reply to post by ForwardDrift
I had intended to address both of your questions that I quoted, but I focused on the second question regarding evidence for widespread cataclysm and
never got 'round to the first; I got stuck in the muck, as it were. So this post will focus on the first question of yours which I quoted, and here
...some common sense questions, like the glaring lack of physical evidence for some of this advanced alien technology?
Well. I want to attempt to address this question, but first I'm going to take a stab at clarifying the question itself, because it takes some rather
large leaps of assumption, if you'll pardon my saying so (I'm sure you were in a hurry, or something).
For instance, it makes the rather bold assumption that advanced technology of an alien race would be recognizable as such to us. This is bold,
assumption-wise, for several reasons: what makes you think that discarded or lost or forgotten gadgets of a completely alien species would look
anything like something we would identify as "technology"?
I recently purchased a Samsung Galaxy S3 android device, it is a powerful multiprocessor computer with enough memory to hold huge libraries inside it,
and it is invisibly connected to a world's worth of such libraries, it is an HD video camera or digital still cam, it connects me instantly to nearly
anyone or any place in multiple ways in real time anywhere in the world, it talks to things in space and informs me of my exact location in real time
and plots that on a world map of detailed images and crowd-sourced info, it includes a magnetometer, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a multiparameter
photometer, a proximity sensor, a thermometer, and a barometer in its sensor package; it has a zillion other capabilities, too much to list here, as
I'm sure you are aware.
Turn it off and it is a featureless black oblong with rounded corners, about six inches long and three across, and a quarter inch thick. It's shiny,
but that's about all it has going for it powered down. It's got a few characters on it, but they are iconic logos and thus are more art than script.
None of the materials comprising its makeup would be recognizable to a human a few hundred years ago. Some of them wouldn't be recognizable 50 or even
25 years ago, and its innards are the stuff of dreams a mere decade ago. And this is to fellow humans
So the question should say "...glaring lack of physical evidence for some of this advanced alien technology that we would recognize as
But this leads me to another unspoken leap in the question. Back to the phone...left out in the elements it is doubtful that it would still be
functional after a week. In five years it would be barely recognizable. In 1,000 years it would be impossible to tell it had even existed, much less
10-15k years like we are talking.
So it should be "...glaring lack of physical evidence for some of this advanced alien technology that we would recognize as such, and that could
survive to be recognizable as such for over ten thousand years
is a much more honest question...or rather it is, I'm sure, merely the complete and unabridged version of your original shorthand--but
Now that we've got that cleared up, I'm going to be even more annoying and respond with questions of my own. Please note that these are not intended
; I cannot answer this question. I can only address
So I ask, "What makes you think advanced technology must necessarily be comprised of physical materials?"
It is not outside the realm of possibility that future tech will be almost solely comprised of energy states, tightly controlled at the quantum level.
In our own tech, as miniaturization continues, we have/are/will be coming up against barriers represented by the limitations of physical matter; this
is starkly illustrated by advancements in microprocessing and the conducting limits of our materials. Which are leapfrogged by quantum computing using
nonlocal phenomena, i.e., we have removed physical matter from the equation to solve the problem.
In addition to that question, and as counterpoint to it as well(and also in closing), I ask:
"What makes you think no such evidence has been found?"
P.S. "Common sense", usually isn't.
edit on 13/4/25 by Tsurugi because: BBCode fail.