RE: Omega Point, Singularity

O'Regan Emlyn (
Tue, 08 Jun 1999 09:42:47 +1000

> ----------
> From:[]
> Reply To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 June 1999 1:46
> To:
> Subject: RE: Omega Point, Singularity
> Emlyn O'Regan, <>, writes, regarding Smolin's
> baby universe theory:
> > If this mechanism of creating new universes exists, you would imagine
> that a
> > sufficiently advanced civilisation/intelligence could trigger it -
> create
> > new black holes, manipulate existing ones, whatever.
> >
> > If that is the case, and it's not cataclysmically dangerous to do so
> > (relative to the necessary level of technology required), and given that
> > civilisations/intelligences who get far enough to be able to do such a
> thing
> > would probably have the drive to attempt it for the sake of doing, then
> you
> > have the result that universes which successfully develop advanced
> > intelligent life can spawn new universes which are copies of themselves.
> Their motivations in doing this (rather than other things they could do
> with the resources) seem a bit abstract. From what I understand, it is
> not possible to move into the newly created universe. (You may be able
> to get some information into it, but it is limited.) So this would be
> a purely altruistic gesture, creating what they hope are new universes,
> ones which are forever independent of their own, and in which life might
> someday evolve.
Who can guess at the motivations of a civilisation which can do this? Hands up extropians, if you had the power to spawn a new universe, and it cost you comparatively little (what's a galaxy to me? Chicken feed...) then would you do it?

Also, I'd be loathe to say, for someone who could create a new universe in this manner, that travelling to it would be impossible. Beyond the singularity, and all that.

Maybe there would be some other good reason to do this for sufficiently advanced beings. Who can guess at their motivations? (When I get there, I'll time travel back and post the answers to the list, maybe next week some time, just look for messages from, or maybe I'll let me use my current e-mail account).

On a tangent, I hope me from the future doesn't come back and kill me now, just to explore some advanced theory of paradoxes that future me is interested in. Eeek!

> The problem is that they have to destroy resources in their own universe
> to do this, shoving useful matter and energy down the throat of the
> black hole. Not to mention the cost of moving stars around or whatever
> is necessary to create them. It's not going to be easy, so this is far
> from a cost free endeavor.
I think if it is a difficult and costly endeavour at some point, then eventually it becomes cheap and easy. Once it was difficult and costly to cross the ocean. Or run a computer program.

> No doubt some people would be interested in doing this, but it is
> questionable whether it can rival natural processes in terms of creating
> black holes.
> Hal
I'm not thinking that it would replace the more "natural" method, but enhance it - intelligence enhancing survival on the scale of universes. If you're thinking in the timeframe of universe life-cycles then it could actually be quite common. It doesn't have to happen too often either; I think that the required replacement rate to keep a universes' heredity continuing would be rather low.

Gunning for TransEmlyn (oops, pacifist, damn it!)