The Fermi Paradox and probability theory.

[Samson]

I think BvBPL's point is that you can say literally anything and it would be "proof" that alien life doesn't exist, if we follow the logic in the OP's article. E.g. if aliens are so advanced then they'd have blown up a sun by now probably - why haven't we seen evidence of that? If aliens exist and they enjoyed chocolate as much as we did then they surely would have invaded our planet and taken all our chocolate -- but they haven't. The existence of chocolate on this planet is therefore evidence that there are no aliens anywhere. If aliens exist then they probably invented spheres, which means they would probably have really liked football. Given that football has become so commercialised already, it stands to reason that an even more advanced alien civilisation would have commercialised it to the point where entire planets would be branded in the football colours of the patron team of that planet. Why have we seen no evidence of football-branded planets? Surely this must be taken as evidence that aliens don't exist.

etc

Ah, I see, point missed again, sorry.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Football-branded planets and star travel seems like an oxymoron to me

 

[Mise]

Tell that to the Galacticos

 

[peter grimes]

OK, I read the first creation.com link. Here's the conclusion:

Because many believe that life evolved on other planets and that it might be millions of years older than humans, they also belief that aliens would have had the time to develop the incredible technologies as depicted in much sci-fi. However, no amount of advanced technology could actually defy or ‘turn off’ the laws of physics that govern our universe. This would be necessary even to travel close to the speed of light, let alone faster. These are insurmountable problems.

As the Bible’s ‘big picture’ would indicate,25 there are no aliens from other planets visiting Earth. And the above simple physics shows how nonsensical the idea is: the energy required even for mild-sounding ‘sub-light’ travel is more than the whole human race consumes in a month, and the impact of even small bodies is like a nuclear explosion. So enjoy the science fiction if you like, but for facts, return to God’s Word.

A young earth creationist*, who believes in a Jewish zombie who can perform miracles, telling us that we have to obey the physical laws of the Universe and that facts are to be found in the Bible. irony, irony, irony.

*Pretty sure Jonathan Sarfati's a YEC, but I could be wrong.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think BvBPL's point is that you can say literally anything and it would be "proof" that alien life doesn't exist, if we follow the logic in the OP's article.

This has to be one of the biggest non-sequiturs I've ever had to comprehend. But I'll bite; why?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

an Earth-like planet to produce a civilization capable of exploring distant solar systems

The civilization on Earth is not capable.

 

[Mise]

This has to be one of the biggest non-sequiturs I've ever had to comprehend. But I'll bite; why?

You'd have to ask BvBPL as I'm not going to speak for him, but my understanding of his criticism is that it's all based on the assumptions that alien life develops in broadly the same way that life on Earth has; that alien culture develops in broadly the same way that human culture has; that alien communications, technologies, mentalities, priorities, etc etc etc all develop in broadly the same way that humans' have. He similarly criticises the author's liberal extrapolation from those rather tenuous assumptions. Latterly, he has made a number of reductio ad absurdum arguments, where he parodies the logical train of thought in the author's article.

These are all valid objections, and numerous people have made them not only in this thread but in the wider debate on this subject. Ultimately these objections boil down to "yeah, okay, that's plausible, but you have no way of knowing any of that, nor any way of assigning probabilities to it, so this is all just conjecture. Interesting conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless." BvBPL likened it to science fiction in his first reply. Rest assured, though, these are valid criticisms, and not non-sequitors.

 

[Akka]

You'd have to ask BvBPL as I'm not going to speak for him, but my understanding of his criticism is that it's all based on the assumptions that alien life develops in broadly the same way that life on Earth has; that alien culture develops in broadly the same way that human culture has; that alien communications, technologies, mentalities, priorities, etc etc etc all develop in broadly the same way that humans' have. He similarly criticises the author's liberal extrapolation from those rather tenuous assumptions. Latterly, he has made a number of reductio ad absurdum arguments, where he parodies the logical train of thought in the author's article.

Considering a LOT of the explanations to the paradox are precisely about divergent evolution of life, technologies and the like, then if what you say is true I'd say that he's just criticizing out of ignorance.

 

[Mise]

Considering a LOT of the explanations to the paradox are precisely about divergent evolution of life, technologies and the like, then if what you say is true I'd say that he's just criticizing out of ignorance.

Like I say, you'd have to ask him about the specifics. I think the more general criticism is valid: there is really nothing here but conjecture. I've followed your discussion with him, and tbh I don't think the two of you are really that far apart. Your disagreement appears more about how interesting the paradox is as a thought experiment. In other words, you have a difference of opinion.

EDIT: Actually I just re-read your reply. What you call "explanations to the paradox", BvBPL calls "criticisms of the paradox's a priori validity" (or might call it that, if he were here talking to you instead of me). So yeah, you simply think the explanations are interesting, whereas BvBPL thinks they are so obvious and boring as to call into question the entire intellectual exercise.

 

[onejayhawk]

The civilization on Earth is not capable.

Yes it is. We have not, because of the costs, but we could do it now. They would not get there for generations, which is one of the costs.

J

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We can't maintain a ship in outer space for generations.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not yet, no. And, we might never be able to. We've gotta drive our SUVs to the store to get ottoman's that match our sofas!

 

[Mouthwash]

You'd have to ask BvBPL as I'm not going to speak for him, but my understanding of his criticism is that it's all based on the assumptions that alien life develops in broadly the same way that life on Earth has; that alien culture develops in broadly the same way that human culture has; that alien communications, technologies, mentalities, priorities, etc etc etc all develop in broadly the same way that humans' have. He similarly criticises the author's liberal extrapolation from those rather tenuous assumptions. Latterly, he has made a number of reductio ad absurdum arguments, where he parodies the logical train of thought in the author's article.

These are all valid objections, and numerous people have made them not only in this thread but in the wider debate on this subject. Ultimately these objections boil down to "yeah, okay, that's plausible, but you have no way of knowing any of that, nor any way of assigning probabilities to it, so this is all just conjecture. Interesting conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless." BvBPL likened it to science fiction in his first reply. Rest assured, though, these are valid criticisms, and not non-sequitors.

Bostrom's ideas apply to any form of life that can purposefully manipulate matter on a basic scale. So no, none of those criticisms are valid.

 

[classical_hero]

OK, I read the first creation.com link. Here's the conclusion:



A young earth creationist*, who believes in a Jewish zombie who can perform miracles, telling us that we have to obey the physical laws of the Universe and that facts are to be found in the Bible. irony, irony, irony.

*Pretty sure Jonathan Sarfati's a YEC, but I could be wrong.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about with this comment. Okay, go back in time and prove what is written in the Bible is wrong? Since you are making a claim about an historical event with something that we can try to do now, is absolutely laughable, but typical of atheists when they come up with a massive problem to their beliefs, they go into ad hominen territory and means they have no solutions to the problem.

 

[Akka]

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about with this comment.

You're supporting the scientific validity of the Bible and you say to someone else he has no clue ?

 

[Samson]

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about with this comment. Okay, go back in time and prove what is written in the Bible is wrong? Since you are making a claim about an historical event with something that we can try to do now, is absolutely laughable, but typical of atheists when they come up with a massive problem to their beliefs, they go into ad hominen territory and means they have no solutions to the problem.

You can do better that that. Someone claims that entity W can do X which is beyond our current capacities and that entity Y cannot do Z which is also beyond our current capacities. In any scientific context this requires justification, and none is provided. Care to explain what we are missing here?

 

[El_Machinae]

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about with this comment. Okay, go back in time and prove what is written in the Bible is wrong? Since you are making a claim about an historical event with something that we can try to do now, is absolutely laughable, but typical of atheists when they come up with a massive problem to their beliefs, they go into ad hominen territory and means they have no solutions to the problem.

His criticism is valid, though. You posit a supernatural explanation, and so claiming something is 'physically impossible' is not congruent with your worldview. You can often play within someone else's worldview to show inconsistencies (for example, the Problem of Evil), but in this case it's a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, he's arguing that something is 'impossible' because it's 'improbable'. Um, yeah, we already knew that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

but typical of atheists when they come up with a massive problem to their beliefs, they go into ad hominen territory and means they have no solutions to the problem.

Where is the ad hominem?

Shall we discuss the petrified waterwheel ag ... Whoops, almost said "again". But that discussion never happened, did it? I remember posting a massive problem with creation.dot.com's conclusion, but you never returned to address it.

Typical Classical Hero

By the way, this typical atheist offered support and friendship

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Yes it is. We have not, because of the costs, but we could do it now. They would not get there for generations, which is one of the costs.

Doesn't sound scientific (or, simply, rational) at all.

There could be a flying spaghetti monster in orbit. But he just doesn't want to show his face to earthlings because of the cost. So what are the chances that there's another spaghetti monster around a random earth-like exoplanet?

 

[Mise]

Bostrom's ideas apply to any form of life that can purposefully manipulate matter on a basic scale. So no, none of those criticisms are valid.

Okay, if you insist.