The Meaning of Life (was Fermi "Paradox")

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 01:14:09 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "RE: Fermi "Paradox""

    Emlyn makes a number of good points:

    > Robert wrote:
    > > They don't have to "crash" -- all advanced civilizations
    > > can simply reach the conclusion that there is *no point*
    > > to expansion. The reason that humans colonize is to have
    > > more resources for replication -- once one realizes that
    > > replication (beyond limited forms of self-replication that
    > > which allows one to trump the galactic hazard function) is
    > > pointless then one would logically stop doing it.
    >
    > Well, life itself is essentially pointless, but we keep doing that.

    Oops. Well, he makes a lot of great points later. The "pointlessness"
    of life depends *entirely* on mood which in turn depends (at the present
    primitive time) on chemicals. In the words of Philip Dick, the joy knob
    on your mood organ just needs a twist.

    > Our human civilisation is the main character in it's own story, but
    > it is also the theatre for the competition of ideas. Ideas have the
    > same rules as genes; they need to survive and replicate.
    >
    > This is how you can explain someone sacrificing himself for duty to country,
    > or deciding not to have children but instead to work and become wealthy.

    Yes, but only if this causes his genes in bodies besides his
    own to prosper. And that would require population to rise,
    not fall.

    > For instance, a strongly group-oriented collectivist nation
    > [e.g. Sparta] might see the act of colonising the galaxy as
    > glorifying the state; the sacrifice of the individual may be
    > justified [in their eyes] in such circumstances, even to the
    > individuals themselves.

    Yes.

    > ...Or maybe some civilisation bumps into another civilisation, and is so
    > repulsed by it, or so confused by it, or brought so close to the brink of
    > extinction by it, that the decision is made to spread everywhere, with the
    > goal of eradicating all alien lifeforms and covering the universe with
    > understandable things.

    Yes ;-) quite. I for one much prefer to be among understandable
    things.

    > In the bullish times of universal expansion, I think it's
    > fair to say that many would likely ignore bearish predictions
    > of the ultimate resource crunch.

    Well said. "It only takes one", or a few anyway. And if
    no one else will, I will gladly colonize the universe.

    > > There seems to be a reasonable argument for the
    > > "galactic club" enforcing a "Thou shalt not send
    > > out self-replicating probes" interdiction -- because
    > > any advanced civilization isn't going to want to
    > > deal with the problems they create in the future.
    >
    > We would do it.

    Yes, this doesn't make any sense. Sending out colonies
    has *always* helped, *never* hindered nations. As recently
    as the 1600's and 1700's, England on a high enough level
    appears to have had the foresight to get a big country
    going with its own language and ethnic group on an
    underpopulated country so that the big country would
    save the mother country's bacon more than once later on.

    > > Question -- if you knew you were likely to survive until
    > > the "end of the universe" with high probability -- would
    > > you actively seek to create future problems that
    > > you would eventually have to deal with?

    To paraphrase Emlyn, I would probably have fewer problems if I
    were able to make the rest of the universe more "understandable".

    > For instance, there's always been the question of what an MBrain actually
    > thinks about. Maybe a civilization/entity/intelligence which can reach such
    > a state gets concerned about finding a way out of the box (the observable
    > universe). If an MBrain can't work it out, or can get close but not the
    > whole way, then turning all of existence into computronium must begin to
    > looks like the positive alternative to a slow, hopeless, lingering death.

    I have long predicted that ultimately there will be only
    two things to do: mathematics and gratification research.
    The latter---it seems to me---also implies generating
    benefit for one's self as globally as possible, not just
    locally.

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 01:22:11 MDT