[extropy-chat] Re: Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Fri Jan 9, 2004 The Avantguardian wrote:

> >>1. Fermi paradox:
> Any advanced species from an extrasolar planet would have realized
> the same Darwinian processes have shaped the life on their world as it has
> on ours.

Hmmm... this is questionable -- there seems to be a significant probability
that we are about to shift from evolution driven by random adaptation to
evolution driven by conscious processes.  I would propose that a civilization
driven by 4 billion years of random adaptation to be significantly different
from a civilization driven by 4 billion years of consciously driven evolution.
(And yes I'm using "civilization" loosely since it could be argued that
humanity is probably less than 100,000 years old.)

> Knowing that any other advanced species it encounters would more
> likely represent a competitor than an ally.

"Encounters" are rare unless you intend them to happen.  They are
not competitors until there is a shortage of resources in the universe.

> Especially since life based on selfish replicators such as genes, or
> even memes for that matter, would converge on similar strategies of kin
> selection and deception to forward their own ends.

In advanced civilizations it seems likely that there are no more "genes".
There is also no more (physical) replication because it creates entities
that are likely to be competitors in the future.

There are no more "ends".  You have to create an entirely different
mind set for entities that are all-powerful (within several light
years) and immortal (within the constraints of their fuel supplies
and the longevity of the universe).

> Therefore it would seem reasonable that any sufficiently
> advanced alien species would be too canny to advertise their existence
> through indiscriminate radio broadcasts for fear of invasion or, if more
> aggressive, to avoid tipping their hands to any potential targets for
> invasion.

There is no point to invasion.  Why invade the space of an alien
civilization?  Any developed matter presumably has a self-destruct
sequence.  Harvesting fuel from brown dwarfs or molecular clouds is
much easier than trying to steal someone elses star.  And transporting
large amounts of matter across interstellar distances is *expensive*.

People continue to view this discussion from a "human" perspective when
they simply do not apply on interstellar scales.

> The Fermi Paradox could be a little like a naval battle between
> submarines where each sub is carefully listening to their passive sonars
> trying to detect enemy subs and is loathe to use their active sonars for
> fear of allowing the enemy to pinpoint their location. If that is the case,
> we may already be screwed.>>

If distant civilizations viewed developing civilizations as a threat
and had the ability to detect fires on our planet (distinctly possible
given estimates I've previously cited regarding the number and size
of their telescopes) then it is highly likely that any such civilizations
within 10-20,000 light years know we are here.  The rise in CO2 in the
atmosphere is also probably detectable so any civilizations within
100-2000 light years should see that using much less sophisticated
technology.  So like it or not -- we have probably already given
ourselves away.

Then on Jan 10 2004, Dennis May responded to Avantguardian with:

> This is precisely my view: stealth, mobility, and dispersion are the
> secrets to survival in the high technology space universe of WoMD
> and control of high energy processes.

Going back to the post by Dennis on Jan 5th regarding WoMD:
> 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.

The problem with these strategies is their inefficiency.  Need
lots of hydrogen bombs?  Then you need lots of uranium to trigger
them and that requires a substantial energy investment to breed the
uranium.  Want lots of pellet producing machines and pellets
then you need lots of mass to burn.  As Spike and I have pointed
out that mass is valuable -- you don't want to just throw it away.
To produce lethal neutrino showers you would probably have to
set of thousands of stars or more.  No easy trick.  Likewise
with setting off supernovas -- you have to throw a lot of mass
at stars to overload them.

And that doesn't in any way deal with (a) the ability of MBrains
or SBrains to detect anything approaching them and simply move
out of the way -- you have to keep in mind that in the as designed
architecture MBrains and SBrains *are* both dispersed (across
solar system scales in the case of MBrains) as well as mobile;
(b) the ability of MBrains or SBrains to detect anything
incoming and destroy it; and (c) how much of a bad idea it
is to attempt to use WoMD against an MBrain or an SBrain
unless you are absolutely 100% sure that you can eliminate
it and any stealthed berserker-bots.

> A single civilization can settle a galaxy in no time.

But there is no point!  It seems unlikely that one can achieve
greater intelligence or any other benefits this way.  All one
gets is pointless replication.

> It can settle several galaxies a short time later.

Which would be even more pointless.

> It won't take long to understand that there is no advantage
> in advertising to competitors.  I'm sure intercivilization/species
> contact and trade will happen but I doubt open trust will ever be
> a wise thing even within a given civilization or species.

To make the trade argument work you have to explain what is
so valuable that the costs of shipping it across interstellar
distances justifies doing so.  I don't see such a justification.

To make the contact argument work (information transfer) you
have to make a similar argument.  If a civilization can compute
for itself anything you can send to them faster or cheaper than
it can be sent then it makes no sense to open interstellar
communications channels.  It has little to do with WoMD or
fear of being detected.  It has much more to do with physical
constraints imposed on civilizations by the laws of physics
and the abstract economics of a civilization at those limits.

Robert