Bet 80
Evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence within the solar system will be confirmed before evidence from several light-years away.
Bet 80
Duration ? years (02002-?)
Predictor
Allen Tough
Challenger
H. Paul Shuch
Stakes $400
will go to The SETI League, Inc. if Tough wins,
or The SETI League, Inc. if Shuch wins.
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Extraterrestrial (non-Earth) intelligence is intelligence that originated somewhere other than Earth and that is at least as intelligent as human society was in July 2002. It could be artificial (computer) intelligence, a flesh-and-blood biological being, some combination of the two, or some other form not generally anticipated. Traditional SETI projects use radio or optical telescopes in hopes of finding some artificial signal, beacon, or message that originated several light-years from Earth. After 42 years of looking, this type of SETI project has yet to achieve a confirmed detection.
I am betting that extraterrestrial (non-Earth) intelligence, in one form or another, has already reached our solar system and will be confirmed first.
Here is my rationale. Most SETI scientists agree that any ETI we detect will likely be thousands or millions of years ahead of us (because our sun and our science are so young). Such an advanced society will likely have the CAPACITY to build and launch cheap smart autonomous probes to explore the galaxy. This statement is supported by our recent theoretical and engineering advances in robotics (Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec), molecular manufacturing (nanotechnology), and interstellar propulsion (beam propulsion and even more radical possibilities). Also, an advanced society will likely be MOTIVATED to send out exploratory probes, judging by our own society, which sends spacecraft to explore everything within reach.
If such a probe were sent a few centuries ago to explore Earth, it will likely be here by now. We might stumble on it somewhere on Earth by accident. Or we might find it through the ongoing monitoring carried on by scientists, security and intelligence agencies, and the military. Or one report in the flood of UFO and abduction reports might turn out to be a genuine alien. Or one of our space exploration programs might find some alien artifact somewhere in the solar system. Or ETI might reply to the Invitation to ETI issued by 100 scientists, artists, and others at http://www.ieti.org. (As the founder and Chief Scientist of this innovative SETI project, I am naturally optimistic about its chances of success.)
Evidence of Dyson spheres or other astroengineering projects from several light-years away, or evidence of the extraordinary energy use of a highly advanced civilization, is a third type of evidence. It is excluded from this bet. If this third type of evidence is found first, the bet continues until one of the other two types of evidence is confirmed.
The bet refers to evidence of the authenticity of extraterrestrial intelligence being "confirmed." The most likely group of scientists to be responsible for confirming or disconfirming the evidence is the community of SETI scientists. (For this bet, confirmation by the UFO community will be ignored.)
The confirmation process will depend on the evidence. If the evidence is clearly irrefutable, the confirmation process may be rapid and informal. If authenticity of the evidence is not self-evident, the process may have to be ponderous and formal, likely involving the SETI Permanent Study Group of the International Academy of Astronautics.
I'm betting against my respected colleague Allen Tough, not because I think he's wrong about interstellar probes, but because we don't yet know how to detect them. It's a matter of instrumentation, and though we've gotten very good at intercepting electromagnetic waves, our record for detecting even nearby natural space debris is not too stellar (pun completely intentional).
Although I do not at all question the likely existence of interstellar probes within our solar system, I consider interstellar electromagnetic leakage (or, if we are extremely fortunate, deliberate radio or optical beacons) much easier to detect with our present level of technology. Thus, selectivity factors in the instrumentation favor detection of interstellar EM artifacts first. (As our techniques improve, the odds of detection will ultimately shift. So, I guess by betting on interstellar EM signals, I'm siding with those who believe contact will occur in the short term.)
Allen has argued (most convincingly, I might add) that any super-smart alien robot that is sophisticated enough to come here will be quite capable of initiating contact, or even of responding to our joint invitation at http://ieti.org. Although I certainly hope this is the case, it does put us in the role of passive communications partners, waiting for ETI to take the first step. Being no wallflower, I personally advocate a more proactive approach, preferring to put our eventual entry into the Galactic Community squarely in the hands of humanity. Assuming the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (without it, this bet can neither be won nor lost), traditional interstellar SETI makes us solely responsible for the success or failure of our efforts. Should ETI decide to step in and shortcut the process, I for one will be delighted at the contact, though dismayed that my friend Allen will end up winning this bet!
Prof. Tough has generously stated that if he wins his bet, the sums on deposit will be contributed to the nonprofit SETI League, an organization near and dear to my heart. In putting up money against him, I too designate that worthy grassroots organization as recipient of any funds, once the bet is settled. That way, this will be a no-lose bet!
One final note to any nearby alien lurkers who might happen to be browsing this web page: I encourage you to step forward and make yourself known. Even if I lose this bet, humanity wins.
The logical arbiter of this bet is the SETI Permanent Study Group of the International Academy of Astronautics. Any evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence publicly announced as definitive by that body will be deemed credible for purposes of settling this bet. The present Chairman of that august body has already agreed that they will be willing to arbitrate this bet, should a detection be announced. If the IAA SETI Permanent Study Group is no longer in existence at the time a detection is made, some other organization involved in credible SETI science should be approached to make the decision.
For the purpose of this bet the definition of the edge of our Solar system is one parsec. Since the nearest star is over one parsec away, anything closer than that is regarded as being in our solar system; anything farther than one parsec can be considered "interstellar".
For purposes of SETI science, intelligent signals are defined as those generated by technology, and clearly not of natural astrophysical origin. Probes and radio signals are manifestations of technology, thus "intelligent" within the SETI community's limited definition.
Evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence within the solar system will be confirmed before evidence from several light-years away.
If this bet stated 'extraterrestrial life' I wouldn't know which way to vote. As it is, I think that 'No' is a fairly safe position to take. Of course this is certainly one of (if not _the_) most open ended bet as there is the posibility that there is no extraterrestrial life [although I do not take that position myself]. There is also the possibility that extraterrestrial intelligence will not be found during the period that the human race exists [which I think, although depressing, is somewhat plausible].
Yes, Paul Blay's negative possibilities could be true. But if even just ONE million-year-old civllization has evolved amongst the billions of stars in our galaxy, it could have sent probes to explore the entire galaxy by now. For me, this is a more likely and logical possibility than the complete absence of life.
civilisations that are stable in the _long_ term (e.g. a lot longer than any of ours) may be those civilisations that are not expansive. Civilisations like ours may be more like a flash in the pan than the long steady glow.
Alternatively an exploring (but not colonising) civilisation may well have given up long before sending probes to every solar system in the galaxy - if the first 100 billion stars contained no life they'd have to be pretty darn determined to keep looking.
Lastly a exploring, but not colonising, civilisation might just be waiting for the probe to report back before contacting us. Of course that could be 50,000+ light years both ways ... don't wait up. ;-)
If a civilisation was 'a million years old' and colonising then logically we should have a big chance of this solar system already having been colonised.
Again being a brat...
If one day humans colinize Mars. Humans born in Mars will be be definition extraterrestrials. Hopefuly these humans will also be intelligent. Being this way I strongly agree with the better.
A civilization is unlikely to hold off contact for 50,000 years, as Paul Blay suggests. In fact, if the probe is super-smart and totally autonomous, it will decide on its own when to make contact. See my paper at http://members.aol.com/allentough/strategies.html to get some sense of just how smart probes can be.
Diogo O. Beltran draws our attention to an important definition. When I say that ETI "originated somewhere other than Earth," I mean "originated away back, long ago." Mars colonists will descend from Earthlings, so will not be considered ETI. But a probe or robot of today might have evolved over many generations from ETI that reached the Earth 10,000 year ago. Even though all these generations were created on Earth, they can trace their lineage back to ETI.
It's a juicy bet, Allen Tough. I'd love to see it get On the Record. Do you know someone in the SETI community who would take the other side?
May be it was confirmed
Please see illustration for 'parallelism'-
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361/image922.gif
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361/image923.gif
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361/image931.gif
there are numbers as star order by visual brightness
and star's positions
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361/image928.gif
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361/image929.gif
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361/image930.gif
from report 'Long delayed echoes as attempt for autentification cryptoprotocol' on conference 'SETI on the beginning of XXI century' Moscow State University, Feb 2002
http://www.astronet.ru:8101/db/msg/1177361
Thanks for your encouragement, Stewart Brand. I did send an email message to 70 of my SETI colleagues, enthusiastically describing the Long Bets website and my bet--and asking for someone to bet against me. That message was also posted to the 90-person email list for the annual CONTACT conference. I am surprised and baffled that no one will bet on radio or optical SETI succeeding before evidence of ETI within the solar system.
"I am surprised and baffled that no one will bet on radio or optical SETI succeeding before evidence of ETI within the solar system."
Maybe this says more about the financial status of SETI workers than their opinion on the bet in question.
The counter argument to this is that remote sensing is getting better as well. I could easily imagine a civilization sending a probe to the nearest 1000 stars. If the last few hundred star systems show no surprises, they might decide they understand stars and only send probes to those that look interesting after a very thorough telescopic examination. In this case they might very well know about the sun and the earth, and classify us as a mid-size star with a rocky water planet with plant life, with nothing to distinguish use from the other million members of this class. In this case they might not bother to send a probe since they have already investigated lots of similar planets in the past, and they believe they know just what to expect. Of course, they also might put us on a list of planets to listen to once a year, to see if they develop radio. But then we'd expect a radio contact first since once they see we have radio, a radio reply is much faster than sending a probe.
"Limits from CGRO/EGRET Data on the Use of Antimatter as a Power Source by Extraterrestrial Civillizations", JBIS Vol 55 Iss 11, pg 392.
The conclusion reached is that no 'human-scale' antimatter powered space probe is [being driven] within a radius of ~10AU and no 'human-like crewed interstellar craft' is [being driven by antimatter] within several thousand AU.
This obviously isn't exactly definitive, but he does say that high energy gamma-ray missions such as GLAST will "greatly improve" the range.
Personally, I think the most likely explanation, unlikely as it may seem, is that we don't see anyone else out there because, one way or another, we're not able to see them, not because they're not there.
And, ultimately, I think the simplest semi-explanation for why we can't see them is that we're being actively prevented. I don't mean that aliens are messing with our telescopes. I mean that I think it's most likely that some dominant, sufficiently advanced agency either hides and isolates or destroys emergent civilizations.
Don't ask me how. I could speculate, but the key is "sufficiently advanced". A civilization that was around long enough to colonize the galaxy would probably be able to do lots of other remarkable things.
So it's probably a nature preserve issue, or something like that. You look at the Drake Equation, and then you think about how long the universe has apparently been capable of supporting human-equivalent life, and you start wondering where all the aliens are.
Active interference, I think, winds up being the best explanation.
On the other hand, it seems like a *pretty* safe bet that there isn't any other intelligent life *indigenous* to this solar system. Maybe there's some dolphin analogue on a warm jovian moon, or something, but probably not.
So . . . extending my argument . . . I'd guess the best probability is that we won't find any ETIs until / unless we're somehow allowed to. And there's no way to guess when / if that will happen.
On the other hand, if the interference is from an agency that destroys emergent civilizations, then we may advance to a point where we become a target, and then we'd very possibly determine, quickly, that the heel coming down on to squash us like a bug was connected to an intelligence.
Personally, I prefer to be more optimistic.
That JBIS paper was also a highlight at the World Space Congress last week in Houston. It is great to find someone else actually searching for evidence of ETI in the solar system. But of course interstellar probes could be propelled by beams, sails, and other methods that do not involve antimatter. So this paper does not rule out probes or spacecraft, it just rules out one means of propulsion.
Mark J. Wojcik and I agree that ETI is likely in control of ET-human communications and is not currently allowing ETI-human dialogue. Indeed, my Invitation to ETI (members.aol.com/welcomeETI) tries to persuade ETI to change its mind on such a dialogue. The 80 people who are issuing the Invitation to ETI believe that humankind could benefit greatly.
"[...] that ETI is likely in control of ET-human
communications and is not currently allowing ETI-human
dialogue."
Sounds a little egocentric to me, unless there is a very
low 'species density' in the galaxy I don't see that it is
likely that they would care enough to hide from us.
Don't think of it as "egocentric", think of it as "anthropomorphic", as they do in physics. We're able to observe an apparently ETI-free universe because of our protected place in it . . . .
Believe me, I never *wanted* to come to an interference scenario conclusion. For years, I figured that there probably *was* a lot of alien intelligence out there, but just not anywhere nearby.
Unfortunately, the actual evidence at hand strongly suggests that either:
(A) Intelligent life has only arisen extremely recently in the universe, for reasons we haven't begun to guess at.
This winds up being equally egocentric, because we're forced to assume that we're among the very first intelligent life to come along in the history of the universe.
(B) Intelligent life virtually never arises, period.
Again, egocentric, as it assumes that we're the insanely rare exception.
(C) Intelligent life arises here and there, but it's rarely technological.
I dunno. Lots of people like this one and suggest, frex, that intelligent aquatic life would never discover fire or electricity, and hence never become technological. That is such a speculative line of reasoning, though, that I don't find it convincing.
Besides, when you look at the Drake Equation, it's clear that this is an insufficient explanation.
(D) Intelligent life arises here and there, but it usually doesn't last long.
Plausible, I think. Either it kills itself off (or sinks below the technological level), or else something else kills it off (or pushes it below the technological level).
On the one hand, we have a chronic suicide problem, and, on the other, we have hostile uberspecies that kill (or suppress) other sapients when they detect them.
I don't believe the suicide theory is adequate, because it assumes that virtually *every* species is highly self-destructive. But the 'killer' theory only requires consistent behavior among a much smaller number of species (possibly even just one), so I find it plausible.
(E) Something else much stranger is going on, and we have no clue about it.
This is possible, and even plausible, but it's so speculative that I'm not much impressed by it yet. But for example, it may be that species who reach the visible-technology stage (radio, say) virtually *always* rapidly progress into some invisible stage.
The invisible stage could be whatever you like -- a retreat from technology, a move to another form of existence (I wouldn't want to say "another dimension", but that sort of thing), or who knows what.
(F) The theory I find best is a combination of (D) and (E). Basically, it's that intelligent life does arise, but it's always (or very nearly always) either destroyed or hidden from other species.
This covers the hostile xenophobic scenario and the wildlife preserve scenario, with many variations on each.
We've been transmitting radio for a long time, now, and I figure that if it were in our best interest to keep our heads down, it's already too late. So we just have to hope it's not a xenophobic uberkiller out there. At the same time, if it's a park ranger keeping us hidden (and others hidden from us), then I doubt they'll listen to our requests to be let out.
The situation could be more complex . . . but, in the end, it seems to me that our best bet is to act in a straightforward manner and hope for benevolence from those who are more advanced than we are. Not because they're bound to be nice, but because we won't be able to do anything about it if they aren't.
A) B) C) and D)
All lead to scenarios when 'we don't see 'em cuz they aren't
(usually) there.
Which is equally anthropocentric, but less egocentric.
Another point is that there is a big gap in effort /
technology between "expand & explore" and "expand, explore
and _don't_ be seen". Astronomy is already approaching the
point when (for example) it may be possible to detect
orbitals around nearby solar systems.
You missed out one, by the way, "Life is not rare, but
is very rarely expansive."
> A) B) C) and D)
> All lead to scenarios when 'we don't see 'em cuz they
> aren't (usually) there.
Well, yes and no. (A) leads to "They're there, but there hasn't been time for even their radio signals to reach us yet." (B) leads to "They ain't there." (C) leads to "They're there, but they don't go anywhere or send out signals." (D) leads to "They snuff themselves before making themselves obvious."
> Another point is that there is a big gap in effort /
> technology between "expand & explore" and "expand,
> explore and _don't_ be seen".
Well, there *seems* to be, based on our experience. For all we know, alien cultures may take different technological paths that have surprisingly different results.
It's worth pointing out that although "expand & explore" *seem* to be theoretically possible with our technology level, we haven't done it, so we don't really know if it's actually feasible. It may be prohibitive unless you've got significantly further-advanced technology.
Besides, if we're talking just one group (or a few groups) producing the 'invisibility', then it doesn't matter what tech level other civilizations out there have. So long as it's not powerful enough to overcome the 'hider' group's tech.
> You missed out one, by the way, "Life is not rare, but
> is very rarely expansive."
Good point. Although "expansive", here, should include things like sending out radio signals. It's not just that they aren't here; it's also that we can't see them from here.
I mean, if another group with a tech level comparable to ours is within, what, 50 lightyears or so, they ought to be able to see us. And vice-versa. Maybe as much as 100 lightyears; I'm not sure from how far away we could detect our own early radio signals.
How many stars are within 50-100 lightyears of Sol? Somebody around here probably knows. And if the other folks out there had FTL travel, their homeworld wouldn't necessarily have to be in our radio bubble for them to see us.
The bottom line, for me, is that the universe is big and old, even if you believe (as lots of folks do) that life roughly as we know it can only arise around second-generation stars. Thus, it seems that other technological groups should have arisen -- quite a few, and starting quite a long time ago.
It also seems likely that some of them were expansive, and not all of those expansive ones killed themselves off quickly. (Indeed, being expansive would seem to reduce the chance of civilization-death.)
Given that some of these species would have started expanding millions of years ago, and that they could build self-replication exploration machines . . . yeah, it seems like we should be seeing alien stuff out there.
Unless it can't be seen. Yeah, I think it's probably there, but we don't seem able to see it. I *think* that's probably intentional rather than accidental.
And it seems likely that there are multiple groups out there (but within our range of detection), but if so then they're *all* invisible. That, too, seems more likely to be intentional rather than accidental, which suggests a unified plan to stay hidden from us.
I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but, overall, that seems the most likely scenario to me.
Besides, if we're talking just one group (or a few groups) producing the 'invisibility', then it doesn't matter what tech level other civilizations out there have. So long as it's not powerful enough to overcome the 'hider' group's tech.
I believe there was some report on an appraisal of energy / information requirements to 'cloak' a star system (e.g. ours) within a hologram sufficient to fool current technology. It's a pity I can't remember where I saw it, but IIRC, it was into the 'silly numbers'.
Be that as it may, it is the sort of thing for which the numbers can have limits placed.
A more telling (in my view) point against the 'actively hidden' stance is the following.
We may presume that a species / coalition of species that (probably) achieved space flight some many millenia ago and has expanded / explored as far as our solar system will be much more intelligent than ours, and be much more advanced both technologically and culturally.[1] (Note that the second implies sophistication and stability, rather than necessarily 'nicey-nicey').
Given this, we may presume they have the _capability_ to 'guide' humanity in the direction they choose. Having the capability, why would they not use it? If we are one of many species they know of at a similar stage of development then what would be so important about letting us blunder along as we have. Conversely if we are one of very few species at our stage of development, would they risk situations developing that were as close cut as the Cuban missile crisis, or the present dubious treatment of the environment.
The most logical conclusion (to me) is that:
- If aliens of that level of sophistication know of us
- are capable of enough intervention to actively prevent us detecting them
- get actively involved to the extent of preventing us detecting them
_Then_ the course of human development could only be going exactly as they want it to be going - and I refuse to be that aliens can be sufficiently _alien_ that the humanities history, present state, and current trends are planned to be that way.
[1] Damn! I didn't think that sentence was ever going to stop.
-- Putting numbers on how difficult it would be to hide other civilizations from ours requires making speculations about the technology used to do so. And that, I think, isn't very supportable; we're into "sufficiently advanced" technology by this point. So those speculations don't hold much water.
(I agree that it's not entirely reasonable to expect that an arbitrarily advanced civilization could do *anything*, without limitations. But, here, I'm only making one broad assumption about what they can do -- alter our astronomical view of the universe -- which is based on an apparent observation, ie, that there aren't any aliens out there, rather than being purely speculative. So it's still speculation, but within limits.)
-- Paul Blay said "we may presume they have the _capability_ to 'guide' humanity in the direction they choose." OK. "Having the capability, why would they not use it?"
Well, here we get into some serious speculation again. If we take their existinence and capabilities as a given . . . then we either have to conclude that they do or don't interfere with us.
If they *do*, that doesn't have to mean that they're guiding us with any recognizeable precision. Their motives may be capricious (art, sport, boredom) or divided (a loose coalition agrees that we should not see other civilizations, but doesn't agree on what should be done with us). Or they may, indeed, be really weird and alien.
Maybe someone is gently nudging us in this or that direction as part of a scientific project. They make minor adjustments to lots of different nascent civilizations and see what happens.
If they *don't* interfere with us, maybe, again, it's a nature preserve thing. Or Prime Directive. Or an experiment. Maybe they're anthropologists and don't want to poison their data well.
My point is, there are lots of possibilities.
-- I have the capability to control my cats. I can keep them from seeing or interacting with one another, or I can just let them run around however they want. I can make them indoor or outdoor cats. To my cats, I have inexplicable powers over doorknobs and cans of catfood and lightswitches.
I *could* guide my cats' lives pretty precisely . . . if I cared and had the time for it. As it is, I do interfere with them, but only in ways that are casually easy for me yet protective of them.
Now, granted, if one of my cats was eating a poisonous houseplant and in serious danger, I'd take an extra step to interfere. That's a characteristic of the specific kind of relationship I have with my cats, and (strange as I feel saying this) it *could* be analogous to a relationship an alien intelligence might have with us. Or it might not be; maybe an alien who would bother to make us an "indoor" species would fail to notice if we were about to nuke ourselves, or wouldn't care, or would be happy to watch.
Personally, I'd rather remain in doubt that munch on that poisonous plant to test the theory . . . . But, then, if I'd been Abraham, I would have told God to stay the hell away from my son, too. Maybe I'm just not the trusting sort.
"Putting numbers on how difficult it would be to hide other civilizations from ours requires making speculations about the technology used to do so. And that, I think, isn't very supportable; we're into "sufficiently advanced" technology by this point. So those speculations don't hold much water."
Unless basic laws of physics and information theory are being broken it is possible to determine range limits that are (TTBOMK) independent of the technology being used.
Any theory that prefers that basic laws of physics are being broken, to the 'null hypothesis' is a little shakey.
Here's the thing:
I'm a medium-strength subscriber to things like Vinge's "Singularity" theory, or Clarke's notion of "sufficiently advanced technology". I'm not sure it's reasonable to place the limits *we* know on advanced technology we *don't* know.
But putting that aside for the moment . . . the requirements projected depend in very large part on assumptions about *how* the thing is done. I mean, we may be able to say how much giant holograms would cost, but that assumes the use of holograms.
Advanced aliens would likely have techniques at their disposal which we can't imagine any more than cargo cult natives could imagine how an airplane or radio worked.
Personally, I have a distinct visceral resistance to invoking magic-like technology . . . but the fact is that it's what we *should* expect from a hypothetical more-advanced civilization. The odds of them being, "Star Trek"-like, at just about the same tech level as us are pretty small.
I mean, we may be able to say how much giant holograms would cost, but that assumes the use of holograms.
I was a little careless in using the term 'hologram', but the difficulty I was referring to is the information processing angle.
Irregardless of technology used to display the 'false' information to us there is the the processing power / data cost of producing that information.
Start from the assumption (not the only one, but the one you seem to be aiming towards) that Earth is essentially 'as is' but what is seen outside the solar system, and the odd installation inside the solar system is subject to active concealment. Then I believe it is possible to make deductions on energy / processing power / data requirements (related to scenarios of what is being concealed) that do not rely on the technology used to implement them.
Irregardless of technology used to display the 'false' information to us there is the the processing power / data cost of producing that information.
Well, naturally I agree that it seems like there must be some cost involved.
Start from the assumption (not the only one, but the one you seem to be aiming towards) that Earth is essentially 'as is' but what is seen outside the solar system, and the odd installation inside the solar system is subject to active concealment.
OK. To clarify, this is not necessarily my assumption; it's just an example of one scenario that fits the theory.
Then I believe it is possible to make deductions on energy / processing power / data requirements (related to scenarios of what is being concealed) that do not rely on the technology used to implement them.
It may be possible to make some plausible deductions about the costs involved, but we can't safely conclude much more.
I mean, consider the trouble the ancient Egyptians went through to build the pyramids. Now consider if they knew, very roughly, what kind of construction modern cities consisted of. Consider the deductions they might reach as to how those cities would have to be built.
They'd be way off, at best. They might very likely conclude that it couldn't be done. And they're likely much closer to us, in terms of technology, than we would be to a posited concealing-alien group.
People like Michio Kaku and the late Bob Forward have conjectured that, within a mere hundred years or so, a human civilization may control energies two or three orders of magnitude greater than the most powerful ones we control now. That's a lot of power. If so, they may consider trivial things we'd now consider impossible.
I mean, look at Around the World in 80 Days, which was written by a science-fiction author. It was an almost incredible idea 125 years ago, but now trips around the planet in 80 minutes are routine for some people (albeit a very small minority).
Point is, technologies change, parameters change.
Science and technology are inherently based on numerical systems.
Numerical systems are inherently based on measurement systems.
Not all the measurement systems can measure everything that exists.
We create new measurement systems whilst confronted with new information.
False information does not exist, only falsely measured information.
The assumption stating that if we can't measure it, it does not exist is historically proven false.
Therefore things or "its" could exist without us knowing because we can't "measure or quantify them".
Processing power is irrelevant because it is used to quatify known information into known measurement systems using known rules. Altering the rules (parameters) we alter the quatification hence the term "false information".
Around the world in 80 days had a parameter, local means, which meant involving only local means of transportation. I believe that the idea was that despite the differences (in the way things are measured) an absolute goal is possible. The writter is one of my favorite because he "saw" the future without "imagining" it. That's why he's not technically precise in defining his "gadgets". Today's writers are describing to much the "technical" aspect without giving us a vision. He described "gadgets" that others before him envisioned (Leonardo for underwater costumes for ex.)
We need to do more in the area of chaos and systems theory. We need more vision from people that could "envision". The fact that one might have an IQ of 200 is not an achievment is a responsibility.
PS. I love Star Trek but why would we need buttons and some other nice pannels when the Enterprise moves faster than any electromagnetic wave?
After watching these posts for almost a year, I figure it's time to chime in. I'm betting against my respected colleague Allen Tough, not because I think he's wrong about interstellar probes, but because we don't yet know how to detect them. It's a matter of instrumentation, and though we've gotten very good at intercepting electromagnetic waves, our record for detecting even nearby natural space debris is not too stellar (pun completely intentional).
Although I do not at all question the likely existence of interstellar probes within our solar system, I consider interstellar electromagnetic leakage much easier to detect with our present level of technology. Thus, selectivity factors in the instrumentation favor detection of interstellar EM artifacts first. (As our techniques improve, the odds of detection will ultimately shift. So I guess by betting on interstellar EM signals, I'm siding with those who believe contact will occur in the short term.)
Prof. Tough has already stated that if he wins his bet, any funds collected will be contributed to the nonprofit SETI League, an organization near and dear to my heart. So, I'm inclined to put up money against him, with the same provision. That way, this will be a no-lose bet!
Dr. H. Paul Shuch, the dynamic executive director of the world's major grassroots SETI organization, presents a good argument. He overlooks one factor, though. A super-smart alien robot that is sophisticated enough to come here will be quite capable of initiating contact. Or of responding to our invitation at http://members.aol.com/welcomeeti. So no telescopes or other instrumentation are needed!
Allen Tough said: A super-smart alien robot that is sophisticated enough to come here will be quite capable of initiating contact.
Probably. Although, naturally, it's impossible to predict what an alien robot is going to be able to do.
Beyond that, although it may or may not be relevant to the bet, we have no way of knowing how sophisticated the "contact" the robot initiates will be. How long have we been trying to communicate with dolphins? And dolphins may very well be a lot more like us than any aliens who come looking for us will be.
Of course, they may be better at talking to us than we are at talking to dolphins. Or they may not. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I don't think it's a sure thing that, if they get here, we'll immediately know it or understand them, even if they want us to.
Mark J. Wojcik and possibly others have posited in this discussion that the vast number of inhabited planets predicted by the Drake Equation suggests that intelligent life IS out there and we are actively being prevented from detecting it.
I don't believe that.
For one thing, space is huge - that's why we call it "space" - and largely empty. Plenty of room for intelligent life to live, work and play far beyond the ability of our current sensors to resolve any radio transmissions or other evidence of their existence. No "giant holograms" needed.
It's just as likely that an extraterrestrial civilization bypassed radio as a communications medium (going directly to fiber-optics and lasers, or perhaps eschewing photons altogether and using solitons or quantum nonlocality devices) as that somehow they or someone between them and us are cloaking their radio emissions.
William of Occam told us that among several competing explanations for something, the preferred explanation is the one requiring the fewest additional assumptions or facts not in evidence to be made. This is what is known as "Occam's Razor".
Applied to the question "If Drake's Equation tells us that the universe is teeming with intelligent life, why haven't we seen them yet?" Occam's Razor favors these answers over the purposeful interference theory:
1) Perhaps Drake's Equation is wrong in one or more of its basic assumptions and life is nowhere near as abundant as that equation suggests;
2) Perhaps most extraterrestrial life is either not capable of purposeful communication or communicates in a way we can't detect;
3) Maybe we're just so far from the nearest inhabited star system that any photonic evidence of their existence is swamped out by pulsar radiation, radio emissions of other stars, and long-wave noise from Earth's own communications - especially television;
4) Perhaps the nearest inhabited star system simply has (for whatever reason) not chosen radio communications as their method of talking to each other at a distance, or perhaps they prefer to confine any radio transmissions they DO use to tight microwave beams - as oil companies do when sending data from remote oil and gas fields to their offices.
There are any number of more probable reasons why we have no evidence of another intelligent species elsewhere in the Universe than intentional interference with our radio and other astronomy efforts. I think that such interference would be detectable by statistical methods already used by astronomers (specifically SETI) who are interested in finding ET civilizations, thus counter-productive in the extreme - at its least obtrusive, jamming of that nature would require radio and other transmissions of immense power, which would themselves be evidence of ET life.
The basic problem with Occam's Razor is that if you take two different people -- even if both are nice and rational -- there's no guarantee whatsoever that they'll agree on which set of assumptions is the smallest.
I, for one, think Occam's Razor very strongly recommends the interference theory. What assumptions need to be made? Only that
(1) other intelligent life exists (which the Drake equation strongly suggests is, by far, most likely, so I feel this is a much smaller assumption than that other intelligent life doesn't exist);
(2) something prevents us from perceiving other intelligent life.
If you want to specify an intentional interference theory, then you only have to additionally assume that
(3) the something that prevents us isn't an accident.
If you take a look at the Fermi Paradox, you quickly realize that objections (and I'm not attacking you personally, Vance) like there's not as much life out there as the Drake Equation predicts or maybe most intelligent life doesn't communicate the way we do are not powerful objections at all.
The problem is that the Drake Equation indicates that there should be tons of intelligent life out there, and, in the last few decades, most of the evidence has pushed that number up -- by orders of magnitude, in fact. It now seems that there are far more planetary systems roughly like our own, for example, than astronomers used to think there were.
And the estimated number you get from the Drake Equation is so very large that even if it's wrong by several orders of magnitude . . . there should still be tons of intelligent life out there. And what people like Fermi and von Neumann pointed out is that it only takes one technologically sophisticated race (only slightly more sophisticated than we are now), having arisen only a few million years ago . . . and our galaxy should be full of automated robot probes. Teeming with the buggers, I mean.
Of course, people will object, But what if that race doesn't build self-replicating robot probes? But the whole point is that it only takes one race doing that to rapidly (in astronomical terms) overflow the galaxy with them. So even if the Drake Equation is off by six or seven orders of magnitude . . . you should still certainly have that one race.
The objection that's really hard to overcome is But what if some other race builds its own self-replicators and uses them to suppress other races? That would explain what we see (or don't see, as the case happens to be), and hence the intentional interference theory. Of course, the interferers wouldn't have to use that particular form of interference; any sufficient method satisfies the theory. It doesn't have to be a method that we can currently predict or understand.
As for whether or not the interference should be detectable, (A) maybe it's too sophisticated, and we can't see it for the same reason that bacteria can't figure out the edges of a Petri dish, or (B) maybe it is detectable, but we haven't yet looked in the right place, in the right way.
I'm not saying the intentional interference theory is a lock. Of course not. But I think it's the best and simplest explanation available.
Mark,
I guess my problem with the intentional interference hypothesis is (more simply put than I did last time):
absence of a signal attributable to ETI is explainable by
- absence of ETI capable of making radio noise or any other signal we can detect (including von Neumann and Fermi's self-replicating robots, etc) (1 assumption)
- absence of radio noise because the ETI within our listening range use something other than radio for communication, or use radio wavelengths that don't escape their ionosphere or their self-replicating robots don't work (2 assumptions - presence of ETI, lack of long wave radio emissions or working robot emissary spacecraft for whatever reason);
- intentional interference by a second group of ETI with signals emitted by the first group of ETI (4 assumptions - existence of original ETI, which communicates by some medium we can detect, existence of another ETI group, who are motivated and capable of purposefully interfering with the first group's attempts to contact us).
I find it easier to accept relatively uncomplicated explanations for things like why we haven't detected signals (or von Neumann-type robots) from ETI yet.
That being said, I'll gladly concede that we may be in the same position as a hypothetical primitive island culture well off the shipping lanes - we can't hear drums from any other cultures, and we don't own a radio or satellite receiver, and none of us has ever been off the island, except for twelve of us who went to a nearby coral atoll thirty years ago.
Some of us have seen silver things flying through the sky that aren't birds, but the rest of us think the "plane-sighters" are out of their skulls... plenty of plausible explanations exist for those sightings besides big silver metal things whose wings don't flap.
As you said, Mark, Occam's Razor CAN be misused.
I also have a very plausible explanation for why a space-faring, von Neumann machine building civilization hasn't flooded space with self-replicating explorer robots (as far as we know) - Senator Proxmire isn't dead, he just moved to wherever those poor guys live and is setting THEIR space program back, even as we speak. :-)
The problem lies in how one counts assumptions.
By your count, Vance, "absence of ETI capable of making radio noise or any other signal we can detect" is a single assumption. But by my count, it's necessarily comprised of many assumptions. No single, plausible assumption explains away the reasons why the Drake Equation indicates that this should not be the case.
If we make our assumptions vague enough, sure, any hypothesis requires only one assumption. I could say that evolution requires many assumptions, if I chose to count them that way, but say that Creationism requires only one -- namely, that the universe exists the way God wants it to. But that wouldn't be good science, either.
The Fermi Paradox indicates many reasons why we should already be in contact with ETs. In fairness, eliminating each of those reasons should count as at least one assumption.
That said, you also wrote: I find it easier to accept relatively uncomplicated explanations for things like why we haven't detected signals (or von Neumann-type robots) from ETI yet.
But the whole problem with the Fermi Paradox is that no one has come up with any explanations that are both plausible and uncomplicated. There aren't any easy assumptions available. Even the idea of being in a pristine "off the shipping lanes" condition, to use your metaphor, isn't helpful -- look how technological culture has quickly erased that condition here on Earth, in about a century. In galactic terms, it's been millions of centuries, and, per the Drake Equation, there should have been millions of technological civilizations messing about. We should've been found a long time ago.
The Proxmire Solution is -- seriously -- as good as any of the 'limiting' objections. It's wholly plausible that most technological civilizations which are capable of spreading across the galaxy also self-destruct before they actually start to spread. (The jury's still out on us, in that regard.) But, again, it only takes one successful spreader civilization.
Really, the basic problem is one of White Crows. It's hard to prove that all crows are black, because a single white crow that escaped your survey ruins the whole theory. To escape the Fermi Paradox, you have to assume that all crows are black -- that all ETI civilizations fail to spread well. But the interference theories only require one additional crow of a funny color -- the one that, by whatever means, keeps us in the dark.
Since Drake strongly suggests tens if not hundreds of millions of ETI civilizations out there . . . it seems a much bigger assumption, to me, that every single one of them has failed to spread, than it is to make no assumptions about how many of them spread but to assume that at least one is interfering with us.
I don't know that I personally believe it -- it's very X-Files, after all -- but I think it's better-supported by the evidence we do have.
I believe the vast majority of us have quite simply just plain "missed it". On most topics that deal with E.T.s the vast majority jump on the 'hardware boat'. It's a horrible assumption. In fact it's a human prejudice to assume if a race is smarter they will want to advance outward. It's a refelction of the human ego and it's absurd! If another race had become advanced millions of years ahead of us - Then surely they would look inward and advancing the lives of the people on that planet with their superior powers. They would have no reason to spend Billions of dollars on an outward quest - when it could best applied on their own planet to benift their own people.
Further to my point - Imagine real dollar$ being applied at using hydrogen fuel cell technology that would take us off of fossil fuels, ending pollution? Imagine steps taken to really end world hunger and renewing world food stores? Imagine a planet with predictible climates that have stabilized due to better interaction with the enviornment? Imagine a planet that really had no wars and a planet where the people learned to do away with ego, greed, and hate. Imagine learning on hwo to really deal with old age and dying, and true health care. Imagaine controling disease and viruses - Got the image? Okay - No why would you want to explore the Universe? You've got bliss on the door-step. You've got harmony kingdom in your back pocket. I can hear the ringing cymbals from Tibet in the morning - Yep we're talking total Zen! You don't need no stink'in probes Johnny!
Gary Mikami said: In fact it's a human prejudice to assume if a race is smarter they will want to advance outward.
But they don't need to. Let's say that one solar system in a million has a race as or more technologically advanced as we are. In that case, our galaxy alone might have 20,000 such races. Note that some of these civilizations will have arisen a billion years ago or more, and some will have arisen recently, so the times and distances involved are not problematic.
Now let's say, although I find it enormously unlikely, that 90% of these races are (A) monolithic (ie, each race acts like a single nation, rather than being divided up into groups that do different things) and (B) inward-looking, rather than expanding.
That still leaves 2000 technologically advanced races that do want to expand. And some of them will have a headstart on that expansion measured in hundreds of millions of years.
We should be able to see evidence of at least one of them by now. I still think the most likely reason we don't is that we're being prevented from seeing it, by one means or another.
When we've been in the habit of living amongst alien races for thousands of years, I bet technological change will be the least influential of changes.
Culture is what will change the most. Human history has seen a small fraction of all the possibly ways we can live and things we can believe. Tribes and pre-agrarian history are hosts to many ways of living quite different from ours. None of them lasted yet I bet many unique beliefs are waiting out there for us.
The idea that a form of life being found in our solar system would most likely come as a very simple organism, nothing intelligent (at least by our standards). If there were intelligent life nearby we would have heard something by now or at least would have seen some kind of existence. Intelligent life outside our solar system, now that is a possibility.
yeah it might be possible but then we are talking about the universe, these bacterias could be anywhere, may be in mars's core or billions of light years away on a moving metorite, i think it will be a long long time before we see any of them, i think the human race would have been dead by then
I would love to believe in such a thing but as it has been proposed, i.e. a probe come from several million light years away, if any of the governments or security agencies got their hands on this then they would automatically cover it up as the general public could not handle such vast information like "WE ARE NOT ALONE". What would this do to the variety of religions. There would be wide spread panic so the probe a deffinate no-no, but as for the 'inteligent life' physically visiting us, by all means possible. But highly unlikely
it will not belong before a confirmation but if I am wrong the world will blow its self up within ten years anyway ! so always look on the bright side of life !
Consider the burdens of interstellar travel, mass issues, travel time, sustainability, basic destinational biological incompatibilities (non-toxic or usable food sources, non-toxic atmosphere, etc. on arrival.) Given these fundamental burdens intersteller travel is an extremely high risk venture. How very small is the probability of arriving in a solar system having a planet suitable for the survival and replication of an arriving intelligent life form?
Extraterrestrial intelligent life forms will beat these most of these problems and increase the odds by orders of magnitude by simply sending highly adapting self replicating molecular systems like blue green algae or bacteria or a virus. Most of the burdens such as mass management physics become realizable. The landed molecular systems are free to replicate and evolve and be ideally suited to the local planetary biosphere. In a short amount of time, if at all feasible, there will be intelligent life.
Since intersteller meaningful communication is not possible then the time to evolve the intelligence through seeding doesn't matter either.
There is a high probability we were seeded as described. Therefore, it is of high probability we are the resident extraterrestrial intelligent life we are trying find and confirm.
Consider also, we the human race nearly have the technology for initiating this form interstellar travel.
Why do you think that extraterrestrials will be living on the surface of a planet?
A artifical intelligence hooked up to an industrial facility doesn't need gravity, and gravity would be a burden that isn't worth while. Resources from asteroids, and solar energy are all such a creature would need.
Even biological entities that have more restrictive requirements could build artifical structure 1- 2 km in diameter and spin them simulating the effects of gravity with rotation.
Once such an extra terrestrial civilization has cast off the need to live on a planet, expansion in its local solar system follows, and then moving to another solar system is simply a multigenerational trip in your existing home.
The question becomes then how likely is the a civilization to move into space and adopt such a lifestyle before it completely squanders its planetary resource base.
Although this sounds like a stupid question, what evidence are we providing for our existence?
Consider a probe that just entered the Oort Cloud and parked itself beside a comet. What would it look for to determine that we exist?
There is modulated signals like radio and TV. Would a probe understand that this is a sign of intelligent life?
Now consider time spans. We have an optimistic life span of 100 years, and on average move approximately 3 km/hr when doing things. We have specific senses that are tuned for our own planet, and our capabilities are determined by our biology.
Now the probe in question would be tuned to an entirely different set of assumptions. A simple example, what if the intelligence that created it lives an average of 100 000 years, and similarly move at 3mm/hr. The probes sensing system would be looking for much slower changes than we are making, and our entire radio broadcast from Marconi to now would look like a blip of white noise.
Evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence within the solar system will not be confirmed before evidence from several light-years away as there is not extraterrestrial life thats exists, neither in our solar system, nor outside it. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. ETs DONT DONT DONT EXISTTTTTT. WE ARE ALONEEEEEEE
1) It's extremely unlikely to find extraterrestrial intelligent life in our own solar system
2) It's unlikely to find extraterrestrial intelligent life in our Milky Way galaxy
3) It's less unlikely to find extraterrestrial intelligent life in one of the other galaxies in our universe. But it could mean none in the Local Group or Virgo Supercluster. Intelligent life could exist in one of the other galactic clusters. It could also mean that it exists "right now" and their radio signals won't reach us for another 500 million years or so. But it's also possible that SETI will receive a signal in the near future
4) It's quite likely that simple life exists somewhere in our neighborhood
There's a fascinating book about the topic: Rare Earth - Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee
Please sign in to comment.