[ExI] Drake Equation Musings
pharos at gmail.com
Sun May 15 17:47:45 UTC 2016
On 15 May 2016 at 10:06, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> It is IMHO not a very impressive paper. Basically their argument is "Look,
> the probability per star needed to get an empty universe is really low, so a
> priori we should expect it to be higher." My own upcoming paper shows that
> if you do the probabilities right you can easily get empty universes given
> what we know.
> (The quick of it: people assume some key Drake equation parameters must lie
> in a far smaller range than they are allowed to by our actual knowledge, and
> this produces over-optimistic estimates. When you update on the empty sky,
> it makes the past great filter more likely than a future great filter.)
So your paper intends to show that it is quite likely humans are the
only intelligent species in the universe? The universe is ours for the
taking! Yippee! Though that could be the definition of maximum hubris.
But you are facing very big odds. The universe is quite big, you know. ;)
Even if your calculations allow for a few intelligent species, you
still face the problem that none of them can be exponential species
that have colonised their galaxy, as we see no signs of them. So the
suggestion of nano-tech and resource optimised species could apply to
one or millions of species, all undetectable by each other.
This is more optimistic than saying that *all* technological
civilisations go extinct before expanding through the galaxy.
More information about the extropy-chat