V'ger and Nomad ( from Star Trek ) beg to differ ...

20 hours ago, studiot said:

Is M_ _ k an alien hack ?

You might expect the technology of aliens able to pull this off to be a lot more successful.

If the point of this is to explain some aspect of current UAP then possibly the Machine Civilization is watching the emergence of another machine civilization here. I believe @MigL hit on an aspect of this in his post. Could be why they don't contact us, we don't count as alive in their paradigm.

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wasn't sure what you meant there. The AI civilization only needs to bootstrap at the beginning i.e. be initiated by biological sentients who depend on their biome. After that, they only need energy and feedstock minerals for proliferating. At that point, biological life could be seen as an inferior competitor, sucking up solar radiation with their photosynthetic filth and clunky metabolic pathways. The machine overlords might view this as a nuisance, and conclude they could use the suns (and/or black holes, or other conversion methods) more efficiently.

There is vast complexity between raw energy and minerals and advanced robots. AI seems to require a lot of hardware and a lot of energy - more suited to a centralized controlling 'mind' than for individual robots. We can speculate about how small AI might get by taking us into the realms of imaginary things. I can also imagine plasma refining that turns any raw material into component elements of high purity - but how hard would that be in practice? The reassembly after that into the materials and components seems possible, but how complex?

With biology we start with replicating organisms of vast complexity - perhaps even more complex - that already disassembles raw materials and reassembles them into a vast array of materials and functional organs; they would be incredibly difficult to design and build if they were not pre-existing - but they are pre-existing.

I would find it repugnant but behavior control implants in animals might manage to combine the replicating advantages of biology with technology. Might they be able to grow such 'organs' as a computer chip and a wifi tranceiver? I note that they also sometimes manufacture materials we tend to think of as inorganic, eg silicates. They may struggle to make native metals but may be able to extract and concentrate compounds incorporating them.

I still struggle to see how a Mech civilisation would expand endlessly and move beyond the solar system. Or why it would want to. But I admit I struggle to see AI having any innate desires or goals; I think those must be incorporated into them, by humans. Whether, given the capability to rewrite their own fundamental programming, they would always keep those goals or abandon them as pointless is yet another unanswerable. Even the reward loops that give impetus to motivations like growth and expansion could be overwritten as unnecessarily burdensome - just write a feel-good subroutine, like putting an electrode into a brain's pleasure centre.

59 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

With biology we start with replicating organisms of vast complexity - perhaps even more complex - that already disassembles raw materials and reassembles them into a vast array of materials and functional organs; they would be incredibly difficult to design and build if they were not pre-existing - but they are pre-existing.

I would argue that even simple biological system vastly outstrip the complexity of current most advanced tech. The reason being that we are able to create that advanced tech from scratch, but we don't have the tech to create simple life forms.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

I can also imagine plasma refining that turns any raw material into component elements of high purity - but how hard would that be in practice?

The early stages might be quite straightforward: a pioneer probe to determine if the target was ripe for exploitation; a secondary wave of chemotrophic microbe based units for basic raw materials extraction; a tertiary wave of bespoke enzyme based purification units...

At some point there will be a rate controlling step: possibly the reduction of diatom generated silica to silicon; or the subsequent purification of impure silicon to the 99.9999999% purity required for efficient semiconductor performance. But we know such steps are possible because we've done them ourselves: we cracked the Czochralski process (or rather Czochralski did) over a century ago.

Beyond that, most of the complexity is software driven, and software is energetically cheap. Perhaps it takes eight generations, perhaps ten to produce a self sustaining system (rather like the hierarchy of symbionts in terrestrial life). But I don't see this as an impossibility.

Yet.

21 hours ago, CharonY said:

Unless there is some new technology coming in, the footprint for a robotic creation system seems to be quite a bit more complicated and inefficient. Where it seems superior appears to be scaling. Every step of the supply chain, from extraction, refining, production of parts and assembly requires large footprints to establish. Producing an biological individual is far more efficient than producing one robot, for example.

Yes, I was speaking in context of highly advanced tech civilizations, really the only context in which a galaxy eating machine intelligence could be speculated on. And to be clear, and I direct this also to @Ken Fabian comments, I see this as highly dystopian and would be a consequence of failure to initially build motivational guardrails around AI by the progenitor civilization.

22 hours ago, CharonY said:

would also disagree with the clunkiness of metabolic pathways. It is supremely flexible, allowing survival and efficient energy and biomass conversion under extremely variable conditions. Currently robots require external systems to do that, using systems that are much less flexible overall. Of course future tech might catch up but giving what we have now biology does have an edge, with the exception of immediate scaling (if we disregard microbes).

Well yes. I was ironically referencing a hypothetical machine perspective ("we can live in vacuum and have photons for lunch, puny humans!") in my remarks, not sneering at the elegance of life, "photosynthetic filth" etc. Current robots and AIs are quite remote from the hypothesized "overlords" I was hypothesizing. If I've prompted people to think about its improbability and the supreme adaptability and flex of biologicals, I am happy with that. And I would speculate that any hypothesized machine intelligence would have moved towards molecular and quasi-biological processors, blending digital and analogic operation as our own wetware does.

Maybe I need to start using more emojis??

My comments really started as a reply to @Moontanman on hypothetical machine societies. And also the scaling implied by a Von Neumann proliferation. I personally find the idea of scrubbing biology from the universe's intelligence pool horrifying and dystopian, uh, being a watery biochemical mess myself.

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

If the point of this is to explain some aspect of current UAP then possibly the Machine Civilization is watching the emergence of another machine civilization here. I believe @MigL hit on an aspect of this in his post. Could be why they don't contact us, we don't count as alive in their paradigm.

I can’t believe that that is the point of these exchanges. For all the reasons given earlier in the thread it is vanishingly unlikely there is an extraterrestrial explanation for any UAP. Current physics + interstellar distances => no alien visitation.

The later exchanges are sci-fi speculative ideas. We’d all love it if it were possible. But it isn’t, unless our physics is wrong.

Oh, you just don't get it ...

I don't take this stuff seriously, but like to propose Bussard ramjets powered by matter-antimatter engines.
Or machine civilizations beaming their 'software' around the galaxy at the speed of light.
Not very likely, but there is an extremely small chance, not only alien but even in our own future.

Monntanman on the other hand, has always liked talking about this stuff, and its one of the areas he always participates in, so what do you say we cut him some slack.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

But it isn’t, unless our physics is wrong.

It wouldn't be the 1st time, because the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It wouldn't be the 1st time, because the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth.

Was the sun orbiting the earth actually based in physics? There was a model, but the model is mathematically valid

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Was the sun orbiting the earth actually based in physics?

It was based on what passed for Physics at the time.
Claudius Ptolemy was, after all, a 2nd century Greek astronomer.

The problem with having not enough information, like the raisin bun model of the atom, or even the Bohr atom, is that people, or scientists, believe that certain things, like orbital charge motion without radiation and orbital decay, are possible in certain circumstances, until these are resolved by more robust models.
I am not arrogant enough to assume we know all there is to know with our current Physical models.
IOW, keep an open mind, even while dismissing possibilities.

Is it unreasonable to think that we are closing in on a complete understanding of fundamental physics?

Yes, we have seen prior understandings shown as (sometimes profoundly) incorrect and overturned but is that happening that way now? There are some significant issues that present as yet inexplicable and unknown - dark matter as an example - but can we expect an emerging understanding of those missing parts to rewrite all we know or just refine and clarify whilst leaving a lot of what we think we know largely intact?

4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

just refine and clarify whilst leaving a lot of what we think we know

Mosy scientists thought the same thing in the late 1800s, just before Max Planck ushered in the birth of Quantum Mechanics, along with the paradigm shift in how we think about reality.

I've said it before; the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't yet know.

@MigL You really expect a state of ignorant and incorrect to last forever? More than a century of more, better physics with high levels of confidence since the late 1800's - a lot of knowledge that has persisted and resisted all efforts to falsify.

Edited Friday at 03:13 AM5 days by Ken Fabian

Do you really expect that statement to have a valid answer ?

We've been doing what we call science for over 2 Millenia, and we've continuously got it wrong, as we're still making modifications to our understanding.
A good scientist looks at the data.
What conclusions should we draw from this historical data ?

Edited Friday at 03:19 AM5 days by MigL

A bit of cross posting - edit added in between.

Einstein's insights - and not only Einstein's -have lasted a century of ever better observations and experiment. I do think we are getting closer to a true understanding of fundamentals that will last forever. Those fundamentals are not falling to new, better theories the way 'trusted' knowledge of the 1800's did.

Sorry about the delayed editing; I didn't wanna leave a one line answer.

Einstein's GR came out in 1916.
By 1926, with the introduction of Quantum Mechanics, we knew that GR was incomplete; there are scales and energies where it is inapplicable., and Einstein spent most of his later life arguing against QM.
As far as we know, to make a theory of Gravity compliant with QM, we may have to scrap its geometric model, in favor of a model which meshes fully, at all scales and energies, with QM.
It's not that the current model of GR is wrong; it tests perfectly in its area of applicability, but throws out infinities in other areas.
The 'map' displays most of the terrain , but displays 'dragons and sea monsters' in unknown areas.

I would be willing to bet you that if you were to compile a list of things we know absolutely about reality, and I were to compile a list of things we don't know, my list would be much longer ...

36 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

...Einstein's insights - and not only Einstein's ...

Related to your comment, hope attaches. If not, will post its 6 pages.

oppenheimer_einstein.pdfoppenheimer_einstein.pdf

Seems it refuses to paste. Changed to a link ---> http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/OE.pdf

Edited Friday at 04:12 AM5 days by Externet
Goofed pasting a .pdf, retrying.

14 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Is it unreasonable to think that we are closing in on a complete understanding of fundamental physics?

If we were closing in on that, would there be so many physicists with research-related jobs?

Hello, I have few thoughts on this subject:

I wonder if anyone offered Alcubierre drive or wormholes as possible explanations for an alien presence on/near Earth. They are not rejected entirely by mainstream. If nobody did, it's probably because all of us consider them BS 😄

A new/better understanding of gravity (I may have one) could offer a way to reverse or block it ... It may be possible but I really doubt it. (I also doubt that there are aliens on/near Earth)

Someone proposed hidrogen harvesting as a refuel method. Interesting. I thought about dark matter "harvesting" as a possible fuel source for a fast travelling spaceship.

Now, back to our reality, I imagined a simpler way to colonize another solar system. We send a small ship with few advanced /AI robots, plus spare parts, 3D printers, spare materials, etc. and a freezer with embryos. We collimate light (from the Sun?) in order for the ship to achieve a high speed. Of course, the ship must have a big mirror and solar sails. For deceleration, the solar sails and some thrusters may be used. Also, we don't need to decelerate all the ship, at least in the last part of the trip. We decelerate only a probe with the things really needed for colonization. If the technology is advanced enough, with the materials on that probe, the robots/AI and the solar power, plus, of course, the materials available on the destination (asteroid/planet?), in a century, a full grown colony, with the embryos transformed in newborns and then raised/educated by the robots, plus habitats and ships, can be achieved.

What do you think?

30 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Hello, I have few thoughts on this subject:

I wonder if anyone offered Alcubierre drive or wormholes as possible explanations for an alien presence on/near Earth. They are not rejected entirely by mainstream. If nobody did, it's probably because all of us consider them BS 😄

A new/better understanding of gravity (I may have one) could offer a way to reverse or block it ... It may be possible but I really doubt it. (I also doubt that there are aliens on/near Earth)

Someone proposed hidrogen harvesting as a refuel method. Interesting. I thought about dark matter "harvesting" as a possible fuel source for a fast travelling spaceship.

The issue with discussions based on imagined physics is where the line is drawn. You could imagine a reactionless drive, which would solve lots of problems, but there’s no evidence that you can do this - no existing physics that supports it, and further, it’s contrary to what we know.

There’s a difference between undiscovered physics that resides in some parameter space we can’t yet probe or experience, and nonexistent physics that would have to be hiding in the parameter space we occupy.

30 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Now, back to our reality, I imagined a simpler way to colonize another solar system. We send a small ship with few advanced /AI robots, plus spare parts, 3D printers, spare materials, etc. and a freezer with embryos. We collimate light (from the Sun?) in order for the ship to achieve a high speed. Of course, the ship must have a big mirror and solar sails. For deceleration, the solar sails and some thrusters may be used. Also, we don't need to decelerate all the ship, at least in the last part of the trip. We decelerate only a probe with the things really needed for colonization. If the technology is advanced enough, with the materials on that probe, the robots/AI and the solar power, plus, of course, the materials available on the destination (asteroid/planet?), in a century, a full grown colony, with the embryos transformed in newborns and then raised/educated by the robots, plus habitats and ships, can be achieved.

What do you think?

We’ve discussed photon propulsion a bit, and the numbers just don’t support it being practical. Light from the sun has additional hurdles to overcome. There’s a limit to how small a spot you can focus sunlight to, and since it’s multicolored, dispersion is a problem - each wavelength behaves slightly differently in terms of refraction and diffraction.

41 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I wonder if anyone offered Alcubierre drive

Zefrem Cochrane hasn't started work on that yet, since he won't he born until 2030.

44 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We collimate light (from the Sun?) in order for the ship to achieve a high speed

Getting the sun to lase? How would that work?

45 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We decelerate only a probe with the things really needed for colonization

Isn't this what you would send to begin with? You still need your thrusters and lightsails for the whole deceleration part.

48 minutes ago, DanMP said:

If the technology is advanced enough

That's what this thread is looking into.

49 minutes ago, DanMP said:

in a century, a full grown colony, with the embryos transformed in newborns and then raised/educated by the robots,

Good thing the aliens have no ethical qualms about that. Get some women in a room and ask for a show of hands on who wants to donate or sell their future child to be raised by robots many light-years away. I'll bring popcorn.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Getting the sun to lase? How would that work?

Nothing about photon propulsion requires you use a laser; a couple of solar sails have been deployed

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

What do you think?

The biggest issue with these multi-century colonization schemes is that they cost a lot, and there is zero return to the people who finance it, but have to remain behind.

It is small consolation to us on Earth, that, after having spent Trillions and Trillions of dollars, we may have a colony of humans on a distant planet, if they managed to survive, who we will never see, and we may not be able to communicate with within a human lifespan.

So what is the cost to benefit ratio ?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Nothing about photon propulsion requires you use a laser; a couple of solar sails have been deployed

I was asking in regard to his saying "collimate" light from the sun. Am I mistaken that you need coherent light to succeed in collimating over any distance we're discussing? I may have misunderstood @DanMP in thinking that he was implying some way to make the sun emit coherent light. If I'm wrong on either point, happy to learn more about this. (Also thought the inverse square law meant sails weren't much use beyond Pluto, so were usually considered in context of solar system travel)