[ExI] Von Neumann Probes

Wed Jan 28 14:41:39 UTC 2026

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 9:36 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 8:51 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> > Answer my question from my previous email: how many non-reversible
>> computations can be performed for two computers at those two temperatures,
>
>
> *That depends on the mass of the computers in question. Regardless of what
> temperature the computers are at, the maximum number of bits of information
> one kilogram of mass can process per second is 1.36*1^50 bits . If all else
> was equal a computer with a black hole heat sink would be able to process **0.0064699999983%
> more information than a computer that used empty space as a heat sink. Does
> that improvement seem worth crushing Jupiter into a 20 foot wide Black Hole
> to you? *
>

I see your error. You are confusing wasted energy for useful energy.

See my email in the other thread which shows how this difference yields a
3.8 billion fold increase in the number of computations that can be
performed. (Because it is wasted energy that has been reduced, not the
amount of useful energy that has been increased).

Jason

>
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 8:39 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 7:40 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Earlier you insisted energy consumption (i.e. power) was all
>>>> important for running non-reversible computations (which it is).*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Yes.*
>>>
>>>
>>>> *> And this was your reason for concluding it was obvious ETI would
>>>> build Dyson swarms.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Yes.*
>>>
>>>
>>>> * > Now, when I show there were better ways, you seem to forget this, *
>>>
>>>
>>> *You are absolutely correct, I have forgotten that. I don't know what
>>> you're talking about.*
>>>
>>
>>
>> Answer my question from my previous email: how many non-reversible
>> computations can be performed for two computers at those two temperatures,
>> for a given expenditure of energy. If you attempt to answer this then you
>> will know exactly what I am talking about, but you won't because you have
>> an inability to admit making mistakes or being wrong.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *> and retreat to citing an unrelated fact we all agree on.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *So we both now agree that your comment about Black Holes improving the
>>> efficiency of a solar heat engine by many billions of times was silly?  *
>>>
>>> *> I have to conclude you're just trolling at this point*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Just a few days after I first joined this list in 1993 I was accused of
>>> being a troll, so I guess I'm the oldest living troll in the world.*
>>>
>> * Either that or the accusation of being a troll is the only rebuttal
>>> that somebody can think of.  *
>>>
>>> * John K Clark*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *> Ite not a "slight improvement." It's an efficiency improvement
>>>>>>>> of many billions of times. Even a small black hole (a few meters across,
>>>>>>>> with the mass of Jupiter) is 10^-8 degrees, so close to a billion times
>>>>>>>> colder than background radiation. A galactic center black hole can be a
>>>>>>>> trillion times colder than the background radiation. So it is not a "slight
>>>>>>>> improvement in efficiency," it's equivalent to being able to perform
>>>>>>>> billions or trillion of times as many non-reversible computations for the
>>>>>>>> same expenditure of energy.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Nope, you'd barely increase the efficiency at all. The Carnot
>>>>>>> Efficiency (X) depends entirely on the temperature of your heat source (Th)
>>>>>>> and your cold sink (Tc), formula is: *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *X=1- Tc/Th*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The surface of the sun is at 5,800 K and the CMBR is at 2.7K, and
>>>>>>> you're right that a Black Hole with the mass of Jupiter would have a
>>>>>>> temperature of about **10^-8 K, so let's plug in some numbers: *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *If we use the CMBR as the cold sink then*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *X= (1-(2.7/5800) = 0.99353 efficiency *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *If there was something that was just twice as efficient then you'd
>>>>>>> have something that was nearly 200% efficient, in other words you'd have a
>>>>>>> perpetual motion machine. And you were talking about something that was
>>>>>>> many billions of times more efficient.   *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Now let's look at what would happen if we used a Jupiter mass black
>>>>>>> hole for the cold heat sink:*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *X = 1 - 0.00000001/5,800 = 0.9999999999983 efficiency *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *To summarize, if you use empty space as your cold heat sink you'd
>>>>>>> only lose about 0.047% of your energy, and I think that's pretty damn good.
>>>>>>> If you use a Jupiter size black hole as your cold sink you'd lose about
>>>>>>> 0.00000000017% of your energy. Doesn't  seem worth all the trouble to me,
>>>>>>> and I wonder where you'd get the vast amount of energy necessary to
>>>>>>> compress Jupiter into a black hole. I think ET should be more concerned
>>>>>>> with trillions upon trillions of suns radiating all that nice juicy energy
>>>>>>> uselessly into infinite space. *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *> Now work out the number of non reversible computations that can be
>>>>>> performed under the two efficiencies you calculated.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The maximum number of bits any physical object can compute depends on
>>>>> how massive it is. No computer, regardless of its serial or parallel, can
>>>>> compute more than 1.36*1^50 bits per second per kilogram.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are avoiding my question.
>>>>
>>>> Earlier you insisted energy consumption (i.e. power) was all important
>>>> for running non-reversible computations (which it is). And this was your
>>>> reason for concluding it was obvious ETI would build Dyson swarms.
>>>>
>>>> Now, when I show there were better ways, you seem to forget this, and
>>>> retreat to citing an unrelated fact we all agree on. I have to conclude
>>>> you're just trolling at this point, or suffering some severe form of
>>>> cognitive dissonance.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> P.S.
>>>> You have also forgotten the 4X improvement over Bremmermann's limit as
>>>> shown by Margolus and Levitin, which you earlier acknowledged when you said
>>>> "4E/h"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *John K Clark*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20260128/05fed6ed/attachment.htm>