5 ms·
3-Body-Problem once again vindicated as the scariest possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox
by Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
3-Body-Problem once again vindicated as the scariest possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox
- criddell 2mo agoDid you intend to say dark forest hypothesis?
- Schlagbohrer 2mo agoYes!
- istjohn 2mo agoAccording to physicist Sean Carroll, "hypothesis" and "theory" are interchangeable as the words are used by practicing scientists.
- rigrassm 2mo agoI love Sean Carroll (Something Deeply Hidden and From Eternity to Here are the root of my fascination with physics and endless pondering of the nature of time) but I have to disagree with his take on this. Hypothesis - a proposed explanation for something (such as a phenomenon of unknown cause) that is tentatively assumed in order to test whether it agrees with facts that are known or can be determined. Theory - a scientifically acceptable or plausible general principle or body of principles based on data and offered to explain phenomena Just because those outside of scientific fields use them interchangeably doesn't change the fact that they carry different meanings in scientific contexts.
- criddell 2mo agoIsn't Planck's hypothesis really a theory? Isn't string theory really a hypothesis?
- marcosdumay 2mo agoIt seems to relate much more to the size of the proposal than to its confidence. Even more because the confidence changes all the time, but people do go around renaming well known ideas
- 9dev 2mo agoMany physicists have pointed out several flaws in the dark forest theory, which makes for a great read but doesn’t really carry over to the real universe 1:1.
- Schlagbohrer 2mo agoCan you point me to more info on that or just tell me? I am curious about reasons to be more optimistic than that book lays out. I would much prefer the Carl Sagan view of the Cosmos as one where it simply makes no physical nor cultural sense at all to be aggressive toward other stellar civilizations.
- Vvector 2mo agohttps://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-dark-forest-hypothesis-is-absurd https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-dark-forest-hypothesis-is-...
- xenophonf 2mo agoThat link is paywalled. This might be a better one. https://medium.com/predict/why-the-dark-forest-theory-is-probably-wrong-a3d03568d88d https://medium.com/predict/why-the-dark-forest-theory-is-pro... This video is pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0SvgT9Lc2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0SvgT9Lc2M This post attempts a formal refutation. https://www.pgmusings.ca/journal/dfh https://www.pgmusings.ca/journal/dfh
- graemep 2mo agoWhat flaws? Do they apply to variants such as Greg Bear's and related ideas such as berserkers?
- pavel_lishin 2mo agoDo Forge of God/Anvil of the Stars differ significantly from pretty bog-standard dark forest scenarios? I don't remember any other of his books that might apply, but I haven't read all of them. (I probably should. What I have read was great.)
- echelon 2mo agoI think a fragile world hypothesis is more interesting and scary. Instead of a superintelligence killing any emerging intelligence, superintelligence is so smart that it can perturb spacetime in ways that easily kill itself. Kind of like the idea that LLMs will give anyone with a garage the ability to create killer viruses (wild claim), a superintelligence might trivially create black holes that engulf it. If the intelligence is distributed across many agents (or nations), someone will try something stupid that kills the entire population. It'd be even scarier if they could accidentally collapse the supposed vacuum state. Universal annihilation at the speed of light just because you got too smart. Fragile world / fragile universe meets "too smart for your own good".
- alansaber 2mo agoSounds logical to me. It's already remarkable that we haven't done this with fission weapons. It's not unreasonable to assume that within a century we'll have antimatter weapons. Destructive potential only goes up.
- WarmWash 2mo agoEvery year the IQ needed to destroy the world drops by 1 point.
- SoftTalker 2mo agoWe could not come close to destroying the world with fission weapons. We might make things very hard for humanity, but the world and life would continue, perhaps even benefit.
- andrewflnr 2mo agoLeaving aside the fact that there's no evidence superintelligence is even possible, no amount of intelligence alone will let you "trivially" create black holes. Creating black holes requires a ludicrous amount of energy. Planet-scale energy, maybe solar-scale energy. Energy is conserved. You can't just think really hard and have it. At minimum you have to already have the energy and materials to build a machine that will let you (mostly build another machine that lets you) harness that much energy. It's at least not something you'll do by accident.
- andrewflnr 2mo agoIn what way? This is discussing, as far as anyone knows, an entirely natural phenomenon.
- etangent 2mo agosuspecting that star explosions are caused by nefarious super-intelligences is just Greek mythology with more steps.