The Fermi Paradox, Phase Changes and Intergalactic Colonisation
A new model shows how the spread of ET civilisations can undergo phase changes, providing a deeper insights into the Fermi Paradox
kfc 07/26/2010
- 54 Comments

In 1950, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi raised the question that now bears his name. If there are intelligent civilisations elsewhere in the Universe with technologies that far surpass our own, why do we see no sign of them?
Since then, the so-called Fermi Paradox has puzzled astronomers and science fiction writers alike. And although there are no shortage of ways to approach the problem (this blog has covered them here and here for example), nobody has come up with a convincing explanation. .
Now there is another take on the problem thanks to a new approach by Igor Bezsudnov and Andrey Snarskii at the National Technical University of Ukraine.
Their approach is to imagine that civilisations form at a certain rate, grow to fill a certain volume of space and then collapse and die. They even go as far as to suggest that civilisations have a characteristic life time, which limits how big they can become.
In certain circumstances, however, when civilisations are close enough together in time and space, they can come into contact and when this happens the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures allows them both to flourish in a way that increases their combined lifespan.
Bezsudnov and Snarskii point out that this process of spreading into space can be easily modelled using a cellular automaton. And they've gone ahead and created their own universe using a 10,000 x 10,000 cell automaton running over 320,000 steps.
The parameters that govern the evolution of this universe are simple: the probability of a civilisation forming, the usual lifespan of such a civilisation and the extra bonus time civilisations get when they meet.
The result gives a new insight into the Fermi Paradox. Bezsudnov and Snarskii say that for certain values of these parameters, the universe undergoes a phase change from one in which civilisations tend not to meet and spread into one in which the entire universe tends to become civilised as different groups meet and spread.
Bezsudnov and Snarskii even derive an inequality that a universe must satisfy to become civilised. This, they say, is analogous to the famous Drake equation which attempts to quantify the number of other contactable civilisations in the universe right now.
The question of course is what kind of universe do we live in: are the parameters here ripe for the evolution of a single cosmic civilisation or are we condemned to be forever alone?
Bezsudnov and Snarskii say there's only one way to find out: wait and see.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.2774: Where Is Everybody? - Wait A Moment... New Approach To The Fermi Paradox



fixerdave
28 Comments
why collapse?
Why would an advanced civilisation collapse? And, if it did, why would the remnants not carry on, rebuild, and re-colonise? For example, when Rome collapsed it was surely damaging to "civilisation" but people still lived, moved about, explored. While the pace may have slowed, humanity did continue and we do exist now. For all the collapsed civilisations that lay in the wake of Earthly history, humanity has continued to advance.
So, what these people are contemplating is not a collapse of civilisation, but a genocide of an entire intelligent species. What would cause that? What ->could<- cause the extinction of an entire species that has already colonised multiple star systems? What, they all just up and decide to drink the Kool-aid?
Imagine humanity that has colonised multiple star systems... now imaging how much work it would be to exterminate them, to actually end the advance of humanity for millions of years. Sure, advanced weapons that can destroy entire suns... also means advanced tools for survival. We're talking about a war where -> Everyone <- dies? I don't think so. Even if 99.999% of humans were killed and those left were bombed back to the stone-age, that's, what, a 6,000 year setback? So?
Once an intelligent species starts colonising the galaxy, assuming a 25,000 year travel time between star systems (less if we get to faster than light) and that each colonised star then goes on to colonise at least 2 more, that species will be everywhere in the galaxy in about a million years. What's losing 6,000 years to a mere civilisation hiccup?
I think the (edit:) Fermi Paradox stands.
Either
* we're the first,
http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-are-alone.html
* or the "others" are already here but don't want to talk to us,
* or there is some prohibition on interstellar travel that we don't know about,
* or we all live in a virtual-reality game.
http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2007/01/arcade-philosophy-philosophy-can-be.html
Reply
Guest (DouglasBuettner)
Re: why collapse?
Your questions and answers are very good. If a star system should grow old some civilizations may die out all together or need a new star system to find warmth and all they need to survive. Life as we know it may also exist in other plains of existence in space and time and have transcended or moved on. It is my belief that life is not all seen, but could be unseen and heard if the proper interface to the human mind is made. As time flows by these beings could be communicating to us right now about their civilization, science and technologies, thus passing their knowledge along to us. As we are a combination of worlds past gone and now are just finding out a little bit more about are creators.
Here is a link I would like to share with you of my past experiences in this life:
http://timetravelingspirits.blogspot.com/2010/07/time-traveling-spirits.html?
Reply
gerardomarina
9 Comments
Re: why collapse?
The article only talks about contact, that not necesarilli means looking at ET in the eye. Our radio signals have some 50 years in existance and we don't have an escape plan for catastrophic effects coming from outer space such large asteroids or the solar explosions... that would mean total anihilation and yet we already left a message in space. Or two if ET finds the remains of our unmaned space explorers that will qualify as contact too.
Reply
cgrayce
2 Comments
Re: why collapse?
Why would a civilization collapse and a species go extinct? Because the alternative -- immortality -- is unbelievably unlikely. It is far more likely that some unlikely concatenation of unlikely events will sooner or later put an end to every species. You know, a nearby nova sends an X-ray blast at just the unfortunate moment that Skynet is booting up and make it Terminate us all.
I agree with you that humanity would be a lot harder to kill off if it were distributed across more than one star system (although calling it "humanity" in the aggregate seems tricky, inasmuch as the two groups would diverge and perhaps be mutually incomprehensible and infertile within a few hundred thousand years).
But how that is ever to be achieved, I cannot imagine. The stars are just too damn far away. The very nearest star is 4 ly, and it would be a big surprise if the nearest star with a habitable planet, active but harmless ecology and no intelligent inhabitants already in possession is less than 100 ly.
How are we ever to cross a gap of 100 ly in person? The product of energy and time required seems far beyond our lifespan, attention span, or conceivable energy resources. Well might a colony of ants contemplate a trans-Atlantic voyage against a headwind.
Reply
fixerdave
28 Comments
Re: why collapse?
"You know, a nearby nova sends an X-ray blast at just the unfortunate moment that Skynet is booting up and make it Terminate us all."
And, then Skynet exists, effectively our descendants. Will Skynet not then send out its descendants to colonize the galaxy?
I should point out that I'm using the term 'we' very loosely. Obviously, we won't be colonizing any star systems, we'll be dead. However, our descendants will likely make that trip. Now, our descendants are more likely than not to be our robotic creations rather than us. I don't have much hope for biological humans, at least as we know them, to survive for too many more generations. We'll either be mucking with our own biology or just giving up on it fairly soon. The next phase of human evolution will be closer to engineering.
Now, to our engineered descendants (biological or robotic), within a few thousand years it seems pretty clear that they will be next to immortal. Once effectively immortal, what's a 100 year trip? A 1,000 year trip? 20,000 years? If it took 20,000 years to make it to the next star system and another 5,000 years to build up enough infrastructure to begin another colonizing trip or two, that's still only 25,000 years. As I've said before, at 25,000 year intervals, we'll be everywhere in our Galaxy within 1,000,000 years. On galactic timescales, a million years is pretty short.
Your ant analogy is actually quite telling. They are here, and just about everywhere else. How? They walked, and I'm sure it took a long, long time. I'm saying that even if our descendants have to walk, to travel sub-light, they will eventually get there, everywhere. It's only a matter of time.
And, to bring this back on track. Why aren't 'they' here already? Surely, other planets with intelligent species have evolved before us, millions or even billions of years ago. Why aren't they here?
Reply
USCCayman
1 Comment
Re: why collapse?
Yes, and if the singularity hypothesis is true, then possibly the UFOs that people are reporting are actually intelligent, non-biological craft unattended by biological aliens.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: why collapse?
Why civilizations in "different frames" collapse? Ask Einstein. There is such thing as "time dilation" and according to this, the faster the civilisation with respect to us the longer it last. However there is such thing as length "contraction" and so such civilisation will shrink too much and we would not see it. <G>
We really live in a fantastic hallucinated world. Please keep staying high. We do not need any drug to get high. Contemporary physics will keep you high. How wonderful! Mad house indeed. Just leave tax payers alone.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
jcmoonraker
2 Comments
Re: why collapse?
Your four scenarios answer the problem quite nicely. The virtual reality scenario is always interesting, especially when there are endless chains of virtual realities embedded within larger virtual realities. I also like the scenario where the development of reality simulation exceeds development of space exploration. We never hear from advanced civilizations because they are all in some virtual reality and no one bothers to get off their respective planet. Based on current trends, I would wager we will be able to encode consciousness digitally before we can travel a couple hundred light years.
One article, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens/, answers the question similarly. The chances of two technologically similar civilizations establishing communication and spurring space travel innovation BEFORE getting lost in the allure of simulation is extremely low. There is a very tiny window where that can happen.
I am also a fan of the "seed the galaxy" scenario where advanced civilizations, never able to overcome space travel, just hurl "life stuff" at earth like planets. Human life continues endlessly but planets never meet.
I've always had a hard time imagining civilizations advanced enough to travel through space keeping us alive but in the dark about life in the rest of the universe. Why would Earth's resources be so insignificant to not be worth the trip to extract them, but worth their time/money to actively prevent us from discovering the existence of life on other planets?
I also find it difficult to believe that, given the laws of physics, information encoding/decoding would be so fundamentally unique between planets that communication would be incompatible. If we can filter the "noise" to find 14 billion year old patterns in background radiation, and other civilizations can do the same, we should be able to communicate.
Reply
fixerdave
28 Comments
Re: why collapse?
"The chances of two technologically similar civilizations establishing communication and spurring space travel innovation BEFORE getting lost in the allure of simulation is extremely low. There is a very tiny window where that can happen."
Let's make that assumption, that most or even all civilizations go virtual - they exist as information in unimaginably-advanced computers. But, you know, it really doesn't change anything.
Virtual communities still require real physical resources. They need power, they need material. All that information has to be encoded in something, movement (even of information) requires power.
Thus, just like in the real world, some virtual communities will live within their resource limits, not expanding. However, some will not, they will continue to grow and, eventually, they will exceed the resources of their entire solar system. Yes, that might take a long time.
If a virtual community must interact with the physical world to utilize resources, does it matter if they are virtual? It's actually more likely that a virtual community would take to colonizing other solar systems. The travel between systems, even if agonizingly slow, would be irrelevant, so long as they could maintain power during the trip.
"Why would Earth's resources be so insignificant to not be worth the trip to extract them, but worth their time/money to actively prevent us from discovering the existence of life on other planets?"
Now, this I find quite intriguing. It's a very good question. I'm of the opinion that once a species (flesh or mechanical) has managed to get off a planet and out into space, the last thing they're going to want to do is come back down to some slimly little corrosive cesspool at the bottom of a gravity well, especially one that has a nasty nuclear-armed bio-film like ours. Yet, I assume that 'they' don't want us to leave.
I suppose, if you view the resources of a solar system, minerals from asteroids, hydrocarbons from places like Titan, water as ice, solar power... that's pretty much all available from much easier places to get to than some earth-sized planet. But, if we get off this ball, we will be competing against 'them' for these resources too. I guess I see us as rats, ignorable in our little slimy nest, but troublesome pests if we get out.
And, just for clarification, my "virtual reality" answer to the Fermi Paradox is that we exist as a game and the universe we see is a creation, a joke actually. Now, I wrote that piece as a commentary on religion, that if we're going to suppose supernatural things, we might as well go all the way. But, it does answer the paradox in that the real universe might be completely different than our poor astronomers think it is. Just maybe, right now, our virtual world is actually in a little tin can hurtling through interstellar space on some colonizing mission :) Or, maybe it's in the trunk of a taxi heading for the submarine, or maybe it's ...
Reply
jcmoonraker
2 Comments
Re: why collapse?
Interesting points. Regarding simulations, I am definitely making assumptions on power needs. It is my assumption that if the simulations of minds have replaced physical minds, then the power source is equally matched in technological advancement. A sun offers plenty of power and the "machine" would be self-replicating more and more efficient versions of itself. That being said, your fundamental objection is spot on. While I do not think this "machine" necessarily needs more power then a sun can give, suns die, necessitating travel somehow. As you suggest, colonization would take the form of slowly floating for millions of years to other solar systems (though perhaps with smaller, less capable versions of an original).
I am unable to conceive of how a civilization could practically transport human beings through the vastness of space. Simulation is an overwhelmingly better utilization of time and energy. In which case, is post-human a necessary condition for space colonization? Do all advanced civilizations end up as simulations since there is a greater chance an advanced computer (or perhaps in Kurzweil fashion, a series of increasingly intelligent computers) will make it to another solar system? Once it gets there, what does it do?
Reply
gordonwh
12 Comments
Re: why collapse?
There seem to be two common assumptions when talking about 'reality' simulations that we may inhabit. Firstly that the simulators ('modellers') completely control the simulation. In numerical simulations we currently run (weather systems, crustal processes etc) this is not true - and nor would it be - you tend to run simulations when you don't understand the exact response of the system.
Secondly that we are the focus of the simulation. Carrying on from my first point, it's just as likely that we are an anomaly in the simulation. When anomalies are finally noticed, they are either ignored, or removed, depending on how they affect the main focus of the simulation.
Reply
rev289
1 Comment
Re: why collapse?
Although the term "Phase change" is likely a good enough description of the transition from an effectively empty universe to one teeming with life, my expectations upon reading the headline were quite different. The Fermi paradox has indirectly been the topic of a number of SciFi novels. One that comes to mind is Aurthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End." The reason it comes to mind is that it describes a very different kind of "phase change": the evolution from corporeal beings to, well, something else entirely.
Another thought is that every sufficiently advanced civilization is tempted to understand the conditions that occurred during the inflationary phase of the big bang. To do this they try to recreate some key conditions and ... succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Every 10 billion years or so life evolves to gape in wonder at the inevitable results; ad infinitum.
Perhaps this counts as a "prohibition on interstellar travel we don't know about." The enforced social engineering fantasy of the "Day the Earth Stood Still" would be another type of prohibition with truly stultifying implications.
At any rate, it is quite possible that meat is not capable of evolving to a level that can sustain a universal or even merely galactic dispersion. Feynman was famous for his "plenty of room at the bottom" conception of nano-technology. Perhaps advanced civilizations forever unable to break the speed of light barrier evolve downwards into quantum beings inhabiting the higher winding numbers of our 11 dimensional string space.
I'd hate to think we were the first or only sentient life forms. The responsibility to not let the spark die out would be almost overwhelming.
Reply
fixerdave
28 Comments
Re: why collapse?
The idea that a species attains the knowledge to completely destroy/reset the universe - and does - is a little scary. However, when you consider that we've still got that 16 billion year observable history, it still leaves us with having to be the first. Thus, it really doesn't change anything with the Fermi Paradox.
Then there's the phase-change to something completely different before becoming capable of interstellar travel. As a result, they have no interest in our Earthly (pun intended) plane.
I can agree that it is entirely likely that there exists, for lack of a better term, a super-reality where intelligence can operate free of what we think are constraints. This would be a new environment, if you will. Yet, if you think of it in evolutionary terms, the Childhood's End scenario where the children morph into this state is unlikely. Instead, it would be a speciation event, where some choose to, for example, upload their consciousness into this new state. However, the original habitat, the Earthly Realm, would still exist and not everyone would choose to leave it. The species would split in two, one staying with the old and one moving into the new habitat. Now, I could see how the species that chose to stay behind might decide that interstellar colonization isn't worth the bother... why walk when you can fly? Why slog between planets at sub-light when you could just upload to another dimension and have distance become irrelevant? It kind of makes the whole effort rather pointless. But, the question then becomes: are there enough species getting to this point where it becomes likely that one of them would choose to make this colonization effort anyway? If yes, then the Fermi Paradox stands. If no, then we've got an answer, or at least another alternative.
Actually, I think I'll add a number 5 to my list of possibilities. Phase-change to another plane of existence. The possibility that we become the first species to be so stubborn as to attempt interstellar colonization instead of just going the easy route is entirely possible. Certainly it is as possible as the other options.
I mean, if the stars are not for the strong nor the weak, but are there for the unfathomably stubborn, then they're there for humanity to seize, someday.
Reply
mbloore
39 Comments
Re: why collapse?
a 6,000-year setback if we are reduced to stone-age tech? more like 60-million years, the time it might take for energy and ore deposits to reach the surface where stone tools can be used on them. there is nothing left right now that doesn't need high technology to reach.
Reply