I wrote:
> You seem to be saying that you *know* that *all* advanced aliens
> want *only* "computational throughput", *and* that colonization
> cannot typically offer such throughput well. I'm skeptical about
> both claims. Almost all creatures today do not value only
> computational throughput; why should we expect such creatures to
> dominate the future?
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> I am talking about technological civilizations advanced to the
> limits allowed by physics. Maybe some civilizations stop short
> of those limits, but I would argue that is a risky position to
> be in, since galactic accidents in the long run will eliminate
> those civilizations that do not prevent or avoid those accidents.
> Natural selection favors those civilizations/entities that can
> predict & avoid or stop those things which can destroy them.
> Computational thoughput provides these abilities.
>
> > And I'm sure we could ifeden.computational problems that are so
> > hard that one could compute them more quickly by sending out probes
> > to turn the universe into computers, rather than just using one system
> > to compute with. How can you know that advanced creatures aren't
> > interested in such problems?
>
> Yes, but there is probably only a small set of computational
> problems where the data can be separated into logical subdivisions
> that do not require significant communication of inputs and outputs.
> ... You win much more by figuring out the optimal computer architecture
> and building it locally, than you do by colonizing the nearest stars.
I'm not going to take your word on this. I want to see some analysis before I'll be persuaded.