Fermi Paradox: Some Intuitions

 All Posts Tagged: Fermi Paradox 

This is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek blog, and this is just some spitballing intuitions on the topic.

The Drake equation:

I hope I am not doing anything wrong by lifting this straight out of the Wikipedia article here.

$${\displaystyle N=R_{\ast }\cdot f_{\mathrm{p}}\cdot n_{\mathrm{e}}\cdot f_{\mathrm{l}}\cdot f_{\mathrm{i}}\cdot f_{\mathrm{c}}\cdot L}$$

where

• N = the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy with which communication might be possible

and

• R_∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy.
• f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets.
• n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets.
• f_l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point.
• f_i = the fraction of planets with life that go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations).
• f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
• L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Why Banal?

Note that I have the last three coefficients highlighted: these are what I am talking about.

It's not totally banal

It is not technically false.

It is better that the equation exists than not, because it sets a clear stage of sorts.

These are numbers alright

• "The" fraction of planets
• "The" fraction of civilizations
• "The" length of time signals are sent

The first two numbers exist with completely simple clarity. However the grammar is just a little funny I guess aesthetically at least. Might the equation just as easily be "The" number of interplanetary species? I guess it is obvious that these numbers would be ideals to achieve the closest estimates of, through scientific observation and reasoning. They are not that ridiculous it is true. 

However, the third one - "The" length of time - is not a single number. It could easily have a very very large variation in it, as to not reflect a consistent enough trend. However presuming a paradox does presume such a consistency.

In fact the time factor could be so varied and dispersed across species that it would easily sabotage the meaning of the whole equation. (in the context of the Fermi Paradox)

 

Details in Length of Time

Note how the time coefficient subsumes all of the other events in the equation.

Not only do each of these coefficients have their own time statistics associated with them, but each of these events can also be divided into smaller events, each with distinct time-oriented statistics.

• These events will each vary in how they are mathematically likely. We just do not know the specifics. 
• We do not know which events will critically be divided, or how. They would likely be eventually extrapolated from their mathematical relevance, rather than the way we would now choose to divide them ahead of understanding the math. This is significant.
• There might be events that fall in series - or fall in parallel - or require simultaneity, etc. These specifics greatly impact the way odds stack together, or the way they divide each other, or only become expressed through more complex equations.

This translates to a great, great potential for odds to have incredible variation between separate systems, planets, and species - so much so, as to render automatic confidence in there being clearly consistent time-oriented trends, to be extremely shaky.

Hypothetical Scatter Plots

In some impossible reality, where you had observed all the actual numbers of these planets and civilizations, you ask what would some scatter plots of this data look like?

Without keeping any specific data points in mind, the concept remains very general and intuitive. It exists as a matter of questioning the reason to arrive at a paradox in the first place.

Let's assume that it is not simply the last three coefficients, but actually that the reality is obviously many of these smaller divisions of these coefficients of the Drake Equation.

Again, these will not translate to them each contributing in a linear way - or in equally meaningful ways.

Additionally, some of these factors might not be a matter of any particular eventuality - but also might constitute showstoppers or dead ends. This means they are not likelihoods in time, but of a binary nature as well. It's all still an average or something in the end, but it's worth mentioning.

Perhaps Not Enough Consistency

Well, in this scenario, there could be clear lines on these hypothetical scatter plots, or not. Is it a 50/50 chance of either overwhelming likelihood? What is there in our scientific knowledge to date to demand that a scatter plot would garner such clear results towards an automatically assumed paradox?

For life to evolve to multi-cellular life for instance, there might be a consistent time frame. Perhaps not at all though. There might be a range between 500 million to 20 billion years - and then what happens after it becomes multi-cellular? It could be a similar dispersion to get to intelligent life. It might be too competitive etc. Then what of the intelligence? Same thing. 

What of the biology and tendencies of the species? Same thing.

What of the physical characteristics to go to space? Maybe a wild card? Maybe a clear pattern. Lots of evolutionary and biological wild cards that are showstoppers to go to space - or even develop tools, or to approach having the goal to go to space.

And then if gauging whether or not these numbers' variances would be consistent enough must be contextualized within these numbers' relevant individual time-frames and critical windows. For instance, contextual age of the Universe is 13.7 Billion years, and the age of the Earth is 4.6 Billion Years. This particular time-frame greatly contextualizes how important the general variance of development is across all the many species. It seems most if not all factors of variance you consider, will have a context in which their respective time-frames matter - such as:

• speciation evolution spans
• spans of consistent planetary conditions
• spans of resource availability
• spans of alien-to-alien simultaneity
• . . .

Odds exist within the context of windows, which have their own odds . . . and on and on and on.

There's a lot more ways to separate or subdivide these statistics. These numbers easily might not point to consistent enough data. This is not exactly the same thing as saying that the odds are simply too low for sure - just that a presumed paradox is not in order.

On Top of That, We Have an Answer

I really do not think there is a demand to believe one way over the other at the outset of considering a paradox . . . except . . . that we actually have an answer: no aliens in sight. Would that not lend to an automatic presumption: "There's no paradox to invent - just perhaps . . . unknown specifics."

The paradox is essentially that technologically advanced alien life is not so totally abundant for X to the be the case. That is not much of a paradox - because the distance from being so totally abundant to being significantly more rare than so totally abundant is greatly dependent on these scatter plots being so consistent in species' reaching technological advancement.

Now, that being said, anything is possible. "An" answer is not necessarily "The" answer. We might actually be an exception to some rules we do not understand. We could be in the boonies of the Universe. There conceivably could be smartphone sized spaceships with aliens. But I believe this escapes out into a general sense of unknowns, rather than anything meaningful in accordance with our present knowledge.