1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

What would aestivation entail? It doesn't sound like something we humans would do.

Who knows what our species will think is the right course of action in 100, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years.
 

If we did decide to take 'the long nap', here is what we may consider (not a futurologist, so my imagination is limited by current appraisals of possible future technology):

• Cryostasis.
• Digitisation of the human species (live as data on silicon, rather than mushy bits of carbon-based material). Power down until cooler times prevail.
• Genetic modification to render us biologically immortal (like jellyfish, sponges, or expand upon the biology of long-lived mammals such as the Bowhead Whale) and put us in artificial sleep.
• Cybernetic organisms. Remove the rubbishy, fallible fleshy bits that take up brain capacity (i.e. all other organs in the body) and replace them with less fallible robotic prosthesis. The brain is the only organic material in an otherwise artificial body and again, artificial sleep for 'the long nap'. Resistance to the idea would be fultile. 😄
• A combination of some / all of these.

Provided we don't exterminate ourselves through war, overconsumption of resources, development of a harmful technology, or get wiped out by an asteroid, supervolcanic eruption, long gamma ray burst or deadly disease, we *could* eventually develop some incredible capability in the distant future.
Remember, even two million years from now would still be 'early' on the universal timescale.

 

P.S. Seems the Dunning-Kruger effect has made its reappearance.
 

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by F737MAX

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

Also: The universe is getting hot, hot, hot, a new study suggests

What effect would that have at the planetary level? I thought it wouldn't have any. Certainly, we are doing just fine with a gas temperature of 2 million degrees K.

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

You're right, zero evidence that their is life anywhere else.

 

That's makes no sense at all. And there's zero evidence that there ISN'T life out there too. So using your logic you shouldn't believe there is and you shouldn't believe there isn't. At this point, if you were an android, your positronic brain would explode. 😆

Zero evidence that there's life in outer space, obviously doesn't equate to "there is no life in outer space". Obviously. I have no evidence that you are wearing a green jumper... but you obviously could be. 🙄

Common sense  dictates that, there's no evidence life is out there but it might be. And there's no evidence life is out there and it might not be Thus, to definitively state it isn't because there's no evidence is a bit bonkers.

 

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

I know that there is life on Earth and believe there is no life anywhere else.

 

You can believe what you like. But to believe without evidence is misguided. You are believing a guess.

 

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

I know there is life on earth because the Evidence literally Proves it.

 

And evidence can suggest something is feasible. And the FACT that life exist here, tells us that life existing is feasible. Thus, life existing in outer space on other worlds is also feasible. 

 

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

And I don't believe there is life anywhere else because there is zero Evidence of it.

 

Again... zero evidence does not equate to its not there. I doubt you are wearing sexy ladies knickers, but its feasible you are. 😂

 

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

I have never meet or read about a credible witness who said that life else where in the universe was an immediate object of their experience. If I did I'd be inclined to believe them.

 

That's nuts too to be honest. We don't "not believe things are feasible" just because we are yet to definitely proof they are feasible. If you took yourself back in time to before radio waves were discovered, using your philosophy you would "not believe they existed"... and yet we know they do now don't we?  So you would have been foolish to not believe radio waves were feasible. And you are currently using a computer to talk to me, but I guess before they were invented you didn't believe that was feasible either...because it's wasn't an an immediate object of someone's experience? 

 

2 hours ago, FBW737 said:

Neither do I accept the proposition that 'there is one of something' constitutes evidence that there is another.

 

One of something doesn't definitively prove there is another or many. But it does prove that the entity that exists, the phenomenon that exists, is possible and thus feasible. And if feasible it is possible for it to be repeated... obviously. 

 

2 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I also don't believe that the Universe is infinite 

 

Physics doesn't agree with you. Physics tells us that the universe MIGHT be infinite. Might be infinite because its "flat". It also might NOT be infinite. Both are possible, we don't know either way definitively. And so because we don't know either way definitively, using your logic, you should not believe its infinite and not believe its finite. I think your logic may have broken down. 😂

 

5 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Just two alternative fascinating theories as to why the Fermi paradox exists.

 

As I've mentioned before on the forum. I would speculate that single celled life is out there, and may well be very common. Advanced technological life took billions of years to develop on this planet though, so seems like its a harder problem. And then we have the most likely "great filter" self destruction to contend with. With a species possibly destroying itself long before it develops the capability to make itself known.

There are a number of possible answers to the Fermi Paradox.

Hypothetical explanations for the paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

 

🤪I've got an alternative theory as to why technologically advanced species in the universe end up destroying themselves other than by going to war with each other with apocalyptic weapons. They figured they could transfer their consciousness from their Carbon based subject to decay and death bodies to silicon based hardware that could be upgraded as needed for an eternal existence. After a few years (on their planet) when they where convinced that the facsimiles of the volunteers were in fact the volunteers who were really alive and well in the virtual reality they had created their was a great celebration of the dawn of a new epoch of eternal Utopian existence in Virtual reality where all your wishes were fulfilled where there was no necessity to eat or poop and you could have sex with whom ever you wanted and not have to pay them and they wouldn't be groused out and be a man or a woman or what ever gender you wanted to be and switch back and forward at will. The automated pod centres around their world opened up and gradually over a few of their years the entire population of the planet had been transitioned into the virtual reality and their useless carbon based bodies liquefied to run the turbines. The heroic technicians and scientists who maintained the hardware would be last to transition and then from the virtual reality would control the robots who maintain the hardware in the real world. But as it turned out they were in fact all dead. They had done such a good job of mimicking the supposedly transferred individuals that they could not in fact tell the difference. After a few hundred of their years without the actual consciousness of the scientist and technicians to oversee the highly automated hardware, ware and tear and malfunction eventually took its toll and the lights went out. Just after that the James Webb took a look at that planet and the scientists said "No street lights, perhaps their asleep."🤣

In fact this almost happened on earth but the Irish saved us:

 

Edited November 18, 20223 yr by FBW737

22 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

What effect would that have at the planetary level? I thought it wouldn't have any. Certainly, we are doing just fine with a gas temperature of 2 million degrees K.

That's the point, though. While we appear to be doing OK with 8 billion of us now running around this planet, we expend a lot of energy for warmth / cooling, artificial lighting, shelter from the elements and food just to survive. We are also highly vulnerable to an extinction-level catastrophe by being stuck on this rock.
Other extraterrestrial lifeforms may have already realised that they needed to become multiplanetary, yet might not find curent conditions quite so supportive of truly efficient living. The universe is currently just too hot/dangerous to run around in, so they may have developed technology to protect themselves while they wait for less turbulent times.

We cannot do this with the current level of resources required to meet our basic needs. We are also highly vulnerable to cosmic radiation in interstellar space travel.
At some point, humans may come to a similar conclusion to wait out this 'hot and dangerous' period.

The simple fact of the matter is that we're ascribing human needs and desires onto alien lifeforms. Their needs and wants could/will look very different from what we imagine them to be, so all of this is just guessing.

 

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

As I've mentioned before on the forum. I would speculate that single celled life is out there, and may well be very common. Advanced technological life took billions of years to develop on this planet though, so seems like its a harder problem. And then we have the most likely "great filter" self destruction to contend with. With a species possibly destroying itself long before it develops the capability to make itself known.

There are a number of possible answers to the Fermi Paradox.

Well, yes...
"Just two alternative fascinating theories" absolutely means I recognise that there are multiple possible reasons for the Fermi Paradox.
Those that I listed were just two of them. The 'Great Filter' is another. None appear more credible than any other based on current (lack of) evidence.
 

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

we *could* eventually develop some incredible capability in the distant future.

But not by taking a nap for 2 million years. And what happens if the Earth-killing asteroid comes while we are having our nap. Even if that doesn't happen, cryostasis requires electrical power and I don't think there is any source which can provide that power for billions of people for 2 million years. I won't mention all the other arguments in case I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting but I think that, while aestivation works well for simpler lifeforms like tardigrades, it won't work for humans.

The universe is getting hot, hot, hot, a new study suggests

Well that's interesting, and of course flies in the face of the accepted theory that the Universe isn't getting hotter. That the universe as a whole is getting cooler and less dense as it expands after the hot big bang. 

I think it would be interesting to hear what opinions other scientists in the field have, regarding this new research.

 

Edited November 18, 20223 yr by martin-w

13 hours ago, FBW737 said:

You're right, zero evidence that their is life anywhere else.

 

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. 😏

 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

The universe is getting hot, hot, hot, a new study suggests

Well that's interesting, and of course flies in the face of the accepted theory that the Universe isn't getting hotter. That the universe as a whole is getting cooler and less dense as it expands after the hot big bang. 

I think it would be interesting to hear what opinions other scientists in the field have, regarding this new research.

Here is the original article. I can't find any scientific opinions on this but you'd think someone must have had something to say about it:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abb403/meta

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

Here is the original article. I can't find any scientific opinions on this but you'd think someone must have had something to say about it:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abb403/meta

 

Usually when you read articles about this stuff, they add the opposing view of scientists that aren't impressed with the research.

Thanks for link. 👍

6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Usually when you read articles about this stuff, they add the opposing view of scientists that aren't impressed with the research.

Also I check for letters to the editor in the following issue but they don't seem to have that feature.

On 11/18/2022 at 1:57 AM, martin-w said:

 

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. 😏

 

Happy to see that you have finally admitted that there is no evidence.😋

Anyway I'm tired of this. Anyone who cares to review our debate will see that I hold to the intellectually honest position of agnosticism and that my intuition is that life does not exist anywhere else in the universe except on earth. Not once did I claim to know that to be the case. I'll take back one thing. "It is never logical to assume". But if you draw a conclusion that's implicated by the assumption without any empirical evidence you have a BIG problem. I'd dare say assumptions are only logical because any coherent assumption no mater how ridiculous it is will have valid inferences. Its even possible to find instances of empirical evidence to support ridiculous assumptions. I don't accept the one known instance or the probability arguments. It's not easy to critique those argument in few post. I have neither the time or the skill to do so. But I did find this:

http://www.roymash.com/docs/Big Numbers and Induction.pdf

For anyone who is interested in a critique of the mainstream position that intelligent life must exist elsewhere in the universe because we know of one instance and because the universe is so huge the probability that there are other instances are virtually certain. This paper is from the Official Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association not New Scientist.🤪 It's no merely about the existence of life elsewhere per say but Intelligent life. Nevertheless the argument where it matters in this context in my opinion is the same.

In really enjoyed reading this article and considering its arguments. I felt muscles in my brain flexing that I had forgotten existed.🤣😭

Edited November 19, 20223 yr by FBW737

I wonder if prior to age of exploration people like the Druids thought life didn't exist anywhere else except on their little island.  I wonder if it is a trait of isolated people to wonder if there is life outside the limits of their experience and if they argue about it or, perhaps, never wonder about it.

There probably is life out there.  If the makings of life existed here then it would be presumptuous to think those makings didn't exist anywhere else in the universe.

On 11/18/2022 at 2:57 AM, martin-w said:

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence

I like your quote Martin.

Noel

On 11/14/2022 at 3:52 PM, birdguy said:

Interesting NASA paper on why intelligent life has not visited us.

 

They Know better