The question of, if there are aliens out there, where are they? In short, they ain’t. From Dissolving the Fermi Paradox by Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Toby Ord:
Abstract: The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe. The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations. We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters. We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it. This result dissolves the Fermi paradox, and in doing so removes any need to invoke speculative mechanisms by which civilizations would inevitably fail to have observable effects upon the universe. (public access) More.
The authors conclude: When we take account of realistic uncertainty, replacing point estimates by probability distributions that reflect current scientific understanding, we find no reason to be highly confident that the galaxy (or observable universe) contains other civilizations, and thus no longer find our observations in conflict with our prior probabilities. We found qualitatively similar results through two different methods: using the authors’ assessments of current scientific knowledge bearing on key parameters, and using the divergent estimates of these parameters in the astrobiology literature as a proxy for current scientific uncertainty.
When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe– Scientific Paper: It’s Likely We Are Alone In The Observable Universe – By HANK BERRIEN – June 26, 2018 More.
But we are never alone as long as we have imagination!
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
See also: Crackpot cosmology offers us a future worse than extinction
and
Question of the hour: Are space aliens hoarding stars in an expanding universe? If the aliens are really advanced, they can shop for stars in the past and the future and have them delivered. There’s nothing wrong with this stuff at all except that it isn’t science. It uses the trappings of science, in the same way perhaps as Hollywood Bible movies use the trappings of religion. The more “daring” the stuff is, the more likely it is to be off the track.
Quite interesting:
KF
We may be alone in the galaxy or even in the observable universe.
Alien intelligence may already be here on Earth but undetectable to us.
Earth may be quarantined by advanced alien intelligences because we are too primitive and our societies too unstable to be safely contacted at this time.
We can – probably – assign probability estimates to each of these possibilities and any others we can imagine.
Only time will tell which – if any – of these possibilities is true. Unfortunately, none of us may be around when that happens.
Seversky holds out hope that “Alien intelligence may already be here on Earth but undetectable to us.”
Too Rich! 🙂 Seversky apparently believes in undetectable Alien intelligence but resolutely refuses to ever believe in the detectable Intelligent Design that we witness first hand in the DNA of our very own bodies.
bornagain77 @ 3
If you read what I wrote, you will see that the presence of aliens on Earth was just one of several possibilities. I didn’t say that I believed in any of them. I don’t think we have enough data yet to decide between them.
Seversky states: “I didn’t say that I believed in any of them. I don’t think we have enough data yet to decide between them.”
Seversky, as a Atheistic Darwinist who is, by default, committed to a reductive materialism, the is no “I” within your worldview to ever choose whether to believe in something or not no matter how much data you have.
“You” are, according to your worldview, a mindless automaton with no free will of your own.
“YOU” didn’t even write your post in 4, the laws of physics did and informed the illusion of you of the fact after it happened,
bornagain77 @ 5
A computer can be described as a plastic box fill with bits of metal, silicon, glass and plastic. It is an accurate description – as far as it goes. But it is far from being a complete account of what a computer does and how it does it.
A human being can be described as a bag of water and chemicals. That is also true but far from being a complete account of what a human being is.
The theory of evolution is an account of how life on Earth has changed and diversified over time after it had appeared. The life-forms being explained are physical beings, subject to the same chemical and physical laws as the rest of the Universe. But being material does not necessarily entail that they cannot generate consciousness – including a sense of ‘I’ – particularly as we are having a problem even describing what consciousness even is. Given that, it’s hardly surprising we don’t yet have a plausible explanation of how one can arise from the other.
As for free will, it depends on what degree of freedom you mean. Do you mean the freedom to choose between a few available alternatives or the freedom to do literally whatever you will?
Besides, as has been pointed out a number of times before, the Bible provides anecdotal evidence to support the claim that an omniscient deity with demonstrable foreknowledge of the future also precludes the possibility of free will.
Years ago, it was pointed out, here at UD, that the Drake Equation was silly. The “probability” of life emerging on another planet was ‘1’!!! That’s right. If it could happen, it will happen—only certain other conditions were necessary. After all, the ‘right conditions’ exist on earth and so does ‘life’!!
This is like watching someone roll 6 dice at once and all six dice coming up as a ‘1’. Then you would say that the odds of rolling a ‘1’ on six dice in one roll is ‘1’, and not (6)^-6= 1/46656.
How about cytochrome c coming about by chance just for starters?
PaV:
Natural selection makes the highly improbable virtually certain.
Seversky, small problem with all your spin on the insurmountable problem of consciousness and free will for atheistic materialists., it is refuted by empirical evidence. Specifically, by Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Contexuality and the Kochen–Specker theorem
Needless to say, Atheists don’t like the “instrumentalist approach” of quantum mechanics since it, by letting free will into the picture, directly undermines the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, the “instrumentalist approach” is experimentally confirmed to be true by both contextuality and by the Kochen-Speckter Theorem.
In regards to contextuality we find that In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.,,, and,,, Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study.
As Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
further note:
Of course Seversky, since you are a Darwinist, I don’t ever expect you to be fair with the experimental results, but for the unbiased reader, I am sure they can clearly see who is being forthright with the science and who is blowing smoke.
As to Seversky’s comparison of computers to humans, it is interesting to note that computers are intelligently designed. (Is Seversky trying to imply humans are intelligently designed?)
Indeed, computers by themselves, by their ‘top down’ design, refute reductive materialism even though they have no free will or consciousness:
As Ellis stated: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
BA77 @ 10: “As to Seversky’s comparison of computers to humans, it is interesting to note that computers are intelligently designed. (Is Seversky trying to imply humans are intelligently designed?)”
Genius. Well done.