Re: Fermi "Paradox"

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 13:19:26 MDT

  • Next message: Mark Walker: "Re: Fermi "Paradox""

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Kevin Freels wrote:

    > Once an intelligent species enters into a period of "self-directed"
    > evolution, it becomes a "master of matter". At this point, all that is
    > needed is raw materials to create all the resources it needs to survive.

    Close -- the MBrain papers (and Anders' related works) indicate that it
    civilizations (past a certain level of complexity) rapidly optimize
    the use of matter & energy within a sphere of influence. (You may
    call this The Singularity -- you can include it being "managed" --
    by a Friendly AI -- or relatively "unmanaged", e.g. uploaded individual
    entitites [who probably don't behave as "individuals" today because the
    "melding" of minds will be feasible]).

    The "sphere of influence" probably grows to several light years in
    size over time (if one assumes a "star" is retained as a power source.
    This requires either star-lifting or the cosumption of exo-solar
    system resources (other planets, brown dwarfs, etc.) -- so it probably
    doesn't happen quickly. (Raises some interesting questions as to
    the behavior of civilizations within globular clusters if such can
    develop...).

    Once you have minimized the power production of your star (and thus
    extended its lifetime as long as current laws of physics allow)
    and grown to the maximal size that available matter and the
    physics of heat radiation allow -- then one has reached an
    evolutionary plateau.

    At that level of development expansion by colonization makes no sense -- 2
    MBrains are not any more intelligent than 1 MBrain (at least if they are
    separated by common interstellar distances). Having the ability to copy
    "myself" into an MBrain several light years away is of no use to me
    (provided I can reasonably predict the the survival odds of "my" MBrain
    are equal to the survival odds of the "other" MBrain). In fact one can
    get into a discussion that the energy & matter expended to create the copy
    might actually diminish the survival probability of one or both copies.

    The only path(s) of evolution "above the plateau" would appear
    to be (a) pushing the laws of physics -- e.g. a denser than
    normal form of "computronium", e.g. a neutronium (or as Anders
    has named it -- a "Chronos") brain; or (b) trying to drive
    MBrain clusters together in what might ultimately be a
    last gasp of computing before they become a rather large
    black hole. [One could obviously speculate that galaxies
    with black holes at their core might be the product of the
    computational frenzies of MBrain clusters.]

    [The reason that one cannot get above the intellectual plateaus
    of individual MBrains is that the amount of information they
    contain cannot be efficiently transmitted across interstellar
    distances. You have to either be content with remaining an
    intellectual island or risk getting very close to communicate
    a large volume of information in a short period of time.]

    > It becomes cheaper and more efficient to stay where they are than it is to
    > expand throughout the universe. Especially since almost unlimited energy can
    > be drawn from what we would consider finite resources.

    I would agree that it isn't cheaper to "expand" -- it may be cheaper to
    plan encounters over a very long period -- say tens of millions of years
    for MBrains to pass near to each other in which case they could open
    high bandwidth communication channels during "close encounters".

    I'm not so sure I understand the "unlimited energy" point. One can
    likely lengthen the lifetime of ones sun to trillions of years.
    One can also probably construct stealth entities that have a
    reserve supply of hydrogen, don't think much at all, i.e. all
    computers in "suspend" mode so they produce no heat signature,
    and occupy intergalactic space (where hazards are minimal).
    These will likely be the longest lived entities in the universe --
    but being one of them doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

    > This change occurs long before the capability to "travel" the universe, so
    > intelligent species tend to stay "close to home"

    You don't have to remain close to home -- it becomes a question of "*what*
    do you want to think about" (enter "self-directed evolution" again).
    You can either not think at all (surfing intergalactic space in
    stealth mode) or try to think some transcendent thought (a billion
    MBrains hurling themselves towards a galactic core attempting to compute
    something really beautiful in the last moments of their existence)
    or perhaps many things between those extremes -- but it seems likely
    that you will know what the extremes probably are and will be choosing
    your path among them. And it seems unlikely (to me) that any of those
    paths will involve sending probes or any other endless self-replication
    strategies.

    (If you haven't read the work by Anders or myself related to this email
    he or I offlist so we can send you the pointers.)

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 13:29:15 MDT