rosborne979 wrote:Setanta wrote:Perhaps you could elaborate, then.
Well, I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I'll try to sum it up.
First of all, I tend to include "The Great Silence" and the "Fermi Paradox" in the same package. To me it's really the same question, "why don't we observe any evidence of other intelligence in the Universe, either here or in our solar system or anywhere".
You seem unimpressed with the Fermi Paradox and the Great Silence as paradoxes, which means to me that you are NOT surprised by what we see (or don't see).
I on the other hand, do find it surprising.
Obviously, we have each made assumptions about the Universe and possible intelligence therein, which leads us to our expectations. You have argued against certain assumptions I have made, and I have argued against some assumptions you have made.
So far, so good (more or less).
Quote:In one case, you objected to the likely development of VN machines based on economic feasibility. Your argument centered around the observation that it would be economically impractical to develop VN machines with the sole intent of having them do "colonization".
That is not at all what i wrote. You had said that over a certain period of time, there would thousands, or millions of VN machines in operation. Leaving aside that such a circumstance would still not imply that we would know if any had visited us, i objected on the basis that the initial creation of a VN machine program would undoubtedly be modest. (EDIT: I would like to note that i have only been referring to VN machines in the context of unmanned, exploratory probes sent out into the cosmos, and not in the sense of all systems resembling VN machines.) Unless you can dispose of huge amount of material and energy resources, you'd be obliged to send out just a few, which would only attempt to replicate themselves as they neared the end of their useful life. Otherwise, you'd have to send out many, many, many VN machines which could find the material resouces to replicate themselves before they reached the end of their useful lives, or you'd have to send out far fewer, which would nevertheless carry with them a substantial portion of the resources necessary to replicate themselves, including whatever portion of the original machine they could "cannibalize." I realize that i didn't go into that kind of detail originally, but i certainly at no time claimed that VN machines would be used in a colonizing effort. That's not what VN machines are about, in the sense in which i was referring to them.
Quote:But I pointed out that there is no reason to expect that VN machines would be developed specifically for colonization, and that the precursors of VN type machines (self monitoring and self repairing) are already embedded as a core goal in systems design.
Based on current technological development and personal experience, self monitoring, self repairing and eventually self replicating systems are not only economically feasible but an economic imperative, regardless of their eventual use as "colonizers" or not. So the economic argument against development of VN machines is demonstrably false. These types of systems are already in the first stages of development, and we are already expending extraordinary resources to advance these types of systems.
None of what you are saying is news to me, except the claim that i have said that VN machines are not economically feasible, or that the purpose is colonizing efforts. The only reference i have made to VN machines is that they would be used to explore the galaxy. When i spoke of economic feasibility, i was referring to my conviction that no technological society is ever going to send out more than a few at once, and so i don't consider it plausible that the galaxy would be full of thousands, let alone millions of VN machines. I did not say or imply that it were not economically feasible to develop VN machines.
Quote:I should also point out that it has not escaped my notice that the Universe YOU expect to see is the one we DO see. And the Universe I expect to see is NOT what we see. Clearly one or many of my assumptions must be incorrect. But by the same token, you might be correct for entirely different reasons that you have presented. We don't have enough data yet to evaluate the Drake equation.
You haven't yet presented an argument which I find really compelling. In many cases I feel that you are making too many assumptions of your own regarding the nature of "other technological life forms" (no offense).
No offense is taken. My objections rest primarily on a couple of assumptions implicit in the Fermi paradox as it is usually articulated contemporarily. One objection is that we indulge what is to me an hilarious hubris to think that we can have reasonably swept the galaxy to know if there is anyone else out there. Fermi's question, "Where are they?" suggests that the presence of other technological civilizations (i won't say space-faring, because we were not yet a space-faring civilization then, and what we have done to this time hardly qualifies as more than baby steps) ought to be easy to identify. I consider both that that is an unwarranted assumption, and that it is hubristic to suggest that we know enough about our neighborhood, our galaxy, to suggest that we have a handle on who and what is out there.
The other implicit assumption of many of those who articulate the Fermi paradox today is that it is reasonable to assume that other technological civilizations are going to burst forth from their home planets and colonize continuously. That assumption has a lot of implications which the proponents thereof seem unaware of. It assumes that any such civilization will have a command economy which can be turned to the enormous material and energy expenditures which would be necessary to put any significant number of colonists into interstellar space, safely, with a reasonable prospect of reaching a suitable planet and not simply surviving, but prospering once they got there. That implies a "world government." The only experience we have so far of a technological civilization (our own) doesn't suggest that world government is likely. It also suggests that the individual members of the civilization would not object to the sacrifices necessary to accomplish that end, and would not object to the fact that it would not benefit them in the least. One could argue that there would be an inherent benefit in technological advances resulting from the effort, but you would still have to cross the hurdle of convincing the population to go along. If you envision an ant-like culture in which individual members' sentiments are meaningless, then you'll have to account for how such a civilization would advance through the stages necessary to achieve space-faring. A command civilization which ignores the interests of individuals in favor of the collective would be highly unlikely to seek to advance beyond any stage which meets the collective's goals.
Mostly, i find that those who envision such a constantly colonizing civilization (and this is not intended to suggest that you think this way, because i don't know if you do) have a science fiction attitude. They seem to think that an advanced technology could answer all of my objections with breathtaking new discoveries which would appear magical to us. There are certain laws, however, which nature won't allow you to break. It cannot be denied that this sort of technology requires sophisticated metallurgy, or at least sophisticated ceramics (and without metallurgy, one will have increased the difficulty by orders of magnitude)--and that implies a planet with a significant gravitational field. You are going to be obliged, in the initial stages, to lift significant amounts of material out of the mother well of gravity, and you'll have to lift out everyone who is going on the journey. You're going to have to make provision for their continued physical health over a long period of time in zero gravity, and you're going to have to protect them from cosmic radiation. No amount of fancy new technology as science fiction writers imagine it is going to relieve you of the necessities of getting out of the mother gravity well, of dealing with long-term weightlessness and of dealing with cosmic radiation. The solution to each one of those problems increases the cost in materials and energy by enormous amounts.
All of which suggests to me that it is naive to assume that any technological civilization is going to be able to casual start out on a program of colonization and maintain the program over millennia. I acknowledge that i am making assumptions about other civilizations--but i find my assumptions far more plausible that the implicit assumption that other technological civilizations are going to be monolithic and monomaniacally focused when our experience of a technological civilization is that it improves and perfects itself precisely because of individualism and the predictable production of oddball, brilliant people in the deep end of the gene pool. The vision of a focused, ant-like collective which works tirelessly and uncomplaining toward a goal which will not benefit the individuals involved is completely antithetical to our experience of the development and progress of civilization.
