[ExI] Fermi question, was is a FTL drive a dream . . .

[Eugen Leitl]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:07:48AM +0000, BillK wrote:

> Even with nanotech?

Atoms and moles are additive. Replication rate of information
patterns will always outstrip the rate of substrate doublings.
Not many doublings to blot out the Sun. Then, as egress rate
from the volume is very limited relatively to production rate
you're effectively simmering at steady state.
 
> 
> > The speed of information propagation is a red herring, because
> > you're happy enough to interact mostly-locally. People got out
> > of Africa on foot just fine, one band of primates by another.
> >
> 
> We're not talking about primates. Million times speedup intelligences
> with nanotech don't have the same drives as primates.

All life has the same drive. No known exceptions.
 
> 
> >
> > It takes too long to talk to somewhere more than a light seconds
> > away? Don't do it, then! Just talk to people closer to you, and
> > so will they, and so on.
> >
> 
> 'Talking' is probably the wrong word to use about these intelligences.

When I say talking, I mean relativistic signalling.

> That sort of hive-mind may well not  even have individuals as we
> understand it.

>From the information theory view, all the systems are the same.
 
> 
> > Why do you insist to talk at all, for that matter? Seeds are
> > pretty inert. They never get bored, and sprout just fine on
> > the other end of the journey.
> >
> 
> If seeds are the preferred colonisation method, then that implies that
> we must be the first in the galaxy. Even at sub-light speeds the
> galaxy is old enough to have been colonised many times over.

Exactly. We're not in anyone's smart light cone. The most probable
way to observe an expanding wave is to be the nucleus. We'll either
do that, or self-terminate. There's really not anything in between
these two outcomes.