• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Possible explanations why we are seemingly alone in the universe - Fermi paradox solutions

kuoka

Member
Local time
Today 9:23 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2023
Messages
64
---
What is the Fermi paradox?
The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial life existing in the universe, given its vast size and age, and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

Starting with a popular one, the dark forest hypothesis.

The dark forest hypothesis is the idea that many alien civilizations exist throughout the universe, but they are both silent and hostile, trying to avoid detection for fear of being destroyed by another hostile and undetected civilization.

An interesting video on the topic by David Kipping who is an astronomer and associate professor at Columbia University. It's really cool that he started a youtube channel. The video shares his perspective why it's not a convincing solution to the Fermi paradox.

Video summary for those who prefer to read. (Using ai so may be inaccurate)
The video delves into the Dark Forest hypothesis, a popular explanation for the Fermi Paradox which posits that the universe is teeming with civilizations that remain silent out of fear of being destroyed by others. This theory illustrates a universe where aliens either do not communicate or actively eliminate others to ensure their own survival, motivated primarily by fear of potential future threats. The concept gained wider recognition through Liu Cixin’s “The Three-Body Problem” science fiction series, though its roots trace back to earlier works such as Fred Saberhagen’s “Berserker” series and the idea of John von Neumann probes.


The presenter critiques this hypothesis extensively, using game theory as the framework to evaluate the strategic choices alien civilizations might face upon detecting one another. The Dark Forest theory suggests aliens would choose to destroy potential threats since the risks of ignoring or responding are overwhelmingly dangerous. However, the video points out critical flaws in this reasoning, notably the unrealistic assumption that attacks are always successful, ignoring the risk of mutual destruction (MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction) and the probable great distances separating civilizations, which would allow time for retaliation or technological advancement.


Additionally, the approach neglects existing or future detection methods such as telescopes capable of remotely detecting life, making the notion of sudden surprise attacks less plausible. The video further explores the Berserker hypothesis, noting that self-replicating probes intended for sterilization introduce risks of malfunction and unintended consequences. The author argues that the Dark Forest hypothesis reflects more about human fears — particularly violent and survivalist instincts — than about alien behavior, which remains unknown.


In conclusion, while some species might adopt a silent, fearful strategy, others, including humanity, may accept risk in pursuit of a richer, more meaningful existence. The video encourages viewers to embrace curiosity, risk-taking, and communication rather than toxic fear that fosters universal silence. It ends with a celebration of the channel’s growing community and invites a dialogue through a Q&A session.


Highlights​


  • Dark Forest hypothesis explains cosmic silence as aliens hiding out of fear of annihilation.
  • Dark Forest stems from Liu Cixin’s “The Three-Body Problem” but has deeper science fiction roots.
  • ♟️ The hypothesis uses game theory to argue that attacking is the safest strategy for alien civilizations.
  • ⚠️ Critique: Game theory’s assumption of guaranteed successful attacks ignores the risk of mutually assured destruction.
  • Realistic detection via telescopes undermines the idea of only communication as a means of interaction.
  • Berserker probes pose risks of malfunction, potentially threatening their creators.
  • Dark Forest is more a reflection of human fears and societal instincts than alien realities.

Key Insights​


  • Fear as a Universal Motivator Is Presumptive: The Dark Forest hypothesis relies heavily on the assumption that fear dominates alien civilizations’ decision-making. This anthropocentric bias projects human instincts onto unknown species, neglecting the possibility that alien motivations and societal structures may differ fundamentally, potentially favoring cooperation or alternative survival strategies over violent precaution.
  • ♟️ Simplistic Game Theory Application Hinders Realistic Modeling: While game theory is a robust tool, the version applied in Dark Forest oversimplifies complex interstellar interactions. It assumes binary choices (attack, ignore, reply) with deterministic outcomes and infinite negative payoffs, failing to account for uncertainties like attack failure, delays, and the adaptive nature of involved parties. Incorporating real probabilities and consequences complicates the conclusion, making the “attack first” strategy less definitive.
  • Interstellar Distances Introduce Significant Uncertainty and Risk: The vast gulfs between stars, potentially hundreds or thousands of light years apart, create delays that complicate any preemptive strike. By the time an attack arrives, the target civilization might have advanced technologically, expanded territorially, or developed defensive or retaliatory capabilities. The opportunity for effective retaliation introduces a strong deterrent effect, echoing the terrestrial concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
  • Advances in Remote Life Detection Challenge the “Silence Until Contact” Assumption: The Dark Forest model presumes communication attempts primarily occur via direct broadcasts or messages, ignoring that telescopes and sensors might reveal life signatures without any explicit communication. As observational technology develops, it becomes plausible that civilizations could discover each other’s existence without messaging, contradicting the theory’s presumption about risk only posed on communication.
  • Berserker Probes and Von Neumann Machines Add Nuance and Risks to the Model: The Berserker hypothesis, a precursor to Dark Forest, involves self-replicating probes that sterilize life indiscriminately. While it avoids the timing problem of Dark Forest, it introduces evolutionary risk: mutating programs can turn hostile to their builders. This adds complexity and unpredictability, suggesting that even a seemingly optimal terror strategy is fraught with unseen dangers, destabilizing the neat logic of guaranteed eradication.
  • Dark Forest Reflects Human Psychology and Cultural Narratives More Than Extraterrestrial Reality: The cultural conditioning via science fiction and human history of conflict color our assumptions about alien behavior. The hypothesis acts as a mirror showing our innate fears and suspicion rather than providing empirical-based conclusions about the cosmos. This recognition calls for a cautious approach in assuming that alien intelligence parallels humanity’s darker instincts.
  • Risk Acceptance Underpins Meaningful Existence – Silence Is Not the Only Rational Outcome: A powerful philosophical point emerges from the discussion: survival alone does not define meaningful life; the pursuit of experience, connection, and discovery often involves risk. Humanity’s willingness to communicate despite danger symbolizes the value placed on a “rich” existence. Thus, while some civilizations might hide, others may choose to engage the universe boldly, challenging the fatalism of Dark Forest.

Conclusion​


This video thoughtfully challenges the Dark Forest hypothesis by incorporating nuanced game theory, astrophysics, and cultural critique. It acknowledges the value of the hypothesis in explaining cosmic silence but ultimately finds it wanting due to oversimplified assumptions and failure to consider real risks, technological realities, and psychological biases. By emphasizing the importance of risk acceptance and curiosity, it invites a more hopeful perspective on humanity’s place in the cosmos and the potential diversity of alien civilizations’ strategies.

I like his approach using game theory. I think the dark forest solution is echoing human fears and our experiences. Mostly looking at history with how technologically superior civilizations have treated the less advanced people during the colonial era, or how we often don't notice when our growth is encroaching on animal habitat. It is a cultural, but I'd say, biased assumption that every extraterrestrial civilization would share our fear of the unknown.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
We have ZERO empirical evidence of any other intelligent life in the universe. Not a hint. Why are people assuming aliens exist? It's all theories and no evidence.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 4:53 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,303
---
We have ZERO empirical evidence of any other intelligent life in the universe. Not a hint. Why are people assuming aliens exist? It's all theories and no evidence.

True. What these theories do is try to explain the gap between the projection based on what we understand about the likelihood of the required environment for life to occur independently, and what we observe.

It's not so much an assumption as a projection and then speculation, but for it to make sense you need to first accept the premises underlying the projection: That life can occur naturally and therefore is inevitable given a large enough sample. You don't believe this, so I imagine it all looks like a massive cope :S
 

nobody

Member
Local time
Today 3:23 PM
Joined
Mar 21, 2025
Messages
25
---
I enjoy these thought experiments. The Rare Earth Hypothesis is extremely intriguing just because of how many unique conditions we seem to have for our existence on Earth.

The game theory aspect of the Dark Forest Hypothesis seems a bit odd to me because it tries to assume how an alien species would naturally think about another alien species. I think he mentioned that in the video, but I watched it awhile ago. I think if I had to sum up what specifically I don't like about the Dark Forest Hypothesis is that it replaces alien context with a reasoned statistical argument. Statistics don't make sense to me, unless I have the context from which they were derived.

It's also an interesting thought, if life could form on its own as a product of nature. I think if someone is being fair, they have to acknowledge evolution does exist in various forms as a part of nature, even if they disagree that it can explain everything.

Following that reasoning, I have this weird thought that we might exist in a gigantic isolated black hole, put here by aliens that can travel faster-than-light with ease because Earth was isolated and perfect enough in this black hole that they could seed the planet with basic life and watch us evolve over a great deal of time, like a tv-show or zoo. In a way this might be a comforting thing because it implies they might care somewhat about our overall well-being. It reminds me of The Beyond (2017) (not a great movie, but interesting and related to this without spoiling anything directly).

The Dark Forest Hypothesis does make for great fiction. I'm enjoying the Chinese version of the Three-Body Problem.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
We have ZERO empirical evidence of any other intelligent life in the universe. Not a hint. Why are people assuming aliens exist? It's all theories and no evidence.

some people look for confirmatory evidence of aliens, others for evidence of religious entities

both of those activities are based on false premises of how scientific inquiry works, of course
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
We have ZERO empirical evidence of any other intelligent life in the universe. Not a hint. Why are people assuming aliens exist? It's all theories and no evidence.

some people look for confirmatory evidence of aliens, others for evidence of religious entities

both of those activities are based on false premises of how scientific inquiry works, of course

Claims of religious truth are usually (but not always) based on the historicity of things rather than empirical studies.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
i hadn't heard about the dark forest hypothesis before, but i think takes a bit of a anthropomorphic bias to the question - as in, aliens should somehow be like us in terms of their incentives, fears, etc.

to me it's always been somewhat obvious: first, if you look at like on earth itself, there's millions of species (most of which have existed for way longer than us), and just 1 that is capable of making technology. Evolution is not a linear progress towards intelligence, it's just progress towards equilibrium, and usually that means bacteria and very simple organisms. So even in perfect conditions, intelligent life is exceedingly unlikely. So intelligent life is probably extremely rare, and the distances that separate them simply makes it highly unlikely they ever see each other.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
Claims of religious truth are usually (but not always) based on the historicity of things rather than empirical studies.
this is not really a thread for religion, and we've had that debate many times before. But I understand it must be an annoying reality to deal with - the potential existence of aliens - because the bronze-age authors of the Bible didn't consider such possibilities and placed humans at the center of the universe. Now that is historicity
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
Claims of religious truth are usually (but not always) based on the historicity of things rather than empirical studies.
this is not really a thread for religion, and we've had that debate many times before. But I understand it must be an annoying reality to deal with - the potential existence of aliens - because the bronze-age authors of the Bible didn't consider such possibilities and placed humans at the center of the universe. Now that is historicity

LOL. I didn't bring religion into this thread; you did. There's no evidence for aliens. Fact. Cope harder.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
@Old Things you still don't get it, do you. The point was that there's loads of evidence of aliens. From an epistemic perspective that doesn't mean anything, because you can find confirmatory evidence of just about anything you like. So you are trying to apply to aliens the same faulty method of inquiry that you consistently apply for your Bible stuff
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
@Old Things you still don't get it, do you. The point was that there's loads of evidence of aliens. From an epistemic perspective that doesn't mean anything, because you can find confirmatory evidence of just about anything you like. So you are trying to apply to aliens the same faulty method of inquiry that you consistently apply for your Bible stuff

Personally, and I really don't care to debate this with anyone, if aliens exist, it does absolutely nothing to show my beliefs are not true. I just don't believe the claims for aliens are legit.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
You know, not too long ago, it was considered perfectly rational to believe that an alien civilization lived on the moon... Yeah, so pardon me if I seem resistant to believing aliens exist. We have not even found a planet where life could exist. And we don't even know what life is, according to some who theorize that life could exist somewhere else in the universe.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
nearest galaxy to us, the andromeda galaxy, is 2.5 million light-years away. So, limited by the speed of light it's not physically possible for us to travel even to the nearest galaxy - and that's just one of trillions upon trillions (possibly infinite number, even) of galaxies out there.

so the fact we haven't found anything is of no practical use

the better question is: why on earth would there not be life in one of those other galaxies
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
the better question is: why on earth would there not be life in one of those other galaxies

No, the better question is "How did life begin?" because without answering that question, we have no hope of figuring out what the probability is for there to be life elsewhere in the universe.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
the better question is: why on earth would there not be life in one of those other galaxies

No, the better question is "How did life begin?" because without answering that question, we have no hope of figuring out what the probability is for there to be life elsewhere in the universe.

why is that a better question. We just need to know it can begin, i.e. have a non-zero probability (and that we already know). Take a trillion galaxies, multiply by a few hundred billions to get no. of planets - that's sort of odds we're talking about. And that's just in the observable universe - there's much more.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
the better question is: why on earth would there not be life in one of those other galaxies

No, the better question is "How did life begin?" because without answering that question, we have no hope of figuring out what the probability is for there to be life elsewhere in the universe.

why is that a better question. We just need to know it can begin, i.e. have a non-zero probability (and that we already know). Take a trillion galaxies, multiply by a few hundred billions to get no. of planets - that's sort of odds we're talking about. And that's just in the observable universe - there's much more.

How do you know it is possible for life to exist anywhere else besides earth?
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
the better question is: why on earth would there not be life in one of those other galaxies

No, the better question is "How did life begin?" because without answering that question, we have no hope of figuring out what the probability is for there to be life elsewhere in the universe.

why is that a better question. We just need to know it can begin, i.e. have a non-zero probability (and that we already know). Take a trillion galaxies, multiply by a few hundred billions to get no. of planets - that's sort of odds we're talking about. And that's just in the observable universe - there's much more.

How do you know it is possible for life to exist anywhere else besides earth?

life is made from molecules, no? I think other planets have molecules too
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
the better question is: why on earth would there not be life in one of those other galaxies

No, the better question is "How did life begin?" because without answering that question, we have no hope of figuring out what the probability is for there to be life elsewhere in the universe.

why is that a better question. We just need to know it can begin, i.e. have a non-zero probability (and that we already know). Take a trillion galaxies, multiply by a few hundred billions to get no. of planets - that's sort of odds we're talking about. And that's just in the observable universe - there's much more.

How do you know it is possible for life to exist anywhere else besides earth?

life is made from molecules, no? I think other planets have molecules too

Life is NOT just molecules. And getting those molecules to turn into life is no small feat. You presume life started naturally. That is what needs to be demonstrated, which science currently has zero answer for.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
@Old Things what besides molecules does it have

Molecules are not conscious. Molecules do not feed off their environment. Molecules do not reproduce.


How do you get life from non-life? Life is not just some mechanical process that involves molecules that are organized in a particular way. All life contains information, which is passed on. And even if all life is is natural processes, we don't have a clue how life started on this planet. Without knowing how life started on this planet (and we can't ASSUME it is a natural process), we don't have the slightest clue if it is even possible for life to exist on another planet. Further, we don't even know if the fine-tuning for life on Earth would even allow for life to spontaneously come to be on another planet.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,472
---
Location
Between concrete walls
Personally I think we know too little about space to cast any theories first.
First we need to know enough to make assumptions.
Assumptions should come after having information, not before.

We live in information age and we have science and telescopes of all kinds, but I think we are too stupid yet to identify intelligent life out in vast space.

We don't know many Earth like planets so that in and of it self precludes us from finding life.

There also the problem we don't know what other types of planets might develop intelligent life that are different from Earth.

But if we look at our solar system only one planet has life, and only because of lucky conditions.

So there must be a huge number of solar systems that prevent life from even happening.

So I don't really see a paradox. I see just humans struggling to find life, because we don't have really good map of the space around us.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
@Old Things what besides molecules does it have

Molecules are not conscious. Molecules do not feed off their environment. Molecules do not reproduce.


How do you get life from non-life? Life is not just some mechanical process that involves molecules that are organized in a particular way. All life contains information, which is passed on. And even if all life is is natural processes, we don't have a clue how life started on this planet. Without knowing how life started on this planet (and we can't ASSUME it is a natural process), we don't have the slightest clue if it is even possible for life to exist on another planet. Further, we don't even know if the fine-tuning for life on Earth would even allow for life to spontaneously come to be on another planet.

it's not that we don't know how complexity can come from simple things like protein molecules, we know probably thousands of ways it can happen. It's just that we don't know the specific way in which our particular case happened. That's the point of science - to not claim knowledge until you know for certain.

you don't say it explicitly but you are inserting assumptions of supernatural things simply because we don't have a final physical answer. In science one would just say: we don't have the final physical answer. It doesn't mean we're supposed to replace physical theory with miracles.

If one doesn't assume that things follow physical laws then one is dealing with supernatural things. Which means your argument against aliens hinges on supernatural things (ironically)
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
it's not that we don't know how complexity can come from simple things like protein molecules, we know probably thousands of ways it can happen. It's just that we don't know the specific way in which our particular case happened. That's the point of science - to not claim knowledge until you know for certain.

We don't have any idea how any life can happen naturally. And even if we did, it would still be a LONG way from understanding it in a prebiotic Earth. Life is so specific that it defies probability in any metric naturally.

If one doesn't assume that things follow physical laws then one is dealing with supernatural things. Which means your argument against aliens hinges on supernatural things (ironically)

Why is that ironic? Naturalistic determinism is a philosophical assumption about the world. It is not an evidential belief because there are MANY examples where naturalism utterly fails to explain a phenomenon. One example: consciousness.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
i don't know exactly what one would need to make a basic life form, but i would guess a couple of hundred proteins glued together to form something that is capable of copying itself and interact with its environment chemically/mechanically to the point where it can direct itself towards sources of energy etc

do you really need supernatural intervention to make that work? I personally don't

if we're talking about consciousness then we're jumping to something else - now we're talking about the possibility of getting from basic organisms to conscious organisms... which is difficult to reason about without having a clear definition of consciousness

do dogs have consciousness, for example?
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
i don't know exactly what one would need to make a basic life form, but i would guess a couple of hundred proteins glued together to form something that is capable of copying itself and interact with its environment chemically/mechanically to the point where it can direct itself towards sources of energy etc

do you really need supernatural intervention to make that work? I personally don't

if we're talking about consciousness then we're jumping to something else - now we're talking about the possibility of getting from basic organisms to conscious organisms... which is difficult to reason about without having a clear definition of consciousness

do dogs have consciousness, for example?

Yeah, scientists have crunched the numbers on what it would take to make the simplest life form naturally in a prebiotic Earth and found it's pretty much impossible.

 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
interesting video, but it contains a major yet illustrative flaw of reasoning related to anthropic bias

i can't speak to the 10^164 number since no clue was given as to how it was calculated, but let's assume it's correct. If you want to calculate the probability of us having observed life on earth, our specific "earth" doesn't matter. Neither does our observable universe - because our observable universe is just what we can see from our vantage point, limited by the distance light has traveled since the big bang.

in other words, 1:10^164 odds can be pretty good considering you should do the experiment not just on planet earth (and within the specific time frame it has existed) but for any planet in the entire universe (and not just our observable universe). After all, any planet we would have ended up on, we would have called "earth".

basically this just proves the existence of aliens
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 2:23 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,379
---
interesting video, but it contains a major yet illustrative flaw of reasoning related to anthropic bias

i can't speak to the 10^164 number since no clue was given as to how it was calculated, but let's assume it's correct. If you want to calculate the probability of us having observed life on earth, our specific "earth" doesn't matter. Neither does our observable universe - because our observable universe is just what we can see from our vantage point, limited by the distance light has traveled since the big bang.

in other words, 1:10^164 odds can be pretty good considering you should do the experiment not just on planet earth (and within the specific time frame it has existed) but for any planet in the entire universe (and not just our observable universe). After all, any planet we would have ended up on, we would have called "earth".

basically this just proves the existence of aliens

LOL. I know you are just having a go at me with that last line. Feel free to look into it more.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
Speed of light is a barrier

it is indeed. I don't think people realize how slow light is relative to the distances in the universe. Like, it takes 7 minutes to go from the sun to earth. Compared to distances between galaxies and whatnot that's not even a distance, it's nothing. It puts huge constraints on who can visit whom.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,464
---
i hadn't heard about the dark forest hypothesis before, but i think takes a bit of a anthropomorphic bias to the question - as in, aliens should somehow be like us in terms of their incentives, fears, etc.

to me it's always been somewhat obvious: first, if you look at like on earth itself, there's millions of species (most of which have existed for way longer than us), and just 1 that is capable of making technology. Evolution is not a linear progress towards intelligence, it's just progress towards equilibrium, and usually that means bacteria and very simple organisms. So even in perfect conditions, intelligent life is exceedingly unlikely. So intelligent life is probably extremely rare, and the distances that separate them simply makes it highly unlikely they ever see each other.
Yup.

Especially when you consider how big the universe is, and how long it’s been around, versus how long humans have been looking that we have records of, and how much of the universe we’ve been examining.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,464
---
Claims of religious truth are usually (but not always) based on the historicity of things rather than empirical studies.
this is not really a thread for religion, and we've had that debate many times before. But I understand it must be an annoying reality to deal with - the potential existence of aliens - because the bronze-age authors of the Bible didn't consider such possibilities and placed humans at the center of the universe. Now that is historicity
In theory, yes. In reality, no.

Religious texts that lots of people have read, like the Bible, are chock full of non-human beings, like angels, deities, talking donkeys, giants and all sorts of other beings.

Now, what’s the theory?
 

kuoka

Member
Local time
Today 9:23 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2023
Messages
64
---
There are two broad categories of things we can detect that would suggest life on other planets.

These are biosignatures and technosignatures. Biosignatures could mean simple life and technological life while technosignatures are exclusive to advanced technological civilizations.

Biosignatures are indicators of biological activity, suggesting the presence of life—though not necessarily intelligent life. These signs can range from simple microbial life to complex ecosystems.
  • Atmospheric Gases
    • Description: Certain gases, such as oxygen (O₂) and methane (CH₄), are produced by biological processes. Their presence, especially together (in disequilibrium), can indicate life.
      • Oxygen is generated by photosynthesis and is reactive, so its abundance suggests continuous replenishment.
      • Methane, when found with oxygen, is notable because the two react and wouldn’t coexist long without ongoing production.
    • Detection Method: Spectroscopic analysis of exoplanet atmospheres identifies chemical compositions that might suggest biosignatures.
    • Example: Earth’s atmosphere, rich in oxygen and methane, would be a strong biosignature if observed from afar.
  • Surface Biosignatures (e.g., Vegetation Red Edge)
    • Description: Photosynthetic life, like Earth’s plants, reflects light distinctively. The "red edge" is a sharp increase in infrared reflectance caused by vegetation.
    • Detection Method: Telescopes analyze a planet’s surface reflectance spectra for patterns consistent with photosynthetic life.
    • Example: Earth’s forests produce a detectable red edge, which could be sought on exoplanets with similar life.
  • Temporal Changes in Atmospheric Composition
    • Description: Seasonal variations in gases like carbon dioxide (CO₂) or methane could indicate biological cycles, such as plant growth and decay.
    • Detection Method: Long-term atmospheric monitoring could reveal periodic changes tied to biological activity.
    • Example: On Earth, CO₂ levels fluctuate seasonally due to plant photosynthesis and respiration.
  • Complex Molecules or Isotopic Ratios
    • Description: The presence of complex organic molecules (e.g., amino acids) or unusual isotopic ratios (e.g., preference for lighter isotopes) can suggest biological processes.
    • Detection Method: Advanced spectroscopy or direct sampling (for closer targets like Europa) might detect these, though it’s challenging from a distance.
    • Example: Earth’s life favors carbon-12 over carbon-13, creating a distinct isotopic signature that could be a biosignature.
Technosignatures are indicators of advanced technological activity from intelligent civilizations. These signs suggest the presence of technology that is not naturally occurring and may be detectable across interstellar distances.
  • Artificial Radio Signals
    • Description: Radio signals are one of the most well-known technosignatures. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) focuses on detecting artificial radio transmissions that could be intentionally or unintentionally broadcast by alien civilizations.
    • Detection Method: Radio telescopes scan the sky for narrowband signals or unusual patterns that differ from natural sources like pulsars or cosmic background radiation.
    • Example: The "Wow! signal" detected in 1977 is a famous but unconfirmed candidate for an artificial radio signal.
  • Megastructures (e.g., Dyson Spheres)
    • Description: Megastructures are hypothetical large-scale engineering projects, such as Dyson spheres, built around stars to harness their energy. These could cause unusual dimming patterns or infrared excesses in starlight.
    • Detection Method: Telescopes like the Kepler Space Telescope look for irregular dimming in starlight or excess heat emissions that might indicate such structures.
    • Example: The star KIC 8462852 (Tabby's Star) showed strange dimming patterns, sparking speculation (though not confirmation) of a possible megastructure.
  • Atmospheric Pollutants
    • Description: Industrial activity might release specific chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), into a planet’s atmosphere. These pollutants are not naturally occurring and could signal advanced technology.
    • Detection Method: Spectroscopic analysis of exoplanet atmospheres could reveal the presence of industrial chemicals.
    • Example: Future telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) may detect such pollutants in nearby exoplanet atmospheres.
  • Artificial Lights or Heat Signatures
    • Description: Large-scale technological activity could produce artificial lights on a planet’s night side or unusual heat islands detectable from space.
    • Detection Method: Infrared telescopes or advanced imaging could potentially identify these signatures, though current technology may not be sensitive enough for distant exoplanets.
    • Example: Earth’s city lights are visible from space, and similar signatures might be detectable on exoplanets with future technology.

I think most technosignatures are unlikely to be detectable by distant observers. There should be a general tendency for technological civilizations to become more invisible as they advance. With increases to their efficiency of power emissions, distribution of habitats and switching to new technologies that we wouldn't recognize.

About radio detections:
Some of the easiest signals to detect like radio sources may also only last for a few hundred years before a civilization switches to a different form of communication. This is already happening on Earth with radio becoming obsolete. It's also an assumption that other civilizations would have a similar need for radio.

Detecting a standard radio broadcast from more than a few hundreds of light years away is very difficult due to the signal weakening with distance.

About dyson spheres:
This is a classic one, but also unrealistic. Dyson swarms are more effective and rarely would civilization decide to enclose a significant part of a star for the dimming effect to be noticeable. If a civilization builds space habitats with energy generated from fusion they would have no need for major solar energy output.

About atmospheric pollutants:
Only a young technological civilization wouldn't be able to control its atmospheric content and remove the pollutants. We also don't know if they are going to use the same compounds in their industrial scale chemistry.
 

nobody

Member
Local time
Today 3:23 PM
Joined
Mar 21, 2025
Messages
25
---
Claims of religious truth are usually (but not always) based on the historicity of things rather than empirical studies.
this is not really a thread for religion, and we've had that debate many times before. But I understand it must be an annoying reality to deal with - the potential existence of aliens - because the bronze-age authors of the Bible didn't consider such possibilities and placed humans at the center of the universe. Now that is historicity
In theory, yes. In reality, no.

Religious texts that lots of people have read, like the Bible, are chock full of non-human beings, like angels, deities, talking donkeys, giants and all sorts of other beings.

Now, what’s the theory?

Oh, that reminds me. This is purely speculative, but some people think Nephilim were alien beings that visited Earth. There was this documentary with Dan Aykroyd about aliens and they went over some of the evidence in support of UFOs and supposedly there was an Egyptian hieroglyphic record of giant beings from a saucer-like object visiting, I think Egypt, at some point. And it also matches the Christian view of giant angels from the sky visiting Earth and being perceived as angels.

Supposedly, there's also military reports of nuclear sites being shut off and interfered with by hovering objects that suddenly vanished, both in the US and Russia. This also would support the notion they are looking out for us in some way.

Of course, I can't confirm any of this and I don't see a need to be a journalist about it either way when people tend to believe what they want, but something about alien craft always being round and saucer-like seems peculiar and believable to me, like they have tapped into some fundamental geometry of spacetime and figured out some physics that perhaps let's them travel faster than light. That's my bias, but I'd like to think there is more to spacetime travel than relativistic effects.
 

dr froyd

__________________________________________________
Local time
Today 8:23 PM
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,719
---
i don't know how many planets have been assessed in terms of viability for life in the vicinity of earth (say, a radius of few thousand light-years), but if that number is low, then there's nothing fantastical to me about the idea that aliens could have visited earth at some point. It seems extremely unlikely, but it doesn't require science fiction.

i haven't seen any proof of it that could not be explained by simpler things (like the simple fact that people like to make up stuff and believe in weird things), but from a physical perspective i don't see what should make it impossible

and also, we tend to think of aliens as biological creatures like ourselves - usually even conceived as having legs, eyes and whatnot. What if there's completely different life forms that operate on completely different time scales, like, 1 hour to them is like 1000 years to us. Well then they would spend thousands of years traveling to earth, but to them it wouldn't matter.
 

kuoka

Member
Local time
Today 9:23 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2023
Messages
64
---
i don't know how many planets have been assessed in terms of viability for life in the vicinity of earth (say, a radius of few thousand light-years), but if that number is low, then there's nothing fantastical to me about the idea that aliens could have visited earth at some point. It seems extremely unlikely, but it doesn't require science fiction.
We know so little. We've detected less than 6,000 exoplanets and detection of an orbiting body isn't an observation.

We have only directly imaged a mere 100 exoplanets and the lightest planet we've imaged, which is also the closest to us and easiest to see, is 30x more massive than earth. All of them are massive gas giants many times heavier than Jupiter or closer to brown dwarfs than planets.

We've never seen an earth-like planet yet despite them being abundant, they're just that difficult to observe.
 
Top Bottom