Re: There is no such thing as a Fermi Paradox

On Mon, 13 May 2024 07:39:36 -0400, FromTheRafters
<FTR@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

<snip uncommented text>

Here's an excerpt from a paper on the subject. I tried to agree with
the troll on that point, and still got an argument. :)
>
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09187
>
7. Conclusions
The so-called Fermi paradox misrepresents Fermi’s
views about the feasibility of interstellar travel and the
possible existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life,
uses his name and authority for ideas originated by Hart
and Tipler, and asserts a logical paradox where none
exists, so it is difficult to see any valid use for the
phrase. It’s not Fermi’s idea, and it’s not a paradox.

From the cited article:
******************************
The so-called Fermi paradox clearly misrepresents
Fermi’s views, by using his name for an argument that
assumes interstellar travel (which he was questioning),
and because it challenges the possible existence of
technological extraterrestrial life (which he was not
questioning). It might be more accurate to describe
“where is everybody?” as Fermi’s question about the
feasibility of interstellar travel.
******************************

Putting aside for the moment the pointless point wrt labels, the above
raises the distinction between

1. "Does extraterrestrial life exist?" and

2. "Does technically advanced extraterrestrial life exist?" and

3. "Do interstellar civilizations exist?"

Fermi's comments are often associated with the Drake equation, a
probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active,
communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy.
Even though the questions Fermi raised could be treated similarly, as
presented they raise distinctly different questions; interstellar
communication is technically simpler than interstellar travel.
Nevertheless, all of these are good questions to help inspire inquiry
about extraterrestrial life.

The final sentence from the cited article's conclusion raises an
additional distinction; the paradox attributed to Fermi is more
correctly attributed to Hart-Tipler.  Even though this distinction is
historically relevant, it doesn't inform the pedantic point raised by
the OP; whether what is called "The Fermi paradox" is in fact a
paradox.  This point depends on the definition of "paradox", and on
what is meant by "The Fermi paradox".


The cited article identifies what it means by "The Fermi paradox":
***************************
If technologically advanced civilizations have
inhabited our Galaxy for timescales of
approximately a billion years, and if some of these
have engaged in interstellar travel and colonization,
then why have we not seen physical evidence of
their visits?
****************************

The cited article also gives a definition of "paradox":
************************************
a selfcontradictory statement, or a seemingly logical
argument that leads to a contradiction, and the
contradiction suggests that something is wrong.
************************************

However, the cited article fails to specify the logical basis behind
Fermi's iconic question.  Specifically, the Milky Way is large but of
known finite volume. Exponential expansion by an interstellar
civilization would incorporate that volume in just a few millions of
years.  This, and the galaxy's lifetime, provide even one interstellar
civilization with an opportunity to fill the galaxy's entire volume
thousands of times over.  A rough analogy is the expansion of
Polynesians across the Pacific in a few thousands of years, where the
invention of ocean-going outrigger canoes provided the technical means
to mitigate the material limitations of island environments.

So, assuming interstellar travel was feasible, and assuming no
impediment to exponential expansion, an interstellar civilization
should occupy the entire Milky Way.  But to the best our knowledge,
not only have no interstellar civilizations filled the galaxy, none
even exist. That makes the question "Where are they?" a concise
encapsulation of a seemingly logical argument that leads to a
contradiction aka paradox; they should be here but are not.

Finally, the cited article claims:
******************************************
The Fermi paradox appeared as the subject of a
conference session in April, 1977 (Martin, et al., 1979),
and the phrase began appearing frequently in the early
1980s—cited in 19 places in one SETI symposium
(Papagiannis, 1984)—and it appears frequently today,
five places in one recent book (Vakoch, 2014).
*****************************************

Even if the concept is arguably misattributed, and even if it's
arguably inaccurately labeled, there can be no reasonable argument
about the existence of a concept called "The Fermi paradox".  By rough
analogy, American and European robins are only distantly related, but
to claim their inaccurate names mean the birds themselves don't exist
would be obsessing over the names of birds, a Feynman no-no.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge