From: Paul Hughes (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 23:00:00 MST
--- Lee Corbin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > My only problem with this is the exclusivity that
> > you seem to apply. Just because the nanotech or
> > whatever at coordinates (x, y, z) gets real smart
> > real fast and collapses in just the way you say,
> > it can simultaneously spawn off a slightly more
> > primitive (i.e. smaller) version of itself to
> > location (x+dx, y, z) which repeats the process.
> > I don't see any reason why such a process would
> > *forego* converting adjacent material just because
> > its primary interest is "downwards not outwards".
I apologize if I entirely excluded any outwards
percolation, it was not my intention, only one of many
possible explanations to the Fermi Paradox. If I
understand Eli correctly, I agree with him on the
possibility, one which I think is even more likely,
that our civilization was rescued from SLOW-TIME
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE long ago, and most if not all of our
history has taken place in the blink of an eye in that
> Therefore I propose that your (and John Smart's)
> cannot really be a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
Because there are too many scenarios I remain
blissfully agnostic in this area. Thanks for cueing
me into John Smart, I was not aware that he was
thinking along these lines as well.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT