[sillysaurus3]

Another answer to the Fermi paradox is that a Kardashev Type 4 civilization is able to harness the power of an entire universe. We wouldn't be able to detect this by definition, since they exist outside of our perceived reality.

At first glance, this seems to be a useless theory, since it's not refutable. But it lends itself to a belief system: by studying the universe, we gain an understanding of whatever created it. This is helpful as a motive: a reason for studying any of this at all, in absence of economic or social incentives.

This seems important. As the centuries tick by, and as we confirm and re-confirm that we are indeed alone and that we do indeed have a mostly-complete model of physics, there will become less and less incentive to analyze the corner cases. It's costly, and takes decades. But at one time, it was costly and took decades to build a cathedral. Yet we accomplished these impressive feats due to a shared belief system.

The reason I brought this up is that we often like to believe there is an advanced alien civilization tucked away in some corner of some galaxy, sending out messages via gravitational waves or neutrinos. But why do humans find this idea so seductive? It's because of an underlying loneliness: we want to believe that we are connected with the universe in some fashion, that our existence has a point, and that there is reason to do anything at all in a universe that will exist long after we've gone, long after our solar system and sun has gone. Because if there were an alien civilization, at least we would not be so alone.

In that context, a solution to Fermi's paradox is simply to believe that our very universe exists due to some higher-order phenomena not knowable within our reality. And by studying the laws of physics, we gain a glimpse into the boundary between our universe and its hypervisor.

[ci5er]

> But why do humans find this idea so seductive? It's because of an underlying loneliness: we want to believe that we are connected with the universe in some fashion, that our existence has a point [...]

No. It's simply that statistically, we can't believe we are the first, nor that we are unique. It would be (statistically) extremely odd if we were, and there is a bias against anthropo-centric theories.

Heck, I'd be happier if we are alone (less risk and more free land), but if we appear to be, that seems odd, and worthy of investigation. No?

EDIT: Why do you claim to speak for all our hopes/dreams/desires? "We need this" or "We want that". Frankly, that's a little collectivist and creepy.

[spuz]

> No. It's simply that statistically, we can't believe we are the first, nor that we are unique. It would be (statistically) extremely odd if we were, and there is a bias against anthropo-centric theories.

Fermi's paradox does not ask about civilisations like ours. It asks about interstellar travelling or at least interstellar communicating species. We have not achieved this level yet so we are not the 'first' as you say. You might claim that our radio signals should be able to be detected, but they are so weak and have been travelling for such a short period of time that they may as well not exist to an outside observer. There may be millions of our type of civilisation out there presently and throughout history but they would all be undetectable to us and hence our civilisation doesn't play into the paradox.

[perl4ever]

"we can't believe we are the first, nor that we are unique. It would be (statistically) extremely odd if we were"

Someone did a Bayesian analysis using probability distributions and found that, given what we observe (no aliens), there is a substantial probability we are the first civilization in the universe, or else the only one within galactic distances. They also inferred that whatever makes spacefaring life unlikely is probably in the past, not the future, which seems optimistic if you're worried about AGW or nuclear war.

"The Fermi question is not a paradox: it just looks like one if one is overconfident in how well we know the Drake equation parameters."

"The Fermi observation makes the most uncertain priors move strongly, reinforcing the rare life guess and an early great filter."

They end up with a 40% chance we are alone in the universe and about a 55% chance we are alone in our galaxy.

http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/jodrell-ba...

[ianai]

I’ve heard mathematicians express similar reasons for studying math. It can be something of a universal language.

Personally, I think no matter how often matter-energy arrange themselves into life in the universe life remains vanishingly rare. For that reason, life should be as harmonious with itself as possible - diverse and varied but self supporting. The rest of the universe is rarely calm and stable enough for life to exist.

As for why we haven’t found life yet: we are very new to this game. We just in this last decade started being able to resolve properties of exoplanets. I don’t think we have the information to even posit a question like the Fermi paradox with any level of confidence.

[tntn]

I don't understand how this is any different from believing in God.

[lovemenot]

No doubt that was your parent poster's intention. There have been many ontological arguments throughout history. This was one such.

[jobigoud]

This wouldn't really solve the paradox as it implies there are zero type 0, 1, 2 and 3 civilizations that we can detect in our Universe, which is still statistically odd.

[perl4ever]

There was a HN thread (probably several) not too long ago about someone who did a better analysis of the Drake equation with probability distributions rather than point estimates and found that given that improved methodology, it isn't odd that we see nobody - as it is quite likely we are either the first civilization in the universe or the only one within a galaxy or more. No new facts were used, only a sensible synthesis of the known information.