From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 11:44:04 MDT
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> the technology to Transcend: leaving space-time and moving to a more
> attractive environment, and does so. This scenario has been outlined
This hypothesis implies a lot of constraints. It assumes that Transcension
is very easy (we're almost there), or that it sterilizes the expanding
wavefront of subtranscension tech (e.g. von Neumann probes). Since it
can't happen all the time due to probabilistic reasons alone, this gives
you a bound on civilization density, since a single nontranscended culture
nucleus amplifies to be detectable over very large distances (lightcone
and elemental abundancies arguments omitted for clarity). Last but not
least it implies magic physics (spacetime engineering). It is difficult to
falsify arguments based on magic physics.
The assumption that intelligent life is very rare requires no such
baggage, and hence is preferrable by far.
> for example by Greg Egan in Diaspora (the Transmuters). We can think
> of a variant (or another formulation) of the same idea: it is more and
> more frequent to hear suggestions that perhaps our physical universe
> is a simulation run from "outside". Maybe at some point a civilization
This is unfalsifyable, and what should be the motivation?
> develops te technology to escape from the simulation into a more
> interesting environment. Despite the interest of this argument I still
You can't escape a simulation, unless the beings running the simulation
explicitly give you access to the meta layer. Assuming, it's not just a
natural process.
> prefer two other explanations of the Fermi paradox: that we are not
> able to tune on the galactic communication network because it is based
These aliens must be 1) nonexpansive 2) don't use much power. This runs
contrary to both market, game theory and darwinian evolution arguments. So
far the only scenario compatible with this is a singleton.
> on physics not yet understood, and that superaliens may already be
> here unseen, maybe encoded in nanomachines. And, of course, there are
Nanomachines are only difficult to detect if there are not many of them.
> other possible explanations: that nobody is out there, or that we are
> the first to develop our current technology level.
This seems the most probable explanation. Like other, this assumption
generates a number of constraints, some of them even testable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:03 MST