4 ms·

This seems like one of those things that we think might exist because it's something we can think of right now. But in the future the idea of building structure

by chrsw 2y ago

This seems like one of those things that we think might exist because it's something we can think of right now. But in the future the idea of building structures like this might seem like a huge waste of resources or have some other problem. Like trying to think of ways to make horses faster before cars were invented.

interstice 2y ago
I guess even if that’s the the hope is in the almost but not quite infinite universe someone has gone and done it anyway. But you’re right, I’m forming the opinion that if you’re that advanced you can essentially choose what size you want to be. And if you can do that - and eg live on the surface of a red dwarf for billions of years - why do you need to be expansionist at all? Is it for the view?
- jonathankoren 2y ago
  Even your idea of living on red dwarf suffers from the same problem that Dyson spheres and really the whole kardishev scale suffers from: They’re bad 1950s sci-fi. Just because you can do the math, doesn’t mean they exist. Not only do you have to have the technology to do any of these these things (which is not a given), but somehow you have to have a civilization dedicated to doing it over the course of thousands of years. No. Just no. It’s just fantasy. Case in point: We know there are no type 3 civilizations anywhere in the observable universe. V
  - interstice 2y ago
    The point I was making is more that just because you can use X amount of energy or resources doesnt mean you might want to. Therefore - why expect advanced civilisation to be detectable? Just because you could be type 3 doesnt necessarily mean you have to be. Arguably you might _not_ want to - considering 3 body problem game theory and potentially accelerating the heat death of the universe. Or maybe they all just leave. Or maybe they don't exist. So to say its fantasy is essentially assuming we've proved a negative. That's not a hugely rational position to take.
  - gremlinsinc 2y ago
    is there a concept for a civilization type that actually controls the entire universe, under simulation theory? seems you can keep going that parent reality may be a simulation and so on.
    - jonathankoren 2y ago
      Have you ever seen the math for simulation theory? It’s stupid. It pretty much starts with, what has enough entropy to hold the simulation, and then figuring out what could have that many bits of entropy. Which gives you a result like, Sagittarius A*. Which means that the simulation is magically programmed by the material falling to the event horizon of a supermassive blackhole, and the data is red out of the “computer” through hawking radiation at a rate measured in bits per millennia. https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA
      - gremlinsinc 2y ago
        Math doesn't apply, not the same math. If all the constants we have are arbitrary numbers set by the simulation. Like the speed of light. Is x, here but maybe its y one sim up - such that y is 10x ... and maybe computing power is 10000x on similar hardware we use... each level up would use similar hardware with the laws of physics possibly working differently giving more compute.... until its impossible to go further, but then maybe the universe you create just becomes smaller and smaller until its the size of a galaxy...etc. That's my take anyways, I'm a programmer not mathematician.
gremlinsinc 2y ago
what if instead we can find a way to create controlled micro stars... more portable. I mean would you just use batteries to fuel spaceships? I guess that's basically what fusion is trying to solve. though the fact we're maybe close to fusion it could be the natural progression.
- chrsw 2y ago
  I think when it comes to large scale predictions of the future our imaginations are rather limited. We're just getting to a point where we think we should take an umbrella with us when we leave the house in the morning. And sometimes that's not even right. The next step for us as a species is trying to survive on this planet in the long term. Not nearly a given. Speculating on what far away, far more advanced civilizations might be up to is just for entertainment, nothing to take seriously.

by chrsw 2y ago

interstice 2y ago

I guess even if that’s the the hope is in the almost but not quite infinite universe someone has gone and done it anyway. But you’re right, I’m forming the opinion that if you’re that advanced you can essentially choose what size you want to be. And if you can do that - and eg live on the surface of a red dwarf for billions of years - why do you need to be expansionist at all? Is it for the view?

jonathankoren 2y ago
Even your idea of living on red dwarf suffers from the same problem that Dyson spheres and really the whole kardishev scale suffers from: They’re bad 1950s sci-fi. Just because you can do the math, doesn’t mean they exist. Not only do you have to have the technology to do any of these these things (which is not a given), but somehow you have to have a civilization dedicated to doing it over the course of thousands of years. No. Just no. It’s just fantasy. Case in point: We know there are no type 3 civilizations anywhere in the observable universe. V
- interstice 2y ago
  The point I was making is more that just because you can use X amount of energy or resources doesnt mean you might want to. Therefore - why expect advanced civilisation to be detectable? Just because you could be type 3 doesnt necessarily mean you have to be. Arguably you might _not_ want to - considering 3 body problem game theory and potentially accelerating the heat death of the universe. Or maybe they all just leave. Or maybe they don't exist. So to say its fantasy is essentially assuming we've proved a negative. That's not a hugely rational position to take.
- gremlinsinc 2y ago
  is there a concept for a civilization type that actually controls the entire universe, under simulation theory? seems you can keep going that parent reality may be a simulation and so on.
  - jonathankoren 2y ago
    Have you ever seen the math for simulation theory? It’s stupid. It pretty much starts with, what has enough entropy to hold the simulation, and then figuring out what could have that many bits of entropy. Which gives you a result like, Sagittarius A*. Which means that the simulation is magically programmed by the material falling to the event horizon of a supermassive blackhole, and the data is red out of the “computer” through hawking radiation at a rate measured in bits per millennia. https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA
    - gremlinsinc 2y ago
      Math doesn't apply, not the same math. If all the constants we have are arbitrary numbers set by the simulation. Like the speed of light. Is x, here but maybe its y one sim up - such that y is 10x ... and maybe computing power is 10000x on similar hardware we use... each level up would use similar hardware with the laws of physics possibly working differently giving more compute.... until its impossible to go further, but then maybe the universe you create just becomes smaller and smaller until its the size of a galaxy...etc. That's my take anyways, I'm a programmer not mathematician.

gremlinsinc 2y ago

what if instead we can find a way to create controlled micro stars... more portable. I mean would you just use batteries to fuel spaceships? I guess that's basically what fusion is trying to solve. though the fact we're maybe close to fusion it could be the natural progression.

chrsw 2y ago
I think when it comes to large scale predictions of the future our imaginations are rather limited. We're just getting to a point where we think we should take an umbrella with us when we leave the house in the morning. And sometimes that's not even right. The next step for us as a species is trying to survive on this planet in the long term. Not nearly a given. Speculating on what far away, far more advanced civilizations might be up to is just for entertainment, nothing to take seriously.