Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
There is some idiocy in that video from 2014.
It's TED, of course it has some idiocy.
At this point, I'm just waiting for you to read section II of my article and realize that I'm not interested in defending AWG here.

Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
You can't use a thought experiment where cooperation is specifically prevented as evidence that people will not cooperate under normal circumstances.
Are you seriously going to argue that zero-sum and negative-sum games do not exist in reality?

Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
How big a counterexample: the solar system, the entire universe? Clearly structures of any mass can exist and be larger than their Schwarzschild radius. If it were not the case, the universe would not exist.
What I was asking is whether you can think of a structure that scales up without collapsing. Neither of your examples, possibly barring the universe as a whole, achieves that.
Maybe that is an overly strong requirement, but I just don't see a civilization rebuilding itself from scratch every time they need to add another building or something. And even if they do, the incentives would be to keep the structure as close to the brink of collapse as possible, which isn't particularly stable either.

Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
Hello FunBotan! I love talking about the Fermi Paradox, I find it fascinating. But before I comment on the details of what you propose, my biggest objection is that even if true this won't solve the Fermi Paradox. Your proposal concludes with "advanced enough civilizations will eventually collapse into a black hole". Is that about right?
Well, in order to get to that point, you first have to become incredibly advanced. As in, probably at least a Kardashev II civilization that is building Dyson Swarms, right? Sorry to say it but even if you did collapse the home system into a black hole you have not killed the civilization. They would have many habitats in the outer parts of the solar system which would survive. They would have ships en route to other colonies with people on board. They would have some very well established colonies around many of the nearby star systems, each with it's own Dyson Swarm. They would be in the process of establishing new colonies around more distant star systems. And all of this kind of activity would be both:
a) Visible to anyone with a telescope
b) Prevent the entire civilization from dying just because their home star system was destroyed in a terrible accident.
So before we even get into your proposal, I don't see it as a viable solution to the Fermi Paradox.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. You assume civilizations use stars as they are as opposed to treating them as resources. I disagree with that.
Once a civilization gets hold of controlled nuclear fusion, stars already become obsolete. And that's far from the most efficient/advanced reactor theoretically possible. So it's much more likely advanced civilizations will disassemble stars and store them in some stable state as fuel, which is where the logic of my article comes in.

Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
While I would agree that a system that is maximizing it's future actions is probably an intelligent system, I am with the others that are complaining that they can also think of intelligent systems (ie humans) NOT maximizing it's future freedom of actions.
Well, this is the same thing as with life. Although there might be organisms that do not reproduce, they will eventually be overwhelmed by those who do, so it's completely fair to include the ability to reproduce into the definition of an organism even if it isn't necessarily true for each and every specimen.
Similarly, an agent who aims to increase his freedom of action will eventually have all of it, so it doesn't matter what other agents do because their freedom of action is too small in comparison, and thus their decisions don't affect what happens to the civilization.