Seti@home pointless?

[AWPrime]

I think an interest in SETI might inspire someone to start looking at other areas such as you mentioned (physics, astronomy, etc.) and possibly some discovery of life. While it's not really the same, my interest in 1970's matrix quadraphonic sound decoders and modern Dolby Pro*Logic II matrix surround sound decoders inspired me to try and learn about the theory of vector spaces and matrix multiplication as well as spherical trigonometry.

Pretty good argument however I think that people how are involved with SETI were interested in alien life before getting involved.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know I've already made this point, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in for the SETI detractors. SETI doesn't take anything away from any other scientific endeavor. It also doesn't take anything away from the motivating effect of reading science fiction.

So those are not legitimate arguments against SETI.

You want to talk about a massive waste of taxpayers money, how about the ISS? Remember how its backers virtually promised a cure for AIDS? Or the amazing benefit of learning about living in microgravity (as if the Russians hadn't already done that with MIR).

I wonder how many more unmanned probes we could have sent for the cost of the ISS.

 

[AWPrime]

I know I've already made this point, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in for the SETI detractors. SETI doesn't take anything away from any other scientific endeavor. It also doesn't take anything away from the motivating effect of reading science fiction.

I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.

Yes, I note that you consider SETI to be just a "hobby". That's fine--you can use the loaded language if you like.

But what exactly is it that they do that bothers you? Are they going around door to door leaving pamphlets and trying to get you to join them or something?

 

[AWPrime]

Well you may keep your strawmen.

But must I really repeat the last part of my previous post?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well you may keep your strawmen.

But must I really repeat the last part of my previous post?

What strawman? I'll repeat your previous post for you. You said:

I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.

I'm just trying to figure out how exactly SETI asks anything of you. So it's not someone knocking on your door? Do they send you mailings or something?

 

[Lonewulf]

Out of curiosity, AWPrime, why should I take your opinion any more seriously than you take SETI?

Should I care what you take seriously?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Fine, Bill. Whatever flicks your Bic. SETI is just a grouchy, science fictiony religion, just because you think so. You've built up this strawman to take your abuse, so just party on. Brazil sounds just the place for you to do so.



And I guess you'll never know. Sure it's more likely. I, too, see that as the likely outcome of Fermi's paradox, but there is a difference between being visited and ciommunicating. I don't think I need to "force" myself to believe that there is no possibility at all. To use your absolute belief that there is no life possible on Mars as a gauge, I think you would miss it if you tripped over it.

What is true and more likely has been answered. No strawman there.

So I question why you hang on to something that is demonstratively false. I can think of several reasons. And my experience with these sorts of discussions tell me that there are a number of reasons why people have such faith in ETI. None of these resons are rooted in science and logic.

People I work with are computer programmers and software engineers. If you explain something to them, they get it. On the web, this is not so. Some people just can't get it. They can't see the numbers in Fermi's Paradox, so it is just not very impressive. Also, if someone tells them that there are answers to Fermi's Paradox, they jump to the assumption that it has been explained away.

Another reason is that web forum posters are often lonely sorry sods in their mother's basement or high school drop outs or people from a troubled family. SETI is the one thing they can cling to for hopes of a bright future. They do not like people taking that away from them.

The question of SETI and ETI and all the specifics and probablilties have been answered for me and for people I have met in person and have talked to. The only question is why some people on the web don't get it. And I have reached the conclusion it has nothing to do with my argument being faulty.

 

[Lonewulf]

"The numbers" in Fermi's Paradox?

I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate those figures.

Another reason is that web forum posters are often lonely sorry sods in their mother's basement or high school drop outs or people from a troubled family.

You'd know, I'm sure.

 

[Bill Thompson]

"The numbers" in Fermi's Paradox?

I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate those figures.

What? You cannot look them up?

Here, I made this web page, just for you:
http://gelsana.com/fermi1.html

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

You have to understand that our solar system are late-comers. The galaxy has been around long enough for ETI to have taken over every part of it several times over. But it hasn't. So it is not illogical to conclude that, dispute all the billions of stars, the odds of intelligence coming about must be very low.

People have written books about Fermi's Paradox and have come up with entertaining scenarios. But they do not dismiss its powerful idea and stark realization.
http://gelsana.com/fermi2.html
http://gelsana.com/fermi3.html

Oh, and about the other comment. Yes, it turned out in later discussions that some of those kids who were big SETI fans were, in fact, high school drop outs and did have troubled pasts and family lives. One openly admitted he admired SETI for the comfort it gave him.

Getting comfort from an idea of having other worldy friends is what cults do, and oddly enough the people who cults prey on are the kinds of kids who are also big fans of SETI.

If you read my links you will find that SETI has the earmarks of a pseudo religion. Have you ever heard of F.A.R.M.S.? It is a group run by Mormons who -- dispite all the evidence contrary to it -- "know" that the Book of Mormon must be true and they look for any evidince that it is. SETI works the same way towards the existance of ETI.

Comments like "we cannot rule out the existance of --" and "we want to believe --" are what people of faith say. It is what the people of SETI also say.

In a nut shell, the reason why we are driven to religion is our natural fear of death; the reason why we are drawn to SETI is our natural fear of being alone.

Religious people even laugh and redicule any notion that your consciousness might not survive our death. They do this because they do not WANT to consider that they are
wrong.

It is the same sort of thing with SETI but it is our fear of being alone. Our fear of being alone in the galaxy is a powerful emotion. It often takes over our capacity to view the subject rationally.

 

[Lonewulf]

I know the "numbers" for Drake's Equation, sure. But Fermi's Paradox does not involve numbers. It's an argument based in logic ("If X exists, then why can't we see X"), not a mathematical equation. Or did you fail to look it up yourself?

And either way you look at it, Fermi's Paradox is filled with a number of assumptions that have already been contested -- with no satisfying answers available for that contest.

 

[Typicallucas]

Wasn't it determined that radio signals degrade after just a few light years?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I would guess that terrestrial radio signals aren't strong enough to shine all the way to other solar systems and that SETI is looking for signals that are of larger/grander.

RE: The title of the OP I also no longer participate in SET@Home, but I liked feeling like a citizen scientist.

That's also the reason why I spent time volunteering on Galaxy Zoo categorizing galaxies.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I know the "numbers" for Drake's Equation, sure. But Fermi's Paradox does not involve numbers.

Yes it does.

Read the posts again.

I even copied the paragraph that deals with numbers here just so you could read it.

Here, I will post it again for you to read:

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

My experience is that lots of people cannot grasp these numbers and "see" what they mean. If you got the visual, you can see that there is a powerful argument here that cannot be easily pushed aside.

It kind of reminds me of some friends of mine who did not think we walked on the moon. I told them that radio telescopes followed the mission up and down and because of triangulation, the missions could not be faked. I tried to explain this simple concept of geometry where if you have two vectors pointing to to a source of a signal, the only place where that source could be is where the vectors cross. They just could not get it. THey could not do the math. The same is true with Fermi's idea.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don't know the answer to this question, but I would guess that terrestrial radio signals aren't strong enough to shine all the way to other solar systems and that SETI is looking for signals that are of larger/grander.

RE: The title of the OP I also no longer participate in SET@Home, but I liked feeling like a citizen scientist.

That's also the reason why I spent time volunteering on Galaxy Zoo categorizing galaxies.

We already got the links to studies that showed that radio signals (unless they are a direct beam) would fade out just beyond the orbit of Pluto.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I know the "numbers" for Drake's Equation, sure. But Fermi's Paradox does not involve numbers. It's an argument based in logic ("If X exists, then why can't we see X"), not a mathematical equation. Or did you fail to look it up yourself?

And either way you look at it, Fermi's Paradox is filled with a number of assumptions that have already been contested -- with no satisfying answers available for that contest.

That is what some people think and I know why they think this. But it is not true. You are making assumptions based on the fact that people have tried to explain away Fermi's Paradox. But it does not fudge or change the numbers involved. They try to answer WHY aliens are not walking down Main Street when they SHOULD be. They do not change the mathematics or the fact that they really should be there.

When people hear that books have been written addressing Fermi's Paradox, they assume that it has been shot down or "debunked". But these books are only about possible scenerios as to why aliens have not visited us when they should have been here all along. The scenerios are far-fetched and are intended to provide an ability to clink on to a belief that is not rational.

Contesting the assumptions is another thing. Noone would honestly or intelligently contest that the galaxy could be taken over in 10 million years given how advanced human beings have gone in a few thousand years. You can contest it. But noone should respect such a contesting of this assumption. The assumptions are logical. If you fight it, you are only clinging to a dream.

 

[AWPrime]

What strawman?

This one:

So it's not someone knocking on your door? Do they send you mailings or something?

Its an internet phenomenon, so that situation won't likely occur. Now I need to ask you this, are you completely unable to understand my position?

Out of curiosity, AWPrime, why should I take your opinion any more seriously than you take SETI?
Should I care what you take seriously?

That is up to you.

 

[Lonewulf]

That is what some people think and I know why they think this. But it is not true. You are making assumptions based on the fact that people have tried to explain away Fermi's Paradox. But it does not fudge or change the numbers involved. They try to answer WHY aliens are not walking down Main Street when they SHOULD be. They do not change the mathematics or the fact that they really should be there.

Because the laws of physics don't exist because you don't want them to? Seriously, traveling at light speed is not easy. It's barely even theoretically possible, and the energy expenditure is ginormous, even if you manage to "cheat" physics.

And you're the one that's assuming that Fermi's Paradox is saying more than it really says or that it's "proven" beyond doubt. And yes, you are wrong on this. Sorry.

When people hear that books have been written addressing Fermi's Paradox, they assume that it has been shot down or "debunked". But these books are only about possible scenerios as to why aliens have not visited us when they should have been here all along. The scenerios are far-fetched and are intended to provide an ability to clink on to a belief that is not rational.

"Traveling to other solar systems and galaxies is very hard" is far fetched? Nope.

Contesting the assumptions is another thing. Noone would honestly or intelligently contest that the galaxy could be taken over in 10 million years given how advanced human beings have gone in a few thousand years. You can contest it. But noone should respect such a contesting of this assumption. The assumptions are logical. If you fight it, you are only clinging to a dream.

1) Resources are limited, especially if you're stuck on a planet. Just because life evolves on a planet does not mean that that planet must provide enough resources to make space travel easy or even possible for the long run. Just imagine Earth with less accessible metals and useful minerals.

2) "The universe has been around for billions of years" does not mean that it has provided good grounds for life throughout its existence. For the first few billions of years, it would have been very hard for life to evolve on the forming universe. So it's a little far fetched to assume that life could evolve in the chaotic conditions of those first few billions of years.

3) Nothing says that travel throughout the universe has to be easy, no matter how far we've come in any amount of time. It's easily possible that there is is a limit on what technology is capable of doing. It may very well be impossible to actually go the speed of light in any meaningful way.

4) Nothing even says that intelligent life has to be common and in any other solar system. Life may be common, but intelligent life could very well be uncommon. The billions of years of life on Earth seems to show that intelligence is not the "logical conclusion" you seem to think that evolution has.

5) Ultimately? You just don't know, one way or the other. Seriously. All we have is speculation one way or the other -- even the "master scientists of NASA that agree with you" are just making a slightly better educated guess. The only example of life that we have a sample of is here on Earth, making our study size way too small.

6) Travel between galaxies would be very hard, given the intense sizes between them, and the fact that they're accelerating away from each other. So you'd probably have to look at life that exists only within the same galaxy. (This problem grows even worse if you cannot travel the speed of light, and both galaxies are traveling at .5 c away from one another... adding up to 1 c)

7) Even if life could develop, does not necessarily mean that there can't be setbacks. What if Earth went through a nuclear war, or was hit by an asteroid, or we ran out of valuable resources far sooner? There's nothing stating that we should be able to enter space with such limited resources.

8) Even if we managed to spread, nothing states that communications between ourselves should be easy (Faster Than Light communications are about as hard as FTL travel). This would keep us separated, and make it hard for us to truly spread amongst the stars without separating ourselves from each other. Soon, "aliens" would include members that were once part of our own species, but have been separated for too long.

9) Assuming that an intelligent race is even interested in spreading great distances without a cap is an assumption, and one with no basis.

None of the above is easily contestable. They are, in fact, harsh reality. You can't avoid them or ignore them. FTL is science fiction, and the idea that "you can only go up" is also limited by the reality of physics.


So no, your assumptions are not conclusive. Sorry.

That is up to you.

Very well. I make my choice now. I'm sure you can guess which it is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This one:

I suggest you read up on what a strawman argument is. You said you don't mind SETI as long as they don't ask of you to take it seriously. I'm trying to figure out exactly how they ask anything whatsoever of you.

Its an internet phenomenon, so that situation won't likely occur. Now I need to ask you this, are you completely unable to understand my position?

Not really. They don't knock on your door. They just contact you via the internet? Are they spamming you or something?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

These arguments depend on several assumptions.
--That the technology is attainable
--That whatever technology is possible will necessarily be realized (there are economic and social reasons why it might not)
--That if other ETIs exist they already existed at least ten million years ago.

Earlier, I pointed you to my previous refutation of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox. Apparently, you didn't bother reading it, since you're making the same bad arguments without responding to my refutations.

I'll copy it here. You can reply to them by number if you wish:

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we no other ETIs exist in the galaxy (much less in the universe).

Remember, making this argument is essentially saying that for an intelligent civilization to exist, evidence of their existence must be ubiquitous in the galaxy. Evidence of our own existence doesn't exist much beyond our own solar system (an infinitesimally small proportion of the volume of the galaxy), and yet we exist.

 

[AWPrime]

I suggest you read up on what a strawman argument is.

Primary a deliberate misrepresentation of a situation/subject, in such a way that they can attack it.

Not really.

Although I don't feel like it, I will try to explain it to you again.

It like seeing someone being deliberately ignorant in front of your eyes and then they say that they are truly contributing to cause x.
Or like seeing a role play gamer taking his role too serious, mixing up reality and fantasy, and then yourself feeling embarrassed to be of the same species.

In both situations the other side expects/demands to be taken serious.