1. You have no working model of a civilization yet you think its behavior can be predicted mathematically. K.

Bigger fleets need more fuel, munitions, maintenance. Labor and materials that they have to bring along.

Rational by our standards or by theirs?

You also demonstrate no knowledge of tactics or military strategy, yet you find battles predictable? K.

It protects the colony because they have the capability to build their own fleets, munitions, bases, replace losses, etc. Advantage goes to the ones with the closest support and resources. The colonists also see the Imperial fleet coming, so they'll have time to prepare extensive defenses.

The literal definition of a Kardashev 3 society is one unified civilization controlling all of a galaxy's energy output.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
145
Originally Posted by FunBotan
Yes

In most cases, I'm using a somewhat generalized notion of a limit (except in proposition 3.4) since I don't yet have a strict mathematical model to describe a civilization. Basically, this means that I make all unknown parameters of a civilization (how advanced the technology is, how durable/intelligent/rational are the individuals, how effectively they can colonize space, etc.) approach infinity (although in practice it usually means assigning the theoretically maximal values, e.g. an infinitely advanced reactor only has a 100% efficiency). This ensures that my model provides an upper limit to what can be done by a civilization in principle.

No, it means that whoever can gather the bigger fleet wins.

Now that I think about it... My previous statement actually was incorrect. War is not likely to be the solution.
"In the limit" here means that at least the leaders of the opposing sides are perfectly rational and, knowing at least what we know, can predict the outcome of a conflict with near certainty. So it's unlikely a weaker colony will even attempt a rebellion, knowing they would be destroyed by the metropole. And the metropole will never allow a colony to grow enough to become a threat.
If that assumption breaks down, then yes, war will happen. But again, its outcome is predetermined, so my model holds regardless.

Drawing lessons for interstellar warfare from ancient surface-bound wars is usually a bad idea. They only share some very basic aspects rooted in pure math, like the square law.

And this protects them how?

I'm just using K3 as a commonly accepted measure of scale. It doesn't imply a coherent civilization by itself.

I feel I need to point out (again) that all this sounds like it would be INCREDIBLY noticeable to everyone around them with a telescope. Meaning even if you are correct about everything you have said, this cannot be any sort of a solution to the Fermi Paradox. Requiring your civilization to first conquer all of known space is not exactly.........subtle.

Edit: Nor can it happen quickly, so why can't we see them for the tens of millions of years when they are waging space wars on their rebellious colonies and constructing these massive Dyson swarms so large they will one day collapse into black holes? And how did it happen so perfectly that no survivors escaped to build up their own civilization over the next tens of millions of years to repeat the process, ect? Again, these are very noticeable and long lived activities you keep describing.
Last edited by Dave241; 2019-May-04 at 09:48 PM.

3. Originally Posted by FunBotan
If that assumption breaks down ...
"Solving the Fermi paradox without assumptions"

4. Mankind through the ages believed in their level of science. With time we learned we are not the center of the universe, learned stars are suns, learned we are in a galaxy, learned we are in a sea of galaxies, etc. We thought the universe was deterministic, etc. At every age mankind was arrogant about their level of knowledge. The Fermi paradox does not seem like a paradox to me. As Aldous Huxley once said, "mankind is a skin disease on a ball of dirt". We are just guessing at our current level of science and assuming other life forms have behavior patterns or technology similar to us. We are not in a position to speculate.

5. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
Mankind through the ages believed in their level of science.
The thing is, our level of science is improving over time. We gather far more information, which leads to a greater base of knowledge to inform our analysis. Which in turn advances our sensor, computer, and communication technologies, allowing for still more knowledge to be gathered and added to that base. Plus there is now mass education, allowing more well informed minds to take part in the process of science.

Last edited by Noclevername; 2019-May-05 at 02:03 PM.

6. Originally Posted by Noclevername
The thing is, our level of science is improving over time. We gather far more information, which leads to a greater base of knowledge to inform our analysis. Which in turn advances our sensor, computer, and communication technologies, allowing for still more knowledge to be gathered and added to that base. Plus there is now mass education, allowing more well informed minds to take part in the process of science.

I am sure every generation thought that...

7. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
Mankind through the ages believed in their level of science. With time we learned we are not the center of the universe, learned stars are suns, learned we are in a galaxy, learned we are in a sea of galaxies, etc. We thought the universe was deterministic, etc. At every age mankind was arrogant about their level of knowledge. The Fermi paradox does not seem like a paradox to me. As Aldous Huxley once said, "mankind is a skin disease on a ball of dirt". We are just guessing at our current level of science and assuming other life forms have behavior patterns or technology similar to us. We are not in a position to speculate.
gzhpcu,

This is an ATM thread...not a place to wax philosophical. Please drop it.

8. Originally Posted by Noclevername
You have no working model of a civilization yet you think its behavior can be predicted mathematically. K.

Bigger fleets need more fuel, munitions, maintenance. Labor and materials that they have to bring along.

Rational by our standards or by theirs?

You also demonstrate no knowledge of tactics or military strategy, yet you find battles predictable? K.

It protects the colony because they have the capability to build their own fleets, munitions, bases, replace losses, etc. Advantage goes to the ones with the closest support and resources. The colonists also see the Imperial fleet coming, so they'll have time to prepare extensive defenses.

The literal definition of a Kardashev 3 society is one unified civilization controlling all of a galaxy's energy output.
I'm not claiming my current solution is strictly accurate, but I'm moving in that direction.

So do the defenders. It's not like you can turn a solar system into a giant pillbox. Defenders have to engage attackers long before their fleet arrives, otherwise they are screwed. If you need an analogy so desperately, think of modern ICBMs rather than armies.

What is rational depends on the goal and not on the perspective.

Is there a place right now where I can enroll to study the strategy of interstellar wars?

So they both have to factor in the growth during the travel time which is known. Still, the situation is completely deterministic.

Originally Posted by Dave241
I feel I need to point out (again) that all this sounds like it would be INCREDIBLY noticeable to everyone around them with a telescope. Meaning even if you are correct about everything you have said, this cannot be any sort of a solution to the Fermi Paradox. Requiring your civilization to first conquer all of known space is not exactly.........subtle.

Edit: Nor can it happen quickly, so why can't we see them for the tens of millions of years when they are waging space wars on their rebellious colonies and constructing these massive Dyson swarms so large they will one day collapse into black holes? And how did it happen so perfectly that no survivors escaped to build up their own civilization over the next tens of millions of years to repeat the process, ect? Again, these are very noticeable and long lived activities you keep describing.
You're partially right, but it's more complicated. Yes, there should be observable effects, but they would generally be like "too many black holes in a galaxy", "not enough stars in a galaxy"; so more like the effects of dark matter and less like supernovae, if that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Strange
"Solving the Fermi paradox without assumptions"
Ever heard the word "invariant"?

9. Still, the situation is completely deterministic.

10. What is rational depends on the goal and not on the perspective.
Kinda my point. We don't know alien goals.

11. Defenders have to engage attackers long before their fleet arrives, otherwise they are screwed.

12. Is there a place right now where I can enroll to study the strategy of interstellar wars?
http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...cewarintro.php
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...yguid=99255793

13. I'm not claiming my current solution is strictly accurate, but I'm moving in that direction.
Let us know when you get there.

14. Could you provide your source?
Aside from a dictionary?

try here: https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-s...lization-types

• Type III: Galactic Culture—This civilization would be able to harnesses the energy output of a galaxy (about 10 billion times the energy output of a Type II civilization, and about 100,000 to 1 million years more advanced than we are). They have colonized the galaxy itself, extracting energy from hundreds of billions of stars, traveling across interstellar space, and populating innumerable worlds.

15. Originally Posted by FunBotan
It's not like you can turn a solar system into a giant pillbox.
Well, perhaps you can. Are you familiar with the concept of a Nicoll-Dyson laser?

16. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
IF01a 11 April 2019: Explain why an intelligent civilization or individual would be ignorant enough to build any structure that would collapse to a neutron star (a precursor to a black hole), FunBotan?
IF01b 11 April 2019: Explain why an intelligent civilization or individual would be ignorant enough to build any structure that would collapse [directly] to a black hole, FunBotan?

A structure that is 1 AU in radius needs a mass of 50,641,975 Suns to be a black hole.
IF02 22 April 2019: Explain how a civilization or agent could move ~50 million stars with no noticeable effects, FunBotan.
Alternately give examples of the structure that you think civilizations or agents did build or are building that are not ~50 million stars massive (and will form a black hole).

IF03 22 April 2019: Support your "There is no reason for a black hole collapse in the general case to emit any radiation" assertion with sources from the scientific literature, FunBotan.
IF04 25 April 2019: Why would anyone disassemble stars when stars do not contain much mega-structure building material (the Sun is s 0.16% iron by mass)?
IF05 25 April 2019: Why would any intelligent agent waste time and resources transporting material over distances of many light years for the use of other intelligent agents when they could maximize their future options by building a local mega-structure?
Being forced to do it at gunpoint is more like science fiction (e.g. the aliens raiding Earth for resources fiction).

Otherwise we still have: The assumptions in a idea "without assumptions", e.g. an "intelligent system" premise that has few of the properties of intelligence.

Another flaw with the idea is that I have not seen any estimate of the number or lifetime of these "intelligent" civilizations. Will there be 1 of your civilizations currently active and stupid enough to ignore basic physics and construct a black hole? 10? A million?

17. Originally Posted by Reality Check
Another flaw with the idea is that I have not seen any estimate of the number or lifetime of these "intelligent" civilizations. Will there be 1 of your civilizations currently active and stupid enough to ignore basic physics and construct a black hole? 10? A million?
Maybe this is the reason there is a SMBH at the centre of every galaxy

18. Originally Posted by Noclevername
How is one supposed to provide evidence for purely logical reasoning?

Originally Posted by Noclevername
Kinda my point. We don't know alien goals.
That's what I need the definition of intelligence for. However, I'm currently working on relaxing that requirement.

Originally Posted by Noclevername
Isaac Arthur is much better at this. But regardless, no one has the experience of commanding interstellar fleets, so whatever they may say is pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Noclevername
Let us know when you get there.
I don't think I can, according to the forum rules.

Originally Posted by Noclevername
Well, nice, I used wikipedia. Probably should read the source material at some point.

Originally Posted by eburacum45
Well, perhaps you can. Are you familiar with the concept of a Nicoll-Dyson laser?
Still that's not armor. You could say it's a powerful defensive weapon, and I would agree; however, I believe one can build even more powerful (and compact) ones. Look forward to Isaac Arthur's episode on weaponising black holes.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Another flaw with the idea is that I have not seen any estimate of the number or lifetime of these "intelligent" civilizations. Will there be 1 of your civilizations currently active and stupid enough to ignore basic physics and construct a black hole? 10? A million?
Admittedly, that's one aspect I still don't know how to approach. To estimate the upper limit for the number of existing civilizations, I need to know the structure of their buildings, which is hard to estimate with what we currently know. But it might be possible.

19. Originally Posted by FunBotan
How is one supposed to provide evidence for purely logical reasoning?

That's what I need the definition of intelligence for. However, I'm currently working on relaxing that requirement.

Isaac Arthur is much better at this. But regardless, no one has the experience of commanding interstellar fleets, so whatever they may say is pure speculation.

I don't think I can, according to the forum rules.

Well, nice, I used wikipedia. Probably should read the source material at some point.

Still that's not armor. You could say it's a powerful defensive weapon, and I would agree; however, I believe one can build even more powerful (and compact) ones. Look forward to Isaac Arthur's episode on weaponising black holes.

Admittedly, that's one aspect I still don't know how to approach. To estimate the upper limit for the number of existing civilizations, I need to know the structure of their buildings, which is hard to estimate with what we currently know. But it might be possible.
So, you disparage my thought experiments (on a topic I've studied for years) as pure speculation but praise your own, as pure logical reasoning. Sure. But always remember logic has its limits: GI,GO. Pure logic has sometimes resulted in conclusions that later are disproven or rendered irrelevant by new data.

As for being ready re the Forum rules, the point of ATM is that you are prepared to present a hypothesis developed enough to defend it on its own merits. IMO, you were not yet ready to do so. My suggestion is to develop the idea further, then re-submit it for further analysis and critiquing.

(Also as a purely personal suggestion, you might study up on the complex topics of strategy and tactics of combat before making absolute claims about how it would turn out. Try reading the relevant parts of Project Rho or perhaps Spacebattles Forum and learn what factors go into informed speculations on their admittedly untested, but not random or ignorant, scenarios and simulations. There's a lot more to unpack there than "biggest fleet wins". Just sayin')

20. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
145
Originally Posted by FunBotan
You're partially right, but it's more complicated. Yes, there should be observable effects, but they would generally be like "too many black holes in a galaxy", "not enough stars in a galaxy"; so more like the effects of dark matter and less like supernovae, if that makes sense.
Only if we are restricted to viewing the after effects of such a process. Anyone currently expanding into space will be very noticeable to us if they are operating on a scale that can eventually cause a multi-million solar mass black hole to form. So why don't we see this in at least a few random galaxies? Plus, you still have not accounted for the survivors of such an apocalypse, and with just having the densest core of your interstellar empire collapse into a black hole I would claim the MAJORITY of your civilization would survive such an event. So not only is everything before the black hole collapse incredibly visible, but even after the black hole collapse they would still be incredibly visible as they would still have the majority of their civilization alive and well and still expanding outwards to make their own colonies, ect.

So as far as I can tell this fails to solve the Fermi Paradox in 2 ways:

1) We will still see plenty of activity for a long time (even long on a universal time scale) prior to this event.

2) It will not result in the complete collapse of the civilization anyway, meaning it's survivors will continue existing and doing noticeable, Fermi Paradox breaking things.

Do you have any way to resolve those 2 issues?

21. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by FunBotan
But regardless, no one has the experience of commanding interstellar fleets, so whatever they may say is pure speculation.
That is kind of the point - "pure speculation" is science fiction, not science. Fleets are pure speculation. Thus you have a fiction about colonies being so controlled by their home that the colonies cannot rebel and use their resources for themselves.

There is different science fiction that has been mentioned in passing. All civilizations in your idea build "death stars" (the Nicoll-Dyson laser in this post) and threaten to destroy colonies if they do not send resources.

Orbital structures cannot be armored against attack as you point out. But that is a problem for your idea! Colonies can build the Nicoll-Dyson laser to attack their home civilization. Even simpler, colonies accelerate thousands or millions of asteroids to extremely close to the speed of light, aim them at their home and wait. Colonies have an possible small advantage that they do not have a mega-structure to be targeted.

22. Biggest Fleet Wins?

Assume for the sake of argument that this is true.

The defending fleet is closest to its resources and infrastructure. They can have shipyards as far as the eye can see, while the resources and energy that must be dedicated to interstellar travel put hard limits on how much the attackers can bring across the void with them. So the defenders will have the biggest fleets on the battlefield, as they need not build starships, only space ships. QED

23. ​30-day limit reached. Thread closed.