So where are all the dimming stars we should be seeing from all the alien civs building all these solar collector swarms and habitats? — RogueAI
Freeman Dyson 1923-2020
"The biggest breakthrough in the next 50 years will be the discovery of extraterrestrial life. We have been searching for it for 50 years and found nothing. That proves life is rarer than we hoped, but does not prove that the universe is lifeless. We are only now developing the tools to make our searches efficient and far-reaching, as optical and radio detection and data processing move forward." (2006) — 180 Proof
All this suggests that we are probably "alone" (though we may have a couple dozen rough contemporaries elsewhere in the galaxy) - meaning, we are Elders, we're the ones who can strike out into the undiscovered country of the galaxy and make its real estate our own.
Explain why "it would make no sense" for an interstellar traveler's "system" not to be "filled with space habitats and energy collectors" or other such megastructures.... if they exist AND have the technology to cross interstellar distances. Yes, their system should be filled with space habitats and energy collectors. It would make no sense for it to not be. — RogueAI
Of course the Elder-hypothesis is highly unlikely, but it rises in probability as we eliminate alternative explanations. I don't think the "Rare Earth" hypothesis is viable. Almost certainly there are civilizations advanced beyond us in other galaxies, but at inter-galactic distances (esp with an expanding universe) there is not even the theoretical possibility of Contact with them.
Ironically enough, I think a future-Filter explanation is part of the reason why we are (probably) among the Elders. I've read that earlier in the history of our galaxy, the neutron-star collisions needed for trace-element nucleosynthesis were more frequent than they are today; and the gamma-ray bursts associated with just those energetic events would wipe out existing life anywhere within a considerable portion of the galaxy that was in the vicinity of these events. It might well have been the case that complex life and even civilization arose in the relatively recent cosmological past, that was dispatched in this way. Just as in the way that life on Earth emerged soon after meteor-impact abated enough to make it possible, intelligent life emerging now and hereafter has a more stable cosmological environment to develop in.
It's likely of course that we are not the very first; as I said, we can say that notionally we have one to two dozen ETI's roughly contemporary with us in the The Milky Way. Just as in the case of the Age of Exploration in the history of Earth, those civilizations that become interstellar space-faring civilizations first will have the ability to subject the entire galaxy to an imperial conquest.
Explain why "it would make no sense" for interstellar travelers' "system" not to be "filled with space habitats and energy collectors" or other such megastructures.
So they're going to do interstellar travel, but they're not going to colonize or build space habitats and solar collectors? That, right there, is silly. But here are reasons: — RogueAI
1. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Existential threats exist.
2. You don't leave energy lying around if you can cheaply collect and store it (this goes back to the implication that if interstellar travel is possible, efficient antimatter production and storage is possible). Spare energy is never a bad thing to have.
3. You maximize available computing power.
4. Population pressures (possibly mitigated by population controls)
5. Convenience (there are benefits to space habitats) — RogueAI
What's "silly" is your assumption that "they" are a biological species, thereby territorial expansionist "colonizers" like us, and not intelligent machines without the (our) evoluntionary baggage (i.e. motives or prerogatives). Given that deep space is extremely inimical to complex organic molecules and interstellar transits more likely than not are not organically - ecologically - viable for centuries-long durations, interstellar travel by intelligent machine probes is much more likely to be the case. These prevalent "Age of sail conquistadors" & "wild west/frontier settler wagon-trains" assumptions are post-Victorian/Depression-era pulp magazine space fantasies, which today, are, IMO, speculatively "silly".So they're going to do interstellar travel, but they're not going to colonize or build space habitats and solar collectors? That, right there, is silly. — RogueAI
Interplanetary travel suffices. Interiors of large asteroids or seismically inert moons can provide (A) orders of magnitude more usable per capita surface area than any 'indigenous planet', (B) abundant indigenous resources and (C) maximum radiation shielding. Interstellar travel for biologicals, by comparison, is an extreme "existential threat", and, therefore, much less likely to succeed (or be pursued for very long); that's what intelligent machine probes are far better suited for.But here are reasons:
1. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Existential threats exist.
Bussard ramjets (maybe even 'micro-singularities') for machine space probes. Nuclear and solar power for asteroid or moon bio-habitats. Native solar system more than suffices for a living species.2. You don't leave energy lying around if you can cheaply collect and store it (this goes back to the implication that if interstellar travel is possible, efficient antimatter production and storage is possible). Spare energy is never a bad thing to have.
Agreed. And send it - (xeno)A.I. - to the stars expanding through tens of millennia the light-year radius of cloud-like computing. The species stays home in 'simulated universes' progressively updated by (usable) data streaming-in from countless (if only .01% of probes survive), exponentially self-replicating, interstellar probes3. You maximize available computing power.
Population control is far far more efficient and inexpensive (in time, resources & energy) than "colonizing" a solar system, let alone other solar systems ... just to relieve "population pressures". C'mon, now that's "silly".4. Population pressures (possibly mitigated by population controls)
Agree. But a native solar system more than suffices.5. Convenience (there are benefits to space habitats)
"GORT! KLAATU BARADA NIKTO." :clap:Like you, we are curious; but unlike you, we are not greedy. We came, we saw, we left quietly, picking up our litter as we went. We travel but leave no footprints, and live lightly on the galaxy. You project onto us both your faulty physics and your diseased psyches; not understanding yourselves, you assume we are like you. With us, more is not better, and so we do not seek endless growth or endless expansion or infinite power. — unenlightened
You joke, but the US military has admitted there are UFO’s — DingoJones
This should already have happened in other galaxies. — RogueAI
Well, the explanation for that seems straightforward: a) ETI's have only been able to emerge in a durable way relatively recently in cosmological time b) not enough time has elapsed to see the emergence of a Type II civilization, given the time-lag in communication between us and Andromeda (much less galaxies further out).
Of course, a Dyson Sphere might seem to an advanced ETI like Steampunk seems to us; a quaint way of extrapolating about the future. Essential to the history of our species has been the discovery of more and more efficient ways of generating energy; we may be on the cusp of (another) energy revolution, one that makes the need to capture the energy of a star much more trouble than it is worth...
also it's worth pointing out, that we won't need energy to keep pace with an expanding population, since the demographic transition strongly suggests that the total species population will go into a permanent reduction sometime this century. The ratio of energy available per person may soon be off-chart. It makes sense further to say that "we" biologicals might never engage in interstellar exploration & conquest, instead that will be left up to Homo Superior who will replace us.
So where are all the dimming stars we should be seeing from all the alien civs building all these solar collector swarms and habitats? — RogueAI
Yeah.I don't think we have anything either. Or, to put it more precisely, if we have alien stuff, then I think the zoo hypothesis solution to the Fermi Paradox is right, to the point that we're being deceived about the universe on a massive scale. — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.