Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 13:29:29 MST
In a message dated 2/15/2002 12:30:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
The Good Professor queries:
<< Suppose a nanocivilization sent out nanobots aboard a von Neumann probe (or
otherwise) to our "lovely" planet. Their mission is to destroy any evidence
gathered by humans of the galactic civilization that in fact exists out
there. Is this scenario physically possible? >>
The simple answer is no. There is not one piece of evidence that such a
nanobot does exist, nor does it appear likely, in the case of a "ufo" that
memory munchers would be actively, altering human neurochemicals, after a
close encounter. First why have such a close encounter in the 1st place, and
secondly, why even bother to go to the trouble of alteriing photographic
plates, for distant encounters?
For instance: Let us say that a supercivilization announces its existence to
Supers: We exist!
You have offended our sense of being the centrality of life in the Cosmos! No
mater how advanced you are, no matter how long it takes, we will obliterate
you and all your kind in order to restore the "natural" balance!!! All your
base are belong to us!*
Supers to A: Can you dig it? We knew that you could! Here's a cosmic
Supers to B: Yes, we know you be a bunch of idiots. Thanks for the warning.
a nice, juicy, meteorite to suck on. Enjoy your new stone
Or Yeah, we knew you'd over-react, however, by the time you
get to some
really advanced technology, that might threaten us,
you'll be forced to
adapt to ouyr mostly, peaceful, ways, just to implement
B: again By that time, we will have even weapons even more fearsome
effective, then what we possess now! You jokers are just
a bunch of
piss ants howling from the tree branches that spawned
you. Grow up!
<<Another related place the meme snatcher conjecture is relevant is in
connection with Nick Bostrom's simulation argument.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/ I pointed out in the initial round of
the discussion of this argument that it is simply a special case of the more
general principle that we might be created by others. Thus, one way to make
our world is to do it in a computer simulation, another would be to create a
physical world and populate it with created humans. >>
I have read Dr. Bostrom's thesis several times, and still can't saavy why he
believes the world is a simmulation. In a simm, there less need for
tactillity (tactile-ness) and embeded data. Embeded, as in the
deeper(smaller) one has researched, the more info one can produce. Similarly
the farther out one ventures into space, also results in more, richer data. A
simm, by necessity, would merely have a gridwork of data, enoug, merely to
support the simm. If there is more data, as I state that there is, then we
do not have a simm, but possibly a genuine, created universe; perhaps created
Andrei Linde style.
On another matter, your conference on Practical Cosmology, perhaps needs to
include something like Existential Cosmology, touching upon meaning, or
pain-relief, (at least!). I remember reading John Leslie's books (Professor
at the U of Guelph) which covered this issue, a bit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST