|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
In article . com,
Ian Parker wrote: Like what? We're talking about things on the timescale of hundreds of millions of years. What we do in the next century or two isn't going to make any difference. Statistically the most likely time for another civilization to appear is now. Geological time indeed counts in billions. When I say statistcally now, what I am saying is this. You habe a box a billion years wide. You place a civilization in it. Now is as likely as any other time. I'm not following you here. Do you agree that, if the evolution of a civilization is treated as an independent event, the population of such events will form a standard distribution? If so, then there is a mean and a standard deviation. When you say "the most likely time for another civilization to appear is now," are you saying that the mean of this distribution is the present? If so, that's a sensible position -- what the Copernican principle implies. The problem with it, of course, is that unless space colonization is impossible, then civilizations are not independent events; only the first one or few (the extreme outliers of the distribution) would be independent, and the others would arise in an already-settled galaxy. In fact if evolution is indeed as insensitive to special conditions as you are claiming. I will say might be so, might not then 2 hr 6 min will ensure the galaxy. 2hr 7 min will mean we are also rans. I haven't a clue what you're saying here. This seems rather pointless. All indications are that there is NOBODY else out there. So, either we're in some sort of nature preserve and the ancients are intentionally hiding from us, or for some weird reason, we happen to be the first, and the galaxy is ours. All the indications are that there is none more advanced than we are. SETI has indeed not seen Radio Reloj. So nobody is at the same level as us. Right. It is possible that there are civilizations (allowing for speed of light) that are 20-300 years ahead of us or 100+ yars behind. Yes, and SETI proponents seem to implicitly assume this, but it's a ridiculous position that I think comes from watching too much Star Trek. Even on Earth, cultures that had been separated for even a few thousand years were not 200 years apart, technologically -- they were *thousands* of years apart. The Americans were still using bows and arrows when the Europeans showed up with guns and steel. The Japanese were still using swords when the Americans showed up with rifles (and the Japanese were not all that isolated). Other examples abound -- and these are people who are all the same species, with common ancestors in Africa not that long ago. Now, suppose independently evolving civilizations on completely different worlds. They're not going to be a few hundred years apart; they're going to be MILLIONS of years apart. The odds of two neighboring civilizations evolving within a couple hundred years of each other are ridiculous -- in geological terms, that's the exact same instant. It's like grabbing two random people from the population and expecting their height to be the same to within 0.1 mm. And because of the exponential progress of technology, even a few hundred years makes a big difference at this point. At thousands or millions of years, you're looking at the difference between no civilization at all, and some post-biological star-spanning civilization that would make us seem like mildly clever monkeys. Imagining everybody in the galaxy developing space travel at pretty much exactly the same time makes for exciting science fiction, but mathematically speaking, it's close to impossible. Best, - Joe -- "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On 31 Jul, 15:43, Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com, Ian Parker wrote: Like what? We're talking about things on the timescale of hundreds of millions of years. What we do in the next century or two isn't going to make any difference. Statistically the most likely time for another civilization to appear is now. Geological time indeed counts in billions. When I say statistcally now, what I am saying is this. You habe a box a billion years wide. You place a civilization in it. Now is as likely as any other time. I'm not following you here. Do you agree that, if the evolution of a civilization is treated as an independent event, the population of such events will form a standard distribution? If so, then there is a mean and a standard deviation. When you say "the most likely time for another civilization to appear is now," are you saying that the mean of this distribution is the present? No, I think it will be nornal. Probably if we are the first civilzation the gap will be of the order of a million years, or at least 100,000. However you can't be absolutely sure. The model I was thinking about at the back of my mind was the radioactive atom. It is not impossible that there could be another civilization close to ours. Unlikely perhaps, but just possible. In my discussions on ET I have sought to eliminate the impossible. NOT the improbable. If so, that's a sensible position -- what the Copernican principle implies. The problem with it, of course, is that unless space colonization is impossible, then civilizations are not independent events; only the first one or few (the extreme outliers of the distribution) would be independent, and the others would arise in an already-settled galaxy. In fact if evolution is indeed as insensitive to special conditions as you are claiming. I will say might be so, might not then 2 hr 6 min will ensure the galaxy. 2hr 7 min will mean we are also rans. I haven't a clue what you're saying here. I am saying that with a large number competition is more intense and there might be one near us. We of course don't know. For all we know Earth could be rare. This seems rather pointless. All indications are that there is NOBODY else out there. So, either we're in some sort of nature preserve and the ancients are intentionally hiding from us, or for some weird reason, we happen to be the first, and the galaxy is ours. All the indications are that there is none more advanced than we are. SETI has indeed not seen Radio Reloj. So nobody is at the same level as us. Right. It is possible that there are civilizations (allowing for speed of light) that are 20-300 years ahead of us or 100+ yars behind. Yes, and SETI proponents seem to implicitly assume this, but it's a ridiculous position that I think comes from watching too much Star Trek. Even on Earth, cultures that had been separated for even a few thousand years were not 200 years apart, technologically -- they were *thousands* of years apart. The Americans were still using bows and arrows when the Europeans showed up with guns and steel. The Japanese were still using swords when the Americans showed up with rifles (and the Japanese were not all that isolated). Other examples abound -- and these are people who are all the same species, with common ancestors in Africa not that long ago. It could be too much Startrek. It could also be that SETI knows that it can only look for civilizations within these limits. If a civilization is a million years ahead of us we sure would have heard from it by now. If it is behind us, does not have radio of any type it will be impossible to detect. Now, suppose independently evolving civilizations on completely different worlds. They're not going to be a few hundred years apart; they're going to be MILLIONS of years apart. The odds of two neighboring civilizations evolving within a couple hundred years of each other are ridiculous -- in geological terms, that's the exact same instant. It's like grabbing two random people from the population and expecting their height to be the same to within 0.1 mm. It is improbable but not totally ridiculous. And because of the exponential progress of technology, even a few hundred years makes a big difference at this point. At thousands or millions of years, you're looking at the difference between no civilization at all, and some post-biological star-spanning civilization that would make us seem like mildly clever monkeys. Indeed. I believe that well within 50 years we will have a full space capable Von Neumann machine. An interstellar probe may well be closer than we imagine. Unmanned of course. A civilization a million years in advance of us, I repeat, is an impossiblility. We would know about it. Imagining everybody in the galaxy developing space travel at pretty much exactly the same time makes for exciting science fiction, but mathematically speaking, it's close to impossible. What I have in mind for the medium future is in fact the large fragmented telescope. Justification - Finding out for sure. I think Einar is right. If we do not advance it we do not have curiosity we are indeed doomed. This is not to say that manned space flight is the best strategy, or that we need to think of colonies in the solar system in the medium term. In the medium term, and possibly even the short term, we need to think about improving automation techniques with an eventual VN aspiration. BTW - I do not agree with the continuation of SETI in its present form. ET can only be found by general improvements in observational technique. We should look out for non ET knowledge too. A large telescope will map out dark matter in great detail. We will know, or at least stand some chance of knowing, what it is. Does it consist of supersymmetic particles as most cosmologists seem to think? - Ian Parker |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
In article .com,
Ian Parker wrote: No, I think it will be nornal. Probably if we are the first civilzation the gap will be of the order of a million years, or at least 100,000. However you can't be absolutely sure. You can be very extremely darn close to sure. In a normal distribution, the spacing between the outliers is quite large (as compared to those near the mean, which of course is rather small). What "large" means depends on the standard deviation, but in the case of time-to-civilization, any reasonable model will result in a standard deviation of hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. In that case, the spacing between the two most extreme outliers at one end of the distribution being a mere 100 KY is quite unlikely. Millions or billions is more likely. The model I was thinking about at the back of my mind was the radioactive atom. It is not impossible that there could be another civilization close to ours. Unlikely perhaps, but just possible. Right. Not sure what radioactive atoms have to do with it, but of course we can only speak of probabilities. The probability you bring up here is very, very small. In my discussions on ET I have sought to eliminate the impossible. NOT the improbable. Well, great, but that doesn't help much. It's not impossible that we're all just figments of the God computer's imagination, which will be shut off next week. It's not impossible that the our solar system is inside a vast shell 1 LY across, built by aliens, which serves as a giant 3D display, and eventually the Pioneer and Voyager probes are going to go splat against it. It's not impossible that there is some way we can't yet fathom for advanced races to leave the universe of their birth and get an entire universe to themselves, thus explaining the apparent emptiness we see. But, most of those we can't even assign probabilities too. This one we can, and it works out to a very small number. (No, I don't have a number handy; it's been a while since I actually did the math.) Why focus on such an unlikely situation, when there are far more likely ones that fit the observations just as well? (Namely, that we're the first, and our closest competitors are millions of years ahead or behind us.) I am saying that with a large number competition is more intense and there might be one near us. We of course don't know. For all we know Earth could be rare. It really doesn't matter how many there are; competition won't be more intense in any case, since all that matters is the first couple of outliers. If there are many participants, then the outliers will be more extreme, and thus more spread out. If there are few (i.e. life is rare), then the outliers won't be as extreme, but they'll still be spread out. I feel I'm explaining this poorly... where's a statistician when you need one? It is possible that there are civilizations (allowing for speed of light) that are 20-300 years ahead of us or 100+ yars behind. Yes, and SETI proponents seem to implicitly assume this, but it's a ridiculous position that I think comes from watching too much Star Trek. It could be too much Startrek. It could also be that SETI knows that it can only look for civilizations within these limits. If a civilization is a million years ahead of us we sure would have heard from it by now. If it is behind us, does not have radio of any type it will be impossible to detect. Good point. Yet, if you've invested years of your life into SETI, you get emotionally attached to it and can't let logic or negative results sway your position. So you end up imagining a galaxy full of civilizations that have evolved at exactly the same moment as us (geologically speaking), illogical though that is. And because of the exponential progress of technology, even a few hundred years makes a big difference at this point. At thousands or millions of years, you're looking at the difference between no civilization at all, and some post-biological star-spanning civilization that would make us seem like mildly clever monkeys. Indeed. I believe that well within 50 years we will have a full space capable Von Neumann machine. An interstellar probe may well be closer than we imagine. Unmanned of course. Perhaps. I believe that within 50 years, we'll have mind uploading. (Ray Kurzweil puts it at more like 20 years, but I am a pessimist.) If you and I are both right, then those "unmanned" probes may well have people on board, albeit in digital form. A civilization a million years in advance of us, I repeat, is an impossiblility. We would know about it. Unless they are intentionally hiding from us. In that case, I have no doubt that they could do so successfully, and our crude efforts to detect them would be futile. But I tend to feel that this is unlikely. More likely, there's simply nobody out there, and won't be anyone else for millions of years. When those late-comers finally arise, they'll awaken to a galaxy long since settled by us and our descendants. What I have in mind for the medium future is in fact the large fragmented telescope. Justification - Finding out for sure. I think Einar is right. If we do not advance it we do not have curiosity we are indeed doomed. This is not to say that manned space flight is the best strategy, or that we need to think of colonies in the solar system in the medium term. In the medium term, and possibly even the short term, we need to think about improving automation techniques with an eventual VN aspiration. I don't agree. VN machines are certainly possible, but I hope they're a long way off, and carefully regulated. If ever there was a technology ripe for disaster, that's it. I see very little benefit to justify the risk. Best, - Joe -- "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Ian Parker wrote: On 31 Jul, 13:37, Einar wrote: It?s quite possible to imagine, say for every 10 species that happen in the Galaxy at least 9 linger indefinitelly at a preindustrial state of development. Maybe, but I really doubt it. Once you have cultural evolution outstripping genetic evolution, I think things are going to proceed rapidly and inevitably pretty much as they have for us. Memes evolve just like genes, only much faster. The scientific method is a powerful one because it works (it produces useful results), which is why it has caught on pretty much universally here (right-wing nut jobs aside), and it would do the same in any alien culture too. That will ultimately lead to labor-saving devices, more intensive energy use, etc. The idea of an "industrial revolution" is again an oversimplification of history. In reality, it was much more continuous like that, a long stream of ideas and inventions feeding upon one another, each step enabling the next steps. It's been an exponential curve, pretty much any way you measure it, which produces the illusion of little progress when you're living through it, but extremely rapid progress when you look back (or forward) on it. I think it was very important the idea that christianity invented that of the separation of the realms, i.e. that there were activities that were nonreligious. The ancient world lacked this distinction, hence religious activities and ideas permeated all types of activity. In the hierarchy of gods there was a god for every realm of activity. This appears to be the single largest difference between christianity and islam, in islam all activities belong to god. While the church may have been selfishly reserving religious activities for itself solelly, in order to maximize its own power, this created more opportunities for thought, speculation about things, free of religious thinking. This is why I think itīs no coincidence that scientific thought was gradually able to develope within the christian countries. However, that does not yet necessarilly give an explanation for the industrial revolution. The ancient Greegs knew about steampower, yet did not develope it. Same about the Chinese, not enough is known about wether that was the case in India. The Roman civilization inherited all the knowledge og the Greegs, and was much richer to boot. But while it appears that development of industry would have been possible, it didnīt happen. There has been a great deal of discussion about why the industrial revolution took place. I think that theoretical knowledge had more effect than people suppose. James Watt was at Glasgow university and he had to get a Newcoman engine working. He found that the engine was very inefficient. What happenned was that when water was poured onto the cylinders the water boiled at a lower lemperature because of the change in pressure. He went to see Joseph Black at Edinbourgh who told him about this. Watt then designed an egnine with valves where the steam pressure, and hence water temperature was kept up. So knowledge of thermodynamics may have been more inportant than is generally realized. Christian civilization did indeed have this spirit of enquiry and managed to acquire considerable theoretical knowledge. I think you are probably right there. Britain was successfuul because she had a mercantile economy. Other countries went in much more for state control, particularly overseas. People have been exploring it why this happened in Britain in the end. What was so special about Britain that impetus eventually developed to create a practical steam engine? In the ancient cases of models of steam powered experiments, there was clearly allways lacking reliable and efficient means of transforming the energy in the steam into logomotive power. It was the invention of the moving piston which was the big break. That took decates to be developed. In Britain uses were found for the extremelly inefficient early tipes of piston arrangement, i.e. to pump water from coalmines. By that time Britain no longer had enough forests to fuel those engines, so only in the very immediate viscinity of coal mines were they at all practical. Over time the engines were improved, and around the beginning of the 19th. century the steam engine became practical for other applications. Britain also was by that time a world power, able to import and export to allmost everywhere. So circumstances appear in many respects to have been very advantagous in Britain, more so than anywhere ellse and also more so than at any time before. Sounds bit chancy to me. - Ian Parker Preciselly why industrial revolution happened may never be fully answered. However, I read your other posts and noticed you are hoaping mind can be copied. Personally I find it unlikelly ever to be possible. Mind you, sure they are learning a real lot, but a large aspect of the problem, even though a way might be found to record thoughts being made as they are made, is that real lot of the information stored in the brain is not thought about with regularity. There are lots of memories, things you donīt often think about, and in addition things that are there that you think you have forgotten but which can be triggerd into remembrance by a chance event. All of these things, memories that you are avare of having, and those you are not avare of having, are part of what make you who you are, part of what has made you who you are. Therefore, in order for a record to be the very same personality it will have to contain it all, ellse it will not be the same. Cheers, Einar |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Ian Parker wrote:
: :Why is Los Angeles called Los Angeles and not Fu Ming or some Chinese :name? The Spanish won the race, or rather they won a sprint finish. In :1421 the Spanish were not leading the field. : If that's true, why was the New World divided by the Pope into Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence AND NOBODY ELSE? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On 1 Aug, 03:41, Einar wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: On 31 Jul, 13:37, Einar wrote: It?s quite possible to imagine, say for every 10 species that happen in the Galaxy at least 9 linger indefinitelly at a preindustrial state of development. Maybe, but I really doubt it. Once you have cultural evolution outstripping genetic evolution, I think things are going to proceed rapidly and inevitably pretty much as they have for us. Memes evolve just like genes, only much faster. The scientific method is a powerful one because it works (it produces useful results), which is why it has caught on pretty much universally here (right-wing nut jobs aside), and it would do the same in any alien culture too. That will ultimately lead to labor-saving devices, more intensive energy use, etc. The idea of an "industrial revolution" is again an oversimplification of history. In reality, it was much more continuous like that, a long stream of ideas and inventions feeding upon one another, each step enabling the next steps. It's been an exponential curve, pretty much any way you measure it, which produces the illusion of little progress when you're living through it, but extremely rapid progress when you look back (or forward) on it. I think it was very important the idea that christianity invented that of the separation of the realms, i.e. that there were activities that were nonreligious. The ancient world lacked this distinction, hence religious activities and ideas permeated all types of activity. In the hierarchy of gods there was a god for every realm of activity. This appears to be the single largest difference between christianity and islam, in islam all activities belong to god. While the church may have been selfishly reserving religious activities for itself solelly, in order to maximize its own power, this created more opportunities for thought, speculation about things, free of religious thinking. This is why I think itīs no coincidence that scientific thought was gradually able to develope within the christian countries. However, that does not yet necessarilly give an explanation for the industrial revolution. The ancient Greegs knew about steampower, yet did not develope it. Same about the Chinese, not enough is known about wether that was the case in India. The Roman civilization inherited all the knowledge og the Greegs, and was much richer to boot. But while it appears that development of industry would have been possible, it didnīt happen. There has been a great deal of discussion about why the industrial revolution took place. I think that theoretical knowledge had more effect than people suppose. James Watt was at Glasgow university and he had to get a Newcoman engine working. He found that the engine was very inefficient. What happenned was that when water was poured onto the cylinders the water boiled at a lower lemperature because of the change in pressure. He went to see Joseph Black at Edinbourgh who told him about this. Watt then designed an egnine with valves where the steam pressure, and hence water temperature was kept up. So knowledge of thermodynamics may have been more inportant than is generally realized. Christian civilization did indeed have this spirit of enquiry and managed to acquire considerable theoretical knowledge. I think you are probably right there. Britain was successfuul because she had a mercantile economy. Other countries went in much more for state control, particularly overseas. People have been exploring it why this happened in Britain in the end. What was so special about Britain that impetus eventually developed to create a practical steam engine? In the ancient cases of models of steam powered experiments, there was clearly allways lacking reliable and efficient means of transforming the energy in the steam into logomotive power. It was the invention of the moving piston which was the big break. That took decates to be developed. In Britain uses were found for the extremelly inefficient early tipes of piston arrangement, i.e. to pump water from coalmines. By that time Britain no longer had enough forests to fuel those engines, so only in the very immediate viscinity of coal mines were they at all practical. Over time the engines were improved, and around the beginning of the 19th. century the steam engine became practical for other applications. Britain also was by that time a world power, able to import and export to allmost everywhere. So circumstances appear in many respects to have been very advantagous in Britain, more so than anywhere ellse and also more so than at any time before. Sounds bit chancy to me. - Ian Parker Preciselly why industrial revolution happened may never be fully answered. However, I read your other posts and noticed you are hoaping mind can be copied. Personally I find it unlikelly ever to be possible. Mind you, sure they are learning a real lot, but a large aspect of the problem, even though a way might be found to record thoughts being made as they are made, is that real lot of the information stored in the brain is not thought about with regularity. There are lots of memories, things you donīt often think about, and in addition things that are there that you think you have forgotten but which can be triggerd into remembrance by a chance event. All of these things, memories that you are avare of having, and those you are not avare of having, are part of what make you who you are, part of what has made you who you are. Therefore, in order for a record to be the very same personality it will have to contain it all, ellse it will not be the same. Agreed, but it might surprise you to hear me say it! I think what we need is some clarification of what I am saying and not saying. Kurzweil is talking about a complete silicon brain and life in a complete simulation. This will become possible in the fullness of time although it is not an objective I have talked about very much. It is a far furure objective. Kurzweil is one of these people who you would like to do a PhD with. He is chalenging, but you would not want to live at his pace for ever. No I think we can divide AI into the following categories. 1) Complete Kurzweil simulation. 2) Complete motor simulation. 3) Turing, including high order debating skill. 4) Interstellar AI requirements. I have discussed "1". I agree with you completely. I do not know why "2" is even discussed. Well failed astronauts don't want to face the truth. If you have a dynamical system and the laws of Physics it is predicatable. If we know the effects of motor stimulation we can make an optimal path, quite simply in the majority of cases. "3" Turing. This is interesting. I feel before we go any further we ought to know a little bit about how chatterboxes work. Eliza was brought forward as a psycotherapist. All she did was remember the inputs thast the user had made and select the most appropirate response from a database. Remember Eliza has no reasoning ability of her own, neither does any chatterbox. If I am debating with you there are a limited number of appropiate responses to the subject. If I have a large database I can cover those responses. So in fact Turing = Bueno espagnol. For both we need essentially the same thing, an accurate vector describing context. If you have been reading my previous postings you will see that I have given AI a role in combating terrorism and also in "hearts and minds". We need to find people who have joined, or are about to join jihadic groups and engage them in dialogue. This, as I have said, will require a large database, not a high order of reasoning ability. Similarly we can form Erdos type graphs. Again if we have a database, that database is capable of finding all the relationships it can understand. In the Middle East the greatest problem is getting high quality information though uncensored. This is why I advocate the conformal array. I have now thought of a design which is attractive in that it cal be scaled up and a large number of conformal arrays added. I have also thought of a low emission - could not be seen by detector vans version which would be based on doing superhet on a shielded chip, and setting a high frequency by means of a set of lower frequencies. The setting of a frequency would be based on prime number theory. I will tell you my thoughts later. What is required for an interstellar trip. First of all it is in the far future, or possibly not that far in geological terms. A probe wil need to operate autonomously. If our large telescope tells us there is a possibility of intelligent life it will need to have language learing ability. The Hittite language was decoded with one phrase. :- "Now you can eat bread and drink water". There is a method of doing this. - Ian Parker |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On 31 Jul, 20:25, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com, Ian Parker wrote: No, I think it will be nornal. Probably if we are the first civilzation the gap will be of the order of a million years, or at least 100,000. However you can't be absolutely sure. You can be very extremely darn close to sure. In a normal distribution, the spacing between the outliers is quite large (as compared to those near the mean, which of course is rather small). What "large" means depends on the standard deviation, but in the case of time-to-civilization, any reasonable model will result in a standard deviation of hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. In that case, the spacing between the two most extreme outliers at one end of the distribution being a mere 100 KY is quite unlikely. Millions or billions is more likely. The model I was thinking about at the back of my mind was the radioactive atom. It is not impossible that there could be another civilization close to ours. Unlikely perhaps, but just possible. Right. Not sure what radioactive atoms have to do with it, but of course we can only speak of probabilities. The probability you bring up here is very, very small. In my discussions on ET I have sought to eliminate the impossible. NOT the improbable. Well, great, but that doesn't help much. It's not impossible that we're all just figments of the God computer's imagination, which will be shut off next week. It's not impossible that the our solar system is inside a vast shell 1 LY across, built by aliens, which serves as a giant 3D display, and eventually the Pioneer and Voyager probes are going to go splat against it. It's not impossible that there is some way we can't yet fathom for advanced races to leave the universe of their birth and get an entire universe to themselves, thus explaining the apparent emptiness we see. But, most of those we can't even assign probabilities too. This one we can, and it works out to a very small number. (No, I don't have a number handy; it's been a while since I actually did the math.) Why focus on such an unlikely situation, when there are far more likely ones that fit the observations just as well? (Namely, that we're the first, and our closest competitors are millions of years ahead or behind us.) I am saying that with a large number competition is more intense and there might be one near us. We of course don't know. For all we know Earth could be rare. It really doesn't matter how many there are; competition won't be more intense in any case, since all that matters is the first couple of outliers. If there are many participants, then the outliers will be more extreme, and thus more spread out. If there are few (i.e. life is rare), then the outliers won't be as extreme, but they'll still be spread out. I feel I'm explaining this poorly... where's a statistician when you need one? I will agree that an ET at our level is improbable but not impossible. Indeed. I believe that well within 50 years we will have a full space capable Von Neumann machine. An interstellar probe may well be closer than we imagine. Unmanned of course. Perhaps. I believe that within 50 years, we'll have mind uploading. (Ray Kurzweil puts it at more like 20 years, but I am a pessimist.) If you and I are both right, then those "unmanned" probes may well have people on board, albeit in digital form. That is an interesting thought. I have a philosophical point here. Suppose we split our brains. One bit went to Alpha Centuri. The other bit went around here on Earth. Could you put those two memories together? Could two separate memories be knitted together? We could of course simply back ourselves up when we were about to do anything dangerous. A civilization a million years in advance of us, I repeat, is an impossiblility. We would know about it. Unless they are intentionally hiding from us. In that case, I have no doubt that they could do so successfully, and our crude efforts to detect them would be futile. But I tend to feel that this is unlikely. More likely, there's simply nobody out there, and won't be anyone else for millions of years. When those late-comers finally arise, they'll awaken to a galaxy long since settled by us and our descendants. Agreed. What I have in mind for the medium future is in fact the large fragmented telescope. Justification - Finding out for sure. I think Einar is right. If we do not advance it we do not have curiosity we are indeed doomed. This is not to say that manned space flight is the best strategy, or that we need to think of colonies in the solar system in the medium term. In the medium term, and possibly even the short term, we need to think about improving automation techniques with an eventual VN aspiration. I don't agree. VN machines are certainly possible, but I hope they're a long way off, and carefully regulated. If ever there was a technology ripe for disaster, that's it. I see very little benefit to justify the risk. Are you thinking about the risk that VN machines will evolve, or that they will be deliberately misused. In terms of evolution, a Reed Soloman code will prevent evolution in that it will be inpossible for the VN genome to change. In terms of misuse, that would depend to a large degree on what the current political situation was. If you had cognitive AI you could build in Asimovs laws of robotics and put thise laws as a deeply encrypted part of the genome. It would not be infallible as once the knowledge of how to build a VN machine became known one would not be dependent on one machine. I think I will agree though. We would need a world that was on the whole peaceful. BTW - I believe we will get VN machines a long time before brain downloading. In fact I would probably give that 20 years. What you basically need for VN is a flatpack assembler. It is downhill after that. - Ian Parker |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On 1 Aug, 04:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: : :Why is Los Angeles called Los Angeles and not Fu Ming or some Chinese :name? The Spanish won the race, or rather they won a sprint finish. In :1421 the Spanish were not leading the field. : If that's true, why was the New World divided by the Pope into Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence AND NOBODY ELSE? The Pope only considered European powers. He did not want a Chinese America. America was named after Americo Vespucci who charted the coasts. America could easily be called Zheng, after the Admiral Zheng He. However on Zheng He's return the Emperor tured his back on exploration. There is a moral. - Ian Parker |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
On Aug 1, 3:44 am, Ian Parker wrote:
What is required for an interstellar trip. First of all it is in the far future, or possibly not that far in geological terms. A probe wil need to operate autonomously. If our large telescope tells us there is a possibility of intelligent life it will need to have language learing ability. The Hittite language was decoded with one phrase. :- "Now you can eat bread and drink water". There is a method of doing this. - Ian Parker I agree that AI probes need to be sent towards the most likely of places where intelligent other life could have emerged or having been otherwise established. One such location is merely 100 fold the distance of our moon. - Brad Guth |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox
Ian Parker wrote:
:On 1 Aug, 04:36, Fred J. McCall wrote: : Ian Parker wrote: : : : : :Why is Los Angeles called Los Angeles and not Fu Ming or some Chinese : :name? The Spanish won the race, or rather they won a sprint finish. In : :1421 the Spanish were not leading the field. : : : : If that's true, why was the New World divided by the Pope into Spanish : and Portuguese spheres of influence AND NOBODY ELSE? : : :The Pope only considered European powers. He did not want a Chinese :America. America was named after Americo Vespucci who charted the :coasts. America could easily be called Zheng, after the Admiral Zheng :He. : It's good that you ended that thought where you did, since virtually no Chinese sources indicate he did anything at all near the Americas. 1st Voyage 1405-1407 Champa, Java, Palembang, Malacca, Aru, Sumatra, Lambri, Ceylon, Kollam, Cochin, Calicut 2nd Voyage 1407-1408 Champa, Java, Siam, Sumatra, Lambri, Calicut, Cochin, Ceylon 3rd Voyage 1409-1411 Champa, Java, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Quilon, Cochin, Calicut, Siam, Lambri, Kaya, Coimbatore, Puttanpur 4th Voyage 1413-1415 Champa, Java, Palembang, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Cochin, Calicut, Kayal, Pahang, Kelantan, Aru, Lambri, Hormuz, Maldives, Mogadishu, Brawa, Malindi, Aden, Muscat, Dhufar 5th Voyage 1416-1419 Champa, Pahang, Java, Malacca, Sumatra, Lambri, Ceylon, Sharwayn, Cochin, Calicut, Hormuz, Maldives, Mogadishu, Brawa, Malindi, Aden 6th Voyage 1421-1422 Hormuz, East Africa, countries of the Arabian Peninsula 7th Voyage 1430-1433 Champa, Java, Palembang, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Calicut, Hormuz... (17 politics in total) : :However on Zheng He's return the Emperor tured his back on :exploration. There is a moral. : Don't be Chinese? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox | [email protected] | Policy | 827 | September 4th 07 06:26 PM |
Missing Earth's sial explains Fermi paradox | Andrew Nowicki | SETI | 44 | May 1st 07 05:47 AM |
Missing Earth's sial explains Fermi paradox | Andrew Nowicki | Policy | 43 | April 9th 07 09:48 PM |
Why is 70% of Earth's sial missing? | Andrew Nowicki | Astronomy Misc | 15 | April 7th 07 08:10 PM |
Fermi Paradox | localhost | SETI | 0 | August 10th 03 12:26 AM |