The Fermi paradox is solved?

[Mouthwash]

Those of you who are into cosmology or related topics may have recently stumbled across this: a claim that, since most of the planets which will exist in our universe have yet to be born, this is not the most likely period in which life would form. This solves the puzzle of why we haven't detected any extraterrestrial civilizations despite the apparent habitability of our universe.

Unfortunately, it cannot be upheld at any rational level whatsoever. The main assumption of the Fermi paradox is the high probability those civilizations have of already existing. The future universe doesn't have the slightest bearing on that. We observe the universe we have, and if we conclude that life should be all-pervasive by now, we have the paradox (which isn't technically a paradox, but who cares).

I thought this was worth mentioning for two reasons:

1. To show how easily misinformation spreads by the public's trust in so-called 'science writers' and the internet. I saw this retweeted by a astrophysicist, and it has made its way onto various science websites (my link is to NASA's!). I've yet to see a rebuttal. Now I really don't think it takes a lot of cognitive horsepower to see why this doesn't add up, but apparently I've more than a bunch of experts. Are they all this stupid or do they just parrot each other reflexively to make sure they don't miss a scoop? Perhaps a combination of both.

2. To highlight what I think might a yet-untermed fallacy/cognitive bias- the conflation of our internal viewpoint with an external, objective one. In this case, it's treating the overall pervasiveness of life in the universe as somehow representative of how we should see it. It seems like this applies in other fields like ethics or epistemology, but I think that's distracting from the topic.

(To the credit of the actual study, there doesn't appear to be anything about how this 'explains' our observations about aliens. Rather, it talks about why humans would find themselves in an unlikely period for life.)

 

[Leoreth]

Now I really don't think it takes a lot of cognitive horsepower to see why this doesn't add up, but apparently I've more than a bunch of experts.

Or maybe ...

 

[Darkflight]

I read the entire NASA article and skimmed through the paper and I couldn't find a single mention of the Fermi paradox and how this paper relates to the Fermi paradox. Can you point to what I missed, or if I didn't miss anything can you link to the work of these science writers and/or the astrophysicist tweet that you think are getting it wrong?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That article doesn't do anything to address the "Fermi paradox". I guess if we were even further along time-line we'd have even more cause to be worried, but that's about it.

 

[Kennigit]

Volume(human contact potential)/Volume(universe) = ???

 

[Kozmos]

Isn't that based on the Drake equation, the majority of variables assigned arbitrary estimates (educated guesstimates) resulting in a large probability range? Also the way you perceive time (as yet to happen) isn't necessarily how universe or existence processes time. Though the jury isn't fully in on that.

 

[Agent327]

I read the entire NASA article and skimmed through the paper and I couldn't find a single mention of the Fermi paradox and how this paper relates to the Fermi paradox.

Well, to be fair, neither does the OP relate to it. Just the title.

 

[Mouthwash]

I read the entire NASA article and skimmed through the paper and I couldn't find a single mention of the Fermi paradox and how this paper relates to the Fermi paradox.

Oh puckernuts, you're right. There are a bunch of other articles claiming that and this was retweeted by the astrophysicist, so I just skimmed it and assumed it said the same thing. Also, there appears to be another recent study saying that Earth is in the first 8% of planets to exist? That means it could be that only one study is causing the confusion, and it isn't worth the energy to sort it all out...

Anyway, my point about this being a cognitive bias still works.

 

[Darkflight]

Well, to be fair, neither does the OP relate to it. Just the title.

The first reason the OP cites as to why he created this thread is dependant on one or more other people making claims that the Fermi paradox is solved. I would like to see those supposed claims before I pass judgement on his first reason to make this thread.

Oh puckernuts, you're right. There are a bunch of other articles claiming that and this was retweeted by the astrophysicist, so I just skimmed it and assumed it said the same thing. Also, there appears to be another recent study saying that Earth is in the first 8% of planets to exist? That means it could be that only one study is causing the confusion, and it isn't worth the energy to sort it all out...

Anyway, my point about this being a cognitive bias still works.

The tweet is phrased as a question and might just as well be a PR move. Something that is just thrown out there to get people interested so they come to watch PBS shows or whatever. The study seems to change the estimate of "how many of all earth-like planets that will ever form have already been formed" from 75ish% to 8%.

As I see it the Fermi paradox makes some significant assumptions about subjects we know little about, such as the likelihood of life getting started, the likelihood of that life developing into more advanced life and the likelihood of more advanced lifeforms developing into technological civilization. The tweet and the articles I found skimming the internet seems to suggest that it might be time to change our assumptions from what the Fermi paradox states (there should be loads of advanced life already in the universe and it's a mystery why we haven't met any of it) to a different assumption (advanced life is quite rare in the universe or possibly entirely unique to earth right now but in the future it's very likely that alot more life will develope). Ultimately both the Fermi paradox and that proposed idea is speculative at best and we just don't have the data to make any definitive claims yet.

I don't think you have adequatly demonstrated that your "reason 1" is what is happening here, but in general the spread of misinformation has been going on for as long as humans have communicated. To me it seems like currently a big part of the problem is that people rely on sources that have a vested interest in presenting information before it can be adquatly researched. Newspapers, TV news, internet articles, etc needs to present the information as soon as possible to secure as many sales/viewers/etc. We are essentially so addicted to instant information that beeing behind the curve on presenting the news is far more costly for a news provider then providing inaccurate information.

Here's a video from Veritasium that I recommend that is sort of relevenat to the subject of this misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYYuiWP0IpA.

Your reason 2 seems unclear to me and I am not sure that it is a cognitive bias at all.

 

[Agent327]

The first reason the OP cites as to why he created this thread is dependant on one or more other people making claims that the Fermi paradox is solved. I would like to see those supposed claims before I pass judgement on his first reason to make this thread.

Well, first off, a paradox is not an actual, but a seeming contradiction.

So what is the Fermi paradox?

- There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun,[2][3] many of which are billions of years older than Earth.[4][5]
- With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets,[6][7] and if the Earth is typical, some might develop intelligent life.
- Some of these civilizations might develop interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.
- Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in about a million years.[8]

Which sounds reasonable.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?"[9][10] There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox,[11][12] primarily suggesting either that intelligent extraterrestrial life is extremely rare, or proposing reasons that such civilizations have not contacted or visited Earth.

There are a few problems with this. First, at least some alien civilizations might already have visited Earth. But left no trace, as they were only observing and found nothing noteworthy. (It's important to remember that hominids have only been around for the last 2 million years or so.)

Second, various civilizations may have risen and become extinct before reaching the stage of space travel.

Which leaves not really much in terms of paradox. Perhaps, in the short time of space that we have been actually able to observe the universe, there simply was no one around. There is a definite amount of luck involved here. Possibly our timing simply isn't quite right. The other possibility is that there really aren't that many actual alien civilizations around. Since, as our own planet's history shows, a definite amount of luck is involved there as well. Or, if there are, they simply aren't up to the required level. Again, quite a luck of bit required there as well.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wouldn't really count travelling in a straight line from one side of the galaxy to the other as "traversing" it. You'd be lucky to even fly through a single star system.

 

[Yeekim]

Volume(human contact potential)/Volume(universe) = ???

This.
Never understood what is "paradoxal" about the current situation...

 

[schlaufuchs]

Now I really don't think it takes a lot of cognitive horsepower to see why this doesn't add up, but apparently I've more than a bunch of experts. Are they all this stupid or do they just parrot each other reflexively to make sure they don't miss a scoop?

The Dunning-Kruger in this passage is delightful.

 

[Mouthwash]

The Dunning-Kruger in this passage is delightful.

I spotted the error within five seconds and several journalists/scientists managed to type up a whole article without noticing. I'm not a scientist myself, but I do have rudimentary logic at my disposal.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There are a few problems with this. First, at least some alien civilizations might already have visited Earth. But left no trace, as they were only observing and found nothing noteworthy. (It's important to remember that hominids have only been around for the last 2 million years or so.)

Our ability to detect has been around for much less. Aliens could have been pretty darned conspicuous by today's standards 200-500 years ago and it's unlikely you'd have enough notice to filter out the one guy who actually saw aliens from the large space of people who claim to see aliens or divine beings routinely.

But we still lack any evidence of it, and that's troubling. It suggests that the "filter" is still in front of us.

Never understood what is "paradoxal" about the current situation...

It's a misused term, no way around that.

2. To highlight what I think might a yet-untermed fallacy/cognitive bias- the conflation of our internal viewpoint with an external, objective one. In this case, it's treating the overall pervasiveness of life in the universe as somehow representative of how we should see it.

That's not necessarily bias, more like attempting to correct for one or cast aside a baseless anchoring point. We're trying to model reality with incomplete information, so it makes sense our inference "should" be the model that most likely fits with what we're observing. With limited information any model/conclusion could be wrong, but why go with one that is less likely, as far as we know?

 

[warpus]

The Fermi Paradox is not really a paradox.

If intelligent aliens exist out there, they probably don't give a crap about us. We're probably some backwater world to them, inhabited by idiot monkeys. Why visit us when you can visit the futuristic space sex elevators of Omicron Persei 8? Why try talking to ants when you can go to the mall?

They are also probably not stupid enough to show themselves to anyone. Why advertise your existence to the rest of the cosmos, when chances are somebody a lot more advanced than you is out there somewhere?

 

[civvver]

Cus the reapers come and wipe out all intelligent life every couple hundred thousand years or so, allowing new life in its infancy to grow to keep the balance between man and machine. We're one of those infant cultures still, all the other guys got wiped out. In a few thousand more years we'll bump into them, but then reapers will wipe us all out and some other planet will be wondering why they've had no contact.

Until Sheppard that is.

 

[Mouthwash]

The Fermi Paradox is not really a paradox.

By all means folks, please keep on repeating this important point. Notwithstanding that I said it in the OP.

If intelligent aliens exist out there, they probably don't give a crap about us. We're probably some backwater world to them, inhabited by idiot monkeys. Why visit us when you can visit the futuristic space sex elevators of Omicron Persei 8? Why try talking to ants when you can go to the mall?

We should see them affecting the universe somehow. Gathering energy, or working to minimize entropy.

They are also probably not stupid enough to show themselves to anyone. Why advertise your existence to the rest of the cosmos, when chances are somebody a lot more advanced than you is out there somewhere?

To phrase this in clearer terms, you're positing that the universe is full of quivering, insular civilizations, all giving up all of the vast material gains from expansion due to their terror of being found and conquered by others. That just doesn't sound plausible to me (especially since we do have a potential spacefaring civilization to examine- our own- and it doesn't show much sign of this behavior.)

 

[plarq]

The Fermi Paradox is not really a paradox.

If intelligent aliens exist out there, they probably don't give a crap about us. We're probably some backwater world to them, inhabited by idiot monkeys. Why visit us when you can visit the futuristic space sex elevators of Omicron Persei 8? Why try talking to ants when you can go to the mall?

They are also probably not stupid enough to show themselves to anyone. Why advertise your existence to the rest of the cosmos, when chances are somebody a lot more advanced than you is out there somewhere?

Not really, Columbus didn't need to hide from the Indians in America.

 

[warpus]

By all means folks, please keep on repeating this important point. Notwithstanding that I said it in the OP.

Such a great host you are

We should see them affecting the universe somehow. Gathering energy, or working to minimize entropy.

Says who? The universe is immense and we've only ever seen a super tiny part and spectrum of it.

To phrase this in clearer terms, you're positing that the universe is full of quivering, insular civilizations, all giving up all of the vast material gains from expansion due to their terror of being found and conquered by others.

That's not putting it in clearer terms at all, you've changed what I said completely. If that amuses you, good for you I guess

To reiterate my point, any intelligent civilization out there understands evolution and that the species that usually end up dominating ecosystems are predators. If there is a potential predator out there, you don't advertise your own existence unless you have to. It's not worth the risk.

Haven't you watched the X-files? Aliens are all secretive and crap. There's a good reason for that.

Not really, Columbus didn't need to hide from the Indians in America.

Columbus did not think that there was a more powerful civilization on a continent out there somewhere. Nobody really thought that at the time, and in hindsight it was a reasonable assumption.

It is of course what the natives in the Americas assumed as well, and their assumption was perhaps reasonable, but in the end incorrect.