Re: The Great Filter

Eugene Leitl (
Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:48:17 +0200 (MET DST)

On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Robin Hanson wrote:

> Eugene Leitl writes:
> > [ rewriting the SpaceTime_OS kernel || >H transcension ]
> You mean silence is good evidence for unlimited local computation?

It is local, but not local as we H's know it :)

Most recent universe theories seem to imply our universe fluctuates on
very small scale, a quantum soup of baby bobbling universes, which can
sometimes persist and expand to macro scale. The usual basement universe
fabrication theory assumes a >H can precipitate a universe with desired
properties by tweaking this_space parameters, stabilize an ingress channel
long enough to upload down there, let the channel collapse & live on the
self-fabricated Eden from then on, amen.

Of course our space time might not contain such emergency exit machinery.
If it doesn't, there is nothing what we (or >H's, or even Omega) can do
about it.

Since a silence in the skies there is, it may be considered as an
argument pro 'fire exit' existance. (Of course there are other, more
likely options).

> > [ expansion economics: graven in stone ? ]
> Yes, if they are internally-competitive (without a single strong world
> government). If local technological advances run out, then the only

Um, I misunderstood you. I was thinking about a solid state civilization,
a mind ecology, a >H. Since this is post-Singularity I thought we cannot
know anything about it. If this is a ecology in the Darwinian sense, then
yes, it will probably show boundless expansion.

> route to growth is spatial expansion to other resources. And
> generically evolution, of transhumans or anything else, pushes toward
> growth where possible (some mutation trys it, and wins thereby).

I agree: if Darwin, then expansion.

> [ Michael Wiik & response ]
> Anders Sandberg writes:
> > [ we are not worth talking to yet ]
> The question is why they don't use the resources, mass and negentroy,
> near us.

Because they are not expansive? Because we fail to percieve them with our
crude tools/they operate at lower energetical levels than we think they

> >Sometimes I think that the "natural order" is artificial: stars are
> >power generators, galaxies are really computer nets and so on.
> But then why have we had so much success explaining astrophysical
> phenomena with simple physical processes?

Yes. This is good argument. However, we can't even explain the lack of
solar neutrinos yet. Either our theories are faulty, incomplete or
there are green men frolicking in the Sun :)


> Robin Hanson