Any alien life forms out there could be billions of years advanced of us. Can you imagine what even a couple of thousand years difference will make? They could be beyond our comprehension.
They could be beyond our comprehension.
I always liked Arthur C. Clarke's take on this:
[i]"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."[/i]
geetee1972 - Member
They could be beyond our comprehension.
Now you see, a few months back I got poo-poo'd on here for suggesting that. To repeat; as Humans we only know what we know. All science, maths and physics is bound to our own knowledge and interpretation, and we are too arrogant if we believe that the limits of our knowledge is therefore the limits and very definition of all knowledge.
Its very, very possible therefore that by design we cannot even comprehend what is out there because we do not have the capacity to understand it and therefore materialise it.
I think it's quite likely that alien beings will look quite like us, due to convergent evolution.
That depends on whether you consider us successful in evolutionary terms. For all our technological superiority and even our exponential population growth of late, we're far from being the most successful species on the planet. We'll never achieve what lichen has done before we were here, all the time we've been here and will do long after we're gone. Compared to something that has colonised every surface, at every altitude, from the poles to the equator we're not winning the whole survival of the fittest game. And thats just on land. Jellyfish are more successful than us and they have nothing even similar to a brain. Life could exist quite successfully and sustainably and completely elsewhere without any evolutionary pressure for intelligence of any sort.
That depends on whether you consider us successful in evolutionary terms
There's really no such thing as 'successful' in evolutionary terms, beyond reproducing. And we can do that pretty well.
However in terms of space exploration, which is what we are talking about, we are by far the most successful species on Earth 🙂
[i]from the poles to the equator we're not winning the whole survival of the fittest game[/i]
Evolution is purposeless, if there was one phrase that sums up a theory about as wrongly as it could, my vote would go with "..of the fittest"
dinosaurs were winning that 'game' for 165 million years (written human history about 6,000 years by comparison) right up until the point that they weren't.
There are loads of really good reasons why we can't contact aliens (which I happen to think exist), from we're too insignificant, to using the wrong/not yet thought of technology to talk to them, or them just being further out than we can see (we've only looked at aboyt 0.1% of the galaxy.
There's really no such thing as 'successful' in evolutionary terms, beyond reproducing. And we can do that pretty well.
Except that we choose when to reproduce, if we choose to reproduce at all. Amoeba don't decide to put their career first. 🙂
to using the wrong/not yet thought of technology to talk to them
There's some interesting science on this subject that explains why the 21cm Hydrogen Line is the most likely candidate for interstellar communication. Have a look [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line ]here[/url].
There are also some really good books on the subject of whether life is by definition an evolutionary dead end. The question goes along the lines of asking whether life can ever evolve to a sufficiently advanced level that it could populate a galaxy or whether the physical constraints of competing for resources would always mean that life is pre-programmed to self destruct before that point. Of course, that might just our fate rather than the fate of any other intelligent life.
Fascinating stuff.
geetee, type 1, 11, 111 civilisations.
Let's hope the filter's behind us and it's just a matter of time. eh? 😉
geetee, type 1, 11, 111 civilisations.
That's really interesting. Not sure I'd come across that before, at least not referenced in this way.
Its very, very possible therefore that by design we cannot even comprehend what is out there
Like our cat. It blows its fricken mind when we take it 9 miles to the vets
Evolution is purposeless, if there was one phrase that sums up a theory about as wrongly as it could, my vote would go with "..of the fittest"
I suspect you may be misinterpreting the meaning of the word "fittest" in this context.
Not "fittest" as in "most powerful" (or the like).
"Fittest" as in - the "best fit"...
That is to say - the species "best adapted" (fittest) to survive in that particular environment.
Just read 'Are you living in a computer simulation?' by Nick Bostrom. Bit more thought gone into it than the usually Matrix tin foil brigade. Interesting reading, although obviously conjecture.
Have a go on this then:Scale of the Universe
Good for kids too.
This link is great ... thanks for posting.
But
But
It doesn't tell us how big the Universe is in the International standard of measuring size compaired to Wales !!
How many Wales would fit in the Universe ?
Anybody ?
Evolution is purposeless, if there was one phrase that sums up a theory about as wrongly as it could, my vote would go with "..of the fittest"
There's nothing wrong with that phrase in itself, but it does come with an awful lot of really unhelpful baggage.
Anyway, I said on a thread like this a while back that I thought life would be discovered elsewhere in my lifetime, but it would be microbes on Europa or something. I still think there's a pretty good chance of that happening.
[i]the meaning of the word "fittest" in this context[/i]
Yes, a bit of hyperbole for effect 😆
I think, "The fittest tend to survive, reproduce, and hand down 'heritable' characteristics that have enhanced their survival chances to the next generation".
which is at least testable, if not as snappy 😉
Who was it that said, 'space is not only queerer than we think, it's queerer than we are able to think.'?
I love space/universe stuff but it gives me a bad head.
Who was it that said, 'space is not only queerer than we think, it's queerer than we are able to think.
J.B.S. Haldane. A man that could turn a phrase.
[i]but it would be microbes on Europa or something.[/i]
which would be crushing news TBH
Signals powerful enough to make out of the solar system have, I think, only been produced since the 1930s
[img] 
[/img]
Whether they'll be reconstructable at those distances is another point.
I always liked Arthur C. Clarke's take on this:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I think you need to add 'to people primitive enough to believe in magic' onto the end of that quote.
Love this, Lmao
In "The size of Wales", Wales is always a two dimensional object. How can I count the number of two dimensional Waleses in a three dimensional universe?
