From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 20:21:21 MST
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, avatar commenting on my comments, wrote:
> Due to the grain of rice on a checkerboard situation there are four options
> (well, more really, but what the hey):
I'm not sure I understand this reference -- but lets press onward to the cases.
> 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).
I may not have made myself clear -- I think both Dyson (and previously Malthus)
made it clear something has to give. Exponential growth cannot continue
indefinitely. In the case of Malthus, I think the case was that the
food supply had to give out [someone correct me if this is wrong]. In
the case of Dyson, it was the energy supply.
> 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).
It doesn't require "control" -- it simply requires that intelligent civilizations
capable of "reason" realize that endless self-replication is either futile
or self-destructive. It is a question of whether or not all civilizations
reach the point where they realize the "selfish-gene" is their enemy.
> 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).
Obviously this is a "way out" of the problem. I'm assuming "no magic physics"
and or what matters to us is what goes on in *this* universe.
> 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.
I think this is only a variation on #3.
> Of course, the above does not answer the question of "contact denied", since
> contact via nanoprobes is easy under any circumstances.
The whole premise of "contact" is that there would be some motivation for
doing so. I (and any "sane" humans) don't want to 'contact' trilobites.
Any fossil formation from that era is filled with zillions of them. Study
them -- perhaps -- though one may rapidly reach the saturation point on the
trilobite knowledge database -- contact (so as to 'interact' with them) -- no.
The concepts of endless reproduction and 'contacting' what would be considered
extraordinarily primitive life forms are fundamentally flawed (IMO) for an
advanced species/civilization.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST