Fermi Paradox

Chanced across this info, I was wondering what opinions anyone has on it.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WsN3M <- Explained simplistically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

The first set of premises is

1. Life on Earth arose naturally
2. Life on Earth is able to communicate/produce evidence of life beyond our own planet.

Second set

1. Life on Earth arose naturally
2. Life can arise naturally elsewhere

It isn't a stretch, mathematically, to claim that life can exist elsewhere and communicate beyond their own planets.

The paradox stems from the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever of life existing elsewhere, and no evidence of life elsewhere communicating/producing evidence of life.

 

It seems like one would be trying to support large conclusions (the existence of super intelligent lifeforms elsewhere in our universe), based on our overwhelming ignorance.

 

Not quite. The first set of premises is

1. Life on Earth arose naturally
2. Life on Earth is able to communicate/produce evidence of life beyond our own planet.

Second set

1. Life on Earth arose naturally
2. Life can arise naturally elsewhere

It isn't a stretch, mathematically, to claim that life can exist elsewhere and communicate beyond their own planets.

The paradox stems from the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever of life existing elsewhere, and no evidence of life elsewhere communicating/producing evidence of life.

I'll copy this into the OP for clarification.

 

Right, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the moment it seems that we don't have much evidence for the absence of these signals. Yes SETI is looking, but it hasn't exactly been looking for long, and if we are talking about civilizations that our 100,000's of years more advanced then us, how do we know we're even using the correct measuring tools? It may be like using a ruler to measure the size of the earth; we may be using the wrong measurements. Perhaps they are masking their signals. Perhaps, as the page said, our understanding of the universe is incorrect (it almost certainly is).

Ultimately we don't know a lot, but from this huge ignorance, it doesn't seem sensible to draw those conclusions.

 

I agree with malakadang. We could be failing to receive signals or observe signs because of the (current) incompatibility of our methods with those of other life forms, or perhaps we are just looking in the wrong places.

Anyway, it wouldn't be a paradox, would it? It's not an absolute necessity that we encounter life - it's just extremely, extremely probable. It would seem to be a paradox only in the former case.

 

If there's life on our small dot. It's naive to think there isn't life elsewhere. We've explored virtually none of the universe. so of course we didn't find anything, and why would a superior species bother coming to us.

 

There is always a possibility or doubt there is something there, where we don't know. And that's just it, we don't know and sometimes we won't ever know.

I just think priority here on earth should be taken care of over extraterrestrial adventure, its all in perspective though.

 

I'm certain that life, even intelligent life exists within our galaxy.

However, we're assuming that alien life will be able to communicate with us. Maybe an intelligent civilization won't rely on EM signals (radio, light, etc.), but instead on a system of smells. Maybe touch. There's just too many assumptions to make a definite conclusion.

 

How exactly are you certain that intelligent life exists if you've never encountered it?

 

Intelligent life is hard to find. But I have found traces of it off of the internet.

 

Explain...

 

The speed at which life developed on Earth after it was suitable for life indicates that where life is possible, it will easily start. The sheer number of potential planets in the universe (potentially infinite, if the universe is infinitely large) tells me that some must be life-friendly, and thus have developed life. Our planet has several intelligent species, which leads me to believe that where complex life exists, it's easy for intelligent life to exist.

 

Point to a planet where we can observe intelligent life. If you can't, you're not certain of intelligent life. There's a difference between probability and certainty.

 

Earth.

If a determined probability is 99.999...%, it's reasonable to say it's certain. The sun MIGHT not rise tomorrow, but nobody says it "probably will".

 

Obviously we are referring to intelligent life outside of earth.......

No, it's not. There is an incredible difference between 99.9999% and 100%. 100% means it must (does) happen, while 99.9999% does not.

Exactly. The sun might not rise tomorrow, so we are not certain that it will. There is a difference between colloquial ways of speaking and what we will say if we reflect on the issue.
Certainly we talk as if the sun will definitely rise tomorrow, and we base our affairs around it, but if you ask any decently intelligent person if it's an absolute certainty that the sun will rise, s/he will say that it is not. That's the point. The sun could conceivably not rise tomorrow; intelligent life outside earth could conceivably not exist (until you point to an example of it).

 

I was speaking colloquially, I wasn't making an absolute statement. I'll rephrase then: I think it's extremely likely that intelligent life exists outside Earth.

 

Alright. Sorry for my misunderstanding then.