[ExI] 2^57885161-1

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:13:47AM +0000, BillK wrote:

> Mathematically exactly correct.
> Which is why I hold the opinion that civilisations which can control
> enough resources to seed the universe are also intelligent enough to

The decision is out of control, since involving a population
of agents spread over a nucleating area/origin of lighthours to a
lightyear, and does not not need any intelligence.

> decide not to do that. Or, alternatively, find themselves driven down
> a different path. For example, like transcension, or moving to a

All computation requires a physical layer. You need about nm^3
to represent a useful bit, and some energy to compute (reversibility
buys you only so much, and adiabatic computation will likely
be too slow).

> nano-scale infinite universe, or even self-destruction, any of which

No evidence physics permits this. Nonexpansive entities automatically
filter into invisibility and insignificance across the cosmic 
substrate.

> does not lead to the seeding of the universe.
> 
> Obviously, the universe still exists, so by definition all the earlier

The part of the universe where we are looks pristine.

> civilisations haven't yet seeded the universe. And with our telescopes

We're not in anyone's smart light cone.

> we can now see right back in time, almost to the Big Bang. And

The earlier you look, the lower the probablity of nucleation
due to harsher condition and low metallicity.

> everything we see has a natural, non-artificial,  explanation.
> 
> The alternative view is either that we are the very first space-faring
> civilisation in the universe, or the seeding is underway and it just

Any expansion wave would be extremely improbable to observe by
yet subexpansive observers due to the limits of relativistically
expansive wavefront observability and anthropic principle.

> hasn't reached us yet, or any part of the universe that we can see.
> It is up to you to choose which you think is most likely. I take the

We cannot tell what is most likely, since we do not have any data.

> hopeful view that great intelligence doesn't lead to transforming the
> universe into their version of paperclips.

Paperclips are sterile and immutable. Life is not.