From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:15:07 +0100 Archived: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: Re: Problems With von Neumann Replicators >From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:28:38 -0300 >To: post.nul >Subject: Re: Problems With von Neumann Replicators >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 17:17:15 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Problems With von Neumann Replicators <snip> >No matter what form a civilization my undertake, the single >fundamental piece of Science as we know it are the laws of >thermodynamics. They would use energy. Their engineered, >intelligent use of energy would be noticeable, for instance - >such as the energy pattern of a Dyson sphere. >Of course, one could suggest a sufficiently advanced >civilization would be so efficient in its use of energy that it >would not be distinguishable from natural entropy. It may well >be, but then almost by definition such a civilization would be >equivalent to a non-existent civilization. >Perhaps some of the standing puzzles of astrophysics may be >answered in fact by teeming Galactic civilizations - dark matter >could be the result to their work, perhaps. But again, the fact >we can model and understand so much of the whole Universe >without resorting to artificial constructs is the point of >asking "where are they?". ><snip> >>And as to `signs of intelligent life in the Universe' - we just >>don't know what to look for, or how to analyse what we already >>see. At the moment we simply assume that all astronomical >>events are 'natural' - that assumption could be wildy wrong. >Indeed, but again, the fact we have been working with that >assumption and been so successful in understanding and >predicting astronomical observations billions of light years >around us is the point of Fermi's paradox. The discovery of >pulsars is one such example: first suggested as signaling >"Little green men", natural explanations for them quickly became >better working hypothesis and now no one thinks they are >artificial. <snip> Hi Kentaro You've taken aboard a whole load of mainstream science presumptions. Inflation, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy - all arise from problems inherent in the `Big Bang' theory - and all were invented in turn to solve a problem created by the previous invention. Each invention, although enthusiastically `approved' by the mainstream, has left cosmology in a bigger mess than before, because none of the inventions are supported by observation - quite the opposite. Younger scientists are now openly saying that they don't believe a word of it - none at all. Tom Van Flandern summarised many of the objections in this paper: 'The Top 30 Problems With The Big Bang': http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp And a more recent summary was posted here a while ago: http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2012/jan/m21-002.shtml 'The New Philosophy Of Cosmology' [BTW that has a reference to both Fermi's Paradox _and_ von Neumann replicators, which I don't remember noticing at the time,] So, discounting all the invented stuff, it seems we know very little about the universe. For example, only the other day all theories concerning the most energetic `cosmic rays' were shot down by the latest observations. So they're another mystery. Maybe large-scale engineering projects? Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp