Talk:Fermi paradox/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Possible Solution to the Paradox

Ok here is one for you all: lets assume that the civilisations that have colonised their own galaxy are, extreemely rare, and because of this very far away. Im not going to go into numbers because numbers arent really that necessary to visualise this. Now, with these two assumptions its a matter of simple deduction that requires a bit of knowledge of the theory of relativity, since the only civilisations that would be detectable would probably be the ones that have colonised their own galaxy, the soloution is that the time and the imperative necessary to do so is much greater than the time listed on this page, so that the civilisations that have done so have done it relatively recently (on a cosmological scale). Why cant we see em you ask? Simple, laws of physics. We are probably looking straight at their galaxies, with the constant speed of light and the extreme distance we are effectively looking too far back into the past way before any of these civilisations colonised enough of their galaxy to become "visible" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.161.21 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"We," "our," and "us"...

Have been completely eliminated from the article per the FAC. Sorry Ved, if you are still watching :).

Well, I'm sure all the non-humans reading this will appreciate no longer being excluded.  :-) KarlBunker 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Eugenian Hypothesis:They don't think like us!

What happens if aliens don't think like us? Or they don't see things as we do? What if they do not have the concept of communication, nor do they see the universe like we do? Always remember - everything we perceive to dictated by our senses.

Excellent point. Which is probably why it is already mentioned in the article - or at least it was. - Vedexent 12:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fermi_paradox#..._and_they_choose_not_to_communicate mentions it; from a different angle so does technological singularity. Marskell 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Waterworld Hypothesis

This is a variant of "They are too alien." Without Jupiter, more comets would have hit Earth early on and even more of our planet would have been water-covered, maybe completely. And like the article states (using the example of dolphins), intelligence might have been very different, and technology also.

Here's a NASA article from 2001 with the (tentative) conclusion that at least some of Earth's water came from comets [1] .

(This is a partial theory. Why haven't we yet found communicating societies? This hypothesis provides a partial answer. And enough partial answers added together, well, you decide.) FriendlyRiverOtter 10:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eff Ay See!

Congratulations, Marskell, I see your hard work has paid off. You did a lot of excellent work on this article, and you also patiently jumped through a lot of hoops that were thrown in your path by FAC comments. What exactly does this mean, BTW? is the article going to be featured on the front page again, or has it only overcome its former "ex-FAC" status? Either way, congratulations again!! --KarlBunker 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Karl :). No, it doesn't get another round on the main page (unless we run out of FAs and need to start re-using them...). But having the star on the page is satisfying enough. Marskell 07:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument by scale (in popular terms)

The Fermi paradox can simply not exist until any human being can fully comprehend the entire scope of the universe, and that is not possible. There is much, much underestimation as to how big the universe is. It is absolutely possible there are millions of exact replicas of Earth, with differences as minor as a missing tree here or there. Just because we can label distances "astronomical units" or "light years", does NOT mean we can understand them. No further argument is required. Paradox solved. No physicist, no Albert Einstein, could even begin to imagine the absolute size of the universe. No human being could even grasp the full size of our sun, a medium sized star. The end.

"The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times over many years and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers.

The introduction begins like this:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..." and so on."

- Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 05:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

... because God created humans alone

Although not generally considered a testable scientific explanation, the belief that a creator deity has placed humanity at the unique focus of creation has broad historical support. The basis of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions maintain that human beings are unique in the universe, and thus must be viewed as the only physical creatures with intelligence and free will.

Although this belief is not a necessary outcome of the Rare Earth Hypothesis, like Rare Earth it is a variant of the anthropic principle. In this case, the principle becomes teleological: the universe has to be this way, or it was designed to be this way, for the express purpose of creating human intelligence.

I was about to challenge the statement that this belief is accepted by, let alone at the basis of, the monotheistic religions, but I see this has already been challenged with no response. So, I just huffed the whole section. 192.75.48.150 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the wording was much too absolute, and suggested that Christians/Jews/Moslems were prohibited from believing in intelligent ET life. I think my current edit fixes this KarlBunker 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does fix that. But I would still have to ask who responded to the Fermi paradox by taking this particular stance. The other alternatives are attributed, if not referenced. 192.75.48.150 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if any "reputable source" (i.e., someone who doesn't live in a bible belt trailer park) has ever voiced such an opinion. KarlBunker 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be tricky one to reference! Partly because many religions have a modern view that includes the possibility of extraterrestrial life. However, this view has historically been the belief of the Catholic Church (see the Church's problems accepting the work of Copernicus). Not so much that man is unique in the universe, but that the Earth is unique - i.e. a version of the rare earth hypothesis. I don't think there are many - if any - mainstream religions that preclude the existence of extraterrestrial life in modern times. I think that any examples that can be found of modern examples will be that of minority branches of such religions, small minority religions, or the stance of individual writers/preachers within these religions.

I still think the explanation is a logically valid one (I don't, personally, agree with it), and should be included in the article, but perhaps it should be mentioned that it is a minority opinion - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See "beliefs in extraterrestrial life" on the extraterrestrial life page for more. You do see the argument, if only in passing. The Webb book appears to have a chapter on it.

This section seems to bother people, for whatever reason. Marskell 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because (until and unless we find some) alien civilizations are a comfortably theoretical topic to most people. Religion, on the other hand, is an intensely personal topic - even among atheists who (in my experience) tend to be pretty vehement about their atheism.- Vedexent 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And fundamental Christains are not as vehement? Go f*** yourself. 4.224.24.140 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call the historical geocentric view a variant on the Rare Earth answer to Fermi's question, especially considering that the question was posed in 1950. I don't think this page is supposed to be about beliefs about aliens in general. 192.75.48.150 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a page which lays out the argument in more detail. Unfortunately, it's a personal page, so it wouldn't make for the best source but it has links to other sources if your curious. Marskell 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, but that's mainly about transhumanism, right? It only has a few sentences about what we're talking about here, and the only relevant link I see the one about how we don't see aliens because our universe is simulated (which I suppose is eligible for inclusion here). 70.30.114.149 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do want anon? That we remove the section? It's maybe half a K out of 50K. I'll use the Webb chapter as a source, if need be. Marskell 10:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I was not clear here, I didn't really mean to imply I had any concerns about disk space. (If I did, I've taken up more on the talk page than I'd be saving.) My first objection was answered last week, but it still looks like the discussion either needs a specific attribution or else it is needs to be moved (to extraterrestrial life? maybe?) or removed. It's currently in a section that begins:

Certain theoreticians accept that the apparent absence of evidence proves the absence of extraterrestrials and attempt to explain why.

192.75.48.150 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion about the possible existance of extraterrestrial life is limited in the different theories and religion-science discussion by our own concept of life as biological life. There might be plenty of forms. It goes as far as to the very same concept of life as some type of boilogical fenomenon, which is as science define it. For example, American Indians and other cultures of much higher spiritual intelligence, believe in the soul of things, which refers to something far away of our scientific understanding. Telescopes, and high radio frequencies, no matter how far they reach, maybe will never unswer to that question since they might be looking for our own shape in the mirror of universe, while the answer is in an other place. Remember that all important discoveries of humanities were made by those surpassing all recognaised limits of thought.

This is covered in Human beings are not listening properly, They are too alien, and other sections of the article. - Vedexent 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

God would make the Fermi paradox moot anyway. God's existance would prove that at least one extraterrestrial life form was out there, in the form of a god, unless the god you believe in evolved from single celled organisms on Earth. Abbail 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rare Earth Hypothesis

• Perhaps this should be moved into "resolving the paradox theoreticaly". It doesn't underpin Fermi's paradox, it tries to provide an answer (it is said to support "Fermi's principle" in the article, but what is that? This is the first mention.) The "Drake Equation" rightly belongs where it is.

• How is this a variant on the anthropic principle? At most, they are partners. I.e. Rare Earth tells us conditions for life are rare, and (Weak) Anthropic explains why we happen to be in one of those places. I note that the Rare Earth hypothesis article makes only brief mention of the anthropic principle near the bottom of the article. 192.75.48.150 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "related concepts". Marskell 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Copernican principle... suggests there is no privileged location ????

"This philosophical stance opposes not only "mediocrity", but the Copernican principle more generally, which suggests there is no privileged location in the universe." -This seems to mean that the Copernican principle suggests there is no privileged location in the universe. I'm pretty sure that is not the intent of the sentence. Could this be reworded to more clearly convey its intended meaning please? User:Pedant 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the intent of the sentence. Marskell 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Article non-compliance

This article reads more as an essay than an encyclopedic article. The tone is way off, and references are missing from most of the text. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny that it recently passed a peer review, the FAC process, and been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia then, isn't it? I also noted that you removed a question as POV. "way off" is hightly subjective. Maybe you should try your hand at constructive additions to the article? - Vedexent 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing constructive in this. Refs could be more, I agree, but "way off" tells us nothing. I'm removing the tag until specific issues are pointed out. Marskell 10:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just knocked off a k or two that had been taken on since the FA, and I agree BTW with Jossi's first removal of text, which was a recent, unneeded addition. I also took care of the fact request. If you want to place more, please do so—but at a pace we can handle. Marskell 11:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article needs a "Precedent of the paradox" and "in popular culture" section to make it less essay-like. CG 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In recent experience, I've noticed "in popular culture" sections take a beating from people at FA etc. as they are often trivia sections by another name. In fact, the reliance on sci-fi was greatly reduced in this one. "Precedent of..."--is "Basis of..." not sufficient? To reduce the essay-like feel (which isn't actually terribly obvious IMV), it should be picked through for OR sentences a bit more. Marskell 14:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "popular culture" section is superfluous. What I meant by precedents were related or alike theories and questions made by people before Fermi. Also, this article needs names of key people and works dealing with the paradox. In addition to the evolution of the reasoning in time (therefore it needs some dates). CG 09:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The lanauge is a bit too flowery, I think -- reads like it was written to impress rather than just with clarity in mind. Simplifying words and sentances should help. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quantum consciousness stuff

While watching the shuffling going around in the Human beings refuse to see, or misunderstand, the evidence section, I notice:

...if the human brain utilizes quantum mechanical processes in its operation (as theorized by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, and others) then it may be open to receiving some form of nonlocal "psychic" communication, perhaps using quantum entanglement. It has been proposed that some accounts of mystics, shamans, schizophrenics, and channelers may be such "garbled" communications, transmitted by non-human intelligences in this manner...

This really makes it sound like Penrose and Hameroff subscribe to the ideas of alien quantum communication, as opposed to just the idea that quantum physics plays a part in consciousness. Do they? And if neither of them do, who does? 192.75.48.150 11:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this page?

There is just no stopping the speculative anon tack-ons. I realize there's established material that needs better sourcing, but so that task doesn't grow wider I suggest we revert everything that does not arrive a source. OK? Marskell 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this topic is fundamentally speculative. Many such pages attract cruft, and not just from anons. It's to be expected, really. I wouldn't object to some housecleaning. Ironically though, this latest bit at least refers to a published source... not that I'm in favour of keeping it, Benoît Ariste Lebon is just some random author anyway. 192.75.48.150 14:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They are too alien

The paragraph They are too alien is mixing lots of quite different ideas

Alien psychologies may simply be too different to communicate with, and realizing this, they do not make the attempt (see: They're Made Out Of Meat)

It seems like the point was only made to quote the short story. The assumption that alien psychology might me different leads also to other conclusions. For example, alien life-forms could be NOT realizing the the differences between us and them and rather don't recognize us as life-forms at all.

It is also possible that the very concept of communication with other species is one which they cannot conceive. Human mathematics, language, tool use, and other cornerstones of technology and communicative capacity may be parochial to Earth and not shared by other life [32].

Here, two seperate thoughts are mixed. Not being able to conceive the concept of communication does not equal being unable to develop technology to do so. Just like autism is different from deafness although the symptoms might appear simmilar at first.

Using Earth as an example, it is possible to conceive of dolphins evolving intelligence, but such an intelligence might have difficulty developing technology (and particularly key aspects of our sort of technology, for example fire and electricity). See also technological singularity above.

This example clearly refers only to the idea that aliens aren't able to develop the proper technology. Further, it seems a bit too speculative as it is difficult to extrapolate the resultung fictonal dolphin culture. Having no access to phenomenons like fire wouldn't necessarly impare the dolphin's abilities to develop technology for communication. IMHO, the example confuses rather then explaining anything.

Fictional treatment

Of the books currently listed, I have read two. Neither of them can I recall having anything to do with Fermi's paradox, other than that aliens were involved. I'm not even going to wait for a response to delete those two. Others may wish to have a look at the other books. 192.75.48.150 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I actually just now followed a few of the links in that section. Not having read them, I am judging only from the Wikipedia articles, but it would seem that none of them have anything to do with Fermi's paradox (other than, as I say, that they involve aliens; that really shouldn't count, lots of stories would qualify on that base.)

Okay, so let me reverse the question: is there anything in that section that ought to be kept? 192.75.48.150 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The "xx in popular culture" or "fictional treatment" sections in most articles are worthless collections of junk and trivia, and this one seems to be no exception. I'd say nuke it... I would say that, except that someone seems to have beaten you to it. :-) KarlBunker 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Freefall (webcomic) discussing the topic... --20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great

I would like to thank wikipedians for producing one of the most absolutely f!cking scary articles, ever.--Pewpewlazers 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this "paradox"...

...is that it basically assumes extraterrestrial civilizations, if they exist, must exceed our own technological abilities. It's not until the last century that we've even been able to detect extrasolar planets, and in almost all cases we can only do so indirectly. Earth-sized planets (the sort that are most likely to support complex life) remain hard to find. Heck, we haven't even found all the major objects in our own solar system yet. Thus, if there's an alien civilization on a planet even relatively near our solar system...we'd have a hard time even noticing the planet, let alone the aliens. Unless the aliens are capable of leaving their planet in large numbers to colonize others (something far beyond our own abilities), at our current level of technology we'd have a hard time locating alien civilizations even if one existed for every star in the universe. Basically, the Fermi paradox fails to account for how limited our own technology really is. 71.203.209.0 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be general discussion forums on the topic. However...

Your point seems to switch halfway through your paragraph

1. The paradox does not assume that all extraterrestrial intelligences must meet or exceed our own technological abilities. It only assumes that...
   1. Some of them do
   2. Of those that do, some of them alter thier enviroment in some manner that we can detect. The article even states: "This limits possible discoveries to civilizations which alter their environment in a detectable way, or produce effects that are detectable at a distance, such as radio emissions. Non-technological civilizations are very unlikely to be detectable from Earth in the near future."
2. The problem of our own limited searching abilites and the limited window of time that we have been searching, are both covered in the article. - Vedexent (talk) - 11:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this "paradox"...

The following section was originally under they are here unobserved section, but does not fit this description as it is claiming observations and intentional communication are occurring, albeit via non-ordinary modes of biological consciousness, instead of electromagnetic radiation. Hence, I created a new category as follows: Also, restored the deleted material on Terence McKenna, since it is quite germane as the point of this section of the article is to discuss modes of thought alien to our own, that we may well not recognize or be unjustifiably dismissing as 'ridiculous', which McKenna was the exemplar of.

... and they are communicating, but not via radio waves

A related series of views consider that alien entities have been communicating with humans throughout history, but utilizing methods and technologies that are non-electromagnetic in nature, perceivable via what are conventionally known as altered states, which are outside most people's experience or imagination. "Signals" are arriving, but only a few individuals perceive them, and then rarely and possibly in a distorted manner. Accounts of communication have perhaps been reported in ancient religious texts (accounting for the wide variety of anecdotal reports of angels, demons, and so on) but have been dismissed or overlooked.

As an example: if the human brain utilizes quantum mechanical processes in its operation (as theorized by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, and others) then it may be open to receiving some form of nonlocal "psychic" communication, perhaps using quantum entanglement. It has been proposed that some accounts of mystics, shamans, schizophrenics, and channelers may be such "garbled" communications, transmitted by non-human intelligences in this manner. According to quantum mechanics the transfer of information in the context of information theory is not possible using quantum nonlocal correlations. However, supporters of the idea of this form of communication idea believe that this may explain the "garbled", associative, and inspirational nature of the "messages" recorded in the world's religious and anthropological history. This idea also explains the evident absence of space travel, which is unnecessary to the community of alien intelligence communicating via this medium.

However, the theories of Penrose, Hameroff, and others are not universally accepted, and have met with skepticism, nor has it yet been shown that quantum mechanical effects are required for consciousness to occur.

Another useful example of a theoretical means of communication that would appear so very alien to most people's way of thinking, that it would most likely be misinterpreted or dismissed outright, is the controversial proposals of Terence McKenna that the psychoactive drugs psilocybin and/or Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is an alien technology, "seeded" here on Earth by non-human intelligence, as part of a "biological communication strategy", in order to alter the perceptive processes of the human mind so that it may receive messages being transmitted to us.

The part about drugs seeded on the planet by aliens reads like a theory when it is fiction. 12.41.40.20 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Basis Bloat

An anon editor has vastly expanded the basis section. Does anyone see any points in this addition that are not covered in the following sections in one way or another, without the political commentary, editorializing, and author self-reference? - 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading it again and closer, I think the answer is "No". What small points might have been part of the edit are best placed as support points in the following sections. Most of the edit seems to have been an editorializing on the oppression of the poor by the rich, and the politics of population pressure. Original research at best, "soapboxing" at worst. Removed, but others might work some of the points back into the article in the proper places. - Vedexent (talk) - 02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Because that's how God made it"

Why is this section in this article? Shall we go through every scientific article and add this section, since it can explain everything we don't know? 12.41.40.20 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As with other sections, this needs sourcing—but sources do mention it, which is why it's here. See "God exists" as a chapter heading here, for instance.[2]

It bugs the hell out of people though. *Shrugs*. Not that nutty to devote a paragraph to the foundation piece of the Western tradition when detailing existential theorizing... We have two or three paras on religion on the extraterrestrial life page. Marskell 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And it rightly belongs there, but this page is supposed to be about something more specific. As to your linked source, I think it is talking about something quite different: "God exists" is a heading under "They are here", not "They don't exist"! 192.75.48.150 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the existence or nonexistence of intelligent life on other worlds, and for many readers that is going to bring up the question of "God's intentions." Much more so, obviously, than some random scientific topic like Magnetohydrodynamics. Therefore, the article would be incomplete without some discussion of this question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarlBunker (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Maybe aliens are waiting to contact us because they are not sure if it is safe, given this supposedly all-powerful God that they have yet to observe even using their hyperadvanced technology. One then might speculate whether worldwide disbelief in God will lead to our destruction by other intelligences, or to highly beneficial contact. (all rights reserved) Divine quarantine also gets a nod in the article. God has been the answer to the Fermi paradox for thousands of years before Fermi even formulated it. Is this any consideration?12.41.40.20 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To anon, my bad on citing Webb—it's on a shelf a long way away. The best piece I've read on this was [3], in a Catholic magazine. It's more nuanced then "not dogma = non-existent" but it makes it fairly clear that the question has been religiously debated across centuries. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a mention of it here. "This page is supposed to be about something more specific"—this page is about whether we're alone in the universe. I don't see how a creator deity is off-topic. If anything we should add more nuance to the section. Marskell 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding something like "Current scientific consensus is that humans were not created by a God". (See intelligent design) 12.41.40.20 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Forest for the trees, my friend. Whether the universe was created by God is not scientifically testable and thus not subject to scientific consensus. "Intelligent design is bogus" and "Humans were not created by God" are NOT conterminus. Marskell 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking it out, it needs citations or it is just conjecture. Fairly sure that most current interpretations dont restrict God from creating intelligent life in other places. 12.41.40.20 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice citation, ironically the author works for the Discovery Institute (aka intelligent design headquarters). I especially like his completely bogus summary where he says that "all evidence" points to no other intelligent life. Obviously he doesnt read wikipedia. Anyway keep it in, it's tremendously comical and I'm wasting time at work anyway. 12.41.40.20 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I found another big problem, at first the entry implies that many cultures and religions have stated that God created humans and humans only. Then it goes to the "Judeo-Christian" tradition stating that. But really, the only evidence I've seen is that Roman catholics may or may not have that position as doctrine. 12.41.40.20 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable seeing the Fermi paradox listed as evidence for the existence of God in the entry for "God". 12.41.40.20 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) I'm aware of the nature of the cite--it's sufficient for the sentence in question, which stakes no claim. You're mistaking a debate about whether we ought to discuss God for a debate on God. "Ambivalent ideas" is not ideal, but you haven't presented a real argument for removing or for a reductionist sum-up of scientific consensus. I have yet to read the Nature article claiming we were or were not created God... Marskell 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On last two posts after conflict, I had had the same thought, but remember that the Roman Catholic tradition is the Christian until 1500. We can drop "Judeo-" and add "early Christian", I suppose. Marskell 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Added possibility of multiple Gods, since if the section is going to generalize "through cultures and history" to make its point it cannot also show a monotheistic bias. Generally cleaned up to remove the clear "Judeo-Christian" bias. (which in my opinion is a weasel word to lend credence to Christian ideas even though no arguments from Judaism or Islam are presented). Also the last post ignores the Orthodox church with the claim that "Roman Catholic...is the Christian until 1500." 12.41.40.20 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "one or more Gods" sounds plain goofy. "A creator deity" is general enough to (roughly speaking) include polytheistic religions. RV'd. KarlBunker 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Goofy accuracy is better than POV smoothness. You can't use "widespread through cultures and history" without any sourcing to bolster an argument about God and Judeo-Christian traditions. Fixing the heading to include your own terminology. It particular it is quite unclear how "unique focus of creation" translates to "there are no intelligent aliens on other planets" without significant research, considering that little or nothing was scientifically known about the universe during the times when many of these "cultures and history" were extant. 12.41.40.20 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One can easily imagine that there is enough interesting material for a separate article on "Religious Views on Outer Space", or something along these lines. But if it gets just a paragraph then it must be even more precise. 12.41.40.20 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it relevant that these "cultures and history" also maintained that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, that there were lifeforms on Mars and Venus, as doctrines until scientific data became available? What have these great traditions been right about so far? I'd speculate that there is a probabilistic argument for believing something different than what these traditions hold true.12.41.40.20 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Goofy accuracy is better than POV smoothness." No it isn't, because if people are busy laughing at you, they aren't understanding your point. This is an encyclopedia article, not a legal document, and the goal is to communicate information. In a legal document you can dispense with readability for the sake of avoiding any hint of a suggestion of excluding something that might possibly, in the opinion of someone somewhere at some time, be considered worthy of inclusion. A WP article should be readable, preferably without belly-laughs over the tortured choice of language. KarlBunker 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Is it relevant that these "cultures and history" also maintained that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth?" No, it isn't. KarlBunker 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to specify that the creator diety is either native to Earth (paradoxical because of having created Earth) or transcends all known scientific reality, otherwise such a diety is itself extraterrestrial and we encounter another paradox. But I suppose the term "diety" implies transcendence. Why bother with the link to falsifiability? And a host of other problems associated with known qualities of a creator diety, such as omnipresence (existing everywhere, therefore meeting the defintion of extraterrestrial), and so forth. What kind of religious scholar can say one way or the other whether the existence of a creator diety means that human beings are alone in the universe or by definition not alone? 12.41.40.20 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know we are all dying to have a section which says "The pope says there are no aliens in outer space", and if that is what we need then by all means. (Presumably because that's where heaven is, and excluding God Himself because He is everywhere (But also He is not extraterrestrial either)). But if we are talking about religion throughout human cultures and history then we need research and facts. 12.41.40.20 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading the material on technological singularity it is easy to hypothesize beings which fit all the known qualities of a creator diety, including being able to synthesize and destroy universes in a multiverse, theoretically using black holes. So a creator diety is compatible with any viewpoint, in the absence of research and facts. 12.41.40.20 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

12.41.40.20, I feel like you're just wandering off into a forest of your own SF/Fantasy plot ideas and legalistic/ultra-inclusive linguistic constructions. All this section warrants is what it was: a brief mention of the simple idea that maybe God created man alone in the universe. Nothing more than that is warranted or appropriate, since the concept isn't a scientific one in the first place. KarlBunker

Anonymous, agreed--lets reduce it to one sentence instead of conflating its importance with a scientific criticism and a loosely-supported reference to "Judeo-Christian tenets". Simply the first sentence of the section is the only meaningful NPOV sentence and serves as your "brief mention". Anything more than that one sentence is not only unscientific, it is heretical. (I'll overlook your ad hominem attack).12.41.40.20 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets settle this in debate instead of making arbitrary reverts. "God" or "creator diety" in the section heading? The section itself discusses a "creator diety"; in fact the weight of the argument is based on the concept being "widespread through cultures and history". Yet someone insists on reverting this to "God". Am I to understand that every culture throughout history has really been talking about the God in the Bible when they talk about their creator diety(s)? Am I to dismiss the billion plus adherents of Hinduism who mostly regard this "God" as a mythological figure similar to Apollo or Zeus?

Two solutions: make the argument without the "creator diety" and "through cultures and history" and argue starting from the Bible, or put "creator diety" back in the heading. 12.41.40.20 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Completely irrelevant, but in a scientific context, if a creator diety exists then all answers to any possible question are equally correct (and incorrect). Foolish mortals.)

In the real world, where people use language to communicate rather than to be legalistic, "God" is a synonym for "creator diety". "wandering off into a forest of your own SF/Fantasy plot ideas and legalistic/ultra-inclusive linguistic constructions" was not an ad hominem attack, it's a description of what you're doing, and what you appear to be determined to continue doing. Perhaps you'll find someone else who's interested in playing that game with you. I no longer am. KarlBunker 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to change your mind so soon. Scroll up and you agree that "'A creator deity' is general enough to (roughly speaking) include polytheistic religions", but now you want to use "God" interchangeably. If "legalistic" means pointing out your bias, then I am guilty. Bye. 12.41.40.20 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my last post, but ultimately I'd like to see the section fleshed out more, with more citations and so forth. (Such as how to reconcile "God created humans" with evolution and so forth). 12.41.40.20 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, God's existence would prove that at least one extraterrestrial life form was out there, in the form of a god, unless the god you believe in evolved from single celled organisms on Earth. A higher life form is a life form all the same and thus the Fermi paradox is resolved. Abbail 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too compartmentalized

This article makes it seem as though one of these sections must be the right answer. But isn't it more likely that a hybrid answer is correct--that intelligent life has and will exist elsewhere but a combination of factors including distance, time, and the rarity with which it develops in the first place is why we haven't met them? 12.41.40.20 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that one of the sections must be the right answer? Marskell 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not belong here at all. Removing. ~

Humans are the first civilization

I seem to remember this section existing on this page, but it is no longer extant. Was it just my imagination, or was it removed for a reason? Titanium Dragon 08:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of "Intelligent civilizations are too far apart in time to communicate", you'll find it. Marskell 11:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We have/had contact with them.

Although I do not believe in it I would not out-rule the possibility that contact with extraterrestrial life already took/takes place. Informing the general public could be seen as dangerous or not desirable for some other reason by the party who has information about this.

They have not yet had the time to find us

This is the conclusion in a recent interesting paper by Rasmus Bjork (of the Niels Bohr Institute), see astro-ph/0701238. He argues, that with around 100 probes it would take 9.6 billion years to probe 4% of the Galaxy alone. This should be compared with the age of the universe which is around 13 billion years. I think his work should be included on the main page.

Kasperolsen 13:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; we can certainly add it. Is it available on-line? Marskell 13:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is, see Exploring the Galaxy using space probes at arXiv.

Kasperolsen 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the paper is flawed as even putting aside the problems of a self reproducing probe. Bjork provides no reasoning why a ETI would only make 100 probes e.g if they made 10,000 we are back to the paradox. BernardZ 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that it would take advanced minerals to communicate with across the universe. These must be forged inside stars, thusly it takes a 2nd generation solar system to create advanced civilization at a minimum. This sets the start time of a civilization at (14 billion -(1 - 14 billion)). We could be the first in the entire universe?

Logical conclusions based on technology growth rate in geological time

1.Its irrational to assume Extra-Terrestrials use radio waves for communication, and then assume since no communication on that basis was acquired, that there are no civilizations in or around this galaxy, or that if there was, it would take longer than the existence of man to reply. 2. It is illogical to assume Extra-Terrestrial civilizations have the same 3d linear perception of time and reality as we do, and therefore would interpret data and form the same conclusions of physical reality as we do. 3. It ignorant to assume Exta-Terrestrial civilizations would be able to, or would agree to contacting human civilization(s), or the evolutionary equivalent to the currently established human civilization(s). 4. It would be logical to assume Extra-Terrestrial civilizations, have progressed further than our current biologic state, and therefore would interpret data, on a much faster, larger scale than we do. Trusting that evolution is a rational term for bio-progression, an Extra-Terrestrial civilization would have surpassed our current technology, in doing so, limiting human-understanding of there perceptions of reality and technological capabilities (ex. space/time manipulation, threading wormholes for inter-galactic trasportation(theoretical of course at our current juncture).

Related research

Should Nick Bostrom and his research on the "Simulation Argument" be mentioned in this article? 150.227.16.253 10:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It seems to go in and out with no explanation. I think it should go into the ".. because God created humans alone" section as it is a variant of that as the producer of the Simulation = a god to the people living in the simulation. BernardZ 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Technology of Radio Waves is primitive

that bit which keepd being put in and deleted. Why not find a source (eg this one [4]) and leave it in? the argument itself is OK. Totnesmartin 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor's behavior suggests he isn't interested in whether the addition is valid. For example, he sometimes deletes sections to insert his pet paragraph, other times inserts it in varrying places without deleting. He has been invited to discuss the edit, but has ignored this and ignored the fact that 4 different editors have been RVing him. In any case, let's see...

"Given that alien civilizations are thousands or millions of years more advanced than us" -- Pure speculation stated as fact.

References presume 99% extinction within 100 years of technological advancement, the rest surviving up to 1 billion years [5], (but this is pure speculation, too and pessimistic) yielding N=10⁶. Many people I've spoken to admit they would be surprised if 'they' were only a billion years more advanced. -- 74.98.142.235 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"there is no reason to assume that they still communicate using electromagnetic radiation." -- No reason except that's the only way known to science to communicate across space.

"It seems rather foolhardy of us" -- Unencyclopedic writing

"to assume that extremely advanced aliens" -- Yay! Nothing much wrong with this phrase.

"would still be patronising a technology that we discovered barely 100 years ago." -- 'patronizing' is the wrong word.

"Possibly radio waves are too slow to be of any use at cosmic distances." -- 'too slow to be of any use' is opinion, and arguably nonsense.

"and perhas they use exotic methods such as quantum entanglement or any hitherto undiscovered fundamental phenomena." -- Already in the article (and spelling error).

"Communication with electromagnetic radiation may span just a small window of time on a civilization's history, before they move onto more advanced forms of communication." -- Already in the article.

Overall, the errors would be correctable, but the material is already in the article.

KarlBunker 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

giant UFO box

I'll remove again the oversized and invasive Template:UFOs. You can't put that monster in mainstream articles, only for UFOlogits believing that topic is theirs. --Pjacobi 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ufology is on the topic of extraterrestrials and UFOs, and this fits into the science of Ufology and its study of extraterrestrials, you cannot just remove it b/c you dont think it fits in (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong: Ufology is the study of unidentified flying object (UFO) reports, sightings, alleged physical evidence, and other related phenomena. Fermi paradox is not about unidentified flying object (UFO) reports, sightings, alleged physical evidence. Other related phenomena can be discounted as weasel words. QED. --Pjacobi 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No it cannot by considered weasel words b/c you want it to be, and other related phenomena is key to the subject and extratterstrials are considered a part of the UFO study, who drives those UFOs hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this removal. Essentially anyone could decide that essentially any article "is a part of" essentially any topic. And the inclusion of a big-assed honking info-box about an arguably POV topic is arguably a way to insert a POV into an article. Note that when I say "arguably" I don't mean that I'm interested in arguing the issue. It's enough that the insertion of POV in this way is theoretically possible, and therefor the removal of the big-assed honking info-box is a valid edit. RedSpruce 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Fermi Paradox is the subject of legitimate and current scientific interest. UFOlogy has no place here. Save the crank headers for articles on cranks. Marskell 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I must concur with the assessment that this article is not about UFOlogy. This article may touch on topics of internet to UFOlogy, but it goes well beyond that. In short, the Fermi Paradox may subsume UFOlogy as a (minor) explantion (as well as it subsumes Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Information Theory, etc.), but UFOlogy does not subsume the Fermi Paradox - Therefore the article is not about UFOlogy. - Vedexent (talk) - 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that extraterrestrial life should be common."

Shouldn't this be qualified somehow? The conclusion that "extraterrestrial life should be common" is a point of view, not a fact. Some disagree with this assessment, see Rare Earth hypothesis for example. It's strange to see this sort of thing in a featured article, especially right at the start of the article.--Eloil 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One possibility: "According to popular mathematical models such as the Drake equation, the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that extraterrestrial life should be common."--Eloil 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Decided to just be bold and make that change.--Eloil 13:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A good change, IMO. RedSpruce 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the Fermi paradox predates the Drake eqn by 10 years, but in context the new wording sort of implied Drake came first. Changed it to say:

According to some theories, the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that extraterrestrial life should be common. Considering this proposition with colleagues over lunch in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi is said to have asked: "Where are they?"

This way at least the "extraterrestrial life should be common" deduction is tied to some specific proponents (Fermi and colleagues) and not presented as fact, while making it clear that the notion predated Fermi and his paradox. Would "observers" possibly be better than "theories" though?--Eloil 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)