Star Trek's Prime Directive and the Fermi Paradox

[Vigormortis]

The Fermi Paradox is basically irrelevant since it makes three distinct assumptions when it posits the question, "Where is everybody?"

1: It assumes the Drake Equation is accurate to any degree.
2: It ironically ignores time.
3: It ignores "random chance".

More than a few of the variables within the Drake Equation are largely assumed or simply unknown. So any conclusion drawn from the equation is, at best, an educated guess. So asking why we aren't inundated with alien species, simply because the Drake Equation predicts there must be many, is ridiculous.

The Paradox assumes that any sufficiently advanced civilization has either existed for long enough to contact us or that the advanced civilization currently exists within our time period. For all we know, we're preceded by dozens of supremely advanced civilizations that have long since fallen. Or, we may be the first within this galaxy.

There's also the possibility that some other civilization did discover Earth, but did so millions or billions of years ago. This would leave them with little reason to continue contact, even if they assumed life might evolve to an "advanced" state. (assuming such a civilization could last that long - and even then that's a LONG period of time to hope intelligent life MIGHT evolve)

Honestly, the Fermi Paradox is just as presumptuous as the Drake Equation.

we know that creating intelligent life IS in God's nature

Do we? We don't even know if any given deity exists, let alone what capabilities such beings might have.

 

[Synthetica]

we know that creating intelligent life IS in God's nature

Do we? We don't even know if any given deity exists, let alone what capabilities such beings might have.

Let me rephrase that for him: if the Bible is true and accurate, and the God depicted in the Bible is the God he is talking about (making that assumption here), this would be the nature of God.

(This is not my point of view by the way, I'm an atheist.)

 

[DrOswald]

The Fermi Paradox is basically irrelevant since it makes three distinct assumptions when it posits the question, "Where is everybody?"

1: It assumes the Drake Equation is accurate to any degree.
2: It ironically ignores time.
3: It ignores "random chance".

More than a few of the variables within the Drake Equation are largely assumed or simply unknown. So any conclusion drawn from the equation is, at best, an educated guess. So asking why we aren't inundated with alien species, simply because the Drake Equation predicts there must be many, is ridiculous.

The Paradox assumes that any sufficiently advanced civilization has either existed for long enough to contact us or that the advanced civilization currently exists within our time period. For all we know, we're preceded by dozens of supremely advanced civilizations that have long since fallen. Or, we may be the first within this galaxy.

There's also the possibility that some other civilization did discover Earth, but did so millions or billions of years ago. This would leave them with little reason to continue contact, even if they assumed life might evolve to an "advanced" state. (assuming such a civilization could last that long - and even then that's a LONG period of time to hope intelligent life MIGHT evolve)

Honestly, the Fermi Paradox is just as presumptuous as the Drake Equation.

we know that creating intelligent life IS in God's nature

Do we? We don't even know if any given deity exists, let alone what capabilities such beings might have.

I think you may have misunderstood the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox exists specifically to point out those things you have pointed out. That is the entire point of it. That because we have not observed any evidence of other intelligent life there must be some reason. There are many many possible reasons, including all the reasons you have suggested and more.

Also, the Fermi Paradox does not ignore time. Consideration of time is directly built into the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox is built on the Drake equation.

 

[Vigormortis]

Let me rephrase that for him: if the Bible is true and accurate, and the God depicted in the Bible is the God he is talking about (making that assumption here), this would be the nature of God.

(This is not my point of view by the way, I'm an atheist.)

I actually knew what he was getting at. I was just being....difficult.

I think you may have misunderstood the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox exists specifically to point out those things you have pointed out. That is the entire point of it. That because we have not observed any evidence of other intelligent life there must be some reason. There are many many possible reasons, including all the reasons you have suggested and more.

Also, the Fermi Paradox does not ignore time. Consideration of time is directly built into the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox is built on the Drake equation.

Except that the Fermi Paradox, as both you and I have pointed out, is predicated on the accuracy of the Drake Equation.

Given the abysmal lack of quantified variables for the Equation, the Drake Equation is essentially useless. And as a result, the Fermi Paradox is just about as useless.

That is, until we're able to actually plug in the proper values.

This was what I was attempting to say in that other post.

 

[DrOswald]

Let me rephrase that for him: if the Bible is true and accurate, and the God depicted in the Bible is the God he is talking about (making that assumption here), this would be the nature of God.

(This is not my point of view by the way, I'm an atheist.)

I actually knew what he was getting at. I was just being....difficult.

I think you may have misunderstood the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox exists specifically to point out those things you have pointed out. That is the entire point of it. That because we have not observed any evidence of other intelligent life there must be some reason. There are many many possible reasons, including all the reasons you have suggested and more.

Also, the Fermi Paradox does not ignore time. Consideration of time is directly built into the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox is built on the Drake equation.

Except that the Fermi Paradox, as both you and I have pointed out, is predicated on the accuracy of the Drake Equation.

Given the abysmal lack of quantified variables for the Equation, the Drake Equation is essentially useless. And as a result, the Fermi Paradox is just about as useless.

That is, until we're able to actually plug in the proper values.

This was what I was attempting to say in that other post.

Not exactly. The Drake Equation tells us what variables we need to look at, and the Fermi Paradox tells us something either about the nature of the variables (that one or more of them are lower than most would currently estimate) or about the nature of extra terrestrial life if it turns out there should be many other civilizations.

In essence, the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox tell us what questions to ask, not what the answers to those questions are.

 

[Vigormortis]

Not exactly. The Drake Equation tells us what variables we need to look at, and the Fermi Paradox tells us something either about the nature of the variables (that one or more of them are lower than most would currently estimate) or about the nature of extra terrestrial life if it turns out there should be many other civilizations.

In essence, the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox tell us what questions to ask, not what the answers to those questions are.

This is true primarily for the Drake Equation. But the Fermi Paradox takes a general question; essentially "Where are they?"; and phrases it in such a way that the answers it could provide are predicated on the accuracy of the Drake Equation.

The Drake Equation's potential answers are predicated on the accuracy of it's variables, not the accuracy of the Fermi Paradox. This effectively makes the Fermi Paradox pointless until the Drake Equation is made more accurate.

It doesn't make the questions and 'ponderings' that arise from the Fermi Paradox pointless. Don't misunderstand me. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the essence of the Fermi Paradox; that being a "counter" to the Drake Equation; is pointless.

In a general sense, what I mean is both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox provide a platform from which we can build the proper questions, but neither can yet provide accurate answers. The Drake Equation may one day provide an accurate answer, as might the Fermi Paradox, but the latter can only do so once the former is solved.

 

[Darkness665]

His paradox was presented to show that there was nothing there. Not as a realistic number crunch to see the possibilities, indeed no mathematical model that is filled in with biased guesses based on ancient technology could be seen as realistic.

How it was explained to me (decades ago) by a astrophysicist was Fermi was basing everything on the results of looking at the universe through a million mile straw whipping through space at millions of miles per hour. Yep, you are not going to see much under those conditions. We not get another pass at Kepler to add more planets from it much better straw. The numbers from the first pass show that Fermi's base assumption was not only wrong but absolutely wrong.