> On Sat 8-16-97, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>=20
> I think a dyson sphere is a tremendous waste of matter. If ones
> intent is to maximize useful surface area - a mandelbrot foam-like
If we are to rely on solar energy, a cloud of orbiting bodies around=20
the star (=3DDyson shell) is virtually the only configuration I can think=
=20
of.
If we can do fusion, or have harnessed microsingularity power, Anders'=20
Jupiter brain scenario appears best.
> structure beats a dyson sphere by several orders of magnitude. Also,
> assuming we are uploads, it would be much more effiecient to simulate
> our =91spatial=92 experiences rather than actually creating them.
You are thinking of a Dyson shell (=3Dsolid sphere). This would require=20
unobtainium at least. Even buckytubes fall infinitely short of the mark.
Conc. uploads: the form of intelligence was not specified in the above=20
scenario. A Dyson sphere is an optimal (in regards to available material=20
and energy) configuration for any application. If you want to minimize=20
latency, you ought go Jupiter brain.
> Paul Hughes