From: avatar (avatar@renegadeclothing.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 04:32:21 MST
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> I would tend to agree. As I've argued (though most don't seem to get
> it) the answer to the GF seems to be in the evolution of technological
> civilizations -- replication becomes hard (expensive) and potentially
> self-defeating and so should be discontinued as a behavior. One only
> has to read Malthus or Dyson and think about this a bit to realize
> that at some point one has to regulate ones growth.
Due to the grain of rice on a checkerboard situation there are four options
(well, more really, but what the hey):
1. Some form of limitation in a finite universe (and yes, Dyson cannor deny
Malthus for long without required change in human behaviour or nature).
2. Some form of pervasive control of a finite universe with (still) some
form of limitation (the computronium universe as hard drive is still
inadequate without change in replication of humans or human-analogues).
3. Some form of pervasive control of a finite universe that uses an anomoly
(infinite heat in the case of Tipler) to evade temporary limitations and
create a non-finite universe (multiverse in the case of Tipler).
4. No limitation because part or all of the universe is infinite now,
whether due to an anomoly or otherwise. This is kind of funny because it
makes everyone partially right.
Of course, the above does not answer the question of "contact denied", since
contact via nanoprobes is easy under any circumstances.
[PS apparently the rotation of the galaxy takes place every 200 million
years, while its diameter is only 100,000 light years or so, can't remember.
Guess there may have been 10 "galactic years" since post-Singularity
civilizations were established then... if you believe in such things.]
Avatar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST