Re: Fermi "Paradox"

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 15:18:34 MDT

  • Next message: Adrian Tymes: "Re: Orlowski: Your hate piece on Robin Hanson"

    On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:

    > > Quite right. Robert and many others have made it clear
    > > that that's impossible. Besides, given how slow light
    > > travels, I have always thought that an integrated intelligence
    > > probably can't be more than kilometers in size anyway
    > > (depends on the kind of problems that it enjoys and the
    > > gratification algorithms it executes).

    It is correct that it depends a *lot* on the definition of
    "integrated" and a lot on how much time you have to think
    about a problem. If one has a long time to think about
    problems -- then distributing parts of ones mind across as
    solar system (say 10-50 AU) may not be a huge sacrifice
    while greatly increasing ones safety. The capacity of
    a 1 cm^3 nanocomputer is roughly 100,000 human minds
    in something like 1/1000 the volume (of a brain). So
    I tend to use 10^6 increase in intelligence as a
    conservative approximation. The communications
    bandwidth to a copy 25 AU away *will* be low but it
    *will* be "you" (or a subcomponent of "you") and so there
    will be a lot of shorthand notation. So I suspect there
    will be the development of "distributed" computational
    algorithms. Examples of this might be the SETI@Home or
    the Folding@Home distributed computations of our time.

    But you take at least a 3 order of magnitude hit in jumping
    from light-minutes/hours to light-years. I just don't think
    there are going to be good reasons for doing so.

    > Wouldn't it be possible to create a quantum computer based on
    > spin-coupling as a communication "backplane"?

    Yep, you could propose such a computer. But Robert will jump
    all over your butt for proposing "magic physics" on the ExI list.
    There are a couple of people who have "Get out of jail free"
    cards to do this (Anders & Robin come to mind since they know
    a lot more physics than I do). But anyone else gets jumped
    on unless it is a serious "what if" kind of speculation.
    (The primary objection at least in my mind currently is that
    for QC to be useful you are going to have to propose a method
    for generating and maintaining kilo, mega, and giga amounts
    of qubits. If there isn't a concrete proposal for something
    we can actually build, then one gets a "Go directly to jail,
    do not pass Go and do not collect 200 dollars" card.

    [People who have not played Monopoly will not understand the
    references. Sorry...]

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 15:28:16 MDT