From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@uui.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 12:36:18 MDT
Robert writes
> 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.]
Bill Frantz, who used to work at my company, once
famously quipped, "never underestimate the bandwidth
of a 747 loaded with mag tape". Yes, I can understand
that when you send matter, you send a hell of a lot of
bits. Is this what is meant?
> 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.
All right. Well, I think that my argument works
either way. No one will move. One may send a lot
of data (including algorithms/programs) either
physically or by transmission. Some of this data
may constitute part of the identity of the sender.
No one will move because---as you imply---no one
can move.
> > 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.)
So you are suggesting that intra-galactic civilizations quickly
reach limits, and inter-galactic civilizations quickly reach limits,
it's just that the latter are more advanced than the former.
(My own intuitions have not caught up to this: it still seems to
me that lots of good old fashioned atoms, e.g., the kind you find
inside galaxies in droves, are very handy for computation.)
> > 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?
Well, IMO those resources are going to be used by *somebody*.
If it's not a Lee II then it will be a Robert II, or, shudder,
a Samantha II. I anticipate that I'll probably get along
better with Lee II's than with future versions of other people,
or, more seriously, future versions of ambitious *aliens*.
> 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.
Enslavement at such a remove is either ridiculous or impossible.
> 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?
Actually, in hindsight, the creation of a country in North
America quite similar culturally to England was a very wise
move. The Americans rescued English bacon from the 1700's
through the present. (Okay, there was a minor tiff in 1812.)
France and Germany can well regret that they were not active
in the colonization business, and Sweden can only lament that
they did not build a great and powerful Swedish colony all
thoughout North America as they could easily have done in
the 1600s. Then the world would probably be speaking Swedish.
> > 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).
Ha! Classic mis-communication. I mean to assert only that *we*
presently have not reached any maximum. M-brains or Jupiter
brains, as you uniquely well know, could be vastly vastly VASTLY
more intelligent than we are. I do not see any reason why this
local region of space won't host such creatures in 3000 A.D.
> 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.
Again, *moving* is extremely hard! The most you can do is
send an infinitesimal part of yourself.
> 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 think that I have appreciated how evolution will become
self-directed. Logically, there is (1) safety in numbers, (2)
safety in high rates of reproduction. This definitely
includes directed evolution. If singularity-type structures
(or even M-brains) get going in the solar system, they'll
definitely want to send spoors to nearby stars---or some of
them will (and, I repeat, it only takes one). As millions
of spoors take off from here and from other nearby stars,
evolution kicks in and those that replicate best and at
the most advanced level predominate. It's all Darwinian.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 12:43:56 MDT