Ask HN: What evidence would convince you of intelligent extra-terrestrial life?

33 points by flubert ↗ HN
So there is a story running around about the ex-head of the Israeli space force saying that aliens exist, but want to keep their existence hidden for now.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25337469

I'm personally doubting this story, but the more interesting question is what level of evidence would I personally need to see to believe. With Hollywood SFX, I've already "seen" all sorts of aliens and miraculous occurrences. Combine that with Deep Fakery, and the hurdle gets quite high for evidence needed to accept intelligent alien life, besides just the regular improbability of alien civilizations. What would you need to see or experience to be convinced? A single report in the NY Times (or your favorite mass media outlet or a paper in "Nature")? Multiple weeks/months/years of second hand reporting (e.g. stories in the popular or scientific media) of a "Contact" (the movie) like situation? Second-hand reports from someone you know and trust? Personally touching / witnessing a physical artifact built to alien specifications?

45 comments

[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] thread
I think it is the height on human ignorance to believe that intelligent life could have only evolved on this tiny dirt ball. I am convinced it has to exist somewhere at sometime.
I'm convinced too - somewhere in the near-infinity of space, sometime in the near-infinity of time. But the chances of intersection just seem so staggeringly low... even if both parties were actively looking!

As for evidence: I just needs something as tangible as the covid vaccines... some proof that makes it believable it's not just some company trying to get research dollars.

I remember being really excited 25 (25!) years ago when a very intelligent professor I knew convinced me that evidence was plentiful (verified by high-ranking military) but it had to be kept under wraps as not to cause a public panic: they'd dole the information out slowly.

That's a tired story now. So I'd just need evidence more than just "trust us, we're high-ranking".

The denominator is certainly staggeringly large, but to conclude the chance is staggeringly low, don't we need also to know that incidence is relatively-staggeringly low? I don't know if that's (known to be) the case?

i.e. time and space can be as large as you like if life's everywhere you look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

What explanation do you think is most likely to explain the fermi paradox?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Hypothetical_exp...

Interstellar travel is extremely difficult.
How long do you think it will be until people get a probe to a nearby star system? 1000 years? 10000 years? Never?

I think we will sooner than most people expect. And once we can do that we may also be able to start building a remote factory to build other probes and expand farther. Then it's only a matter of a few million years and we will have expanded to most stars in the Milky Way.

Before I can suggest required proof for intersection, let's define what we mean by intersection.

Is it:

1. Us finding relics on earth or else where of a long dead alien civilization?

2. Us being monitored by an advanced race of ET?

3. Them living amongst us?

4. Them influencing us, dealing with world governments?

I guess each scenario will require different types of proof.

I'm not sure how to proceed without defining scope.

Yeah, I'd need evidence of God himself to believe we are the only intelligent things in the universe
The existence of God does not preclude the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Even the Bible itself references intelligent non-human beings in Genesis. Read the Space Trilogy by CS Lewis.
Agreed, especially when you consider that the same basic elements that make up our solar system are widespread throughout the universe. My guess is that microbial life isn't even particularly rare in other solar systems, we just haven't evolved enough to have noticed yet. The search for intelligent life seems to be predicated on the fact that intelligence is basically the same as what homo sapiens does, circa 2020 AD. I'm sure there's a vast array of other types of intelligence out there that we can't even grasp, and thus haven't been looking for.
Proponents of anthropic principle would argue that there are too many coincidences that made existence of matter possible, existence of life possible and evolution fast enough to make intelligent life possible. Out of myriads of parallel universes it was our dirt ball that pulled all the lucky numbers and we are just suffering survivorship bias. There could be aliens, just not in our universe.
The universe is so large, that I'm sure there are millions of planets out there with life.

However, since we've had decent tools to look for signs of life for decades and found nothing, for any one person to say they secretly made contact years ago is an 'extraordinary claim'.

I suspect that the universe, as a whole, only became hospitable to life recently. Probably many planets spawned organisms around the same time Earth did. That means nearly all of them are too many light years away for signs of their intelligent life to have reached us.

(comment deleted)
I believe it exists already.
'Belief' is a personal decision, though, right? Is verifiable, data-backed evidence to high a bar? If so, why?
I'd be 70% to 90% convinced if the government claimed they had made contact with aliens and they exist. I'd be convinced 100% only when I interacted with one directly.
I saw an inertia-less, extremely fast aircraft playing around above the Sierra Nevadas one night about 22 years ago. Obviously you all don't know me from Adam, so I don't expect this to update your priors much, but my personal evidence threshold is pretty low now.
That would just show that there's more advanced technology out there than the general public is aware of.

That wouldn't provide evidence of whether it was humans or other intelligent life that created that technology.

Ground based lights can bounce on atmospheric inversion interface and if the conditions are just right and you are at the right place you would see lights seemingly playing in the sky.
I think your priors on "optical illusions" are unreasonably low. I too once saw a seemingly inertia-less gleaming silvery orb streaking across the clear blue sky. If it had flown away just a moment sooner, I might never have realized that it was in fact a fluffy seed pod, some 15 yards away.
Conditions were perfectly clear, late at night, at several thousand feet, and the light persisted for about 10 minutes without any flickering or distortion. There aren't any natural phenomena I know of that could have caused that.

Obviously this doesn't immediately require extraterrestrials, but, given the lack of evidence or workable theory that life is original to earth, I'd say Occam's Razor leads that way.

It is interesting how this viewpoint I hold changes how I consume UFO news. There's a whole lot of BS and misinformation in the area, and a lot of crazy people, and a few apparently credible people (like Tom Delong and his To The Stars Academy board) who occasionally still mange to lapse into bizarreness despite otherwise sounding pretty reasonable if you fail to reject the basic premise.

Something extraordinary. Say, intelligent signals arriving often and unquestionably from outside the Solar system that anyone can listen to directly, now, at will, -could- qualify as evidence.

What any human has to say about it has no evidentiary value at all. Speculation, reports of personal experience, interpretations of strange infrared events in the sky, interdimensional transmogrification - no value.

The intelligence found in the processes in mammalian genomes, how complex they are - to understand, let alone invent - tells me that we ourselves are just beginning to understand what 'intelligent' is. Until we are, we might not see it right in front of us.

When the current executive branch posts a tweet on how they are best buds with ET and they have just signed a new trade deal and it will be the BEST trade deal EVER and just so beautiful. :)
If anything that would make me less likely to believe...
Funny, I was just reading that we know that this article isn't real as he wouldn't have been able to resist tweeting about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The most unbelievable thing about that story was trump wanting to tell the public about aliens and being convinced not to. If he wanted to do it we would have a tweet or two alien diplomatic efforts or no
The moon being destroyed by a blast of light.

I’d be convinced by that. Kinda hard to fake it.

That would be fatal to all life on earth... pick something a bit safer.
The minimum evidence I would accept would be a widespread TV news reports quoting several sources over a number of months backed by a multi-government investigation.

Of course if it turned up on one of my camping trips to introduce itself I'd believe, but would just keep it to myself.

I could imagine meeting it again at a public function and we exchange knowing nods; 'Dude', etc.

It's very likely to need a space suit and couldn't drink beer.

As Carl Sagan said, and extraordinary one. Even the smallest personal trinket belonging to a person capable to cross galactic scale distances should be able to blow away our experts and open new avenues of science.
Good evidence pointing towards ~infinite energy or some other 'exotic physics' that invalidate my assumptions for the need for space colonization.

Otherwise They should be trying to grab as much energy as possible, for whatever is it they want to do (as should we) and we should see at least some galaxies going partially dark.

There was a paper I can't find that addressed this somewhat. It said that the energy stars burn is a small part (<1%?) of what they contain in total mass/energy, so it might make sense and harvest that energy later. (The paper did not explain a method for efficient matter/energy conversion but I think black holes can do that?)

That paper didn't fully convince me but it's one of very few arguments that tries to address what I think is the core issue. (At least a few species will want as much energy as they can get.)

> They should be trying to grab as much energy as possible, for whatever is it they want to do (as should we) and we should see at least some galaxies going partially dark.

This sort of reasoning was developed in the late 20th century, when economies and populations were rapidly growing everywhere and it seemed like this was just a law of nature. We’re already seeing population growth decline (or reverse) in developed nations, and economic growth has turned out to be much more contingent lately, to say the least. We should probably reconsider the argument that an industrial civilization necessarily develops to building Dyson spheres if the like, when we expect a long-term stable human population of <20B and 2% GDP growth for the foreseeable future.

Beyond that, even, is it really unthinkable that a civilization would decide that at some point it had enough stuff for any conceivable purpose? There are other aspects of the 20th-century cultural mindset at work there, too, I suspect.

One common counterpoint here is that it's not unthinkable that a civilization would decide that it had enough stuff, but it does seem unlikely that every civilization would decide it had enough stuff, and it only takes a handful of outliers to cause effects that we should've been able to observe.
(comment deleted)
I'd accept any of the following

1> Meeting them myself, for an extended conversation, and way to chat in the future.

2> Theory of everything, and how that gets manifested into the technology they used to get here.

3> My own craft to go, with supplies and directions for a road trip to say hi and visit.

Maybe they exist but are hard to detect with current human consciousness and tech. Like an ant cannot comprehend what is a Paul Graham. I personally think the vastness of the expanding universe and existence of multiple dimensions makes it highly unlikely that only earth has intelligent life. Heck if there was intelligent life on Mars but undetectable to current tech or senses, we would think it empty.
This is a bit off on a tangent, but for anyone interested in this subject I highly recommend reading Stephen Webb's book "Where is Everybody?", in which he goes over and lightly refutes 75 possible answers to the Fermi paradox in three main categories: 1) aliens have already been to Earth (and may still be here), 2) aliens exist but we haven't had any way to interact with them yet (and maybe never will), and 3) aliens don't exist.

He covers most of the popular theories - the zoo hypothesis, the great filter, aliens hiding from us, inter-planet communication being unsolvably hard, life being extremely rare, our planet having uncommon characteristics, alien life being fundamentally different to life on Earth in a way we can't comprehend, etc. and the common rebuttals - we haven't seen or heard signs of intergalactic civilizations (which we believe we know how to detect at this point), von Neumann probes haven't come to dismantle us, different alien societies would likely have different goals and outcomes (which invalidates the many theories that are worded like "civilization will always eventually ____"), etc. It's pretty thorough and a very fun read if you're into that stuff.

Notably, though, one theory he doesn't address in too much detail is the idea that evidence exists but is rare enough that it can be covered up effectively and not all governments have it (so there doesn't need to be global cooperation). Throughout the book his stance is basically "it's a hard fact that we have no evidence of aliens", which is obviously at odds with conspiracy theories about coverups. Despite not generally being a conspiracy theory guy, I personally lean in this direction because after reading his book, the other solutions in which aliens do exist don't seem particularly appealing and I do hope that aliens are real. He also shares his own preferred alien-less solution at the end, which I found to be a bit somber but very reasonable.

As for the question in this thread, I'd be convinced if any one major government (US, China, Russia, Germany, France, etc.) officially acknowledges it. It could be that they decide to come out and share the evidence they have. Or, perhaps more likely, it could be that something happens that's substantial and compelling enough to convince a huge amount of people that aliens are real, and the government is forced to respond with a confirmation, which I would treat as the moment of certainty.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/180506.If_the_Universe_I...

The main burden of proof would be how was something from likely so far away detected. Peer reviewed submissions in key journals is the usual standard for accepting something we aren't qualified to understand. That doesn't change just because we can draw grey android blobs.
I think us being unique in the observable universe is a more extraordinary claim than not being unique.

However, in order to be absolutely convinced that such life was visiting Earth I think I'd need quite a lot of evidence.

I would surely like to see something like what happens in Rejoice by Steven Erikson.

An alien race, that is so advanced, that it can force us to live in a certain way and change the course of humanity, for every human on Earth, all at once. So there is no doubt whatsoever.

PS: For those who haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

Artifacts of any kind? Even an un-naturally polished rock would suffice.
Scientific and peer-reviewed.

Some random civil servant from some random country slinging random stories? Zero interest in hearing them. Life's too short to click links for that sort of stuff, let alone engage with it.

Between probability and us having observed like millions or billions of planets, I'm already convinced. But hard evidence? Direct observation of said extra-terrestrial life? No, I've seen none to convince me.