On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:30 PM Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.pl> wrote:

>> The radiant electromagnetic energy output of a star with a Dyson
>> >> Sphere around it would be exactly the same as it was before the Dyson
>> >> Sphere was built, the only difference is the energy would have been
>> put to
>> >> work and thus the low entropy visible and ultraviolet photons would
>> have
>> > been converted to high entropy infrared photons that contain a equal
>> amount
>> > >of energy.
> >*This is how theory describes it.*

That is how the Second Law Of Thermodynamics describes it, and this is how
Arthur Eddington described the second law:

*“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme
position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your
pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -
then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be
contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things
sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of
Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse
in deepest humiliation.”*

> Why in hell would they want to destroy a brain on another star?!

I noticed that you never answered my question even though it's central to
your proposed solution to the Fermi Paradox.


> * >The total luminosity of Sun is estimated as 3.828*10^26 watts. If we
> divide it among ten billion people, this gives ca. 4*10^16 watts, or 40000
> terawatts per head, or ca. 4000 times whole Earth energy production for
> every and each single human.*

As I explained in a previous post I would not expect there to be 10 billion
individual minds being powered by a star, but only 1 million or less, so
the energy consumption per mind would be about 10 million times greater
than the numbers you mentioned. But there's something I don't understand,
if you're correct (and I don't think you are) and one civilization already
has access to more energy than it will ever need then what reason would it
have for attacking another civilization around a different star that is
hundreds or thousands or millions of light years away? What would a distant
civilization have that they lack that they couldn't obtain someplace much

> *>This is pornographic level of consumption.*


*> In my worldview, those who want such things are already a bit insane.*

Then your worldview and mine are very different.

*> The longer they bathe in the excess, the more unpredictable they become.*

If you're talking about immortality and there is only a finite number of
particles that comprise you and the environment then, thanks to the study
of thermodynamics, we know that unpredictability is good because the only
alternative is Groundhog's Day, and reliving the exact same time period
 over and over again forever is a very poor sort of of immortality. The
only way of avoiding, or at least delaying indefinitely, the Eternal Return
problem is to increase the number of calculations a mind is capable of
making and having sufficient energy to make those new calculations.

Eternal Return

>>  the only thing a Dyson Sphere building civilization would
>> >> still value would be novelty, and 2 such advanced civilizations that
>> >> evolved independently would be novel indeed. I think both would be
>> >> delighted to find each other and communicate, the delay time would
>> >> be large but so would be the bandwidth.
> * >Novelty seeking, you say.*

Yes I do say that.

> * > I can imagine it as you, Nero and Caligula discussing the next novelty
> to be tried.*

I'm not talking about finding new sexual perversions as you seem to be
implying, or at least I'm not just talking about that, I'm talking about
finding new scientific and mathematical facts, and finding new art, and
finding new jokes, and finding new friends. In general I'm talking about
finding new thoughts.

> *> No offence meant.*

No offense taken because your remark was novel so I enjoyed it, I don't
think I've ever been compared with Nero or Caligula before.

> >> Once we enter the age of Nanotechnology the lessons from history will
>> be of
>> > little value, that's why it's called a Singularity.
> * > Well, nanogrifters will welcome the future when people refuse to learn
> from the past.*

People won't refuse to learn from the past, they will simply be incapable
of learning from it. The fundamental reason why Nanotechnology will produce
a singularity is that it will produce an exponential growth in intelligence,
and human beings are lousy at predicting the outcome of exponential growth
even for something as simple as a virus, much less for intelligence.
Albert Bartlett said:

 "*The greatest shortcoming of the human race was its “inability to
understand the exponential function*.”

We’re Dumb about Exponential Growth. That’s Proving Lethal

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to