Is there already a name for that effect where grandiose plans somehow appear to be more feasible than the simple mundane step-by-step issues resolution that even though they clearly stand in the way of said grand plans, are not worth investing thought and effort in?
When it comes to software projects my pet-name for it is the "big-bang theory", but in the article's domain that's kind of already taken.
Has someone answered why a civilization would send "von Neumann probes" or similar into space? It would take so long for any answers from those probes to arrive that there really doesn't seem much value in them.
Right. We have no idea how another species perceives time. This could be nothing to them.
And even if they do perceive it like us, that hasn't stopped humans from great projects. How many generations did it take to complete Stonehenge or the Great Wall of China? We're still on top of Voyager too after 50 years.
Well, if you personally were building von Neumann machines do any purpose in the solar system, would YOU be interested in sending some to neighboring systems knowing that you could conceivably get a response in your lifetime.
Would you be at all interested in expanding that project to outlast you?
And even if you personally wouldn’t be so inclined, surely you know or have met people who might?
Once you have the self replication, expanding scope may just be additional code…
I recently saw an interesting criticism of this paper: That by the end stages of the disassembly of Mercury, the amount of heat generated would be so much as to melt the surface, calling into question whether the mass driver system could work at such a high rate.
Sending an acorn-sized probe to another galaxy to make more acorn-sized probes: what even is the point of that? To make very slow grey goo a reality?
If actual humans find a way to go to Andromeda (other than waiting for it to arrive, heh) and want to, good for them. Otherwise we should actively discourage anything like the project proposed
This isn't my field, but I see a huge gap between what in the abstract they say it would be feasible for us and what we're currently capable of. I mean, we're able to send space probes around, but self-replicating space probes and Dyson spheres feel on another level. Am I the only one?
What we're capable of != what we're doing / not doing because of political will. We are technically capable of reaching significant fractions of c with tech from the 1960s. We'll never do that because there's no will to do it, but the tech is there.
Same for self replicating stuff. We could build self-contained factories that build stuff from raw minerals, but we'll likely not do it until there's a will for it. Or need for it.
Do we have anything that self-replicates physically?
Software, sure. I know 3D printer folks will sometimes 3D print parts for new machines. But nothing that fully replicates itself, right? Especially autonomously.
Additionally, you also have to consider that a self-replicating space probe should be able to find, retrieve, and process the raw materials needed to build new probes on its own. A 3D printer can print some of its own parts, but with externally-provided material that it isn't able to produce on its own.
I guess the OP meant something that is more flatous for human vanity to feel like a demiurge when at most it would be a tool of cosmos in its experiment.
Is there already a name for that effect where grandiose plans somehow appear to be more feasible than the simple mundane step-by-step issues resolution that even though they clearly stand in the way of said grand plans, are not worth investing thought and effort in?
When it comes to software projects my pet-name for it is the "big-bang theory", but in the article's domain that's kind of already taken.
"Far-mode thinking".
https://www.lesswrong.com/w/near-far-thinking
Has someone answered why a civilization would send "von Neumann probes" or similar into space? It would take so long for any answers from those probes to arrive that there really doesn't seem much value in them.
We don't know however "It would take so long" is an anthropomorphic assumption of time scale.
Right. We have no idea how another species perceives time. This could be nothing to them.
And even if they do perceive it like us, that hasn't stopped humans from great projects. How many generations did it take to complete Stonehenge or the Great Wall of China? We're still on top of Voyager too after 50 years.
Well, if you personally were building von Neumann machines do any purpose in the solar system, would YOU be interested in sending some to neighboring systems knowing that you could conceivably get a response in your lifetime.
Would you be at all interested in expanding that project to outlast you?
And even if you personally wouldn’t be so inclined, surely you know or have met people who might?
Once you have the self replication, expanding scope may just be additional code…
You can ask same question about any decision that outlasts you. E.g. why write a will for your children?
I recently saw an interesting criticism of this paper: That by the end stages of the disassembly of Mercury, the amount of heat generated would be so much as to melt the surface, calling into question whether the mass driver system could work at such a high rate.
No humans go, no information returns.
Sending an acorn-sized probe to another galaxy to make more acorn-sized probes: what even is the point of that? To make very slow grey goo a reality?
If actual humans find a way to go to Andromeda (other than waiting for it to arrive, heh) and want to, good for them. Otherwise we should actively discourage anything like the project proposed
"And with this papyrus, we conclude that in five thousand years, mankind will finally build a staircase to the Moon"
This isn't my field, but I see a huge gap between what in the abstract they say it would be feasible for us and what we're currently capable of. I mean, we're able to send space probes around, but self-replicating space probes and Dyson spheres feel on another level. Am I the only one?
> what we're currently capable of.
What we're capable of != what we're doing / not doing because of political will. We are technically capable of reaching significant fractions of c with tech from the 1960s. We'll never do that because there's no will to do it, but the tech is there.
Same for self replicating stuff. We could build self-contained factories that build stuff from raw minerals, but we'll likely not do it until there's a will for it. Or need for it.
Do we have anything that self-replicates physically?
Software, sure. I know 3D printer folks will sometimes 3D print parts for new machines. But nothing that fully replicates itself, right? Especially autonomously.
Maybe we'll see what a moon base can bring us.
Additionally, you also have to consider that a self-replicating space probe should be able to find, retrieve, and process the raw materials needed to build new probes on its own. A 3D printer can print some of its own parts, but with externally-provided material that it isn't able to produce on its own.
Basically all of life is self replicating, physically.
I guess the OP meant something that is more flatous for human vanity to feel like a demiurge when at most it would be a tool of cosmos in its experiment.
Can we have a science paper that explains why we can colonize Andromeda but we can’t build high speed rail?
Because we don't refer to the same entities in each case?