New ID Theory: We made Us

[Roboramma]

In 14 odd billion years (take off a few billion to get onto land and in the air) there has been plenty of time for one or more beings to fully occupy the galaxy, if not Andromeda as well, at sub light speed.

It hasn't happened. Why?

I've always liked this question (at least since I first heard it proposed).

There are a few reasons I can see...

1. Inter-stellar travel is prohibitably expensive, the resources of a single star just aren't enough to get you to a new one while keeping your current civilization alive.
I don't really buy that argument.

2. We are the first technological civilization in this galaxy.
Given that our knowledge of life elsewhere is so limited, this can't be said to be unreasonable. Also, if the first technological civilization is likely to make use of the entire galaxy's resources before another one arises (thus making it impossible that another one would), the fact that we exist would mean that we are necessarily the first. But we can't assume that the first technological civilization would do so.

3. a) Those civilizations that are capable of interstellar travel don't bother with it.
Personally I don't really credit this, but so it goes.
3. b) Those that do partake in interstellar travel do so to a limited degree and don't tend to colonize other stars (even with automated self reproducing factories).

4. Technological civilizations tend to destroy themselves before colonizing the galaxy. This could mean before leaving their home star (which I find far more likely) or even after - though I'm not sure how that would happen.

As yet, I can't see that we can distinguish between the above (and other) explanations. But the point certainly seems to have implications.

Yes, I enjoy it. Isn't this known as the Fermi Paradox?

 

[Mangel]

Elegantly put, Roboramma.

I think you are missing a further explanation:

5. Inter-stella travel by a civilisation might not be feasible, no matter how advanced a civilisation's technology. (i.e. a technological reason, rather than a resources reason.)

That whole not being able to travel faster than the speed of light thing I don't see us getting around any time soon.

 

[Elind]

No, we are not all adults here. The JREF has a specific mission of reaching schools as well as adults. There is a good reason for the censor-bots. Please don't try to override them. Be creative instead. Use scat, merde, excretions, dung, droppings, defecation, diarrhea, or even poop. Or else you will be in deep doo-doo.

Schools, here?? I will be more careful in that case (and it explains some posters).

DooDoo it is.

 

[CaptainManacles]

I kinda skimmed the thread, so I appoligize if this point has already been made, but for the computer science perspective on this, the primary assumptions of that arguement are provably false. We can't ever design a system in the universe capable of simulating the entire universe. The shorthand proof is that in order to simulate perfectly every particle in the universe, you'd need to use every particle in the universe.

 

[Elind]

I kinda skimmed the thread, so I appoligize if this point has already been made, but for the computer science perspective on this, the primary assumptions of that arguement are provably false. We can't ever design a system in the universe capable of simulating the entire universe. The shorthand proof is that in order to simulate perfectly every particle in the universe, you'd need to use every particle in the universe.

And QM says that won't work either.

 

[Elind]

I've always liked this question (at least since I first heard it proposed).

There are a few reasons I can see...

1. Inter-stellar travel is prohibitably expensive, the resources of a single star just aren't enough to get you to a new one while keeping your current civilization alive.
I don't really buy that argument.

Agreed. It's only expensive today. The resources and power obviously exist.

2. We are the first technological civilization in this galaxy.
Given that our knowledge of life elsewhere is so limited, this can't be said to be unreasonable. Also, if the first technological civilization is likely to make use of the entire galaxy's resources before another one arises (thus making it impossible that another one would), the fact that we exist would mean that we are necessarily the first. But we can't assume that the first technological civilization would do so.

Not reasonable by simple arithmetic. It has been less than average human lifetime that we have understood even that we live in a galaxy among billions and billion (Sagan). Either the Creationists are right or that is wrong.

3. a) Those civilizations that are capable of interstellar travel don't bother with it.
Personally I don't really credit this, but so it goes.

Possibly the most reasonable. We are creatures of emotion. Take that away, as we sometimes strive to do, and the desires to explore might also go away, along with us.

3. b) Those that do partake in interstellar travel do so to a limited degree and don't tend to colonize other stars (even with automated self reproducing factories).

No; that implies that what they start has to fade out. See 3 a)

4. Technological civilizations tend to destroy themselves before colonizing the galaxy. This could mean before leaving their home star (which I find far more likely) or even after - though I'm not sure how that would happen.

No; that implies they all act the same after leaving home. Might as well suggest they never leave for that reason, or that they leave but eventually achieve 3 a). The other thought in that line is that the universe is even more hostile than we already know, and will wipe out such fragile creatures given enough time; and the universe has time.

As yet, I can't see that we can distinguish between the above (and other) explanations. But the point certainly seems to have implications.

Yes, I enjoy it. Isn't this known as the Fermi Paradox?

Yes.