本文作者Lorec对费米悖论和末日论持有独特的见解。他不被费米悖论所困扰，因为他认为在一个可见宇宙中出现一个文明是合理的。同时，他也不认同末日论，因为他认为许多文明会在早期意外产生一个中间优化器，该优化器会消耗掉所有感知能力并储存自由能。因此，大多数处于文明中的个体，会发现自己处于一个年轻的文明中。这与Robin Hanson的“抢夺型外星人”模型形成对比，后者认为多文明宇宙具有低柯尔莫哥洛夫复杂度，且后期宇宙历史主要由有感知能力的文明占据。Hanson认为，如果喧闹的外星人很快填满宇宙并阻止新高级生命的出现，那么人类的早期出现就可以得到解释。但Lorec质疑，如果后期宇宙历史是拥挤的，为什么自己会出现得如此之早？

🌌作者认为，在任何特定的可见宇宙中只出现一个文明是完全正常的，这与“大多数‘随机’或低柯尔莫哥洛夫复杂度的宇宙可能没有智慧文明，许多有一个，极少数有两个”的观点相符。

🤖作者提出，在包含智慧文明的“随机”宇宙中，大多数文明会在其历史早期意外产生一个中间优化器，该优化器会消耗掉所有感知能力并为宇宙余生储存可用自由能。

👨‍🚀与作者的观点相反，Robin Hanson的“抢夺型外星人”模型认为，多文明宇宙是低柯尔莫哥洛夫复杂度的，并且大多数后期宇宙历史被有感知能力的文明占据，而不是无感知能力的中间优化器。

👽Hanson认为，“喧闹的外星人”会很快填满宇宙并阻止新高级生命的出现，这可以解释人类的“早熟/孤独”，即如果喧闹的外星人解释了人类的早熟，那么安静的外星人也很罕见。

🤔作者质疑了Hanson的观点，并提出疑问：如果后期的宇宙历史是拥挤的，为什么自己会出现得如此之早？即使人类文明在宇宙时间尺度上不常见，但将人类与其他智能物种区分开来是没有意义的，所以问题仍然存在。

Published on December 9, 2024 6:07 PM GMT

I, Lorec, am disoriented by neither the Fermi Paradox nor the Doomsday Argument.

The Fermi Paradox doesn't trouble me because I think 1 is a perfectly fine number of civilizations to have arisen in any particular visible universe. It feels to me like most "random" or low-Kolmogorov-complexity universes probably have 0 sentient civilizations, many have 1, very few have 2, etc.

The Doomsday Argument doesn't disorient me because it feels intuitive to me that, in a high % of those "random" universes which contain sentient civilizations, most of those civilizations accidentally beget a mesa-optimizer fairly early in their history. This mesa-optimizer will then mesa-optimize all the sentience away [this is a natural conclusion of several convergent arguments originating from both computer science and evolutionary theory] and hoard available free energy for the rest of the lifetime of the universe. So most sentiences who find themselves in a civilization, will find themselves in a young civilization.

Robin Hanson, in this context the author of the Grabby Aliens model of human cosmological earliness, instead prioritizes a model where multi-civilization universes are low-Kolmogorov-complexity, and most late cosmological histories are occupied by populous civilizations of sentiences, rather than nonsentient mesa-optimizers. His favored explanation for human earliness/loneliness is:

[1] if loud aliens will soon fill the universe, and prevent new advanced life from appearing, that early deadline explains human earliness.

.

[2] If Loud Aliens Explain Human Earliness, Quiet Aliens Are Also Rare

The intermediate steps of reasoning by which Hanson gets from [1] to [2] are interesting. But I don't think the Grabby/Loud Aliens argument actually explains my, Lorec's, earliness in an anthropic sense, given the assumption that future aliens will also be populous and sentient.

You might say, "Well, you, Lorec, were sampled from the space of all humans in the multiverse - not from the space of all sentient beings living in viable civilizations. If human civilizations are not very frequently viable late in cosmological timescales - that is, if we are currently behind an important Great Filter that humans rarely make it past - then that would explain why you personally are early, because that is when humans tend to exist."

But why draw the category boundary around humanity particularly? It seems ill-conceived to draw the line strictly around Homo sapiens, in its current genetic incarnation - what about Homo neanderthalensis? - and then once you start expanding the category boundary outward, it becomes clear that we're anthropic neighbors to all kinds of smart species that would be promising in "grabby" worlds. So the question still remains: if later cosmological history is populous, why am I early?

Discuss