SETI and Philosophy

[livius drusus]

Flippant tone aside, this article about a workshop on "The Significance of Negative SETI Results" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5651995/) turned out to cover several rather fascinating questions.

First, the focus on examining the significance of no results struck me as an intriguing approach, particularly considering the oft-repeated view of the scientific method as dealing exclusively with the tangible.

Then, Brian Murray's mission statement:
"It's very simple: Are we alone?" said Bruce Murray, chairman of the Planetary Society, the meeting's sponsor. "It's not a matter of theory. It's a matter of observation. In the meantime, it's a matter of intuition."

which directly led to this paragraph from the writer:
Faith, even. Many of the people in the room had spent much of their lives listening to the heavens, waiting for that elusive signal. They're a band of optimists, tireless in their quest. What they do is considered goofy by critics, even absurd, but they doggedly search onward, forced by the dictates of the scientific method to admit that they still haven't found what they're looking for. They don't believe in flying saucers and alien abduction. They just believe in the possibilities of life in space.

The references to faith, the heavens, quests, hopeful optimists v. dour scientists seemed a tad gratuitous to me at first, an easy way to sensationalize an easily sensationalizable topic as well as a smarmy kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge from reporter to presumed skeptic reader.

Then Murray makes an analogy of his own along those lines (which the author doesn't pick up on at all, much to my amazement):

"Anybody who spends his or her life devoted to this has to be very hopeful," Murray told a reporter. "My personal analog to this is monks working on an illuminated manuscript in the Middle Ages. They work on one page almost their entire life. They don't expect to see the completed Bible."

I think it's rather touching, actually, and maybe even profound in the sense that it illustrates the connections between art, science, belief, inspiration/creativity.

Geoff Marcy's questions about just how rare intelligent life might be may not have gotten much play at the workshop, but they certainly interested me.

Marcy's data show that smaller planets are more plentiful than larger ones, and the trend line strongly suggests that the most common ones could be small, rocky planets like Earth, Venus and Mars.

In our galaxy alone, he said, "There must be 20 billion Earth-sized rocky planets with liquid water on the surface right now."

But Marcy has a hunch that intelligence is rather rare in our galaxy. He asked the group why we have found no artifacts, such as robotic probes, from an intelligent civilization. This echoes the famous Fermi Paradox, after the physicist Enrico Fermi, who more than half a century ago asked the question, "Where is everybody?"

Cullers offered one answer: We haven't looked very hard.

"Our searches for gadgets are terrible," he said.

But Marcy said there might be other factors at work. Perhaps there is something about life itself, or intelligence, that makes it rare. This was a line of reasoning that got little attention in the Harvard Faculty Club. The origin of life is a mystery still. It took 3 billion years for life to evolve into something as complex as a worm. No one understands how consciousness emerges from the brain.

This is a great instance of how philosophy of science and science can't be put asunder: from the number of planets to philosophy of the mind is matter of a few steps.

[ceptimus]

I don't expect SETI to find any positive results in my lifetime, but I think we'd be stupid to stop listening for signals.

Right now, it seems that we are alone in the universe, or at least extremely rare. If there were only ten other intelligent species in our galaxy then you'd expect that at least some of them would be millions of years in advance of us (millions of years just being a drop in a bucket in cosmological terms). If humans survive for millions of years, we will almost certainly begin to colonise the galaxy, so the obvious question is, "Where are all the extraterrestrial colonists, who got started millions of years before we did?"

But like I said, I think SETI is a good thing, and they should keep listening. A positive signal would have stupendous implications for humankind, and the outlay of effort in SETI is absolutely tiny, even compared with say, the advertising of toilet paper.

[viscousmemories]

If there were only ten other intelligent species in our galaxy then you'd expect that at least some of them would be millions of years in advance of us (millions of years just being a drop in a bucket in cosmological terms).
Why would you expect that? I mean, isn't it just as possible that the myriad simultaneous occurences required to spark life has only happened here? Or happened here first?

If humans survive for millions of years, we will almost certainly begin to colonise the galaxy, so the obvious question is, "Where are all the extraterrestrial colonists, who got started millions of years before we did?"
At the rate we're going, if humans survive for millions of years I'll eat my fossilized hat. :P

But like I said, I think SETI is a good thing, and they should keep listening. A positive signal would have stupendous implications for humankind, and the outlay of effort in SETI is absolutely tiny, even compared with say, the advertising of toilet paper.
I agree, though I hesitate to get behind any philosophy that devalues toilet paper.

[davidm]

Here (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/beyond_experience/chap05.htm) is one philosopher's rather pessimistic view on the SETI endeavor. (The discussion on the search for extraterrestrial intelligent life begins at Section 5.2, though the whole thing (it's actually Chapter 5 of a book) is worth reading.

The author is pessimistic because he sees no reason to think that we and intelligent aliens will share much of anything in common, including mathematics. The author maintains that the search for ET is based on "a very great number of unarticulated presuppositions." He directly attacks one such presupposition: that we and our putative contactees will at least count the same way and have the same physics. But, as he writes:

Suppose the tables were turned. Suppose it were we who were the recipients, rather than the senders, of such a message. The message contains a series of marks which we take to be written in an attempt to establish communication by the senders instructing us in the rudiments of arithmetic and physics. The trouble is that there is no single way, or even just a few ways, to axiomatize either arithmetic or Newtonian physics. Any number of different ways exist to axiomatize arithmetic, some doubtless containing concepts we have never even imagined, perhaps even concepts which we are incapable of having. Similarly for Newtonian physics. Must one have a concept of mass, for example, to do Newtonian mechanics? We might at first think so, since that is the way it was taught to most of us. We have been taught that there were, at its outset, three 'fundamental' concepts of Newtonian mechanics: mass, length, and time. (A fourth, electric charge, was added in the nineteenth century.) But it is far from clear that there is anything sacrosanct, privileged, necessary, or inevitable about this particular starting point. Some physicists in the nineteenth century 'revised' the conceptual basis of Newtonian mechanics and 'defined' mass itself in terms of length alone (the French system), and others in terms of length together with time (the astronomical system).The more important point is that it is by no means obvious that we would recognize an alien's version of 'Newtonian mechanics'. It is entirely conceivable that aliens should have hit upon a radically different manner of calculating the acceleration of falling bodies, of calculating the path of projectiles, of calculating the orbits of planets, etc., without using our concepts of mass, length, and time, indeed without using any, or very many, concepts we ourselves use.

Their mathematics, too, may be unrecognizable. In the 1920s, two versions of quantum mechanics appeared: Schrödinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. These theories were each possible only because mathematicians had in previous generations invented algebras for dealing with wave equations and with matrices. But it is entirely possible that advanced civilizations on different planets might not invent both algebras: one might invent only an algebra for wave equations, the other only a matrix algebra. Were they to try to communicate their respective physics, one to the other, they would meet with incomprehension: the receiving civilization would not understand the mathematics, or even for that matter understand that it was mathematics which was being transmitted. (Remember, the plan in SETI is to send mathematical and physical information before the communicating parties attempt to establish conversation through natural language.) Among our own intellectual accomplishments, we happen to find an actual example of two different algebras. Their very existence, however, points up the possibility of radically different ways of doing mathematics, and suggests (although does not of course prove) that there may be other ways, even countless other ways, of doing mathematics, ways which we have not even begun to imagine, which are at least as different as are wave mechanics and matrix mechanics.

If the author is right, then while there might well exist intellilgent aliens, it might be impossible for us to communicate with one another even in principle.

But we can still watch "ET" and eat popcorn. -----> :popcorn:

[ceptimus]

I don't believe any intelligent aliens could have a totally different math to us. If they drew circles, then the ratio of the circumference to the diameter would be just the same for them as it is for us (PI). Of course, they might use a different number base, notation, etc. but the underlying value would be the same.

Now if we received a message of pulses that repeated every 899 pulses, we would look at the number 899 and see that its only factors are 29 and 31 - two prime numbers. Again these are prime in any base or any representation. If some of the 899 pulses were long and some short, we would surely try arranging them in a grid of 29 by 31 or 31 by 29, and maybe we'd see something like this:

...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...........xxxxxxx.............
......xxxxx.......xxxxx........
....xx.................xx......
....x.....xxxxxxxxx.....x......
....x...xx.........xx...x......
....x.....xx.....xx.....x......
....x.......xxxxx.......x......
....x...................x......
....x...................x......
....x...x....xxx....x...x......
....x..xxx...x.x...xxx..x......
....x...x....xxx....x...x......
....x...................x......
....x...................x......
....xx.................xx......
......xxxxx......xxxxx.........
........... xxxxx..............
...............................
...............................
....xxxxxx.....xx....xxxxx.....
....xx.........xx.......xx.....
....xx.........xx.......xx.....
....xx.........xx.......xx.....
....xx.....xxxxxx....xxxxx.....
...............................


Our first alien smiley? :D

[JoeP]

No, that would be :alien:
... :D

[copiae]

I don't believe any intelligent aliens could have a totally different math to us. If they drew circles, then the ratio of the circumference to the diameter would be just the same for them as it is for us (PI). Of course, they might use a different number base, notation, etc. but the underlying value would be the same.


Hi,

Perhaps thier PI is instead 2 x PI (call it chi), so thier circle (assuming that they see circles and the need to equate them) equations are chi x r and chi/2 x r2? Mathematically, it makes little to no difference, and its easy to see how this can be extended to a 1.54 x PI value, etc...


The one thing that struck me as odd about SETI is that don't we kinda assume that aliens invented (and still use) radios, and not some technologically superior communication method that makes radio look as primitive as smoke rings.... Don't we also assume that aliens have some sort of "ears" and that they want to talk to each other?

[davidm]

I don't believe any intelligent aliens could have a totally different math to us. If they drew circles, then the ratio of the circumference to the diameter would be just the same for them as it is for us (PI). Of course, they might use a different number base, notation, etc. but the underlying value would be the same.


Hi,

Perhaps thier PI is instead 2 x PI (call it chi), so thier circle (assuming that they see circles and the need to equate them) equations are chi x r and chi/2 x r2? Mathematically, it makes little to no difference, and its easy to see how this can be extended to a 1.54 x PI value, etc...

Right, I think that's the point. It's a big stretch to say that all math has to be the same for all intelligence everywhere. An intelligence very different from our own might have access to qualities and abstractions that we don't, and vice versa. Perhaps they really don't see or conceive circles.


The one thing that struck me as odd about SETI is that don't we kinda assume that aliens invented (and still use) radios, and not some technologically superior communication method that makes radio look as primitive as smoke rings.... Don't we also assume that aliens have some sort of "ears" and that they want to talk to each other?

It's even worse than that, I think. We are listening for a signal that is deliberately sent -- not, for example, radio or television leakage, which would be too weak to detect. But, we don't deliberately broadcast. Thus, we would not qualify as a planet with intelligence to another species scanning the sky for radio signals.

Even if other civilizations use radios, what happens if everyone is listening and no one is broadcasting? Silence. :noevil2:

[viscousmemories]

It's even worse than that, I think. We are listening for a signal that is deliberately sent -- not, for example, radio or television leakage, which would be too weak to detect. But, we don't deliberately broadcast. Thus, we would not qualify as a planet with intelligence to another species scanning the sky for radio signals.

Even if other civilizations use radios, what happens if everyone is listening and no one is broadcasting? Silence. :noevil2:
That's pretty absurd. I don't know much about SETI but I've always assumed we were broadcasting. Why are we not?

[davidm]

It's even worse than that, I think. We are listening for a signal that is deliberately sent -- not, for example, radio or television leakage, which would be too weak to detect. But, we don't deliberately broadcast. Thus, we would not qualify as a planet with intelligence to another species scanning the sky for radio signals.

Even if other civilizations use radios, what happens if everyone is listening and no one is broadcasting? Silence. :noevil2:
That's pretty absurd. I don't know much about SETI but I've always assumed we were broadcasting. Why are we not?

We are not broadcasting. To do so would require the funds to pay for the proejct, and the broadcast would have to be continuous. The only time we broadcasted a deliberate signal into space was about 30 years ago, for ceremonial purposes, and it was aimed at a globular cluster where life is unlikely to be found. Morever, it was a one-shot deal, so even if someone out there received it, he/she/it could not, by our own standards, verify that it was an intelligent broadcast. This is because, under SETI standards, signals must repeat to meet the standard of verification.

In 1977, the famous WOW! signal was received. It fit every criterion of a deliberate signal from another world, but it never repeated. :hb:

[viscousmemories]

Interesting. I didn't know any of that; never heard of the WOW! signal...

[Ymir's blood]

That's pretty absurd. I don't know much about SETI but I've always assumed we were broadcasting. Why are we not?

Probably a good thing. Reality TV sucks.

[livius drusus]

I heard a story on NPR recently about a study in Nature which indicated that a letter (or stack of burned DVDs) might be a more efficient means of transmitting information in space than radio waves. Here's (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040830/full/040830-4.html) an article on the study.

A message of 100 terabits could contain all the books in the US Library of Congress five times over. Rose argues that any message worth sending would exceed this easily - perhaps being closer to the 40 million terabits contained in all the world's telephone calls in a year.

An inscribed object has the advantage of remaining legible no matter how far it travels, whereas even the narrowest beam of radio waves spreads out over interstellar distances, eventually becoming undetectable. For long messages over long distances, an alien civilisation is likely to send a package, says Rose. "Energy is kind of a currency: if something costs less, it's more likely to get done."

[davidm]

I heard a story on NPR recently about a study in Nature which indicated that a letter (or stack of burned DVDs) might be a more efficient means of transmitting information in space than radio waves. Here's (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040830/full/040830-4.html) an article on the study.

A message of 100 terabits could contain all the books in the US Library of Congress five times over. Rose argues that any message worth sending would exceed this easily - perhaps being closer to the 40 million terabits contained in all the world's telephone calls in a year.

An inscribed object has the advantage of remaining legible no matter how far it travels, whereas even the narrowest beam of radio waves spreads out over interstellar distances, eventually becoming undetectable. For long messages over long distances, an alien civilisation is likely to send a package, says Rose. "Energy is kind of a currency: if something costs less, it's more likely to get done."

We've already done something like this, though not nearly so ambitious as the NPR story suggests.Voyagers' Golden Records (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Brian_Herold/golden.html)

Unfortunately, such physical probes travel too slowly to hope that they will reach any other star system in a reasonable period of time. That's the advantage of using radio waves, which travel at the speed of light.

Interesting. I didn't know any of that; never heard of the WOW! signal...

The Wow! Signal (http://www.bigear.org/wow20th.htm)

[Cool Hand]

Great topic, Liv.

(Hi Ceptimus! Recognize me? [AS])

Very good points, you have there, DH, from your pessimistic philosopher about the possibility or even probability of another civilization's having different mathematical and/or physical axioms. (Pssst. Hey, I wish you had given us a source of the material you quoted, or at least a link to it. No biggie though.)

I have always been a critic of the SETI project, due to two very fundamental facts of physics--the cosmic speed limit, c--and the vast distances from Earth of even the nearest stars, which as far as we know do not have planets orbiting them capable of sustaining intelligent life.

The nearest 9 stars, excluding our own Sun, to Earth range in distance from us of approximately 4 light years to almost 9 light years. The Milky Way itself is approximately 100,000 light years in diameter.

Our nearest neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, is 3 million light years away from Earth.

Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that beings similar to or superior in intelligence to humans exist somewhere in the Milky Way. Chances are that they exist somewhere beyond a distance of 125 light years from Earth, which is the presently known outer limit for a human life span. Hell, even if such hypothetical beings exist at half that distance, no two-way communications could possibly take place between us and them within the average span of a human life.

Chances are greater than not that the nearest intelligent beings, if any, who might exist within our own galaxy are so far from us as to preclude any meaningful two-way communications between us, as there is no way around the cosmic speed limit of c, the speed of light and all other electromagnetic waves, including radio signals.

Once we extend our search beyond the Milky Way, even to our nearest neighboring large galaxy, we are dealing with distances of millions of light years. Thus, only one-way signals could be sent or received during the likely remainder of human existence, as humans as a species have existed a mere 100,000 years or so.

At this point, a rational person knowing such facts must ask, "What's the point of SETI?" Even if we happen to defy all odds and detect what we believe to be a radio transmission from an extra-terrestrial intelligent species, it would be impossible to conduct any sort of two-way transmissions with them within one human lifetime, and quite possibly during the remaining tenure of humankind on Earth. I agree with VM that it is highly unlikely that the human species will continue to exist for millions of years, or even another 100,000 years, in my opinion. If we do not kill ourselves first, it is extremely likely that our species will be wiped out before the Earth itself ceases to exist. Such extinction could and probably will come from a cataclysmic event such as another Snowball Earth, a less dramatic but lethal nonetheless global climactic change, a severe asteroid or comet strike or strikes, or some other heretofore unforeseen disaster.

We know for certain that our own star will consume the remainder of its hydrogen fuel in about another 5 billion years. Earth will be engulfed in the Sun's initial expansion well before the Sun dies, and everything on Earth will be vaporized. Given the vast distances involved between and among large celestial and planetary bodies, and the apparent fact that the universe is not only expanding, but is doing so at an accelerating rate, meaningful two-way communications between us and some as yet hypothetical other intelligent, extra-terrestrial species is so improbable as to render it practically an impossibility.

With all due respect to the late, great Professor Carl Sagan, SETI is silly.

Cool Hand

[davidm]

(Pssst. Hey, I wish you had given us a source of the material you quoted, or at least a link to it. No biggie though.)

Actually, I did. The very first word of my first post, "Here," is a link to the entire paper. (One tiny quibble about this forum: Links are not clearly marked, hence Cool Hand's confusion. They're not underlined and, at least from my computer, seem almost exactly the same color as regular text. So, links are very hard to spot.)

Below is another link, a paper by Marvin Minksy in 1985, which argues that we will have no problems communicating with intelligent aliens:

Link to Minsky paper (http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/AlienIntelligence.html)

I agree with your post on the apparent pointlessness of SETI, but should we ever intercept an alien message and decipher it, a strategy to get around the time lag problem you mention would be to send a return signal, but to send information continuously, without stopping. They would presumably pick up the point, and start sending information to us continuously, without stopping. While this would not be a two-way conversation in real time, each side would be obtaining continuous, new information about the other.

[Cool Hand]

(Pssst. Hey, I wish you had given us a source of the material you quoted, or at least a link to it. No biggie though.)

Actually, I did. The very first word of my first post, "Here," is a link to the entire paper. (One tiny quibble about this forum: Links are not clearly marked, hence Cool Hand's confusion. They're not underlined and, at least from my computer, seem almost exactly the same color as regular text. So, links are very hard to spot.)


Oh, hey, sorry. You're right, it is very hard to spot the difference in color in text here if one is not accustomed to it. My apologies. I enjoyed the link, BTW.


I agree with your post on the apparent pointlessness of SETI, but should we ever intercept an alien message and decipher it, a strategy to get around the time lag problem you mention would be to send a return signal, but to send information continuously, without stopping. They would presumably pick up the point, and start sending information to us continuously, without stopping. While this would not be a two-way conversation in real time, each side would be obtaining continuous, new information about the other.

That would work only if the aliens were close enough to us to be able to "pick up the point" within their and own species' respective remaining times in existence. Otherwise, a continuous signal is just as pointless as a non-continuous one. My bets are on an alien civilization's or our own civilization's being long since gone before there is any reasonable hope or chance of one or the other's picking up the point of a signal and being able to respond.

SETI's supporters and well wishers simply fail to take into account the vast distances involved when speaking in cosmic terms, the incomprehensibly large numbers of stars, planets, and galaxies involved, the nearly infinite variations of how life itself and its possible civilizations might manifest themselves, and the less than a tiny blink of an eye of human existence within the life of the cosmos to date.

It's much much worse, by many orders of magnitude, than the proverbial search for a needle in a haystack.

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

(One tiny quibble about this forum: Links are not clearly marked, hence Cool Hand's confusion. They're not underlined and, at least from my computer, seem almost exactly the same color as regular text. So, links are very hard to spot.)
Tiny quibble resolved, hopefully. I've added an underline to URL's, which should be sufficient to help people distinguish the links. Thanks for the tip DH.

[ceptimus]

Hi A.S. :)

You don't need two way conversations to learn stuff from others.

I've learned most of what I know by reading books, and I've hardly ever spoken to the authors. In fact many of the authors were long dead before I read their work.

[davidm]

I agree with your post on the apparent pointlessness of SETI, but should we ever intercept an alien message and decipher it, a strategy to get around the time lag problem you mention would be to send a return signal, but to send information continuously, without stopping. They would presumably pick up the point, and start sending information to us continuously, without stopping. While this would not be a two-way conversation in real time, each side would be obtaining continuous, new information about the other.

That would work only if the aliens were close enough to us to be able to "pick up the point" within their and own species' respective remaining times in existence. Otherwise, a continuous signal is just as pointless as a non-continuous one. My bets are on an alien civilization's or our own civilization's being long since gone before there is any reasonable hope or chance of one or the other's picking up the point of a signal and being able to respond.

SETI's supporters and well wishers simply fail to take into account the vast distances involved when speaking in cosmic terms, the incomprehensibly large numbers of stars, planets, and galaxies involved, the nearly infinite variations of how life itself and its possible civilizations might manifest themselves, and the less than a tiny blink of an eye of human existence within the life of the cosmos to date.

It's much much worse, by many orders of magnitude, than the proverbial search for a needle in a haystack.

Cool Hand

Thanks for the fix, VM.

Agreed again that the search is probably pointless, but I'm not sure I follow your objection to the continuous broadcast scenario.

Suppose Planet A and B share a common goal: Not just to see if someone is out there is sending signals, but to actually exchange information if there is anyone to exchange information with.

If they want to do that, they will adopt a common strategy. They will each set up a continuous broadcast of new and different information, detailing as much as possible about their respective home planets, and sweep all the sectors of the sky with it. In turn, they will also listen, sweeping all the sky.

Now let's suppose Planet A picks up the signal from Planet B. Since Planet B is broadcasting continuously, Planet A will hear more than just "Hi." Planet A will then hear, in real time, the whole science, history, etc. of Planet B (assuming A is able to decipher B's signal). And Planet B, if it picks up A's signal, will hear the same (It may already have picked up A's signal by the time A picks up B's signal.)

Admittedly this is not a two-way conversation in the real sense, but it's better then hearing "Hi," sending "Hi" in response that would take x number of years to reach the original sender, and then waiting another x number of years to hear the response.

Of course, it is doubtful anyone would adopt this strategy. In fact, it seems highly irresponsible to send deliberate broadcasts into space, for the simple reason that if we disclose our location to aliens, we have no reason to believe they will be benevolent. An Independnece Day scenario is not inconceivable.

[Cool Hand]

Hi A.S. :)

You don't need two way conversations to learn stuff from others.

I've learned most of what I know by reading books, and I've hardly ever spoken to the authors. In fact many of the authors were long dead before I read their work.

Very good point, Cept. Of course, most books were never intended to be two-way means of communication. Most are intended to impart knowledge, information, opinion, story, or emotion to the reader only.

Let's get back to SETI. Sure, if the purpose of SETI is just to learn if any other intelligent civilizations have ever developed before ours (which is implicit in looking for radio signals that would by definition have had to originated many, many years--in all probability long before the birth of human civilization only a few millenia ago--before our detecting them), then SETI might stand barely more than a snowball's chance in hell of detecting whether or not that is true, and if so, it just might be able to decipher something intelligible to us from any possible radio broadcasts, continuous or not.

Again, I certainly wouldn't bet any of my own money on our ever being able to learn anything significant about any hypothetical extraterrestrial civilization within the likely time humans will remain extant. The variables involved in that chance occurrence happening are so many and so highly variable that it just isn't anything more than an extremely remote possibility. I will stop just short of calling it utterly futile.

The issue of whether other intelligent life capable of forming complex civilizations has ever or will ever develop elsewhere in the universe is another matter altogether. I can only speculate, as only any of us can in that regard, but I tend to agree with Carl Sagan that the vastness of the cosmos and the abundance of stars, from which all the heavier elements necessary for planets to form and for life to spring forth come, would imply that our being unique is more improbable than not.

It is a huge leap, in my opinion, however, from speculating that there must be other intelligent life in the universe, to concluding or hoping with any reasonable expectation that we will ever be able to detect the current presence or former existence of any such intelligent life. That's a function of the variables others and I have discussed above.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Agreed again that the search is probably pointless, but I'm not sure I follow your objection to the continuous broadcast scenario.

Suppose Planet A and B share a common goal: Not just to see if someone is out there is sending signals, but to actually exchange information if there is anyone to exchange information with.

If they want to do that, they will adopt a common strategy. They will each set up a continuous broadcast of new and different information, detailing as much as possible about their respective home planets, and sweep all the sectors of the sky with it. In turn, they will also listen, sweeping all the sky.

Now let's suppose Planet A picks up the signal from Planet B. Since Planet B is broadcasting continuously, Planet A will hear more than just "Hi." Planet A will then hear, in real time, the whole science, history, etc. of Planet B (assuming A is able to decipher B's signal). And Planet B, if it picks up A's signal, will hear the same (It may already have picked up A's signal by the time A picks up B's signal.)

Admittedly this is not a two-way conversation in the real sense, but it's better then hearing "Hi," sending "Hi" in response that would take x number of years to reach the original sender, and then waiting another x number of years to hear the response.

Of course, it is doubtful anyone would adopt this strategy. In fact, it seems highly irresponsible to send deliberate broadcasts into space, for the simple reason that if we disclose our location to aliens, we have no reason to believe they will be benevolent. An Independnece Day scenario is not inconceivable.

Thanks, DH. I get what you mean now. Sure, there is an extremely remote possibility we might one day detect such a continuous signal. If so, we might possibly be able to decipher it and learn something about an ancient, distant, civilization. That would undoubtedly be the discovery of the millenia. My impression of the hopes and dreams of SETI's supporters, however, have been much more along the lines of what Carl Sagan set forth in his novel Contact, however. I've always had the impression that the ultimate hope and dream of SETI was to have two-way communications. That, I believe, is a pipe dream. It's really undeserving of much serious effort. Cold fusion has a better chance of making a comeback as a serious scientific study.

Cool Hand

[The Lone Ranger]

In fact, it seems highly irresponsible to send deliberate broadcasts into space, for the simple reason that if we disclose our location to aliens, we have no reason to believe they will be benevolent. An Independnece Day scenario is not inconceivable.

I don't think SETI is a waste of time and money. I do think it's highly unlikely that we'll ever receive an unambiguously alien signal (much less be able to decipher it), but I think the pittance we spend on it is amply justified. Why? Because while we're unlikely to ever discover ET, we might discover other interesting things in the process.

After all, the signals given off by pulsars were originally suspected of being alien broadcasts. Who knows what other neat things are out there waiting to be discovered? (Another point -- the search spurs new technological innovations which can then be applied to more "practical" purposes.)


The biologist Jared Diamond has publicly argued that launching the Voyager space probes, complete with information on how to find Earth was a very bad idea, because some hostile alien species might track them back to us. I don't think it's anything to be concerned about, though. The incomprehensibly vast distances and the pesky laws of physics come into play to make it extremely unlikely that any species would consider interstellar travel for the purpose of military conquest or resource gathering a worthwhile endeavor.

As Lawrence Krauss points out in The Physics of Star Trek, to accelerate a ship to just 0.1 c and so get it to Proxima Centauri (the nearest star next to our Sun) in "only" about 40 years' time would require a mass of fuel close to the mass of the planet Jupiter. And that's assuming a ridiculously small ship about the size of a modern space shuttle -- which certainly wouldn't be able to carry the provisions necessary for such a journey. And it's assuming that the ship and any crew could somehow survive the tremendous acceleration necessary to get to a speed of 0.1 c in something less than several years' time (not to mention the fact that you'll then have to decelerate once you begin to approach your target).

Aliens plundering planets and then moving on to the next star system is a highly unlikely scenario for the simple reason that unless they're willing to spend centuries at the very least (and more realistically, millennia) getting from system to system, they'll use more resources getting to the next planetary system than they could possibly reap, even if they completely converted all the planets in the system for fuel and raw materials.

If we ever achieve contact with an alien civilization, it will almost certainly be via radio signals and/or unmanned (unaliened?) probes.


I suppose it's possible that aliens will receive our broadcasts of PTL, The 700 Club, and Rush Limbaugh and decide that we should be put out of our misery. But unless they have a spare planet or two that they're willing and able to convert into fuel for the effort, the best they can do is launch some sort of device at us that'll take millennia to arrive.


Voyager 1 is currently the fastest-moving object ever built by humans, or it was the last time I heard. It's exiting the Solar System at a speed of roughly 39,000 miles per hour. Assuming my quick calculations are correct, even if it had been aimed at Proxima Centauri, it wouldn't arrive for another 17,500+ years. I think it's safe to assume that even if it should happen that aliens stumble across one of our space probes and determine where it came from, the human race will have long-since gone the way of the dinosaurs by then.

Sagan once pointed out that putting the plaques on the probes wasn't actually a serious attempt to communicate with intelligent aliens. (Not that he didn't hope that this would happen, of course.) Their "real" significance is that they'll still be cruising through space long after the last human has died, and long after even our Sun burns out and fades away. As such, they'll be a "permanent" memorial to our species' existence.


Cheers,

Michael

[Cool Hand]

Excellent post, Lone Ranger. I agree wholeheartedly, my earlier remark that "SETI is silly" notwithstanding (I trust that you and others understand that I meant the hope that SETI will lead to intergallactic chats is silly). I also thank you for reminding me of the real import of the plaques placed on the Voyager craft.

Cool Hand

[davidm]

The incomprehensibly vast distances and the pesky laws of physics come into play to make it extremely unlikely that any species would consider interstellar travel for the purpose of military conquest or resource gathering a worthwhile endeavor.

This is far from clear, though. Enrico Fermi showed how a spacefaring civilization ought to be able to colonize the entire galaxy within just a few million years, an eyeblink of time compared to the actual age of the Milky Way. The fact that no one has yet visited us led to his famous Fermi's Paradox. (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html)

[ceptimus]

And it's assuming that the ship and any crew could somehow survive the tremendous acceleration necessary to get to a speed of 0.1 c in something less than several years' time (not to mention the fact that you'll then have to decelerate once you begin to approach your target).
This isn't a problem. Ignoring relativistic effects (pretty safe simplification for 0.1c) then a steady acceleration of 1g (simulating normal Earth gravity) will get you to 0.1c in just over a month.

[The Lone Ranger]

This isn't a problem. Ignoring relativistic effects (pretty safe simplification for 0.1c) then a steady acceleration of 1g (simulating normal Earth gravity) will get you to 0.1c in just over a month.

You're quite correct. I didn't do the math for that one; obviously, I should have.

Cheers,

Michael

[copiae]

If we ever achieve contact with an alien civilization, it will almost certainly be via radio signals and/or unmanned (unaliened?) probes.



Don't you assume some degree of technical equivalence, both in current relative technological advancement, and in the 'scale' of technological development[1], along with anthropomorphizing alien intelligence (if applicable), when you make a statement like that?



[1] what I mean by this is that you make an implicit assumption that aliens developed the same technology that we did - and they went down the same technological 'route' that we did. Just as it is theoretically possible to come up with a sonic weapon without coming up with a gunpowder weapon, surely it is possible for aliens to bypass radio altogether in thier scale of technological deveopment?

[The Lone Ranger]

Don't you assume some degree of technical equivalence, both in current relative technological advancement, and in the 'scale' of technological development[1], along with anthropomorphizing alien intelligence (if applicable), when you make a statement like that?



[1] what I mean by this is that you make an implicit assumption that aliens developed the same technology that we did - and they went down the same technological 'route' that we did. Just as it is theoretically possible to come up with a sonic weapon without coming up with a gunpowder weapon, surely it is possible for aliens to bypass radio altogether in thier scale of technological deveopment?

I'm not certain that I entirely understand your point. If we make contact with an alien civilization, surely, it will be because we either a.) encounter a signal, or b.) encounter an object (or objects) sent to our Solar System. No? [Of course, the situation could easily be reversed -- maybe we'll send a probe to Alpha Centauri someday and find ETs living there.]


When it comes to sending a signal across interstellar distances, radio waves of some form are far and away the most obvious choice. ("Radio waves," broadly speaking, could refer to any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but wavelengths in the "radio" range seem to be good candidates, as they're a lot less likely to be absorbed or scattered by interstellar gas and dust than are infrared or even visible light. If the aliens really have a lot of power to burn, they might use x-rays.)

Theoretically, an advanced civilization might use neutrinos to send signals, but now we're really talking about an impractical method of communication! They're awfully tough to produce and manipulate on demand, because the darn things are so non-reactive -- billions of them are passing through the Earth right now without even noticing. Billions of neutrinos pass through the Earth every second, but the most sensitive neutrino detectors we've come up with so far can detect only about 11,000 of them per year. Since neutrinos are almost totally nonreactive with normal matter, the efficiency of our detectors isn't likely to increase by a whole heck of a lot in the future. Neutrinos are almost impossible to manipulate and just as hard to detect. So, long-distance signalling with neutrinos seems like a spectacularly inefficient way to go -- assuming it's even possible.

Again, theoretically, a really advanced civilization might somehow manipulate gravity waves with the goal of using them for long-distance communication, but, if anything, this seems like an even less-plausible idea than using neutrinos.

I don't presume to know exactly how an alien society would develop, but it seems difficult to understand how they could gain a sufficiently deep understanding of the nature of the Universe and sufficiently awesome power that they could manipulate neutrinos and gravity without realizing that electromagnetism is vastly easier and cheaper to manipulate.


So, of the four fundamental forces in the Universe, only gravitation and electromagnetism operate outside the atomic nucleus. Since gravity's not very manipulable (and neither are neutrinos), that leaves some form of electromagnetic radiation as the only viable option for long-distance signalling. Unless you want to send a physical object of some kind.

But if you're sending an object of some sort, it's going to take centuries or even millennia to travel even to a nearby star -- unless you have the will and means to use planet-sized fuel tanks, in which case your trip takes "only" a few decades. Granted, we don't know much about our hypothetical aliens' psychology or physiology, but it doesn't seem likely that living beings would want to make such trips when it would be far cheaper and safer to send unmanned vehicles.

Cheers,

Michael

[Cool Hand]

Exactly, Lone Ranger.

Technology might develop along a different route, but it's still constrained by the same laws of physics that ours is. One of the basic axioms of physics is that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.

Of course, there are objects within it which are by definition outside our ability to observe directly or experiment within, such as black holes. They are outside our event horizon. Thus, we can never fully understand how objects or fields or forces behave in a black hole, but we can extrapolate some of those possible behaviors from what we know about how physical laws operate outside black holes.

Anyway, I agree with your point about electromagnetic radiation being the most likely, and really the only practical, means of interplanetary, interstellar, or intergallactic communication to be used by any advanced civilization, even one far more advanced than ours. Also, of course, as you state, the spectrum of radio frequencies is the most likely one any aliens would use.

Cool Hand

[ceptimus]

It's rather arrogant of us to assume we know the best ways to communicate across interstellar distances. Two hundred years ago,we didn't know how to send and receive radio waves. Even geniuses, like Newton, never even suspected that such things existed. Who's to say what as-yet-unthought-of communication methods we might find in the next two hundred years?

[copiae]

Exactly, Lone Ranger.

Technology might develop along a different route, but it's still constrained by the same laws of physics that ours is. One of the basic axioms of physics is that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.



As I am slightly pressed for time right now, I'll just respond to this one point...

Cool Hand, do you mean the laws of physics as they stand now, as they stood twenty or fifty years ago, or as they will stand one hundred years in the future?


(i.e. what ceptimus said).

[Cool Hand]

It's rather arrogant of us to assume we know the best ways to communicate across interstellar distances. Two hundred years ago,we didn't know how to send and receive radio waves. Even geniuses, like Newton, never even suspected that such things existed. Who's to say what as-yet-unthought-of communication methods we might find in the next two hundred years?

Yes and no. Arrogant? Maybe.

Newton essentially "invented" modern science. I'm not saying he invented science, as ancient Greeks certainly practiced it and made some really important discoveries that helped us understand the world around us much better, some of which laid the foundation for modern science. Nevertheless, until the age of enlightenment, in modern Western Civilization there was little real science going on outside of astronomy. The Roman Catholic Church dictated what was true about the world and what wasn't.

Since Newton's time, scientists all over the world, but particularly in the west, have applied the same rigorous scientific method, with varying degrees of rigor and success, to make further advances in the hard sciences.

Chemistry has been so throughly explored, I would venture to say that we have in all likelihood discovered all the chemical elements that occur naturally on our planet, unless there are some really bizarre ones heretofore unseen in the darkest depths of the oceans. I wouldn't count on it.

Biology has come a long way, but there are so many unanswered questions in human biology, particularly in neurobiology, that it has plenty of room for further discoveries and advances.

Physics, of course, has several sub-branches, and the 20th Century saw an explosion of new theories and advances that radically changed the way we understand the physical world and its governing laws. I'm not so arrogant as to presume that we're nearly done making new discoveries and advances, but I think it's safe to say that we have discovered that there are four fundamental forces acting on all matter and energy in the known universe, and that we won't discover any more. Those four forces account for all interactions we can observe, although we don't yet know the unit or method by which gravity is mediated.

Are discoveries in physics done? Of course not. I'm merely suggesting that it's highly unlikely that we will discover that there are more than the four fundmental forces we already have discovered and explored. Those we know of account for what we know about and have observed in the universe. There is no reason to introduce new hypothetical forces or means of transmission of data across great distances. Might we discover new ones in the future? Sure. I wouldn't count on it, however.

Newtonian mechanics has been thoroughly explored, and is unlikely to yield any radical new discoveries with further study.

Relativity theory was the first radically new sub-branch of physics discovered in the early 20th Century. It has been refined somewhat, but the fundamentals of both special and general relativity have remained largely unchanged since Einstein conceived of and explained them.

Quantum Mechanics was the other great radical new sub-branch of physics discovered in the last century. It is undoubtedly the most counter-intuitive field of physics we have encountered, but the fundamentals have been explored. Undoubtedly, there is plenty of room for further advancement, but we get the basics of it now.

Besides pre-Big Bang physics, which is basically untestable and by definition unobservable, but subject only to postulating and speculation, the only grand mystery still unexplained is a grand unified theory. This is where string theory, M-theory, and all sorts of other bizarre radical theories remain for intensive study.

Is it possible for some as yet undiscovered theories to yield advances in long distance transmission of information? Sure. Is it likely to yield a cheap, effective, practical alternative to electromagnetic radiation? No.

Electromagnetic radiation is the entire basis for astronomy and cosmology. Without it, we would know almost nothing about the cosmos beyond the Earth. Do you seriously believe there is some other form of transmission (i.e., another fundamental force) that we haven't discovered that would allow us to peer beyond our planet?

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Exactly, Lone Ranger.

Technology might develop along a different route, but it's still constrained by the same laws of physics that ours is. One of the basic axioms of physics is that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.



As I am slightly pressed for time right now, I'll just respond to this one point...

Cool Hand, do you mean the laws of physics as they stand now, as they stood twenty or fifty years ago, or as they will stand one hundred years in the future?


(i.e. what ceptimus said).

I understand your point and Ceptimus' as well, but I think it's somewhat naive, frankly. Just because old scientific theories have been discarded in favor of newer, better ones, doesn't mean that we do not have a firm handle on the concept of there being four fundamental forces which govern all matter and energy in the universe.

After all, Newton's laws of motion remain intact today, within Newtonian scales of measurement and within practical, everyday tolerances. I understand that relativistic effects yield precise Newtonian results inaccurate, especially on grand scales, but not in any practical way on human scales here on earth. Furthermore, I understand that Newtonian physics is wholly inapplicable on quantum scales. Again, that's not the realm in which we apply Newton's laws. Therefore, those who declare that Newton was "wrong" are really being disingenuous, in my opinion.

Getting back to the four forces, one must ask, "Do we fully understand those four fundamental forces?" Of course not. That is neither expressed nor implied in my remarks anywhere in this thread.

Might we one day discover another force or other forces? Possibly, but doubtful. All research seems to be heading in the other direction, towards a Grand Unified Theory that combines all the forces into one. That has been, and remains so, the Holy Grail of physics for the last several decades.

I hope I have addressed your question, which I understand was at least somewhat rhetorical, rather than going on some unnecessary or irrelevant tangent.

Anyway, your point and Ceptimus' are well taken. I just don't agree with your premise that there might be some earth shattering discovery that will toss away the four fundamental forces in favor of something else altogether, except possibly some grand unified theory. As I said, Newton's laws of motion are still in widespread use today, more than 300 years after he expressed them in his Principia.

Cool Hand

[ceptimus]

You may be right, Cool Hand, but people have thought that physics was a more-or-less complete science before. At the end of the 19th century, respected scientists were saying that all the fundamental laws had been found, and all that remained was to fill in the details...

What tends to happen is that some barely measurable deviation from the values predicted by the existing theory leads to a whole new area of science. So you get some mysterious fogging of photographic plates (photography itself being a recent invention) and this leads to the discovery of radioactivity. Or failed attempts to measure the Earth's absolute velocity through the ether leads to the theory or relativity.

What might be the next area to open up? That's the beauty of it - we don't know. Maybe there aren't any new areas. Maybe it's something that we currently suspect, but can't confirm, like the anti-gravity (repulsive) effect that may occur at huge distances, and is perhaps responsible for causing the galaxies to accelerate away from each other. More likely it's something we can't even imagine - something as apparently mundane as photographic plates fogging when they were accidentally stored too close to mineral samples.

I agree, by the way, that chemistry is just a sub-set of physics, and biology is just a sub-set of chemistry. :)

[Cool Hand]

As usual, Ceptimus, you make very good points. I cannot disagree with anything in your latest post.

Sure, all branches of science are ultimately sub-branches of physics. That's one reason whenever anyone asks me in what do I believe, my answer is always "Physics."

Thanks again for responding. I think this is an interesting topic and discussion. Perhaps I am displaying the same intellectual arrogance that late 19th Century physicists did. I still doubt that the fundamental forces will ever be shaken or discarded, however.

I have no doubt that many many unforeseen and unexpected new discoveries await us in physics that will change our worldview, and that such changes will continue to happen for as long as scientists practice the scientific method.

I do believe, perhaps without adequate justification, that science has matured a great deal in the past 300 years, and that the great leaps and bounds in physics that took place in the last 100 years are unlikely to be duplicated in this century. Of course, that's just my speculation and opinion, and it could be entirely wrong.

Cool Hand

[copiae]

I understand your point and Ceptimus' as well, but I think it's somewhat naive, frankly. Just because old scientific theories have been discarded in favor of newer, better ones, doesn't mean that we do not have a firm handle on the concept of there being four fundamental forces which govern all matter and energy in the universe.


My question was: Do we have the same firm handle that we did have fifty or one hundred years ago? Or to extrapolate from history, the same firm handle that we will have a hundred years from now? Perhaps, the reason why radio is the most obvious form of communication for us is that we do not currently know of any communication method that is more obvious.




Getting back to the four forces, one must ask, "Do we fully understand those four fundamental forces?" Of course not. That is neither expressed nor implied in my remarks anywhere in this thread.


Then why are you so quick to discard the possibility of another method of communication arising from these four forces?



Might we one day discover another force or other forces? Possibly, but doubtful. All research seems to be heading in the other direction, towards a Grand Unified Theory that combines all the forces into one. That has been, and remains so, the Holy Grail of physics for the last several decades.


As a total guess, I would suspect that the possibility of discovering another 'fundamental force' was always doubtful, before the discovery, after which it became a certainty.

As an unrelated aside, I've always thought that the search for the Grand Unified theory is a scientists way of searching for a God (and who knows, they may actually find one!).



Anyway, your point and Ceptimus' are well taken. I just don't agree with your premise that there might be some earth shattering discovery that will toss away the four fundamental forces in favor of something else altogether, except possibly some grand unified theory. As I said, Newton's laws of motion are still in widespread use today, more than 300 years after he expressed them in his Principia.

Cool Hand

That was not my position. The philosophy of science is not my forte (far from it), and if what I am saying is misguided, hopefully those who are much more knowledgeable about these things (Hugo Holbling and Celsus spring to mind here) can point me in the right direction... Anyway, my argument is pretty simple: Science is not static. What we know now may be known to be misguided one hundred, hell, even ten years into the future. With this in mind, how can we say with any certainty that what we know now is pretty much it?

The falsification that you mentioned earlier notwithstanding, Newtonian physics represents one branch of science. Showing that this one branch of science is still arguably 'the same' says nothing for science as a whole ...e.g. look at how much atomic theory, optics and inter-planetary motion, to name a few, have changed through [the 20th century] century alone.


Cheers,

[EDIT]: I forgot that we were in the 21st century now :)

[squian]

In this thread, there is a lot of skepticism about whether the physics involved with SETI would ever allow use to find ETI. Whether or not we find some new physics to exploit for searching the universe, my deepest concern is that I am not sure we know what Intelligence is. In other words, let's put astrophysics aside and consider our search for Terrestrial Intelligence. What do we know from our direct (non-radio wave) interactions with other species here on Earth? And what do we know from our own history about an intelligent species? Maybe it's just me but Intelligence still seems like a concept that we "know it when we see it".

This is the point that makes SETI such a needle in a haystack. Once we know the needle is made of metal we can realize it is easier to search with a magnet than a magnifying glass. With SETI, I think we lack the insight on Intelligence to know the best way to search.

[Clutch Munny]

When we consider the probability and possible nature of ETI, we have to do so in light of our current theories. Of course these may well be overturned in time, but there's simply no point asking, "What would it be reasonable to say about the probability and possible nature of ETI, if unspecified things we now accept were to be replaced with unspecified novel things?" What if it turns out to be possible to travel FTL by wishing really hard? What would it then be reasonable to think about ETI, and what rational constraints govern such speculation? Conducting our ruminations in light of the currently known does not rule out future revisions to our knowledge; it is neither dogmatism nor arrogant present-ism. It's just the price of having a disciplined sort of discourse on the topic.

[The Lone Ranger]

Sorry, I've been out of town for a little while.

Just to make my position clear, neither I nor (so far as I know) anyone else is suggesting that we know for sure how hypothetical aliens will or will not choose to announce their presence. However, as our understanding of how the Universe around us works improves, so, necessarily, does our understanding of how the Universe doesn't work.

I think any rational person would agree that we have a much more complete -- and accurate -- understanding of how things work than Newton did, for example. Of course our descendants will have an even more complete and accurate understanding.

But some things we can say with a very high degree of certainty. No one's going to discover a "missing" element between Hydrogen and Helium on the periodic table, for instance. We can confidently state that no one will ever build a rocket powerful enough to accelarate a ship to the speed of light, much less beyond -- because such a feat would literally require an infinite amount of energy. There are only four forces that govern all interactions between matter; despite extremely careful measurements and experimentation, not the slightest evidence has been found for any others.* So, if any other such forces exist, they're well-hidden indeed.

None of this means that there might not be something important that we've heretofore overlooked though. Conceivably, it might be possible to get around the light-speed restrictions by somehow opening a window into "hyperspace" for instance, but no one has provided any evidence whatsoever that such a thing as "hyperspace" exists, much less that we could somehow get access to it and use it for effectively FTL travel.


Anyway, my basic point is that any hypothetical alien intelligence would be just as subject to the laws of physics as we are. Of course we'll never know everything there is to know about how the Universe functions, and it's always possible that we've overlooked something important -- but in the meantime, there are some things we can be reasonably certain of.

*There's some evidence suggesting that there might be a fifth force that operates on the scale of the enormous -- intergalactic distances -- but even if such a force actually exists, it hardly seems a suitable candidate for use as a method of communication.

Whether or not we find some new physics to exploit for searching the universe, my deepest concern is that I am not sure we know what Intelligence is.

This is, I think, an important point. After all, the definition of an "intelligent" species by SETI is "one that's broadcasting radio signals that we can detect and recognize as artificial." That's a rather arbitrary and somewhat vague definition, to be sure. After all, even if ET is broadcasting, it's not at all clear we'd know what to look for. (Keeping in mind that a lot of people initially thought the signals generated by pulsars were artificial, for instance.) Nor is it at all clear that we'd be able to interpret what they'd think was a ridiculously simple and obvious message.

The great irony is that strictly speaking, Homo sapiens doesn't qualify as an "intelligent" species by SETI's reckoning, since we're not deliberately broadcasting any messages to any ETs who might be listening for them. Sure, we're producing a lot of radio and television transmissions, but none deliberately aimed at extraterrestrials, and none with sufficient power that they'd be likely to be detectable from a distance of several light years. By SETI's definition, then, we're not an "intelligent" species.

Cheers,

Michael

[copiae]

Anyway, my basic point is that any hypothetical alien intelligence would be just as subject to the laws of physics as we are.



Hey,


I guess I havent been particularly clear in the point I was trying to convey about this all: Are aliens bound to our current understanding of the laws of physics? Or, are we unintentionally anthropomorphizing them?


Lets pretend that on a hypotheticial alien technological development tree, there is no Marconi equivalent. Seems a bit limited to us, although I would argue that this is just as likely as them having a Marconi equivalent. Regardless, as far as these aliens are concerned, Radio does not exist. When the need arose for some sort of long distance communication method, they applied something they already understood implicitly: wormholes. Using extremely localised wormholes, they utilised a semaphore-like method for the transfer of information.


All guesswork, I know, and it seems unlikely to us, because we do not know much about wormhole physics (or if its possible, for that matter). Ask your average alien though, and its pretty common-sense as far as they are concerned. Perhaps they have even initiated thier own SETI program, looking for intersystem wormhole connections... Of course, it doesnt have to be wormholes. Any communicative method that is not radio will do perfectly here, or to enter the realm of serious conjecture, perhaps they have no need for extrinsic communicative methods?


I have no problem with SETI, and its a much better place to waste money than many other areas that I can think of, but I do find it odd[1] how people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is 'it' as far as long distance communication goes, but not recognise the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that.


[1] My personal opinion, not intended as an insult or anything else... Apologies if it is interpreted that way.

[viscousmemories]

I have no problem with SETI, and its a much better place to waste money than many other areas that I can think of, but I do find it odd[1] how people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is 'it' as far as long distance communication goes, but not recognise the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that.
I don't think anyone in this thread has denied the possibility that radio isn't it, but as Clutch said (if I didn't misinterpret him) it's of no practical use to hypothesize physical possibilities outside our current understanding. So given that the four forces are the building blocks of what we know about physics, radio waves (or so it seems Cool Hand and The Lone Ranger are saying) are the most likely method of interstellar communication.

[squian]

Any communicative method that is not radio will do perfectly here, or to enter the realm of serious conjecture, perhaps they have no need for extrinsic communicative methods?

Peer, it's not hard to imagine the case of an intelligent life with no need for extrinsic communicative methods. For example, ants communicate by a complex set of chemical signals. Although as individuals, ants may not be intelligent, one could argue a colony exhibits intelligence. And it's not hard to extrapolate that intelligent life on other planets might be similar. To that extent, I think you are right that we tend to "antropomorphize" ETIs.

However, your point is not really contradictory to Lone Ranger's. Given that we know nothing of communicating with wormholes, we certainly won't make contact that way. And if they have no need for extrinsic communicative methods, we won't be talking to them at all. Hence, Lone Ranger's original point that radio waves or sending objects would be almost certainly be the way we talk to ETIs still holds. Namely because we cannot talk to ETIs otherwise, let alone find them.

[copiae]

I don't think anyone in this thread has denied the possibility that radio isn't it, but as Clutch said (if I didn't misinterpret him) it's of no practical use to hypothesize physical possibilities outside our current understanding. So given that the four forces are the building blocks of what we know about physics, radio waves (or so it seems Cool Hand and The Lone Ranger are saying) are the most likely method of interstellar communication.

Hi,

My last comment was a generalisation of the overall impression given to me by earlier posts made on this topic. In retrospect, I can see how it can be misinterpreted, and so allow me to alter it slightly:

"I have no problem with SETI, and its a much better place to waste money than many other areas that I can think of, but I do find it odd[1] how people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is pretty much 'it' as far as long distance communication goes, but not recognise the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that."



However, your point is not really contradictory to Lone Ranger's. Given that we know nothing of communicating with wormholes, we certainly won't make contact that way. And if they have no need for extrinsic communicative methods, we won't be talking to them at all. Hence, Lone Ranger's original point that radio waves or sending objects would be almost certainly be the way we talk to ETIs still holds. Namely because we cannot talk to ETIs otherwise, let alone find them.


Hi,

You are absolutely correct: there is no contradiction. I agree with his reasoning too, except I'd add one thing: radio is the most obvious way for long-distance communication, based on our current understanding of physics.

What I am saying, and all I have been trying to say, is that there is no guarantee that this reasoning will be reciprocated by the ETI's - or for that matter, by us in the future.

[viscousmemories]

Hi,

My last comment was a generalisation of the overall impression given to me by earlier posts made on this topic. In retrospect, I can see how it can be misinterpreted, and so allow me to alter it slightly:

"I have no problem with SETI, and its a much better place to waste money than many other areas that I can think of, but I do find it odd[1] how people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is pretty much 'it' as far as long distance communication goes, but not recognise the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that."
It seems it was probably I who was unclear. I wasn't denying that some here have implied that radio is pretty much it. What I dispute is that it's reasonable to conclude that they "don't recognize the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that". I don't think anyone has denied that it's possible that some as yet unknown physical phenomena will completely disprove their assumptions, they just don't see any practical benefit to hypothesizing about such extraordinary events in making decisions about how to act today.

Again, though, I may have completely misinterpreted you or them and if so I apologize.

[beyelzu]

Anyway, my basic point is that any hypothetical alien intelligence would be just as subject to the laws of physics as we are.



Hey,


I guess I havent been particularly clear in the point I was trying to convey about this all: Are aliens bound to our current understanding of the laws of physics? Or, are we unintentionally anthropomorphizing them?


Lets pretend that on a hypotheticial alien technological development tree, there is no Marconi equivalent. Seems a bit limited to us, although I would argue that this is just as likely as them having a Marconi equivalent. Regardless, as far as these aliens are concerned, Radio does not exist. When the need arose for some sort of long distance communication method, they applied something they already understood implicitly: wormholes. Using extremely localised wormholes, they utilised a semaphore-like method for the transfer of information.


All guesswork, I know, and it seems unlikely to us, because we do not know much about wormhole physics (or if its possible, for that matter). Ask your average alien though, and its pretty common-sense as far as they are concerned. Perhaps they have even initiated thier own SETI program, looking for intersystem wormhole connections... Of course, it doesnt have to be wormholes. Any communicative method that is not radio will do perfectly here, or to enter the realm of serious conjecture, perhaps they have no need for extrinsic communicative methods?


I have no problem with SETI, and its a much better place to waste money than many other areas that I can think of, but I do find it odd[1] how people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is 'it' as far as long distance communication goes, but not recognise the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that.


[1] My personal opinion, not intended as an insult or anything else... Apologies if it is interpreted that way.



who the fuck is this marconi you speak of? :)


do you mean tesla, the inventor of radio.

cuz marconi didnt invent radio until 2-3 yrs after tesla demonstrated it in france iirc.

[beyelzu]

Seriously,


it seems to me that while it is certainly possible that there could be blind eti that have no use for electromagnetic radiation.


but that seems unlikely as hell

if laws of physics dont hold more or less true throughout the universe, any margin of error coming from errors in our own understanding of course, than any conversation about et life is doomed to failure.

equally doomed is any understanding of the universe or the past, etc...




s

[copiae]

It seems it was probably I who was unclear. I wasn't denying that some here have implied that radio is pretty much it. What I dispute is that it's reasonable to conclude that they "don't recognize the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that".



That statement is, as explicitly stated, my personal opinion. It is not criticism, and is based on the replies given. If you want, I could have a go at describing 'humanistic hubris' again, but bluntly, if I have failed thus far in my various attempts (and I have been trying to reword myself each time), I don't envisonage any greater likelyhood of success this time around (btw, the failure is mine, not yours or anyone elses).



I don't think anyone has denied that it's possible that some as yet unknown physical phenomena will completely disprove their assumptions, they just don't see any practical benefit to hypothesizing about such extraordinary events in making decisions about how to act today.

Again, though, I may have completely misinterpreted you or them and if so I apologize.

:?

It is not, and has never been, my suggestion that we idly hypothesize on unknown physical phenomena disproving fundamental assumptions.


Believe it or not, I have actually yet to give my opinion on SETI... So I shall now. I think it is a waste of money, but that there are plenty of worse wastes of money. Besides, there is always the diminutive chance that it may work :).

[copiae]

who the fuck is this marconi you speak of? :)


do you mean tesla, the inventor of radio.

cuz marconi didnt invent radio until 2-3 yrs after tesla demonstrated it in france iirc.


Thanks for the information. I did some searching on google, and it turns out that the story of the patent for the radio is quite the story indeed... a good read if anyones bored.


You are quite right, I stand (sit?) corrected.

[beyelzu]

who the fuck is this marconi you speak of? :)


do you mean tesla, the inventor of radio.

cuz marconi didnt invent radio until 2-3 yrs after tesla demonstrated it in france iirc.


Thanks for the information. I did some searching on google, and it turns out that the story of the patent for the radio is quite the story indeed... a good read if anyones bored.


You are quite right, I stand (sit?) corrected.


it's all good it is just a pet peeve of mine that tesla is kind of forgotten and marconi is "The Father of Radio," I see people say it all the time. I even saw it on cnn a couple of months ago. /derailment of thread

[beyelzu]

Believe it or not, I have actually yet to give my opinion on SETI... So I shall now. I think it is a waste of money, but that there are plenty of worse wastes of money. Besides, there is always the diminutive chance that it may work :).
seti has always struck me as playing the lottery. If you want to win you have to put up a dollar, but dont expect a dividend on that investment, but if you do get one it will change your fucking life.

So, I guess we agree on this.

[viscousmemories]

It seems it was probably I who was unclear. I wasn't denying that some here have implied that radio is pretty much it. What I dispute is that it's reasonable to conclude that they "don't recognize the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that".

That statement is, as explicitly stated, my personal opinion. It is not criticism, and is based on the replies given. If you want, I could have a go at describing 'humanistic hubris' again, but bluntly, if I have failed thus far in my various attempts (and I have been trying to reword myself each time), I don't envisonage any greater likelyhood of success this time around (btw, the failure is mine, not yours or anyone elses).
Maybe we're just getting bogged down in semantics. You said:
I do find it odd[1] how people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is pretty much 'it' as far as long distance communication goes, but not recognise the unintentional humanistic hubris that permeates a statement like that.
I read that as: I find it odd that people can say with any degree of certainty that radio is 'it' for long distance communication and not be aware of the human-centric arrogance of the statement.

And my response was essentially: I see no evidence that anyone here is oblivious to the human-centric arrogance of the statement, rather they seem to have concluded that despite that, it's the best answer we've got with the limited information we have.

I don't think anyone has denied that it's possible that some as yet unknown physical phenomena will completely disprove their assumptions, they just don't see any practical benefit to hypothesizing about such extraordinary events in making decisions about how to act today.

Again, though, I may have completely misinterpreted you or them and if so I apologize.
It is not, and has never been, my suggestion that we idly hypothesize on unknown physical phenomena disproving fundamental assumptions.
I didn't say it was. I was just trying to clarify what I hope I've now clarified above.

Believe it or not, I have actually yet to give my opinion on SETI... So I shall now. I think it is a waste of money, but that there are plenty of worse wastes of money. Besides, there is always the diminutive chance that it may work :).
Actually you've referred to money spent on SETI as a 'waste' in two other posts now, so it was fairly obvious you're not a big supporter. I didn't have an opinion before this thread (nor had I really given it much thought) but after reading the posts here I certainly wouldn't vote to put any money toward it. Not at least while there are hungry and sick people who aren't getting adequate care today.