Outside of mathematics, all the “paradoxes” are really using the term in a figurative or hyperbolic way.
The point is, based only on what we know now, it seems quite plausible that we’d see a galaxy humming with the activity of numerous advanced alien species.
But we don’t see that. And while we can think of dozens of plausible explanations why we don’t see anything, we don’t know which, if any, of our current hypotheses is correct.
And that’s absolutely fascinating. It’s a significant hole in our knowledge.
Maybe we gain the technology to spread to the stars in the next few centuries and find “slime worlds” everywhere, but no multicellular life? Maybe one day we open a corridor into hyperspace and find thousands of species wondering what took us so long? Or maybe we just find barren world after barren world?
Actually as I mention above, that’s not the case (I thought it was but I was wrong). Drake’s Equation relates to detectable alien civilization, but Fermi’s paradox is explicitly about why we haven’t been delectably visited by an alien spacecraft. Fermi seems to have come up with a similar equaiton, but I can’t find exact details of what was in it other than: “[Fermi] followed up with a series of calculations on the probability of earthlike planets, the probability of life given an earth, the probability of humans given life, the likely rise and duration of high technology, and so on”
So we don’t know if there were term for “wants to visit us” and “wants to be detectable when they visit us”
I saw the post where you suggested this, but was there a post where you included a cite? Because all the information I have on Fermi’s paradox says it’s about the lack of evidence of ETs period.
The origin of Fermi’s paradox was a series of discussions that took place in the Los Alamos cafeteria in around 1950 they explicitly relate to the UFOs and the chances of faster-than-light travel. As related here by the actual participants
Specifically the equation Fermi came up with that was similar to Drakes, but related to the chance of being VISITED by Aliens, not just detecting them (using images as PDF removes spaces when I copy):
Yeah but this term comes from a discussion at Los Alamos between Enrico Fermi and, among others, Edward Teller , these are not people who were known for using mathematical terms incorrectly. Its clear from the descriptions of the conversation (and Fermi’s “where are they all?” statement) that he did think the numbers didn’t match the observed results.
Yeah you can choose plausible numbers that produce a result that doesn’t match our observed reality. But that is just a reason to suspect those numbers are not in fact correct, it doesn’t make a paradox.
I’m aware of that, but that is the history of the Fermi paradox, not what is meant by Fermi paradox.
The Fermi paradox was essentially named in Fermi’s honor; it could equally have been called Tsiolkovsky’s paradox (though it’s probably a good thing it wasn’t). It has always referred to the possibility of detecting evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence in general, not UFOs on Earth.
Sure, so what are you suggesting? That Fermi thought this was a literal contradiction in our universe, p and !p?
Or do you think it’s more likely that he meant “paradox” the same way it’s always used in physics, to just mean something that right now seems arbitrary or counter to our current models?
It does make it a paradox in the sense that word is used in physics. Because, even if we knew that some set of values for the variables was wrong, we still wouldn’t know what the correct set of values is.
In fact, at this time, we can still even debate the correctness of the equation itself.
I think the Fermi paradox can sometimes do a disservice to this issue. In that; there are actually a large set of known unknowns at this time, and I would bet numerous unknown unknowns, regarding the development of life in the universe and whether / how often it has developed to sentience outside earth, and then what happened to it if it did.
But the paradox makes some people speak as though there’s just one problem to solve here.
That we just need to fill in some numbers to Drake’s equation, and we’re done.
When those numbers are just a formality next to actually learning about numerous phenomena within our universe.
Every term in the Drake equation can be broken down into dozens, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of further terms. For example, the percentage of habitable planets that have life is one term. But to resolve that single term might require you to resolve hundreds of other questions, such as variability of the star, the existence of certain elements, whether the planet is tidally locked, whether the region it is in gets hit with bursts of radiation from nearby supernovae or gamma ray bursts, whether its solar system has been disrupted by stars moving too closely by, and on and on. There might be factors determining life that don’t even know exist yet.
The Drake equation is therefore best seen not as a typical equation that gives us an answer, but more as a way to organize our thinking around the problem. The terms in it are the high level requirements - many of the detailed requirements have yet to be discovered let alone numerically determined.
While I doubt there is a “hyperspace” or anything, I’ve long thought that if there were, then as soon as we opened a portal to it, the first thing through would be salesmen.
One variation on the ‘hyperspace’ concept works well as a possible explanation for the FP. If it is possible to create small but expanding regions of habitable space using advanced technology, it is possible that such a location may be a better place to live in than our own rather sparse and chilly universe. Maybe every advanced alien civilisation suddenly discovers that they can create their own paradise by switching on an ultrapowerful hadron collider, or something.
You don’t need to go anywhere in this kind of hyperspace; if it is more comfortable in such a baby universe, you could be better off living there than living in our cosmos.
This idea could potentially explain why all the advanced civilisations are invisible - they have found a way to both become invisible and to have more fun. But it does require that everyone does it at roughly the same stage in their development - which is not really a reasonable requirement.
Can’t remember who wrote it but I read a science fiction story where the head of a multi-national company got to noticing how mail moves faster the longer it has to travel. A letter across Manhattan, for example, took more than a week, while one from Los Angeles was mailed three days ago.
He experimented, directing two offices of the company that were farthest apart to sent a missive to the other one, recording the time it was dropped off at the PO and when the opposite office’s letter arrived. They both reported the letters had taken a day in transit.
He then dropped a blank sheet of paper into an envelope and addressed it to [Some name]
123 Starcourt Way
Macross City
Betelgeuse III
stamped it, and dropped it in the outbound box.
It was back the next day with a big, purple Address unknown stamp. There was no indication of who had stamped it, though. He then wrote an indignant letter about how he’d tried to write his good friend on Betelgeuse III and it had been returned; how could they not recognize a legitimate address and so on. He addressed it to the Intergalactic Postal Union and dropped it off.
A couple hours later he got a big envelope, with seals, from the Universal Post League and on opening it, the letter read, “Congratulations for discovering the secret to interstellar travel. Our only requirement is that each planet discover it on its own. As the one to find this out for Earth you have become its representative. We are sending our ambassador under separate cover.”
The intercom buzzed and it was the mailroom saying a large crate with holes addressed to him had arrived – did he want them to open it down there or bring it up on a cart.
It makes just as much sense to suppose we happen to be the FIRST intelligent species. Even if life is commonplace in the universe, intelligent life could still be vanishingly rare – after all, it took Earth’s biosphere at least 2 billion years to produce any – and if we visit any other life-bearing planet, all we are seeing is a momentary snapshot in its evolutionary history. Any intelligent ET who had visited Earth a million years ago would have reported, “Nope, no intelligent life here.”
As a nitpick, a million years is not enough.
At that time, in Africa and parts of Asia at least, they would have encountered members of the genus Homo utilizing fire, burying their dead, maybe even making rafts.
On the actual point, sure, humans could be the first intelligent life. Again the paradox is not that no plausible candidate solutions for the lack of ETs can be thought of.
We have only been able to communicate off this world for less than an eyeblink compared to the time the universe has existed. The universe is also inconceivably vast. Hardly surprising we haven’t found other intelligent races yet, nor (as far as we know) have they yet found us.
