Ich mag diesen Kanal sehr, aber dieses spezielle Video hat mir den Kopf zerbrochen. Kurz gesagt, es stellt sich die Frage: Warum ist das Universum nicht mit sich selbst reproduzierenden Robotern gesättigt, die wie ein Virus Planeten fressen?
Er geht ins Detail und erklärt einige der mathematischen Gründe, warum es mit ziemlicher Sicherheit hätte passieren sollen oder passieren müssen. Daher ist die Tatsache, dass wir keine Beweise dafür sehen, eine Anomalie – für ihn (und andere).
Mein Gehirn schmilzt beim Mathe-Teil und alles, woran ich denken kann, ist die unglaublich unwahrscheinliche Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass es passiert. Er ist tausendmal schlauer als ich. Warum kommt es mir also vor, dass das die dümmste Idee der Welt ist?
10 Kommentare
Unexpected Ted Faro r/horizonzerodawn
I am just a layman, but the general argument goes something like:
1. Any advanced civilization would eventually want to explore beyond their host star as well as harvest resources beyond their host star
2. Theoretically, such an advanced civilization would be able to construct a drone that is capable of locating the resources necessary to replicate itself, thereby serving both the exploration and resource gathering functions
3. Such replication would eventually be exponential as each drone replicates itself and sends the replica off somewhere else to do the same thing again, which is where the math comes in that shows a general time range for how quickly we’d eventually become aware of such a drone
4. The universe has been around dramatically longer than said time frame, and we have never seen one of these drones, which can be construed as evidence that no such advanced civilization exists anywhere vaguely close to us in the universe
I’m not an astrophysicist or anything super smart like that. I’m just a computer scientist/software engineer. The premise of this theory is that with a quadrillion stars in the universe, and a trillion quadrillion planets orbiting them, trillion of those surely can support and develop life forms. The universe, as far as we think we know, is over 13 billion years old. Human life forms have gone from cavemen to where we are in something like 0.01% of our time in existence just on Earth.
Even if you don’t know anything about the subject, the sheer odds that we are entirely alone and the most advanced species out there is just infiniteismally small. Based on our technological and evolutionary trajectory in the last 300 years, it should be beyond reasonable to expect that there are life forms capable of creating self replicating machinery to harvest galaxies and beyond, at this point. Surely there was a civilization out there, somewhere, that got a lucky spawn and came in 100k years earlier, or a million years earlier, or 100 million years earlier? What could humans do in 100 million years of technological advancement, assuming we don’t just kill ourselves?
If we could think up self replicating robots and understand this much about the universe in just ~2-4k years, what could a civilization with a 25000x year head start be capable of? Why don’t see any of this crazy sci-fi stuff (from our perspective) going on out there? Just based on the sheer volume of potential, it’s borderline unreasonable to think it isn’t happening.
My two cents:
1. You could program robots to only make x amount of copies. Any advanced civilisation would understand the danger of uncontrolled replication.
2. How much/many resources does a civilisation actually need? Space is big and there are enough Stars and solar systems to go around
3. Even if a civilisation were to use machines to harvest resources, they wouldn’t send them out too far from where they are needed. I mean what good is metal from an astroid belt if it takes 100 years to get back for you to use it.
4. Space is huge, even if there are millions of advanced civs out there, even if their „empire“ spans multiple solar systes, that would still be tiny in comparison to the size of the galaxy.
We must be the first and only then. So sad.
My guess is that, without other constraints, there are only so much resources and easily available energy per solar system. You need to pick – do you want fewer, but faster moving robots or more slower moving ones?
Another consideration is – when designing said robots you might imagine other alien species are doing the same. That creates a pressure to design faster robots to get other places “first” to get the easiest materials to further the spread. Taking the time to consume as much as possible doesn’t really further this goal unless if you also want to deny the others from discovery too.
All of this is assuming that said self-replicating robots have any guiding principle at all. They might just stop at natural boundaries which limit their abilities. (The ocean, cold or hot temperatures, the atmosphere, escape velocity, lack of fuel, age, etc, etc)
„He’s a thousand times smarter than I am, so why do I feel like this is the dumbest idea in the world?“
Because infinite, error free self-replication is not possible (or even desirable, really)?
Because we’re technically a Von Neumann machine and we haven’t eaten the Galaxy yet?
Because all the barriers to us eating the Galaxy will also constrain everything we could build?
Becasue making something self replicating is not the same as making it omnipotent and/or dumb.
Because no one has activated the L-gates yet.
The universe is quite possibly infinite, which means that not only may the universe be in the process of being ‚eaten by machines‘, but it could also be in the process of being eaten by an infinite number of groups of such machines
There is an enormous difference between something happening and humans being able to observe it