[extropy-chat] Dark matter and ET

[BillK]

On 7/15/05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:39:59PM +0100, BillK wrote:
> 
> > Well, all things are possible, but some are more likely than others.
> > A civilization whose goal is to colonize as far and fast as possible
> > seems the most unlikely. Like, where is it? You only need one, ever,
> > in the universe.
> 
> Precisely. There isn't any.
> 
> No, you need to be in their light cone. The clock starting ticking with
> sufficient metallicity, which takes time to enrich. Which is very different
> from "one, ever, in the universe". The farther you look, the older stuff you
> see. The lower the probability. And what of smart critters? Solar system is
> probably lousy with life, but can you detect it, even if you know where to
> look?
> 

'Light cone' ??? The diameter of the Milky Way is 160 thousand light
years. If any technological civ decides to colonise our galaxy, then
depending on the assumptions, it will only take from a few 100,000
years at c, up to a few million years to physically colonize the whole
Milky Way. This is a tiny, tiny portion of the lifetime of our galaxy.
Fermi knew this, that's why it is a paradox for him.

That is also one of the reasons I have for thinking that galaxy
colonisation is not an objective for post-singularity civs.

> Are you genuinely surprised that a detector can always observe detect itself,
> even if the detector density is damn low? And that observation only tells you
> at at least one detector exists, and nothing beyond that, until you can find a
> causally unentangled another sample?
> 
> > My view of any post singularity civilization is that it won't want to
> 
> My view is exactly opposite, natch.
> 

OK, so where are they? 
Are you making the even more unlikely claim that we are the first, or only? 
Or are you claiming that we are unable to recognise post-singularity
civs and they are, in fact, all around us?


> > colonize the universe. These are not Star Trek type civs, with a bunch
> 
> Star Trek? Your value of Singularity must be low, low, awfully low.

I said *not* star trek type civs.   :)


> 
> > of cowboys jumping from star to star, having punchups wherever they
> > go. How immature is that?
> 
> Life is always immature, regardless how old it is.
> 
> > We are not talking about Bush III's latest ten year plan here.
> >
> > These are nearly immortal beings, who have redesigned themselves to
> 
> Why must postbiology be immortal? It doesn't figure, if the fitness function
> fluctuates wildly. Why should mushrooms and mice be not disposable?
> 
> > 'something wonderful', resource rich, developing who knows what down
> > to the nanoscale level, meshed together in some kind of virtual web
> 
> Current bacteria already operate at the nanoscale level. (Okay, low
> functionality concentration, but still).
> 
> > that we can only begin to guess at. Look at how upset web geeks get if
> > they lose their broadband connection for a day. And you think it
> > likely that a piece of these beings will cut themselves off for
> > centuries to go to another star system?
> 
> Kudzu has no problem going places, absolutely. It never gets bored, too.
> 
> > It is even debatable whether they will remain long in this physical
> > universe or start creating universes of their own. ;)
> 
> If rapture strikes, will it also transcend the kudzu? All of it?
> 


Why switch to talking about bacteria and kudzu? I doubt if they have
the capability to colonise the galaxy. I am talking about
post-singularity intelligence which can redesign itself. Immortality
is one obvious result.

Due to the vast age of the Milky Way, if they are not here, then either: 
a) they don't want to be here, (a consequence of post-singularity
intelligence) or
b) the singularity *always* kills civs, or 
c) we cannot see them all around us.

I go with a).

BillK