[klyrs]

> solely for the act of traveling great distances that are required to reach a distant star, they would need to have discovered physics paradigms far beyond our understanding today.

No, they wouldn't. Modest progress in engineering and cultural adaptation, would produce generation ships large enough to sustain a human colony capable of traversing the galaxy on the scale of thousands of years. On the other hand, we could launch a ChatGPT-enabled* probe to arrive at Proxima Centauri in about a century with today's technology.

If you think objectively about it, "physics paradigms far beyond our understanding today" do not necessarily exist. Or if they do, they will not necessarily contribute significantly to our ability to traverse interstellar distances. While it is hubris to assume that we know everything; it is foolhardy to assume that there is gold at the end of the rainbow.

* note that ChatGPT is rather pathetic compared to intelligent life; but it's what we can ship today

[zrn900]

> Modest progress in engineering and cultural adaptation, would produce generation ships large enough to sustain a human colony capable of traversing the galaxy on the scale of thousands of years

This is an excellent example of 'thinking inside the boundaries of our paradigm'. Other civilizations may have discovered paradigms that allow them to traverse the galaxy in days, and even in seconds.

> If you think objectively about it, "physics paradigms far beyond our understanding today" do not necessarily exist.

That's what was said in the mid to late 19th century. Then quantum physics was discovered. It was already 'outside' our understanding then, and it still is. We take some things 'just as they are' and accept them, like quantum entanglement. We think we explain them through some unproven theories to avoid admitting the fact that they upended our earlier paradigm of how things are.

A lot of the things that are observed in the ufo phenomenon can be similar things if they are actual extraterrestrial civilizations 'observing' us. 'Shape changing' ufos, ufos that travel in a speed that no creature can withstand etc.

[klyrs]

> This is an excellent example of 'thinking inside the boundaries of our paradigm'.

And by thinking within the boundaries of our paradigm, we can conclude that this particular combination of technology and culture has not spread throughout our galaxy.

> Other civilizations may have discovered paradigms that allow them to traverse the galaxy in days, and even in seconds.

If that is physically possible. Which we have fairly strong evidence against.

> That's what was said in the mid to late 19th century. Then quantum physics was discovered.

Right! Physicists found evidence to support revolutionary findings, and it was believed because other physicists reproduced the evidence for themselves.

Keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out. By all means, there is more physics to discover, but pinning one's hopes on superluminal spacetravel without a shred of evidence is folly.

> A lot of the things that are observed in the ufo phenomenon can be similar things if they are actual extraterrestrial civilizations 'observing' us. 'Shape changing' ufos, ufos that travel in a speed that no creature can withstand etc.

Yeah, I love science fiction, too. It's really fun. But you're so frothy about the possibility that physics is wrong, that you aren't considering that a small number of poorly-instrumented observations are wrong.

[zrn900]

> And by thinking within the boundaries of our paradigm, we can conclude that this particular combination of technology and culture has not spread throughout our galaxy.

Yep, its basically what the relevant xkcd comic explains:

https://xkcd.com/638/

> If that is physically possible. Which we have fairly strong evidence against.

We don't. Our science is not all-encompassing.

> superluminal spacetravel without a shred of evidence is folly.

This sentence and your sentences preceding this one contradict. Solely the very concept of quantum entanglement broke all the preexisting notions about how existence worked. Its something that shouldn't have happened according to all the 'hard' evidence we had beforehand.

Apparently, the evidence we had before wasn't so 'hard'. Just like how the evidence we have currently is not.

> But you're so frothy about the possibility that physics is wrong

Leaving your choice of words aside, physics is !regularly! wrong just like all the other sciences.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html