Fermi paradox, your own belief?

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Good scientific hypotheses have the characteristic that they are
falsifiable.
The easier they are the falsify, the better.

The theory that there are no ETs is falsifiable by a single
observation of ETs.

The theory that there are some ETs somewhere is not falsifiable in
any practical sense.

Wow, that's an amazingly silly argument.

It's absurd to say "there are no ETs" is a scientific hypothesis, and
"there are ETs" is not scientific; these are obviously the identical
scientific question stated two diffferent ways. If you think one is
falsifiable and one is not, you are mis-understanding Karl Popper's
concept of falsifiability. They are both TESTING THE SAME NULL
HYPOTHESIS; it doesn't matter how you phrase it. Finding one ET
civilization will disprove the null hypothesis; it doesn't make a whit
of difference whether you call it "searching for ET civilizations" or
"searching to show that there are no ET civilizations".

Repeating: these two statements are the SAME scientific question stated
in positive and negative form.

If you think that the question is scientific phrased one way, and not
scientific phrased the opposite way, consider another "not scientific"
hypotheses: neutrinos have (non-zero) rest mass.

Is this a "nonscientific" hypothesis? Clearly, you can never falsify it,
since no matter how low you make the experimental bounds on mass, you
can never show that the neutrino doesn't have a mass smaller than your
error bars. If two experimenters are doing the identical experiment to
measure neutrino mass, in what way is it meaningful to say that the one
who says "I'm searching to show that the neutrino has mass," is not a
scientist, while the one who says "I'm trying prove that it's not true
that neutrino doesn't have mass" is?

Is it unscientific to search for deviations from the equivalence
principle or a proposed "fifth force"? How about measuring the dipole
moment of the neutron? Proton decay? CPT violation? Is it
unscientific to look for microorganisms in meteorites?



--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

In message , Paul F. Dietz
writes
Geoff McCaughan wrote:

Not so. If "we are the only ones", this means there is some unique set of
circumstances which resulted in life in this one instance. A simpler
universe would be one where life was more mundane.

Why is this simpler?

Higher configurational entropy.
There are a lot more microstates near p(life) = 0.5

Note that I am not saying that p(life) is 0.5
I am just pointing out that claiming that you believe that

p(life) == 1/exact_number_of_planets_in_universe

exactly represents a significant leap of faith unsupported by evidence.

Consider a simple model universe with M identical star systems and an
unknown number, N of them with life.

The number of different combinatorial states W(N) is easily computed.
And all accessible microstates of the system are a priori equally
likely.

W(N) = M!/((M-N)!N!)

W(0) = W(M) = 1
W(1) = W(M-1) = M
W(M/2) = M!/((M/2)!)^2 ~ 2^M/(pi.M/2)^0.5

If you had to bet on a value for N in a game with rules such that
closest estimate winner takes all why choose such an extreme value as
N=1 ?

The guy who bets on 2 immediately wins for all the other 2^M - M -1
possible states. You might be right but you could much more easily be
wrong.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In message , Paul F. Dietz
writes
Geoff McCaughan wrote:

Not so. If "we are the only ones", this means there is some unique set of
circumstances which resulted in life in this one instance. A simpler
universe would be one where life was more mundane.

Why is this simpler?

Higher configurational entropy.
There are a lot more microstates near p(life) = 0.5

Note that I am not saying that p(life) is 0.5
I am just pointing out that claiming that you believe that

p(life) == 1/exact_number_of_planets_in_universe

exactly represents a significant leap of faith unsupported by evidence.

Consider a simple model universe with M identical star systems and an
unknown number, N of them with life.

The number of different combinatorial states W(N) is easily computed.
And all accessible microstates of the system are a priori equally
likely.

W(N) = M!/((M-N)!N!)

W(0) = W(M) = 1
W(1) = W(M-1) = M
W(M/2) = M!/((M/2)!)^2 ~ 2^M/(pi.M/2)^0.5

If you had to bet on a value for N in a game with rules such that
closest estimate winner takes all why choose such an extreme value as
N=1 ?

The guy who bets on 2 immediately wins for all the other 2^M - M -1
possible states. You might be right but you could much more easily be
wrong.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Martin Brown abagooba zoink
larblortch :

We can rule out P(life) = 0, but that is the only thing we know for
certain.

And anything more is nothing but mere blind guesswork.

The Bayesians uninformative prior cannot be integrated until you have
examined at least one other solar system and found it to be lifeless.

In other words, when N = 1, Bayesians are as fumbling about in the dark as
much as is anyone else.

Martin Brown abagooba zoink
larblortch :

We can rule out P(life) = 0, but that is the only thing we know for
certain.

And anything more is nothing but mere blind guesswork.

The Bayesians uninformative prior cannot be integrated until you have
examined at least one other solar system and found it to be lifeless.

In other words, when N = 1, Bayesians are as fumbling about in the dark as
much as is anyone else.

Martin Brown wrote:

Note that I am not saying that p(life) is 0.5
I am just pointing out that claiming that you believe that

p(life) == 1/exact_number_of_planets_in_universe

exactly represents a significant leap of faith unsupported by evidence.

Ah, but the SETI-skeptic position doesn't make this argument.
It can claim that p(life) 1/number_of_planets_in_observable_universe.

Remember, the universe as a whole is much larger than the universe that
we can see, and if the cosmological constant is nonzero (as it appears
to be) we'll never be causally connected to all those other parts of
the universe (indeed, some of the galaxies we can currently see are already
beyond the event horizon). If p(life) is sufficiently small then most of the life
that arises will never contact any independently arising life.

I think a good argument for SETI would be panspermia, to ruin the assumption
of independence.

Paul

Martin Brown wrote:

Note that I am not saying that p(life) is 0.5
I am just pointing out that claiming that you believe that

p(life) == 1/exact_number_of_planets_in_universe

exactly represents a significant leap of faith unsupported by evidence.

Ah, but the SETI-skeptic position doesn't make this argument.
It can claim that p(life) 1/number_of_planets_in_observable_universe.

Remember, the universe as a whole is much larger than the universe that
we can see, and if the cosmological constant is nonzero (as it appears
to be) we'll never be causally connected to all those other parts of
the universe (indeed, some of the galaxies we can currently see are already
beyond the event horizon). If p(life) is sufficiently small then most of the life
that arises will never contact any independently arising life.

I think a good argument for SETI would be panspermia, to ruin the assumption
of independence.

Paul

Pekka P. Pirinen wrote:
On 25 Jun 2004 06:50:25 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
wrote:
7. The one thing I can think of is some Truth. There is some Truth that
every explosion in intelligence must necessarily discover. This Truth
makes them decide to stop increasing intelligence. Or it makes them
need to make themselves invisible and undetectable. Or it makes them
join the greater Thing. Or it makes them decide to self-destruct. But
most likely, something unimaginable.

One suggestion from various people is Virtual Reality: one way or
another, the virtual becomes the part that matters, reducing Real
Life to a support structure. It does seem that such a society would
always find it easier to pursue its goals in VR than RL.

I never thought of that in context of the Fermi Paradox. But it seems
perfectly plausible and quite thought provoking. The more I think about
it, the more sense it makes, so far. Especially for me, since I much
prefer dreams to reality (with the obvious exception). In dreams, they
never forget to pack plenty of everything I like in my spaceship hold.
Can you imagine, half-way to Tau Ceti and running out of Doritos?

My "theory" about "the Truth" that is found was set to expire within a
week. But, seriously, as the only one I've encountered on Usenet
specifically trying to define an AI "objective" reasoner, I think the
explosion in intelligence is quite likely within IK years, certainly
5K. Just look at how google has changed the academic paradigm, making
The Knowledge accessible any good googler and critical reader. In 20
years, certainly less than 40, "google" will be an inferencer of some
sophistication. Thus, I think the assumption of an "explosion in
intelligence" probably even rises to a default case in a probability
sense, and should be included in most theories (aka "dreams") about ET.

Your idea about VR is quite consistent with that, at least here (earth).

Banks' Culture Minds have their Irreal (a.k.a. Land of Infinite Fun)
which is a lot like that, but they still spare the cycles to run the
Culture to safeguard their existence, so they are in fact notoriously
meddlesome.

In Ken Appleby's _The Voice of Cepheus_ (SPOILER), there's an
interstellar network of VR civilizations, and since there's no FTL in
that universe, they don't have reach out to safeguard themselves.
The reason they do nevertheless seek to contact Earth is key to the
final twist in the book.

Or, my personal favorite, they simply leave this universe for the Big
City.

In Banks' Culture universe, civilizations tend to eventually
"Sublime", departing the material universe.

I regret having stopped reading spec fiction in the '70s as I consider
the perspective almost philosophically indispensable. But there are
other important things to do, and I no longer had the time. Back then,
you had to stand in a bookstore for an hour or more perusing chapters
to separate spec fiction from science fiction, the former being defined
by me as a book that incorporates known scientific fact, or at least
gives some plausible, informed theory for violating same (a good way
to learn some science as well). Spec fiction became harder and harder
to find as I exhausted the (easily accessible) field. The young folks
these days have it much easier. Just post a question, get a list of
suggestions, and go to Amazon with your credit card, or bring the list
to the libarary which these days will usually get it for you. It's a
crime to be so easy! I suppose the existence of rec.arts.sf.science
makes spec fiction easier and therefore more plentiful.

Larry

Pekka P. Pirinen wrote:
On 25 Jun 2004 06:50:25 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
wrote:
7. The one thing I can think of is some Truth. There is some Truth that
every explosion in intelligence must necessarily discover. This Truth
makes them decide to stop increasing intelligence. Or it makes them
need to make themselves invisible and undetectable. Or it makes them
join the greater Thing. Or it makes them decide to self-destruct. But
most likely, something unimaginable.

One suggestion from various people is Virtual Reality: one way or
another, the virtual becomes the part that matters, reducing Real
Life to a support structure. It does seem that such a society would
always find it easier to pursue its goals in VR than RL.

I never thought of that in context of the Fermi Paradox. But it seems
perfectly plausible and quite thought provoking. The more I think about
it, the more sense it makes, so far. Especially for me, since I much
prefer dreams to reality (with the obvious exception). In dreams, they
never forget to pack plenty of everything I like in my spaceship hold.
Can you imagine, half-way to Tau Ceti and running out of Doritos?

My "theory" about "the Truth" that is found was set to expire within a
week. But, seriously, as the only one I've encountered on Usenet
specifically trying to define an AI "objective" reasoner, I think the
explosion in intelligence is quite likely within IK years, certainly
5K. Just look at how google has changed the academic paradigm, making
The Knowledge accessible any good googler and critical reader. In 20
years, certainly less than 40, "google" will be an inferencer of some
sophistication. Thus, I think the assumption of an "explosion in
intelligence" probably even rises to a default case in a probability
sense, and should be included in most theories (aka "dreams") about ET.

Your idea about VR is quite consistent with that, at least here (earth).

Banks' Culture Minds have their Irreal (a.k.a. Land of Infinite Fun)
which is a lot like that, but they still spare the cycles to run the
Culture to safeguard their existence, so they are in fact notoriously
meddlesome.

In Ken Appleby's _The Voice of Cepheus_ (SPOILER), there's an
interstellar network of VR civilizations, and since there's no FTL in
that universe, they don't have reach out to safeguard themselves.
The reason they do nevertheless seek to contact Earth is key to the
final twist in the book.

Or, my personal favorite, they simply leave this universe for the Big
City.

In Banks' Culture universe, civilizations tend to eventually
"Sublime", departing the material universe.

I regret having stopped reading spec fiction in the '70s as I consider
the perspective almost philosophically indispensable. But there are
other important things to do, and I no longer had the time. Back then,
you had to stand in a bookstore for an hour or more perusing chapters
to separate spec fiction from science fiction, the former being defined
by me as a book that incorporates known scientific fact, or at least
gives some plausible, informed theory for violating same (a good way
to learn some science as well). Spec fiction became harder and harder
to find as I exhausted the (easily accessible) field. The young folks
these days have it much easier. Just post a question, get a list of
suggestions, and go to Amazon with your credit card, or bring the list
to the libarary which these days will usually get it for you. It's a
crime to be so easy! I suppose the existence of rec.arts.sf.science
makes spec fiction easier and therefore more plentiful.

Larry

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message .. .
Geoff McCaughan abagooba zoink larblortch
:

In rec.arts.sf.science Bryan J. Maloney wrote:

Drawing conclusions from N=1 is not science, it is a form of religion.

State your hard evidence that N=1.


How many solar systems have been directly observed at a distance wherein
one can reliably determine whether or not life exists on them? One, and
only one. Therefore, N = 1. After all, "N" means REPLICATES, not
"positive results". Only an utter moron, a thorought waste of DNA who
should remove himself from the gene pool for the good of humanity, thinks
that N=1 means "there has only been one positive result".

What is the 95% confidence interval on a sample size of one?

Even though we know of only one technological civilization (us), that
does not mean that N=1 (presumably N is from the Drake Equation.)
Perhaps N1 or N1 or N is very nearly zero. If you are using the
Drake Equation, what values are you using?