• BitingChaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not doubting that something is out there.

      It’s just the MASSIVE amount of where and when that something exists makes it incredibly unlikely that something just happens to be right next to us at the same time that we exist.

      There might be “people” out there with near-light speed travel that could possibly reach us. But when did they exist? We won’t be seeing them if they lived and died out a billion years ago.

      Space (crazy huge) times Time (crazy huge) is just an incomprehensibly big number. What are the chances that aliens are visiting a planet at the exact moment that the planet just so happens to be full of crazy people that claim to see aliens and make movies of aliens and seem obsessed with aliens?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure why aliens that are going around the galaxy taking resources from various systems would exploit the resources of a system with life on it when there are probably trillions of exploitable systems that have no life.

      I also am not sure why aliens who have technology so advanced they can achieve practical interstellar travel would need to mine entire solar systems for resources.

    • hoodatninja@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again. We should not exist. Something is very wrong with our models.

      I get why you feel this way but that’s not really how stats works.

            • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              We are. We are the winner. The chances of someone winning the cosmic lottery is astronomically low. The chances that there is another winner nearby is (astronomically low)2.

                • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You vastly underestimate the distances and the timescale. And as far as we can tell, you overestimate the chances of life emerging. Right now it looks like our situation is extremely freaky, and we were very lucky to get it. And the chances that there is another civilization of this type nearby (and a million light years is nothing compared to the size of observable universe, so even on non-relativistic speeds million or two years is a very small timeframe and milion or two light years is a very small distance) is extremely slow. So yes, we were very lucky, we won the lottery, go us.

            • hoodatninja@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am not sure the issue is clear here but I’ll put it another way.

              If I roll a D100 and get a number - any number - there was a 1% chance I’d get that number. Whether that number has value to me, such as rolling a 100 for a good outcome or a 1 for a terrible one, is immaterial. Every single outcome is 1% likely to happen.

              Should I discount the 1% chance outcome just because i got the exact outcome I did or didn’t want?

        • hoodatninja@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The numbers aren’t the issue. You can’t say “something happened that was very unlikely therefore the number saying it’s unlikely was wrong.”

            • hoodatninja@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ok so it is likely?

              No but to be blunt it has little to no bearing on the discussion to decide if it is or isn’t likely. Whether it’s likely or not is immaterial unless you’re gambling or building policy/making decisions around it. It doesn’t impact the results.

            • hoodatninja@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Thinking about this discussion some more, and I would like to share an example with you.

              If I roll a D100 there is a 1% chance it’ll land on any given number. What I want it to land on, such as a 100, does not change the likelihood. Yet we have this natural inclination to see 100 as “impossible on the first try,” but not say, 34. Because 34 is not a number we generally care about when rolling a D100. We usually want a 100, we usually don’t want a 1. But they’re as likely as anything else and our feelings on the issue, as well as the result, will never change the fact that it’s 1% every single time for every single result, so each result is equally “special.” This goes for a coin flip, a D100, or a D1000000000. Every result is equally likely and special. We had an insanely unlikely chance of being here, but stats says “whelp it can happen so shrug.”

    • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something is very wrong with our models.

      I think the problem might be sociological. It may be impossible for a very large interstellar civilization to be stable let alone expand beyond a certain point.

      More and more people are talking about Earth’s population declining. The demographics curve may not be an exponential increase as civilization develops, but the planetary population may decrease as technology and wealth improves.

      Aging populations may not have the resources to spend on interstellar travel, regardless of their relative wealth.

      And these tendencies may be universal. The galaxy may be full of old, aging and slowly dying advanced civilizations and have few upstarts such as ours.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Our models are wrong

          Well, your models are wrong. In both examples, you assume exponential growth will continue forever. Resource limits are a thing in the real world, as evidenced by every population in history (humans or animals).

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, you assumed no catastrophic failures. On long timelines there are going to be world or civilization ending events.

              There are so many species that were wiped out through their actions or just naturally. That’s the point of the Drake equation; the sky should be full of other civilizations, but it isn’t.

              The common answer is that there may be a “great filter”, some event that all advanced species encounter. Maybe it’s ahead of us, or maybe it’s behind us. It could be something simple like “walking upright is rare” or it could be some powerful weapon everyone discovers.