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

[Paul Grant]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert J.
Bradbury
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:03 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Fermi Paradox and Simulation Argument

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, John K Clark wrote:

Re: the thought suspension option
> That's equivalent to saying some super brains will decide to become 
> more stupid; well some may, but ever single one of them?

I'm not so sure -- do you want to waste energy and mass accelerating up
to some speed to get to a new fuel source faster or do you want to
simply use your fuel sources on a budgeted basis and allow new resources
to come to you due to natural processes (galactic collisions, supernova
explosions, etc.)?

--
~the former. it pushes the boundaries.  Incidentally, regarding the
uberbrain deciding to become less intelligent, at a probability of 1;
why not.  what if superintelligent brain reaches an elemental truth that
that intelligence, much like many things in life, can be toxic in
too-large an amount? It is possible.


> Maybe, and maybe when even super brains can't find a objective logical

> reason why life is better than death they decide to kill themselves. 
> Maybe, but I doubt it.

I'm relatively concerned about MBrains and advanced civilizations
hitting the wall -- they understand all known science and determine some
things (tunneling into new universes, stopping the decay of protons,
actually testing string theory, etc.) may simply be impossible.
--
~Nothing is impossible :)  highly improbable, to 
costly (economically-speaking) etc.
Besides, science is never a 100% :)

> I once heard a detractor of string theory say it was philosophy not 
> science because to prove or disprove it you'd need a particle 
> accelerator the size of the galaxy. Well OK, let's build it.

The NOVA special on string theory and branes suggested that it couldn't
be proven period.  (Now how self-limiting they were being I'm not sure.)
--
~or a REALLY clever experiment; thankfully scienctific history is filled
with many of them.
Perhaps the nobel prize at some point will be given to the person who
constructs an experiment
that fails to disprove string theory as a working hypothesis, but rather
supports it. 

> I can't imagine a worse place to build super brains than intergalactic

> space, there is about one hydrogen atom per cubic yard and energy is 
> equally dilute.

You don't build them there -- you migrate them there.  You probably put
them on long comet-like orbits where you spend much of your time in
intergalactic space away from galactic hazards and then come back from
time to time to refuel the hydrogen tanks and grab any useful matter you
require.  Actually since they are gaining matter instead of losing it
you might want to call it an anti-comet orbit.
--
I don't suppose you've read Chalkers, well-world series? :)
Muahahahahaa ;)
omard-out