/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11751034]

>we're definitely alone guys

[Anonymous No.11751041]

nah, any good advanced civilization would have stop broadcasting centuries ago in fear of being whipped out by an even more advanced one.

[Anonymous No.11752111]

>>11751041
i know right
dark forrest on every level.
what faster way could you invite your doom?

[Anonymous No.11752130]

>>11751034
how can we be alone idiot look at how much stars and planets there are... you people need to think a lil harder

[Anonymous No.11752136]

>>11751034
That's not the problem of the Fermi Paradox. At our current technology we could fill the galaxy with human beings in less than 10 million years. That's nothing compared to the age of the universe. We wouldn't even need to fill the galaxy with humans, a simple self replicating probe for exploration would fill the galaxy just as easy. So it's not about how far radio signals travel, it's about how easy it would be for sub light craft to fill space and why they're absent.

[Anonymous No.11752148]

Why do we have this thread all the time?
Aliens don't exist and interstellar space travel is impossible, go to /x/ if you want to talk about your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11752154]

>>11752148
>Aliens don't exist
That's the opposite of science you dumbass, science never says something doesn't exist, science only says that it has not been observed before

[Anonymous No.11752200]

>>11752136
It really gets me that students of the latest and best method for transcending physical limits, science, seem to believe so fervently in a universe which, whether populated by intelligent life or no, has an insurmountable barrier to contact in the form of a cosmic speed limit preventing any form of transfer in spacetime, which is the only medium postulated for communication and relationship. A speed limit known for about a century.

You may as well prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we will never know where the travellers from the other tribe come from because we can stand on the hill and see all the way to the horizon but see no other camp.

[Anonymous No.11752207]

>>11752136
>"simple" self replicating probe
bruh

[Anonymous No.11752215]

There are infinite possibilities intelligence could exist in the universe. But there are also infinite possibilities of why they don't give a fuck about contacting anyone or doing anything we could recognize

[Anonymous No.11752448]

>>11751034
What energy level to expect the signal to have when being received in 200 ly distance, when assuming some average broadcasting technique...?

[Anonymous No.11752462]

>>11752154
your sexual intercourse has not been observed before

[Anonymous No.11752496]

>>11752136
>At our current technology we could fill the galaxy with human beings in less than 10 million years.

Will we though?

All this rubbish about
>hurr durr, it's so easy to colonize the whole Milky Way, it only takes 100 000 years

Yeah, if there is no motivation for us to do something like this, why would you assume aliens would do it. No matter who they are, they too need to manage ressources and think about time scales.

So again: if all we do, are these half-assed attempts to get shit into orbit, what makes you think aliens would lauch some huge colonization of space if neither they nor their children or grand-children will never see the results?

[Anonymous No.11752503]

>>11751034
human extent of radio broadcasts != alien extent of radio broadcasts

[Anonymous No.11752524]

>>11752503

guys we looked for smoke signals everywhere, and we can only see our own

surely this means there is nobody else out there

[Anonymous No.11752533]

>>11751034
And who do you think took that picture of our galaxy then?

[Anonymous No.11752544]

>>11752533

[Anonymous No.11752576]

>>11752136
>At our current technology we could fill the galaxy with human beings in less than 10 million years
and this statement is based on what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.11752586]

>>11752462
>sexual intercourse
And clearly no one has observed your redundancy (until now, me) and has told you that those two separate words mean the same thing, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11752589]

>>11752533
>picture
>as in photograph
/x/, /pol/, and /co/ are suppose to be the low iq boards, not this one.

[Anonymous No.11752644]

>>11752524
i bet if you polled scientists, most would say that life likely exists elsewhere in the universe. it's really freakish how quickly life appeared on this planet after its creation. the more interesting question is why don't we see evidence of intelligent life else where.

[Anonymous No.11752747]

>>11752154
So God?

[Anonymous No.11752756]

>>11751034
Somehow the Bible is right again.

[Anonymous No.11752776]

>>11752756
Quran is better.

[Anonymous No.11752788]

>>11752776
Muhammad got cock slapped by a demon.

[Anonymous No.11752798]

>>11752496
Well this IS one of the answers to the Fermi Paradox so you've got the right idea there.

>>11752576
Based on how fast spacecraft travel I assume. I'm not the one who came up with it.

[Anonymous No.11752818]

>>11751034
>>11751041
>>11752111
>>11752136
OR MAYBE advanced races filter out artificial radio signals thus allowing less advanced races to develop without outside influence

[Anonymous No.11752826]

>>11752818
So like the Zoo Hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11752842]

>>11751034
we should see them by now, extent of our broadcasts is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.11752846]

>>11752818
Exactly. It would serve a dual purpose: allow primitive race to develop naturally & prevent the undeveloped race from accidentally broadcasting to hostile advanced races.

[Anonymous No.11753098]

>>11752136
>At our current technology we could fill the galaxy with human beings in less than 10 million years
>technology
You sci bois need to take Economics 101

[Anonymous No.11753109]

>>11752589
U wot??? Are you that fucking stupid??

[Anonymous No.11753112]

>>11752846
So they just watching us throw increasingly larger rocks at each other?

Or maybe they like our oorn or something?

[Anonymous No.11753122]

>>11751034
>depression

[Anonymous No.11753300]

>>11752200
Except the tribesmen hadn't performed experiments which sypported the theory.
Also, your analogy is weak.

[Anonymous No.11753308]

>>11752496
>what makes you think aliens would lauch some huge colonization of space if neither they nor their children or grand-children will never see the results?
Because limited biological immortality is already solved and could be put into practice within five years if it was economically viable. Rest assured the most powerful people in the world are already immortal.

[Anonymous No.11753328]

>>11751034
The universe really isn't that old, life's going to be around for trillions of years. If life is sufficiently rare and when it does arise, doesn't survive for long enough then yeah, it does explain why we haven't found anything nearby. It's still going to be like looking for a needle in a haystack regardless.

[Anonymous No.11753338]

>>11751034
Well, even if it extended on the entire galaxy it would still cover basically nothing.
Of course we're not alone but every civilisation is likely stuck alone in their corner of the universe.

>>11752200
There's also the fact that everything is constantly moving away from us at speed we will never reach so it's not just a speed limit problem, with every minute that pass right now most things in the universe get more and more out of reach.

[Anonymous No.11753351]

>>11753098
This is not my original thought.
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2012/01/new-mathematical-study-reveals-that-our.html

[Anonymous No.11753384]

>>11753308
Kek
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11753751]

>>11753338
Those objects appear to be moving away.

Until we cross interstellar space with direct measurements, red shift is an observation, and the expansion of space is an inference based on that observation.

It could be a lensing effect not yet accounted for. The finite distances may not actually have accumulation of space between them, as it appears optically.

[Anonymous No.11753769]

If we can't reach them and they can't reach us then we're effectively alone.

[Anonymous No.11753827]

>>11753351
>10% light speed
Yeah, that's not a reasonable assumption

Nor is assuming that an advanced civilization would want to expand into space indefinitely
Sure, you want a couple extra planets in case one gets fucked, but it's really questionable whether there's value to inhabiting every planet we possibly could

[Anonymous No.11753919]

My personal theory is threefold:
First, Sol is something of an outlier. The fact that we dont have a hot Jupiter, and we have a smallish (relative to terrestrial exoplanets) world with an exceptionally large Moon seems pretty unique. Additionally stable G class stars as a population are uncommon by galactic standards. Not only that, but our star is extremly metal rich compared to most other stars, which might be the single biggest factor in the possibility of intelligent life. Sol is an outlier and life developed ridiculously Early due to freak conditions.

Secondly, I suspect the vast majority of intelligent species tend to focus inward, either because they simply dont care about space exploration or they cannot easily leave their planet due to high mass. Why bother colonizing space when you can just build a perfect VR fantasy and live out your dream life in sim?

Thirdly, I suspect that the overwhelming majority (99% or greater) of intelligent life will develop towards the end of the stelliferous period of the universe. Aging red dwarfs will produce nearly all life in the history of the universe and Earth like planets around G class stars will be unbelievable rare in comparrison.

[Anonymous No.11753923]

>>11753919
>vast majority of intelligent species tend to focus inward, either because they simply dont care about space exploration
every organism on this planet explores it's environment to some extent, even the worms in your intestines poke their head out your anus every now and then

[Anonymous No.11754099]

>>11753827
I think infinite expansion would be attempted but mostly because no civilization could maintain unification over the distances of space. The Expanse is a nice scifi example. Even Mars becomes independent like 130 years after colonization. That's what always happened in human history. Colonization and eventually secession.
So intelligent life would expand but they would be split up in endless factions, increasing the time it takes before new factions themselves start colonizing again and they will also be slowed down by their own wars of secession. Or wiped out.

[Anonymous No.11754134]

>>11752496
"lack of motivation" is the dumbest, lowest IQ neanderthal retard criticism of the fermi paradox
>human space exploration is moving slower than science fiction in the 50 years that it has existed therefore in the billions of years that intelligent life could have existed no one has ever been motivated to colonize the galaxy
so fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.11754157]

>>11752448
IIRC signals are basically just noise after one light year. Just something I read years ago.

[Anonymous No.11754166]

i mean what are the chances another life form has the complexity of glass and you can see a pink matter inside if it or straight up looks like some maplestory mob

[Anonymous No.11754391]

>>11753328
>life's going to be around for trillions of years.
Just two billions of years ago our own galaxy had double the stars it has today.
The universe is already old, stars are going to become more and more rare much sooner than a trillion years.

[Anonymous No.11754402]

>>11751034
How did you take a picture of the universe like this?

[Anonymous No.11754437]

>>11754391
red dwarfs can burn for trillions of years

[Anonymous No.11754440]

>>11754134
good post, I feel like those who do not get the Fermi paradox fail to appreciate the timescales involved

[Anonymous No.11754468]

>>11754402
protip: it wasn't SLS

[Anonymous No.11754472]

>>11752586
actually they don't anon
intercourse refers to any exchange of thoughts, information etc
you and i are having intercourse right now
i'll be gentle

[Anonymous No.11754488]

>>11754437
It's still unknown if life can develop on planet there though.

[Anonymous No.11754492]

>>11754134
Lack of motivation is actually a very concrete obstacle.
You can't really make any prediction on how an alien culture would think about such missions.
Even on our own planet we developed different approaches, in the past the chinese empire closed in itself for centuries even they had the possibility to dominate most of the world.

[Anonymous No.11754494]

>>11752148
>Aliens don't exist
And why are you so retarded to just assume that?
The fact that we exist already makes it considerable. And if only you had an IQ of over 105, you'd see how dumb that statement is.

[Anonymous No.11754512]

>>11754492
Yeah good point. People here keep putting human behaviour on alien life form. They could be vicious psychopaths or loving communists. Or anti-technologists. Or whatever. To definitively say there is/isn't alien life form is just a brainlet idea.

[Anonymous No.11754606]

>>11753923
much like yourself worms are also not at the same level of intellect as a human

[Anonymous No.11754615]

>>11751034
Nobody would even use radio for interstellar communication.

[Anonymous No.11754621]

>>11752136
This is a terrible argument. Human population will never be so big we would need to colonize the galaxy. We already see growth rates going down everywhere, even in Africa. And we are not even in real robotics age yet.

And there very well could be alien probes all over solar system. It's not like we would find them.

[Anonymous No.11754653]

>>11753112
maybe they watch us like we’d watch endless soap opera? with loremasters arguing about historical persons’ true motives and about predicting the future.
my life’s a tragedy one for sure.

[Anonymous No.11754699]

>>11753351
I'm always surprised to see how regularly I'm disappointed at supposedly informed takes on the Fermi paradox. It's always unconvincing shit high on way too many assumptions.
The way the article phrases the conclusions is particularly grating. "The galaxy should have been colonized by now", yet that very same article makes clear the model doesn't even take into account a tenth of the possibles trajectories for a spacefaring civilization.

[Anonymous No.11754712]

>>11754440
The problem is that there are scales at every step of the problem. Sure the timescales are potentially huge, but the probability of success are potentially negligible, and the distances to be covered are potentially immense.
I really feel like most attempt to answer the Fermi paradox boil down to trying to give a precise answer to "what's the product of a huge number by a tiny number". That's not what you should be doing, you should be trying to narrow down the numbers as much as possible, and right now the honest assessment is that we don't have the means to narrowing them down precisely enough.

By all means let people explore possible solutions, but let's stop pretending we know what's going on. Everyone is just spitballing at this point.

[Anonymous No.11754732]

>>11752136
>a simple self replicating probe for exploration would fill the galaxy just as easy

Why would a self replicating probe be made to go unchecked?

Creating enough replicas to visit all nearby systems and replicate again would be a more normal thing, and we could have easily been visited by probes that replicated and left.

[Anonymous No.11754830]

Wonder if there are solar systems, in which many different planets have independently evolved their lifeforms, and they war and trade with each other, getting to see alien life just looking at the next planet on the sky.
Like neighborhood.
They’d have so much knowledge about origins of life, since there wouldn’t have been any contact between each other prior to space travel.
And we’re here, alone in a midst of lifeless rocks, ever wondering what it could have been.

[Anonymous No.11754833]

>>11754830
There is water on Mars. Imagine if an alien civilization lived on Mars millions of years ago but got wiped out before they invented space travel either by their own hand or some extinction event that turned the planet into the red wasteland it is now.

[Anonymous No.11754834]

>>11751034
dubs and ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.11754849]

>>11754833
If they existed, what if they had found, and made memes about tiny primitive life on Earth. And purposefully protected it from themselves, forbidding all travel to Earth and stuff, just like what we’d do if we found life on Mars or elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.11754856]

>>11754849
>tfw marsians make fun of you
What if it's going back and forth? We start terraforming Mars but get wiped out before we can settle there, but in a a billion years, intelligent life has evolved on the now habitable Mars, looking on a barren Earth and wondering if other intelligent life exists in the universe..

[Anonymous No.11754876]

>>11754856
Exactly! I don’t think there would be any traces of us by then, except slight radioactivity and maybe microplastics. Then they’d send probes to dig around, hype-ing for slightest signs and arguing about them between each other. Lol.

[Anonymous No.11755117]

>>11754830
>different planets
>war and trade with each other,
Planet A orders something from planet B.
Arrives 2 years later with expedition cost 100 times the local price.
That's your trade.
And with no trade no war too.

[Anonymous No.11755744]

>>11754621
Human populations rise and fall based on the carrying capacity in each country, that rises with technological improvement. If you colonize another planet, the population of that colony is dependent on the carrying capacity of that planet. So our population here would plateau, but that colony would continue to grow.

[Anonymous No.11755797]

>>11752533
kek

[Anonymous No.11755831]

>>11751034
Conversely, the universe is so massive that the likely hood of any intelligent and technologically advanced life being close enough for us to ever detect is astronomically low.

For all intents and purposes we are alone because we will never detect, much less interact, with other intelligent advanced life.

[Anonymous No.11755895]

>>11755117
Well fuck.

[Anonymous No.11755907]

Isnt it so weird that we live on planet in middle of nowhere? We are literally floating in... ??? somewhere?

Is it just me or does anyone find this extremely weird?

[Anonymous No.11755948]

>>11753328

https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA

Universe barely started. Honestly, we appeared so early we may be one of the earliest civilizations in the galaxy. It took 4 billion years for life on Earth to develop civilization and in 900 more million Earth will be a scorching desert.

Life is probably very common but life capable of creating space faring civilization may be incredibly rare.

[Anonymous No.11756160]

>>11751034
We are alone, because we retroactively kill other civilizations.
Though I say, "we" I refer to that which comes from us.

Our line is maintained because it leads to the apex predator of the universe.

They dominate science, to the point that time travel is child's play.

Any time they find a civilization, they travel backwards in time, and destroy it.

We are alone, because we are made to be.

[Anonymous No.11756302]

>>11756160
typically I don't do this but
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11756320]

>>11751034
We're probably not alone. Just the physical/biological reality is galactic civilizations are impractical/ self destruct too quickly for them to co-exist.

[Anonymous No.11756354]

>>11751034
This isn't the problem. The meme you posted implicitly assumes that we haven't made/won't make contact with an intelligent civilization until after our signals reach them. This is silly - one day, if we survive long enough, we will expand to starts that we haven't heard signals from. Why should they wait to hear from someone to go there?

The problem is that despite:
>the ~trillions of places intelligent life could exist w/in 1 billion light years
>how fast an intelligent civilization could spread to literally every star w/in a billion light years (~a few million years)
>how absolutely advantageous (and likely inevitable) it would be for any sufficiently advanced civilization to spread to every corner of that 1 billion light years

...we see no evidence of life outside of Earth.


Even assuming FTL travel is strictly impossible, all it would take is one space-faring civilization w/in 1 billion light years to have started travelling at least a few million years ago to result in our local group to be absolutely overflowing with intelligent life. And yet, nothing. If you make FTL travel possible, you only exacerbate the problem - now all you need is 1 civilization within *many* billions of light years and much less than a few million years time.

I am NOT saying we are alone. I am saying that the Fermi paradox isn't as simple as "hey look at how big the galaxy is guys!". The size of the galaxy could easily be completely filled with Dyson swarms within an amount of time that looks like a blink of an eye on cosmological time scales. So where is everyone? Why is it so hard to find signs of life when all the numbers suggest they could and should be everywhere - even in our own solar system?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDPj5zI66LA

[Anonymous No.11756364]

>>11756354
>The problem is despite...
What if all those things you listed are poor assumptions

[Anonymous No.11756379]

>>11756354
"Over the yeows we" - learn to speak correctly!

[Anonymous No.11756387]

>>11751034
Here's the thing, intelligent life appeared on Earth very late. We have billions of years of very simple life and just a short period of advanced life. And Earth will become very harsh for complex life quite soon. It's possible most planets can't sustain complex life long enough to create space faring civilizations. We are nowhere near becoming interstellar after all.

[Anonymous No.11756390]

>>11756364

Every solution to the Fermi Paradox involves re-examining one or more of those assumptions. The problem is that most "solutions" create even more, arguably shakier assumptions.

Many scientists (myself included) think it is the first assumption that's the culprit - that technological civilizations (not necessarily life in general) is far less common in the universe than we think. Solutions in this category include the Rare Earth Hypothesis and the Great Filter (although the latter is more of an explanation for the former rather than a solution on its own).

It's unlikely that the second assumption is incorrect, since today's technology physically permits (but perhaps not economically) it. Every solution I've come across that presumes the third assumption is incorrect relies on the aforementioned shaky assumptions.

[Anonymous No.11756405]

>>11756379
1) I literally never said that in my post - learn to use quotation marks correctly!
2) I'm typing, not speaking
3) If your main concern is how well I can catch my spelling and grammar mistakes, rather than my arguments themselves, then I doubt you'll bring anything constructive to the issue being discussed.

[Anonymous No.11756504]

>>11751041
>radio travels at speed of light
>is invented billions of years after the planet formed
Yeah. Hiding radio waves would matter.

[Anonymous No.11756551]

>>11756302
I typically don't do this, but feel free to discredit the idea, with evidence. :)

[Anonymous No.11756561]

>>11752136
>something keeps wiping out earth like planets before they progress to a type 1 civilization
spooky

[Anonymous No.11756606]

The mutations that brought about consciousness are million fold of all the starts in the universe.

[Anonymous No.11756662]

>>11752148
>Aliens don't exist
mathematically impossible
lets figure 3 trillion planets in our galaxy, if just .000005% are habitable thats 200,000 potential planets harboring life.

[Anonymous No.11756681]

>>11756662
>mathematically impossible
>impossible
I'm not the guy you're replying to but you can't call someone on their imprecise language by using imprecise language.

It's mathematically *improbable* - but only if life is as common as you suggested. I could just as easily come with a probability (say 10^-38) that makes it mathematically improbable that life exists at all.

[Anonymous No.11756694]

>>11752496
Implying they haven’t advanced passed aging or death

[Anonymous No.11756961]

>>11755907
Its all very preposterous

[Anonymous No.11757003]

>>11756354
>>11756390
Decent post but honestly don't even need to get to that argument and the assumptions it makes in mapping alien behaviour after ours because, as you brought up, rare earth is good enough on its own

>>11756662
Space big so Star Wars real durr. As far as we can see there hasn't been a second genesis on earth since LUCA and it was in the Hadean, so we already have reason to believe that abiogenesis is an extremely unlikely event. Entering the more speculative, looking at how complex even the most simple life had to be and the probabilities involved in chance of emergence of something like RNA with a length of 40-60 nucleotides from prebiotic materials gives us even worse odds, so bad that it actually shouldn't have happened once in our observable universe yet. Then consider that you need far more nucleotides for even a simple replication-translation system, and you arrive at Eugene Koonin's estimate of the probability of chance emergence of life at 10^-1018 in any one observable universe lol

So it is actually very, very mathematically probable that we are alone, and for the many, many next universes. It's dead out there bro

[Anonymous No.11757059]

>>11757003
Maybe there are other ways life could emerge. With our limited understanding it might be improbable, but how improbable is it that we are right, with only a few centuries of actually scientific progress?

Another answer would be biological intelligence purposefully wiping itself out once a certain threshold of tech is reached. If we had the technology to transfer our consciousness into some sort of sci fi cloud, matrix, server cluster or whatever, why should we still expand resources to settle other planets?

[Anonymous No.11757073]

>>11757003
I’m the guy your first replies are referencing.

Why do you think abiogenesis is sufficiently unlikely to make the universe dead? I’m not as convinced, purely from a statistical standpoint. Even if abiogenesis is inevitable (which it certainly is not), there are still so many other hurdles life has to overcome to get to intelligence (eukaryotic life, sexual reproduction, etc). What’s the likelihood that, once abiogenesis has occurred, life would be able to surpass all those other hurdles?

To me, it seems just as unlikely (if not less likely) that life eventually evolves intelligence after abiogenesis occurs as abiogenesis occurs in the first place.

I understand the argument that abiogenesis seems to have only occurred on life once, but to be fair, the same is true with eukaryotic cells. And it’s not like we would have any evidence of it occurring more than once anyways, since RNA is (as far as we know) the only molecule that could ever be produced naturally and result in life.

[Anonymous No.11757078]

>>11757003
>As far as we can see there hasn't been a second genesis on earth since LUCA
But there may have been several before

>we already have reason to believe that abiogenesis is an extremely unlikely event
So unlikely it happened in the blink of an eye after Earth's creation

[Anonymous No.11757082]

>>11757059
> If we had the technology to transfer our consciousness into some sort of sci fi cloud, matrix, server cluster or whatever, why should we still expand resources to settle other planets?

Regardless of what form life takes, it will always require energy input, which means some form of expansion. That expansion may stop before moving out of one’s solar system, but such a civilization should be detectable.
But this still suffers from the issue of non-exclusivity - it’s unlikely that every single civilization, or every single member of a one civilization, will act exactly the same. Some members of the aforementioned civilization are likely to act differently, and different civilizations with different histories will likely act differently too.

[Anonymous No.11757084]

>>11757078
If by “ a blink of an eye”, you mean over 1 billion years, then sure.

[Anonymous No.11757109]

>>11752111
To have any chance of picking up our signals you have to be looking right at the Earth, and if you do that then there's been some obvious shit going on for hundreds of millions of years. A planet that refracts an atmospheric makeup like ours is extremely unusual. The oxygen is especially strange. Looking more closely, an observer would discover a large fraction of the land masses are covered in plant life. From that point the planet would be on a close watch list, and even if we never belted out radio waves, the industrial revolution would be visible as a sharp change in atmospheric makeup.

[Anonymous No.11757115]

>>11757084
0.8 Ga
If you take away the time is was a ball of molten rock it's even less. From first water to first life is only a few hundred million years.

[Anonymous No.11757220]

>>11757073
It's not what I think but just the math on the probabilities involved in it as worked out by biologists far smarter than me. Abiogenesis as we understand it right now is inconceivably unlikely if brought about by chance emergence, but possibly we just don't understand it entirely. I doubt it though, and those mechanisms would have a really large gap to bridge

>And it’s not like we would have any evidence of it occurring more than once anyway
All life today shares a genetic heritage and we would have noticed any deviations from it

>To me, it seems just as unlikely (if not less likely) that life eventually evolves intelligence after abiogenesis occurs as abiogenesis occurs in the first place.
The probabilities of life leading to intelligent life is even more difficult to postulate about but I doubt it. Multicellularity spontaneously emerges all the time, high intelligence isn't really endemic to humans, and so on. You're right that eukaryogenesis is another huge roadblock however. Good quote from Koonin on this as well
>The formidable problem that these fundamental complex features present to evolutionary biologists makes Darwin's famous account of the evolution of the eye look like a simple, straightforward case. Indeed, so intimidating is the challenge of eukaryogenesis that the infamous notion of ‘irreducible complexity’ has sneaked into serious scientific debate [11], albeit followed by a swift refutation [12]

>>11757078
Yes, it's difficult to reconcile its improbability with how early it emerged on Earth. Perhaps panspermia and, returning to why abiogenesis seems so impossible, there are things elsewhere that better enables it, perhaps high energies. And LUCA is from the early Hadean so that's a very small window for others to emerge before it

[Anonymous No.11757223]

>>11757082
>Some members of the aforementioned civilization are likely to act differently, and different civilizations with different histories will likely act differently too.

I guess we just don't know until we do.
Are there any theories about intelligence in deep space? Creatures feeding of radiation or whatever?

[Anonymous No.11757396]

>>11757223
Any "organism" that sustains on radiation in deep space probably wouldn't be life as we recognize it.
Entirely possible, but if it was intelligent, it would probably have been a self-engineered organism.
I don't feel like that type of creature would have a clear avenue to natural evolution, but it's mere existence may be a possibility, for a civilization that mastered engineering to the scale that they could redesign their self.

[Anonymous No.11757403]

>>11752589
u must be baitin

[Anonymous No.11757406]

If life is a simulation then perhaps most of the visible universe doesn’t actually exist, just a rendering of what it should look like

[Anonymous No.11757410]

>>11751034
Just read the trilogy: Three Body Problem, Dark Forest, Death's End.

Everyone is trying to hide themselves because once a certain threshold of technology is met, weapons of destruction (photoids etc.) are too powerful to ever risk the detection of your location.

[Anonymous No.11757411]

>>11755948
Holy shit what a great video.

Imagine life emerging in the first few seconds of the Universe, back when it was a molten ball of subatomic particles. Imagine them pondering "How will life survive when space cools below 10000Kelvin?".

Great vid. Reminds me of the Xeelee books.

[Anonymous No.11757415]

>>11751034
as if you can measure a signal of so pico-wats next to hundreds of coronal mass ejections.
What you need for this an earth sized radio mirror directed at earth an 0,1 nano-meter maximal deviation.
I am to lazzy to do the math but electromagnetic signals decrease by the third power.
And how far is it to the next star?

[Anonymous No.11757738]

>>11756561
Isn't this the plot of Gurren Lagann?

[Anonymous No.11757743]

>>11751034
Good.

We don't want you to go and bum the aliens or corrupt them with weird American shit.

[Anonymous No.11758650]

>>11757115
Even if it’s just 100 million years, that’s hilariously improbable.

Consider the time scale on which relevant chemistry occurs. If it takes hundreds of millions of years for microsecond-timescale reactions to produce the thing you want, then you’re talking about probabilities so low that it’s far from inevitable that they’ll occur.

It’s also worth noting that the sooner you assume abiogenesis happen, the longer it took for eukaryotic cells to evolve - another several hundred million years. In other words, making abiogenesis more probable effectively makes the next big leap even less probable.

[Anonymous No.11758683]

But what if we were the alions all along?

[Anonymous No.11758695]

>>11752148
>Interstellar travel is impossible

No it isn't you fucking idiot, people have worked out the math on how to get to Alpha Centauri in about 50 years with nuclear bombs. They figured out how to get there in 9 with antimatter propulsion. The reason we don't go is it would cost more than the total GDP of the Earth, we have no reason to right now and most importantly we don't have the technology. We know we could reach other stars with more advanced tech, there just isn't an efficient way to harness the energy we have right now.

[Anonymous No.11758697]

>>11758695
Why not just bend spacetime lmao?

[Anonymous No.11758702]

>>11758697
This, but unironically.

[Anonymous No.11758703]

>>11757410
Thay doesnt make too much sense. You would have civilizations at many different stages and some of them, much like us would be happy to shout "we are here!" all over the space.

[Anonymous No.11758704]

>>11758697
There is not a known way to do that right now. We only know that spacetime can theoretically be bent.

[Anonymous No.11758707]

>>11751034
You're making assumptions about the probability of extraterrestrial life which we don't even know how to measure.

[Anonymous No.11758721]

>>11751034
>Be mankind
>Broadcast intentionally to E.T. life for less than 40 years
>Muh Fermi Paradox
>Also dismiss 100% of UFO cases because /x/
>WHERE ARE ALL OF THE ALIENS YOU GUYS??? WE ARE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE...

[Anonymous No.11758765]

>>11757411
Yeah, it's incredible.

[Anonymous No.11758783]

We can't see life out there because we literally barely can see outside solar system. Next gen telescopes will maybe be able to directly observe earth size planets. Maybe. It's 20-30 years before we see signs of life.

Dyson spheres or Fermi Paradox are gigantic memes. Earth population is going to plateau around 12-13 billion. Colonizing other planets will literally never be necessary.

[Anonymous No.11758832]

>>11758783

>Colonizing other planets will literally never be necessary

it is necessary just for the sake of survival of species

[Anonymous No.11758850]

>>11758783
>Colonizing other planets will literally never be necessary
Who gives a fuck about necessary? Going to 4chanel isn't necessary but we all do it anyway. Most things humans do aren't necessary

[Anonymous No.11758873]

I already answered this in my other thread.

There exists a hard upper limit of feasible technology that no species can surpass. The laws of physics and material preclude a greater control over matter that is required to do this.

The universe is teeming with life that's stuck on its planet. Humans will be stuck here forever.

[Anonymous No.11758880]

>>11758783
>Colonizing other planets will literally never be necessary.

What the shit is this logic? More planets humans colonize equates to a better chance of the species surviving.

[Anonymous No.11758947]

We're alone: big retard
We're not alone: retard
I have no reason to believe we're alone: moderate brain
I have no reason to believe we're not alone: big brain

Fags

[Anonymous No.11758953]

>>11752136
yeah, because with our current technology we can create a "self replicating probe"
idiot

[Anonymous No.11759070]

>>11751034
Something that has been overlooked is the amount space junk that accumulates in our orbit. If junk and satellites crash into each other it will create even more debris. Its going to get to a point where it would make leaving the earth hard no?