SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After decades of searching, we still haven't discovered a single sign of extraterrestrial intelligence. Probability tells us life should be out there, so why haven't we found it yet?
The problem is often referred to as Fermi's paradox, after the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Enrico Fermi, who once asked his colleagues this question at lunch. Many theories have been proposed over the years. It could be that we are simply alone in the universe or that there is some great filter that prevents intelligent life progressing beyond a certain stage. Maybe alien life is out there, but we are too primitive to communicate with it, or we are placed inside some cosmic zoo, observed but left alone to develop without external interference. Now, three researchers think they think they[sic] may have another potential answer to Fermi's question: Aliens do exist; they're just all asleep.
According to a new research paper accepted for publication in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, extraterrestrials are sleeping while they wait. In the paper, authors from Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute and the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade Anders Sandberg, Stuart Armstrong, and Milan Cirkovic argue that the universe is too hot right now for advanced, digital civilizations to make the most efficient use of their resources. The solution: Sleep and wait for the universe to cool down, a process known as aestivating (like hibernation but sleeping until it's colder).
Understanding the new hypothesis first requires wrapping your head around the idea that the universe's most sophisticated life may elect to leave biology behind and live digitally. Having essentially uploaded their minds onto powerful computers, the civilizations choosing to do this could enhance their intellectual capacities or inhabit some of the harshest environments in the universe with ease.
[Related]:
The idea that life might transition toward a post-biological form of existence
Sandberg and Cirkovic elaborate in a blog post
The Dominant Life Form in the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots
Where even 3 degrees Kelvin is not cold enough, do you think that we would ever make contact with any alien ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:19AM (26 children)
Heavier-than-air flight wasn't possible either.
Jeff Bezos, start the 1,000 Einstein's breeding program. We need them to put their heads together to solve faster-than-light travel.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:21AM (1 child)
They said humanity couldn't destroy an entire galaxy. I say we prove them wrong!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:25AM
Why not? There are about a trillion galaxies out there. Why not destroy one.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:27AM (19 children)
Wrong. Birds have always done it, therefore we knew quite well that it is possible in principle. There may have been doubts that humans might be able to achieve it, but that's a different question.
The light speed "barrier" is not a problem of engineering. It's a fundamental limit of physics.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:13AM (8 children)
The speed of light through space is limited, but space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light. The engineering challenge is how to warp space to make long distances shorter.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:31AM (6 children)
That would only be possible with negative energy densities. We don't know any material with negative energy density, and we don't even know whether it is possible. This is not an engineering issue. Unless we make new discoveries in fundamental physics, we simply can't go faster than light, in any way.
Also note that the ability of FTL travel necessarily implies the ability of time travel. So why didn't we see any time travelling spaceships from the future yet?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:01AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Warp-drive_research_and_potential_for_interstellar_propulsion [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday July 18 2017, @03:09PM (3 children)
That's assuming our existing understanding of physics is both perfectly accurate and complete. And we're fairly certain that both of those are false.
There's a long list of unexplained phenomena proving our understanding of what is made possible by physics is incomplete, and a few places where accepted physics theories are known to be incompatible - implying that one or both theories are somehow flawed.
Also, it's only the potential methods we've dreamed up so far that would require negative energy densities - there's no telling what weird twists of physics future theoreticians may conceive of that might avoid that difficulty. The problem space of "everything that could possibly be done within the existing framework of physics" is radically larger than what we've managed to dream up so far - I'm quite confident we'll be dreaming up new ways to exploit physics for millenia to come, even if by some miracle our current theories actually are complete.
And along the way, maybe we discover a Oort-cloud object made of negativeonium and can build those current warp drives designs after all - no new physics needed.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:24PM (2 children)
No. Expanding our knowledge of physics is a research problem, not an engineering problem. The engineers' turn is after we figured out all the necessary physics.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:05PM (1 child)
What exactly are you objecting to? Even negative-energy based warp drives are still very much in the realm of theoreticians and researchers - engineers have no place in this conversation, I would think that obvious.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @04:46AM
Read the thread again, carefully. I don't like to repeat myself.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20 2017, @05:39AM
> Unless we make new discoveries in fundamental physics
Indeed, this is the key; many things are not yet conclusively shown impossible by all of observed physics, and this frontier alone might break the rules as we so far know them.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:11PM
IIUC, no time machine is able to carry you back before it was first built. I'm not real sure of the math, but Forward was, and he seemed to imply this several times.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:20AM (8 children)
Just because `c` is a limit, doesn't mean there is no way around this problem. Since space is finite, you can "travel" as fast as you'd like for sufficiently short periods of time.
And remember this thing about physics - these fundamental limits are just what we know. We don't even know what we don't know. Heck, just the known unknowns is already a large task -- how to manipulate gravity? Isolate the gravidic charge? Heck, 150 years ago it was proclaimed that all of physics was discovered and that with sufficient computation you can figure out anything in the universe. And the sun was a lump of burning coal, of couse, that couldn't be more than few million years old. Then we had these small things happen. You know, like nuclear physics and quantum physics. And with that now we know that geologists were right and the earth is at least 3-4 billion years old. And now we have things like computers and laser pointers - things that are unimaginable to someone with physics only 150 years old.
And finally we come to stupid people thinking about things beyond their comprehension. Like, why hasn't alien intelligence contacted us? I wonder if an ant on an anthill thinks the same thing - why haven't those humans contacted us? Maybe they are not intelligent!
When difference in technological progress are measured not in hundreds of years, but in MILLIONS OF YEARS, then WTF? The universe is not like Star Trek. It's not like Star Wars. It's like Flinstones meet Jetsons meet Timelords -- maybe we have less in common with aliens than we have in common in our lab rats?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday July 18 2017, @11:06AM (4 children)
But the fact that we haven't found a way around this limit is a strong indication that we won't find such a way. We aren't as ignorant as we were before we found "c".
And yet intelligence is still restricted by the laws of physics which we appear to have nailed down. It's also a peculiar argument to make that an extremely intelligence species can't understand a dumber one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)
I'd say that it's a strong indication that we don't know shit, not that we won't. We already know what it would take to breach the barrier, and that is a start. It means we would know it if we saw it. But most likely the way to do it will be something we haven't even imagined possible.
I would argue otherwise. But it may not be as "limited" as you think, because the way to solve complex things usually depends on translating the problem into one that is trivial to solve, hence you bypass the need to solve the complex problem and the limits of doing that. And we have hardly nailed down the laws of physics that govern intelligence, if we had we could make AI systems that operate better than Humans at most tasks. We did it for some tasks, and we kinda have an idea how it will work for others, we are just not there yet.
The perception filter is a key to intelligence which we haven't fully cracked. Our brains are hard-wired to our eyes, and the eyes (or rather the part that of the brain that processes visual input) filter objects based on how our body can interact with them. This is a key component that makes our existence in physical world computational trivial. Without this "hack" we would take hours to make simple decisions about simple actions, as is the case with many current AI implementations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:14PM
Evidence distinguishes between hypotheses. This doesn't distinguish between ignorance and FTL travel being impossible.
I'll note here here that the limits I mentioned are many orders of magnitude above the performance of either human brains or computers at present.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
This explains so much about your stubborn refusal to even entertain different viewpoints. You really believe humanity has mastered the universe, and thus your own learning has convinced you that you have learned all the objectively true answers.
This is laughable. Ha ha, I laugh at you sir, with your blind overconfidence. Just your last statement: "peculiar argument to make that an extremely intelligence species can't understand a dumber one" shows your basic level of intelligence. We still have humans trying to figure out the behavior of animals, so yes, it is entirely possible that an extremely intelligent species could have major problems understanding "dumb humans". Perhaps they have no cultural or biological context for some of our activities, or their method of communication is so different from ours that they can't just hook up their universal translator to understand our monkey noises.
You really plumb the depths of stupid ignorance by testing the kiddie pool for an entry into the Marianna Trench.
I've said this before, I welcome skepticism and critical analysis but self-assured faith rationale is not welcome no matter how well based in current physics.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:08PM
Let me introduce you to Isaac Asimov [tufts.edu]:
Our old knowledge of the universe doesn't evaporate just because we learn something new. The false certainty that we will eventually figure a way past the speed of light is based on a double error. First, that what we're learned so far will turn out as wrong as assuming that heavier than air flight is impossible (an analogy which was used in this very thread). This is equivalent to the above assertion by "John" that the Earth is flat and the Earth is round are equally wrong. Second, it ignores that we've searched extensively for faster than light phenomena in the past few decades. A few million more years of science won't reverse the science that has already been done. We have already discovered constraints on motion which don't go away just because you feel they should.
Hard != impossible. Notice I said "can't" not "could have major problems".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by quacking duck on Tuesday July 18 2017, @04:05PM (1 child)
That recalls what was for me one of the most profound exchanges I've heard in sci-fi, that closed a first season episode of Babylon 5. After years of Star Trek where humans and the Federation were top dogs and fantastical things were explained away by the end of an episode, this sent chills up my spine and I got goosebumps.
Catherine Sakai: While I was out there, I saw something. What was it?
G'Kar: [pointing to a nearby flower] What is this? [upon closer inspection, an insect is visible]
Catherine: An ant.
G'Kar: "Ant"!
Catherine: So much gets shipped up from Earth on commercial transports, it's hard to keep them out.
[As Catherine is talking, G'Kar carefully picks up the ant.]
G'Kar: I have just picked it up on the tip of my glove. If I put it down again [replacing the ant on the flower] and it asks another ant, "What was that?" …how would it explain? There are things in the universe billions of years older than either of our races. They are vast, timeless. And if they are aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants…and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know. We've tried. And we've learned we can either stay out from underfoot, or be stepped on.
Catherine: That's it? That's all you know?
G'Kar: Yes. They are a mystery. And I am both terrified and reassured to know that there are still wonders in the universe…that we have not yet explained everything. Whatever they are, Ms. Sakai, they walk near Sigma 957. And they must walk there... alone.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:34AM
Then there is that bit in MiB where our entire galaxy is actually inside one of the marbles that an alien child is playing with.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:36PM
> maybe we have less in common with aliens than we have in common in our lab rats?
Considering what we know about evolution, I'd replace that "maybe" with a "clearly", until given solid proof to the contrary.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:57AM
I've always thought that FTL is the wrong objective - it should instead be wormholes / teleportation.
We've already achieved teleportation of atoms (admittedly across very small distances), so in theory this is possible. I don't know if there's been any serious research into wormholes (apart from a few seasons of Stargate SG1), but this could get us there, even if we have to drag a gate to the destination under relativistic speeds.
BTW, Iain Banks wrote a great novel based on this idea - it's called 'Matter'.
(Score: 4, Touché) by dry on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:31AM
Of course heavier then air flight is possible, lots of examples such as birds, bats and various insects. Simple engineering was all that was needed, in particular a compact power plant. Faster then light travel seems to be prevented by the nature of the Universe, be nice if wrong but so far we have no examples.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:13AM
Yeah except for birds, which were totally unknown before the 1900s.
(Score: 1) by Paradise Pete on Tuesday July 18 2017, @01:41PM (1 child)
Are you sure you're on the right site? How did you get here? Who do you think ever thought heavier than air flight was impossible? It's observable everywhere. Considering that you actually seem to believe what you wrote, I won't even bother addressing the flaw in your logic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:55PM
I'll gladly point out the flaw in your historical knowledge. Humanity commonly thought flight was impossible for humans, everyone predicted the Wright brothers would fail. Also, people used to think the Earth was flat even with all the evidence of heavenly bodies being round.
It is maddening to see supposedly intelligent people tear others apart over tiny nuances like this that have little bearing on the actual point.