In article <c67057a9-faa1-4a78-8b7e-9fef9a29f96e@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Chris.B <chris.b@mail.dk> wrote:

On Aug 24, 4:12=A0pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:

My "practical alternative" is two fold. =A0I see nothing wrong
with continuing the SETI project. =A0The other part of it though
is that I'd not expect it to show much *now*.
--
=A0 =A0--- Paul J. Gans

It would seem extraordinarily naive to think we can foresee
communication technologies more than a decade or two into the future.
I still maintain that the "when" remains infinitely more important
than the "where" or even the "if".  The chance of synchronicity of
matching technologies between intelligent technological races, arising
at random, within a useful radius for meaningful communication is
vanishingly small.

I disagree with you - it can only be finitely more important.  Remember
that an arbitrarily large number is still finite, and quite different
from infinity.

Also, the "if" has to be most important here.  If there's no "if", there
cannot be any "where" or "when" either....

Finally, the "where" and "when" must be equally important.  Remember
we're talking about communication at light speed here, and then relativity
applies, which makes space and time integrated and not something you can
consider separately.




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/