The way I view it, by definition someone has to be first.
We just don't know enough about all the variables, such as noted by others in this discussion the probability of evolving to sentience, to state with any confidence that we can't be the first in our galaxy or the portion of it that we're looking at.
>The way I view it, by definition someone has to be first.
no :). That is the beauty of this Universe - global full order of things on timeline isn't possible. Specifically space-like separated events don't have a preferred order, i.e. given 2 space-like separated events A and B, both statement - A precedes B and B precedes A - have the same validity, basically it is meaningless to talk about their timeline order.
Just because they are space separated events does not mean you cannot give assign them chronological order. Can't you just simply refer to a literal universal chronological reference point (i,e Big Bang) and then achieve successful ordering of events? For example: Civilization A achieved space flight x time units (whatever time units, such as Planck time unit) after Big Bang, and civilization B achieved space flight y time units after Big Bang?
Without getting too deep into this issue of relativity, let me point that that the Milky Way is per Wikipedia "100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter".
Rather than go down to Planck level granularity, if reaching space flight, or better, serious engineering works in space that are visible from afar is a low probability thing, with time scales say in the millions of years, then "first" will I think do for our purposes.
>For example: Civilization A achieved space flight x time units (whatever time units, such as Planck time unit) after Big Bang, and civilization B achieved space flight y time units after Big Bang?
as long as special relativity is applicable, for space-like separated events A and B, there exist frames of reference such that A is at x time units after Big Bang and B is at y in one frame of reference, and A is at y and B is at x in the other frame, ie. in reversed order.
Yes, but for any such reference frame if you know the distance between the observer and A and B, then after observing both A and B you can still deduct the true chronological order.
But I get the parent's point now, for our purpose of observation there is no point figuring out this "true chronological" order anyway since a civilization could have achieved space flight 100,000 years after Big Bang but is at a distance so far away from us that the information may NEVER reach us due to universe expanding.
We just don't know enough about all the variables, such as noted by others in this discussion the probability of evolving to sentience, to state with any confidence that we can't be the first in our galaxy or the portion of it that we're looking at.