[ExI] SETI for Post Singularity Civs
protokol2020 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 13:40:46 UTC 2015
> If you are worried about pre-emption the situation changes
Every good Universe spammer repeats his message quite often. Repeating,
here means ever faster, ever more reliable and efficient probes, to which
all older, slower probes are prey items. Willing prey items, glad to be
recycled and reused.
Columbus on his voyage to the West Indies was never caught by a faster
Spanish ship to be re-armed with some new ship guns invented and produced
back in Spain after he left the shore. As captain Cook was never updated
from home with anything. Let alone with a better ship.
But now, it's a different story. Some today space probes are quite
frequently updated with at least a new software version.
For the galaxy and beyond colonization, it's a must.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> , 26/1/2015 9:03 PM:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:48 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would only take a few million years to spread Neumann probes
> throughout our galaxy. So advanced ET either hasn't appeared in our
> I saw math somewhere about relative speed-ups and head-starts by just
> having a single year of a head start, versus 10 years, and versus 100
> years. So in the absence of having a working von Neumann probe, perhaps
> using literally anything else secures victory, especially if it will take
> you millions of years to make anything better. (Hopefully, kinematic
> self-replication will not take us more than 100 years to figure out.)
> Over long distances speed tends to win over start time.
> If you start at time t, at time T you will have reached distance D=v(T-t).
> So dD/dv = (T-t), dD/dt = -v. D = D0 + (T-t)*dv - v*dt+.... So if the
> delay in making faster probes is less than (T-t)/v they are worth it. Now,
> if T is small you might want to rush with whatever you have. But if T is
> billions of years, then waiting may be rational.
> For Stuart's and mine intergalactic spamming paper we found that
> million-year waits for making super ultrarelativistic probes would be worth
> If you are worried about pre-emption the situation changes; it introduces
> a penalty term for larger t, giving some optimum time to wait and develop
> the tech.
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat