to make a simulation indistinguishable from reality. Once you're simulating every electron, just what is the difference between that simulation and reality, anyway?

The doomsday argument seems the weirdest of all. Assuming that every process is always most likely to be about mid-way through its total duration would imply that the moment when every process should be expected to have the shortest time left in it is the moment when it has just begun, and conversely that the moment when any process should be expected to have the longest duration remaining is the moment just before the process actually ends. A rule which is supposed to be the most logical estimate should surely not be so badly wrong, so consistently.

[malkie]

Maybe interstellar civilisations expand, but maybe they just don't. It could be, for instance, that life tends to adapt itself so well to its home planet, whatever that may be like, that very few other planets are useful to it. Perhaps it's a lot easier to build giant space arks than to colonise other planets. Perhaps ancient civilisations look like giant trailer parks, with thousands of huge space arks orbiting around their original suns.

All of that could be true.

However, let's assume there are one thousand advanced civilizations in the galaxy. Shouldn't we expect at least one civilization to be the exception? It's doubtful that all alien civilizations would behave the same.

Which means, from what Kepler would have detected, the sun would have been in the non periodic... In other words, of the two subsamples, Kepler would have put our sun the subsample for which its behavior was not unusual at all.

Probably, but the authors don't know for sure if the Sun would be a non-periodic star. It's just their best guess.

If the authors thought their data indicated that there was anything unusual about the sun, they were certainly capable of saying so in the conclusion of their paper. They clearly didn't.

One of the researchers said, "We were very surprised that most of the Sun-like stars are so much more active than the Sun". Why would the researchers be surprised if the Sun is just a non-periodic star?

it is you who is saying you know more about the author's paper than they do

Not me, but Kipping probably does know more than all of them. He interpreted the data.

Anyways, the second study doesn't take into account one important thing: The average age of non-periodic stars. If most non-periodic stars are older than the Sun, then the data makes a lot of sense.

I'm trying to follow the arguments here without going into all of the details in the references - probably not a good idea, right?

To kind of test my understanding of what's going on, I'll attempt to address just your first point above:

However, let's assume there are one thousand advanced civilizations in the galaxy. Shouldn't we expect at least one civilization to be the exception? It's doubtful that all alien civilizations would behave the same.

By "the exception" I assume you mean an exception to what Res said:

Maybe interstellar civilisations expand, but maybe they just don't.

My answer is: No!

Even if there were a million civilizations, we have no reason whatsoever to expect that one of them would be an exception to an arbitrary "for example" rule of this sort. It's perfectly possible. It's also possible that every single one is an exception. But we have no reasonable expectation for either one or all to be exceptions. We simply do not know, and cannot even begin to calculate the probability.

Am I totally out to lunch here? Could be. I'd be grateful if someone would tell me, and - preferably - explain to me why.

[Res Ipsa]

DT, at this point, I have no idea what conclusion you are trying to support. I looked back at the thread to trace the argument between the two of us.

Your OP said:

Fraser Cain made some powerful arguments for the hypothesis that we are alone in the universe.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7K3HHdxIt8dRYesXmpQ2kV

Three weeks ago, Dr. Kipping gave a fantastic lecture at Columbia University on the same subject, "Why we might be alone".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcInt58juL4

The "We are alone" hypothesis contradicts D&C 76:24, unless apologists want to claim that D&C was talking about worlds in some other universe.
If we are alone in the universe, that would be a big blow to the Fine-Tuning for life theory.

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

My first comment in the thread was:

t depends on what the OP is asking. If “alone” means the only intelligent species that exists in the universe, I’d say the sheer numbers of possible planets in the universe makes intelligent life anywhere at any time a near certainty. Speculation about a necessary connection between our sun/solar system and the ability for life to form is insufficient to let us lower the number of planets with life significantly.

The alien probe argument has as its foundation a bunch of fanciful hand waving. Right now a Van Neumann probe is more science fiction than science. To say it’s 100 years away is rank speculation. Given energy and resource constraints, we don’t even know if it’s practical to build such a thing. Nor do we know whether a society potentially capable of building such a thing would actually build one.

The claim that probes would travel at near-light speeds ignores the problem of increasing mass as speed increases. That the probe itself experiences time dilation doesn’t change the time it takes the probe to move from one star to another relative to the two stars. So, the speed of light remains a hard speed limit.

In addition, as Everybody Wang Chung posted, the expansion of space itself makes a large percentage of the universe both inaccessible and unbearable to us. And that expansion is accelerating. There is a huge number of planets for which we would be forever unreachable by probes.

Given all this, the absence of alien probes orbiting earth is insignificant in answering the question.

But, if the question is whether we will ever find another intelligent species that we can interact with, there are lots of good reasons to believe the answer is no.

I see no contradiction between my opinion and your post on the subject of likelihood of intelligent life in the universe. All I'm saying is that, given the large number of possible places where life could form and the fact that intelligent life has formed once, the odds are virtually certain that intelligent life has formed or will form again somewhere in the universe. If there is one other intelligent life form, or even a handful of intelligent life forms, currently in the universe, that is entirely consistent with such life being "not very common."

You responded by shifting to claims based on the uniqueness of the solar system:

You are missing the point. Nobody is rejecting the possibility of life forming in many star systems. However, if life is possible everywhere, why do we happen to be in a very unusual solar system? Perhaps we are just lucky to be in a special solar system, but we don't know that.
...

If you multiply points one, two, and three, you get a very improbable solar system. If Jupiter was essential to the formation of life on Earth, then that could suggest that life is rare.

"That could suggest that life is rare" is in no way inconsistent with one other example of intelligent life. And in the second part of the quote you demonstrate the "fatal flaw" in your argument: even if Jupiter were essential to the formation of life on earth, that says nothing about whether a Jupiter analog is necessary for the formation of life anywhere in the universe. To claim that it does is simply a non-sequitur, given the widespread consensus that we don't know what the necessary conditions for life are.

Since then, I think we've been exactly the same place. I understand your argument as:

1. The solar system is unique, therefore
2. Intelligent live in the universe is rare.

To which I have several responses:

1. Given the possible differences between solar systems, determining "uniqueness" is totally dependent on how many difference you look for. It's arbitrary.
2. Many of the sources of evidence you use to argue that the solar system is unique don't say what you claim they say.
3. Many of the conclusions you are drawing are based on an inadequate sample of the possible locations for life to form in the universe.
4. Neither you nor any one else knows, with any level of confidence, which conditions are necessary for life, which are sufficient for life, which increase the odds of life forming, or which decrease the odds of life forming. [The Fatal Flaw]
5. I'm not asserting that intelligent life in the universe isn't rare, as long by rare you don't mean impossible.
6. I'm basing my opinion on three things we know: (1) it is possible for intelligent life to form in the universe; (2) the extremely large number of places that life potentially could form; (3) We don't have sufficient information to rule out a significant number of those places.

You seem to be spending an enormous amount of time trying to prove that a paper says something other than what the author's actually said in the paper. But beyond that, even if the paper said what you want it to say, you've moved the argument a millimeter when you need to move it a mile. Until you deal with number 4, you're just spinning your wheels.

But the one thing that would help focus the discussion is for you to lay out exactly what you are trying to demonstrate. Is it that other intelligent life in our universe is rare? Is it that other intelligent life is absent from our universe? Is it that other intelligent life is impossible in our universe? Is it that it is more likely than not that there is no other intelligent life in the universe?

Based on my re-reading of the thread, you've been all over the map in what you seem to be trying to argue for. Most of the time you appear to be reacting to things other people have said. I think it help you focus and us understand if you will define exactly what conclusion you are arguing for give is a road map of how you think the bits and pieces of fact you are throwing out get you to that conclusion.

[doubtingthomas]

.

I corrected this reply, please read this one

Maybe interstellar civilisations expand, but maybe they just don't. It could be, for instance, that life tends to adapt itself so well to its home planet, whatever that may be like, that very few other planets are useful to it. Perhaps it's a lot easier to build giant space arks than to colonise other planets. Perhaps ancient civilisations look like giant trailer parks, with thousands of huge space arks orbiting around their original suns.

All of that could be true.

However, let's assume there are one thousand advanced civilizations in the galaxy. Shouldn't we expect at least one civilization to be the exception? It's doubtful that all alien civilizations would behave the same way.

Which means, from what Kepler would have detected, the sun would have been in the non periodic... In other words, of the two subsamples, Kepler would have put our sun the subsample for which its behavior was not unusual at all.

Probably, but the authors don't know for sure if the Sun would be a non-periodic star. It's just their best guess.

it is you who is saying you know more about the author's paper than they do

Not me, but Kipping probably does know more than all of them. He interpreted the data.

Anyways, the second study doesn't take into account one important thing: The average age of non-periodic stars. If most non-periodic stars are older than the Sun, then the data makes a lot of sense.

[doubtingthomas]

All I'm saying is that, given the large number of possible places where life could form and the fact that intelligent life has formed once, the odds are virtually certain that intelligent life has formed or will form again somewhere in the universe.

Define "universe". Are you talking about the observable universe?

I thought you changed your mind on this one. Just because something happens once doesn't mean it will happen again in the observable universe. It's best to be agnostic.

Since then, I think we've been exactly the same place. I understand your argument as:

1. The solar system is unique, therefore
2. Intelligent live in the universe is rare.

Yes, somewhat. Let me change it a bit.

1. If the solar system is a "cosmic oddity", then
2. Intelligent life is probably rare. Not impossible, but rare.

3. If the probability of life is 10^-100, then
4. Alien life is virtually impossible in the observable universe.

Does that make sense?

[Gadianton]

I think the Copernican principle has to try to say that there are aliens out there somewhere, but I don't see how it has to say that they are common. Things are still allowed to be rare, like supernovas and quasars—just not unique.

The simulation argument just seems naïve about how much resolution is needed to make a simulation indistinguishable from reality. Once you're simulating every electron, just what is the difference between that simulation and reality, anyway?

The doomsday argument seems the weirdest of all. Assuming that every process is always most likely to be about mid-way through its total duration would imply that the moment when every process should be expected to have the shortest time left in it is the moment when it has just begun, and conversely that the moment when any process should be expected to have the longest duration remaining is the moment just before the process actually ends. A rule which is supposed to be the most logical estimate should surely not be so badly wrong, so consistently.

I narrowed the simulation argument down to the conclusion if accepting that computer simulations will ever happen. It's perfectly fine, per the argument, to say that simulations aren't possible. The simulation argument doesn't say the big bang etc. has been simulated, and everything down to quantum mechanics replicated 1-1. There probably isn't a such thing as quantum mechanics, just the code returning results as if there were. My walls don't have to be solid, granularity to the experience increases as my eyes get closer. Maybe this instance only runs from 2010 to 2025.

As for doomsday, lol, I don't know what to tell you, maybe I'm leaving something important out. I encountered it in a sci-fi book by Stephen Baxter a very long time ago. I think I threw the book away, sucks because I remember in the book the future/alien guy who blows the mind of the protagonist by revealing the doomsday argument, does so in a protracted way by asking him to select balls out of a bag. Now that I've encountered Kipping's ball-in-bag argument, it would be fun to compare the two.

[doubtingthomas]

And 87% of the stars in the total sample were as relatively quiet as the sun.

Let me ask, you really have to answer this one.

Are the authors concluding that the Sun is quieter than most Sun-like stars (with similar rotation periods) because the Sun happens to be a non-periodic star? Do you realize there are two studies in that paper?

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe interstellar civilisations expand, but maybe they just don't. It could be, for instance, that life tends to adapt itself so well to its home planet, whatever that may be like, that very few other planets are useful to it. Perhaps it's a lot easier to build giant space arks than to colonise other planets. Perhaps ancient civilisations look like giant trailer parks, with thousands of huge space arks orbiting around their original suns.

All of that could be true.

However, let's assume there are one thousand advanced civilizations in the galaxy. Shouldn't we expect at least one civilization to be the exception? It's doubtful that all alien civilizations would behave the same way.

Dr. Steuss has answered the question several times. You are making enormous assumptions that intelligent aliens will think like you do. You have no reason to assume that. All you are doing is layer upon layer upon layer of absolute speculation based on no evidence whatsoever. There is no reason for the rest of us to spend two seconds on us. You might as well be asking "but what if there's an all-powerful God."

Which means, from what Kepler would have detected, the sun would have been in the non periodic... In other words, of the two subsamples, Kepler would have put our sun the subsample for which its behavior was not unusual at all.

Probably, but the authors don't know for sure if the Sun would be a non-periodic star. It's just their best guess.

That's not a reasoned distinction. You could fairly describe all of science as scientist's best guess. All of the Kepler data are someone's best guess. They did what they did. They ran a simulation of what Kepler would be able to detect about the sun through the Kepler pipeline that processed the telescope's data and concluded it was most likely that Kepler would have seen the sun as a non periodic star.

But even if we put that aside, that doesn't rescue your argument from the fact that the sun was not materially more quiet than 87% of the stars in the sample. That's what you leave out over and over and over even though it's just as much "hard science" as anything else in the paper.

it is you who is saying you know more about the author's paper than they do

Not me, but Kipping probably does know more than all of them. He interpreted the data.

You actually have no idea whether Kipping knows more about the paper than its authors do. The paper says what it says. It does not say what you keep trying to make it say. It's perfectly ok for you to make an argument based on what the study says. It's not fine to imply that the study says something it doesn't or to make arguments that contradict the results of the study. You can't simply ignore 87% of the sample because it contradicts the point you want to make.

Anyways, the second study doesn't take into account one important thing: The average age of non-periodic stars. If most non-periodic stars are older than the Sun, then the data makes a lot of sense.

Please don't make specific claims about a study without quoting from it. What leads you to conclude that?