[ExI] Extraterrestrial liberty and colonising the universe

Tomaz Kristan protokol2020 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 23 06:55:58 UTC 2013

A massive error checking and redundancy can suppress evolution of any kind.

What does the state of the  Fermi paradox tells us? It tells us, that
evolution, at least interesting evolution of the complex machines is rare
or almost not present in the Universe.

Evolution is easy to prevent. Its somehow already prevented almost
everywhere - naturally.

A probe with the wrong checksum should destroy itself. Better, shouldn't be
able to function in the first place. Very much like the nuclear weapons are
functioning for decades. A malfunction in an accidentally  fallen bomb will
NOT ENABLE the explosion. It must be enabled by a complicated procedure, a
small error is fatal in that process.

With this principle on steroids, evolution isn't a problem at all.

They say, everything change, except the change is eternal. Well, this is
about to change! After a certain threshold, a cosmic super-civilization
must freeze itself on the present state. No more progress!

No big deal. It's a small prize to pay for the whole Universe. Many
Tranhumanist don't like that at least, I know. They start with the usual
mantra how horrible is to be wireheaded, as they weren't already for the
entire history of the Universe.


I have a blog now.


Maybe some of you may be interested in reading it.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 21/06/2013 15:29, I wrote:
> "*Why aren't we a thousand miles deep in grasshoppers?*
> *A: disease, parasites, predators, cannibalism, resources to **
> survive/replicate."*
> On 22/06/2013 *11:45*, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> "This applies if you have a system where evolution applies. The standard
> interstellar replicator scenarios tend to use multiple local hops,
> allowing many generations between the start and end point. Plenty of
> chance for evolutionary drift or divergence, although artificial probes
> can be equipped with error correction making any accidental diversity as
> negligible as you want. Stuarts and mine scenario has two generations:
> the end-state will not have had much chance to evolve (and, again, error
> correction can prevent it).
> The assumption that given time parasites will evolve is based on the
> image that the system is free to evolve. But non-evolving replicators
> getting there first can also prevent the appearance of evolving
> replicators. If the first seeders didn't want to allow them, they could
> do it. We might *like* the concept of evolving replicators a great deal
> more than those boring non-evolving, but the latter can win against the
> rest if they are programmed to be [thorough]."
> There seem to be a few assumptions implicit in your statements.  You seem
> to assume some kind of central planner control of probe launches into
> the universe - which implies economic and technology control over
> individuals.
> Otherwise anyone wealthy enough can do their own probe launches.  If I
> were interested in such probe launches and replicating systems I would
> recognize that evolution can happen in both software and hardware such
> that a single probe going out can create entire ecosystems of
> predator-prey-
> parasites and do its own launches at any point in time later.  A single AI
> which can replicate and spread in free space is enough to populate every
> scenario including war-gaming against its own creations to evolve
> impossibly
> efficient predators.  Before the first centrally-planned probe reaches
> another galaxy, independently evolved probes could have sent out a trillion
> competing probes ahead of it.
> On 22/06/2013 *11:45*, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> "...the only way to be truly certain nobody else can invade is to turn
> everything into your kind of replicator. Hence the "deadly probe
> scenario" is not a likely answer to the Fermi question."
> It always takes less energy and resources to destroy than to create.
> This is part of the reason why offensive WoMD are so much more effective
> than defenses against them.  The greater the energy involved the more
> effective offense becomes.
> The smallest technological footprint for AI to replicate is presently
> unknown.
> There is the time footprint, the resources footprint, the signals generated
> by replication footprint, the trails left in both traveling and
> replication,
> and the thermodynamic footprints both in matter and radiation.
> Ideally replication would take place in high noise environments to minimize
> detection.  High noise environments are only available in limited regions
> and what qualifies as high noise is technology dependent.
> There are many assumptions inherent in what replicating AI systems are
> going to do.  I assume they will use wide band impulse communications which
> appear as white noise [SETI detection won't work].  I assume they will
> leave
> as little footprint as possible to keep from being tracked [military 101],
> I assume they will stay on the move, disperse themselves, and act in
> a stealthy manner to avoid WoMD.  In space stealth also means small
> footprint
> in every way possible.
> So the Fermi Paradox is not hard to understand.  If a single civilization
> allows AI - not controlled by central-planners - military strategy for AI
> that
> can replicate will quickly lead to quiet well dispersed mobile AI with
> small
> footprints we will never see.  The predators among the AI replicators will
> also hunt other predators.  The Earth may be nothing more than a loud baby
> animal drawing in predators while other predators watch and wait.  There
> are too many possible scenarios to calculate.
> Dennis May
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130623/4b379d58/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list