<< An empty universe?

To paraphrase Susan Schneider*: Science fiction is the laboratory of the mind, in which philosophical thoughts clash with our fundamental values as we see ourselves removed from the technological and physical restraints of life.

One good example of this is: Solaris, written by the renowned author Stanislaw Lem. The novel as much of his work is filled with questions regarding our existence in the context of a wider universe.

Despite the obvious bias, when we think about extraterrestrial life, we tend to limit our considerations as it follows, we either: (a) conceive it as human in appearance, or (b)we anthropomorphize their personalities and attach to them human motivations.

On the novel in question, Lem dismisses this in a superb manner as Kris Kelvin (main character in the novel) expresses the following:

To look for the motivation behind this phenomenon is anthropomorphism. Where there isn’t humanity, there isn’t human motivation either. To persist on this inquire one must ruin either it’s thoughts or their material realization. The first one is not in our power. The second one is akin to murder. (Solaris, Page 167**)

Under actual scrutiny, the sum of our knowledge as a species is risible on a galactic scale.

There’s nothing but sheer presumptuousness in our claim that we have the capacity to fathom and encompass all there is to know. To begin with it negates the fact that our knowledge is limited by both our senses and data processing capacities.

To begin with, even in our own planet there’s a terrible amount of information that escapes the most basic comprehension; we cannot see for example as many colors as the mantis shrimp. Neither can we perceive microscopical elements as soon as they go beyond a certain scale. It doesn't that there's nothing’s there, its just that we are as good as blind in that scale.

Even artificial intelligence (AI), our most powerful tool to date for the purpose of information falls short in the face of the vastness of the universe. Not only because of its incapacity for reasoning that makes it a slave of our kind. But also, because it’s only a data interpretation tool, which means that it cannot cannot what we cannot know.

We’re vastly incapable of reasoning as a species on how little the universe cares about human existence. Our only hopet being the immortality of our souls when our lives reach its end.

I’m not nearly arrogant enough to try and deny the presence of other beings in this universe, I simply suggest as Lem so wisely has done before me that: 

We simply might not be able to see some things, perhaps becuase they have taken a shape we're not ready to understsand.

return 0;

Notes:

(1) Founding director of the Center for the future ming and Baruch S. Blumburg NASA Chair in Astrobiology, Exploration and Technological innovation

(2) I read the Norwegian version of the novel. Here's the original text from the novel as I have read it: Å lette etter motivasjonen bak dette fenomenet er antropomorfisme. Der hvor det ikke finnes mennesker, finnes det heller ikke menneskelige motiver. Skal man fortsette forskningen, må man enten ødelege sine egne tanker eller deres materiale realisering. Det første ståt ikke vår makt. Det andre mye for mye om mord.