[extropy-chat] Fw: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach

[Technotranscendence]

Dennis replied to Robert's post with:

From: Dennis May determinism at hotmail.com
To: atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 5:26 PM
Subject: [atlantis_II] Re: fermi's paradox: m/d approach


Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"The present value of using the resources locally is
likely to significantly exceed the communications value
of sending energy/mass (i.e. electromagnetic waves or
probes) across interstellar distances."

No investment in discovery?  A singular thought pattern
which doesn't experiment or take risks?  No diversity
of opinion concerning value.  Again it doesn't sound like
much of a brain.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"The cost of sending a bit across interstellar distances
is relatively cheap. The cost of sending any quantity
of information worth something across interstellar
distances is quite expensive. The solar systems
of advanced civilizations can probably contain >2^50
bits and one doesn't transmit a useful fraction of
that across interstellar distances cheaply."

Worth something?  Whole libraries can be sent on
a laser signal for next to nothing.  What makes you
think those >2^50 bits aren't mainly archives of
Alien Slug Porn at high resolution or something
equally useless to someone else.  Value is in the
eye of the beholder.

I wrote:

>Gray goo has to obey the same thermodynamic and
>chemical laws as living creatures. Some of the capabilities ascribed to
>gray goo have ignored these
>laws.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"Not any serious proposals by people who know what they
are talking about (Drexler, Freitas, etc.)"

I can only go by what little I have read.  No doubt the
fantastic unrealistic claims get more press than those
who are serious.  I will have to read more by those who
are thought to be serious.

I wrote:

>In any case gray goo has to compete for resources and avoid
>predators/parasites just like anyone else.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"Gray goo based on nanotech easily trumps any preexisting
life forms based on biotech. This is due to the fact that it is
stronger, more energy efficient, travels faster, faster to
evolve, etc."

I would think that all these claims depend on the efficient
mining of resources from the environment to enable
self-replication. Something yet to be demonstrated and
unlikely to be as simple as postulated.  Some of the more
fantastic claims I've heard clearly ignored the necessity of
mining diverse resources and the actual energy costs and
heat losses incurred in doing so.  There are many biological
systems which are extremely efficient.

I wrote:

>Not a very smart brain if it wants to put all its resources
>into one place - ready to be destroyed by WoMD.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"MBrains are the size of solar systems and have the power of
stars at their disposal. The only things that could
potentially destroy them are most likely to be very clever
viruses (that presumably have to get through multiple levels
of firewalls, isolated defense systems, etc.) or black holes
hurled across interstellar space."

Or simply: enough hydrogen bombs hurled at them fast
enough for long enough, or swarms of pellets fired at them
for long enough from all directions, or enough anti-matter
hurled long enough, or destroying it while it is small by
any number of means, or setting off nearby stars to create
lethal neutrino showers, or orienting parts of the blast from
supernovas, or hitting it again and again with solid objects
traveling near the speed of light, and so on.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"...one has to make sure that one totally
eliminates every last component of an MBrain or risk a
berserker response"

Exactly my point - WoMD will destroy the big buck brain
before it gets very big.  Who says berserkers of one kind
or another aren't already out there causing the
Fermi Paradox?

I wrote:

>I support the WoMD cause of the Fermi Paradox. Stealth,
>mobility, and dispersion are the secrets to survival with space
>WoMD. Advertise your presence and expose yourself to WoMD.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>...MBrains or other similar architectures that migrate outside galaxies
>where they can radiate heat at close to the CMB temperature (~4 deg K).
>Thus they are very difficult to detect and very difficult to target
with
>WoMD.

Everything is visible to spread spectrum impulse E&M.  You
can't hide anything of that size if someone cares to look.
If I send out trillions of spread spectrum impulse probes I
will find anything I care to look for.  If you are large and
lumbering once your found your dead - given sufficient
time.

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

"(Side Note: Dennis -- these topics have been discussed for ~5 years
on the ExI list and there are multiple academic papers that have
been written on the topic as well as hundreds of email postings
so Daniel is putting you at a slight disadvantage by introducing
the conversation to the Atlantis list without informing you
with respect to some of the background materials.)"

I would enjoy being informed in those areas you feel I behind in.
I have had similar discussions before and found the defense
of the Mbrain concept still lacking.  The other question is: why
is my solution to the Fermi Paradox less plausible - since it does
not depend on new science, big brains, or unknown
nanotechnology?

Dennis May

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/