[extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity.

Robert Bradbury robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Thu Oct 26 01:35:48 UTC 2006


On 10/25/06, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> We've known about dark matter and energy for only a few years but before
> that I don't recall ET advocates predicting it, and even today nobody can
> explain how dark matter can process information better than regular matter
> when it interacts so weakly with itself.


Yes.  Nor would one expect "predictions" when one is running around with an
anthropocentric perspective that "they" are like "us".  This was before
concepts of the evolution of computronium, JBrains, MBrains, SIs, FAIs, etc.
made it clear that "they" are not like "us" and we will *never* be like
"them".

With respect to how Dark matter and/or energy might process information -- I
will state clearly "I don't know."  But if you can propose that quantum,
entangled states of matter can process information faster than the speed of
light then I would propose that weakly interacting states of matter
processing information is *not* that so "far fetched".

On the one had you have a theory (there are no ET's) that explains every
> observation and needs no new physics, on the other hand you have a theory
> (there are ET's) that explains no observations and needs some sort of
> vague
> undefined new physics to work. If you use Occam's razor the choice is
> easy.


First you have the presumption "needs no new physics".  I would argue
"weakly interacting dark matter" clearly requires "new physics".  I would
also argue that a presupposition that "there are ETs" requires substantial
leaps to Fermi's Paradox (they should be "here").  I am perfectly
comfortable with ETs are intelligent and believe that they do not go where
going is pointless and this would in turn dictate why they are not "here"
[1].

> The thing which *always* gets left out of the colonization perspective is
> > the lack of bandwidth and communications between the stars.
>
> The Arecibo radio telescope could communicate with its twin at least
> 10,000
> and possibly as far as 100,000 light years away, I would imagine ET could
> do
> a bit better.


You have failed to argue the bandwidth of the channel relative to the
information content of the civilizations on either end.  Yes, both entities
can say "Hi", but they cannot say more than that (unless one is
communicating the obvious -- "Yes, I know the prime numbers up to 2^N-1
already..." or the non-communicable -- "You are speaking in a language I do
not comprehend."

You have also failed to deal with a fundamental question (and I would hope
people on the list would engage in this)...

What if the laws of physics & chemistry can be reduced to a very small
information set?

So you can transmit ones reduction of the universe in a very small
message!   Everything on top of that is (a) inventory -- e.g. what I see and
when I am seeing it; or (b) synthetic -- Drexler said that the possible
phase space of nanodesigns was *very* large -- more than once can transmit
over a cosmic data channel -- the designs one may feel are valuable within
ones context may be relatively small vs. the designs that are valuable in a
different context.  If they already know the "fundamental" designs then ones
enhancements may be of relatively little interest (hardly enough to justify
the MW used to transmit them).  I would be sad to see advanced ATC doing
nothing but beaming soap operas back and forth across interstellar
distances.

To argue this from being the case you have to make a strong argument that
ATC do not understand the fundamental nature of the universe and/or do not
have access to all natural information available within their light cone.
(Mind you our light cone effectively becomes their light cone by the time
"our" information reaches them.)

And you're acting like it would take some huge commitment on
> the part of ET, but sending one slow moving Von Neumann probe to one other
> star would only cost pocket change.


Agreed.  But advanced ETs with *really* big spreadsheets do not spend
"pocket change" on pointless efforts.  *We* don't attempt to talk to
nematodes.

So the reason the Galaxy has not been engineered is because digital storage
> is so incredibly bulky. Hmm.


*No.*  Digital storage is *very* small -- perhaps multiple bits per atom, I
believe Anders would concur.  The *reason* the Galaxy has *not* been
engineered is that light speed and energy costs limit how rapidly you can
move X quantity of photons (or atoms) [3] from point A to point B (where
Point B environs have greater information density and allow more rapid
thought).  I am *not* going to send an endless stream of information
someplace where there will be nobody will receive it (at least I hope not)
-- I am going to send it where it may be received and put to use.

But storage (and matter) is not infinite.  Once one develops the
capabilities one is going to think seriously about the best way to develop
both.

"And now," the commentator said in a low hushed voice, "The next member of
> the ET's exist team will attempt a Mental Reverse Flying Triple Back
> Somersault with a degree of difficulty of 4.3, .. and so.. ah too bad,
> that
> must have hurt."


Yes, demonstrable of sending information where it will be pointless.
Post-singularity SIs  don't bother to send information to us because we know
we lack the capacity and wisdom to deal with it.  Pre-singularity SIs don't
send us information because they are too rare and/or too far away -- they
have to be within ~100 light years -- after 100 years (or less!) they stop
sending information.  You have to predict a crucial intersection -- what is
the probability that developing civilizations will see us as a developing
civilization and choose to transmit a "hello fellas" message within the
window before we or they go post our window of perception?  We are on the
cusp of surveying the galaxy *multiple* times *every* month.  That means
*we* are in the window from the development of telescope to knowing where
everything of significance is (perhaps 100 years).  Do you *really* want to
try and hit that window for a civilization 200 (or 2000, or 20,000) l.yaway?

I want to see you present a case before an informed body that would say
"Yes, we know civilization XYZZY will be at a state to receive *and* make
use of our information stream from Y20XX to 20YY."  If *you* can't make that
argument then you have to present a case as to how "*they*" should be able
to do so.

Similarly for colonization of the galaxy -- present an argument that we
should colonize everything (when you know that others are exploring the
cream of the crop).

Robert

1. Oh yes, we an occasional scientist/explorer may show up from time to time
but one has to make strong arguments as to why they should disrupt the
vector we are currently on by making themselves "known".
2. Indeed, I believe Anders and other hard core theoreticians may have
pushed information storage limits beyond what can ever possibly be
engineered.  It would do us some good to frame the discussion in terms of
what can be achieved at various states of magical capabilities.  I have no
problem with you having magic powers, provided, you like Harry, has the
cloak in your possession which demonstrates those powers!
3. This is stretching my knowledge base to the limits -- I can see
transmitting one or perhaps several bits of information per photon
(existence of the photon and polarization state); I can see transmitting
more bits per atom (excitation state of the electrons in the atom).  But
*both* of those are subject to speed-of-light bandwidth and information
decay limits.  If you want to transmit information reliably you have to have
redundancy and that requires greater costs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061025/78f1950e/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list