Reason we've never found aliens: humans are already going extinct

[Akka]

Come on guys, he's just trolling you here with some religious nutjob mumbo-jumbo. Don't fall for it.
(and if he really believes this shit, you aren't going to be able to change his mind, so ignore him)

[Elim Garak]

This isn't the problem. This is the reason why it's possible.

It's possible to DO for someone, it cannot happen on its own.

Nothing in that statement implies that the entropy of a non-isolated part must decrease; only that it can.

Nowhere did I claim that it does. I use "can" as well. Trouble reading? The only thing that is a must is for the rest of system to increase entropy for a part of it to decrease it. If a part CAN do it, then all parts can do it.

All you've demonstrated with your thought experiment is that not every part can decrease entropy. And you're right. But nothing I wrote implies that this could be the case, so it doesn't refute my statement at all.

No, that's not the result of a thought experiment. That all parts cannot decrease their entropy at the same time is a GIVEN. Because all parts == the entire isolated system.

The result is - it cannot happen on its own and therefore must be a result of someone doing something in that part. Thus your argument doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread.

Are you determined to be contrarian about as many STEM topics as possible, or what?

I am not contrarian to STEM topics. I'm contrarian to people who fail at STEM.

[dextersmith]

Is this promoting more pregnancies?

- - - Updated - - -

But remember that we are isolated from them by vast distances in all four dimensions. That's the most likely resolution of Fermi's "paradox".

And yes, we don't know what the average lifespan of an advanced civilisation is, if there is one. That's one of the components of the Drake equation I think.

Imagine if aliens don't travel because they have the lifespan of a house fly.

[Deleted]

..

Another great example of mental healthcare not being sufficient in your country.

Edit:
Oh and I know you're trolling but then again it doesn't really change the reality of the situation as trolls are mentally unstable.

[Elim Garak]

Imagine if aliens don't travel because they have the lifespan of a house fly.

That's not a reason not to travel.

On cosmic scale we live as long as house flies. We want to travel anyway, we dream of cryo colony ships, or multi-generational colony ships, or whatever.

[Deleted]

We want to travel anyway, we dream of cryo colony ships, or multi-generational colony ships, or whatever.

Or warp drive!

Maybe'll you'd get to meet a real version of Garak

[Garnier Fructis]

It's possible to DO for someone, it cannot happen on its own.

And I didn't say that it could. Again, this depends on the other physics of the particular system.

Nowhere did I claim that it does. I use "can" as well. Trouble reading? The only thing that is a must is for the rest of system to increase entropy for a part of it to decrease it. If a part CAN do it, then all parts can do it.

You don't arrive at the 'problem' in your thought experiment unless you assume that they must, which you implicitly assumed when you wrote this:

Then you will run into a problem of all parts doing it at the same time

Moving on:

No, that's not the result of a thought experiment. That all parts cannot decrease their entropy at the same time is a GIVEN. Because all parts == the entire isolated system.

The result is - it cannot happen on its own and therefore must be a result of someone doing something in that part.

No, this is the point that you raised before the thought experiment, but your thought experiment is tangential to it.

Thus your argument doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread.

Considering I was responding to someone claiming that evolution can't happen because of entropy, what I wrote does make sense. Since evolution is possible precisely because entropy does not have to uniformly increase. Because the biomass of the Earth is the 'part' that experiences entropy decrease, at the expense of the Sun's increase in entropy. The Sun (+ most of the rest of physics) is the someone something that you're looking for.

I am not contrarian to STEM topics. I'm contrarian to people who fail at STEM.

This, coming from the guy who assumed 'exponential decay' meant something like 'some part of it looks exponential if I flip and rotate it.'

[Elim Garak]

And I didn't say that it could. Again, this depends on the other physics of the particular system.

I didn't say that you did say that. Reading is hard. No, I didn't imply it either.

You don't arrive at the 'problem' in your thought experiment unless you assume that they must, which you implicitly assumed when you wrote this:

The problem in that thought experiment is NOT the end of the experiment.

No, this is the point that you raised before the thought experiment, but your thought experiment is tangential to it.

I didn't raise that point anywhere else. I only did it once when I had to literally explain it to you, yet you still failed to understand it.

Considering I was responding to someone claiming that evolution can't happen because of entropy, what I wrote does make sense. Since evolution is possible precisely because entropy does not have to uniformly increase. Because the biomass of the Earth is the 'part' that experiences entropy decrease, at the expense of the Sun's increase in entropy. The Sun (+ most of the rest of physics) is the someone something that you're looking for.

It doesn't matter to whom you were replying. What matters is - to what you were replying. To this:
"in a universe where the law of entropy is present and everything is decaying, and suns being slowly estinguished, nothing will evolve to be more complex than what it already is."
It doesn't claim that evolution cannot happen, just that it cannot go further hence why we cannot find aliens - which is beside the point anyway, because my issue is with how you tried to argue against that. You claimed that entropy can decrease in a part of isolated system. It cannot, it can be made to decrease. Biomass doesn't decrease entropy - it's the product of entropy - the energy and matter exchange. Sun gives out its excessive energy, which forms biomass on earth (sun energy converted into bio-matter) which increases entropy every Plank second by converting energy into lesser matter and matter into lesser energy, i.e. doing work. Soon (cosmically speaking) we will run out of usable energy/matter and die, unless we can move to another planet to increase entropy on (drain its energy/matter).

I have increased entropy by writing this post.

This, coming from the guy who assumed 'exponential decay' meant something like 'some part of it looks exponential if I flip and rotate it.'

See? this is why I'm contrarian to you, you fail at STEM.

[Garnier Fructis]

It doesn't matter to whom you were replying. What matters is - to what you were replying. To this:
"in a universe where the law of entropy is present and everything is decaying, and suns being slowly estinguished, nothing will evolve to be more complex than what it already is."
It doesn't claim that evolution cannot happen, just that it cannot go further hence why we cannot find aliens - which is beside the point anyway, because my issue is with how you tried to argue against that.

It is a claim that evolution cannot happen, because nothing that he wrote depends on this particular instant in time. Which means that you can apply the argument to a point in time 5 billion years ago and conclude that evolution cannot go further, which would imply that evolution didn't happen on Earth at all. And you can apply that argument at any point in the Universe's 'timeline', so to speak, and conclude that nothing can evolve.

You claimed that entropy can decrease in a part of isolated system. It cannot, it can be made to decrease.

So let me get this straight. You were complaining about semantics this whole time? Because let's be crystal clear here: 'can decrease' and 'can be made to decrease' is a trivial difference.

See, you are being a contrarian. Because I've written at least twice now that the decrease in entropy is affected by the particular physics of the system, which covers this. And you've ignored that twice, now.

Biomass doesn't decrease entropy - it's the product of entropy - the energy and matter exchange.

Hence why I wrote "experiences entropy decrease." Because I was trying to dodge more semantics bullshit, but apparently you're just going to reinterpret it however you like to make your point.

Sun gives out its excessive energy, which forms biomass on earth (sun energy converted into bio-matter) which increases entropy every Plank second by converting energy into lesser matter and matter into lesser energy, i.e. doing work. Soon (cosmically speaking) we will run out of usable energy/matter and die, unless we can move to another planet to increase entropy on (drain its energy/matter).

The bolded part is gibberish.

[tss]

There was another theory that aliens were aware of earth but we are nowhere near advanced enough for them so we're on our own. After all, you wouldn't be aware of a singular ant from an ant colony in your garden and we're the ants in this scenario ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

And by theory you mean childish conjecture

[Garnier Fructis]

See? this is why I'm contrarian to you, you fail at STEM.

Then give a rigorous definition of it, instead of hand-waving, if you're oh so good at this.

[Dr Assbandit]

And by theory you mean childish conjecture

The people theorizing topics related to this work with quantum physics and other professions in the same field and I doubt they have the luxury of shitposting on internet gaming forums but sure, lets go with childish .

[Elim Garak]

It is a claim that evolution cannot happen, because nothing that he wrote depends on this particular instant in time. Which means that you can apply the argument to a point in time 5 billion years ago and conclude that evolution cannot go further, which would imply that evolution didn't happen on Earth at all. And you can apply that argument at any point in the Universe's 'timeline', so to speak, and conclude that nothing can evolve.

Which is BESIDE the point. Reading!

So let me get this straight. You were complaining about semantics this whole time? Because let's be crystal clear here: 'can decrease' and 'can be made to decrease' is a trivial difference.

The difference is infinite. Tell me oh enlightened one how one can decrease entropy?

See, you are being a contrarian. Because I've written at least twice now that the decrease in entropy is affected by the particular physics of the system, which covers this. And you've ignored that twice, now.

There's no decrease in entropy, exactly due to the physics.

Hence why I wrote "experiences entropy decrease." Because I was trying to dodge more semantics bullshit, but apparently you're just going to reinterpret it however you like to make your point.

nothing is experiencing entropy decrease.

The bolded part is gibberish.

Have you invented the perpetuum mobile?

[Garnier Fructis]

Which is BESIDE the point. Reading!

I know you're complaining about something else. But you wrote that, it was wrong, and I corrected you.

The difference is infinite. Tell me oh enlightened one how one can decrease entropy?

In any number of ways? For instance, refrigerators decrease the entropy of their contents by removing the heat. The 'part' inside the refrigerator decreases in entropy, at the expense of greater entropy increase outside.

There's no decrease in entropy, exactly due to the physics.

In the whole, yes. But not uniformly throughout. Again, refrigerators.

nothing is experiencing entropy decrease.

This time I'll use a different classic example: photosynthesis.


And since you're really being extremely nitpicky about semantics, my turn: entropy can spontaneously decrease in any system, actually. Because the 2nd Law is a probabilistic statement, and not a dynamical statement.

[Radaney]

I actually think it's just long distance space travel that is incredibly difficult, that tied with a species being as/more intelligent than we are just make it incredibly rare and difficult for any intelligent species to leave it's solar system and travel any kind of useful distance in the universe.

We just focus on fucking each other over so you also need to be a species that is intelligent and actually has ambition outside of being top dog of your own species so the intelligent species would need to be like colony based like bee's or ants or something who all collectively hail their supreme overlord or something.

I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur-esque planets out there with plants and insect-level animals and that sort of shit.

[Elim Garak]

I know you're complaining about something else. But you wrote that, it was wrong, and I corrected you.

There was nothing wrong in what I wrote

In any number of ways? For instance, refrigerators decrease the entropy of their contents by removing the heat. The 'part' inside the refrigerator decreases in entropy, at the expense of greater entropy increase outside.

Refrigerators do not remove heat, they initiate heat transfer cycle from inside to outside (pump->radiator) and then from outside to inside (door, walls -> inside). The decrease in temperature inside is a transitional state, because pump is faster. The overall refrigerator system increases its entropy at an accelerated rate.

Now tell me how a system can have its entropy decreased on its own.

We are talking difference here. just a reminder.

In the whole, yes. But not uniformly throughout. Again, refrigerators.

Entropy either increases or remains unchanged, so yes not uniformly. Refrigerators accelerate entropy increase.

This time I'll use a different classic example: photosynthesis.

Same mistake as with refrigerators. You look at a singular state of a complex reaction chain. Plants accelerate entropy increase.

And since you're really being extremely nitpicky about semantics, my turn: entropy can spontaneously decrease in any system, actually. Because the 2nd Law is a probabilistic statement, and not a dynamical statement.

Entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system.

[Garnier Fructis]

Refrigerators do not remove heat, they initiate heat transfer cycle from inside to outside (pump->radiator) and then from outside to inside (door, walls -> inside). The decrease in temperature inside is a transitional state, because pump is faster. The overall refrigerator system increases its entropy at an accelerated rate.

And during that 'transitional state', is the temperature lower inside? Then heat has been transferred, and heat leaving the inside of the refrigerator means that entropy has decreased inside the refrigerator.

Yes, the overall system increases entropy. I even talked about how total entropy increases despite part of the system experiencing a decrease in entropy. You keep describing processes that accord with what I've been saying, but then bungle your conclusions.

Now tell me how a system can have its entropy decreased on its own.

First off, what type of system are you talking about?

Entropy either increases or remains unchanged, so yes not uniformly. Refrigerators accelerate entropy increase.

Not uniformly throughout the system. That wasn't a statement about the entropy of the whole system as a function of time. Come on.

Same mistake as with refrigerators. You look at a singular state of a complex reaction chain. Plants accelerate entropy increase.

Because the 'singular state of a complex reaction chain' is the whole point of what I've been talking about. Yes, the whole process increases entropy. But that's because the increase in entropy of the environment offsets the decrease in entropy caused by photosynthesis.

Entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system.

Yes it can, because all thermodynamic quantities fluctuate, and these fluctuations cause small decreases in entropy all the time. This doesn't violate the 2nd law.

How could you not know something so basic about thermodynamics?

[Mormolyce]

Imagine if aliens don't travel because they have the lifespan of a house fly.

Maybe they're homebodies and their interdimensional TV is so compelling they never leave the couch.

[Noradin]

Because the 'singular state of a complex reaction chain' is the whole point of what I've been talking about. Yes, the whole process increases entropy. But that's because the increase in entropy of the environment offsets the decrease in entropy caused by photosynthesis.

Don't bother, he is intentionally acting clueless.

[kasuke06]

more than likely, we're either alone, or simply not developed enough to be useful to them as anything other than slaves, and well... look at all of human history, you think we'd make a good slave race? Hell no, we'd fight tooth and nail, and push comes to shove, a whole lot of us have little/no sense of self preservation if it saves more people than it takes to pull off.