> Amara Graps <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> Amara Graps | Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik
> >>> *Interplanetary Dust Group* | Saupfercheckweg 1
> Do you know almost all astronomers?
in response to my:
>> Robert J. Bradbury (email@example.com) wrote:
> >Unfortunately *almost all* astronomers assume that the UFE (universal
> >fatality [probability] equation) for intelligent life = 1.
Oh boy, well now I've gone and stepped in it...
No, Amara, I do not claim to know *almost all* astronomers. I have however attended both a Gravitational Microlensing Conference and an IEEE Telescope conference. In casual conversations at these conferences I discussed some of my concepts regarding SIs, the dark matter, etc. The scientists with whom I have spoken were not merely "not warm" to the idea, the facial expressions involved seemed to imply that they thought I was some kind of a nut (though they were polite enough not to say that).
>From these experiences, I know "a few" astronomers view the idea of
intelligent life being responsible for the phenomena they observe (or don't observe) similarly to the way they view the Church's treatment of Galileo, i.e. dimly. I am however, quite familiar with the rather cool reception that nanotechnolgy has received in the physics/chemistry & other engineering communities of "well disciplined scientists". Presumably this is in large part due to the fact that what MNt predicts is such a distance from normal experience and practices that it must be "impossible" (even though people can't say why).
I am making an extrapolation, based on these experiences, that "almost all" astronomers will be reluctant to consider the idea that things they see could be explained by megascale engineering projects constructed using nanotechnology.
For example, if you take the recent work with Supernovas and and the rate of slowing of the expansion of the universe. My general impression is that the astronomers would prefer to invent a "new force" and/or substantially alter fundamental equations of the universe instead of considering that the observations might be explained by "intelligent life". [The distant supernovas are going to be coming from galaxies very early in the history of the universe and therefore probably "dead", while nearer supernovas are going to be coming from much older galaxies, that could be "alive".] So far, I've only got a few hunches as to how an explain the observations by the superintelligences' astroengineering efforts. I have to go through the papers to determine what corrections are being made.]
Now, which explanation is "simpler" -- young galaxies are dead and old galaxies are alive *or* the strengths of fundamental forces change over time (which I believe is one of the proposed explanations re: the supernova data).
We are alive, so the universe can support life. Even if it is difficult to evolve life, the universe has had 5+ *billion* years before we even got started to get life going again and again and again. If even a small fraction of life got to the stage we are at, some of it should have evolved to the limits imposed by physics. If that happened then the "old galaxies" could very well be at Kardashev Civilization III levels. That however (at least in my experience) *is not* something most astronomers believe and that is why I'm saying "almost all" astronomers believe in the Universal Fatality Equation.
If you haven't read them, I discuss this further in my SETI criticisms:
See my messages:
http://www.lucifer.com/exi-lists/extropians/3991.html http://www.lucifer.com/exi-lists/extropians/4030.html http://www.lucifer.com/exi-lists/extropians/4054.htmland for background:
If you can deal with PDF, the abstract for my poster at the
upcoming Bioastronomy conference is at: