Im Jahr 2018 berechnete ein Team an der Penn State University, wie viel vom durchsuchbaren Kosmos SETI tatsächlich abgedeckt hat: das Äquivalent der Wassermenge eines Whirlpools aus allen Ozeanen der Erde. Wir überprüften einen Whirlpool und kamen zu dem Schluss, dass es im Meer keine Fische gibt.
Dieser Artikel untersucht vier unabhängige Beweislinien, von der zyklischen Kosmologie (Penrose, Steinhardt-Turok) bis zu Wright et al. vom kosmischen Heuhaufenpapier über interkulturelle Berichte bis hin zur vom Pentagon bestätigten Nimitz-Begegnung und argumentiert, dass das Fermi-Paradoxon auf einer Reihe von Annahmen beruht, die einer genaueren Prüfung nicht standhalten.
Vollständig bezogen.
https://buildingbetter.tech/p/the-fermi-fallacy
7 Kommentare
**Submission Statement**
So I wrote this piece after getting frustrated with how casually people invoke the Fermi Paradox like it’s a settled argument. it’s not. the whole thing rests on the assumption that we’ve done a meaningful search, and when you actually look at the numbers, we haven’t. there’s a 2018 paper from Penn State that calculated we’ve searched the equivalent of a hot tub’s worth of water out of all the earth’s oceans. that’s it. sixty years and that’s what we’ve covered.
The article pulls together four threads, cyclical cosmology models that suggest time might be infinite, the search coverage data, cross-cultural accounts of the phenomenon going back thousands of years, and the Nimitz encounter which the Pentagon still can’t explain. none of it is proof of anything on its own but the convergence is hard to ignore.
The future-facing question for me is whether we’re even asking the right thing. we keep scaling up the same search methodology, more radio, more frequencies, more sky coverage, but if the assumptions underneath are wrong then we’re just searching a bigger hot tub. what should next-gen SETI actually be looking for?
Ok look, Humans have existed for such a short period of time compared to the age of the universe. We haven’t had time to look everywhere, but we had to start somewhere. The point is, we do not know what the probability of life is. The Fermi Paradox only exists because our technology isn’t good enough to check everything yet.
Yeah, but even the bit we can see is billions of stars that have lived and died over billions of years with zero signs of intelligent life. That tells us something.
I always feel like the Fermi paradox was more about efficient laziness than anything else.
So from this analogy it should be “we saw a hot tub and we didn’t hear any intelligent fish talking so we assumed no talking fish in the ocean.”
However we did find life in the hot tub but it wasn’t talking to us. It’s science.
I think you’ve strongly misunderstood what Fermi was saying. What claim exactly are you trying to disprove?
The fact that there we have searched only a tiny fraction of all the space and time that exists or may someday exist doesn’t disprove anything, because no one was saying „there is definitely not, and will never be, alien life anywhere/anywhen.“ They’re just pointing out that we haven’t found any with the very limited scope of our investigations.
It feels like tge article really really really want us to believe aliens are real and out there. And it bases this one account of a fighter yet. And theories, musings or even afterthoughts (as implied in the article) from physicists. Not their Nobel laureate winning papers.
Fermi Paradox is flawed anyway.
When it was created, it was assumed that radio waves would be detected.
We barely use radio waves now, as a species. The data throughput of tight beam lasers or fiber optic have ensured we barely use radio waves.
It also assumes that life will be found ONLY on earth-like planets where it is water rich, oxygen rich, and carbon rich. We simply don’t know enough about life yet to make that assumption safely.
Fermi Paradox is essentially another example of humans thinking they’re the center of the universe. Fermi Paradox just has an equation. Same hubris.