Systems do not often scale linearly. I can't answer how the complexity of 
astro-structures would scale. To answer that definitively would require a 
bit of research and calculation. Even life has scale limitations, which is 
one reason Godzilla is not realistic.


On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> Lawrence Crowell < <javascript:>>
>> *> I keep trying to implore the prospect that mega-tech programs most 
>> likely do not scale in the linear fashion you keep advocating.*
> You keep saying it does not scale but you don’t say why. Life has 
> certainly scaled
> ​ beautifully​
> , it started with one small creature, all life has a common ancestor, but 
> look how big 
> ​and wonderful ​
> it has become
> ​!​
> Nanobots can reproduce themselves just like living things can and 
> ​they ​
> are very very good at doing the same thing over and over again. If they 
> know how to make one 
> ​square​
>  foot of a Dyson Sphere then they know how to make a complete Dyson 
> Sphere, and if they also know how to make a rocket a quarter as powerful as 
> the one Elon Musk recently launched (actually one percent might do, maybe 
> less) then they know how 
> ​to ​
> put a Dyson Sphere around every star in the galaxy in just 50 million 
> years. The universe is 13.8 billion years old but we see no hint of them 
> and we should unless we’re the first or disaster is about to hit us just as 
> it has every other civilization when 
> ​they​
>  reach our point.
> *> As they might evolve and migrate around the galaxy they would remain at 
>> least modest in scale*
> So ET has a opportunity to add to its brainpower and think deeper thoughts 
> and do grander things
> ​ ​
> but prefers not to. Maybe so, I did say that navel gazing, stagnation and 
> drug
> ​ ​
> addiction
> ​ ​
> might be the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
> *> For complex adaptive systems, such as evolving nanobots or vN probes, 
>> there most likely are scaling rules in both spatial dimensions as well as 
>> temperature and energy. *
> If such rules exist they are irrelevant because nanobots don’t become 
> larger or more energetic, they just become more numerous
> *> So either IGUS/ETI *
> This is becoming alphabet soup, you told me what IGUS stood for but I’ve 
> already forgotten. Can’t we just call it ET?
> *> is extremely rare or there are limits to the scale of their activities.*
> I agree
> ​.​
> ​Non​
> existence would limit the scale of their activities
> ​,​
> and destruction or electronic drug addiction would too.
> ​ 
>  John K Clark​

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to