25 replies to this topic

[Moonbeam]

Given the size and age of the universe and the likelihood that intelligent life has evolved many times, why hasn't the singularity occurred for one of them already? If the end result is taking over the whole universe, it seems like we either know about it, or not be here at all.

[cribbon]

Given the size and age of the universe and the likelihood that intelligent life has evolved many times, why hasn't the singularity occurred for one of them already? If the end result is taking over the whole universe, it seems like we either know about it, or not be here at all.

Well, what if we're part of some system they're surveiling or something?
Or, even statisticly unlikely - we're the most advanced civilisation.

My personal hope is that they are somehow in an alliance or something where they dont innitiate contact with systems that hasn't reached a specific point in technology or something.
Though, if that were the case, maybe some hostile race would want to enslave us, though there may of course be plenty other systems to put into slavery.

[Moonbeam]

My personal hope is that they are somehow in an alliance or something where they dont innitiate contact with systems that hasn't reached a specific point in technology or something.

Yea I guess the best we can hope for a sort of Star Trek-like prime directive.

But then I think about how we wouldn't worry about ant hills in the way if we wanted to build something.

Edited by Moonbeam, 16 August 2009 - 03:24 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Given the size and age of the universe and the likelihood that intelligent life has evolved many times, why hasn't the singularity occurred for one of them already? If the end result is taking over the whole universe, it seems like we either know about it, or not be here at all.

Well we don't know if the end result of the singularity is to take over the universe, transcend it, or simply live in it, but there are many reasons that alien life which have achieved the singularity have not contacted us.

First off if they discovered our planet, they would obviously find us primitive and making first contact with us could endanger our development. They would most likely prevent any contact from themselves or other civilizations till we have reached a certain point in our social and technological development.

Another reason could be that they didn't find us yet. The galaxy is very large and humanity (after prehistory) has only existed for a couple thousand years. The chances of having an alien race even find us out here in our solar system would be astronomically small.

It is possible that even with the singularity, space travel to other stars could still be impossible to do in short time frames. Perhaps we and all life in the universe are limited to our own solar system only.

And like cribbon said, we may after all be the most advanced civilization out there. Also we could be living in a computer simulation or something similar to that idea.

References:
The Singularity Is Near
The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos
First Contact (Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode)
Who Watches the Watchers (Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode)

[31stCentury]

Given the size and age of the universe and the likelihood that intelligent life has evolved many times, why hasn't the singularity occurred for one of them already? If the end result is taking over the whole universe, it seems like we either know about it, or not be here at all.

Well we don't know if the end result of the singularity is to take over the universe, transcend it, or simply live in it, but there are many reasons that alien life which have achieved the singularity have not contacted us.

First off if they discovered our planet, they would obviously find us primitive and making first contact with us could endanger our development. They would most likely prevent any contact from themselves or other civilizations till we have reached a certain point in our social and technological development.

Another reason could be that they didn't find us yet. The galaxy is very large and humanity (after prehistory) has only existed for a couple thousand years. The chances of having an alien race even find us out here in our solar system would be astronomically small.

It is possible that even with the singularity, space travel to other stars could still be impossible to do in short time frames. Perhaps we and all life in the universe are limited to our own solar system only.

And like cribbon said, we may after all be the most advanced civilization out there. Also we could be living in a computer simulation or something similar to that idea.

References:
The Singularity Is Near
The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos
First Contact (Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode)
Who Watches the Watchers (Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode)

Or maybe the answer is that the occurance of a technological singularity is perhaps, impossible. Keep in mind, all it takes is just 1 ET civilization that has survived the singularity to turn the universe into a giant computer!

[niner]

Or maybe the answer is that the occurance of a technological singularity is perhaps, impossible. Keep in mind, all it takes is just 1 ET civilization that has survived the singularity to turn the universe into a giant computer!

Which would you rather have, a computer the size of a house or one that you could carry around, or not need to carry at all? The trend is more computational power in smaller spaces, not the other way around. Why would any advanced form of life want a computer the size of the universe? Singularities may have happened all over the universe without our knowledge. The only rationale for advanced civilizations taking over the universe is analogizing with primitive lifeforms, which doesn't seem like that great of an argument.

[forever freedom]

Or maybe the answer is that the occurance of a technological singularity is perhaps, impossible. Keep in mind, all it takes is just 1 ET civilization that has survived the singularity to turn the universe into a giant computer!

Which would you rather have, a computer the size of a house or one that you could carry around, or not need to carry at all? The trend is more computational power in smaller spaces, not the other way around. Why would any advanced form of life want a computer the size of the universe? Singularities may have happened all over the universe without our knowledge. The only rationale for advanced civilizations taking over the universe is analogizing with primitive lifeforms, which doesn't seem like that great of an argument.

Well assuming a civilization will eventually find no way to make their computers any more effective, they would probably start to occupy more and more space/matter because it would be the only way for them to keep advancing/improving.

[niner]

Well assuming a civilization will eventually find no way to make their computers any more effective, they would probably start to occupy more and more space/matter because it would be the only way for them to keep advancing/improving.

Well, I admit we're in speculative territory here... (to put it mildly); but what if once you are "god", there's no need to get any smarter?

[forever freedom]

Well assuming a civilization will eventually find no way to make their computers any more effective, they would probably start to occupy more and more space/matter because it would be the only way for them to keep advancing/improving.

Well, I admit we're in speculative territory here... (to put it mildly); but what if once you are "god", there's no need to get any smarter?

Maybe, but i think it's more likely that humanity, as godly and changed as it may be by then, will not decide to stagnate.

Edited by forever freedom, 17 August 2009 - 05:03 AM.

[Moonbeam]

Somewhere in one of the references I read that a limit on smallness will be reached at some point, and computers will then start getting big again.

I guess the lack of evidence of alien singularity(ies) isn't really seen as a discouragement. It is hard to take into account such an unknown. It's kind of like worrying that the end result of all intelligent civilizations is self-destruction, because we haven't seen any others. It's just too much speculation based on no evidence whatsoever. Reading about the singularity and the end result of changing the entire universe just made me wonder about this topic. I have trouble imagining that all alien civilizations would be so careful with prime directive-type orders that mainly seem like plot devices in Star Trek.

[niner]

It's kind of like worrying that the end result of all intelligent civilizations is self-destruction, because we haven't seen any others. It's just too much speculation based on no evidence whatsoever.

Nick Bostrom makes this very argument, except that he seems to have convinced himself that it's true. Like you, I don't buy it. I don't think that the behavior of primitive life on earth, the expansion into all accessible ecological niches, represents a "fundamental law" that all life must follow, regardless of their degree of advancement. Without accepting that, the whole idea falls apart.

[Mind]

Ah yes, the Fermi paradox again. Such a fun topic, as the human mind tends to wonder (and wander). In the end, it always turns into the age-old philosophical questions. Why are we hear? Are we alone?

It is fun to speculate, and I have for many years. Then last Fall, while discussing this topic with George Dvorsky at John Smart's after Convergence party, I realized something about the universe and infinity. It was triggered by my memory of reading about Hotel Infinity. It is about Cantor's set theory and countable and uncountable infinite sets. I am unsure if there is a rigorous mathematical connection that can be drawn between the abstract mathematical theory and the size/age of the universe but it occurred to me that if the universe is infinite in space and time, we might never encounter an alien intelligence (post singularity or not) no matter how long we live, AND even if there are infinite such civilizations.

So, I find it more rewarding to actually participate in the effort to discover and research, than to speculate so far into philosophical issues. We could spend hours thinking about it, or putting more effort into building the satellites, robots, space ships, and telescopes to find the evidence of alien civilizations. It is similar in the anti-aging meme. We can spend an inordinate amount of time speculating about post-aging, post-singularity civilization (at least a little is necessary) or we can actually make it happen. I am happy to see that a lot of members are participating as evidenced by the recent very successful fundraiser for Laser Ablation. Great job everyone.

[valkyrie_ice]

At the risk of sounding like a loon, I think we've already been found. I think there's enough bits and pieces of evidence here and there that we've been been under observation for quite some time, possibly since the dawn of recorded history.

But think about it seriously. What is SETI looking for? Technology on a comparable level with ours. Radio transmissions that I would think travel a few hundred light years at most before being too diffuse to be picked up by any sensors WE have.

So at the core, the entire assumption SETI is based on is that other civilizations are just like us.

Why?

Our views of the universe are constantly evolving. Compared to a civilization that has achieved singularity, or even just developed along different lines than our, who knows how they communicate. Have they found a way of using bell's theorem to make a communications device that is FTL? Or maybe Tachyon transmissions? Why assume they would even think to use such an old fashion, unreliable, and low data speed transmission system as RADIO???

The problem with almost every debate on whether there is intelligent life in the universe seems to start with the assumption that not only would any other species be JUST LIKE US, but that they couldn't possibly have BETTER technology than us.

Humanocentrism is the biggest error made by too many scientists and philosophers, including Bostrom.

[eternaltraveler]

I found this handy map of exploding ET civilizations. It looks pretty evenly distributed...

Attached Files

•  BATSE_2704.jpg   299.99KB   27 downloads

[Moonbeam]

Nick Bostrom makes this very argument, except that he seems to have convinced himself that it's true. Like you, I don't buy it. I don't think that the behavior of primitive life on earth, the expansion into all accessible ecological niches, represents a "fundamental law" that all life must follow, regardless of their degree of advancement. Without accepting that, the whole idea falls apart.

Interesting, yes, but you're right, not very many people would assume that these "filters" he talks about exist just because evidence of life were discovered.

I am unsure if there is a rigorous mathematical connection that can be drawn between the abstract mathematical theory and the size/age of the universe but it occurred to me that if the universe is infinite in space and time, we might never encounter an alien intelligence (post singularity or not) no matter how long we live, AND even if there are infinite such civilizations.

Good point. I guess I was thinking about the end-point of the singularity. Even if we get to the beginning, after it starts we're speculating too as to exactly what we might do or what might happen. Maybe the singularity means a civilization becomes less detectable or something.

Humanocentrism is the biggest error made by too many scientists and philosophers, including Bostrom.

Yea. I guess we can't even be sure we will have what we think of now as human motivations anymore afterwards, and we sure can't say about aliens.

[ben951]

If they're is a civilization that already reach the singularity and humans are going in that direction too, why assume there's only one post singularity civilization out there?
If that civilization exist plus our, it's likely that there are billions of them in the universe.
The Drake equation try to demonstrate the existence of other civilization with only our own as a starting point, so assuming we add another one to the equation then the number would be even bigger, in that case is it likely that all those civilizations agreed to not contact us and hide?



To make another analogies with Star Trek, i don't think the Klingons are interested at all in following the prime directive.
You may argue that ones you reach a certain level of intelligence maybe it become obvious even for billions of civilizations not to contact pre singularity one, but it seems odd since some of them would be post singularity of a few century and other of millions of years or more with huge cultural differences.

Personally i don't believe there are billions of post singularity civilization in our universe and many in our galaxy, that all of them stay in their solar system don't expend,(how to deal with energy and matter if you never expend ?) that they all agreed not to contact us and hide for the one that could be detectable by SETI.

So I'd bet we are probably the most advance one, it might seems presumptuous but some biologist believe that intelligent life on earth needed trillion and trillion of specific event to appear, modify only one and it does not work.
Whether or not we are in a simulation does not change anything in my opinion, except maybe that the simulation can be turned off if it does not show interesting results.

Interesting video debate about it:
Will Intelligence Fill the Universe?
http://season1.close...ideos/ctt214.rm

[niner]

some biologist believe that intelligent life on earth needed trillion and trillion of specific event to appear, modify only one and it does not work.

I don't think anyone who has seriously thought about the origin of life believes this. This sounds like a creationists' argument against evolution.

[eternaltraveler]

This sounds like a creationists' argument against evolution.

not at all. This isn't about the origin of life for one, it's about intelligent life.

It is only an argument that intelligent life is rare. Perhaps so rare that none of it exists in our past light cone. If there is any truth to Bostrom's reasoning we should hope this is the case. Thus far I haven't heard any argument against it other than it makes some assumptions that up until now have proven true for life as we know it; one can make the assertion that these assumptions would not hold true for life more advanced than ourselves, but at the same time we should realize that there is no data to support this counter claim.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 19 August 2009 - 09:01 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

My personal belief is that the reason contact has been limited (because I do believe it has been made but only in the sense I believe alien artifacts may have been found) is that Humanity as it is today is not native to the planet. I think the historical evidence indicates that a extremely advanced, relatively high tech civilization existed on this planet approx ten thousand years ago, but due to a cataclysmic event (exact kind open to debate) this civilization collapsed and scattered, relapsing into barbarism and starting the long slow climb back to where we are today. What there is no evidence for is the large scale explotation of resources necessary for such a high tech civilization to evolve on this planet.

Which lead to the sole possibility that this civilization was transplanted from somewhere else.

I think the reason we are under observation but have not been contacted is that we are a failed colony that has developed along unexpected lines, or possibly dangerous lines. We are either a historical experiment under observation, or in quarantine.

So I think we will eventually get out there and meet the "aliens" and find they are us.

[niner]

This sounds like a creationists' argument against evolution.

not at all. This isn't about the origin of life for one, it's about intelligent life.

It is only an argument that intelligent life is rare.

But it's a bogus argument. It's simply not the case that trillions and trillions of conditions have to come together "just right". Humans weren't formed in modern form from a random assemblage of molecules; The earliest life was exceedingly simple, but they might have evolved from even simpler self-assembling system. Very simple small molecules can self-assemble to form some very complex structures. That's what a lot of nanotechnology is all about today; we're learning how to direct these processes. However, they don't have to undergo any sort of statistically unlikely process; in fact they assemble spontaneously guided only by physics. I could swear that I've heard above argument from creationists, much as I might have tried to repress it...

[eternaltraveler]

Humans weren't formed in modern form from a random assemblage of molecules; The earliest life was exceedingly simple, but they might have evolved from even simpler self-assembling system. Very simple small molecules can self-assemble to form some very complex structures. That's what a lot of nanotechnology is all about today; we're learning how to direct these processes. However, they don't have to undergo any sort of statistically unlikely process; in fact they assemble spontaneously guided only by physics. I could swear that I've heard above argument from creationists, much as I might have tried to repress it...

....

What you are stating is obvious... and also has nothing to do with the discussion. Who said anything about humans rising fully formed out of the primordial ooze? Firstly, you seem to continue to confuse the development of any life with the development of intelligent space faring life (which may or may not be dramatically less likely; we don't know).

What this discussion is about is that there is absolutely no data whatsoever on the likelyhood of:

the initial formation of replicators that tend to lead to life
How common and how long it typically takes for life to become complex
how typically and how much time it typically takes for complex life to develop into intelligent life
As well as numerous other potential filtering points.

Just because we tend to find organic molecules in comets says nothing about how likely they are to fall together in the right way to make a complex self replicating system that is capable of evolution (crystal formation, for example, could be considered self replicating, but there is no evolutionary information processing present in such a system). All we know is that it happened once. If we find evidence of prior life on mars that still would not absolutely show that it happened twice as our two planets seed each-other.

Furthermore, that is only one barrier on the path to intelligent space faring life. I've mentioned a few possible examples above, but again, the fact is we have no data on whether there are more, less, or none. We have an n of 1, which is statistically useless. The only other evidence we have is a total lack of evidence for anything else out there be it a total lack of large scale cosmic engineering which physics as we know it says that we ought to be able to do, and of course the notion of the fermi paradox (we can colonize the entire galaxy in a few million years with present technology).

We are left with 3 possibilities

intelligent space faring life is lazy and doesn't go anywhere.
intelligent space faring life is rare
intelligent space faring life is common, but nearly always self destructs

As Mind mentions, given a large enough universe intelligent space faring civilizations could be both incredibly uncommon such that it is unlikely for two to be within each other's light cones, while at the same time the universe as a whole could contain an arbitrarily large number of such civilizations.

Rare =/ must have divine intervention for it to occur. "Rare" is a relative term anyway. In this case I'm defining "very rare" to mean "unlikely to find two such civilizations in eachother's past light cones at this point in time".

[Luna]

Regarding ant hills theory.
We don't go and smash everything in africa.
We preserve animal living places.

If we were a space civilization and we'd find a primitive civilization we'd probably either say hello and try something or ignore them and skip to the next.

At that level of civilization, it does not benefit us to hurt them, enslaving them is pretty useless too!

We'd see they are gaining some intelligence (minimal, but still) and we'd let them be (or say hello)

The only reason I am convened about the universe is because no one actually said hello, this brings way more questions,

Personally, I am not sure how we, as a race who used to be dying, would meet a new race and let it die and have the pains of aging, war, diseases.. this is why I am worried!!!

Edited by Luna, 20 August 2009 - 06:53 AM.

[niner]

Humans weren't formed in modern form from a random assemblage of molecules; The earliest life was exceedingly simple, but they might have evolved from even simpler self-assembling system. Very simple small molecules can self-assemble to form some very complex structures. That's what a lot of nanotechnology is all about today; we're learning how to direct these processes. However, they don't have to undergo any sort of statistically unlikely process; in fact they assemble spontaneously guided only by physics. I could swear that I've heard above argument from creationists, much as I might have tried to repress it...

What you are stating is obvious... and also has nothing to do with the discussion. Who said anything about humans rising fully formed out of the primordial ooze? Firstly, you seem to continue to confuse the development of any life with the development of intelligent space faring life (which may or may not be dramatically less likely; we don't know).

I was responding to the "trillion and trillion of specific event" idea:

some biologist believe that intelligent life on earth needed trillion and trillion of specific event to appear, modify only one and it does not work.

The way ben951 has couched this, as though each and every one of the trillions and trillions of conditions is necessary, isn't supported by what we know about biology, and carries the implication that "intelligent life on earth" had a probability of occurring that was vanishingly small. I addressed the origin of life rather than the development of "intelligence" because origin seems like the hard problem to me. Intelligence is all around us in the animal kingdom. Mammals, birds, reptiles all have sophisticated brains, relatively speaking, and are capable of making decisions in a complicated environment. With enough selection pressure and time, it would be a simple matter to evolve more intelligence. Rather than "trillions" of things, it's probably a matter of new (or altered) expression of a relative handful of genes.

It is interesting to speculate about the probability of the development of life and of intelligent life on other worlds. Mars doesn't look terrifically promising, but if we found something underground that was wildly different from earth's biology, that would shake things up. In the foreseeable future, I think the moons of the gas giants are the most promising place to look. There's a mission to Europa on the drawing boards, about thirty years off. If the solar system turns out to be dead with the exception of us, however, we are going to be having similar conversations for a looong time.

Edited by niner, 20 August 2009 - 09:47 AM.

[treonsverdery]

Around 2001 I became aware of a human superstructure with similarities to the singularity Its kind of like jungian synchronicity with aspects of pure spiritual form The "software" is running a "neutral" form with similarities to the "IT" pattern from a wrinkle in time I think the assimilated persons might call it the "IL" pattern though

The narrative I am told is that an entity tried to run the cosmos at double speed which caused some kind of comeaning shift that humans are residual "broken robots" with both emotion plus authentic beingness These human creatures basically were historically forbidden to talk about the pattern Much of human communication was thus trying to use the permitted mental structures to get around that This idea of science that produces durable results is very fresh to human communication

If you would like to you could perceive anything on the cover of Scientific American as plausible Scientific American has had a cover story on the mathematics of parallel universes

One thing a singularity might prefer is to generate a preferred universe

Here is a description of that technology

New physics generator
The higgs boson confers mass The antihiggs boson confers a different thing the nearness of these two particles defines a region of massform then oscillating the location of the particle pairs creates new universe rule areas but it works better outside

first to quell the rioting I will state that the higgs boson is allegedly its own antiparticle
then I will suggest that there are universes where the higgs has an antiparticle that further these universes could generate a higgs anti higgs time separated pair that generates a unitary higgs particle

this nvention suggests a way people from a parallel universe could generate a universe like ours

It would be funny if the higgs antiparticle existed as the antihiggs came near the higgs the mass as well as other bosonic attributes would form a spectrum of specialized mass between the antihiggs higgs pair

You could image this as an oscillating frequency of massness marvels such as antigravity as well as emc2 anomolies that would result at the area between the two particles

Now studying frequency generators we know that two lapping frequencies form new curve forms as well as doublehigh peaks n flats Further three lapping frequencies create regions with orderly curves as well as visually nonpredictable curves

translating the meaning of the 2 or three frequency higgs antihiggs higgs antihiggs higgs antihiggs pairs we get universe areas where the other particles like protons have more or less or negative mass this creates a region of special materiality with just two higgs antigiggs pairs the oscillation is regular thus that universe area has time resolvable physics that is you can figure out that there are things with observations plus time with three antihiggs higgs pairs you create universe areas that are more decoratively physicsized with the possibility of making universe areas that are beyond prediction as to mass that is to say at a moment a proton might have mass a giant mass an abscence of mass or a negative mass or a hypermass which changes at the next instant this would replace matter with a different thing

A thing tremendously different to prompt Zaphod to say Now that is different Honestly I didn't know they could make them that different at the different factory This makes Ubik look like preschool Right then we take a group of these antihiggs higgs universe area generaters then build a newtons cradle out of them such that as the antihiggs higgs near collision (+)(-)(-)(+)(+)(+)(+) they do this well with a novel universe popping away at the side each moment a universe of the preferred kind

(+) <----> (-)(-)(+)(+)(+)(+)

(+)(-)(-)(+)(+)(+) <----> (+)

or

(+)(-)(-) <---(+)---> (+)(+)(+)

thus a higgs antihiggs particle machine at a parallel universe could create a universe with physics like ours yet with the capacity to change immediately as a result of a three frequency lapping effect

The technology is a big wad of particle accelerators generating higgs plus antihiggs near each other

— beanangel, Aug 19 2009

Edited by treonsverdery, 20 August 2009 - 05:08 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

if we found something underground that was wildly different from earth's biology, that would shake things up. In the foreseeable future, I think the moons of the gas giants are the most promising place to look. There's a mission to Europa on the drawing boards, about thirty years off. If the solar system turns out to be dead with the exception of us, however, we are going to be having similar conversations for a looong time.

I absolutely agree we should expand our data set, and those are excellent places to try. Titan might be interesting also. It would be particularly interesting if we found anything not DNA based beyond the equivalent to simple bacteria.

Here's to having similar conversations for a looong time

Attached Files

•  beer.jpeg   891bytes   0 downloads

Edited by eternaltraveler, 20 August 2009 - 06:19 PM.

[ben951]

I don't think anyone who has seriously thought about the origin of life believes this. This sounds like a creationists' argument against evolution

But did you watch the video i posted before making your comment ?
http://season1.close...ideos/ctt214.rm

another link: http://www.researchc...il_1300k_qt.mov

I was just repeating the exact word that biologist "Francisco J. Ayala " said in the video, so my statement is correct :

Some biologist believe that trillion and trillion of specific event where needed to create intelligent life on earth, i thought it was obvious that we were talking about intelligent life with reflective consciousness of human level or higher.

He's maybe wrong but i don't think it's honest to say that it's a creationist idea and that he didn't seriously thought about evolution since he often defend evolution against creationism : http://www.nytimes.c...9prof.html?_r=1

And i don't even exactly agree with him.

With enough selection pressure and time, it would be a simple matter to evolve more intelligence. Rather than "trillions" of things, it's probably a matter of new (or altered) expression of a relative handful of genes.

I agree with you that life evolve naturally toward more complexity and intelligence but i don't think selection pressure and time comes that easy, maybe specific events, the proper environment and time is the filter.

Jupiter imperfect protection is maybe another big filter:
http://www.teachersd...d_jupitersrole/

Without for instance the meteor that cause the extinction of the dinosaurs but not the extinction of all life on earth it's not certain life would still had found a way to develop intelligence before hour already middle age sun dies or another meteor hit the earth.

In other word i think life evolve naturally toward complexity and intelligence but it need specific events for the proper environment to be there long enough combined with specifics event to speed up the process.

Edited by ben951, 21 August 2009 - 03:37 PM.