because later on, the stars would have already been colonized
It’s an argument, sure, but still “there are more things in heaven and earth”. For example (invented by Paul Almond afaik) if civilization-level quantum suicide can be used for reality editing, and all sufficiently advanced aliens discover a proof that it is in some sense okay, that might explain why we don’t see them—they’ve winked out and are having fun. Or the universe allows better colonization opportunities than flying to other stars, something like creating new universes locally, and all sufficiently advanced aliens discover that. Or if the origin of life requires some super-improbable quantum event, and even given the scale of the universe we’re likely to be the only ones. Or something else.
So basically I’m not sure how much we can conclude from the age & emptiness of the universe. I mean, you’re probably right that FTL is impossible, but idk about this particular argument.
Then we should look around ourselves and see an older universe.
Also this falls under the category of “distinguish the possible from the probable”. No species anywhere cares about leaving one little probe behind to stop Holocausts?
Then we should look around ourselves and see an older universe.
Hmm. Okay, if FTL was possible, we’d observe a younger universe, and if there was a strong barrier to life we’d observe an older universe. If both are true, or both are false, we might well observe the age of the universe as it is now. So how can that be a reason to update strongly about either variable? (Taylor G. Lunt has made the same point.)
I can’t follow why we should necessarily expect to see an older universe: given @cousin_it’s “origin of life requires some super-improbable quantum event” (or some sort of Great Filter generally), such that the rate of intelligence emerging is roughly 1 intelligent civilisation per galaxy per 13 billion years, wouldn’t this explain our observed age of the universe whilst also explaining our observed lack of interactions with aliens?
I realise this reduces to an argument about the suspiciously convenient rate of 1/galaxy/13bnYears—but I think we would need to evaluate this proposed rate by evaluating arguments for/against each factor in the Drake Equation (or some other bottom-up methodology): if this rate is within-bounds for reasonable Drake Equation factors (or otherwise explicable from the inside view), this would seem to explain our observations without additional assumptions like “FTL is impossible for superintelligence”, “at least some aliens would be grabby”, etc.?
(nb. I think these assumptions are very reasonable indeed, in isolation—I just think they may be adding complexity here without adding explanatory power)
In other words: I don’t think we can simultaneously solve all three out of “are there aliens at all?”, “would any aliens be grabby?”, and “is FTL travel possible for a superintelligence?” purely from the observed age of the universe alone as when arguing from the age of the universe each of these becomes an unknown variable for the other two. A 13bn-year-old universe with no aliens at all but possible-for-superintelligence FTL looks very much like a 13bn-year-old universe teeming with aliens but impossible-for-superintelligence FTL, and so on.
This seems to remind me arguments like “ah, but what if the ASI doesn’t care about lots of, but about only one thing”. Then you still have maximizing the probability of the local thing. Just, why not to do that when it is about all your preferences? You won’t really have anything competing, which usually makes humans not to pursue tiny chances for particular things.
And similar way, even if aliens quantum suicide or something, there is still no reason for them not to leave behind an ASI which will improve the universe on margins to their tastes.
It’s an argument, sure, but still “there are more things in heaven and earth”. For example (invented by Paul Almond afaik) if civilization-level quantum suicide can be used for reality editing, and all sufficiently advanced aliens discover a proof that it is in some sense okay, that might explain why we don’t see them—they’ve winked out and are having fun. Or the universe allows better colonization opportunities than flying to other stars, something like creating new universes locally, and all sufficiently advanced aliens discover that. Or if the origin of life requires some super-improbable quantum event, and even given the scale of the universe we’re likely to be the only ones. Or something else.
So basically I’m not sure how much we can conclude from the age & emptiness of the universe. I mean, you’re probably right that FTL is impossible, but idk about this particular argument.
Then we should look around ourselves and see an older universe.
Also this falls under the category of “distinguish the possible from the probable”. No species anywhere cares about leaving one little probe behind to stop Holocausts?
Hmm. Okay, if FTL was possible, we’d observe a younger universe, and if there was a strong barrier to life we’d observe an older universe. If both are true, or both are false, we might well observe the age of the universe as it is now. So how can that be a reason to update strongly about either variable? (Taylor G. Lunt has made the same point.)
I can’t follow why we should necessarily expect to see an older universe: given @cousin_it’s “origin of life requires some super-improbable quantum event” (or some sort of Great Filter generally), such that the rate of intelligence emerging is roughly 1 intelligent civilisation per galaxy per 13 billion years, wouldn’t this explain our observed age of the universe whilst also explaining our observed lack of interactions with aliens?
I realise this reduces to an argument about the suspiciously convenient rate of 1/galaxy/13bnYears—but I think we would need to evaluate this proposed rate by evaluating arguments for/against each factor in the Drake Equation (or some other bottom-up methodology): if this rate is within-bounds for reasonable Drake Equation factors (or otherwise explicable from the inside view), this would seem to explain our observations without additional assumptions like “FTL is impossible for superintelligence”, “at least some aliens would be grabby”, etc.?
(nb. I think these assumptions are very reasonable indeed, in isolation—I just think they may be adding complexity here without adding explanatory power)
In other words: I don’t think we can simultaneously solve all three out of “are there aliens at all?”, “would any aliens be grabby?”, and “is FTL travel possible for a superintelligence?” purely from the observed age of the universe alone as when arguing from the age of the universe each of these becomes an unknown variable for the other two. A 13bn-year-old universe with no aliens at all but possible-for-superintelligence FTL looks very much like a 13bn-year-old universe teeming with aliens but impossible-for-superintelligence FTL, and so on.
This seems to remind me arguments like “ah, but what if the ASI doesn’t care about lots of, but about only one thing”. Then you still have maximizing the probability of the local thing. Just, why not to do that when it is about all your preferences? You won’t really have anything competing, which usually makes humans not to pursue tiny chances for particular things.
And similar way, even if aliens quantum suicide or something, there is still no reason for them not to leave behind an ASI which will improve the universe on margins to their tastes.