It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The argument in the Fermi Paradox isn't to say there CAN"T be life elsewhere as you phrased it, but rather, if there is life everywhere, then where the heck is it? Why have we seen no evidence for it other than ALH84001 which is the closest thing to evidence we have and even that is questionable?
Good question, you should read the wiki link I posted for an answer, but one possibility is, evidence right here on Earth that aliens have visited our planet (some people think we have such evidence, but I mean real tangible evidence like artifacts with isotopic compositions indicating an origin off the Earth).
Originally posted by Orkojoker
What kind of evidence for life would we expect to see, were it to exist?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The argument in the Fermi Paradox isn't to say there CAN"T be life elsewhere as you phrased it, but rather, if there is life everywhere, then where the heck is it? Why have we seen no evidence for it other than ALH84001 which is the closest thing to evidence we have and even that is questionable?
The Fermi paradox can be asked in two ways. The first is, "Why are no aliens or their artifacts physically here?" If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy.[6] This is a relatively small amount of time on a geological scale, let alone a cosmological one. Since there are many stars older than the sun, or since intelligent life might have evolved earlier elsewhere, the question then becomes why the galaxy has not been colonized already. Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to all alien civilizations, large-scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible; the means of exploration and theoretical probes involved are discussed extensively below. However, no signs of either colonization or exploration have been generally acknowledged.
The argument above may not hold for the universe as a whole, since travel times may well explain the lack of physical presence on Earth of alien inhabitants of far away galaxies. However, the question then becomes "Why do we see no signs of intelligent life?" since a sufficiently advanced civilization[7] could potentially be observable over a significant fraction of the size of the observable universe.[8] Even if such civilizations are rare, the scale argument indicates they should exist somewhere at some point during the history of the universe, and since they could be detected from far away over a considerable period of time, many more potential sites for their origin are within range of our observation. However, no incontrovertible signs of such civilizations have been detected.
Should alien artifacts be discovered, even here on Earth, they may not be recognizable as such. The products of an alien mind and an advanced alien technology might not be perceptible or recognizable as artificial constructs. Exploratory devices in the form of bio-engineered life forms created through synthetic biology would presumably disintegrate after a point, leaving no evidence; an alien information gathering system based on molecular nanotechnology could be all around us at this very moment, completely undetected. The same might be true of civilizations that actively hide their investigations from us, for possible reasons described further in this article.
Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by HDD09
No it's not a valid argument, it's called a negative proof fallacy in fancy language.