|
Sodomy Hussein posted:We can't actually see that pathway, it's conjectural. "But what if they had science... but different?" isn't meaningfully different from "Lovecraftian Time God" for the purposes of the afore-mentioned (2) and (3). It is meaningfully different though - imagine a human being in ancient time hearing about beings that could speak to one another from opposite sides of the planet! Surely they must be angels or gods or something completely beyond the known realm of existence your argument would go, mine would say maybe they just have better technology and understand scientific principles that we don't but that they aren't supernatural or incomprehensible. Which was more likely in hindsight?
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
My thinking is a sufficiently advanced civilization along the Kardashev scale probably at a minimum, has a radically different way of approaching society to make an interstellar/galactic spanning civilization "work". Do we need, want, or care, about there being a unified government as long as the goal of spreading out species to different worlds suitable for colonization is accomplished? Why would any other civilization care? Put 50,000 people on a self sufficient generational ship or cold sleep with AI robots caretaking for us until we reach New Earth. Or the ultimate scifi life hack is just send a ship with robots and samples of human DNA and cloning vats to just reconstruct the human race from goo once it reaches its destination like the bastard child of the von neumann probe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Wouldn't a society that differed from us in just the aspect that it didn't have strong, or any, familial or social bonds as a general rule already have a massive advantage over us. Imagine if that was the case for Humans. "Hey, we're going to put you a ship to Mars and you'll never see your family again". "OK". "We're sticking 100 astronauts on a ship and sending them to Europa to start building a spacestation there." "whatever"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
The aliens have already arrived. Three billion years ago. They were fungal spores. They've since integrated and intertwined with us. They eat our dead. We eat their fruits on salad and use them to make beer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Wouldn't a society that differed from us in just the aspect that it didn't have strong, or any, familial or social bonds as a general rule already have a massive advantage over us. Most people did this throughout all of human history hundreds of times over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Most people did this throughout all of human history hundreds of times over. Hmmm, they mostly took their families with them, moved to places people already were, expected to come back, or were prepared to take the risk on the assumption of reward when they got back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The Fermi paradox is predicated on the idea that the universe should be teeming with aliens and that their absence is inherently suspicious, but we seem to actually lack the technology to even properly asses whether the universe is an empty void or a fecund cosmological jungle teeming with undetected life. There could be a million plus terrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way alone and it's not clear we'd ever be likely to discover them even if we were actively looking - even if we generously assume that they follow the exact same technological path of development as us and go from taming fire to communicating via radio in only a few hundreds or thousands of generations, and then proceed to be every bit as noisy as we are. There just aren't any aliens. MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
My guy, we've looked at a total of like 200LY total surrounding us and we have no real idea what frequencies to look at. I don't think we can definitively say anything at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Wouldn't a society that differed from us in just the aspect that it didn't have strong, or any, familial or social bonds as a general rule already have a massive advantage over us. How would a society without social bonds even form?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 12:49
|
|
|
my dad posted:How would a society without social bonds even form? Think it would depend on how you define social bonds really. Would you say ants or bees are socially bonded in the same way that humans are?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:Think it would depend on how you define social bonds really. Would you say ants or bees are socially bonded in the same way that humans are? They aren't, but if anything, their social bonds are much stronger. A lone human can survive on their own for a while under the right circumstances, a lone bee is a dead bee. It just strikes me as, I dunno, kind of like "Imagine how easier life would be if we didn't feel pain" - people who don't feel pain usually die young, because in most circumstances pain is useful information that makes you act in ways that help you preserve yourself. How does a species without social bonds go from point "hits things with a rock" to point "has a working space program"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
my dad posted:They aren't, but if anything, their social bonds are much stronger. A lone human can survive on their own for a while under the right circumstances, a lone bee is a dead bee. I agree if you mean any form of social bonds, that's hard to see how that in any way leads to a civilization of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:I would say we simply have no reason to expect a visit at all, but that if we did it would still be more likely to be either a synthetic intelligence or biological beings that had solved some of the problems of interstellar flight but I get your what you're saying. I guess my intuition here - which is just that, I admit - is that in that case the necessary steps to become an interstellar civilization would probably push you over the threshold of incomprehensibility for any non-interstellar civilization you encountered. MSDOS KAPITAL posted:With our current level of technology we can do things to our solar system that would be easily detectable from other star systems, also with our current level of technology. The only thing we're lacking is the ability to organize our society to do so, being as we are a bunch of primitive tribal simian assholes with such a hard-on for capitalism that we'll burn our own planet alive before giving it up. If there is other life out there, at least some of it probably evolved not to be quite as terrible as we are, and so even if there are hard technical limits on what we can achieve i.e. no better energy sources than fusion really, no FTL, and so on, we should still be able to detect extent alien civilizations similar to our own in technological achievement without even really looking that hard. Like we should be able to look at a couple 10,000 stars or so even with just Earth-bound telescopes and go "huh, that's weird" but we have looked and found nothing. And projecting technological achievement out a couple hundred years (or rather, projecting out a couple hundred years for a species as smart as we are technically, but smarter socially) we should be able to observe galaxies and also go "huh, so weird" yet we haven't. Without getting incredibly lucky how do you think we could reliably detect another nuclear powered and radio communicating civilization located within 100 light years of us? Most astronomical attempts to locate life that I have read about seem to involve looking for alien mega-structures, which is far beyond our own civilization's capacity to build.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:The aliens have already arrived. Three billion years ago. They were fungal spores. Fungal spores are my favorite living organism. Don't forget mushrooms! I kinda wonder if the reason that mushrooms make you totally fine with dying is that they wanna eat you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Without getting incredibly lucky how do you think we could reliably detect another nuclear powered and radio communicating civilization located within 100 light years of us? Most astronomical attempts to locate life that I have read about seem to involve looking for alien mega-structures, which is far beyond our own civilization's capacity to build. Yeah, there is always a weird claim of "we have looked EVERYWHERE and didn't see ANYTHING" that seems like it vastly and wildly overstates our detection power and the amount of effort we've put into it. SETI has covered 20% of the sky looking for one radio band over a couple decades. Which is good that we are doing it, but isn't some complete comprehensive search where we can declare ourself tapped out. Even if there was the most convenient to locate aliens we wouldn't have found them yet. We just aren't pouring big resources into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
soy posted:Fungal spores are my favorite living organism. Don't forget mushrooms! I didn't, those are the fruits (technically, fruiting bodies) that I talked about eating on our salads!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:I didn't, those are the fruits (technically, fruiting bodies) that I talked about eating on our salads! I mean the magic kind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:With our current level of technology we can do things to our solar system that would be easily detectable from other star systems, also with our current level of technology. The only thing we're lacking is the ability to organize our society to do so, being as we are a bunch of primitive tribal simian assholes with such a hard-on for capitalism that we'll burn our own planet alive before giving it up. If there is other life out there, at least some of it probably evolved not to be quite as terrible as we are, and so even if there are hard technical limits on what we can achieve i.e. no better energy sources than fusion really, no FTL, and so on, we should still be able to detect extent alien civilizations similar to our own in technological achievement without even really looking that hard. Like we should be able to look at a couple 10,000 stars or so even with just Earth-bound telescopes and go "huh, that's weird" but we have looked and found nothing. And projecting technological achievement out a couple hundred years (or rather, projecting out a couple hundred years for a species as smart as we are technically, but smarter socially) we should be able to observe galaxies and also go "huh, so weird" yet we haven't. What specifically would be easily detectable from across the galaxy? Don't say radio waves because those degrade relatively quickly and are indistinguishable from background radiation after not even that many light years. 10,000 stars isn't really that many even. Captain Monkey posted:My guy, we've looked at a total of like 200LY total surrounding us and we have no real idea what frequencies to look at. I don't think we can definitively say anything at this point. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
If you haven't read Ben Miller's "the Aliens Are Coming!", it's a really good and accessible primer on the search for extraterrestrial life, contextualized with what we think we know about how life on Earth evolved. It reminds me a lot of Douglas Adams's nonfiction. Specifically for this conversation, it explains why the Fermi Paradox might not be such a big deal by comparing it to a rock star looking for specific lighters at specific moments in time during a show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, there is always a weird claim of "we have looked EVERYWHERE and didn't see ANYTHING" that seems like it vastly and wildly overstates our detection power and the amount of effort we've put into it. Exactly, we have a sample size of exactly 1. And it has life. We haven't really explored Mars, and who the hell knows what's happening on some of the more interesting moons or even Venus or Jupiter. Let alone outside the solar system. Let alone outside the galaxy. Or even if we're looking for the right things. Maybe carbon-based life forms are the weird ones. Maybe our path of technology is really weird or our biology is weird, it's impossible to know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Exactly, we have a sample size of exactly 1. And it has life. We haven't really explored Mars, and who the hell knows what's happening on some of the more interesting moons or even Venus or Jupiter. Let alone outside the solar system. Let alone outside the galaxy. Or even if we're looking for the right things. Maybe carbon-based life forms are the weird ones. Maybe our path of technology is really weird or our biology is weird, it's impossible to know. Again, nope. Carbon chemistry is pretty unequivocally the norm. Seriously based on the basic physics and chemistry of this alone - there really isn't a realistic replacement for it. More than that oxygen, water and carbon chemistry seems to be not only common but probably the only conceivable way to make life that we know of so far. This sample size of 1 stuff ignores things that we know with greater certainty than how gravity works. Not only that but we have a fairly good idea of many of the limiting factors of life. Temperature is a big one but surprisingly pressure is not a problem. Free water is huge, but pH is probably not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
The point I think is that we haven't been able to examine any other Earth-like planets to compare. We can somewhat reliably tell you if a planet is in the goldilocks zone just in terms of distance from the star but that's about it. One of the most likely candidates for an Earthlike planet is Kepler-62f and we don't even know if it has an atmosphere. Another is Proxima Centauri b and we don't even know its orbital inclination or mass to be able to guess if it is potentially Earth-like. These are the close ones. If we could point to a 1000 Earths and say "there is only life on ours" then yeah that'd be more significant I think. It's pretty unlikely though given that there is trace bacteria even on Mars and random asteroids so really the question is just about intelligent life, which we'd have no real way to detect. e: iirc another theory is that there might be no aliens simply because the universe is relatively young and so humans are just one of if not the first ones. No one has had the time to get significantly more technologically advanced than we are. I think that one is reaching a bit though. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:Again, nope. Carbon chemistry is pretty unequivocally the norm. Seriously based on the basic physics and chemistry of this alone - there really isn't a realistic replacement for it. More than that oxygen, water and carbon chemistry seems to be not only common but probably the only conceivable way to make life that we know of so far. This sample size of 1 stuff ignores things that we know with greater certainty than how gravity works. Not only that but we have a fairly good idea of many of the limiting factors of life. Temperature is a big one but surprisingly pressure is not a problem. Free water is huge, but pH is probably not. Maybe! We know how gravity works here. And we don't even know how gravity works or why it works. We know carbon chemistry is common here. We have no idea how things work halfway across the universe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Ehh things tend to be fairly uniform though, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Maybe! We know how gravity works here. And we don't even know how gravity works or why it works. We know carbon chemistry is common here. We have no idea how things work halfway across the universe. I agree with what you say... but the thing is not so much 'we've observed this directly' but that 'theories we trust for literally everything else, that have enormous explanatory power and no examples of exceptions tells us that this is why we should expect life not to vary from certain things'
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Aren't there shrimp in Russia that are silicon based?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:I agree with what you say... but the thing is not so much 'we've observed this directly' but that 'theories we trust for literally everything else, that have enormous explanatory power and no examples of exceptions tells us that this is why we should expect life not to vary from certain things' And I totally agree. This is the best we know right now. But we aren't very advanced, so it's hard to tell if we're just the smart asses who think the Earth is flat because it's the best theory we have at this moment. I know we're talking science fiction, but there could be life in other dimensions we haven't even begun to comprehend and could be communicating in ways we can't even imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Aren't there shrimp in Russia that are silicon based? No but pop science mags spread that it was so. There are animals that use silicon, but they are carbon based life forms that use silicon to strengthen biological structures. Silicon is the best replacement we've seen for carbon but it's not capable of the chemical complexity carbon provides.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:Again, nope. Carbon chemistry is pretty unequivocally the norm. Seriously based on the basic physics and chemistry of this alone - there really isn't a realistic replacement for it. More than that oxygen, water and carbon chemistry seems to be not only common but probably the only conceivable way to make life that we know of so far. This sample size of 1 stuff ignores things that we know with greater certainty than how gravity works. Not only that but we have a fairly good idea of many of the limiting factors of life. Temperature is a big one but surprisingly pressure is not a problem. Free water is huge, but pH is probably not. I understand this argument but frankly I don't buy it. I agree that carbon-based chemistry seems the most versatile, and water seems to be an ideal solvent, but there's still plenty of unknowns. As an example, we haven't done a lot of testing in high pressures where chemistry can behave very differently. Same with extreme gravitational fields. We tend to work with things at low energy densities because that's our preferred environment, but you can even do interesting chemistry with fluorine at very high pressures. The corollary to this that I've seen, that biological systems will tend to be brain-in-head based, audio-visual biology, strikes me as demonstrably wrong. Most life on Earth doesn't have brains, the most intelligent non-vertebrates on Earth have distributed brains in their limbs, many animals on earth have much more sensitive chemical detection (taste and smell) senses than auditory or visual senses, different stars and different atmospheres/mediums would produce different potential spectrums of visible light that would give different evolutionary pressures, etc. I think that this sort of thinking betrays a very human-centric bias towards a much stranger universe than we regularly admit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:I understand this argument but frankly I don't buy it. I agree that carbon-based chemistry seems the most versatile, and water seems to be an ideal solvent, but there's still plenty of unknowns. As an example, we haven't done a lot of testing in high pressures where chemistry can behave very differently. Same with extreme gravitational fields. We tend to work with things at low energy densities because that's our preferred environment, but you can even do interesting chemistry with fluorine at very high pressures. Here's the thing... carbon chemistry is more complex than pretty much any other chemistry. To form the sort of complex molecules capable of storing and reliably reproducing information necessary to direct pattern formation in a growing, living thing... should we really be that surprised that few things have that capacity. We can't rule it out in other things... but it'd be really, really specialized conditions. Compare this to something that seems almost cosmically inevitable - there's just that much starting basis for carbon based life that we'd predict it to be relatively common anywhere that liquid water can form, and anywhere there's also free oxygen we could predict complex life being possible. Sure there's some interesting chemistry with other things... but it's just not within orders of magnitude of complexity compared to carbon chemistry using what we know. And there's also very good theoretical reasons to doubt that there's any conditions sufficient to rival it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:but it'd be really, really specialized conditions. There's the rub, isn't it? Earth seems to have really, really specialized conditions. There's a lot more out there that is unlike Earth than is like Earth. And we just don't have experience with chemistry under those conditions. Even from a theory perspective, we tend to do most of our chemistry under standard atmospheric pressure at low but not incredibly low temperatures. There's a lot more universe out there that is extremely low temperature and extremely low pressure, or the opposite. Much much more. Yes, I suspect that life coming from Earth-like planets will probably be carbon-based. That's begging the question, though. What about potential life from other circumstances? What about life that evolved on the surface of a neutron star, or under the surface of a 'super-earth' that's partially molten and tidally locked to a gigantic blue giant? Yeah, Earth-like life can't survive in those circumstances, agreed. But highly energetic systems with constant energy input will tend to organize in ways that distribute that energy more effectively and quickly, and that's probably a decent description of at least the building blocks of life. Who knows what's happening inside the constantly churning plasma of our sun, for instance? It's 99.98% of the mass of our entire solar system, and we are just ignoring it when considering these kinds of questions. Do you really think that some sort of organized behavior in all of that miasma is completely impossible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:There's the rub, isn't it? Earth seems to have really, really specialized conditions. There's a lot more out there that is unlike Earth than is like Earth. And we just don't have experience with chemistry under those conditions. Even from a theory perspective, we tend to do most of our chemistry under standard atmospheric pressure at low but not incredibly low temperatures. There's a lot more universe out there that is extremely low temperature and extremely low pressure, or the opposite. Much much more. I'd say that no, earth seems really generic for a planet capable of life. Ok, incredibly low temperatures... here's the thing, doesn't seem efficient enough to work energy wise. Chemical reactions occur orders of magnitude slower. For really hot temperatures the opposite is a problem and complex structures are likely to break down rather than be persistent. We fall right in the habitable zone not because there's something special about us but because much further from that life is not possible and we inherently must be one of the habitable planets. Sure there are other conditions that MIGHT allow life, but from what we can tell the base components of terrestrial life are common af. Fact is we should expect things to be like us because 'like us is probably the only conditions capable of generating life'. Again there are theoretical reasons for this based on the valence electron interactions of elements. Goldilocks zone poo poo shouldn't be surprising because we evolved under those conditions, it's likely because those are the conditions that generate complex life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:I'd say that no, earth seems really generic for a planet capable of life. I don't agree with this because as far as I know, we haven't found a single planet like Earth yet. Not even one. Seems pretty rare for something that is supposed to be so generic. Sure, we've only looked at a tiny, tiny piece of a much larger galaxy and impossibly larger universe, but if one were to assert that Earth is generic, you'd think we'd have found a couple in almost any search. Right now, the most demonstrably generic thing seems to be hot jupiters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:I don't agree with this because as far as I know, we haven't found a single planet like Earth yet. Not even one. Seems pretty rare for something that is supposed to be so generic. I guess I mean 'generic' in the sense it's well within predictable ranges. It's not based on exotic chemistry. From basic principles we could predict a planet like this would evolve life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:I don't agree with this because as far as I know, we haven't found a single planet like Earth yet. Not even one. Seems pretty rare for something that is supposed to be so generic. To be fair, we're not capable of finding one right now. The nearest candidates to us are still a total mystery. There *could* be an Earth-like planet in Kepler or Proxima Centauri but we just don't know. Kepler has a really good candidate but we don't even know if it has an atmosphere. We can find planets in the "habitable zone" (just meaning X distance from the star) and there's lots of those. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:I guess I mean 'generic' in the sense it's well within predictable ranges. It's not based on exotic chemistry. From basic principles we could predict a planet like this would evolve life. Right. Because we evolved on Earth. The chemistry isn't exotic because it's chemistry we're familiar with. The basic principles are there because those are what we have experience with. But take, for example, plasma. We're basically still in our infancy with plasma chemistry and plasma dynamics. There's reason to suspect that there's an amazing diversity of interactions in high energy plasmas - we see some of it just on the surface of our sun. But we can't replicate the high pressure, high gravity environment in the sun. Our experience with plasmas therefore is relegated to low density applications even in very high temperatures. And our theory is still iterative and based entirely on computational and numerical methods, because we don't have a good enough understanding of the dynamics to work with a more general theoretical framework. If we're really committing ourselves to 'looking everywhere' - to the idea that just because we've seen absolutely no evidence of intelligent life anywhere, it just means that we aren't looking in the right place - then we need to start thinking outside of Earth-sized boxes as well. "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
If we assume that these UFOs are aliens then one possibility that addresses the arguments of why they would come here, why haven't they made contact, how could they travel these distances without FTL etc. is von neumann probes. Maybe life is everywhere and FTL isn't possible. In this scenario, the galaxy could be full of von neumann probes. Modeling showed you could explore the entire galaxy with them in a million years. The technology to make them isn't really that far off from what we have now. Maybe these are all just robots visiting our solar system and gathering data. It explains why they don't talk to us, and it explains why people see so many variations in both appearance and behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:Right. Because we evolved on Earth. The chemistry isn't exotic because it's chemistry we're familiar with. The basic principles are there because those are what we have experience with. But take, for example, plasma. We're basically still in our infancy with plasma chemistry and plasma dynamics. There's reason to suspect that there's an amazing diversity of interactions in high energy plasmas - we see some of it just on the surface of our sun. But we can't replicate the high pressure, high gravity environment in the sun. Our experience with plasmas therefore is relegated to low density applications even in very high temperatures. And our theory is still iterative and based entirely on computational and numerical methods, because we don't have a good enough understanding of the dynamics to work with a more general theoretical framework. Cool. Art major sci fi stuff - yes we can replicate high pressure, as I said it is not a deciding factor given life has no trouble with it here. Gravity is the same thing. Plasma isn't stable enough to generate the sort of slow chemical burn necessary. It's not based on iterative methods or numerical ones. It's a matter of how matter interacts in a way understood so thoroughly that we can build satellites providing gps. It is literally let's abandon everything we know so far to assume that something else is reasonable based on no evidence, ever? Like I mean... sure... but then we might as well suggest Santa Claus as a plausible hypothesis?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Stoner Sloth posted:Like I mean... sure... but then we might as well suggest Santa Claus as a plausible hypothesis? There are people in this very thread not only speculating but almost outright declaring that blurry infrared images and a handful of second-hand stories of mistaken eyewitness accounts of misidentified jets are actually interplanetary starships or probes. Like, that’s the level this thread is on. That’s not to mention the near assertions that intelligent alien life exists despite there being absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. None. If we’re already at that point then speculating about chemistry that we don’t yet understand to a reasonable degree doesn’t seem like that far of a diversion. Edit: To the 'art major' remark. Any decent science curriculum will also include a healthy does of the humanities. It's worthwhile to know both. It annoys me to no end that Liberal Arts majors can get away with actively shunning any math. There's just as much beauty in Euler's identity as there is in Mozart's Symphony No. 40 in G minor. A good education should mean exposure to both. ashpanash fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
The universe is fairly uniform. The laws of physics aren't going to be radically different the next galaxy over, def not elsewhere in the Milky Way. The basic building blocks don't really change. Yeah aliens are gonna be weird sure though I don't see why there couldn't be distributed brains or whatever else. I don't think stoner sloth is saying they'll necessarily be bipedal humanoids? They're just not very likely to be crystalline entities from silicon matrices or similar. Anyway I looked it up and radio signals degrade within a few light years so that's useless for trying to see if there's some similar civilization out there. SETI is apparently randomly shooting tight wave broadcasts that can go maybe a couple hundred LYs in case someone randomly picks those up. We don't know gently caress all really. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:38
|
|