this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
157 points (99.4% liked)

chapotraphouse

13814 readers
911 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The problem here is that we don't know you dropped your phone. Instead of a phone it might be a pool of jelly or an entire asteroid or a lichen thing that eats methane and only lives on the absolute best, truly primo rocks. So when you illuminate it you go, "aww man it's just a rock!" and move on. And you already know other life isn't going to be a phone, that's something for humans in particular. You need to look for the rock dwellers, they are more likely than the phone-havers.

One also has to make peace with the fact that we may not know if there is life in other solar systems for a very, very long time. It probably requires making an actual visit and sending back results. And that would likely take hundreds of thousands of years in our small neighborhood of systems. We can imagine getting really good telescopes before that, I suppose, but they would probably have limits. As in, with what resolution could we make observations via a constellation of telescopes distributed around the solar system? So we can get much better spatial resolution to ask the most important question: is there metabolism?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The problem here is that we don't know you dropped your phone.

sure maybe it's in your pocket. the point of the analogy is that you look where you can see, i.e. with bias, not that we're looking for evidence of silicon fabrication.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The bias is incorrect, though

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i'm not sure what you mean, biases aren't true or false they're a thumb on the scale. we know what we look like, we would instantly recognize something that looks like we do but that's separate from how likely it is for something else to look like earth life or whether there's anything to find at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

As I explained, the more likely thing to look for is certain kinds of dissimilarity. Not a phone, but something living off rocks. The bias is reversed from what is probable.