From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 19:52:34 MDT
Harvey writes
> > > Harvey Stated:
> > > > Whole planets will be converted to computers
> > > > for some giant tasks, but not every planet.
> >
> > Why not? At this level of technology, everyone can
> > be emulated, and so why shouldn't every bit of matter
> > within reach be converted to computronium?
>
> As I explained in the parts that got cut out, there are diminishing returns.
Yes, sorry for making you repeat that. Our takes are so different
that I couldn't (and mostly still cannot) see where you are coming
from.
> We will only convert resources as needed for tasks, and only in the
> locations needed. The time delays between our system and another makes a
> weaker computer here more valuable to us than a stronger computer over
> there.
One possibility is that you are talking much more short-term
than I am. This seems accurate up until the point that we
stop identifying with "here" more than "there". I'll say
more about that in a sec.
> Our weaker computer can calculate an answer in a shorter period of
> time then it takes to beam a message to another solar system and get the
> answer back. The resources needed to do something locally is a lot less
> than building a remote processor and doing something remotely.
Yes, but I'm talking about *being* there. I see life as a form of
computation. There is no point, (ultimately), to doing a computation
unless you enjoy being that computation.
> There are also other cost factors. The molten interior of a planet may
> destroy computronium. Cooling costs may make it expensive to convert raw
> magma. It may be cheaper to just coat the surface of the earth, but leave
> the interior alone. Or, there may be too much interference with the
> biosphere.
This all sounds true over the short term. But for example, in a 1985
book "Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience", David
Criswell has this knock-out article "Solar System Industrialization:
Implications for Interstellar Migrations." In this article, Criswell
calmly explores (among other things) the amazing project of "star-
lifting", where he calculates that it will take about 300 million
years to uplift, store, and cool plasma from the sun to the point
that the sun becomes a white dwarf. (The ultimate idea here is to
extend the lifetime of the sun.)
While it's true that Criswell was referring to ideas that are more
or less equivalent to nanotech---he writes "A 1982 NASA study and
a best-selling novel by Arthur C. Clarke have explored exponentiating
systems in space applications---he is not familiar with many of our
more recent cutting edge ideas, such as an information "singularity".
So suppose that we consider simply a thousand years hence. What
will the solar system look like? I'd wager that the whole thing
will have been re-engineered up to the limits of what is physically
possible. (That is, perhaps Criswell is right, and that you can't
get material out of the sun until much later than that.)
> It my be much simpler to spread out among dead asteroids than
> trying to keep a stable computer net running in a changing biosphere.
Biosphere? I don't think that we'll even *have* a biosphere
by 2500 AD. Whatever computations that the biosphere is
performing that we like---i.e., are not cruel, stupid, wasteful,
but are on the contrary advanced, beneficial and intelligent---
no clunky biosphere will be needed to perform them.
> This is the same reason why we don't cover the entire surface of the earth
> evenly,
Give us a little while longer! ;-)
> or why we don't consume all biomatter as food evenly, or why
> corporations are equally spaced across all cities. Development and
> evolution simply don't work that way. Some spots will be prime,
> others will be marginally acceptable, and others will remain
> untouched by computronium.
It is true that much of the talk of space colonization is misplaced.
When people talk about colonizing outer space, I point out that
they haven't even colonized the bottom of the oceans. Then I point
out that they've not even colonized swamps and deserts.
In my opinion, it's only because the technology has been lacking.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 20:03:03 MDT