The Computer Simulation Paradox

There is a very peculiar hypothesis that keeps recurring in public discussions among scientists.  It is very speculative, but also, very thought-provoking.  It concerns the idea that the physical reality in which we live is a computer simulation.  By extension, we ourselves could be simulated creatures, products of a computer and the simulation program it runs.

While that notion is preposterous on many levels, it is seriously discussed by many people whose intellects dwarf mine, and so, it deserves discussion, if only as a philosophical exercise—a useful one at that.

One of the first questions which challenges the Computer Simulation Hypothesis is, if we are simulated creatures, then who simulated us, and to a further point, are they themselves simulations?  To ask another way, is there an ultimate Simulator? 

It all comes down to questions of the ultimate, absolute fundamental reality of, well, of reality itself.

One of the supporting arguments for our being in a simulation, is that the physical universe we observe, does behave in many respects as if it were designed, as if it were programmed, as if it followed rules and instructions.  Dr. Max Tegmark, a physicist, has remarked that the universe obeys mathematical rules so thoroughly, that he concludes that reality is math itself.

In regard to discussing such rules, however, we diverge into the theory of Intelligent Design, specifically design by a fundamental creative force or agent, and then we quickly merge into theology, a field at which physicalist theory scoffs. 

The greatest obstacle to the computer simulation hypothesis is the fact of our consciousness.  It must be clarified that the term consciousness is used here in the very specific context of our inward consciousness, our self-perception of our self-perception.  Inward consciousness is the only observed reality which perceives itself.  It does so from within itself.  Physics has no explanation for it beyond some vague concepts of emergent properties, but such concepts are far removed from our experience of consciousness.

As the late JBS Haldane said, if our consciousness were the product solely of physical matter, then we would have no way of knowing that.  That is because physics, not conscious reason, would determine our every thought (and word and deed).  We would think and believe only according to the dictates of unconscious, deterministic laws of physics, whether or not those thoughts and beliefs were correct.  Were such the case, we would be observers of, not volitional participants in, our own lives.

The paradox would be, that the very fact of something being true, would prevent us from knowing that it is true.  Truth itself would obscure truth.

Consciousness, its inward reality, is a perplexing mystery.  It is not only the greatest unsolved question of science, it is arguably, by its very nature, forever beyond the ability of science to understand. 

The famous phrase of Renee Descartes, “I think, therefore I am,” has many levels of meaning.  One of them is that, the one and only fact of which we can be absolutely certain is that we are conscious.  Every other fact comes to us through our senses, such as sight and hearing, but all our senses are subject to error, such as optical illusions.  Nobody, however, can think he is conscious unless he is.

The philosophy of Idealism goes so far as to claim that the only fundamental reality is consciousness itself.  There are many branches and implications arising from that claim, but let us return to the simulation hypothesis.

How did the simulation hypothesis ever become a matter of serious discussion?

With the advent of the computer revolution, technology has changed so dramatically that it is difficult to overstate the effects of computerization.  Computers can process tremendously vast amounts of data in fractions of a second.  They can work on difficult problems 24 hours a day without pause, producing vast amounts of information.

One category of the projects that has been tackled by computers is that of simulations.  For example, weather forecasting involves calculations using complex bodies of atmospheric measurements.  Another project has been to predict the movements of planets within our solar system, and to predict the movements of stars within our galaxy, and even the motions of galaxies throughout the observable universe.

As our knowledge of astronomy has increased, it has been discovered that there are many billions of planets in our galaxy, and presumably in other galaxies.  It naturally follows that we might expect some of those planets will contain technologically advanced life forms.  If that expectation is justified, then we may find that some life form somewhere has developed a super-computer, one so unimaginably powerful, that it can simulate not only the movements of planets and stars and galaxies, but even of atoms and their subatomic particles—and do so on the scale of our known universe.

It is in this context that some scientists have developed the idea that, not only do we produce simulations (however primitive by comparison), but that we might ourselves be the product of hyper-advanced simulations.

The human brain has been compared to computers, and like computers, the brain can create models of reality.  These mental models might loosely be compared to simulations.

Physical science regards the human brain as being the seat of conscious thought and perception.  There is, of course, a clear correlation between the brain and thought.  Far less clear, however, is whether the brain gives rise to consciousness, or just hosts it.  The brain is composed of atoms, and atoms are not considered to be conscious.  Science has not been able to bridge the gap between unconscious matter and consciousness, so the role of the brain, in inward consciousness, might be as a repository rather than as a source.

Regardless, it does seem likely that the brain’s mechanism for understanding our physical surrounding is to simulate it.  How the brain might do this is poorly understood, if at all.  Can the brain understand itself?  Can the brain simulate itself?  Might the principle of self-similarity have something to do with it?

One might say that our understanding of the universe itself is based in a mental image, a mental simulation of the cosmos.

All this, of course, forces us to ask what, exactly, is a simulation?

Skipping over many important unknowns, we might ask, can the universe be a simulation of itself?

Is the universe itself a computer?

The question contains some absurdities, because computers do not exist in isolation.  They have to be designed and manufactured.  They have to serve a purpose.  They rely on inputs from the outside, and they produce outputs for an external user.  Those outputs have to be formatted in a way that is useful to the user.  All of this requires that the computer be properly programmed.  Therefore, a computer is not just a thing unto itself, it is a holistic system designed by and for humans.

Despite all that, the universe can be considered to be, at least in some sense, a computer, one that may exist in isolation from all external inputs, and from any external user.  Such a reality would be an entirely closed system.  Even if one posits many universes, then those many universes would comprise a multi-verse, and that multi-verse would be its own closed system.

Such a contraption, if I may call it that, requires a physicalist outlook for anyone to believe in its possibility.  In short, physicalism is the paradigm that everything in the material world can be explained by the material world, with no need for anything outside the material world. Indeed, it holds that there is nothing outside, or that there is no outside, at least nothing that has any effect on our closed system.

Therefore, if the universe is considered to be a computer, we must carefully avoid the inherent absurdities which may arise.  We must ask, who made the computer?  From what materials?  We must ask, from where is the data imported?  Who wrote the program?  What defines the output?  In other words, our simulated world is not a closed system.

Even if we dismiss the simulation hypothesis out of hand, we might note that the behavior of subatomic particles seems to mimic certain programming techniques that are employed in computers.  One of them is that one can sometimes reduce the need for storing data in separate locations for each and every data bit. 

One of the methods of doing this is to use statistical computations.  For example, in the physical universe, we know that half of all uranium atoms (of a given isotope) decay every period of time called its half-life.  It is not possible to say exactly which atoms will decay when, but after X number of years, half of them will have done so.  Therefore, each atom of U238 has a fifty-percent chance of decaying during the next X number of years (where X equals 4.468 billion).  That decay could occur, or not occur, at any moment, for each atom.  (Each atom decays independently of the others.)

If one were to create a simulated universe in a computer, he would not need to encode in a separate memory cell, each uranium atom, but simply apply a decay formula.

But why do those atoms (of U236) decay?

There are two explanations for why each and every object in the universe behaves in exactly the way it does.  One of them is the simulation hypothesis, which is the topic of this commentary. 

The other is natural law.  Each thing in the universe obeys natural law, because each thing is part of the overall scheme of nature.  Natural law is not the same as human law.  It is not as if nature wrote down the speed of light, or the strength of gravity, and so forth.  All natural laws are really one natural law.  That natural law governs how each thing in the universe interacts with each other thing in nature.  Furthermore, it is not exactly clear that any one thing in the universe is entirely separate from any other thing.

We must also apply these thoughts to the simulation hypothesis.  The computer in which we supposedly exist, must also obey natural law, perhaps the identical law which it simulates.

As one can quickly see, the philosophical can of worms has been opened, and there may be no way to get all the worms back in the can.

 

Prehistory Yes, Aliens No

During the past few decades, there has been accumulating evidence that ancient artifacts, recently discovered, could not have been made with the primitive technologies available at the time.  Therefore, some speculative hypotheses claim that those artifacts must have been made by aliens from other planets. 

Those hypotheses, however, run into two major obstacles.

First, the ancient artifacts, while seemingly impossible to manufacture with the copper chisels of ancient times, also show no examples of any advanced technologies per se.  For example, there are ancient granite blocks, cut with such astounding precision that, even today, it would be impossible to do so without laser-like, computerized electronic tools.  Yes, that is evidence that there was some kind of unknown technology involved, but where are the tools and machinery that must have been used?  We find none.

Second, the actual items made by that technology, while amazingly precise in their manufacture, are made out of rocks.  One would think that advanced technologists would have built, not only megalithic (stone) structures, but also steel, aluminum and titanium buildings as well.  Why didn’t they?

It seems paradoxical then, that while we do indeed have evidence of the ability of ancient engineers to lift fifteen-ton stones more than 400 feet upward, we have no ancient documentation, no contemporaneous diagrams, nor any such illustrations that would give us a clue as to how they did that.  Why not?  (Such documents as do exist are neither precise nor explanatory.)

Therefore, we have a paradox.  They could not have done it, but they did it.  They had the knowledge, but never recorded it, nor passed it on. 

A further paradox is that, if they could have done the amazing things that they clearly did do, then they could have done much more that.  They apparently did not.  Why not?

Perhaps some ancient cataclysm destroyed the evidence, but it seems unlikely that every last rudimentary tool, such as a flashlight, or a masonry screw, would have been lost without a trace.  It is as if their one and only material was stone.  Yes, they did have copper tools, but copper is a soft metal, inadequate for fine precision working of granite, such as we find among ancient ruins. 

There should be something more, but we find nothing sufficient to explain how the ancients built the pyramids, for example.  Adding to the mystery, we must wonder how the ancients even planned the Great Pyramid.  The preliminary work, and acquiring the knowledge of how to do it, must have taken many years.  Yet, from concept to completion, this massive project seems to have been abruptly accomplished, perhaps in as little as twenty years.  Nothing of this magnitude is preceded by earlier pyramids.  Not even the ones which are presumed to be older can compare.  They are by contrast, piles of rock without the elaborate inner structures of the Great Pyramid. The Great Pyramid is exponentially more advanced than even the two more recent large pyramids.

So, it’s not just a question of how did they do it, but even, how did they get the knowledge to do it, and how did they get the ability to plan it out beforehand?  All of that necessary and preliminary activity seems to have been underestimated by historians.

The complexity and difficulties involved make it understandable that some people would resort to hypotheses about ancient alien technology, but not only is that the lazy way out, but it is contradicted by the necessary follow up questions.  Are we to assume that the supposed aliens, at some point, just got up and left, taking with them all their knowledge?  Why did they do so?  Did nobody at the time record this departure?

These two obstacles do not conclusively disprove the idea of ancient alien interventions in human history, but they do require a more disciplined, and skeptical approach to thinking about ancient artifacts.  It seems far more likely that ancient technologies were the result of ancient humans who, using primitive methods, devised ingenious techniques to perform tasks of engineering that even today cannot be achieved without powerful engines, advanced materials, and computerized electronics.

That, at least, would explain the use of rocks as their primary building material.

-

The Chance of Intelligent Life in the Universe is Zero

In order for life to exist in our universe, there are requirements that are sometimes loosely calculated by a formula called the Drake Equation.  It multiplies a sequence of numbers, each representing the likelihood of one particular requirement.  Each number is less than one.  The more times you multiply a sequence of such numbers, the smaller the result gets.  For example, if you multiply one-half times one-half, you get one fourth.  Multiply that, times one half, and you get one eighth.  Keep going, and you will get one sixteenth, one over 32, one over 64, and so on, ever smaller and smaller. 

The Drake Equation might start with the chance of a planet having a suitable atmosphere, the right amount of gravity, enough water, a protective magnetic field and so forth.  Each chance is less than one hundred percent, so the final chance gets less and less, closer and closer to zero.

In such an equation, however, one never actually reaches zero—unless one or more of the factors is itself zero.  So, the question arises, are there, in fact, any factors that equal zero?  Let’s get back to that later.

The technique I will use to make my point is first, to make the case for those who disagree with my proposition (that there is zero chance of intelligent life arising in the universe).  Having made the case for them, for those who disagree with me, then next, I will dig deeper, and show the flaw in their reasoning.  First, the case that supports my opponents.

Let us note that even the tiniest chance of something happening, means that it can happen.  As long as the chance is greater than zero, it can happen.  Whether it’s a chance in a million, or one in a billion, or one in trillions of trillions, it is still greater than zero, and that means that it can happen.

Let us also note that, although a chance in a billion seems impossibly small, if you have a billion of something, then that tiny chance increases to a very large chance.  For example, if you have a closed box that has one chance in a billion of having a gold coin in it, it is not even worth your time to open that one box.  However, if you have a billion such boxes, and you have a way of opening all of them in a short time, then the chance of finding at least one gold coin will exceed ninety percent.

The reason for mentioning this is because the Drake equation says that the likelihood of our finding another planet in our galaxy that could generate and sustain intelligent life is very tiny, for any one planet.  However, since the galaxy has billions upon billions of planets, that tiny chance begins to grow much larger.  If we include the billions of galaxies in our calculation, the chance grows enormously larger, Finally, if we theorize that there are uncountable billions of universes, the chance of there being intelligent life in the theorized multi-verse begins to approach one hundred percent, a dead certainty.  Indeed, there might be infinite numbers of technological alien civilizations.

It is for this reason that many people, including scientists, take it almost as a given that our galaxy alone might contain many, highly advanced, alien civilizations which travel among the stars and planets.

However, calculations of chance and probability can produce results that are contrary to expectations.  For example, suppose you have a sequence of fractions, such that each one in the sequence is smaller than the one before—but that sequence of fractions is infinitely large.  Must the total of all those fractions add up to at least one?  The answer is no.  You can indeed, have an infinite number of fractions that add up to less than one.  For example, the fraction one over three (1/3) can be expressed in decimal form as zero point three, followed by an infinite series of threes.  0.33333333333 and on forever.  Each three is a fraction that is smaller than the fraction before it.  There is an infinite sequence of those fractions, and yet, the total never exceeds one third.

Returning to the Drake Equation, then, we can apply this principle.  The equation can yield the result that no matter how many planets or universes one factors in, the increase in the chances of life diminish as one adds more factors.  They never reach one hundred percent.

In support of my opponents, the chance of life arising is, according to the Drake Equation, greater than zero.  Why are they wrong?

The more important principle, the overriding principle, is that life does not arise by chance, but for another reason.  It is caused to arise.  Something inherent in the universe requires life to arise.  As an example of an inherent tendency, planets are formed because gravity acts in the way it does, aggregating atoms and molecules through their mutual attraction.  Therefore, planets do not arise by chance, but because natural law makes their formation inevitable.

In a similar manner, it is theorized that the groups of planets called galaxies, are formed due to the properties of a mysterious particle or principle, referred to as dark matter (particle), or alternatively, as MoND (principle)—not by chance.

The laws of nature are inherent in the universe.  Such laws cannot reasonably be said to have arisen by chance, even in a multi-verse.  There is a law of nature that induces life to form, and once formed, induces it to advance to greater complexity.

This law of nature, or life force, may be purely physical, or it may be something more, something spiritual.  If scientists cannot find a natural explanation for nature, then they are force to look beyond nature. Clearly, nature cannot have come about by natural means, since there were none, until nature existed.

Five Alien Technologies That Will Make Us or Break Us

One of the standard themes in science fiction has been that of “Alien Invaders.”  So far, this has not happened, at least not in the form of overt military conquest.  But it could, couldn’t it? 

Perhaps so, but before losing any sleep over it, perhaps we should ask, why?  Why would a technologically advanced alien civilization attack us?  What do we have that they could hope to acquire?

Water?  According to some science-fiction portrayals, that would attract every thirsty alien in the galaxy (and beyond).  Planet Earth has abundant water.  With proper purification systems, and adequate conservation, we have enough water to supply an entire alien planet for many millions of years. 

No.  Water is a molecule composed of hydrogen which is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen, which is in plentiful supply.  Even if the oxygen supply runs low on Planet Zadar, the Zadarian technology, if advanced enough to attack us, is also advanced enough to make its own oxygen, and then combine it with hydrogen by lighting a match.  Voila, Zadar could swim in alien water.  They don’t need us for that.

Okay, then what about food?  Yes.  Aliens have to eat, and with six billion humans available---no.  The aliens can synthesize water in which to boil us, and they can also synthesize food, the exact food that will best suit their needs and desires.  Why would they eat us?  Yuck.

Likewise with gold, silver, uranium and any other element or molecule they could wish for, they can produce them.

Alright, then, how about our planet itself?  Real estate.  Surely the aliens look upon earth as the perfect habitat in which to raise their mini-alien offspring.

While the aliens might consider that as a reason for stealing our planet, there are some reasons why they would be better off designing and building their own habitats.  Is our gravity comfortable for them?  Is our atmospheric pressure and composition suitable?  And what about the kazillion other factors that make Earth just right for us, but possibly not for them?  Yes, they could likely transform our planet to suit their needs, and that might give them a reason to kill us off, but if they can transform other planets instead, they might prefer to do so, and leave Earth alone.

That is not merely wishful thinking, because we do have one set of things that no alien technology can manufacture.  Aliens could very well find it worthwhile to study us.  We have our history, our cultures, our philosophies and religions, literature and arts.  These might seem like things that no alien civilization would find worth preserving, but it is more likely that they would.  After all, if we humans find it useful and intellectually enriching to analyze foreign ways of thinking, then why would aliens not at least place some level of value on doing the same?

It should give us some comfort, then, that no alien armies have yet invaded us, despite millions of years in which they (in theory, at least) could have.  That in itself should indicate that they have found no reason to do so.  With their enormous technological superiority, they have no reason to fear us, no reason to preemptively attack us.  All in all, we are safe.

Let us then turn our attention to the possible benefits that alien technologies might offer us.  By using the word, “offer,” we need not imply that the aliens will come to us and show us their wares.  We are an inventive species, and we can produce our own technologies.  It gives us a great incentive, however, if we are convinced that the next invention is possible—indeed, if we believe it has been done.

So, for example, if we observe a very distant star, and conclude that a Dyson Sphere has been constructed around it, by aliens, then we might thereby be encouraged to undertake such a project ourselves, or at least to work toward it.  Such a star exists—if our observations are accurate and properly interpreted.  Even if not, we might give it a try, just because maybe, just maybe, the aliens did it.  Maybe.

In any case, the first step in making a practical invention is to imagine it, based on what we already know.  With that in mind, here are five technologies which we can reasonably suppose that alien civilizations have invented, which might have an impact on our own technological progress.

 

1S  Synthesization of elements

2.      Anti-gravity

3.      Artificial gravity

4.      Faster-than-light communication

5.      Faster-than-light travel

(1)    Synthesization of elements

We can make water out of hydrogen and oxygen, but we can make neither hydrogen nor oxygen from scratch.  Okay, hydrogen basically makes itself, so to speak, because it has one proton (and sometimes one neutron), but oxygen is a whole different thing.  It has eight protons and eight neutrons.  The universe creates oxygen through a series of thermonuclear reactions inside stars, but the details are not fully understood.  In other words, we cannot make oxygen atoms out of eight hydrogen atoms. 

But in theory, it can be done (after all, the universe does it), and therefore, we can and should consider it likely that space-faring aliens have found a way to do it.

By extension, we can and should consider it likely that space-faring aliens have found a way to make any element from hydrogen, that is, from protons and neutrons and electrons.  They can make gold and silver and uranium.  They can make aluminum and iron and copper.  Given that, they can combine atoms to make any molecule such as water, salt, and any food they can desire.

That power would enable them to conquer other civilizations (including ours).  It would also make it unnecessary.  Our only worry, then, would be aliens who conquer and destroy just for fun.  It seems, however, that that has not happened, perhaps because there is good reason for them not to do so.

(2)    Anti-gravity

Many science fiction authors find it necessary, or at least convenient, to include anti-gravity in their stories.  It saves on gas (or petrol).  Some see no other way that the Pyramids could have been built.  It also comes in handy to launch mega-sized spacecraft off of any planet.

While we have never found any practical anti-gravity force in nature, scientists do claim to have found dark energy, a sort of anti-gravity field that permeates the universe, causing the expansion of the universe to pick up speed, to accelerate.  If that assessment is correct, then it is sort of a proof-of-concept phenomenon that allows efforts to develop anti-gravity generators to proceed.

Dark energy is, however, such a mystery to science that some scientists claim that it does not exist.  Even if they are right, however, anti-gravity might still exist.  If it does, the aliens almost surely have it.

(3)    Artificial gravity 

Unlike as with anti-gravity, actual gravity does indeed exist.  Furthermore, the effects of gravity can be artificially simulated with centrifugal force by spinning.  But it’s not the same; it’s artificial, but it’s not really gravity.  Actual gravity is a property of the way mass interacts with (and bends) space.  Wow, that almost sounds like I know what I’m talking about, even though (I assure you) I do not. 

We feel gravity as a force, but relativity tells us that it is not a force acting at a distance, but instead, that space-bending thingy.  I think that idea is wrong, but I’m wrong on a lot more than just that.

Getting to the point, science-fiction writers need artificial gravity to keep Captain Kirk from floating out of his space-ship command-chair when the Romulans attack.  In more practical terms, our experience with the orbiting space-station has shown that there are adverse long-term health effects for astronauts who spend a lot of time in zero-gravity.  These can be partially compensated with certain exercises, but the only truly effective remedy is actual gravity—or in the context of this commentary, artificial gravity.

Artificial gravity in a space-ship would consist of either a very large centrifuge (astronauts living inside a gigantic spinning wheel), which would be possible but would pose its own problems—or a flat platform which would gravitationally pull everything straight down along a planar surface.  The latter is presently not possible, but it would make small space-craft more ergonomic for astronauts.

The aliens must have this.  Surely, they must.

(4)    Faster-than-light communication

It’s not possible.  Einstein proved that.  The very fabric of the universe makes the transmission of information (in any form) utterly impossible.  Forget it.  End of discussion.

Except that it makes science-fiction almost impossible to write.  How would Galactic Headquarters know that the Romulans are attacking in Theta Sector in time to react—or at least in time for the evening news?

Well, information cannot travel faster than lightspeed—inside our own universe.  It would rip the fabric  of space-time.

But what if there are parallel universes in which we could take a shortcut?

Think about it.  How else could ET phone home?

(5)    Faster-than-light travel

If information cannot travel faster than lightspeed, then there ain’t no way in heck that we could.  Oh yeah, smarty-pants?  I’ll bet that the aliens have it figured out.  So there.

The only way in which the aliens have developed faster-than-lightspeed travel is if they have discovered fundamental laws of nature that we may not suspect exist.  Might they have done so?

One of the most exciting things any young physicist can say, is the phrase, “new physics.”  They hunger for it.  Examples include theories of dark matter and dark energy, and by contrast, theories that claim those do not exist, but that something equally strange (or more so) might exist instead.

New physics may also include things that only recently have been considered to be a part of physics, such as theories of consciousness.  Given that consciousness is the only known phenomenon that observes itself, and that it does so from within itself, we may even be on the cusp of a paradigm shift, one which may force physicists to recognize that there is more to physicists than can ever be explained by physics.

I am simply not smart enough to say whether physicists are wrong.  I cannot say with any reasonable degree of certainty whether aliens exist.  Maybe they don’t.  Maybe we’re it, and there ain’t no more.

But if there are aliens, I’m pretty sure that they know more than we do.

 -

-

 

The Fatal Defect in the Drake Equation

The problem with searching for alien civilizations is that, while there seem to be lots of reasons to suppose that they exist, the evidence, at least the evidence available to the public, the hardest evidence, is feeble.  Indeed, there are those who make a credible case that no such aliens exist at all.

A recent article on Space dot Com states that, “Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens.”  The “rare earth hypothesis” proposes a very similar idea, that only a minuscule portion of planets can sustain life.  If these ideas are correct, the vast size of the universe allows us to assume, nevertheless, that even if alien civilizations are exceedingly rare, they may number in the thousands, even millions.  Is that assumption reasonable?

At first, it seems reasonable enough.  Recent discoveries of exoplanets suggest that planets are common, and therefore, planets capable of hosting life may be abundant on the grand scale of things.  If only one planet in a million has an alien civilization, then with many millions of planets in the galaxy, there could be many alien civilizations.  Right?

But not so fast.  The number of planets in the galaxy (and in the entire universe) is presumably very large, but even so, there is a limit to that number.  The probability of any given planet meeting all the many, many requirements to support life is exceedingly small.  If there are a kazillion planets, but the odds of life are one in a trillion kazillion, then that leaves us with one chance in a trillion, which is statistically zero for most purposes.  Even if you hate math, you can quickly see the point.

Okay, so far, we have established that there may possibly be many alien civilizations, and we have also established that there may not be any.  How do we choose which of those “maybes” is the more reasonable?

Many people employ wishful thinking.  Even skeptics admit that the prospect that there may be aliens is an exciting one (or dreadful, if they are hostile), but the idea that we might possibly encounter them would revolutionize human history (or perhaps end it).  Whether we wish they are there, or wish they are not, however, is not very reliable.

A less fanciful way is to make what we think are reasonable assumptions.  The very famous “Drake Equation” has been, for many years, used as a “starting point” for estimating how many (if any) alien civilizations are “out there.” 

The concept is simple.  Start with the idea that there are many planets.  Then continue with the idea that a certain fraction (of those planets) has water (or some other necessity for advanced life as we know it).  Of those planets that have water, estimate how many have an atmosphere that can sustain life.  Then ask, what fraction of those planets are close enough to their sun (star) to provide life-sustaining warmth.  The series continues, each time reducing the number of planets that can sustain life.  The more requirements there are, the fewer planets that can fulfill all of them.  If there are only ten requirements, one could get a large number of candidate planets.  If there are a hundred requirements, the number diminishes to a tiny amount.  If there are thousands of requirements, the number of planets that can sustain life approaches zero.

Then there are factors that preclude life, even if all the requirements are met.  If the host star explodes, that will surely preclude life.  If the host star emits harmful radioactivity, or has wildly fluctuating temperatures, or the planet is bombarded by meteors and comets—you get the idea.  A lot of things could destroy a civilization before it even gets started.

The question then is, how likely is each factor in the equation?  We do not know.  Even if each factor is fifty-percent, which is large, even then, multiplying all those fifty-percent factors together, soon results in a very tiny chance of an alien civilization existing.

The Drake equation, however, may be making some false assumptions.  For one thing, it assumes that life on any given planet arises (or fails to arise) by chance.  In doing so, it dismisses the idea that life requires something more than the “requirements” of life.  There may be a property of nature that leaves no room for chance when it comes to generating life, or at least for generating intelligent life.  Life may arise, or fail to arise, due to something other than chance.  That “something other” might make life exceedingly common, but it could also limit it to just one planet in the entire universe.

In biology, both evidence and theory have merged into the conclusion that life evolved from nonliving matter, and then without conscious guidance, progressed from the simplest forms, to the most complex forms, including humans.  This paradigm is infused into the assumptions of the Drake Equation.

Yet, there are other merges of evidence and theory that explain the origin and development of life.  One of these holds that life, consciousness and volition (free will) are three fundamental properties of nature.  In this paradigm, there is a life force (élan vital) which acts in a manner loosely analogous to gravity, or even dark matter, to structure atoms into the molecules associated with biochemistry.  This theory eliminates the dependence on chance, that is, on chances that are so small as to approach zero.  Instead, it posits that the universe appears to be the product of intent and purpose because—because it is that product.

If life does not arise by chance, but only by cosmic intent, with a purpose, then the Drake Equation is leading us toward a futile end.  We should not rely on it blindly.

 

Does Infinity Exist?

by Robert Arvay

While infinity is a valid mathematical concept, that is not the same thing as saying that it is real in the physical sense.

Even in the abstract mathematical sense, infinity presents some paradoxes.  For example, in mathematics, it is said that there are an infinite number of positive, finite integers.  That is a paradox, because it implies that there can be an infinite series of finite integers (or anything else).  Why is that a paradox?  If every item in the infinite series is finite, then how can the series be infinite?  Infinity can never be reached, but only approached.  (Even THAT is a paradox, because how can one approach something, yet never get any closer to it?  One is always an infinite distance short of infinity.)  It has no finality.  By definition it has no end.  If one can never get there, is “there” even a “there?”  The semantics are maddening.

How does this apply to the physical world?  In the physical sense, it is speculated, by cosmologists, that the universe may extend forever in all directions.  In the hypothetical, infinitely large universe, we must ask, is that possible?  If the universe is indeed, infinitely large—physically—then infinity has been reached.  It physically exists.  Paradoxically, the endless has been both reached, and yet, can never be reached.

Consider this thought experiment, a test of that principle.  Imagine that you are in a spaceship, traveling in a straight line, in an infinitely large universe.  No matter how far you travel, you will never travel the infinite distance that defines the universe’s reach.  You will never reach the end, because by definition, there is no end.

But wait.  What if you travel at an infinitely fast speed?  What would happen then?

To answer that, let us first look at another, paradoxically infinite universe, one that is both infinite and finite at the same time.  Let us consider a ruler that is twelve inches in length.  Why is this both finite and infinite?  It is infinite, if you measure its length by the number of geometric points along its length.  There are an infinite number of such points.  A geometric point results if one divides the ruler in halves an infinite number of times.  This results in a point having a length of zero.

So, if one begins at one end of the ruler, and begins traveling toward the other end, point by point, then it would take an infinite amount of time to get to the other end.  Indeed, it would take an infinite amount of time to get anywhere along the ruler.  We know this simply by multiplying the speed of movement by zero.  Any amount, any number of points, times zero, is zero.  Since each geometric point is of zero length, then one could never move even as far as one point along the line.  So, one could never move any finite length, if one moves zero length at a time.  To move at all, one would have to move an infinite number of points at a time, all at once;  that is, at infinite speed.

But wait again.  If one moves an infinite number of points all at once, then he has moved a finite distance—but what is that distance?  Is it one foot?  One inch?  One mile?  A billion miles?

Of course, the distance moved would be arbitrary.  One could never specify how far that distance would be.  It could be ANY finite length.

Returning to our spaceship, what would happen if we increased the speed to infinity?  How far would we travel?  If we travel an infinite distance, in an infinitely large universe, then where would we be?  Some random place?  Back where we started?  Outside the universe?  More than one place at one time?  Everywhere?  Where?

What all this tells us is that our intellect is far too limited to understand an infinite reality.

=

Video: Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on Alien Megastructures

Sabine Hossenfelder may be the heir to Carl Sagan's role as science popularizer,

Click on the link below:

Alien Megastructure Candidates – Not as Crazy as it Sounds! (youtube.com)