Hi,

I wish you nice day.
Do you know that the discoveries in the universe of new civilizations are limited only and exclusively by the computing power?...

Could you expand your thinking a bit?
While it is true we use computers to calculate trajectories and physical interactions it is for speed and accuracy that we use them.

Many space exploration missions had craft with less computing power than your cell phone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/12/voyager-1-just-left-the-solar-system-using-less-computing-power-than-your-iphone/



The thing about computers. Computers are slaved to humans. They need to be 'programmed' by humans and those programs run using human knowledge.

A TrueAI computing system has not 'occurred' yet.
TrueAI means the computer needs no human generated code or human designed programs.
A TrueAI is a computer artificial intelligence invented, built and programmed by a computer.

To this point in time, all space missions have been human generated using computers as tools. Much like a wrench or a hammer.


Since no discovery of a new civilization beyond the planet has ever been made, this statement is pointless.

Hi Tom4Uhere,

I hope that you are fine and safe.
Please find below the link with an article about the discoveries in the universe of new civilizations are limited only and exclusively by the computing power.


https://futurism.com/the-byte/seti-institute-scientist-says-well-find-aliens-by-2036


I wish you a nice afternoon.

Scientists say a lot of things mostly to support whichever agenda their field of study requires. That article is speculation.

The thing about science is the fact it must be/have certain things to make it science.

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The fact Life may have been detected in Venusian Clouds indicates a Universe rich with life. If you plug that into the Drake Equation, possible civilizations increases significantly.

The Drake Equation

N=R_* \cdot f_P \cdot n_e \cdot f_l \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L

N = number of civilizations with which humans could communicate
R_* = mean rate of star formation
f_P = fraction of stars that have planets
n_e = mean number of planets that could support life per star with planets
f_l = fraction of life-supporting planets that develop life
f_i = fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence
f_c = fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop communication
L = mean length of time that civilizations can communicate

The Drake Equation can be found at the SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) website.

Futurism is a series of hypothesis. It is concerned with events and trends of the future, or which anticipate the future. Anticipation is not science.

Hi Tom4Uhere.


Maybe you are right.. I know "The Drake Equation".
I think that the discoveries in the universe of new civilizations are limited only and exclusively by the computing power, because of limit of the time, which is needed to process it by computer.

I think, by doing just basic math on a large scale, the numbers alone favor more life than we could possibly conceive. I mean, just stupidly large amounts of life.

And.... and, in some places, would also change many of the laws of "physics" as we know them, even though I think, most of the time, our laws would still apply.

Yes, computers are a tool which saves time. Computers are useful for crunching the raw data gained from telescopes but, the patterns of life have to be confirmed by a human. The computer might spit out what is known as "False Positives" and it takes a person to look at those and determine if there is something worth further study.

As computing technology advances, scientists (cosmologists) will get fewer 'false positives' that take their time to verify. So, yes, computers play a significant role in the search for intelligent life in the Universe.
But, computers alone can't determine what is beyond their programming. The 'meat' of any discovery is going to be human driven and human verified.

Actually, the search for advanced intelligent life is a single purpose endeavor. It only answers the one question..."Are we alone in our intelligence in this Universe". What good does it do to find an intelligent civilization where it takes a hundred, a thousand or more years to get a reply, if we get a reply at all? No, it merely tells us we are not alone.

An example is our closest star to the Sun, The Centenarian system. 4.3 light years means it takes light 4.3 years to get here from there. Any communication, even at the speed of light, will take 4.3 years one way. That's 8.6 years for a question / answer discussion. Imagine posting a thread here and waiting 8.6 years for a reply. Plus there is the consideration there has been no evidence of a civilization found withing the local star group of 25 light years. On top of that, add in the fact any civilization advanced enough to communicate over such long distances will have a communication system which may not be compatible with ours and being alien could mean they won't understand anything as we send it. Even if we send prime numbers, they may not make the connection because their civilization either hasn't figured it out or the consider it mundane to the point of ignoring.
Plus, we can offer nothing beneficial to their civilization because our value systems and conditions of life are different.
Without a frame of reference or a rosette stone their signal may just look like more false positives or worse - noise.

If we can break the light speed barrier, the significance might change but for now, it only tells us we are not alone.