From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 00:43:53 MDT
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Lee Corbin (commenting on my comments) wrote:
Re: copying vs. moving information...
> Listen, as hard as it will be---I admit---to broadcast
> information, that pales in comparison to the difficulty
> of moving it. You aren't making any sense, are you?
I just don't know. Robert Freitas has made documented
arguments on the advantages to sending probes rather
than radio signals. [And when Robert F. talks I tend
to try and listen closely.] I've thought about the
"broadcast" perspective -- you have to setup a very
large "grid" of parallel high power laser transmitters
then on the receiving side you need an even larger grid
of receiving telescopes. And that is even to get some
small fraction of the information content of a system.
So whether one sends information densely packed into
a "probe" or whether one sends information via radio
(really silly), light, or UV I don't know -- I just
strongly suspect the amount that can be sent is very
very small relative to the amount available.
So my assertion would be that advanced stellar civilizations
are in effect "isolated". Its kind of like being at a
party -- you can see virtually everyone as you gaze around
the room but you can't speak with any of them.
> Yes, so (as we agree in the subsequent part of your email),
> eventually the "stay at homes" could fall behind technologically.
Yes, but you seem to be assuming that there are no technological
limits. I've read a fair amount of literature on the physics of
computation, nanotechnology, etc. and there *are* limits. (The
paper that Anders published in JET several years ago documents
a number of these.)
It currently looks to me like any reasonably advanced technological
civilization hits the limits so quickly (hundreds to thousands of
years) that anything after that doesn't really matter.
> Their story is old hat. Why does anything need to be
> sacrificed: what stays here stays here, and I transmit
> as much as possible (copying, *not* moving) of myself
> to the least amount of matter than we have to send to
> constitute a receiver.
But *why* would you create Lee II when Lee II cannot significantly
benefit Lee I and Lee II (and Lee II's offspring) could potentially
be competing against you for resources when they start getting scarce
in the universe?
You have to create an "enslaved" Lee II that is permanently
loyal to Lee I which means that its usefullness is limited
because you have to limit its freedom to evolve.
Would Great Britian or Spain have allowed the colonization of
the U.S. if they could have anticipated the creation of a nation
that would defeat them in various wars?
> But you have not explained why creatures more advanced
> than we are could not be living right here.
Hmmm... I thought I had. The local environment is inhospitable
to the creation of optimal computing structures (at least of
one type that I have envisioned). You simply *cannot* do
it "here" without disassembling the galaxy. Even if that
were feasible, in the universe, as it is currently structured,
it is much cheaper to simply leave a galaxy.
But I will grant completely that "aliens" in the form of a
distributed nanoscale intelligence could be living all around
us. I would also likely grant other types of intelligences
living within our solar system unnoticed by us (e.g. Clarke's
obelisk, etc.). But the only reasons I can come up with
for such efforts would be (a) entertainment value or (b)
regulation value (should we at some point present a threat
to the galactic club).
> Still, *here*, there is plenty of energy going to waste!
> Some parts of them would be here, and using that energy,
> even if it was not up to the speeds achievable outside the galaxy.
Energy, at this stage of the development of the Universe, is
*not* in short supply. One can star-lift normal stars, harvest
brown dwarfs for hydrogen, graze on molecular clouds, etc.
What may be of more interest from a longer term perspective are
safety and security. You are still thinking from a "natural"
evolution point of view -- i.e. "I have to replicate (copy)
myself". You have not made the transition to the "directed"
evolution point of view -- i.e. "What is best for my long term
self-preservation and/or development?" I believe that all
advanced civilizations will make that transition.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 00:53:43 MDT