The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradox

[Linkey]

The main hypothesis explaining the Fermi paradox is that the life is too rare at our universe (other civilizations are too far from us). One of the versions of this hypothesis is that the abiogenesis is too low-probable. I have already criticized this hypothesis, separating rarity in space and rarity in time. And here is another reasoning - the anthropic principle. As far as I understand, the idea of a multiverse, or a multitude of universes with different laws of nature, is mainstream in modern science. So it turns out logically that there should be "universes with the Fermi paradox" and "universes without it", i.e. in the first universes life is rare in the metagalaxy, and in the second - often. And it should be so that since in the second universes there are more universes with inhabited planets - then for us the probability of being born in a universe of the second type is higher, i.e. we should see many extraterrestrial civilizations around us. And since we don’t see this, this turns out to be a refutation of the hypothesis about the rarity of life in the universe. We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Linkey said:

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

!

Moderator Note

Trying to discuss this with you in the Lounge is pointless. If you have evidence and can support your explanation, it should be in Speculations. If you have more than "this makes sense to me" sort of "logic", I can move it there if you like. 

 

[MigL]

The 'multiverse' is not mainstream science; it is a Marvel Cinematic Universe concept.
H Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation is nor mainstream science either; it is an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Whereas the Copenhagen Interpretation  asserts that wave function collapse leads to only one of differing realities of varying probabilities, and the cat has different probabilities of being alive or dead ( in the box with the radioactive trigger to release the Cyanide ), the Many Worlds asserts that wave function collapse leads to two distinct objective realities, one in which the cat is alive, and the other with a dead cat.

Interpret it any way you want; only the math is real.

Edited September 8 by MigL

[KJW]

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

a multitude of universes with different laws of nature, is mainstream in modern science.

I don't know if it's mainstream, but it does imply that the laws of physics are arbitrary as if given to us from above. On the other hand, if the laws of physics are purely logical (or mathematical), then there is only one set of laws across all universes.

 

 

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

So it turns out logically that there should be "universes with the Fermi paradox" and "universes without it", i.e. in the first universes life is rare in the metagalaxy, and in the second - often.

When one considers a multiverse of all possible universes, it's important to note that it's all possible universes. It doesn't include impossible universes. Therefore, one can't simply say that the multiverse contains representatives from each side of every dichotomy as if everything is a possibility. The notion that life is improbable is based on mathematical logic, and therefore would be uniform across all universes.

 

 

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

the anthropic principle

The anthropic principle only applies to our existence, it says nothing about the existence of other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

 

 

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

And it should be so that since in the second universes there are more universes with inhabited planets - then for us the probability of being born in a universe of the second type is higher, i.e. we should see many extraterrestrial civilizations around us. And since we don’t see this, this turns out to be a refutation of the hypothesis about the rarity of life in the universe.

There may be universes with many inhibited planets, beyond probabilistic likelihood, but these are unlikely, and it is more likely that our universe is not one of them.

 

 

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

Or it could be that your premise is wrong, and that life really is rare in the universe, with our existence and only our existence guaranteed by the anthropic principle in a multiverse.

 

 

Edited September 8 by KJW

[Linkey]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Trying to discuss this with you in the Lounge is pointless. If you have evidence and can support your explanation, it should be in Speculations. If you have more than "this makes sense to me" sort of "logic", I can move it there if you like. 

Ok, you can choose as you seem better.

I understand that my hypothesis may look strange, but it becomes normal in comparison to all other hypotheses which are very vulnerable for criticism too.

[exchemist]

13 hours ago, Linkey said:

The main hypothesis explaining the Fermi paradox is that the life is too rare at our universe (other civilizations are too far from us). One of the versions of this hypothesis is that the abiogenesis is too low-probable. I have already criticized this hypothesis, separating rarity in space and rarity in time. And here is another reasoning - the anthropic principle. As far as I understand, the idea of a multiverse, or a multitude of universes with different laws of nature, is mainstream in modern science. So it turns out logically that there should be "universes with the Fermi paradox" and "universes without it", i.e. in the first universes life is rare in the metagalaxy, and in the second - often. And it should be so that since in the second universes there are more universes with inhabited planets - then for us the probability of being born in a universe of the second type is higher, i.e. we should see many extraterrestrial civilizations around us. And since we don’t see this, this turns out to be a refutation of the hypothesis about the rarity of life in the universe. We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

As @MigL says, the idea of a multiverse is far from being "mainstream science". In fact it is not even science at all, but a highly questionable metaphysical idea, as it is completely untestable, having no observational consequences.

I must admit I have never understood the Fermi Paradox. As Douglas Adams's character Slartibartfast observes, "In space travel, all the numbers are awful". Therefore if Einstein was right, interstellar travel is inevitably both very costly and utterly pointless. So why would intelligent aliens attempt it? One might even cite the Fermi Paradox as evidence that relativity is very likely correct! 

Edited September 9 by exchemist

[MigL]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I must admit I have never understood the Fermi Paradox.

Even if FtL travel becomes possible at some future point, maybe the 'cost and effort  factor' term should be added to the Fermi Paradox.

[dimreepr]

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

Even if FtL travel becomes possible at some future point, maybe the 'cost and effort  factor' term should be added to the Fermi Paradox.

 If FLT becomes possible, then the Fermi paradox is self evident, in that, we have 'yet' to see them...

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, you can choose as you seem better.

I understand that my hypothesis may look strange, but it becomes normal in comparison to all other hypotheses which are very vulnerable for criticism too.

The thing about the anthropic principal in terms of the multiverse is, we can only live in this one; the thing about a paradox is, it can't be real, in this universe.

All of which means you may be right, but in a different universe... 😉

Edited September 9 by dimreepr

[Linkey]

Ok, indeed I don't really believe in my hypothesis of "Great erasion", and I rather prefer the following hypothesis: we are unable to recognize extraterrestial civilizations (to distinguish then among the nature's phenomena). We haven't seriosly made a big progress in comparison to ants; if an ant sees us, he can't understand that we are not the ants. When somebody takes an ant from a leaf, this is the same for the ant, as paranormal phenomena for us.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, indeed I don't really believe in my hypothesis of "Great erasion", and I rather prefer the following hypothesis: we are unable to recognize extraterrestial civilizations (to distinguish then among the nature's phenomena). We haven't seriosly made a big progress in comparison to ants; if an ant sees us, he can't understand that we are not the ants. When somebody takes an ant from a leaf, this is the same for the ant, as paranormal phenomena for us.

Do you have any evidence to support this position? I don't think "ants v humans" is equivalent to "humans v extraterrestrials" for a variety of reasons, but mostly because our understanding of the universe is enhanced by a unique combination of skillsets and evolutionary features. An ant isn't designed for much beyond its capabilities, but our brains allow us to specialize and grow new skills and knowledge, and to adapt accordingly. There could be extraterrestrials that are far more advanced than we are, but the probability of them existing in such a way that we can't detect them at all is very low. 

[swansont]

On 9/8/2024 at 2:48 PM, Linkey said:

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

You can’t “erase” a radio broadcast; there’s nothing that can catch up to the signal once it’s sent. But really, it’s not necessary, since the 1/r^2 attenuation will effectively do it for you. That signal that’s 1 watt a kilometer away from the tower drops to 10^-13 watts a light year away (and that ignores the issue of your radio tower probably being a dipole emitter, meant to maximize horizontal signals, and being smaller as it becomes vertical)

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, indeed I don't really believe in my hypothesis of "Great erasion", and I rather prefer the following hypothesis: we are unable to recognize extraterrestial civilizations (to distinguish then among the nature's phenomena). We haven't seriosly made a big progress in comparison to ants; if an ant sees us, he can't understand that we are not the ants. When somebody takes an ant from a leaf, this is the same for the ant, as paranormal phenomena for us.

If you're not an ant, how could you possibly know what it thinks and what it feels; the difference between paranormal phenomena and being lifted from a leaf is, one is real and the other is imagined.

Aliens may well be real and living among us, they could be fungi for a number of reason's,  why do they have to have to be so much more intelligent than us? (but let's not jump down that rabbit hole).

For your hypothesis to be valid, it has to have a value beyond your imagination IOW it has to be based on something real. 

[joigus]

On 9/9/2024 at 10:03 AM, exchemist said:

As @MigL says, the idea of a multiverse is far from being "mainstream science". In fact it is not even science at all, but a highly questionable metaphysical idea, as it is completely untestable, having no observational consequences.

I must admit I have never understood the Fermi Paradox. As Douglas Adams's character Slartibartfast observes, "In space travel, all the numbers are awful". Therefore if Einstein was right, interstellar travel is inevitably both very costly and utterly pointless. So why would intelligent aliens attempt it? One might even cite the Fermi Paradox as evidence that relativity is very likely correct! 

Agreed. On a related line of reasoning:

And,

Connecting to my previous argument, you're giving one particular reason why you never find camels in the North Pole: Why would they bother?

In few words, it's an argument from silence, and although that doesn't rule it out necessarily, it should make us be weary of its rationale. It is my understanding that Fermi himself didn't pursue it very much at all.

I get the feeling that there can be no blue potatoes. My firm belief is based on two recurrent experimental facts,

One: Every time I see a potato, it's not blue

Two: Every time I see something blue, it's not a potato

But that may just be because in this part of the universe all potatoes are non-blue.

As to erasion, that's more of an argument from noise.

[Linkey]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you're not an ant, how could you possibly know what it thinks and what it feels; the difference between paranormal phenomena and being lifted from a leaf is, one is real and the other is imagined.

So you deny paranormal phenomena? Ok, but I don't deny them.

I have one more argument for the op. 8 billions of people live in big countries, while maybe 2 thousands live as ancient hunters-gatherers. So it was more probable for us to be born in a big country. Is this logic clear?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Connecting to my previous argument, you're giving one particular reason why you never find camels in the North Pole: Why would they bother?

One of the arguments that seems to glossed over is, if they bothered, how would they get there?

We know that humans in their existence migrated several tens of thousands of kilometers in several tens of thousands of years. That is, around 1 km a year. But there is danger in using that as a simple extrapolation, because you can’t migrate 1 km a year over an ocean.

It’s why I find the argument that going thousands of light years in a certain amount of time is almost trivial to be unpersuasive; it lacks the necessary details of how you’d do that. It’s just a hand-wave of “they’d figure it out” (it’s like that great Sidney Harris cartoon - “I think you should be more explicit here in step 2”)

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

So you deny paranormal phenomena? Ok, but I don't deny them.

You need evidence of them before you can use them to buttress an argument.

[joigus]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

One of the arguments that seems to glossed over is, if they bothered, how would they get there? [...] 

But there is danger in using that as a simple extrapolation, because you can’t migrate 1 km a year over an ocean.

Sure. When this topic surfaced before, I remember we went over the difficulties of interstellar travel too. People tend to forget how bleak outer space is, how incompatible with human life, or any kind of life for that matter, and the sheer vastness involved. I more or less tried to include aspects like these in my camel analogy. 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Sure. When this topic surfaced before, I remember we went over the difficulties of interstellar travel too. People tend to forget how bleak outer space is, how incompatible with human life, or any kind of life for that matter, and the sheer vastness involved. I more or less tried to include aspects like these in my camel analogy. 

Quite. What would be the motive? The trip would take thousands of years - and the same to get back again, if return were envisaged, greatly exceeding the lifespan of any conceivable carbon-based life form. Sending a robotic probe might be more effective, as it could be accelerated harder and could beam signals back at c. But even that would be a very long term project, spanning generations. The best method, almost certainly, would be by remote sensing, using good telescopes, spectrometers etc. And why would our planet be of any special interest?  

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Linkey said:

So you deny paranormal phenomena?

Not at all, I just haven't seen it yet.

23 hours ago, Linkey said:

I have one more argument for the op. 8 billions of people live in big countries, while maybe 2 thousands live as ancient hunters-gatherers. So it was more probable for us to be born in a big country. Is this logic clear?

Only to you. 🙄