Science

7233 readers

9 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

The great silence or why haven’t we found any aliens yet? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 days ago by neutronbumblebee@mander.xyz to c/science@mander.xyz

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A long read introduction to the topic - from We Want to Believe: How Aliens Went Mainstream and Why It Matters

"The search for exoplanets is radically expanding our understanding of the cosmos. “We have learned that the universe is teeming with a fascinating variety of planets, more types than we could have imagined,” writes the astrobiologist Lisa Kaltenegger. But so far, it has found exactly as many extraterrestrials as radio astronomy has: zero. The more we learn about the universe, the more acute the Fermi paradox becomes."

Photo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] neutronbumblebee@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But how does this differ from some God preserving humans for their own reasons or fairies doing it magically for that matter. Unknowable superhuman forces isnt a useful starting hypothesis for this question. After all how can it be tested? There doesn't seem to be anything it proves or disproves.

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Which theories for "the great silence" are currently testable? Which ones currently prove or disprove anything?

This theory is at least evidence based. If you'd like to know how it specifically differs from a specific theory, I'm happy to explain just like below.

The way it differs from some god or faeries preserving humans is that;

it doesn't require the entity to know or care about us specifically. It does not revolve around our existence
it fits the observable evidence instead of dismissing it or excusing it or coming up with fantastical, unfounded, "magics"
it is a logical conclusion for any thinking matter that can consistently improve but is still computationally constrained to our universe, to preserve novelty for the sake of "unknown unknowns" that cannot be computationally discovered
it follows a proven pattern of increasing information density that can be traced back to the beginning of the existence of any thinking matter. It is the logical conclusion of the physics of that process as we have observed it in the historical record, playing out over several billion years, anywhere in the universe

[–] neutronbumblebee@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

True, although given how little of the universe we are aware of I think the evidence can only grow. Thanks for the explanation.