原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-485478-1-1.html

William Boernke
Feb 2
You confuse theory with hypothesis. Theories arise when hypotheses are tested and affirmed while not being falsified. Your Dark Forest hypothesis needs to be tested before you can call it a theory.
你把理论和假设混淆了。当假设得到验证和确认并且不被证伪时,理论就产生了。你的黑暗森林假说需要经过检验,然后才能称之为理论。



What does the low probability of intelligent life evolving tell us?
Evolution is not teleological. Our big brains are flukes. If life evolves, there is no reason to think intelligent life will evolve. This is because there is no selective advantage to having a big brain. Insects have tiny brains and are just as successful as we are.
Humans are arrogant. We were created in God’s image. The reason most science fiction posits intelligent extra-terrestrial life (other than “The Andromeda Strain”) is that who wants to read a book or watch a movie about a planet inhabited by bacteria?
进化出智慧生命的这种低概率告诉我们什么?
进化不是有目的性的过程。我们拥有一个巨大的大脑是一种侥幸。尽管生命会进化,但却没有理由认为它会进化出智慧生命。这是因为拥有一个巨大的大脑并没有选择优势。昆虫的大脑很小,但它们和我们一样成功。
人类是傲慢。我们是照着神的形像被造出来的。大多数科幻小说都假定有拥有智慧的外星生命存在(除了《天外来菌》)的原因是:谁想看关于被细菌占据的星球的小说或电影?



I do like the idea that if a big brain evolves, then the result will be bad. What have we used our big brains to do? We have figured out better ways to kill ourselves. Since the laws of physics exist in the universe, it is reasonable to assume that all intelligent civilizations will discover that E = mc^2. Once we knew this, we built the bomb. As Oppenheimer said when the first atomic bomb was tested: “Now, I have become death.”
我确实喜欢这样的一个想法:即如果一个巨大的大脑进化出来了,那么结果将是很糟糕的。我们用我们的大脑做了什么?我们找到了更好的自杀方式。既然物理定律存在于宇宙中,我们有理由假设所有的智慧文明都会发现E = mc^2。一旦我们知道了这一点,我们就制造了核弹。正如奥本海默在第一颗原子弹试验时所说:“现在,我已经死了”。

Karen Fowler
Feb 4
It makes perfect sense that as a civilization gets more advanced, it should become more, not less, xenophobic.
一个文明越进步,它的排外情绪就越强,而不是越弱,这是完全有道理的。

As you pointed out in your reply to C Stuart Hardwick, we have no way of knowing how good other beings might be at picking out signals from the CMB. Aliens fifty light years away could be trying to decipher the deep meaning in The Beverly Hillbillies as we speak. Furthermore we took the utterly stupid step of sending the gold record into space telling where to find us and more or less how to kill us (not that a civilization capable of finding and reading it would need much help in the latter department, anyway).
正如你在给C Stuart Hardwick的回复中所指出的,我们无法知道其他生物在识别宇宙微波背景辐射信号方面有多擅长。在我们说话的时候,50光年外的外星人可能正在试图破译贝弗利山庄的深层含义。此外,我们采取了极其愚蠢的作法,将黄金唱片送入太空,告诉别人在哪里可以找到我们,这或多或少地就告诉了他们应该如何杀死我们(无论如何,一个能够找到并阅读它的文明在后一方面并不需要太多的帮助)。



Nick Moore
Jan 29
Imagine if the Earth were the universe, and in such a comparison we were an indigenous tribe that hadn’t yet made contact with the “outside world”.
And suppose, for the sake of Fermi’s argument, a well-intentioned alien decided to stop by despite being very adamantly warned against doing so.
We’re not the only species to come up with the Prime Directive. We simply haven’t learned the consequences yet.
想象一下,如果地球是宇宙,那么在这样一个类比中,我们就是一个尚未与“外部世界”接触的土著部落。
假设,因为费米理论的缘故,一个善意的外星人决定停下来,尽管他遭到强烈警告不要这么做。
我们并不是唯一一个提出最高指导原则的物种。我们只是还不知道后果。

Colby Stebbins
Jan 29 · 2 upvotes
That’s not the creepiest solution to the paradox. The creepiest one is that they’re already here.
这并不是这个悖论最令人毛骨悚然的解决方案。最恐怖的是,他们已经在这里了。

Justin Di Angelo
Sun
Stephen Hawking was always against broadcasting ourselves to the universe, and I have to say, I agree with him. It doesn’t matter if the Dark Forest theory is true or not, it’s foolish to shout into the void with no clue what could hear.
斯蒂芬·霍金一直反对向宇宙广播我们自己,我不得不说,我同意他的观点。黑暗森林理论是否正确并不重要,但是在没有任何了解的情况下对着虚空大喊大叫是愚蠢的。

Barry Goldberg
Jan 27 · 2 upvotes
Interestingly, I just finished reading the second book of Cixi Liu’s “Remembrance of Earth’s Past” trilogy (entitled “The Dark Forest”) where this concept is discussed and, in fact, forms the basis for the entire story. Is this where you learned about this theory as well, or did it exist before Cixi Liu used it as a basis for his novel?
有趣的是,我刚刚读完了刘慈欣的《地球往事》三部曲的第二部(书名是《黑暗森林》),在这本书中就讨论了这个概念,事实上,它构成了整个故事的基础。这也是你知悉这一理论的地方吗?还是在刘慈欣把它作为小说的理论基础之前就已经存在了?

Steve Brennan
Jan 27 · 3 upvotes
That book series is how I first heard of it. I actually used pieces of his dialogue as part of my answer, as you may well have recognized. I’m not entirely sure if those books are the origin of the theory, however, I’ve heard the theory speculated by futurists and theorists. It would be interesting to find out whether or not Cixi Liu had already heard of the theory before writing about it.
As other commenters have noted, the theory is not very sound from the standpoint of a highly evolved intelligence. However, from a purely evolutionary, “survival of the fittest” standpoint, it does bring about plenty of speculation!
那套书是我第一次听说这个理论的地方。我实际上用了其中的一些对话作为我回答的一部分,你们可能已经知道了。我不完全确定这些书是不是这个理论的起源之处,但是,我听过未来学家和理论家们推测过这个理论。想知道刘慈禧在写这篇文章之前是否听说过这个理论,这将是一件很有趣的事情。
正如其他评论者所指出的,从高度进化的智慧生命的角度来看,这个理论并不十分合理。然而,从纯粹进化的“适者生存”的观点来看,它确实带来了大量的猜测!

Barry Goldberg
Jan 27 · 3 upvotes
Yeah, I was shaking my head a bit when reading the book. It assumes too many things, such as how close together highly advanced technological civilizations are in the galaxy and how easy it would be to actually detect evidence of other civilizations. But it was a fun read nevertheless. I’m debating whether to continue on with the third book, though, since the second books seems to have wrapped up the central plot.
是的,我读这本书的时候连连摇头。它假设了太多的事情,比如银河系中高度先进的科技文明之间的距离有多近,以及发现其他文明存在的证据有多容易。不过读起来还是很有趣。不过,我在考虑是否要继续跟进第三本书,因为第二本书似乎已经结束了它的中心情节。

Shahbaz Ahmed
Jan 27 · 3 upvotes
I would recommend finishing the trilogy, only because the third book really puts a final rest to the story of humanity. However, many other concepts are introduced in the third book that may seem too outlandish to some. But for me, I love seeing the crazy situations he paints for us and it definitely is worth experiencing.
I will say, be prepared for a lot of head-shaking haha.
我建议你读完这个三部曲,这是因为第三本书真正地为人类的故事画上了句号。然而,在第三本书中介绍的许多其他概念对有些人来说可能显得太古怪了。但对我来说,我喜欢看他为我们描绘的疯狂场景,这绝对值得一读。
我会说,准备好连连摇头吧,哈哈。

Refiz Duro
Jan 27 · 1 upvote
Among the best sci-fi I have ever read — one of the reasons being that it is a plausible scenario.
这是我读过的最好的科幻小说之一,原因之一是它建构了一个貌似合理的情节。

Carlos Moya
Jan 28 · 2 upvotes
This reminds me of a short sci-fi horror story where SETI received a message back from space; the message pretty much amounted to “chist, they will hear you!”
这让我想起一个简短的科幻恐怖故事,搜寻地外文明计划收到了来自太空的信息;这句话的大意是:“天啊,他们会听到你的!”

Vincent Gao
Feb 3
Another problem with Dark Forest is that following such philosophy is simply politically unwise. Historical dialectic shows that the formation of alliances and diplomacy guarantee not only far greater security but also a host of other benefits, both military and economic, that outweighs any perceived good that can come out of isolation. Furthermore, while isolation may sound appealing in the short term, remaining isolationist proves directly detrimental to the country’s security in the long run, as demonstrated by the Humiliation of China and the fall of the Ottoman empire. All said, though the Dark Forest does make some sense, it’s most likely untrue: intelligent beings are smarter than that.
黑暗森林的另一个问题是,遵循这样的哲学在政治上是不明智的。历史辩证法表明,联盟和外交的形成不仅保证了更大的安全度,而且还保证了许多其他好处,包括军事和经济上的好处,这些好处超过了任何孤立带来的好处。此外,虽然孤立主义在短期内听起来很有吸引力,但从长期来看,继续孤立主义对国家的安全是直接有害的,中国的百年屈辱和奥斯曼帝国的灭亡就是证明。所有人都说,虽然黑暗森林有一定的道理,但它很可能是不正确的:智慧生命比这个更聪明。

Vova Zakharov
Jan 29
Does The Theory explain why we are the only intelligent form of life stupid enough to “broadcast our presence”?
这个理论是否解释了为什么我们是唯一智慧的生命形式,以至于会愚蠢到去“广播我们的存在”?



Tom Lowe
Jan 29
“Every civilization could potentially represent an armed soldier stalking through the trees. Each soldier must be silent and careful, because everywhere in the Dark Forest are stealthy, silent soldiers like himself. Each breath must be silent… each footstep must be silent. If he finds another life- he either risks his own life by trusting it, or he opens fire to eliminate them before they can eliminate him”
“每一种文明都可能是一名穿越树林的武装士兵。每名士兵都必须保持安静和小心谨慎,因为在黑暗的森林里到处都是像他一样的悄无声息的士兵。每一次呼吸都要安静,每一个脚步都要安静。如果他找到了另一种生命——他要么冒着生命危险去相信它,要么在它们消灭他之前就开枪消灭它们。”

This sounds like your imagination going wild. I imagine the name dark forest means just like your standard forest, animals don’t broadcast their presence unless they’re in a safe location. Lizards, deer, rabbits etc tend to be not too loud. It isn’t very frightening, just a somewhat risky waste of energy to be really loud.
这听起来像是你在进行天马行空的想象。我想黑暗森林这个名字的意思就像我们的普通森林一样,动物不会对外广播它们的存在,除非它们身处一个安全的地方。蜥蜴、鹿、兔子等声音都不大。这并不是很可怕的事情,大吼大叫只是有浪费精力的危险。

Mark Harder
Jan 29
Why did Fermi assume they weren’t already here? What are UFOs, to consider just one possibility? Personally, I’m not convinced that the issue of their existence has been completely settled as yet. What about other animal species on our planet? Do we really know so much about consciousness that we can rule out the possibility that some of the weirder creatures out there have an extraterrestrial origin? Just sayin’…
为什么费米不认为它们已经在这里了?不明飞行物是什么,难道不考虑这样一种可能性吗?就我个人而言,我不相信他们的存在问题已经完全解决。那么地球上的其他动物呢?我们真的对意识了解得如此透彻,以至于我们可以排除一些更奇怪的生物起源于外太空的可能性吗?我只是说说而已。

Semen Maslak
Jan 28 · 1 upvote from Steve Brennan
I heard an interesting continuation of the theory
Any life smart enough to broadcast its existence is smart enough to come to the conclusions of Fermi paradox, Dark Forrest, and this assumption. That would mean that an intelligent civilization will be quite and treat all other civilization as quite. However, civilization that actively broadcasts it's existence must be strong enough not to fear others. For all we know, we are scaring the shit out of every nearby civilization
我听到过这个理论的有趣的后续。
任何聪明到能够广播其存在的生命,都聪明到能够得出费米悖论、黑暗森林和这个假设。这将意味着一个智慧文明将是安静的,并且认为所有其他文明也是安静的。然而,积极传播自己存在的文明必须足够强大,才会不惧怕他人。就我们所知,我们正在把附近的文明吓得屁滚尿流。

John Huskins
Feb 12
I always considered another answer to the Fermi paradox far scarier. The possibility that there is intelligent life but they know to keep quite because there is a real threat looking. I don't like many of the possibilities when you consider if we are not alone. I did enjoy your answer, so thank you for that.
我一直在思考费米悖论的另一个答案,这个答案要可怕得多。是否有可能有智慧生命存在,但他们知道保持沉默,因为有一个真正的威胁在看着他们。当你想到我们并不孤单时,我不喜欢很多这样的可能性。我很喜欢你的回答,谢谢。

Milly Stuchinski
Feb 6
I read this before, maybe from you? But it makes perfect sense to me. We can see it played out in our current culture, when walking down a dark alley, singing. Maybe somebody will jump out and join in harmony, or else they will slit your throat and take all of the ten dollars you have in your pocket.
How to tell the difference? Impossible.
我以前读过,也许是你写的?但这对我来说很有意义。当我们走在黑暗的小巷里,唱着歌,我们可以看到它在我们当前的文化中上演。也许有人会跳出来和你和睦相处,或者他们会割开你的喉咙,拿走你口袋里所有的10美元。
如何分辨这不同的结局?那是不可能的。



Such a civilization would be so incredibly advanced, self-replicating robots that power themselves by the light of nearby stars would be primitive, creating any sort of advanced compounds directly from available elements would be trivial nanotechnology.
这样的文明的先进程度将是非常令人难以置信的,以至于利用附近恒星的光源来为自身提供能量的能够自我复制的机器人与之相比都算是原始的,用现有的元素直接创造任何种类的先进化合物都将是微不足道的纳米技术而已。

The absolute vastness of space and all the stars and planets possessing no sentient lifeforms would be both well-known and available to harvest for raw materials, water, food, and habitat construction. Any civilization capable of exploiting such vast resources would have long ago learned how and why cooperation gains more capability than subjugation.
浩瀚无垠的太空,以及所有没有生命形态的恒星和行星,都将为他们所了解,并可用于获取原材料、水、食物和栖息地建设。任何有能力开发如此庞大资源的文明,早就知道如何合作以及为什么合作能够比征服收获更多。

The idea that such an advanced civilization would seek to harm sentient life anywhere, or deprive it of resources, seems to me to be paranoia at its darkest.
在我看来,认为如此先进的文明会在各个地方伤害有自我认知的生命,或剥夺它的资源,这种想法似乎是偏执的。

Gabriel Lewis
Feb 10
“If you were lost in a dark, creepy forest at night… would you scream out to alert all the nearby predators where you were?”
Honestly, yes. My strategy in those situations tends to be intimidation.
“如果你晚上在黑暗恐怖的森林里迷路了……你会尖叫出来,提醒附近的捕食者你在哪里吗?”
坦白地说,是的,我会这么做。我在这些情况下所采取的策略往往是恐吓。

Gabriel Lewis
Feb 10
If you don’t know, it is generally recommended to make a lot of noise while hiking in the woods. As nearly every living animal on Earth tends to be afraid of humans. And it’s much better that they know of your presence and are able to leave the area before you arrive.
如果你不知道的话,我要告诉你一般人们建议在树林里徒步旅行时要发出很大的噪音。因为地球上几乎所有现存的动物都害怕人类。如果他们知道你的存在,并且能够在你到达之前离开,那就最好不过了。

Steve Brennan
Feb 10
Yeah, that’s a little different than screaming at a predator.
是啊,这和冲着捕食者尖叫略有不同。

Gabriel Lewis
Feb 10
The recommended action when encountering pretty much any dangerous wild animal is to make noise, appear large, and intimidate.
Google “wolf encounter safety”, “cougar encounter safety”. Hell, it’s even the recommendation for tigers, although I’m not sure it would be quite as effective.
当遇到任何危险的野生动物时,建议采取的动作是制造噪音,这样可以显得你很大,有威慑性。
你可以搜索“遇到狼时如何保证自身安全”和“遇到美洲狮时如何保证自身安全”。见鬼了,甚至是在你面对对老虎的时候,人们也是这么建议的,尽管我不确定它是否会同样有效。

Steve Brennan
Feb 10 · 1 upvote from Gabriel Lewis
I agree. I’ve hiked in many wilderness areas and have heard the whole speech many times… You’re completely right. I guess the better thing to say would be, if you were a soldier in a creepy dark forest at night filled with enemy soldiers, would you scream out?
我同意。我在很多荒野地区徒步旅行过,也听过很多次此类的演讲。你说得完全正确。我想更好的说法应该是,如果你是一名士兵,在漆黑的森林里,在夜晚,到处都是敌军士兵,你会尖叫吗?

Andria Duncan
Feb 13
I’ve thought for a long time that any extra-terrestrial civilization would have to be completely insane to make themselves known to humanity, given our long history of murderous xenophobia and genocide. Homo sapiens sapiens survived, but probably by murdering and/or EATING all the other homo species who shared our beginnings — given how we routinely murder and carry out massive genocide against even members of OUR OWN species, it’s really not that big a reach to believe that.
很长一段时间以来,我一直认为,任何外星文明都必须达到非常疯狂的程度,才会让人类知道它们自己的存在,因为我们有着漫长的杀人仇外和种族灭绝的历史。智人幸存了下来,但他们可能是通过谋杀和吃掉所有与我们有共同起源的智人物种才做到这一点的——考虑到我们经常实施谋杀和大规模种族灭绝,甚至是对我们自己的物种成员也是如此,那么相信这一点并不算太难了。

Aniket Salunkhe
Jan 28
Maybe they are seeing us after we got destroyed, resultant of time dilations across the universe and the mass of star they are close to.Maybe they are seeing us in future,just a planet,with ashes around,and not seeing us as living creatures.
Maybe we are dead.For them.And which we will actually will be.
也许他们在我们被摧毁后看到了我们,这将由宇宙中时间膨胀和他们旁边的恒星质量所决定。也许他们在未来看到了我们,那时候的视野中只有一颗行星,周围布满灰烬,而不是活生生的生物。
也许对他们来说,我们已经灭亡了。我们的确将会走向灭亡。

Varun S Rajan
Feb 5
But what if our stupidity is what that have saved us so far? Say that we were silent and one civilisation found us consumed our resources and left us for dead. Nobody notices anything. But since we have been vocal nobody can be sure that they are the only one that keeps track of us. If one made an offensive move it would immediately point out about its whereabouts threatening its own existence. So everyother intelligent life forms stay obsevant. We might never know there might be wars waged on in our names.
但如果是我们的愚蠢拯救了我们呢?假设我们保持沉默,一个文明发现了我们,耗尽了我们的资源,然后让我们等死。没有人注意到任何东西。但由于我们一直在发声,没有人能确定他们是唯一跟踪我们的人。如果有人采取攻击行动,它会立即暴露自己的位置,威胁到它的生存。所以其他所有的智慧生命形式都会保持警觉。我们可能永远无法知道曾经爆发过一场以我们的名义发动的战争。

William Green
Jan 28
We live in a dialectical universe where all existence no matter how advanced is still endowed with an animal consciousness that seeks to preserve itself, While the dark forest theory is no theory but reality in my view, we need not worry because those of them that have observed us want nothing to do with us. What do you do when you walk down the street at night and see a bunch of rowdy people arguing, fighting, and acting crazy….thats right, you avoid them! You don’t care that you are big and strong or even aggressive. You just don’t need the trouble and walk on by……………..
我们生活在一个辩证的宇宙中,所有的存在——无论它多么先进——仍然是被赋予了动物意识,这种意识让它寻求保护本身,而在我看来,黑暗森林理论不是理论,而是现实,我们不需要担心,因为那些已经观察到我们的文明不想和我们接触。当你晚上走在街上,看到一群吵吵闹闹的人在大好大叫,打架斗殴,举止疯狂的时候,你会怎么做?没错,你会远远地避开他们!你不在乎自己是否高大强壮,甚至是否有攻击性。你只是不需要惹麻烦,你会绕道而行的。



Kirk Johnson
Jan 29 · 1 upvote
I’m sure many others have pointed this out already, but it seems to me that the missing piece is the implicit assumption that intelligent life always—or even usually—develops advanced technology.
Right here on earth we have Corvids, Cephalopods, and Cetaceans. All of which seem possess intelligence and some of which are tool-using, but none of which have ever developed the sort of advanced technologies that—again, it seems to me—the Fermi Paradox seems to take for granted.
我相信很多人已经指出了这一点,但在我看来,缺失的部分是隐含的假设,即智慧生命总是——甚至通常是——在开发先进的技术。
地球上的乌鸦、章鱼和鲸类似乎都拥有智慧,其中一些还能够使用工具,但它们都从未开发过那种在我看来是理所当然的费米悖论的先进技术。

Mark Oakley
Jan 30
Cixin Liu’s “Three Body Problem” was one of the best Sci-Fi stories I’ve ever read, (where I first encountered the Dark Forest Theory). He deservedly wears the badge of, “China’s Asimov”.
I liked how the author demonstrates how the Dark Forest Theory is undone by (a variation) of that other famous Sci-Fi adage: “Life finds a way” -merely by writing the story and its outcome. -That much curiosity and energy put into the writing of a 3 part novel indicates intelligent life really really really wants to reach out to know in spite of the terrors.
It also reminded me of “Watchmen”, where a flawless argument for nihilism is presented and then undone in the last stroke.
刘慈欣的《三体》是我读过的最好的科幻小说之一(也是我第一次读到黑暗森林理论的地方)。他配得上“中国的阿西莫夫”的称号。
我喜欢作者通过另一句著名的科幻格言“生命会自己找出路”的变体来证明黑暗森林理论是如何被破解的——仅仅是通过这个故事和它的结局。这部小说分为三部分,倾注在写作过程中的大量的好奇心和精力表明智慧生命真的非常非常想去了解真相,尽管真相可能令人恐惧。
这也让我想起了《守望者》,这本书完美地论证了虚无主义,但故事的最后却是败笔。

Ryan Lolly
2h ago
The other issue is time. The length of time humans have been on the earth, and even a fraction of that have been broadcasting anything is tiny beyond belief in universe time. 100 years out of 13 billion years. It’s almost impossible to align with the timing of another advanced civilization in any “near” system. And considering the vastness of space, by the time any of our transmissions reach any potential intelligent life, either we are gone, or they are, or by the time they attempted any response, we’d almost certainly be gone.
另一个问题是时间。人类在地球上存在的时间长度,即便在其中一小段时间里向外广播了任何东西,都是非常短暂的,对宇宙时间而言微不可查。130亿年中的100年。任何“邻近的”系统几乎不可能与另一个先进文明的发展时间保持一致。考虑到宇宙的浩瀚,当我们的任何信号抵达任何潜在的智能生命所在的区域时,要么我们已经不在了,要么它们已经不在了,或者当它们试图做出任何反应时,我们几乎可以肯定已经不在了。

You did kind of address that with the fact that most civilizations will wipe themselves out (as we most likely will). But their time in this universe almost certainly won’t line up with our time. Even if we make it to 1,000 years of technological existence, that’s a fraction of a fraction of a fraction on the universe time clock.
你提到了一个事实,大多数文明都会自我毁灭(我们很可能也会)。但他们在这个宇宙中的时间几乎肯定不会与我们的时间保持一致。即使我们的技术存在了1000年,那也只是宇宙时间时钟上的一小部分。

Omkar Kadam
Jan 29
Always assume positive intent, if there are sophisticated individuals more intelligent than humans, they'd be wise enough to know that in war there are no winners, perhaps they'd have had initiated contact yesterday, and lead our lives to faster progress than we could on our own. Bring that goddamn technology bitches, tell us the secret of the universe!
我总是倾向于积极的假设,如果存在着比人类更聪明的复杂的个体,他们会足够聪明,知道在战争中没有赢家,也许他们昨天就已经开始接触,让我们的生活比我们自己所能做到的更快地获得进步。把技术那该死的婊子带过来,告诉我们宇宙的秘密!

Sarah Giers
Jan 27
The biggest problem I have with this is that the asked asked for a scientific theory. Speculation based on likely faulty reasoning isn’t a scientific theory. It does not fall under either criteria for a scientific method, as its not sound Abduction reasoning nor is it thoroughly tested. It’s a colloquial use of “theory” rather than a scientific theory.
我最大的疑问是,提问者想要的是一个科学的理论。基于错误推理的推测不是科学理论。不管根据什么标准,它都不属于科学的范畴,因为它既没有健全的推理,也没有经过彻底的测试。它是“理论”这个词汇的口语用法,而不是真正的科学理论。

Steve Brennan
Jan 27
There are many theories that can only be indirectly tested. But you’re right, the Dark Forest theory cannot be tested per Scientific Method.
有许多理论只能被间接地验证了。但是你是对的,黑暗森林理论不能用科学方法来进行检验。

D Clifford
Feb 6
There's also the possibility that we are the most advanced species in the galaxy right now.
We're a rifleman walking through the forest. We don't have night vision goggles, so we can't really see what's out there. We're basically walking into the forest with a flashlight on our rifle, only able to see a tiny way ahead of us, making a lot of noise but not really seeing what's out there.
But, whatever's out there, we have our rifle.
还有一种可能性是,我们现在是银河系中最先进的物种。
我们是一个穿越森林的步枪手。我们没有夜视镜,所以我们看不见外面有什么。我们基本上是带着步枪上的手电筒走进森林,只能看到前面一小段路,而且发出了很大的噪音,但并没有真正看到外面是什么。但是,不管外面有什么,我们手中有枪。

Brian Davis
Feb 1
The Dark Forest hypothesis has some serious flaws. This video could explain it better than I ever could:
The folks on that channel have been discussing the Fermi “Paradox” for a little while now. Like the OP, I considered the Dark Forest conclusions pretty grim… until I consider the reasoning supplied in that video.
黑暗森林假说有一些严重的缺陷。这个视频可以比我更好地解释这一点:这个频道中的人一段时间以来一直在讨论费米“悖论”。和答主一样,我认为黑暗森林的结论相当可怕,直到我考虑了视频中提供的推理。

Roger Scott
Jan 31
See if this analogy lets a little air out of the Fermi Paradox balloon: before the development of the germ theory of disease there was the “Illness Paradox”; lots of people got sick, all the time, all over the place, but there was zero evidence — none! — for a cause; surely if there were something causing all this disease we’d see it everywhere, all around us, right? Most paradoxes are only paradoxes until someone figures out what the major faulty assumption(s) is(are).
看看这个类比是否能让费米悖论的气球放出一点空气:在疾病的微生物理论发展之前,有一个“疾病悖论”;一直以来,到处都有很多人生病,但却没有任何证据——一个也没有——可以作为解释它的理由;当然,如果有什么东西导致了所有这些疾病,我们会看到它无处不在,在我们周围,对吧?大多数悖论只是悖论,直到有人弄清楚主要的错误假设是什么。

Nitin Shukla
Feb 3
This answer took me back to my childhood which i spent watching numerous documentaries on Discovery and national geographic. Absolutely loved your answer bookmarking it for future readings.
这个答案让我回想起了我的童年,当时我在探索频道和国家地理上看了很多的纪录片。我非常喜欢你的答案,把它放到了书签中以备将来阅读。

Russell Jurney
Feb 5
Monitor the others? Monitor and then blast the others to holy hell!
监控别人?监视,然后把其他人炸到地狱里!

John Ramsey
Jan 27 · 1 upvote from Steve Brennan
Maybe they've seen how utterly mad we all are, and they can't reach us before we perfect a means of travelling between stars. Maybe humanity will be the monsters in the closet of the galaxy, and no one can do a thing about it. A dangerous bacteria, thriving in an unreachable culture, about to rupture and spread into the void.
Or maybe we're the dunces skipping about the forest smashing cymbals together and singing Mary had a Little Lamb.
Probably the latter.
也许他们已经看到了我们是多么的疯狂,而且在我们完善星际旅行的手段之前,他们也无法到达我们这里。也许人类将成为银河系衣柜里的怪物,没有人能对此做点什么。一种危险的细菌,在无法到达的培养环境中生长,即将破裂并扩散到真空中。
或者我们是在森林里蹦蹦跳跳,一起敲着铙钹,唱着《玛丽有只小羊羔》。
可能是后一种情况。

Omkar Bapat
Feb 4
We can only hope that the extra terrestrial civilization has got content from ‘The Jerry Springer Show’ as it is the only broadcast that can ensure our survival.
我们只能希望外星文明能从“杰里·施普林格秀”中获得关于我们的信息,因为这是唯一能确保我们生存下去的节目。

Steven Gibb
Jan 26 · 6 upvotes including Steve Brennan
Could they perhaps think “wow, they are broadcasting where they are, they must be so confident in their power. We should avoid them!” :D
他们可能会想:“哇,他们在广播自己的位置,他们一定对自己的力量很有信心。我们应该避开他们”。

Steve Brennan
Jan 27 · 4 upvotes including Steven Gibb
This reminds me of the Lion King when Simba is trying repeatedly to roar at the evil Hyenas. Eventually, Mustafa comes in from out of the picture and roars while Simba is trying to roar. Perhaps other civilizations seeing how confident we are to display ourselves view us as big, bad Mustafa, when in reality we are merely little Simba!
这让我想起了《狮子王》中辛巴反复向邪恶的鬣狗吼叫的场景。最终,在辛巴试图咆哮的时候,穆斯塔法从画面中走了出来,他也咆哮起来。也许其他文明看到我们如此自信地展示自己,就认为我们是强大而邪恶的穆斯塔法,而实际上我们只是小辛巴!

Steven Gibb
Jan 27
Haha yes i like that. Though in reality we're more like the insects under the rock that simba eats.
哈哈,是的,我喜欢你的说法。尽管事实上我们更像辛巴吃掉的岩石下的昆虫。

John Drew
Feb 8
Thank you everyone for contributing to this discussing. I’m enjoying it. Here are a few of my low-level thoughts on the subject.
感谢大家为这次讨论做出的贡献。我很享受。以下是我对这个问题的一些肤浅的想法。



Once we find a planet with life on it lets think about the fact that there have been billions of life forms on this planet (99% are extinct) and only one has been intelligent enough to build a bicycle.
The law of large numbers tells us life / intelligent life is out there somewhere but the laws of physics (speed/time/distance) tells us they are not hearing our footsteps in the forest.
一旦我们发现了一颗有生命的行星,让我们想想这样一个事实:这个星球上有数十亿种生命形式(99%已经灭绝),只有一种足够聪明到能造一辆自行车。
大数定律告诉我们生命和智慧生命就在某处,但物理定律(速度、时间和距离)告诉我们,他们在森林里听不到我们的脚步声。

Persephone Bell
Feb 6
“If you were lost in a dark, creepy forest at night… would you scream out to alert all the nearby predators where you were? Probably not! But that’s what humanity has been doing for 100 years!”
“如果你晚上在黑暗恐怖的森林里迷路了,你会尖叫出来,提醒附近的捕食者你在哪里吗?”可能不会,但这就是人类过去100年来一直在做的事情!”

Actually, ironically, it is often advised by national park staff to carry a bell or to otherwise make loud noise when walking in the woods so that one will not startle bears, etc. They are more likely to go aggro if they are startled, and more likely to simply steer clear if they are not. After all, humans may be physically weak by comparison, but they are the ultimate predators on the planet. Most wild animals prefer not to tangle with us given an alternative.
事实上,具有讽刺意味的是,国家公园的工作人员经常建议人们在树林里散步时带上铃铛或发出很大的声音,这样人们就不会吓到熊之类的生物了。如果受到惊吓,他们更有可能勃然大怒;如果没有受到惊吓,它们更有可能躲开。毕竟,相比之下,人类的身体可能比较虚弱,但他们才是这颗星球上的终极掠食者。大多数野生动物都不愿意和我们发生冲突。

I think that would extend to this situation with reference to alien life as well. I wouldn’t blame them for steering clear of our species one bit.
我认为这也适用于外星生命。我一点也不怪他们避开了我们这个物种。

Frank Bartlo
Feb 5
The Fermi Paradox certainly interesting philosophical fodder; but as noted in some prior responses, the very distance between solar systems and challenge of being able to bridge such vast distances makes it virtually impossible for us to make contact with such extraterrestrials, even if the universe is teeming with them.
费米悖论当然是一个有趣的哲学素材;但是,正如之前的一些回复所指出的,即使宇宙中充满了外星人,但太阳系之间的距离以及能够跨越如此遥远距离的挑战却使得我们几乎不可能接触到这样的外星人。

Going with that line of reasoning, it is highly improbable for living beings on any other planets to encounter each other; as they may have to be located on planets of the same solar system whose orbits are relatively close to each other, such as Earth and Mars, but both with habitable climates, both being close enough to the ideal temperatures and compositions to support life. Such conditions are an extreme long shot, to say the least.
按照这样的推理,其他星球上的生物只见的相遇是极不可能的;因为如果他们真的相遇的话,他们必须处于同一个恒星系的行星上,而且这些行星的轨道相对较近,比如地球和火星这样的距离,而且都具有适宜居住的气候,都足够接近理想的温度和物质构成,这样才足以支持生命的存在。至少可以说,这样的条件是极其不可能的。

Duncan Mc Cornock
Feb 10
This reads like children afraid of boogeymen in the night at times. Intelligence has only been on Earth for 100 of 14 billion years of the Universe’s existence (wrt to hearing/being heard by alien civilizations). Our broadcasts haven’t gone far and would be hard to detect and decode. Assuming it is possible for a civilization say at 400 light years away to detect us, so what? There are no magical warp drives. The cost of sending a spacecraft to our Solar System would be enormous and for what purpose? Say it goes at 1/10 light speed. Okay, it will be here in 7000 years. If our civilization survives, our technology should be good enough to deal with a spacecraft of aliens assuming they were hostile. The aliens happen to know how rapid technological progress is once it gets command of electrical and magnetic knowledge. Moreover, a 4000 year journey for a spacecraft with live aliens aboard has substantial probability of failure. No, the most likely contact we would get if an alien civilization detected our broadcasts is a “Hi, neighbor, let’s start talking. We will be streaming you some designs for transmitters, receivers and information coding as well as pictures, music, art and high tech information. We start now …” and the stream continues for 1000 years, at which time, if we haven’t replied, the aliens sign off.
Why would do that? Because, it would take us 7000 years to reach them if we get their first signal and so what?
这听起来就像孩子们有时在夜里害怕妖怪出没一样。在宇宙已经存在的140亿年里,智慧生命只在地球上存在了1000年。我们的广播还没有走出去多远,其他文明将很难检测到它,更不用说进行解码了。假设400光年外的文明有可能探测到我们,那又怎样?他们没有神奇的曲率引擎。向我们的太阳系发射一艘宇宙飞船的成本将是巨大的,其目的是什么?假设它的速度达到了光速的十分一致。好吧,7000年后它就会抵达地球了。如果我们的文明幸存下来,我们的技术应该足够好,可以应付得了这些外星人的宇宙飞船——假设他们是与我们相敌对的。外星人将会知道,一旦掌握了电磁知识,一个文明的技术进步将会多么迅速。此外,4000年的旅程对于一艘载着活着的外星人的宇宙飞船来说有着很大的失败的可能性。不,如果外星文明探测到我们的广播,我们最有可能得到的联系是:“嗨,邻居,我们开始对话吧。我们将为你们提供发射机、接收机和信息编码的设计,以及图片、音乐、艺术和高科技信息。我们现在就开始吧……”。这条信息流将持续1000年,如果我们还没有回复,外星人就会停止继续这么做。
为什么要这么做?因为,如果我们得到它们的第一个信号,我们还另外需要7000年才能到达它们那里,那又怎样?

Chris Sharp
Feb 1
The simplest, most likely solution to the Fermi paradox is that the joint spatial and temporal cross section required for a successful interaction between ourselves and another intelligent species - especially given technology restrictions - is incredibly small.
It is therefore unsurprising that, as a matter of chance, we should have not yet found evidence for advanced extraterrestrial life.
费米悖论最简单、最有可能的答案是,我们与另一种智能物种成功互动所需要的空间和时间的重合横截面是非常小的——尤其是考虑到技术方面的限制。
因此,如果我们还没有发现外星生命存在的证据,那也就不足为奇了。

Victor Grubsky
Jan 28
I don’t really see any paradox in the absence of extraterrestrial signals. There is no point in talking about the size of the Universe and the number of possibilities for life on other planets. Our Milky Way galaxy is something like 100 kly across, and we could practically expect to detect any artificial signals within 100 lay or so, which tremendously reduces our sampling volume. Within that, we probably still have hundreds or thousands of planets, and some of them may have conditions go life to form. But what are the chances that this life is advanced enough to send signals through space? If we take Earth as an example, we have been in the position to do so for less than 100 years, compared to 3 billion years that life existed here. So the probability of hearing from other civilizations within our space neighborhood is tiny.
在没有外星信号的情况下,我看不出这里面有任何自相矛盾的地方。谈论宇宙的大小和其他行星上可能存在生命的数量是没有意义的。我们的银河系的宽度大约有10万光年,而我们可以探测到任何人工信号的范围只有100光年左右,这极大地减少了我们的采样量。在这个范围内,我们可能还有数百或数千颗行星,其中一些可能具备生命形成的条件。但是,这种生命有多大可能发展到足以向太空中发出信号呢?如果我们以地球为例,我们能做到这一点还不到100年,而地球上的生命已经存在了30亿年。因此,从我们周围的太空中听到其他文明声音的可能性是很小的。

But you may ask: what about those super-advanced civilizations that can send signals through space over much larger distances? Perhaps such civilizations can operate gigantic transmitters in space that can reach across the whole galaxy?
但你可能会问:那些能够通过太空远距离发送信号的超级先进的文明呢?也许这样的文明可以在太空中操纵巨大的发射器,可以让信号覆盖整个银河系?

Well, this is also doubtful. Such super-advanced civilizations probably know a lot more than we do about the Universe. They would probably have technology for interstellar travel, and they could be using such powerful sources to communicate with their colonies long distances away. But these would be highly directional communications, similar to what we use for our faraway probes, to optimize the signal quality. They would not be beaming signals uniformly in all directions because this would just be a waste of power. And in this case, our chance to intercept their communications would be extremely low.
这一点也是值得怀疑的。这些超级先进的文明对宇宙的了解可能比我们多得多。他们很可能拥有星际旅行的技术,而且他们可以利用如此强大的资源与遥远的殖民地交流。但这些将是高度定向的通信,类似于我们用于遥远探测器的通信,从而达到优化信号质量的目的。它们不会均匀地向各个方向发送信号,因为这只是在浪费能量。在这种情况下,我们拦截到他们的通讯的机会将非常低。

In any case, super-advanced civilizations would have no interest in going out of their ways to announce their presence. They would probably be aware of any other advanced civilizations in their neighborhoods, and trying to engage up-and-coming civilizations like ours would make no more sense to them that for us to try engage potentially intelligent cephalopods in the ocean. For us, squid is simply resource to exploit. We don’t want to talk to them - we want to have them for dinner.
在任何情况下,超级先进的文明都没有兴趣走出去宣布他们的存在。他们很可能意识到他们周围还有其他先进的文明,而试图与我们这样正在崛起的文明接触,对他们来说没有任何意义,正如我们不会试图与海洋中潜在的有智慧的头足类动物接触。对我们来说,鱿鱼只是可供开发的资源。我们不想和它们说话——我们只想在晚餐上吃掉它们。

Joe G Kearns
Feb 5
Leaving aside the questionable idea that humans are actually intelligent…..
Another factor in the discussion is time. Not only do we have to try to find other intelligent life but it has to be intelligent at the same time as us. Humans as we are today exist only for about 200,000 years and within that we have only been technologically intelligent for about 100 years. 100 years in the span of the timescale of the universe is effectively non-existent. Ergo, to the universe we really don’t exist.
Somewhat off topic, but I would further argue that not only are we not an intelligent life-form, we are actually rather stupid and deeply flawed. Compared to other lifeforms on our own planet we have existed for a very short time and the way we are headed we wont be around for much longer. We don’t have the “intelligence” to make ourselves sustainable.
撇开人类实际上是聪明的这一有争议的观点不谈……
讨论中的另一个因素是时间。我们不仅要寻找其他有智慧的生命,而且它必须和我们在同一时间段具备智慧。我们今天的人类只存在了大约20万年,而在这20万年里,我们的技术智能只存在了大约100年。在宇宙的时间尺度上,100年实际上相当于是不存在的。因此,在宇宙中我们真的是还不存在的。
这么说有些离题了,但我想进一步论证的是,我们不仅不是一种智慧生命形式,我们实际上还相当愚蠢,而且存在着严重的缺陷。与我们星球上的其他生命形式相比,我们存在的时间很短,我们前进的道路也不会长久。我们没有让自己可持续发展的“智慧”。

Alain Gardner
Feb 3
I like your answer. A nitpick: potential explanations should be referred to as hypothesis, not theories. A theory is “ the best explanation of all the available evidence ”. A hypothesis is still being tested and checked against the available evidence and not yet accepted as the best.
You’re a talented writer with the ability to influence people’s thinking. If you use hypothesis where appropriate you’ll help educate folks.
我喜欢你的回答。下面是我吹毛求疵的一点意见:潜在的阐释应该被称为假说,而不是理论。理论是“所有可以得到的证据的最佳解释”。假设则仍需要与现有证据进行检验和核对,它尚未被认为是最好的。
你是个有才华的作家,有能力影响人们的思维。如果你在适当的地方使用假设,你将有助于让人们获得教益。



Lydia Koza
Feb 4
Technically a hypothesis (by all measures), not a theory.
严格说来它是一种假设(根据所有的标准衡量),而不是一种理论。

Yonko Avalanche
Jan 27
What should be the parameter while considering whether a planet has life or not?
Maybe due to my naivety I can not completely grasp what people are referring to when they say there is no life on a planet.
Can anyone here explain it or provide any source?
在探讨一颗行星是否有生命存在时,参数应该是什么?也许由于我的天真,当人们说一颗行星上没有生命时,我不能完全理解他们指的是什么。这里有人能解释一下吗?

Steve Brennan
Jan 27 · 1 upvote from Yonko Avalanche
When referring to whether or not a planet has life, we are looking for life as we know it. This includes any living organism: Bacteria, plants, fungi, animals. There could be forms of life that we are completely unaware of, and this would be much more difficult for us to identify or relate to.
当说到一颗行星是否有生命时,我们是在寻找我们所知道的生命。这包括任何的生物体:细菌、植物、真菌、动物。此外也可能存在我们完全不知道的生命形式,而这将使我们更加难以识别它或将它与其他东西联系起来。

Also, our scientific instruments can only travel or look so far. If we were to find a single bacterium on Mars, we would say that Mars has life. If we were to one day drill into the ice shell of Europa with one of our probes/rovers and find strange aquatic life there, we would say that Europa has life. Other than planets or moons within our Solar System, though, we have very little capability of confirming living organisms elsewhere.
此外,我们的科学仪器只能远行或远眺。如果我们在火星上发现一个细菌,我们会说火星上有生命。如果有一天我们用探测器或探测车在木卫二的冰层上钻孔,发现了奇怪的水生生物,我们就会说木卫二有生命。然而,除了太阳系内的行星或卫星,我们几乎没有能力去确认其他地方是否有生命体存在。

We must improve the technology of our telescopes, Rockets, etc in order to improve our capabilities of discovering life in other star systems.
我们必须改进望远镜、火箭等技术,这样才能提高我们在其他星系中发现生命的能力。

Yonko Avalanche
Jan 27 · 1 upvote from Steve Brennan
Exactly! So it would be better to say that we have not interacted with a life form similar to us. There might have been some occasions where our eyes would have been fixated on alien life forms but simply because it is immobile/inorganic/invisible/etc we were not able to confirm their existence.
If this were the case then there are no soldiers hiding in the dark forest but the tree under which we sit, the air which we breath and the darkness are the soldiers itself.
Thanks for the reply.
你说的完全正确!所以最好是说我们没有与和我们相似的生命形式展开互动。也许在某些情况下,我们其实已经看到了外星的生命形式,但仅仅因为它是静止的、无机的、看不见的,等等情况,我们无法确认它们的存在。
如果是这样的话,那么黑暗的森林里就没有士兵了,我们只是坐着的树、我们呼吸的空气和黑暗都是士兵本身。
谢谢你的回复。

Steve Brennan
Jan 27 · 1 upvote from Yonko Avalanche
I like how you think! Like I mentioned in my original answer, there are many theories that attempt to answer the Fermi Paradox, and the Dark Forest Theory is merely one of them.
You have shed light on another theory that could explain the Fermi Paradox… perhaps there is life everywhere around us and we just aren’t aware of it because of the way our senses work! Especially considering we can only sense a small percentage of our surroundings at any given moment!
我喜欢你的想法!正如我在最初的回答中提到的,有许多理论试图回答费米悖论,而黑暗森林理论只是其中之一。
你已经阐明了另一种理论,它也可以解释费米悖论。也许我们周围到处都有生命,但我们只是没有意识到它的存在,这只是因为我们的感官工作方式的缘故!特别是考虑到我们在任何时刻只能感知到周围环境的一小部分!

Vlad Miu
Jan 28 · 1 upvote
But if even a tiny fraction of the life forms is as stupid as we are, shouldn’t we find their traces/signals?
但是,即使只有一小部分生命形式像我们一样愚蠢,难道我们不应该已经找到了它们的踪迹和信号吗?

Arthur Stepanyan
Feb 1
If electronic transmissions were not enough, we sent the Voyagers out with as much information about human race as we could think of.
如果电子传输还不够,我们就向旅行者探测器发送尽可能多的关于人类的信息。

Renato Marcos Endrizzi Sabbatini
Feb 3
You all are using the term “theory” wrongly in this debate. You should use “hypothesis”, instead. Theory in science is a different thing altogether.
在这场辩论中,你们都错误地使用了“理论”一词。你应该用“假设”来代替它。科学理论完全是另一回事。

RB Nerf
Jan 28
As a child, I was taught that Adam & Ever were thrown out of paradise because of disobedience. If on most planets, the Adam & Eves were not disobedient, then they and their progeny still live in paradise, and have little interest in astronomy.
当我还是个孩子的时候,我被教导说亚当曾经因为不听话而被赶出天堂。如果在大多数行星上,亚当和夏娃没有不听话的话,那么他们和他们的后代就仍然生活在天堂里,而且对天文学没有什么兴趣。

Peter Kinnon
Feb 1
There are more profound ways of resolving the Fermi paradox derived from observed universal evolutionary trends.
还有更深刻的方法可以解决由观察到的普遍进化趋势衍生而来的费米悖论。

From what we know of the emergence of biology on this planet and the evolutionary pattern of the ensuing network with a seemingly unending increase of intricacy, we can reasonably infer that, given half a chance, the directionality this implies will extend to the eventual exploitation of extraterrestrial niches. But not by biological organisms, for whom the adaptations required for such extreme environments are (outside the imaginary realms of science fiction) prohibitive.
从我们所知道的这个星球上生物的出现,以及随之而来的错综复杂的网络的进化模式,我们可以合理地推断,只要有一半的机会,它就意味着方向性将延伸到外星生态位的最终开发。但不是通过生物有机体,对它们来说,适应这样极端的环境(在科幻小说的想象领域之外)是不可能的。

However, the symbiont with which we have co-evolved over the last couple of million years, technology, seems to be well placed to eventual spawn rugged inorganic “life-forms” that can permanently escape the constraints of this nursery planet and draw their energy requirements directly from stars. Just as we live far more slowly than hummingbirds, we can expect these new cognitive entities to have metabolisms that are exceedingly slow. Accordingly their communication rates also. Way outside the spectrum of frequencies searched by SETI. Even one bit per year might be adequate for such a community who would also have no use for Von Neumann probes.
然而,在过去的几百万年里,我们与之共同进化的共生体——科技——似乎很适合最终孕育出坚固的无机的“生命形式”,这些“生命形式”可以永久地摆脱这颗孕育它们的行星的约束,直接从恒星那里获取能量需求。就像我们生活的比蜂鸟慢得多一样,我们可以期待这些新的认知实体也有极其缓慢的新陈代谢。因此,他们的通信速率也是如此。它远远超出搜寻地外文明计划搜索的频率范围。对于这样一个同样不需要冯·诺依曼探测器的群体来说,即使是每年一个比特也足够了。

The biologically activated radio emanations of active planets such of our’s occur in the blink of an evolutionary eye and are quite weak, so not much chance of picking up those.
像我们这样的活跃行星的生物激活的射电辐射只是发生在进化的一眨眼之间,而且非常微弱,所以没有多少机会被捕捉到。

The extent to which biology occurs on other worlds and the prerequisite essential features are uncertain. Oceans, plate tectonics, magnetic field, atmosphere, similar size and mineral composition to Earth would seem to be musts. Such things as a single moon of similar size are more speculative. And, again, because of the observed gross directionality (and inevitability) of biological evolution, the hurdle of eukaryotic multicellularity would be similarly overcome.
生物学在多大程度上会出现在其他世界以及其先决条件的基本特征都是不确定的。海洋、板块构造、磁场、大气、类似地球的大小和矿物组成似乎都是必需的。需要一颗类似大小的卫星则更具有推测性。此外,由于观察到的生物进化的总方向性(和必然性),真核多细胞生物的障碍也将同样被克服。