All of the above badly fail Occam's razor. That's why it's a paradox:
You can't fail the Occam's razor, it's not a rule that's always true, just a rule to use when you have no other. Every scientific discovery we have ever made has failed the Occam's razor at the time. Badly. If they didn't, there would be no use for science.
No matter how unlikely those scenarios are, each of them is decreasing the probability of the limited choice that either aliens aren't there or we would have met them. It is a false dichotomy – all the insignificant scenarios add up to something significant enough to not be ignored as an option.
Occam's razor is a scientifical law, not an 'internet law'.
Is says that the simplest explanation is likely - aka most often, correct.
And "every scientific discovery we have ever made" did not fail Occam's razor badly. NOT EVEN CLOSE
- in most cases, the scientific breakthrough presented a simpler way to account for the observed phenomena.
In the case of Fermi's paradox, the simplest explanation is that abiogenesis is very rare, followed by evolution of intelligence is very rare.
You want to believe very improbable "explanations" based on truck loads of assumptions?
Be my guest. Doesn't change the fact of them being improbable.
There are millions of reasons why we wouldn't meet aliens even if they were all over the place, from insufficient telescope resolution to looking at the wrong places to pure chance.
Only if ALL - EVERY SINGLE ONE - of the aliens are hiding, are at most at our stage of evolution, etc. Your statement is implied assumptions central.
Valid conclusions actually, as long as the probability of experiencing each moment in the history of the universe is the same or very similar. What if the universe becomes more unlikely with each day, though? Say, for example that the multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics is “true” and most “timelines” suffer from some kind of catastrophic event that leave the interesting ones more and more unlikely?
Really? You actually go all the way to these assumptions? You could just as well say 'the sun will not rise tomorrow', because 'the sun will rise tomorrow' is merely an inference, not 100% correct.
The VERY small likelihood of such statements makes them a waste of time.
These assumptions are supposed to have anything resembling validity? More like being practically impossible - the chance of them being true being so small as to be only a mathematical abstraction.
What are the energy requirements for that? Is the time necessary to rebuild the civilization at the next star system taken into account, which at 0.1 lightspeed is probably a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the travel time, and speeding it up would further increase the energy requirements for the trip?
100 million years is more than enough time to colonize the galaxy with ships only able of 0,1 lightspeed.
"100 million years is MORE than enough time to colonize the galaxy with ships only able of 0,1 lightspeed - 100 times more, to be exact."
The galaxy is ~100.000 lightyears across. At 0,1 lightspeed, traversable in 1 million years. Leaving 99 MILLION years for civilisation-building in the new colonies.
As said, MORE than enough time.
As for the energy requirements, today
we have the technology to accelerate to 0,05 lightspeed and decelerate to 0: fission fragment rockets
, powering a starship of ~normal size (achievable if we were mining the asteroids).
Robert Maxwell wrote:
If I could get rid of any two "laws" frequently cited on the Internet, they would definitely be Godwin's Law, and yes, Occam's Fucking Razor. "This explanation is complex, therefore it is wrong!" It encourages the absolute worst varieties of intellectual laziness.
I guess Karl Popper and many other philosophers of science, philosophers, scientists were 'intelectually lazy', eh?
And Occam's razor is ~"This explanation is MORE complex, therefore it is LIKELY wrong!"