4 ms·

I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. Given the age of the universe and how long it has taken for Earth to evolve an intelli

I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. Given the age of the universe and how long it has taken for Earth to evolve an intelligent lifeform I'd say it's even possible we are one of the first, if not THE first, intelligent lifeform (where intelligence is measured by awareness of the universe/capability of affecting it etc.). In terms of the actual article, while black holes might account for most of the bits of information in the universe (I don't really understand the logic behind this) I would assume that most of that is just "noise" and would be filtered out leaving the bits of information put out by humanity as a statistically interesting anomaly.

trezor 17y ago
In terms of the actual article, while black holes might account for most of the bits of information in the universe (I don't really understand the logic behind this) If the universe were a computer simulation, every single atom (or higher-energy particle for that matter) would have to be included for the simulation to be able to run accurately, probably represented as objects of some kind with associated state. (lets just ignore possible optimizations, shall we? :P ) Every single one of these would consume resources, or bits if you like. Where would you expect to find the biggest amounts and concentrations of objects and bits? On a planet which has so low gravitational mass that it can only wield its will upon a small moon or a black hole so massive that not even light can escape it? Where would you expect to find the biggest amount changes and activity? At a small planet where normal laws of physics and energy reign supreme, or in a black hole where the energies are so immense that even space-time ceases to exist? I'm putting my money on the black hole.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Makes sense though dark matter (if it exists) would then make black holes a lot less significant in this measure right?
mattheww 17y ago
"I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. Given the age of the universe and how long it has taken for Earth to evolve an intelligent lifeform I'd say it's even possible we are one of the first, if not THE first, intelligent lifeform" a) That's one hell of a sampling bias. b) The universe is roughly 14 billion years old, though stars only started forming about 12 billion years ago. The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. I don't see how you are able to draw that conclusion. Other factors that we are unable measure might allow us to make the conjecture if they take certain values. Edit: formatting
- Retric 17y ago
  (Assuming life as we know it) Early stars needed to die before there was enough atoms above helium to form rocky planets. You need to stars close enough together so that the dead stars can be formed from these remnants. There is a narrow band of stars capable of having rocky planets let alone planets in the habitable zone. It's unlikely to form stable planetary orbits in binary star systems and stars must be small enough to last long enough to allow life to form. etc. There may be millions of planets capable of supporting life in the Milky Way, but I don't think many of them are much older than the earth.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    "(Assuming life as we know it)" That's also one hell of a sampling bias!
    - nopassrecover 17y ago
      Yes but we can only work with the data we have.
jodrellblank 17y ago
"I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages" Very human-centered viewpoint there. Maybe all they care about is how much like 'ssevh5' the patterns of galaxies are, or any other ineffable measure - like us with our car drag races. "(where intelligence is measured by awareness of the universe/capability of affecting it etc.)" Dinosaurs couldn't affect things, and when they avoided eating some plants that was just ... luck? Again, you're defining things in a vague human way so only humans fit your description. "I would assume that most of that is just "noise" and would be filtered out leaving the bits of information put out by humanity as a statistically interesting anomaly." Unless we aren't a statistically interesting anomaly. Have you reminded yourself how big the universe is lately? http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/ http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/ (Hubble Ultra Deep Field).
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Earth life in general but humans in particular seems to represent an unusual amount of concentrated order. I have no idea if life is common but it's surely interesting.
ggchappell 17y ago
> I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. Perhaps most such life exists near black holes. > I'd say it's even possible we are one of the first, if not THE first, intelligent lifeform .... Or maybe the first that isn't near a black hole. (Just a couple of thoughts)
cstross 17y ago
I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. What makes you think we're intelligent? Less facetiously: what makes you think we -- or our signals -- reach the minimum threshold of intelligence to be of interest? (Danger, Will Robinson: anthropocentric assumptions ahoy!)

trezor 17y ago

In terms of the actual article, while black holes might account for most of the bits of information in the universe (I don't really understand the logic behind this) If the universe were a computer simulation, every single atom (or higher-energy particle for that matter) would have to be included for the simulation to be able to run accurately, probably represented as objects of some kind with associated state. (lets just ignore possible optimizations, shall we? :P ) Every single one of these would consume resources, or bits if you like. Where would you expect to find the biggest amounts and concentrations of objects and bits? On a planet which has so low gravitational mass that it can only wield its will upon a small moon or a black hole so massive that not even light can escape it? Where would you expect to find the biggest amount changes and activity? At a small planet where normal laws of physics and energy reign supreme, or in a black hole where the energies are so immense that even space-time ceases to exist? I'm putting my money on the black hole.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
nopassrecover 17y ago
Makes sense though dark matter (if it exists) would then make black holes a lot less significant in this measure right?

mattheww 17y ago

"I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. Given the age of the universe and how long it has taken for Earth to evolve an intelligent lifeform I'd say it's even possible we are one of the first, if not THE first, intelligent lifeform" a) That's one hell of a sampling bias. b) The universe is roughly 14 billion years old, though stars only started forming about 12 billion years ago. The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. I don't see how you are able to draw that conclusion. Other factors that we are unable measure might allow us to make the conjecture if they take certain values. Edit: formatting

Retric 17y ago
(Assuming life as we know it) Early stars needed to die before there was enough atoms above helium to form rocky planets. You need to stars close enough together so that the dead stars can be formed from these remnants. There is a narrow band of stars capable of having rocky planets let alone planets in the habitable zone. It's unlikely to form stable planetary orbits in binary star systems and stars must be small enough to last long enough to allow life to form. etc. There may be millions of planets capable of supporting life in the Milky Way, but I don't think many of them are much older than the earth.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  "(Assuming life as we know it)" That's also one hell of a sampling bias!
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    Yes but we can only work with the data we have.

jodrellblank 17y ago

"I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages" Very human-centered viewpoint there. Maybe all they care about is how much like 'ssevh5' the patterns of galaxies are, or any other ineffable measure - like us with our car drag races. "(where intelligence is measured by awareness of the universe/capability of affecting it etc.)" Dinosaurs couldn't affect things, and when they avoided eating some plants that was just ... luck? Again, you're defining things in a vague human way so only humans fit your description. "I would assume that most of that is just "noise" and would be filtered out leaving the bits of information put out by humanity as a statistically interesting anomaly." Unless we aren't a statistically interesting anomaly. Have you reminded yourself how big the universe is lately? http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/ http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/ (Hubble Ultra Deep Field).

nopassrecover 17y ago
Earth life in general but humans in particular seems to represent an unusual amount of concentrated order. I have no idea if life is common but it's surely interesting.

ggchappell 17y ago

> I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. Perhaps most such life exists near black holes. > I'd say it's even possible we are one of the first, if not THE first, intelligent lifeform .... Or maybe the first that isn't near a black hole. (Just a couple of thoughts)

cstross 17y ago

I'd say emergent, especially intelligent life would make the stats pages. What makes you think we're intelligent? Less facetiously: what makes you think we -- or our signals -- reach the minimum threshold of intelligence to be of interest? (Danger, Will Robinson: anthropocentric assumptions ahoy!)