Question Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens Yet?

15 Theories on Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens Yet

  • Interstellar Distance: This suggests that even if intelligent life is common, interstellar distances are so vast that spacefaring civilizations are simply too far apart to have found each other yet. Our galaxy alone is 100,000 light-years across. >>>while interesting it also suggest that no civilization out there has, or could have, advanced beyond us.
  • Lack of interest: Some propose that advanced civilizations may not view contact with us as worthwhile. They may be indifferent, focused inwardly, or consider us too primitive to interact with. From their view, we may not seem significant enough to initiate contact. >>>funny yes …insulting to be sure.
  • The communications Gap Hypothesis: This theory suggests that we might be using the wrong methods or technologies to communicate with extraterrestrial civilizations. They might be using a form of communication that we haven’t discovered or understood yet. If this is true, we might be missing signals or messages from them because we don’t know what to look for. >>>also, interesting but in its own way still in line with a conclusion that can be drawn from #1.
  • Rare Earth Hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests that the conditions necessary for life—especially intelligent life—are incredibly rare in the universe. It’s not just about having a planet in the habitable zone, but also about many other factors, such as having a stable star, a planet with a magnetic field to protect from harmful solar radiation, and the right mix of elements. This would mean that life, particularly intelligent life, is exceptionally rare, making our existence quite extraordinary. >>>well let’s face it this is self-sustaining and, in a sense, expands on the long-held idea that earth is the center of the universe type belief.
  • The Great Filter: The Great Filter hypothesis proposes that there’s a barrier or filter that prevents civilizations from progressing to the point of widespread space colonization. This could be anything from a natural disaster, like an asteroid impact or gamma-ray burst, to self-inflicted destruction through nuclear war or ecological disaster. If this is true, it could mean that humanity has a significant hurdle in our future that we’ll need to overcome to avoid extinction. >>>wow a self-fulling prophecy …unless and until it is actually proven wrong it is always right.
  • Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis suggests that there are advanced civilizations out there, but they’re avoiding contact with us. Like zookeepers observing animals, these civilizations might be watching us from a distance, allowing us to live and evolve without interference. If this is true, it could explain why we haven’t had contact with extraterrestrial life despite the vastness of the universe. >>>let’s face it this one while more than just a little bit insulting may actually have a little basis in truth.
  • Transcension Hypothesis: The Transcension Hypothesis proposes that advanced civilizations invariably leave our universe. They might create and move to a simulated universe, ascend to a higher plane of existence, or something similar. This would mean that these civilizations are not extinct or avoiding us, but simply exist in a realm that we’re currently unable to perceive or interact with. >>> Oh, wow talk about delusions of grandeur …humans will one day attain the status of gods??
  • The Simulation Hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests that we’re living in a simulation, and the aliens are the ones running the simulation. In this scenario, we haven’t met them because they’re outside the simulation and choose not to enter it. This theory raises philosophical questions about reality and our perception of the universe. >>> if you can’t explain it all than it’s just because its not real?
  • They’re Already Here: Some people believe that aliens have already visited or are living among us, and that this is being covered up by governments around the world. Evidence for this theory is largely anecdotal and not widely accepted by the scientific community. However, if true, it would mean that we’re not alone in the universe and that our first contact with extraterrestrial life has already occurred. >>>personally, I like this one.
  • Self-Destruction: This is a darker hypothesis suggesting that once civilizations reach a certain level of technological advancement, they inevitably destroy themselves. This could occur through means such as nuclear war, ecological disaster, or a poorly controlled artificial intelligence. If this is true, it serves as a warning for humanity to be cautious as we continue to advance technologically. >>> umm a narrowing of # 5?
  • The Planetarium: This theory suggests that we live in a simulation, or an artificial environment created by a higher intelligence. They control what we observe and can manipulate our understanding of the universe, making it seem as though we are alone. If this is true, our understanding of the universe and our place in it could be fundamentally flawed. >>> again, a narrowing of a hypothesis # 8?
  • The Berserker: This theory suggests that an advanced alien civilization has created self-replicating probes (berserkers) that destroy other life-forming civilizations to prevent potential competition. If this is true, it could mean that we’re in a universe filled with predatory civilizations, and we might need to be cautious about attracting attention to ourselves. >>> I like this one too …we haven’t become quite as bad as we will eventually become …at which point we might have achieved gladiator status for the entertainment of our creator(s)?
  • The Gaian Bottleneck: This hypothesis suggests that it’s difficult for life to evolve past the single-cell stage due to harsh conditions on young planets, making complex life rare. If this is true, it would mean that while simple life might be common in the universe, complex life like plants and animals (and intelligent life) is exceptionally rare. >>>A slightly different but also in line with a different Hypothesis # 5.
  • The Resource Exhaustion: This theory proposes that civilizations might wipe themselves out through over-consumption of their planet’s resources before they get a chance to become space-faring civilizations. If this is true, it serves as a warning for humanity to manage our resources carefully to avoid a similar fate. >>>what can I say I like this one which although it is in its own sense a re-aiming of # 5 …because it does emphasize my point as to why we should move beyond our home planet.
  • The Panspermia: This theory suggests that life is spread throughout the universe by asteroids, comets, and other celestial bodies. It implies that life on Earth could have originated elsewhere in the universe. If this is true, it would mean that life is not unique to Earth and could exist wherever the conditions are right. >>>not sure why this one would be a part of an explanation as to Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens Yet.
So, if you may allow me to replace # 15 with my own.

The Alien, Human vs Hunam, Alien Paradox Hypothesis _ I humbly suggest that the biggest and only reason we have yet to have found proof and or met aliens whether human in appearance or not. Is because we are just not ready, or rather they know we are just not ready. If a civilization were in fact capable of traversing (i.e. traveling between and throughout the universe) galaxies; I would have to conclude that they have advanced enough to see and recognize where any civilization they happen to encounter is in the rational ability to accept, let alone live with, that kind of reality. In essence where, making contact, before that concept of rationality is present might lead to unwanted outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2024
4
0
10
Visit site
#3 - Aliens would not have to be using unknown technology to communicate, for us not to hear it; merely targeted tech. Think how narrow a sightline could possibly catch a laser communication with one of our space probes. And because everything is always in motion, that sightline won't repeat.
#14 - it is not necessary to exhaust your resouces completely to come to the realization that you shouldn't waste them. Aliens might simply be wiser than we have been to date, and have settled on a beneficent steady state economy for all their citizens, without the insane expansionist gluttony involved in all the megastructures that astronomers seem to think an advanced civilization MUST MAKE. That expectation is very humanocentric.
Can't say that I agree about the necessity of moving beyond our planet. No other is remotely suited to our physiology, and we would, on current showing, merely trash that one too.
 
For what it's worth (you know my opinion) I tend to believe your # 3 is certainly a viable, and more than likely true, reason for our lack of extraterrestrial contact. It brings to mind (at least to me) a subset of my replacement for #15. Which in the shortest of explanations (at least for my subset) is that developing an ability to overcome such an obstacle might be a pre-requisite in some advanced civilizations check list for initiating contact.

Your # 14 well it’s one of those that can get me in trouble … suffice it for me to borrow an oft used phrase …” Please say it ain’t so.”
 
Last edited:
I suppose it’s just me. Then again, it’s more likely to be associated with my belief that there’s no way humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. Which is why I found, this article interesting in that it’s the first one I can remember that actually proposes that primates are not necessarily the only life form which could have developed and then advanced to where they introduce technology into their society.
 
We can observe a very large volume of the cosmos. And we can observe a very long time span of the cosmos, much longer than our MW span, supposedly.

And we have not detected one synthesized signal.

And we know from life here, that life is very tenacious. If life came from the cosmos, it would be all over the place.

But all evidence demonstrates that we are singular and unique. The only singularity ever found.

Does this have meaning?

Or surly it must be an illusion.

What would happen if there was a synthesized signal? Nothing. Except talk and suppose about it, like we do now. We could never communicate with them. It would take LYs just to acknowledge a signal. Not to mention modulating a star to do it.

Star travel and aliens are science fiction. A distraction for the problems at hand.

We can't even explain the modulation of the natural signals we detect. Without faith in non detectable entities, like religions do. And that faith has to be stretched to do it.
 
We can observe a very large volume of the cosmos. And we can observe a very long time span of the cosmos, much longer than our MW span, supposedly.

And we have not detected one synthesized signal.

And we know from life here, that life is very tenacious. If life came from the cosmos, it would be all over the place.

But all evidence demonstrates that we are singular and unique. The only singularity ever found.

Does this have meaning?

Or surly it must be an illusion.

What would happen if there was a synthesized signal? Nothing. Except talk and suppose about it, like we do now. We could never communicate with them. It would take LYs just to acknowledge a signal. Not to mention modulating a star to do it.

Star travel and aliens are science fiction. A distraction for the problems at hand.

We can't even explain the modulation of the natural signals we detect. Without faith in non detectable entities, like religions do. And that faith has to be stretched to do it.
There is a lot of Earth-chauvinist pessimists around. Me, I'm a pessimist when it comes to a future inside closed systemic Earth, an optimist when it is a future in the frontier universe outside of Earth, but frontier inclusive of the Earth.

By the way, the only volume we can observe of the cosmos is the volumes of points in the past histories' past light cone t=+1), no other! Space, always in the future histories' future light cone (t=-1), exactly like universe infinity, cannot possibly be observed.

Also, how do we know that there is no such thing as secure "subspace communications"? How do we know that at present we are not considered some lower form animals, or insectoids, in a laboratory specimen zoo to be carefully watched and controlled and, very carefully, denied [in-mass-human] frontier (we have nuclear powers and are on the verge of possible, potential breakout into the frontier universe)? Otherwise, how do know that our discreet quanta of the Milky Way, or of the larger universe, is not just "off-the-beaten-path" "fly-over-country"?

"Very carefully denied [in-mass-human] frontier" and its means, with local carefully programmed human "collaborator" help! Humans kept in a world class slave pen, a prison planet, away from breakout to frontiers and freedom. What is the difference in outlook -- and difference in activities -- between a concentration camp imprisoned population and a relatively free population? No matter whether the former actually knows about the enclosed closed systemic (entropic) 'Iron Curtain' bubble-environment or not.
 
Last edited:
Our AM/FM signals don't make it to Jupiter before they fall under the noise level. Only two Arecibo sized ears could communicate to the next star. Sending a message from one galaxy to another means controlling the output of an entire star. The immense distances involved affect more than our ability to travel but also make communication immensely difficult.
 
We can observe a very large volume of the cosmos. And we can observe a very long time span of the cosmos, much longer than our MW span, supposedly.

And we have not detected one synthesized signal.

And we know from life here, that life is very tenacious. If life came from the cosmos, it would be all over the place.

But all evidence demonstrates that we are singular and unique. The only singularity ever found.

Does this have meaning?

Or surly it must be an illusion.

What would happen if there was a synthesized signal? Nothing. Except talk and suppose about it, like we do now. We could never communicate with them. It would take LYs just to acknowledge a signal. Not to mention modulating a star to do it.

Star travel and aliens are science fiction. A distraction for the problems at hand.

We can't even explain the modulation of the natural signals we detect. Without faith in non detectable entities, like religions do. And that faith has to be stretched to do it.
our MW span, ok ah not sure which definition you mean ...Is it like the ever-increasing span in the angle represented by the points at your thumb and your pinky looking at it as if there are two imaginary lines, one each coming from the corners of your eyes, as you hold your hand an arm's length in front of you face?

detected one synthesized signal. This is one of those the absence or proof thereof in the end proves nothing. In simple terms even if we have detected what we might believe and or mistake as an alien signal. Time and distance mean that the source of such a signal will long ago have moved. So, we will be unable to ascertain one way or the other what we actually got.

it would be all over the place. Well yeah but in the infiniteness of the Universe's size, especially if as theorized it's still expanding verse the age of the universe and the development of hospitable planets let alone life sustaining. I tend to believe we're nowhere near the saturation; such tenacity would require for an all over the place magnitude.

Star travel and aliens are science fiction. A distraction for the problems at hand. I have a one-person name response for that Jules Verne
 
Last edited:
Maybe I’m just easily entertained. But then again it seems to me that there’s more out there to support my enthusiasm when it comes to space exploration. So much so that I can’t help but reach the conclusion that I might not be wrong in my presumption that there’s more out there we haven’t discovered and learned; because we simply weren’t looking for it, or are not going about it the right way. Wherein that lack of discovery will allow us to discount one route or path by which to, at least have the possibility of accomplishing, that lofty goal.
 
Last edited:
Our AM/FM signals don't make it to Jupiter before they fall under the noise level. Only two Arecibo sized ears could communicate to the next star. Sending a message from one galaxy to another means controlling the output of an entire star. The immense distances involved affect more than our ability to travel but also make communication immensely difficult.
While it’s not something you have stated, per say, in your enjoiner here. I do believe it ties in with the rejoinder from Classical motion’s # 5 to my # 4 which attracted Atlan0011’s # 6 to classical’s # 5. Bearing in mind that what you say as to signal strength of AM/AF over vast distances; then the aforementioned discussion, and based on what I believe, was stipulated between Classical and Atlan; in conjunction with this enjoiner.

Then I have to believe, that all of those together, and as an unintended consequence. They give more strength to my replacement of number 15’s theory; in my # 1 of this thread.

If you will bear with me, I will hypothesize. Obviously, we can agree that in essence I am stretching current technology into the realm of what we consider to be science fiction. So, for the sake of brevity being as we, at our present state of technological advancement, do have what we recognize as stealth technology.

I will then ask you to assume that an advanced civilization capable of interstellar travel has developed cloaking technology. With that in mind, presupposing we are being monitored, would it not also be a safe assumption that they have the capability. To gather and restore that signal to its original strength; encode it into whatever they use for interstellar communication and retransmit it to themselves for whatever purpose they may have for it.

Ok I stipulate cloaking technology because if as my aforementioned 15 of #1 is true then, and their reasons are not necessarily for nefarious reasons, it would be prudent for them to be ahead of the curve.

In their determination that their reason(s) for monitoring us are progressing favorably or even unfavorably. Such a method would provide them with the mean by which to, without having to resort to continuous revisits and or expenditure of resources and time, just to make sure they didn’t miss a telling point or moment in our advancement(?).

Since I'm fairly certain that if they did have that kind of technology i.e. cloaking, they would likely also know we ourselves don't. Therefore, it would not be wrong to conclude we have no way of detecting any signal enhancing probe, so equipped and or capable. Some sort of auto aiming device they may have chosen to leave behind via which they could accomplish their goal.
 
Last edited:
As I constantly harp on, there is probably more than one dimensionality to quantum entanglement; to Einstein's, "spooky action at a distance." Not only a predicted (skip-like) communication by way of it, but a predicted (skip-like) travel as well by way of it. The universe is probably far vaster in its dimensions and dimensionalities, in its many facets, than we observe or can possibly observe from our isolated island -- and its local relative environment -- in it.
 
"our MW span, ok ah not sure which definition you mean ...Is it like the ever-increasing span in the angle represented by the points at your thumb and your pinky looking at it as if there are two imaginary lines, one each coming from the corners of your eyes, as you hold your hand an arm's length in front of you face?"

My comment "And we can observe a very long time span of the cosmos, much longer than our MW span, supposedly."

I was comparing cosmos time span to MW time span. Sorry for the confusion.


"detected one synthesized signal. This is one of those the absence or proof thereof in the end proves nothing. In simple terms even if we have detected what we might believe and or mistake as an alien signal time and distance means that the source of such a signal will long ago have moved. So we will be unable to ascertain one way or the other what we actually got."

When one considers so many events within such a large volume over such a long time, one might reconsider that proof of absence concept. Probability works both ways. Bell curves have only one positive but two negatives. It seems positives are bounded by negatives.

"it would be all over the place. Well yeah but in the infiniteness of the Universe's size, especially if as theorized it's still expanding verse the age of the universe and the development of hospitable planets let alone life sustaining. I tend to believe we're nowhere near the saturation; such tenacity would require for an all over the place magnitude."

Life has conquered every environment is has encountered here. Very successfully. And much more than we realize. If life were natural and part of the cosmos, life would have been peppered thru-out the stars.

"Star travel and aliens are science fiction. A distraction for the problems at hand. I have a one-person name response for that Jules Verne"

I have two, Star Trek and Star Wars.......complete fantasy. No star travel and no alien contact. No transporter and no time travel. Breaking the light barrier would only be a tease. Much. much more would be needed for star trek and star wars.

Many today consider this a bleak future. As if it were anti science or considering that all has been learned. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can't even turn down the bed sheet of physicality.

We have no clue of what matter is. What inertia is. What gravity is. We only know the way they act and react. Not what they are OR how they work. The why can never be answered. How is the only solution available to us. IF we can figure it out.

It will need a gentle touch, not CERN.

But hey, it's your post, didn't mean to rain on it. Pardon me. My goal was realization, not discouragement.

Realization is calming and not exciting like wonderment is. The Pyramids are not as mysterious and exciting as they use to be. In the construction sense that is. And the why of it will never be answered. And remain a mystery. But we now know the how of it.

The search for how always has a solution, the search for why never ends. Why is not a valid question. For us.

How is the only valid question. But we want to know why. There is no such thing as a common why. Only the physical how is common to all.

An old 2 cents.
 
My personal opinions:
- There are billions of intelligent civilizations in the universe
- The distances are too great for us ever to travel to one
- The distances are too great for us to exchange messages
- If we do receive a message, it will be indecipherable
- We could easily detect chemicals associated with life but only because we are looking at starlight. Freon would be a slam dunk.
 
My personal opinion:
Once a species has constant acceleration (powered) space travel, say one like us, it would take it almost no time at all to put its star and planet observationally two-million years in the past, and sit two million years futuristically somewhere in an unobserved, unobservable from the Milky Way, Andromeda galaxy The distance and speed being a distance and speed from an observed negative (-) 2,000,000 years to 0 via an observed . . . from the ship . . . positive (+) 2,000,000 years! The constant acceleration up through time observed in the time travel through gravitationally contracting space ahead (negating and reversing the accelerating expansion of the universe) maybe 1g or 2g's constant acceleration.

Who knows what space and time travel in the universe holds for the powered traveler able to do negations and otherwise manipulate the distances, speeds, and times of the universe, navigating point A (t=0) > (t=+1) to point B (t-0) < (t=-1).
 
"our MW span, ok ah not sure which definition you mean ...Is it like the ever-increasing span in the angle represented by the points at your thumb and your pinky looking at it as if there are two imaginary lines, one each coming from the corners of your eyes, as you hold your hand an arm's length in front of you face?"

My comment "And we can observe a very long time span of the cosmos, much longer than our MW span, supposedly."

I was comparing cosmos time span to MW time span. Sorry for the confusion.


"detected one synthesized signal. This is one of those the absence or proof thereof in the end proves nothing. In simple terms even if we have detected what we might believe and or mistake as an alien signal time and distance means that the source of such a signal will long ago have moved. So we will be unable to ascertain one way or the other what we actually got."

When one considers so many events within such a large volume over such a long time, one might reconsider that proof of absence concept. Probability works both ways. Bell curves have only one positive but two negatives. It seems positives are bounded by negatives.

"it would be all over the place. Well yeah but in the infiniteness of the Universe's size, especially if as theorized it's still expanding verse the age of the universe and the development of hospitable planets let alone life sustaining. I tend to believe we're nowhere near the saturation; such tenacity would require for an all over the place magnitude."

Life has conquered every environment is has encountered here. Very successfully. And much more than we realize. If life were natural and part of the cosmos, life would have been peppered thru-out the stars.

"Star travel and aliens are science fiction. A distraction for the problems at hand. I have a one-person name response for that Jules Verne"

I have two, Star Trek and Star Wars.......complete fantasy. No star travel and no alien contact. No transporter and no time travel. Breaking the light barrier would only be a tease. Much. much more would be needed for star trek and star wars.

Many today consider this a bleak future. As if it were anti science or considering that all has been learned. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can't even turn down the bed sheet of physicality.

We have no clue of what matter is. What inertia is. What gravity is. We only know the way they act and react. Not what they are OR how they work. The why can never be answered. How is the only solution available to us. IF we can figure it out.

It will need a gentle touch, not CERN.

But hey, it's your post, didn't mean to rain on it. Pardon me. My goal was realization, not discouragement.

Realization is calming and not exciting like wonderment is. The Pyramids are not as mysterious and exciting as they use to be. In the construction sense that is. And the why of it will never be answered. And remain a mystery. But we now know the how of it.

The search for how always has a solution, the search for why never ends. Why is not a valid question. For us.

How is the only valid question. But we want to know why. There is no such thing as a common why. Only the physical how is common to all.

An old 2 cents.
I see no pros or cons in discussions which in the end shed light on a given subject. I am agreed with your assessment that realization is calming; to which I add that realization is only possible through understanding. Which itself becomes possible when the majority of the, for the most part, reliably proven information; leads to that understanding. While the proven information will come from multiple, varying, and sometime unexpected sources.

In my opinion certainly worth more than two cents

Take science fiction, even Star Trek/Wars. First it creates wonderment, followed by curiosity in possibility, followed by experimentation, and then sometimes even success. So, while the powering source for submarines did not come as Jules Verne imagined it would. It did become possible via an unexpected source.
 
My personal opinions:
- There are billions of intelligent civilizations in the universe
- The distances are too great for us ever to travel to one
- The distances are too great for us to exchange messages
- If we do receive a message, it will be indecipherable
- We could easily detect chemicals associated with life but only because we are looking at starlight. Freon would be a slam dunk.
True today, true tomorrow, likely true in our life time.

True forever? ...I wouldn’t go that far … as the song says,

Que Sera, Sera… The future’s not ours to see.
 
It is only travel to the nearest star within a human lifetime that can't happen. Even if the craft was fueled by anti matter, you can't get there and back that quick. Plus it would take nearly the entire output of the Sun to make that much anti-matter. Plus there is no way to store it. Need to figure out some way to freeze a human.
 
It is only travel to the nearest star within a human lifetime that can't happen. Even if the craft was fueled by anti matter, you can't get there and back that quick. Plus it would take nearly the entire output of the Sun to make that much anti-matter. Plus there is no way to store it. Need to figure out some way to freeze a human.
I have to shake my head, Bill. You are actually thinking unpowered flight, Bill, even when you are trying to think powered. You don't manipulate gravity or space in your picturing. You don't think about what is probably possible to do with the universe because of what we do observe of an accelerating expansionism. It alone tells me far more regarding power, gravity, space and time than it seems to tell you.

I like you and so much of what you put in your posts, Bill, but I'm not locked into relativity to the surface of the Earth and a local relative closed systemic observation of the universe. I don't necessarily believe in alien visitors from distant stars, galaxies, and/or universes, but I can certainly believe in their systems and environs of travel. Environs, because we observe them, deal in them, microcosmically picture and model the far greater macrocosm that we do NOT and CANNOT possibly observe until we are really out into its reaches!
 
Here is the thing, there are certainly vast sums of knowledge to be learned. But some things can be ruled out, for in order for them to occur, our universe could not exist.
One example is time travel into the past. it would violate causality, without which we would not exist.
This is also why entropy cannot decrease as it would involve time travel into the past, since heat would be flowing uphill all on its own. Can't have that.
There can be a whole bunch of other stuff we discover, but some things are forbidden.
 
I can't and won't argue with the things you said, Bill, as you strictly 1-dimensionally put them, Bill. You won't, but you could search all my threads and posts from now to doomsday and you would not find a single thing I've ever said that is in line with the impossibilities as you 1-dimensionally put them above.

But that is exactly what would be observed on the Earth as a movie slowing down then rewinding, observed on a voyage to the Centauri System 4-light years, thus four negative years, from Sol. Light can't go faster and ever faster to keep Earth from dropping 4-years behind in the observation of a space and time traveler to the Centauri system 4-light years away. The traveler arrives in the Centauri System, whenever arriving, having beaten the speed of light, current in time, by 4-years.

Like the glitches witnessed from Earth of the other planets momentarily reversing themselves in their orbits before reversing again and resuming their proper orbital mechanics, the traveler traveling to the Centauri System would at some time, regarding the Earth, witness a cup of coffee coming out of the mouth of a coffee drinker and flowing back into the coffee pot. That traveler would witness the Earth slowing down its orbit eventually to momentarily reverse itself in orbiting the sun before resuming its proper orbital direction, though not its proper speed of motion . . . ending up four years behind in space and time where it belongs in its orbit of the sun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Here is the thing, there are certainly vast sums of knowledge to be learned. But some things can be ruled out, for in order for them to occur, our universe could not exist.
One example is time travel into the past. it would violate causality, without which we would not exist.
This is also why entropy cannot decrease as it would involve time travel into the past, since heat would be flowing uphill all on its own. Can't have that.
There can be a whole bunch of other stuff we discover, but some things are forbidden.
While I truly hope you are correct that time travel will never be possible. I am not sure I can agree with your causality premise. That presumes that no actions whatsoever would be required of the time traveler(?) for events to unravel. Causality being a result i.e. cause and effect then I would have to argue that such a venture into the past where no interaction occurs (granted not very likely); would change nothing.
 
Last edited:
While I truly hope you are correct that time travel will never be possible. I am not sure I can agree with your causality premise. That presumes that no actions whatsoever would be required of the time traveler(?) for events unravel. Causality being a result i.e. cause and effect then I would have to argue that such a venture into the past where no interaction occurs (granted not very likely); would change nothing.
If You have read and thought at all concerning my own theoretical realization of a hardness of "spontaneous concurrent REALTIME (t=0) 'front' (frontier)" you should instantly realize why any kind of dimensional in-line linear objectively real time reversal and violation of causality would be literally impossible. There is only one direction you can go from cloning an endless beginning (Horizon Mirror (t=0)). Rather, there is nowhere else you can go (Coordinate point SPACETIME (past histories past light cone (t=+1) -->|<-- (t=-1) future histories future light cone)).
 
If You have read and thought at all concerning my own theoretical realization of a hardness of "spontaneous concurrent REALTIME (t=0) 'front' (frontier)" you should instantly realize why any kind of dimensional in-line linear objectively real time reversal and violation of causality would be literally impossible. There is only one direction you can go from cloning an endless beginning (Horizon Mirror (t=0)). Rather, there is nowhere else you can go (Coordinate point SPACETIME (past histories past light cone (t=+1) -->|<-- (t=-1) future histories future light cone)).
While I’m all for spontaneity …I have a hard time with spontaneous. In my view the first one can happen due to the moment’s event(?) While the second indicates/suggest things just happen.

From my point of view nothing just happens. At one point or another there is a cause or series of causes for any event.

As for time travel ...would it be a linear thing (backward or forward) or could it be a folding of time in a given envelope? (i.e. jumping back and forth within the folded layers).
 
Last edited:
Another interesting idea:
Dark Forrest Hypothosis—yeah, it's interesting and like so many others it can’t just be discounted.

We do know that there is a factorable(?) reality which is innate and therefore unavoidable, e.g. by-products created by all life forms.

With that in mind and remembering that we are speaking advanced civilizations. I think it’s really possible, one that’s centuries more advanced than the ones attempting to hide themselves; may have already detected them/it anyway; even if not us.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts