RE: Dennis May replies/was Re: One solution to the Fermi Paradox

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 02:00:13 MST

  • Next message: Kai Becker: "Re: War with Iceland?"

    Dennis May writes (via Dan) --- and sorry that I overlooked
    this post until now:

    > Lee Corbin lcorbin@tsoft.com wrote:
    >
    > > If there are other civilizations in the visible
    > > universe, then they'll have their own wave front
    > > expanding at the speed of light, and yes, there
    > > will be a collision. But there will be no advance
    > > notice of the meeting. Moreover, the wave front
    > > itself will be at the stage of technological
    > > development that characterized the beginning
    > > stages of expansion, not the stage meanwhile
    > > reached at the centers.
    >
    > >So the collision will be on approximately equal terms.
    >
    > There are several assumptions [variables] inherent
    > in your model which can turn out very differently.
    > Colonizing new land does not expand uniformly in
    > all directions.

    For the reasons you give below, you may have a good
    point here.

    > It generally follows the path of least
    > resistance to the greatest riches in the
    > shortest time frame.

    Yes, I have been supposing that the nano-
    technological flowering consumes all matter
    within reach. And, whereas Feynman had
    said, "There is plenty of room at the bottom",
    nanotech probably is on the bottom.

    > I see no good reason to assume that the most
    > advanced technology will be found near the
    > center of the expansion sphere. Did all
    > modern technology arise out of Africa or
    > did a great deal of it happen in the United
    > States while it was still being settled?

    I appreciate your historical examples without
    quite admiring them. No limit to technological
    ascent has been foreseen all the way up to pure
    computronium, matter reduced to its most complex
    state able to compute.

    > >Given nanotech, how is stealth possible?
    >
    > Your nanotech will be fighting, evading,
    > and hiding from other nanotech [both your
    > own, competing groups within your own
    > expansion sphere, and alien] much like
    > ants battling for supremacy. Nanotech
    > will have to remain stealth or be destroyed.
    > Corrupted or obsolete nanotech will have to
    > be hunted by other nanotech or its presence
    > will betray you militarily. If you cannot
    > control your nanotech it becomes a liability.
    > Stealth is not about remaining invisible
    > under all circumstances, it is about
    > minimizing your exposure and making the
    > enemy expend great resources if he wishes
    > to find you. His expenditure of great
    > resources exposes him.

    That is all true. And even if supremacy is
    reached---much as Western civilization is
    obtaining supremacy on Earth (the other
    civilizations convert or die), then your
    remarks apply well to VR (virtual reality),
    in which programs fight as you have described.

    However, all this is besides the point of
    there being *currently* within 10^4 light
    years any technology that would not be
    bearing down on us at the speed of light,
    rapacious for every bit of matter and
    energy.

    > > Why wouldn't my local civilization
    > > expand to use every single last
    > > asteroid in the neighborhood?
    > > Certainly, no solar system will
    > > escape notice. The growth of
    > > the singularity will be geometric,
    > > both locally and globally.
    >
    > Even bacteria only expand geometrically under
    > ideal circumstances and only for a finite
    > amount of time due to finite resources.
    > Introduce a single pathogen and all bets are
    > off.

    Bacteria is on the other side of the Von Neumann
    complexity barrier: bacteria cannot live except
    in special, customized environments. Humans will
    soon be vastly more adaptable than they, and the
    AIs that replace us will control matter supremely.

    > Introduce multiple pathogens or
    > competitors and you develop an ecology.

    Yes.

    > With an endless Cold War of WoMD in space
    > you will be more concerned about avoiding
    > destruction than mining every last piece
    > of usable rock. There is plenty of good
    > rock to graze on as you live the nomadic
    > life. A missing rock here or there will
    > not raise red alerts like whole asteroids
    > mined and built into thousand mile long
    > space stations.

    But you speak of this concern "we will be
    more concerned about avoiding destruction..."
    as if it were a conserved quantity. Yes,
    until now, it has been. But when programs
    fully inhabit matter, the war will be among
    algorithms only, and there will be a "Wind
    from Earth" with more advanced ones constantly
    trying to supplant or incorporate less
    advanced ones. There will be no room for
    truly antiquated life to hide in.

    > Think militarily, I'm sure others have and
    > will.

    Correct.

    > I see interlacing civilizations of nomads,
    > not colliding brick walls. Sort of like
    > different species of bees forming dispersed
    > swarms. One swarm can pass right through
    > another without conflict.

    At some early stages of the Von Neumann probe
    dispersal, this seems right. But then as one
    civilization begins using all available matter
    ruthlessly grasping for every cycle of compute
    power, this passes, I'd say.

    Lee Corbin



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 01:56:52 MST