[ExI] Are Dyson swarms a good idea?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026, 6:07 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:48 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *>> computational capacity takes energy and I don't think you can ever
>>> have too much of that. And I do not believe I am the only mind in the
>>> observable universe that holds that opinion. If intelligent life is common
>>> then somebody somewhere is going to decide to make a certain machine that
>>> has a mass of only 10^-12 grams. And it would only take one guy. So why
>>> don't we see any evidence of that? The answer is obvious. *
>>>
>>
>
> *> Could it be that these superintelligences:*
>> *Converge on a common agreement of how much to interfere with the rest of
>> the galaxy?*
>>
>
> *No, it could NOT be that EXACTLY 100% of the trillion quadrillion minds
> in the observable universe are in agreement that a self replicating machine
> that has a mass of only 10^-12 grams and is capable of making Dyson Spheres
> should not be made because I know for a fact there is at least one mind
> that disagrees.*
>


Note: I was talking about super intelligent post-singular minds. (Which
would have been clear had you not erased that part of my message from your
reply).

As intelligence increases the probability of being correct on any given
question increases. This causes a natural convergence.

How many super intelligent post singular minds do you know that disagree?



>
>> *> Could one or more elder post-singular intelligences already be present
>> in every star system and enforce some kind of galactic law?*
>
>
> *I don't know what you mean by "galactic law", but whatever it is I know
> it won't be capable of overruling the laws of physics. *
>

See: https://alwaysasking.com/are-we-alone/#Earth_is_Protected


>
> *> Could such superintelligences find ways of computing with near zero
>> energy loss, or use black holes as heat sinks, or find a loophole for free
>> energy,*
>>
>
> *I like what Arthur Eddington said about the most important natural law of
> all, the Second Law Of Thermodynamics:*
>
> *“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme
> position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your
> pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -
> then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be
> contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things
> sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse
> in deepest humiliation.”*
>

You ignored all the other possibilities I mentioned. Moreover you deleted
them to hide them from your reply.

Jason



> *  John K Clark*
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> *I don't find any of Claude's excuses to explain the embarrassing fact
>>>>> that astronomers have never seen anything like a Dyson sphere to be
>>>>> persuasive. If intelligent life is common in the observable universe I
>>>>> simply don't believe that not one of the trillion quadrillion minds in that
>>>>> universe thought it would be a good idea to make a 10^-12 gram self
>>>>> duplicating machine that is capable of making a Dyson Sphere, lots of them.
>>>>> Hell, I am a mind in the observable universe and if I had the ability to
>>>>> make such a machine I certainly would, and I don't think I'm unique.  *
>>>>> *<snip>*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * John K Clark*
>>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>> __
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260127/396e108e/attachment.htm>