I have a real hard time buying that we could even know such a thing. If you counted up all the atoms in the known universe, then the number would only have about 80 digits. If every atom in the known universe was, in fact, another universe of the same size as ours, then the number of micro atoms in all of the atom-sized universes combined would only have 160 digits. If you repeated that yet again you would only have 240 digits. If the lifetime of one of these triple-tiered multiuniverses was a billionth of a second and they were created one after another and this had been going on for the entire age of our universe, then the sum of all the micro-micro atoms in all of these would finally be getting to a 270 digit number.

Then there the other issue of such quandaries like the total Planck Volume of the universe which is ~ 7 x 10 ^245 power.

"Physics: 10186, approximate number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Physics: 7×10^245, approximate number of Planck units that have ever existed in the observable universe."

https://www.google.com/search?q=pla...2.69i57j0l4.8816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

To me any numbers representing anything beyond that are just made up nonsense.

 

Why do we assume that "aliens" are always more intelligent or far advanced than we are here on earth? Earth is supposed to about 4 billion years old(give or take a couple of years) and the universe is supposed to be about 13 and a bit billion years old(give or take a century or two).
Would this leave enough time for any high advanced civilization(space faring type) to develop? We still have to allow time for planets etc to form in the intervening time and cool down to become livable etc.
Woudn't that make it all the more possible that any "aliens" would be more likely to be on a par with our development or not far removed.Makes the "alien" seeding of earth and visiting us via FTL transport a bit of a problem.

 

Why do we assume that "aliens" are always more intelligent or far advanced than we are

Who is the, "we" in that sentence?

 

A valid request. I read that years ago in a science article, but I can't seem to find it. Let me do some more searching and I'll be back with a source.

My Spidey sense tingled on that one, but I don't have any knowledge to refute it. What I would propose is that whatever some constant is, then whatever develops across the billions of years must be in harmony with that constant. There seem to be thousands of constants, but they are merely measured or known because we can observe. So, what if some constant was different in the Beginning? I say our universe would merely develop accordingly. God wouldn't have to throw it in the bin and start over, He would just watch and see how it develops.

ps, there is no proof in any of this post, just a theory. Pour water in a universe bucket and you get a wet universe. Put sand in a universe bucket and you get a sandy universe. Put all the atoms ever into a wet universe bucket and eventually something will crawl out of the bucket.

 

Why do we assume that "aliens" are always more intelligent or far advanced than we are here on earth? Earth is supposed to about 4 billion years old(give or take a couple of years) and the universe is supposed to be about 13 and a bit billion years old(give or take a century or two).
Would this leave enough time for any high advanced civilization(space faring type) to develop? We still have to allow time for planets etc to form in the intervening time and cool down to become livable etc.
Woudn't that make it all the more possible that any "aliens" would be more likely to be on a par with our development or not far removed.Makes the "alien" seeding of earth and visiting us via FTL transport a bit of a problem.

That would assume the alien's were from this galaxy. Even so, look at the advancements in the 20th century. If that advance could be replicated 8999999 times, sure, they "could" be from this galaxy. But, the argument against it would be that Earth is the only one in the goldilocks zone.

 

Why do we assume that "aliens" are always more intelligent or far advanced than we are here on earth? Earth is supposed to about 4 billion years old(give or take a couple of years) and the universe is supposed to be about 13 and a bit billion years old(give or take a century or two).
Would this leave enough time for any high advanced civilization(space faring type) to develop? We still have to allow time for planets etc to form in the intervening time and cool down to become livable etc.
Woudn't that make it all the more possible that any "aliens" would be more likely to be on a par with our development or not far removed.Makes the "alien" seeding of earth and visiting us via FTL transport a bit of a problem.

Let's assume that every other intelligent species advanced along a very similar path that we did.

Are we much more advanced, technologically, than we were two hundred years ago?

Are we likely to be much more advanced in another two hundred years than we are today?

Were there periods of stagnation in human technological advancement that lasted at least a couple hundred years (think, perhaps, the Dark Ages). It is possible that some of these alien cultures didn't have that period (or, that the total length of all such periods throughout their history is a few centuries shorter than ours has been)?

It is often claimed that an extinction event caused by a meteor strike wiped out the dinosaurs and opened the door for humans to eventually evolved. The dinosaurs dominated the Earth for millions of year before that. What if that meteor had struck the Earth a million years earlier? Couldn't that have started the path toward human evolution that much earlier, placing us a million years ahead of where we are now? Given that homo sapiens have only been around for about a quarter million years, wouldn't increasing that amount of time by a factor of five possibly result in a significantly greater of technological advancement? Given that we've only had writing for about 5000 years, couldn't an increase in that by a factor of two hundred have at least some impact?

Why couldn't that have happened elsewhere?

And that's not to mention what if the whole ball of evolution got going a whole lot sooner. Our sun in but a middle-aged star that formed about, very roughly, ten billion years after the start of the known universe. So what about life around some other star that started just 1% earlier? They would have a ten million year jump on us.

I would say that it would be most likely that there are lots and lots of intelligent species out there and that they are spread across an evolutionary and technological level spanning hundreds of millions of years, if not billions of years. We are likely somewhere in the middle (there's going to be some kind of distribution and we are more likely to be near the center than too far away from it), but human-equivalents on planets that are just a bit behind us are still scurrying around the undergrowth while planets that are just a bit ahead of us are astoundingly ahead of us due to the equivalent of Moore's Law. It is probably beyond our ability to really conceive what another million years of advancement could brings, let alone a hundred million years.

But, it's also possible that civilization being a self-defeating concept might be a universal law in practice, so that the odds of a civilization surviving much beyond our own become vanishingly small -- though that still leaves the door wide open for major levels of achievement beyond us before they crash and burn.

Even if that's not the case, there's the real possibility that the speed of light really is unbroachable and that interstellar travel is so prohibitively difficult that every species is doomed to live out it's entire existence constrained to its own solar system.

 

So, what if some constant was different in the Beginning? I say our universe would merely develop accordingly

The interesting thing is that the universe would not have developed, at all. It would've either collapsed or disintegrated, or would've not been able to create complex molecules and therefore sustain life.

That's why so many physicists favor the many worlds theory. With an infinite number of universes, then eventually at least one would exist capable of sustaining life... but I think that's like placing the wagon in front of the horse... desperately stretching an argument to hold their reasoning.

That's called the anthropic principle, and I don't buy it because I see it as circular reasoning.

 

Were there periods of stagnation in human technological advancement that lasted at least a couple hundred years (think, perhaps, the Dark Ages)

Don't mean to stray off course. But the medieval period was a time of steady (albeit slow) technological progress, contrary to popular belief.

 

Don't mean to stray off course. But the medieval period was a time of steady (albeit slow) technological progress, contrary to popular belief.

Of course there was technological progress -- stagnation was relative term in this context. Be that as it may, the point stands. If we went though period of several centuries and some other otherwise identical civilization didn't, would it be too surprising that they might not be were we are now a couple hundred years ago?

 

Of course there was technological progress -- stagnation was relative term in this context. Be that as it may, the point stands. If we went though period of several centuries and some other otherwise identical civilization didn't, would it be too surprising that they might not be were we are now a couple hundred years ago?

Since this thread started I've been reading up on how the various cultures of the world came to be where and who they are now and it's been rather enlightening say the least.

Right now I have been looking at the various middle eastern cultures and it's surprising to see how they came to be what they are now and how their largely negative shifts in both religious beliefs and political operations have brought them to where they are now and largely for the worse given what most of that region of the world once had going for it over the last near 1400 years or so.

Over zealous religious fanaticism backed by very poor practical education and willingness to embrace or more often deliberately reject every good and beneficial aspects of the modern leading world cultures has left much of the populations stuck in a developmental rut for so long they are now stuck in a culture of largely ignorant tribal barbarism that has near zero capacity to adapt or improve on itself despite the vast amount of gainfully workable resources they have at hand yet either do not use or just squander on pointless infighting.

 

Since this thread started I've been reading up on how the various cultures of the world came to be where and who they are now and it's been rather enlightening say the least.

Have you read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"? It was referenced earlier in this thread and was a hugely popular and important work in this area. It was even featured in a National Geographic episode. If you find the topic interesting, you'll definitely want to read it or at least watch the video. He wrote a few other books as well, and they're all worth a read.

I'll add that I don't entirely buy his arguments but the data he presents is interesting either way.

 

Why do we assume that "aliens" are always more intelligent or far advanced than we are here on earth? Earth is supposed to about 4 billion years old(give or take a couple of years) and the universe is supposed to be about 13 and a bit billion years old(give or take a century or two).
Would this leave enough time for any high advanced civilization(space faring type) to develop? We still have to allow time for planets etc to form in the intervening time and cool down to become livable etc.
Woudn't that make it all the more possible that any "aliens" would be more likely to be on a par with our development or not far removed.Makes the "alien" seeding of earth and visiting us via FTL transport a bit of a problem.

Hi there,

"We" don't. We believe there is a chance that there is, that's all, and because of the time frame of the Universe it is very possible that there are more intelligent life forms out there. It doesnt mean that there MUST be, it's just a probability. There are other ideas now that also tone down the possibility that there is any life at all out there because of various negative factors like self destruction. However, the chances are still high because of the sheer number of star systems out there.

 

Hello again,

The Egyptians did know something about the brain, they even did some brain surgeries as noted by examining skulls found in various sites. The question is just what was the extent of their knowledge.

It does not surprise me very much to think that they did have some knowledge, and a drawing of the cross section of the brain from way back when does not surprise me that much either because they had knives and regularly removed organs from the body prior to mummification. All they had to do is get a little curious about what the inside of the brain looked like. Cutting it in half they would have seen a cross section of the brain and they would have noticed that it is not just one big homogeneous organ but is made up of several different parts.

 

Since this thread started I've been reading up on how the various cultures of the world came to be where and who they are now and it's been rather enlightening say the least.

Right now I have been looking at the various middle eastern cultures and it's surprising to see how they came to be what they are now and how their largely negative shifts in both religious beliefs and political operations have brought them to where they are now and largely for the worse given what most of that region of the world once had going for it over the last near 1400 years or so.

Over zealous religious fanaticism backed by very poor practical education and willingness to embrace or more often deliberately reject every good and beneficial aspects of the modern leading world cultures has left much of the populations stuck in a developmental rut for so long they are now stuck in a culture of largely ignorant tribal barbarism that has near zero capacity to adapt or improve on itself despite the vast amount of gainfully workable resources they have at hand yet either do not use or just squander on pointless infighting.

Me too. I've dropped off in my post count here because I've been spending my time reading/watching videos about several of the topics that have come up. One of the most fascinating for me too, is the cultures. Here's a video I watched that goes into the demise of science in the middle east:

 

I don't understand how the people that believe in quantum fluctuation and probability can explain the absence of life in the universe.

Using their own probabilities.....there would have to be many lifeforms out there. I mean probability is responsible for all the atoms in the universe........why no life out there?

It's funny to me how probability can be used as evidence for their atomic and cosmic theories.......but can't answer why we find no life.

Does this prove that probability is responsible for the physical.........and something other than probability is responsible for life?

 

Hello there,

Science has an answer for all of this mystery, but i dont think every scientist realizes it yet.

If we look at what has been found and thought about over the last maybe 100 years, we find quantum physics and the idea that even in this one universe there could be beings that are far more intelligent than we are and may have achieved higher levels of control than we have as defined by Dr, Kaku.
Higher levels of control include the ability to form new planets for example, and the civilization would he classified as to what level they have achieved so far.

What this tells us is that alien beings or perhaps just one alien being could be, in our limited view, viewed as God. That makes God a real entity that is not as mysterious as we think, although we still dont know everything because we have not attained the level of control that we would need to have in order to be God's ourselves.

Note that most scientists believe that advanced civilizations could very well be much more intelligent than us, so they must believe in God in the form of either that entire civilization for perhaps just one member. We also have to keep in mind that there could be a civilization in another universe that has learned how to create other universes.

So to me it seems that everyone must believe in God, even if it's not exactly the way they were told as they were being brought up. The different branches of religion we find show that nobody knows the right answer there so most likely these branches were their way of handling the thought of some kind of God that created everything.

Also, i find that most people have no way to handle the thought of something that existed for all time, and i dont necessarily mean a God. That's because everything we have seen in common experience has led us to believe that everything has a start and end, and we have little experience with something that could have simply "always been". Remember we have limited ideas about what time really is in our present realm of knowledge, so it's not really possible to say for sure that there could be no such thing as something that has existed for all time and may never stop existing. We cant even be sure if there are more dimensions.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is why all very early societies seem to have a version of the same thing, in their creation myths. No mater what continent they lived on. The same with the great flood. It always is the same basic story, names and places change but not the underlying story. And most of the "gods" are shown with wings.

These two posts combined reflect a lot of my own ideas.

I think it's possible that the universe (or whatever is outside the universe) is eternal. Theories grounded in a start time (big bang, creationism, etc.) fall short in my mind; where did all this come from, and why? Maybe I don't understand the big bang as well as I think I do. Maybe someone would enjoy explaining it to me (or pointing me toward a good video). All the matter, anti matter, and energy that makes up the universe, had to have existed in some form before the big bang, right? Where did it come from, and how long had it been there (wherever there is) before the big bang? It's hard to wrap my head around "it always existed," but even harder to wrap my head around "it just spontaneously occurred out of total nothingness at a defined point in time."

The gods of various cultures seem to trend toward the skies. Gods from above, could very well be intergalactic visitors. I have no proof, just an idea and a lot of unanswered questions.



And another idea I haven't brought up yet because I didn't have time to research how bonkers it might be. I'll just throw them out there and I'm sure if it's ludicrous someone will let me know...

More than one culture has a myth about a great flood. In my mind this could be a major seismic even; plate shifting maybe. From the ground it might be hard to distinguish that from a flood that covered the earth. I think (not yet researched) that our understanding is that this hasn't happened since looong before recorded history. Maybe there was a lost civilization with a recorded history that was lost before our recorded history, and that's where the legends come from. In these stories the people before the flood lived much longer than we do now, hundreds (even thousands) of years (see sumerian kings list posted by @killivolt ). I wonder if any of that has any basis in fact. Brought up in my Christian homeschool I was taught that there used to be a different atmosphere before the flood which allowed the dinosaurs to live, and allowed people to live longer. I wonder if there is any truth to that. Maybe global climate change is much more drastic than we realize.

 

I don't understand how the people that believe in quantum fluctuation and probability can explain the absence of life in the universe.

Using their own probabilities.....there would have to be many lifeforms out there. I mean probability is responsible for all the atoms in the universe........why no life out there?

It's funny to me how probability can be used as evidence for their atomic and cosmic theories.......but can't answer why we find no life.

Does this prove that probability is responsible for the physical.........and something other than probability is responsible for life?

There is nothing definitive saying that there is not.

The problem is as of this moment our technology to possibly detect life bearing planets at the stellar distances involved has not reached that point.

When I was a kid some 30 - 35 years ago there was much question and speculation as to why there are apparently so few planets around other stars. Well, turns out now we know we know they are loaded with them thanks the advancements in the related detection equipment, methods and other related sciences and many of those now recently found planets as of today are being found in the 'Goldilocks zones' of various stars similar to our own plus exhibiting the characteristics of what we define as rocky earth like to the point of being plausibly life supporting or at least potentially life supporting.

In another 25 - 50 years I fully expect that one or more alien planets will be fould that show definitive seasonal change characteristics that will be definable as being likely organically driven like our plant life seasonal changes are observable here for the moon.

 

These two posts combined reflect a lot of my own ideas.

I think it's possible that the universe (or whatever is outside the universe) is eternal. Theories grounded in a start time (big bang, creationism, etc.) fall short in my mind; where did all this come from, and why? Maybe I don't understand the big bang as well as I think I do. Maybe someone would enjoy explaining it to me (or pointing me toward a good video). All the matter, anti matter, and energy that makes up the universe, had to have existed in some form before the big bang, right? Where did it come from, and how long had it been there (wherever there is) before the big bang? It's hard to wrap my head around "it always existed," but even harder to wrap my head around "it just spontaneously occurred out of total nothingness at a defined point in time."

The gods of various cultures seem to trend toward the skies. Gods from above, could very well be intergalactic visitors. I have no proof, just an idea and a lot of unanswered questions.



And another idea I haven't brought up yet because I didn't have time to research how bonkers it might be. I'll just throw them out there and I'm sure if it's ludicrous someone will let me know...

More than one culture has a myth about a great flood. In my mind this could be a major seismic even; plate shifting maybe. From the ground it might be hard to distinguish that from a flood that covered the earth. I think (not yet researched) that our understanding is that this hasn't happened since looong before recorded history. Maybe there was a lost civilization with a recorded history that was lost before our recorded history, and that's where the legends come from. In these stories the people before the flood lived much longer than we do now, hundreds (even thousands) of years (see sumerian kings list posted by @killivolt ). I wonder if any of that has any basis in fact. Brought up in my Christian homeschool I was taught that there used to be a different atmosphere before the flood which allowed the dinosaurs to live, and allowed people to live longer. I wonder if there is any truth to that. Maybe global climate change is much more drastic than we realize.

The key to understanding the Big Bang is the nature of Time itself. Hard as it is to grasp, Time had no existance until the Big Bang event. That is, there is no such thing as before the Big Bang. And since Time is inherently related to space, space had no existance either. In fact, since the Universe is in constant (actually accelerated) expansion, space itself is being continuously created.

For me, that fact in itself points to a creative force behind those events. That's why some scientists favor the multiverse theory of existance. For them, it does away with the necessity of a creator... although even then that wouldn't necessarily be so.

 

Me too. I've dropped off in my post count here because I've been spending my time reading/watching videos about several of the topics that have come up. One of the most fascinating for me too, is the cultures. Here's a video I watched that goes into the demise of science in the middle east:

Yep! just watched it a day or two ago.

There are a bunch more videos from others ( some even from people of that region and cultures who are trying to fix the problems they have before they totally self destruct) that relate to other aspects of those cultures and the how and why of what they do. Inbred, ignorant, arrogant, unorganized and hostile to everyone and everything that is not definable or loyal to their cultural standards, no matter how absurd and self defeating they may be, is a pretty accurate definition of the overlying problem.

 

The key to understanding the Big Bang is the nature of Time itself. Hard as it is to grasp, Time had no existance until the Big Bang event. That is, there is no such thing as before the Big Bang. And since Time is inherently related to space, space had no existance either. In fact, since the Universe is in constant (actually accelerated) expansion, space itself is being continuously created.

Expanding into what?