[ExI] 2^57885161-1

[BillK]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
<snip>
> If you do the math, then a stellar output is sufficient to
> push a large (though not very large) number of relativistic
> seeds simultaneously. If you autoamplification factor is
> several orders of magnitude at each step than saturating the
> universe comes at an infinitesimal cost to the originator.
>
> The costs to send a critical number of messages vs. a seed
> makes seeding a much more cost-effective proposition. And
> almost every system with debris would be fertile, no need
> to wait for the lucky time window (where you can listen and
> act upon, but not yet are expansive yourself) which is like
> hunting unicorns.
>


Mathematically exactly correct.
Which is why I hold the opinion that civilisations which can control
enough resources to seed the universe are also intelligent enough to
decide not to do that. Or, alternatively, find themselves driven down
a different path. For example, like transcension, or moving to a
nano-scale infinite universe, or even self-destruction, any of which
does not lead to the seeding of the universe.

Obviously, the universe still exists, so by definition all the earlier
civilisations haven't yet seeded the universe. And with our telescopes
we can now see right back in time, almost to the Big Bang. And
everything we see has a natural, non-artificial,  explanation.

The alternative view is either that we are the very first space-faring
civilisation in the universe, or the seeding is underway and it just
hasn't reached us yet, or any part of the universe that we can see.
It is up to you to choose which you think is most likely. I take the
hopeful view that great intelligence doesn't lead to transforming the
universe into their version of paperclips.


BillK