|
Intelligent life and civilizations
|
|
| osterizer8 | Date: Sunday, 10.03.2013, 03:21 | Message # 31 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 33
Status: Offline
| I agree with Doctor of Space. It would be extremely difficult to represent intelligent life physically. However, a branching of the classification system would be at least cool. There is a very interesting (although somewhat old) thread about this here.
|
| |
| |
| Hanakofuroshira | Date: Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 03:02 | Message # 32 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| I'm really sorry for reviving a dead thread, but I had to throw in my two cents in a relevant thread. I also can't seem to be able to create another thread on this site for some reason.
I took OP's idea and changed it a bit to my liking. I've been changing this eqaution for the last few years and it yields fairly appropiate results for me. I've only been applying it to deserts, terras, and oceanias, and I have no idea what to implement for exotic life forms or floating life.
This scale is on a 0.1-5 scale where 0.1 is the crudest form of bacteria while 5 is a super advanced race.
0.2pna=x xs=l
p represents the positive values.
n represents the negative values.
a represents age(the sigma value).
x is the absolute life value of the body in question. Higher values mean that intelligent life is more likely.
s is a special value that is multiplied to x to yield a value l.
l is the most optimal reading for the planet in question. l cannot be over 5 and shouldn't be negative. If l is 5.000...0001, go back and try again. If l is less that can be rounded up to 0.1, it is counted as 0.1 anyways.
Pos values
x1.5 ALPHA+
Main sequence star of body is F7 V-K5 V. Up to F7.0 and down to K5.9 count.
x1.3 ALPHA-
Otherwise main sequence stars.
Alpha values cannot be given if the star has a multiplicity over one, or if it one of the following classes: black hole, white dwarf, neutron star, or brown dwarf.
X1.5 BETA
Body is greater than or equal to 1.5 billion years old.
X2 GAMMA (Apply to planets only)
Planet has one moon or more. I personally apply it to dwarf moons as well, but only regular moons should count. Barycentres don't matter.
x1.5 DELTA (Apply to moons only)
Moon is tidally locked to parent planet.
X2 EPSILON
Rotation of planet is less than or equal to 30 hours. The orbital period of the planet doesn't matter to earn this value. For moons, orbit is less than or equal to 50 days. The rotation of the moon doesn't matter to earn this value.
X2 ZETA+
Axis tilt 15'-45'
x1.5 ZETA-
Axis tilt 10'-60'
x1.5 ETA
Gravity 0.5-3 Earth
x1.3 THETA
Atmospheric pressure 0.5-5 Earth
Neg values
x0.05 IOTA
Body has more than one star and doesn't orbit the primary barycentre.
x0.5 KAPPA (Apply to planets only)
Planet is tidal to star. Don't apply if it is in a multiple star system and happens to be tidal to the primary barycentre.
x0.5 LAMBDA (Apply to planets only)
Planet has no moons.
x(0.05x Age in billions of years) MU
Body is less than 1.5 billion years old.
x0.2 NU
Body is located in a cluster according to RS Catalog.
x(distance to centre of galaxy/(galaxy diameter in whatever units/4)) XI
Calculation of safe distance. I personally perfer using parsecs, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
x0.5 OMNICRON
Axial tilt 85'-160'
x0.7 PI
Gravity is (less than or equal to 0.4) or (more than or equal to 5).
x0.7 RHO
Atmospheric pressure is (less than or equal to 0.09) or (more than or equal to 10)
- Age value
x(Age in billions of years/2.5 billion years) SIGMA
Calculation of age.
The extras I have
TAU
I might make this one for bodies that rotate faster than their orbit.
UPSILON
I might make this one for safe calculation of how far the closest dangerous object is, like a black hole or a hypergiant. Something like that maybe.
I don't know what to do with these extras.
PHI
CHI
PSI
OMEGA
Take 20% of final result (pna) to get the absolute life value.
Multiply this value by one of the below values until it is 5 or under.
Note that if the absolute life value is above 17, one may continue to the special values below (alpha-kappa) or one may use the values specified under lambda (lambda-omega) in accordance with the (alpha-kappa) values in order to get a fair calculation. For values over 25, one may use any of the values below to obtain a fair calculation.
Also note that the absolute value cannot be iterated under a certain value. In addition, two values cannot be used at the same time. If one value doesn't yield a 5 or under, simply go to the next lowest one.
x1 alpha
x0.9 beta
x0.8 gamma
x0.7 delta
x0.6 epsilon
x0.5 zeta
x0.4 eta
x0.3 theta
x0.2 iota
x0.1 kappa
---
x0.25 lambda
x0.75 mu
x0.125 nu
x0.375 xi
x0.625 omnicron
x0.875 pi
x0.0625 rho
x0.1875 sigma
x0.3125 tau
x0.4375 upsilon
x0.5625 psi
x0.6875 chi
x0.8125 psi
x0.9375 omega
---
x0.11 fehu
x0.12 uuruz
x0.13 thurisaz
x0.14 ansuz
x0.15 raidthou
x0.16 kaunan
x0.17 gebou
x0.18 wunjou
x0.19 hagalaz
If anyone can tell me what they think about this, that'd be wonderful. I'd like to know how accurate my modified system is. Also, I know that the lambda-omega special values aren't that useful, but I don't know what to do. I also haven't made this into a code or anything. I work it out on my trusty TI 84 and work it all out on paper. A fatal problem with this setup is that lower absolute values have an easier time getting a good final value, while higher absolute values have a harder time. The final value of 4 and above signify a sentient race.
For an example, take Earth.
ALPHA+ because it has a good star, BETA because it's over 1.5 billion years old, GAMMA because it has a good moon, EPSILON because it rotates faster than 30 hours, ZETA+ because it has an axis of 18', ETA because it has a gravity of 1, and THETA because it has an atmosphere of 1 Earth. Every body automatically earns the XI and SIGMA value. The XI and SIGMA values for Earth respectively are (8584.70/9665)=(0.8882296948)and 1.816. Multiply it all together to get 56.6171819125. Take 20% to get the absolute value of 11.3234363825. Then I start multiplying it to get it under five. The special values only allow me to use alpha through kappa, so I'll try zeta. Zeta gets me about 5.7 (You can quickly get back to the absolute value by dividing your answer by (the special value you multiplied in). I take the absolute value again and divide it by theta, which gets me a healthy 4.5. I don't really like to round that much until the final value, but I would love to find a way to utilise sig-figs or something a bit more friendly to people who aren't math geeks like myself.
Sorry if this was really hard to read. I don't know how to make a TL;DR version.
Fluent in music, math, Solresol, and hopefully someday, astronomy.
|
| |
| |
| Aerospacefag | Date: Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 19:10 | Message # 33 |
 Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
| Quote Hanakofuroshira (  ) Sorry if this was really hard to read. I don't know how to make a TL;DR version.
If you want to be understood, you should split the idea into sections and go from more simpler formulas to more complex ones. I couldn't actually catch the idea behind your formulas. I assume your formula is similar to Drake equation, so it is important to use some basic values for groups of factors, which can be explained, and them some statistical calculations for receiving plausible results. Then you can keep expanding your system to fit it into Space Engine parameters, with every important value being calculated with available data. This would be all you need since Space Engine already generated all the random values for you to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
There are such things as geography of planet, it's atmospheric properties, star type and temperatureand such, but since there are many parameters within each of these characteristics and we don't really know, how they affect the end result, we should group them for convenience and try to guess how they affect the result in the end.
I mean, really, we can't know, what type of civilization may be humanity in the future, but one thing we know better - there wasn't any intelligence only a million years ago, not much of a complex life several hundred million years ago, and not much of life at all just half-billion years. Therefore, a probability to meet intelligent lifeforms, complex lifeforms, any lifeforms at all, decreases exponentially with the time, available for their development, and you should use appropriate values for it. Same goes for similar types of other parameters, like air pressure, or gravity, or radiation amount. Anyway, it is very important for you to explain what is the idea behind them, because every parameter of your function bears some meaning with it.
There is not guarantee that your system will be helpful for the game, to be honest, but this would be a good exercise for your self-education.
|
| |
| |
| Hanakofuroshira | Date: Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 19:35 | Message # 34 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| I mostly typed that mess out of sheer excitement when I remembered this thread existed. I'm sorry I couldn't have been more concise with my explanation. I'm not very good at explaining hahaha
What I based this series of equations on was the OP and what parameters would be good for life as us humans know it(one may even interpret this as comfortable human perimeters in tandem with the ESI). I did make it as a way to help teach myself more about the cosmos, and even a bit of linguistics, thus the use of Greek letters and Nordic rune names.
My equations are somewhat like the drake equation, but it's not very arbitrary, as almost the entire thing draws from the celestial body itself, although if humans wanted to apply it to another planet, they'd have to know virtually every detail of the planet, and a long time before then, humans would know wither or not that planet has life.
I know it wouldn't be very helpful for the game, as there is a lot that we don't know about life yet. I mean, this equation series was created by a teenager with too much free time. It's not made to be professional. I think it would even take away from the immersion of the engine because people would only be looking for the smartest race instead of appreciating the beauty of the cosmos. And, if something were to get changed from version to version, and people imported their favourite planets from previous versions, they'd be disappointed to see their hyper intelligent planet be reduced to a primitive society.
Forgive if this bothers you, but can you tell me what you don't exactly understand or like(besides my terrible formatting)? I know you're telling me that this is very complex and non-streamlined. I love constructive criticism! It's the only way I can get better. I'll try to format my explanation a bit more concise and simple to understand.
Fluent in music, math, Solresol, and hopefully someday, astronomy.
Edited by Hanakofuroshira - Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 19:37 |
| |
| |
| Aerospacefag | Date: Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 20:12 | Message # 35 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
| You shouldn't really use absolute values, so you can operate with probability theory.
As for ideal parameters we refer to, we can take as granted that there are ideal set of parameters on Earth for generating of intelligent life, and if other planet supports similar number of parameters, it shall host life as well, with fairly high probability. The probability, of course, should follow normal distribution so we can properly calculate the chances, and you have to determine it's coefficients, dispersion and mean values (we don't really know them, but we can guess).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
It can be challenging mathematically, but it grants you most accurate results. Plus we can add on top of that, for more interesting combinations, extending ranges, etcetera. I can't really remember now what SE uses at this moment for generating life, but AFAIK it is pretty simple compared to above idea, with most parameters fixed and independent.
Quote Hanakofuroshira ( ) Forgive if this bothers you, but can you tell me what you don't exactly understand or like(besides my terrible formatting)?
It is about last part of equation, with 80% decrease of resulting value and further usage of some other parameter, this makes no sense at all. It looks pretty much like a pseudo random number generator without relation to everything you wrote before. It essentially nullifies initial purpose, since you are adjusting the result manually.
Edited by Aerospacefag - Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 20:14 |
| |
| |
| Hanakofuroshira | Date: Thursday, 07.07.2016, 16:44 | Message # 36 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| So what you're saying is that using normal distribution is going to yield me more accurate results for the parameters given? As for the last part, those special values(that 80% decrease) is manual adjustment. I never thought of another way to bring the absolute value down under 5 without adjusting it.
Mathematics have never really been a problem for me, if you'll excuse the bad pun. I'll study up on normal distribution, but what sort of system would it use? Also, wouldn't the combinations and ranges that you talk about be basically the same as I used in my formula? Or would it be different from essentially plugging values in? These are probably silly questions that Wikipedia will answer for me, but I'm quite interested with overhauling this system. I love to learn and calculate things.Added (07.07.2016, 16:44)
---------------------------------------------
https://docs.google.com/documen....sharing
I have created a comment-able explanation for my formula below, so that I won't have to constantly come back to this thread. The formula might be completely scraped since I'm trying to play around with normal distribution, but I haven't currently figured out how to effectively use it, but I know now that it works on advanced probability which is the like the system that Space Engine uses to determine life in the first place(but much more complex).
Fluent in music, math, Solresol, and hopefully someday, astronomy.
|
| |
| |
| Aerospacefag | Date: Thursday, 07.07.2016, 19:31 | Message # 37 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
| Quote Hanakofuroshira ( ) I never thought of another way to bring the absolute value down under 5 without adjusting it.
There is really no need for that, since the value of "5" never actually bears any specific meaning. Why not 10? Why not something else? The probability theory is operating with probabilities, which can be expressed in values between 0 and 1, and therefore, calculated.
Quote Hanakofuroshira ( ) Also, wouldn't the combinations and ranges that you talk about be basically the same as I used in my formula?
Definitely not, at least not for all of them. We are expecting that life can be achieved within certain important parameters such as temperature, pressure and overall climate, and if those are very differently affecting the result. We can take many forms of distributions, with multiple peaks, but essentially they all are similar to normal distribution. They are expressing high probability within mean parameters, and they gradually lower probability - the farther we go from ideal conditions, therefore probability of life diminishes closer to 0.
It is also necessary to know, which value is important for us, and which isn't, and some of them are less important at that. In the end it can become pretty complex, but you shouldn't really be scared of that, since computer can handle al calculations as long as you understand what you are doing. I will certainly look for that document and explanations, later, and comment on that.
Edited by Aerospacefag - Thursday, 07.07.2016, 19:32 |
| |
| |
| Hanakofuroshira | Date: Thursday, 07.07.2016, 20:06 | Message # 38 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| I'm learning more about normal distribution, and for the most part I understand what to do, but there's the problem of what kind of system I should use...
Being that I should create a chart for every known parameter currently in Space Engine, like a stars chart where certain stars would mean higher values...? Hmm. That would make more sense in trying to obtain a unique value and would save a lot of time in calculating once all of the charts are done, but that seems a bit hard to handle if you consider the eccentricity of an orbit or the habitability of a star. Those would require separate calculations.
No chart would be able to cover ALL of the unique possibilities offered by Space Engine(like how far away a dangerous object is) unless the new system became vague in its classifications. If you think about it, most of these would have to take into consideration every possible parameter. In the instance for a planet orbiting around its star, you have to think about what kind of star it is, what its habitable zone is, how long the star will last, the eccentricity of the planet's orbit... ect. It's not something I think should be vague about calculating.
Obviously one could look into the cfg files to see what the probabilities are for targeted planets to have life, but generating an advanced life formula is something that's much less simple due to all of the mundane parameters of a celestial body, and the simple fact that Earth is the only place to base our understanding of life and evolution on. I won't quit on this far fetched dream of mine until I find or make a formula that generates fairly accurate values. I understand you now on the arbitrary '5' thing. It was mostly just me following in the OP's steps, but I really should have considered that valid point!
I'll continue playing around with the normal distribution charts and see how Earth fits in...
Fluent in music, math, Solresol, and hopefully someday, astronomy.
|
| |
| |
| Jadestar | Date: Friday, 08.07.2016, 06:10 | Message # 39 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| Quote LevArris ( )
It should decrease if:
- The system has more than one star and the given planet doesn't orbit their barycenter (means it doesn't orbit all of them) (x 0.05). Scientifically explanation behind is that such a planet orbiting only one of the stars in a multiple star system will be exposed to high radiation fluctuations, thus being too hostile for evolution of higher life forms.
- The planet is tidally locked to its star (x 0.05)
- The planet has no moons (x 0.5) (yepp, I've done my scientific research homework;-)) (x 2)
I'd suggest you do a bit more homework.
Neither of those are seen as forming a planet "too hostile for the evolution of higher life forms" anymore.
A tidally locked planet's atmosphere and oceans may distribute temperature quite effectively. Likewise the idea that a planet must have a moon of significant size or life would have a hard time also has been challenged by recent models.
Edited by Jadestar - Friday, 08.07.2016, 06:12 |
| |
| |
| Hanakofuroshira | Date: Friday, 08.07.2016, 13:23 | Message # 40 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| What about my interpretation of the tidally locked scenario?
I don't think that tidally locked planets are friendly towards lifeforms unless they have extreme ways to distribute the temperature across evenly. I don't think that advanced lifeforms could even evolve in a sophisticated matter unless the planet was able to rotate anyways.
Fluent in music, math, Solresol, and hopefully someday, astronomy.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 09.07.2016, 02:26 | Message # 41 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Implications of tidal locking for habitability is complex, but not as negative as one might imagine. It implies a smaller magnetosphere, more rapid atmospheric loss for a given mass, and the possibility of the atmosphere freezing out on the night side. However, these are not guaranteed in all cases, and super-Earths in particular appear to be very conducive for habitability even in M-dwarf systems. The latest research in astrobiology suggests that tidal locking does not seem to be a deal-breaker for life.
|
| |
| |
| Hanakofuroshira | Date: Saturday, 09.07.2016, 03:05 | Message # 42 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| That's quite interesting. I'll have to brush up on my astrobiology research. I might sound like a broken record at this point, but I still think that a rotating planet is much friendlier towards life.
Just another question, but what can undoubtedly be positive or negative for life? It's the main question we have to ask ourselves to generate a sufficient life algorithm. If you couldn't tell, I'm near obsessed with this silly idea.
There's such a blurry line, and it's rather hard to piece it together. In fact, something I have noticed in my research, is that parameters that would otherwise be negative are beneficial in certain configurations. Everything changes and blends. The fact that more and more scientific breakthroughs happen each day make previous configurations worthless or overhauled. Would we have to consider only the parameters that Space Engine gives us, or would we have to consider everything currently known to astrobiology? I know that Space Engine's ultimate goal is to implement every celestial phenomenon, but only considering what Space Engine currently offers would create a base that we could build upon.
Fluent in music, math, Solresol, and hopefully someday, astronomy.
|
| |
| |
| Alek | Date: Saturday, 09.07.2016, 05:38 | Message # 43 |
 Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 326
Status: Offline
| Quote Hanakofuroshira ( ) what can undoubtedly be positive or negative for life?
This question is nearly unanswerable due to the fact that we only have Earth as an example. For all we know, there could be some form of life made of plasma that consider sun-like stars nice and comfortable. Yeah, I'm sure its unlikely, but who really knows? Plus, what do we even define as life in the first place? Many of the common things you might say "Ooh! This is unique to life!" actually isn't, to the point that if you're loose about it you could consider today's robots as living, or even the Universe itself, depending on your views of the Multiverse.
Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 09.07.2016, 08:10 | Message # 44 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| I know it's a popular view that astrobiology is a very naive field and we don't know much about life or how to define it, but... y'all really should take a course or check out a textbook on it.  Trust me, it's a huge eye-opener if you started from that preconceived notion like I did.
Quote Alek ( ) For all we know, there could be some form of life made of plasma that consider sun-like stars nice and comfortable
Probably not, with a lot of confidence. The physics of plasmas is pretty well understood and isn't conducive for evolving or hosting life. You need systems with self-complexifying behavior. Plasmas are too energetic, and the chemistry of stars is too simple. Stars are great for putting out useful energy to power the reactions that lead to and support life, but not for their interiors.
Incidentally, this is a big part of the answer as to what is positive or negative for life. Temperature is an important one -- it must be in a range which maximizes the availability of energy useful to do work. Life won't develop if the temperature is so cold that reactions which produce complex products are not energetically favorable. Similarly if temperature is so high that complex molecules are destroyed, and the atoms ionized.
A flow of the energy is also important. It's not enough just to have a lot of available energy. You need that energy to be transferred through the system. A good analogy for life is that of a turbulent river. The water flows downhill, in the direction of decreasing potential. However, the flow is not necessarily smooth. There can be eddies, where the flow is locally uphill, seemingly contradicting the natural way of things. Life is like an eddy in the energy flow of a system, which, for a while, sustains itself and locally resists the increase in entropy.
Quote Alek ( ) what do we even define as life in the first place?
"Life" is a system which shows self-organizing behavior in which the information is maintained through subsequent generations. Most also ascribe the ability to evolve through the dynamics of Darwinian evolution. This does not necessarily require cells, or even genes.
Quote Hanakofuroshira ( ) I still think that a rotating planet is much friendlier towards life.
Tidally locked planets are rotating. They just rotate with the same period that they orbit the star. This is of course slower than Earth's rotation, but it is still important, especially when close to the star such as when you expect tidal locking.
|
| |
| |
| DoctorOfSpace | Date: Saturday, 09.07.2016, 08:10 | Message # 45 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
| Quote Alek ( ) if you're loose about it you could consider today's robots as living, or even the Universe itself, depending on your views of the Multiverse.
How would that be loose? One can legitimately say that robots are indeed a form of life. You can claim they rely on humans to power them or build more of them, but in the same sense many parasites require a host to survive and to reproduce. In the simplest terms robots are alive and one could argue that even the computer being used to communicate is alive in a sense.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
United States 
Russian Federation 
Pirate