• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo

Collapsarity


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 PaulH

  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Global

Posted 25 March 2003 - 08:00 AM


I was thinkning again of the Fermi Paradox yesterday, and I cam up with another hyothesis.

Until now I have always assumed the trajectory of accelerating intelligence will entail an increase in computronium mass, and some version of manifest desitiny fullfilling itself - exploring the cosmos, etc. This could still be the case, however I'm now considering another weirder more expansive possibility:

As intelligence increases tetrationally, it also seems hypothetically possible that at some point, perhaps only a short while after the singularity, its ability to minuturize and compactify volumetrically could accelerate faster than its needs to expand materially and volumetrically. So rather than an increasing amount of mass succumbing to computronium conversion, the opposte occurs - an intelligence 'collapsar' in which the mass used decreases as intelligence increases, resulting in a singularity (in the original use of the word). Further the speed up of this intelligence increase could accelerate so fast, that an effective infinite amount of computation is done in zero time.

Obviously the current physics does not support this, which is why I'm referring to it as a hypothetical intelligence singularity (or collapsarity), in which the laws of physics as we know them evaporate in the presence of overwhelming intelligence.

In other words, rather than the universe heading towards a single omega-point at the end of time, every species that achieves a singularity quickly enters their own omega point shortly after they achieve a singularity. If this was indeed the case, then their could be countless other post-singularity species who already entered the Omega Point long ago. And since they already acheived an infinite amount of computation in a finite amount of time, then from our perspective they no longer exist in our universe. For all intents and purposes, they didn't just slow down time from the result computational speed-up, they stopped and stepped out of it all together.

Thoughts, comments?

Edited by planetp, 25 March 2003 - 08:02 AM.


#2 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 March 2003 - 08:19 AM

Interesting, but not very likely. IMHO.

- Thomas

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 PaulH

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Global

Posted 26 March 2003 - 06:10 AM

Thomas - I'm interested in knowing why you think this scenario is unlikely.

To be clear, I am not exluding any outwards, slower percolation of computronium in physical space beyond this collapsing omega-point. I'm only wanting to point out, that if an infinite amount of computation can be done without utilizing physical resources, then this counters looking for evidence of mass-scale computronium conversion or some other kind of mega-scale engineering.

It's also possible, that long ago, we were 'rescued' by an advanced SI, and our entire history has been running more efficiently in their simulation. And as we approach our own singularity, we will be welcomed into the larger fold of this Network SI community.

#4 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 March 2003 - 01:02 PM

If there was 10^20 inhabited planets in the Universe, on every planet at least one Lotto game going on, for at least a billion years every week ... it hadn't been enough for the five times in a row winner, to exist anywhere. And that by far.

The argument:

there is so many planets ==> we can't be (semi) alone

is

- overwhelmingly popular

- wrong

Even every SETI fan would admit, that there is probably no five times in a row Lotto winner.

Almost every new scientific data it arrives, it diminishes the prospect of life out there. (GRB, metals distribution inside galaxies, funny orbits of other solar systems, a big moon likelihood ...) To survive all that and more, is quite a luck. And yet - "we can't be alone" statement is still very popular. From some unknown reason.

No collapsarity needed!

- Thomas

#5 PaulH

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Global

Posted 27 March 2003 - 01:43 AM

I never tell people they are wrong, but you Thomas are about as wrong as I can muster telling you. Please examine all of the facts below, and if you disagree, argue those.


1) By volume, the observable universe is less than a 10^60th fraction of the actual inflationary bubble. No one is certain what size it is, but the most conservative estimate put it at a minimum of 10^35 ly radius.

2) All evidence (COBE, etc.) so far shows a remarkable overall consistency of galactic density, with demarkations of greater and less density on the relative microscopic scale.

3) From 1 and 2, we get at least 10^100 galaxies. If the average galaxy contains 100 billion stars (10^11) - we get 10^111 stars.

4) Using Drake's equation and being extremely conservative on every variable we could assume one life-bearing planet per galaxy. With this estimate that means that Earth is the only planet in the entire Milky Way that has any life at all, let alone complex or intelligent life. So Continuing with our conservative estimates, lets say that out of every million galaxies only one of those life-bearing planets actually achieves complex life. And out of those only 1 in a million achieves intelligence. And out of those only 1 in a million becomes space faring. And out of those only 1 in a million is currently still around.

5) From 4, this leaves us with only 1 intelligent civilization for every Septillion galaxies. Thats 1 out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies. If this is true then we are the only intelligent civilization in our observable universe. Because of both the age of the universe, and our light cone, if this was true, SETI will forever be unsuccessful using its current techniques.

6) Yet despite this utter rarity, there are still 10^100 galaxies in the inflationary bubble, which still leaves 10^76 intelligent civilizations in the Inflationary Universe. Thats a very large number, even though we used the most extreme odds againsts it.

7) Even if we were to make those above variables even more rare, say only one life bearing planet in the entire observable universe. Using that rarity and the rest of the odds above we are still left with a staggering 10^64 intelligent civilizations in the inflationary universe.

Conclusion: The number of galaxies is so large, that even with the most extreme odds against life occuring at all you still get a very very large number. Statistically alone the odds of extraterrestrial life are enormous. With those odds, it's in your court to demonstrate any evidence or process at all that would make life so utterly rare, that not even one intelligent civilization would occur out of 10^100 oppurtunities, even when all evidence (space-based life precursor molecules, Kauffman self-generating complexity, 3rd law of thermodynamics, etc.) suggests the opposite.

Edited by planetp, 27 March 2003 - 01:50 AM.


#6 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 March 2003 - 06:58 AM

Where did you get your numbers?

Besides ... those non visible galaxies, you are talking about - they are invisible, aren't they?

Are you telling us, that something invisible is going on in the invisible part of the Universe?


- Thomas

Edited by Thomas, 27 March 2003 - 07:16 AM.


#7 PaulH

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Global

Posted 27 March 2003 - 07:21 AM

The only starting numbers were the estimated radius of the inflationary bubble and the average galactic density based on COBE data. You can find both numbers if you do searches on Inflationary Theory and COBE. A good starting point would be the work of Alan Guth. In Scientific American a couple of years back mentioned that the 10^35 ly radius as cautiously conservative and the actual size of our local inflationary universe is probably much greater than 10^100 ly.

Are you telling us, that something invisible is going on in the invisible part of the Universe?


All that I am saying, is that the universe is so vast, and the number of galaxies, stars, planets is so large, that to say we are the only intelligent civilization in the universe is statistically unlikely. Alone in the Milky Way perhaps, maybe even in our lightcone (the observable universe), but THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, I'm not buying it.

The question now becomes, since we are dealing with numbers so large, it would seem to indicate that at least one of them would have devised a way to travel quadrillions of light years in seconds, and that they would be here by now. There are so many scenarios, problems and possibilities with that however, that we would have to start an entirely new conversation covering them. A conversation I am all too happy to have. :-)

Edited by planetp, 27 March 2003 - 07:30 AM.


#8 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 March 2003 - 07:25 AM

Again:

Are you telling us, that something invisible is going on in the invisible part of the Universe?


- Thomas

#9 PaulH

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Global

Posted 27 March 2003 - 07:31 AM

We seem to be online at the same time, as I finished my response before you finished your original question. Please re-read my edited post and response above.

Edited by planetp, 27 March 2003 - 07:32 AM.


#10 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 March 2003 - 07:42 AM

You have started with the Collapsarity, "since we don't see anybody - it must be the collapsing".

Now, you are saying, it's collapsing in the invisible part of the Universe. How do you know that?

I think, your theory is quite weak.

- Thomas

#11 PaulH

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Global

Posted 27 March 2003 - 05:51 PM

Thomas, all I have done is provide another explanation to the Fermi Paradox, that has not been bandied about much - which is that the natural progression of an SI, at a certain point past its own singularity is to dissappear from the physical universe, rather than expand outward. This collapsing would occur as its ability to minuturize would accelerate faster than its need to expand outward in a way that is noticeble to primates on rocks around ordinary stars with telescopes. And it's not a theory, its a hypothesis, nothing more.

You then went on to say, "The argument: there is so many planets ==> we can't be (semi) alone is - overwhelmingly popular - wrong".

I then told you to disagree and demonstrate how your conclusion that this argument is wrong, is also wrong.

Edited by planetp, 27 March 2003 - 05:53 PM.


#12 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 March 2003 - 08:27 AM

It's an old idea, in fact. Bostrom mentioned it somewhere as "open Universe".

So, it's not new and not likely.

I have nothing to add.

Except that the argument "we can't be alone, if the Universe is so big" - is wrong. As long as the Universe is finite. In the vicinity - it seems - nobody lives. You say, be cause everybody around has collapsed.

I very much doubt it. And you have nothing to prove it, or even make it likely.

- Thomas

#13 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 10 April 2003 - 09:59 AM

Conclusion: The number of galaxies is so large, that even with the most extreme odds against life occurring at all you still get a very very large number. Statistically alone the odds of extraterrestrial life are enormous. With those odds, it's in your court to demonstrate any evidence or process at all that would make life so utterly rare, that not even one intelligent civilization would occur out of 10^100 opportunities, even when all evidence (space-based life precursor molecules, Kauffman self-generating complexity, 3rd law of thermodynamics, etc.) suggests the opposite.


You throw all of these numbers around to try and prove your hypothesis, but you are missing one very important point. (First, realize that I also believe that there is life out there, but I am not sure that it is currently "provable") We still don't know how life on this planet started. There are tons of theories, but nothing has been proven. If there were proof, then religions would fade into oblivion. How can you estimate the odds on the creation of life (1 in a million etc.) if we are not really even sure how life starts to begin with? Inotherwords, maybe one in a million isn't conservative enough. Just trying to play the antagonist here. :)

#14 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 April 2003 - 12:37 AM

I for one am intrigued by your idea planetp. I have argued before that the universe is infinite in size. By infinite I mean both no limit to how small or how large. My inspiration for this idea is history and mathematics. Everytime we think we have discovered the smallest unit of matter or energy it turns out not to be the case. When our instruments get better we always find smaller "things".

Of course we know from math that there is no limit large or small on the number line. If you believe that the universe is just a pattern of information then is is easy to envision a "collapsarity".

We have dicussed the Fermi paradox before. My feeling is that the number of "civilizations" in the universe that are at the same level of development as us is small. Most are either much less or much more advanced. The much more advanced have absolutely nothing to gain by contacting us, also their forms of communication are probably not detecable by our crude instruments or our limited brains.

#15 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 April 2003 - 10:00 AM

If it was possible to divide the matter ad infinitum, on some smaller scale, a faster than this evolution could begun long ago. And reshaped this Universe long ago also.

Since nothing like that has happened, it must be quite rigid down there.

A Fermi paradox from down under - would be quite difficult to solve. If there was a down under.

- Thomas

#16 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 April 2003 - 01:58 PM

Why do you have any kind of a priori evidence for how the Universe would be reshaped that we don't have Thomas?

It is as Kissinger implies somewhat moot to really debate this partcular belief for this already could be the reshaped Universe in which we live. There is no level of null test hypothesis (proving the negative) that we can yet envision that does not result in the same reality we experience.

What we can imagine we can create, but what we do not want has no bearing on what has been. By the way the premise and logic of this last argument you make is just false. All of the assumptions you are making are only assumptions and not even testable hypotheses, especially the extended conclusion you are trying to assert about evolution of the type being proposed.

I accept that we are not far from "arguing about how many angels dance in the angles" but I think there is at least a valid reason to pursue the logic involved and the possibility that "dimensionality" is transendent of perceived reality. Whether it is a finite N-Dimensional String Theory or an infintite dimensional varient that would give any advanced cosmologist nightmares is not relevent to the more important issue of examining possibilty based upon the merits of the proposal.

If it was possible to divide the matter ad infinitum, on some smaller scale, a faster than this evolution could begun long ago. And reshaped this Universe long ago also.


The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise and the premise is suspect in and of itself. Also the evidence is mounting that the Universe is not likely to collapse at all but that we might now be facing a "Cold Death" as the Universe (what ever that is [?] ;) ) currently appears to be in a state of accelerating infinite expansion.

Astrophysicists are still trying to reconcile the problem of nice tidy theories that simply don't address the evidence.

Web Text with Great links

Dark Energy: Astronomers Hot on Trail of Mysterious Force
Thu Apr 10,11:39 AM ET
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer, SPACE.com

PHILADELPHIA -- At first there was disbelief. Then widespread befuddlement. Then a period of quantification. Now, five years after discovering that the universe is expanding at an ever-faster pace, scientists know exactly how much mysterious "dark energy" is behind the acceleration and have turned to figuring out what it is.

The task may eat up a lifetime, researchers admit. Or perhaps some new Einstein will figure it out next year in a light-bulb moment. The reward will be a far more complete understanding of the history and fate of the cosmos.

At a meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) here this week, front-line observational astronomers and big-thinking theorists said important clues to one of the most vexing mysteries of modern science are already rolling in. Cautious optimism infused the gathering.

Much important but unpublished data are already collected, SPACE.com has learned, and by the end of this year the history of the universe's expansion could become a bit clearer, further illuminating the path toward understanding dark energy.


Change of pace

Our universe has always been expanding, with practically all galaxies receding from each other, except for those bound in clusters.

The expansion was decelerating until about 6.3 billion years ago, however. Then an important switch to acceleration occurred. Something caused the universe to step on the gas, driving a growth that now speeds up each day. It is like a rocket whose speed increases 100 mph in the first mile, then by the same amount the next half-mile, then in a quarter-mile, and so on.

Scientists admit they've made almost zero progress in understanding dark energy. They have no idea what it is or how it works.

Various researchers describe the phenomenon as a repulsive force, as vacuum energy, as anti-gravity, and as possibly no more than a different manifestation of gravity over large distances. Some say the repulsion could be a response to dark matter, unseen stuff that is known to make up nearly a quarter of the universe, but such a link has never been established.

All that's clear is that dark energy comprises 73 percent of the mass-energy budget of the universe, and that it is no longer an arguable point for theorists but instead is a viable quarry for astronomers.



Surprise finding

While not even trying, the Hubble Space Telescope (news - web sites) just spotted two very distant exploding stars that represent baby steps ahead of a footrace of expected observations.

The so-called supernovae, announced this morning, are 5 billion and 8 billion light-years away and were found serendipitously by Hubble's new Advance Camera for Surveys, installed a year ago, while it was making a calibration run. Hubble officials, who have been saying the new camera would turn Hubble into a supernova hunting machine, offered the discoveries as proof of that claim.

The supernovae bracket the presumed time of the switch from deceleration to acceleration, and examination of them has helped build the observational case that the shift occurred. Two other groups have used Hubble to purposely collect data on several more supernovae and results will likely be reported by the end of the year, researchers told SPACE.com.

Hubble is but one tool being used to probe dark energy.

Scientists are also exploring so-called cosmic microwave background radiation that carries an imprint of the baby universe's structure. Just two months ago, that effort led to the first firm determination of the age of the universe, a solid estimate for when the first stars were born, plus undisputed confirmation of dark energy's expansive role.

Other teams are examining the structure of the space through time by noting how interstellar hydrogen absorbs light. Still other researchers are pushing back the frontier of time, finding galaxies that formed when the universe was less than 10 percent its present age.

For the first time in history, experts suggest, cosmological data is accumulating faster than the wild theories that try to describe it all.

"By far the best is yet to come," said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania. "We're not even halfway through this avalanche of data in cosmology."

Going back in time

Theorists have known since the 1920s that the universe was expanding. They wondered if that expansion would go on forever, or if common gravity might eventually win out and pull everything back together in a sort of Big Crunch.

Then in 1998 two separate groups hunting faraway supernovae found several that were dimmer than they should have been, indicating that the universe is not just expanding, but accelerating.

The supernovae are of a particular variety, known as Type IA, that all shine with the same intrinsic brightness. Astronomers use them as "standard candles," their observed brightness revealing their distance. Light from the objects is analyzed to determine how much the waves have stretched, which bears an exact relationship to how much the universe has expanded since the light left its source -- the exploded star.

The 1998 finding of an accelerating universe was initially met with disbelief by its discoverers. Once digested -- in some cases only in the last couple of years by skeptics -- its profound implications for the composition and fate of the cosmos brought the term dark energy into common use.

Meanwhile, theorists had already figured out that an accelerating universe would necessarily be preceded by a period of deceleration, which would have followed an initial phase of rapid inflation associated with the Big Bang.

Here is why things must have slowed down:

"Early on the universe had lots of mass in a small volume," explains John Blakeslee of Johns Hopkins University. "The pull from gravity must have been enormous." As the universe expanded, gravity would have become less effective over the larger distances, and dark energy would have taken over.

One previously detected supernova, at about 10 billion light years away, supported this idea when reported in 2001, but the object proved difficult to study. The Hubble observations presented today also support the switch, said Blakeslee, lead author of a paper on the findings that will be published in the June Astrophysical Journal.

Had the universe always been accelerating, the supernova that's 8 billion light-years distant would have been dimmer, Blakeslee said in a telephone interview.

"It's not conclusive at all," Blakeslee said of his work. Another 20 or so very distant supernova are needed to make a strong case, he added.

Those 20, and then some, will not take long.

Hubble's new eyesight "should allow astronomers to discover roughly 10 times as many of these cosmic beacons as was possible with Hubble's previous main imaging camera," Blakeslee said.

Already in the bag

A separate Hubble project, led by Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, has already bagged several distant supernovae. Riess, who worked on one team that made the 1998 acceleration breakthrough, reported preliminary results of his latest work at the APS meeting and is expected to publish a paper soon, possibly later this year.

Eleven other distant supernovae have been examined by Hubble in another study headed up by Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Perlmutter led the other team involved in the 1998 discovery of acceleration.

Perlmutter was not involved in the two new Hubble discoveries, but he told SPACE.com they are among many important steps that could lead to a firm determination of when acceleration began. Many of the discoveries are coming from ground-based telescopes, he noted, but Hubble "is really becoming a key for everybody in terms of follow-up" to glean the necessary detail.

By building a strong historical timeline of the universe, astronomers and cosmologists hope to answer a pressing question: Do the properties of dark energy change over time?

The answer would help them determine what dark energy is and would allow refined predictions about the origin and fate of the universe. No one expects a quick resolution, however.

Michael Turner, one of the world's foremost cosmologists from the University of Chicago, said solving the dark energy problem "is going to require a crazy idea." While most leading theories project the universe will accelerate forever, perhaps even to the wild point that it rips all matter apart, the notion that it might eventually collapse has not been ruled out, Turner said at the APS meeting.

"The destiny question is wide open," Turner said.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 03:43 PM.


#17 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 April 2003 - 03:27 PM

The evolution is going on, on the every level of the Universe. The higher is the level, slower the evolution is.

Viruses evolves fast, but they are not complex enough, to have (is to evolve) significant intelligence.

Galaxies are too slow to get anywhere yet.

The intelligence has arisen here, on this level. But if there were an infinite number of those layers, the evolution somewhere down there, should be faster than ours. *They* would use atoms, as we will use galaxies. Only, that *they* would have done it long ago.

That's an evolutionary argument against the infinite complexity of this Universe. But there are others too.

- Thomas

#18 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 April 2003 - 03:38 PM

You are making your conclusions and hypotheses dependent upon your "perception" of time. You are confusing Earth temporal meter for some kind of Universal Standard, and worse, a Multiverse Meter.

One quintessential reason to seek longevity and subsequent immortality, whether biologically, or through association with a singularity is in order to substantively alter the perception of time.

I see geologic and cosmic time "now" from a different "viewpoint" than biological time. I see consciousness on many levels too and conscious time is the premise, not the conclusion.

Once this level of relativity is not only understood but appreciated it dramatically alters the debate parameters.

#19 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 April 2003 - 05:54 PM

I said, what I said. It's so.

- Thomas

#20 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 April 2003 - 06:04 PM

I said, what I said. It's so.

- Thomas


lol Oh thank you I needed that laugh...

You must really hate me but I would gladly share this good humor with you Thomas.

It is so...

And thus it is.

Omm

[!] [ggg] [!]

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 06:05 PM.


#21 Thomas

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 April 2003 - 06:06 PM

http://www.netspace....ete/Planck.html

This link is not a strict science. But you may learn from it - non the less.

- Thomas

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#22 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 April 2003 - 06:11 PM

If you look at your paper it predates the discoveries mentioned in the above article. I will read it regardless. But we are talking past one another and a miss is a good as a mile. The evidence doesn't support the elegant theory.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users