[horatio]

I think that they would be interested in us, just like we are interested in microorganisms in comets. The evolutionary difference might be so large that there is no feedback effect, that we cannot recognize them or if we recognize them they might be incomprehensible and we perceive them like insects perceive us.

But somehow I doubt that even highly-evolved beings could do anything more tricky but wormholes, bending space and so on. It's not like Einsteinian physics totally invalidated Newtonian physics and contemporary biology merely refines Darwin, so science seems to have more in common with building pyramids than with "creative destruction".
That's why I think that the speed of light limit is fairly solid.

But that's jsut my personal, fairly conservative view and "there are more things in heaven and earth ...".

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

150 years ago nobody could have concieved of a wormhole. And that is a very short amount of time. What will we conceive of in 5000 years? Or 100,000? Or a 1,000,000? I think that it's possible that there are technologies that are possible that are so far above our current levels of understanding it would be like a caveman confronted with a nuclear reactor or the internet.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

And to the other point, a race that advanced might take interest in us scientifically, but that is a long way from wanting to communicate or have some kind of relations with us.

[horatio]

True, when Kepler wrote his Somnium nobody even imagined to be physically on the moon and three centuries later it became reality. That's why we always need visionaries and dreamers because, at least from my idealistic, rationalistic point of view, when you wanna progress and discover something new most of the times you first need an idea and not an observation.

But somehow I have the impression that we are approaching certain limits, natural limits or rather limitations of our intellect.
Just take quantum physics, zooming in closer and closer revealed that the world is fuzzy on hyperzoom. You could argue that God didn't take great care about the nuts and bolts on the very basic level because he never expected us to look there, or on a bit more profane level, that we simply cannot dig much deeper because our imagination fails us at some point.

Or take global warming, we don't experience it and cannot imagine that some ecosystems on Earth might get into trouble because, well, the bees, birds and flowers are out there, we see, hear and smell them. Hence the large number of sceptics and the equally large numbers of ecologists who summon armageddon visions to convince the sceptics (it is no coincidence that these very scientists get into religious waters, it becomes a matter of belief when it is not experienceable) ... and the truth gets lost in between those extremes.

But I am digressing, the shorter version is that our technology grows much faster than our brain and while this is no problem per se as not everybody needs to understand everything, the slow brain growth might become a constraining factor at some moment.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

It's possible that we will reach some type of limit to our growth. However, it's also possible that there are beings out there that not only have a jump on us in terms of age of their civilization, but also in a basic biological capacity for intelligence. It's fun to think about.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by horatio

The evolutionary difference might be so large that there is no feedback effect, that we cannot recognize them or if we recognize them they might be incomprehensible and we perceive them like insects perceive us.


But that's jsut my personal, fairly conservative view and "there are more things in heaven and earth ...".

Though it could be argued.......at least we seem to have the capacity for (abstract) reasoning. I agree about the way we would perceive them though. There would have to be a common translation, a "Rosetta Stone" to allow any sort of discernment of message. Even then, cultural and intellectual perceptions would have to be understood by those of both sides.

[horatio]

It's definitely fun and perhaps all the sci-fi ideas about transcendence and non-corporeal beings are one potential end result of evolution.

There are even ideas that when lifeforms reach this stage they fill up the universe and basically become God which is a bit funky in terms of causality.

But what if this sweet-sounding, mystical idea isn't true and the end of revolution is Q, the boredom of the Gods?

But then again what if they both are the same, what if Q is the end result of humankind which would explain his interest in them? Or what if the Prophets from DS9 are highly evolved Bajorans? There we have again funky causality or to express it differently, the ending causes the beginning but without the beginning there would be not ending.

I think that this is an interesting God notion but this kind of stuff drives you half-lunatic if you think for too long about it.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

The boredom of the Gods, I like that.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

Though it could be argued.......at least we seem to have the capacity for (abstract) reasoning. I agree about the way we would perceive them though. There would have to be a common translation, a "Rosetta Stone" to allow any sort of discernment of message. Even then, cultural and intellectual perceptions would have to be understood by those of both sides.

Well, it might simply not be possible. We can communicate with lower lifeforms that we have domesticated like dogs or cats but only to a certain degree. And we have no way to get through to even lower lifeforms like ants.
But as you pointed out this comparison might be invalid as we have passed the treshold between man and animal which might be a real treshold and not just some arrogant, humancentric BS.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Well, it might simply not be possible. We can communicate with lower lifeforms that we have domesticated like dogs or cats but only to a certain degree. And we have no way to get through to even lower lifeforms like ants.
But as you pointed out this comparison might be invalid as we have passed the treshold between man and animal which might be a real treshold and not just some arrogant, humancentric BS.

It's possible that in relation to the rest of the universe, we are the equivalent of the ant.