<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 12:41 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>If they run reversible computers (which is optimally efficient) then we wouldn't see anything.</font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>If ET<span class="gmail_default" style=""> uses reversible computers then, although they could never reach zero, they could use an arbitrarily small amount of energy to perform a calculation. However the less energy they use the slower they would think. If they use so little energy that we wouldn't be able to detect it then it would take centuries for them to figure out that 2+2 is equal to 4, and few would call such a thing superintelligent, or even just intelligent. So if ET exist he's as dumb as a bag of rocks. </span> </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><br></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="">John K Clark</span><br></b></font></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">\</div><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Do you agree Landauer's limit depends on the temperature of the heatsink?</i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Certainly<span class="gmail_default">,</span> but when you<span class="gmail_default">r heat sink </span>get<span class="gmail_default">s</span> colder and colder eventually you <span class="gmail_default">reach</span> a point of diminishing returns<span class="gmail_default">,</span><span class="gmail_default"> and at 2.7° kelvin that point has been reached because the difference between </span></b><b>0.99353<span class="gmail_default">%</span> efficiency<span class="gmail_default"> and</span><span class="gmail_default"> </span></b><b>0.9999999999983<span class="gmail_default">%</span><span class="gmail_default"> efficiency is too trivial to worry about. It's certainly not worth the trouble of compressing Jupiter into a 20 foot wide Black Hole which, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe would be rather troublesome to do. </span></b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default"><br></span></b></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>this is just grasping at straws to defend Dyson swarms in the face of better methods having already been demonstrated.</i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>If there are better ways<span class="gmail_default"> of producing amounts of power that are <u>LITERALLY</u>  astronomical and keep doing so for billions of years than Dyson spheres I have not heard of them,</span></b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default"> but I do know one thing, even if they exist they would still have to obey the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, and that means we should be able to observe them. But we have seen nothing.  </span> </b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>