Re:The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past It? (1998)
by Mahn on Sunday April 05, 2015 @03:19PM
(#9325015)
Another argument against the great filter, and one I'm surprised it's not considered more often, is the relativity of the space and time. We assume, long story short, that the colonization explosion is rare because we can't see it, but what if all that we can observe in terms of space and time is a incredibly "microscopic" slice compared to all that there is/has been/will be out there? The way I see it it looks like we've concluded water must be commonplace on earth, but then we act puzzled when we can't find a lake down the street and assume water must be rarer than we thought.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past It? (1998)
by jeremyjh on Sunday April 05, 2015 @03:31PM
(#9325053)
We're only talking about what we can observe. Just a few dozen billions of stars. That is sufficient for the Fermi paradox.
Re:The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past It? (1998)
by Mahn on Sunday April 05, 2015 @03:45PM
(#9325102)
> That is sufficient for the Fermi paradox.
Is it? How do we know it is?
Re:The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past It? (1998)
by taygetea on Sunday April 05, 2015 @04:12PM
(#9325173)
The terms we know in the Drake equation make it very difficult to say it is unlikely for intelligence to arise more than once. ~100 billion stars * ~100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Exoplanet surveys seem to be suggesting at least one planet per star on average. In addition, chemical self replication seems to happen fairly easily given the right chemical conditions, which don't appear to require much more than liquid water.