I’m sorry but I think this article’s line of reasoning is irreparably biased by the assumption that we don’t see any evidence of complex technological life in the universe. It’s entirely possible we see it and don’t recognize it as such because of the considerable difficulties humans experience when sorting through all the data in the universe looking for a pattern they don’t recognize yet.
Technology is defined, to a certain extent, by it’s newness. What could make us think we would recognize something we’ve never seen before and had no hand in creating? Most of what we believe to be true about the universe is experimentally verifiable only from our tiny corner of the universe in which we run our experiments. How do we know there aren’t intelligent creatures out there just as unaware of us?
All we know for sure is that we (well … most of us) have not recognized the existence of life-like technology.
It’s entirely possible we see it and don’t recognize it as such because of the considerable difficulties humans experience when sorting through all the data in the universe looking for a pattern they don’t recognize yet.
Yes, it’s possible. But that argument proves too much: any observation could be advanced technology that we “don’t recognize [...] as such”. The fossil record could be that, as far as we can tell, etc… We have to reason with what we can reason with, and the setup of the universe—galaxies losing gas and stars, stars burning pointlessly into the void, supernovas incredibly wasteful of resources, etc… - all points to natural forces rather than artificial.
It still could be artificial, but there’s no evidence of it.
Something which cannot be observed and tested lays beyond the realm of science—so how big a signal are we looking for? A pattern in quasar flashes perhaps? Maybe the existence of unexplained engineering feats from civilizations long dead? The idea that advanced technology would want us to observe it, the existence of vague entities with properties yet to be determined … these exist as speculations. To attempt to discern a reason for the absence of evidence on these matters is even more speculative.
Perhaps I should clarify: none of the data discussed really helps us narrow down a location for the filter because we aren’t really discussing methods of testing the filter. It’s existence is speculative by design. You can’t test for something as vaguely defined as intelligent technology.
I do agree that examining other species may yield a better conceptualization of intelligence. I very much like that the discussion has drifted in that direction.
I’m more thinking of mega engineering projects, the reforming of galaxies to suit the needs of a civilization, rather that the messy randomness and waste of negentropy that we seem to see.
I’m not assuming that advanced technology would want us to observe it—I’m assuming that advanced technology has no reason to stay hidden from us, at tremendous opportunity costs for it.
Anything massive traveling between stars would almost certainly be either very slow turning, constantly in search of fuel, or unconstrained by widely accepted (though possibly non-immutable) physical limitations … Would we be a fuel source? Perhaps we would represent a chance to learn about life, something we believe to be a relatively rare phenomena … There’s just not enough information to say why an entity would seek us out without assuming something about its nature … intelligence wants to be seen? To reformat the universe to suit it’s needs? An interesting concept. It certainly can evolve as an imperative (probably in a more specific form).
Perhaps you could refer me to more writing on the subject. I’ve been imagining Von Nueman machines crawling through asteroid belts—Arthur C. Clarke chases them away from a first contact scenario by convincing them we will never conquer the stars. Clearly, I’m missing some links.
Oh and thank you for engaging me. The way you deal with concepts makes me happy.
Hmmm… reformatting a galaxy to suit the needs of a civilisation will likely mean using all the energy that that galaxy produces internally. If the energy is all being used internally, then it stops broadcasting in the form of electromagnetic radiation; the galaxy goes dark.
The same would apply to a solar system; entirely reformatting a solar system to the needs of a civilisation would mean that, to an external observer, the sun would go dark. The system could only be observed by its gravitational potential, not by any energy it puts out.
...which, now I come to think of it, would make that solar system indistinguishable from dark matter, would it not?
You still have to get rid of waste heat, you can’t recycle it because of the second law of thermodynamics. So they’d radiate highly in the infrared.
Incidentally, there is an object in the Triangulum galaxy that’s dim in the visible and near-infrared but the most luminous thing in that galaxy in the mid-infrared.
It’s also extremely bright in total luminosity across the spectrum (including infrared) − 100,000x as bright as the Sun. Other similar objects have been seen as supernova sources in other galaxies, suggesting they are massive stars shrouded in self-produced dust which blocks visible light but lets IR through. If this is the case, various models suggest we should see the dust around this thing clear in decades to centuries—or a supernova. You can bet people are watching it closely though...
Waste heat. Sorry, my internal editor cringes at that...
As to the object, I notice something interesting. In the writeup:
Nobody had ever bothered to look at it in mid-IR before, because as a general rule things that are dim in the near-IR are also dim in the mid-IR.
And then I look at the paper—and it was submitted in December 2010, only a few years ago. Which then leads to the question—has anyone looked for things that are dim in near-infrared but bright in far-infrared? Do we actually know how much apparent dark matter is (or isn’t) pumping out waste heat all over the place?
I’m sorry but I think this article’s line of reasoning is irreparably biased by the assumption that we don’t see any evidence of complex technological life in the universe. It’s entirely possible we see it and don’t recognize it as such because of the considerable difficulties humans experience when sorting through all the data in the universe looking for a pattern they don’t recognize yet.
Technology is defined, to a certain extent, by it’s newness. What could make us think we would recognize something we’ve never seen before and had no hand in creating? Most of what we believe to be true about the universe is experimentally verifiable only from our tiny corner of the universe in which we run our experiments. How do we know there aren’t intelligent creatures out there just as unaware of us?
All we know for sure is that we (well … most of us) have not recognized the existence of life-like technology.
Yes, it’s possible. But that argument proves too much: any observation could be advanced technology that we “don’t recognize [...] as such”. The fossil record could be that, as far as we can tell, etc… We have to reason with what we can reason with, and the setup of the universe—galaxies losing gas and stars, stars burning pointlessly into the void, supernovas incredibly wasteful of resources, etc… - all points to natural forces rather than artificial.
It still could be artificial, but there’s no evidence of it.
Something which cannot be observed and tested lays beyond the realm of science—so how big a signal are we looking for? A pattern in quasar flashes perhaps? Maybe the existence of unexplained engineering feats from civilizations long dead? The idea that advanced technology would want us to observe it, the existence of vague entities with properties yet to be determined … these exist as speculations. To attempt to discern a reason for the absence of evidence on these matters is even more speculative.
Perhaps I should clarify: none of the data discussed really helps us narrow down a location for the filter because we aren’t really discussing methods of testing the filter. It’s existence is speculative by design. You can’t test for something as vaguely defined as intelligent technology.
I do agree that examining other species may yield a better conceptualization of intelligence. I very much like that the discussion has drifted in that direction.
I’m more thinking of mega engineering projects, the reforming of galaxies to suit the needs of a civilization, rather that the messy randomness and waste of negentropy that we seem to see.
I’m not assuming that advanced technology would want us to observe it—I’m assuming that advanced technology has no reason to stay hidden from us, at tremendous opportunity costs for it.
Why?
Anything massive traveling between stars would almost certainly be either very slow turning, constantly in search of fuel, or unconstrained by widely accepted (though possibly non-immutable) physical limitations … Would we be a fuel source? Perhaps we would represent a chance to learn about life, something we believe to be a relatively rare phenomena … There’s just not enough information to say why an entity would seek us out without assuming something about its nature … intelligence wants to be seen? To reformat the universe to suit it’s needs? An interesting concept. It certainly can evolve as an imperative (probably in a more specific form).
Perhaps you could refer me to more writing on the subject. I’ve been imagining Von Nueman machines crawling through asteroid belts—Arthur C. Clarke chases them away from a first contact scenario by convincing them we will never conquer the stars. Clearly, I’m missing some links.
Oh and thank you for engaging me. The way you deal with concepts makes me happy.
We argue that travelling between galaxies—let alone between stars is very “easy”, for some values of “easy”. See http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/intergalactic-spreading.pdf or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTfuI-9jIo&list=UU_qqMD08PFrDfPREoBEL6IQ
Major cosmical restructuring would be trivial (under the assumptions we made) for any star-spanning civilization.
Thank you. Not entirely convinced, but at least I’m distracted for now by not knowing enough astrophysics. :-)
Hmmm… reformatting a galaxy to suit the needs of a civilisation will likely mean using all the energy that that galaxy produces internally. If the energy is all being used internally, then it stops broadcasting in the form of electromagnetic radiation; the galaxy goes dark.
The same would apply to a solar system; entirely reformatting a solar system to the needs of a civilisation would mean that, to an external observer, the sun would go dark. The system could only be observed by its gravitational potential, not by any energy it puts out.
...which, now I come to think of it, would make that solar system indistinguishable from dark matter, would it not?
You still have to get rid of waste heat, you can’t recycle it because of the second law of thermodynamics. So they’d radiate highly in the infrared.
Incidentally, there is an object in the Triangulum galaxy that’s dim in the visible and near-infrared but the most luminous thing in that galaxy in the mid-infrared.
It’s also extremely bright in total luminosity across the spectrum (including infrared) − 100,000x as bright as the Sun. Other similar objects have been seen as supernova sources in other galaxies, suggesting they are massive stars shrouded in self-produced dust which blocks visible light but lets IR through. If this is the case, various models suggest we should see the dust around this thing clear in decades to centuries—or a supernova. You can bet people are watching it closely though...
Waste heat. Sorry, my internal editor cringes at that...
As to the object, I notice something interesting. In the writeup:
And then I look at the paper—and it was submitted in December 2010, only a few years ago. Which then leads to the question—has anyone looked for things that are dim in near-infrared but bright in far-infrared? Do we actually know how much apparent dark matter is (or isn’t) pumping out waste heat all over the place?
(That is a very interesting page, by the way...)