Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Ricky Spanish, Jun 19, 2012.
More likely, actually. Occam's Razor and all that.
I was trying to be charitable.
Sadly their plan is becoming outdated, as Andy Murray being the first Brit to even make it to the final since 1938 hints...
Is it wrong of me that this sketch was all I could think of all weekend? And is it sad of me that I recognise the saucer sound effect from The Dalek Invasion Of Earth?
Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating this but :
Allowing even low estimates for the number of galaxies / suns / planets in the 'Goldilocks Zone' / life starting / intelligence makes it probable that intelligent life evolved elsewhere. Factor in FTL travel (which is a stretch) and you could still get theoretical visitors.
None of this, however, takes into account the staggering timescale or 'deep time' since the Big Bang. The chances of one of the aforementioned 'visitors' civilisations existing at the same time as ours is very very small indeed.
Some people would. You wouldn't need that many, and it wouldn't be that hard to find enough volunteers.
Explanation for what? For why the million-item list of "things we don't know about extrasolar planets" includes whether or not life exists on any of them? Why does that even require an explanation?
The fermi paradox DOES build upon a cascade of assumptions, none of which have any support. The fundamental assumption is that if life was common in the universe, we could become aware of it, and that furthermore if INTELLIGENT life was common, we would be aware of it by now. Both of those are false assumptions, and all the others proceed from them.
Even the most far-fetched and romanticized sci-fi visions of what an interstellar civilization might look like, if that civilization does not possess FTL travel, the chances of their being aware of us are extremely small; significantly, our chances of being aware of them are much much smaller.
What does a 100 million year old interstellar colonial species look like? At those timescales, our assumptions about who they are or what they are doing go right out the window, and recognizing it would become even harder: Just as far as Earth is concerned, 100 million years is a long enough time for a colony to be built, destroyed, then rebuilt and destroyed again over the course of a million years before being subsumed by erosion and elemental stress to the point that any artifacts of civilization would cease to be recognizable. OTOH, this being the Ancient Aliens thread we must also entertain the possibility that humans are the descendants of an alien race that colonized Earth millions of years ago before their society decayed into barbarism and the record of their origins was lost to time.
This, of course, stems from the assumption that interstellar colonization is likely to be a priority for spacefaring civilizations, when the only datapoint we have -- ourselves -- suggests otherwise.
They definitely didn't spend a lot of time on the internet, which is why Occam's Razor, applied in this thread, is being applied as an internet rule.
In your own words: This explanation is MORE complex, therefore it is LIKELY wrong!
Is intellectually lazy. Take the two competing explanations:
1) "She stole my wallet because she is three months behind on paying her rent and she was terrified of being evicted and winding up homeless."
2) "She stole my wallet because it was shiny."
The simplest explanation is the more likely one WITH ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BEING THE SAME. Occam's Razor is the LAST thing you resort to when evidence supports both explanations equally but one explanation requires more elements than the other. If you skip the evaluation part and don't care about the evidence, then you're really just making declarations.
This TEDeducation animated short is amusing and informative:
Why Can't We See Evidence of ALien Life
I think one of the reasons that humans are looking for other intelligent life is that we want to know whether or not there is the possibility that we too might not go extinct. So, for me the question is about the mortality of our species. We humans are obsessive about death and, in the Western World, the death of civilizations, aren't we?
I know that the Neanderthals didn't create a civilization, yet I also know that they were intelligent and that some of them had sex with humans. So, for a brief period of history, humans were in contact with and interacting with another intelligent life form. Why do we forget that?
I am going out on a limb here, which may be sawed off the proverbial tree. I have noticed that nature generally doesn't do things in singles; 'she' does things in twos or more. Why wouldn't 'she' have created more than one intelligent species, capable of creating a civilization, and why are people arguing that two civilizations existing in the same time period could be an impossibility?
I do have to ask, why did the Q (quelle, German for "source"), the 'writer' of the physical laws that govern this universe, make intergalactic, and even interuniversal, travel difficult, if not nigh improbable?
Neanderthals were human.
And "nature" is not a she or anything for that matter. Like the cylons, nature does not have a plan.
We will most certainly go extinct. If we don't, that would be a first for a species on Earth, and most probably a universe first as well.
It's amazing how often people forget this.
I don't know. Maybe we will be the seed of a galactic civilization some thousands of years down the road? If we get our priorities right and don't kill ourselves first.
Sure, but they won't be human, and speciesists care too much about that.
Then again, it's possible that someone saves human DNA and decides to bring us back from extinction one day. I'm betting on someone doing that with the Neanderthals in a several decades. So why not homo sapiens sapiens too?
Great! Then there will be "Ancient Aliens" shows about us! With all the accompanying idiocies.
Are we sure we want that?
I have to point out also that Neanderthal were human. In addition, the conclusion that the two ever mated is highly controversial and disputed. I know anthropologists that are proponents of the theory and those that think it's scientific nonsense.
Based on personal experience with women I know and the men they are attracted to, I am going to side with the proponents.
Humans share up to 4% of their genetic makeup with Neanderthals.
There are life forms that are on this planet that have survived multiple extinction level events. An example is the horseshoe crab which has been around for approximately 450 million years.
We humans are a stubborn and resilient species. 75,000 years ago, the super volcano Toba erupted. This volcano killed a majority of humans living then, yet we survived. For us to go extinct, the event would have to be more catastrophic than Toba.
I did watch it for the first season, the four 2-hour episodes or however many there were because the concept sounded interesting. However I gave up after that, it felt they were just making shit up as they went.
I won't make fun of the porcupine on his head though, that's not fair to the poor critter.
Yes and there are some modern human populations that allegedly share features consistent with having ancestors that were Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. It's still highly disputed by experts in the field. IIRC, the study supporting interbreeding is based on Mitochondrial DNA, which is useful in some areas, but poses its own problems. It's certainly a possible explanation, but we don't "know" that it happened.
Separate names with a comma.