[extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures)

[The Avantguardian]

--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> They certainly could be, but I really doubt it.

Can you quantify your doubt? That is what Bayes was
all about after all. :)

> 
> The first thing Eric Drexler did when he understood
> the implications of 
> nanotechnology was to go looking for evidence in
> photos of unusual 
> galaxies.  He was looking for ones with an expanding
> wave front that was 
> dimming the stars behind the leading edge into IR by
> Dyson spheres or 
> something similar.  To be particular, he was looking
> for galaxies that 
> looked like Cookie Monster had taken a bite out of
> them.  He didn't find any.

I would say that Drexler's argument against ETI was
more speculative than the question of ETI itself. I am
looking for simple explanations here, but I will
nonetheless humor you and engage.

First off, there is an assumption here that
technological progress only has one possible sequence
where molecular assemblers, and thereby Dyson solar
tech, occur prior to FTL transport. 

Second it assumes that a Dyson sphere is the most
practical form harnessing solar energy. A brief
consideration of structural constraints imposed by
gravitometric and rotational momentum considerations
make a Niven type ring world far more practical and
therefore likely. Such a construct would only block
significant amounts of light if it was at a perfectly
aligned angle.

Third it assumes that any star would serve a Dyson
sphere. In truth spectral considerations of the star
in question would be very important for purposes of
biological life as we know it. Futhermore the stars
that are the most visible in a typical galaxy are the
really high magnitude blue-white stars that reside in
the hub and the arms of a spiral type galaxy. These
really hot spectral types are short-lived and
typically unstable with a tendency to supernova.
Therefore they would probably not worth the effort of
harnessing by Dyson-tech.

Fourth, amongst the low magnitude stars lying outside
of the spiral arms of a galaxy like ours (the life
zone), there may very well be numerous Dyson spheres
present. In fact Dyson spheres in this region seem as
likely an explanation of the rotational speed anomaly
of galaxies as speculative halos of dark matter
consisting of exotic particles we have never seen and
can't detect. Futhermore even if Dyson spheres did
exist in this "life zone", it probably would not
significantly alter the over-all luminosity of the
galaxy in question.

And of course the fifth and final consideration is
that our light-cone has yet to catch up with the
inflationary expansion of the universe so we are
seeing most galaxies as they existed in their youth
before they have had a chance to evolve life. Wait a
few billion years and you may still see the cosmic
Cookie-Monster in action.  
 
> It isn't so much a question of long term survival as
> *short term.*

> Reasoning runs this way.  If technologically capable
> races are common, 
> something eats every one of them, because every
> direction we look we see 
> wilderness, vast wastage of matter and energy.  We
> cap blown out oil wells 
> for darn good reasons.  A civilization with the
> power to do would plug the 
> black holes.  They certainly would be trapping the
> light output from stars.

Come on, what could eat so many civilizations and not
be a civilization itself? Galactic conquest I can
believe; giant invisible civilization-eating monsters,
I can't. Even if the civilizations are
self-destructing, we should be able to detect their
death-throes. If we decided to go all out with
thermonuclear war, I think someone around a nearby
star should be able to pick up the EMP loud and clear.

 
Also if they have learned to tap vaccuum/dark energy,
then stars would be trivial energy sources for them.
Just like if we invent Mr. Fusion, we would give a
hoot about our oil wells. 

> 
> Since we don't see such, or the occasional
> interstellar drive that happens 
> to be pointed our way, the conclusion is that there
> are no technophiles 
> inside our light cone.  Either they are so rare that
> we are the only 
> example, or they commonly arise but something
> removes them from the 
> observable universe.

Maybe they are keeping tabs on us but don't want to
talk to us. After all I don't see Jane Goodall
inviting her chimps to cocktail parties.

> 
> If they are common, we face a bleak future, probably
> to be eaten by the 
> local singularity.  If we are alone in our light
> cone, then our future may 
> be a disaster, but it is not fore doomed.

Great way to think yourself into an intellectual
corner. What happened to optimism? I don't think our
inability to detect ETI with outdated radio-tech means
squat. If they are still using that kind of tech,
which I doubt, it is probably highly directional and
so unless their masers are pointed directly at us with
the INTENT to communicate with us, we won't hear
squat. 

This would be most especially true if there are
multiple ETI civilizations out there that may not be
the best of friends. There is a good reason why our
submarines don't cruise around with active sonar on
all the time and it isn't because we are worried about
the dolphins going deaf. Just like the laws of
physics, Darwinism would be the same throughout the
universe. Why does SETI assume that technologically
advanced civilizations would be game-theoretical
morons running around the universe with their pants
down? 

>> There were 6 of us in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico
> that I knew 
> about.  Nation wide that would give you roughly
> 3600.

Good to know. I will take it into consideration.

> 
> Not always.  Ezekiel described a B36 (four burning
> and six turning).  I 
> never checked to see of one fell through a time
> warp, but I know how the 
> army had an M60 tank vanish.

Hey... now there's a thought. Maybe David Copperfield
is getting to ETI before SETI can. ;)




Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

-St. Einstein

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com