EPTGame theory, applied to aliens - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
| ||
|
KaBoom300
United States225 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:32 sviatoslavrichter wrote: That's a slim hope, but would you as a defense planner base your species' survival on the "likely peaceful natures" of the rest of the universe? How can you make that conclusion? Fair enough, although even if these actions are ineffective, the mentality behind them is extremely dangerous as it presumes that aliens would want to communicate with us first rather than just wipe us out on contact. True, but with the current excitement over finding planets that might contain life, it's not a stretch to imagine some group or another "broadcasting a peaceful message" to them. It doesn't matter. To think that human weapons would be able to scratch the paint off a vessel of the ship of an alien species advanced enough to actually send ships across the entire void of the galaxy is silly. A modern cruiser could blow up a WW2 era battleship from hundreds of miles away. An old ship of the line from the age of sail could pull up alongside a WW2 battleship and blast it with cannons all day and not achieve much. The battleship could blast it to pieces in a single shot whenever it wanted. If human weapons render themselves obsolete in mere decades, what the heck makes you think that we'd have a chance against a species which in theory would have had centuries of millennia of tech advantage over us? Makes for cool movies and video games, but kinda ridiculous in reality, (assuming aliens exist and all that jazz, lol) | ||
|
sviatoslavrichter
United States164 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:32 Haemonculus wrote: If aliens exist or have ever existed, I just find it highly unlikely that they and us exist in the same time period. Humanity has existed as a species for roughly what, 200,000 years, and we've only really been aware of ourselves as a species for the last 10,000 or so, and only in the last 50 have we even had the technology to bother thinking we can actually communicate with an alien race. Given the age of the universe, what are the odds that an advanced alien species is out there, at the exact same time that we presently exist? Chances are they either were born, lived, and died off billions of years ago, or they'll be born, live, and die billions of years after we're gone. True, that is the likeliest possibility, and the traditional answer to the question posed at the top of the OP. The OP is an alternate explanation. | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
it's actually quite easy. The universe is so silent, because it's actually in a vacuum. What does a vacuum have to do with sound, you ask? Well, sound just means, that the air around you is vibrating. It's vibrating in different frequenzies to make different notes. So, sound can only exit if there exists air. But, as one may think, the universe does not contain a lot of air outside of our planet. This means the universe is so silent because there is no air. After we explained this, could someone explain to me how magnets do work? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
Assume there is a 50/50 chance that a man will kick another man in the balls. If a man gets kicked in the nuts, they won't be able to kick you back. Traits are inherited genetically. Since someone who gets kicked in the nuts will likely not be able to have children, it is only natural that the only ones who will pass their genes onto the next person would be people who don't get kicked in the balls. Since all people want to pass their genes on, they will try to avoid getting their balls kicked. Because this is game theory, we assume that all indivduals make their decisions at the same time. You have two options: kick or don't kick. Neither one of these options will stop you from getting your balls kicked. However, if I see you kick someone else in the nuts, I will almost certainly kick you in the nuts just to keep myself safe. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if I kick you in the nuts or not. But since kicking someone in the nuts will almost assuredly, as a result, get you kicked in the nuts in following rounds, you have a strong incentive not to kick anyone in the nuts. Similarly, as two civilizations shooting each other with giant space dicks, I will certainly detect somebody firing a giant space dick and it exploding. I will certainly be able to tell that whoever fired that is certainly likely to do it again. Therefore, I have a strong incentive to shoot a space dick at anybody who shoots space dicks. Since shooting space dicks is now certain to get you space dicked, nobody will shoot space dicks, meaning we all live happily ever after. See how my argument makes no sense? Your argument makes even less sense. Metastupidity, in other words. tldr ow my balls | ||
|
oBlade
United States5491 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:32 alphafuzard wrote: Your logic only applies if you can get your RKV's to travel at least half the speed of light. I'm not sure how feasible that is. Also, you assume alien races would be incapable of detecting or deflecting our RKV. If they can detect it before it arrives, then they would probably respond, which would make sending it a bad idea. If they can deflect the attack, then obviously we are screwed, as they would likely destroy us as we have demonstrated we want to destroy them. Matter/antimatter pulse propulsion can reach staggering relativistic speeds (it's a step up from nuclear pulse propulsion). 0.5c is possible. I would tend to say they couldn't detect it. It's like trying to hear a bullet since it's impossible to. An asteroid-sized thing just sneaks up on your civilization and vaporizes it. It depends what kind of resolution you can make your telescopes, and whether you have enough to watch the whole sky, and enough people/software to dig it out of everything else in the pictures your telescopes take. On January 06 2012 07:01 sviatoslavrichter wrote: If the universe is anarchic and civs are competing with each other, then a few trends emerge in politics. First and foremost is that the dominant form of government will be a centralized authority with totalitarian control over energy production. The main function of the central authority will be how to most efficiently convert produced energy into RKVs or other ways to perform interstellar first strikes. However, they will need to spread out their colonies as fast as they can to survive, which means their local political institutions have to become somewhat autonomous because lightspeed communications are slow the further out you get--their populations will need to not be coerced by a central authority into giving up all their energy production to the center, but be morally or spiritually compelled to do so. The third aspect is that the civilization will need to be dead silent and paranoid with regard to radio communications, as any comms can leak the position of population centers. Fourth is that the civ must kill without any warning any other civilization which it encounters. Civs which obey these four precepts will quite simply kill off all civs which don't. Basically, because of how slow communications and trade are compared to instant death when dealing with interstellar distances, the dominant form of government will resemble North Korea, except worse. And over time, that's all that will be left, and no civs will ever know how to stop as you will never know whether or not there is another civilization with more RKVs and more spread out colonies waiting to pounce on you. Well, if you fracture your civilization into colonies, depending on where you live in the galaxy, you will still have noticeable relativistic communications problems between stars. Think about our reasons for non-proliferation right now. Even if one nuke falls into the wrong hands, there is a huge problem. Then apply that to the agendas different people will have in this imaginary politics. The authoritarian model is rife with internal power struggles, which adds to my self-destructive argument - they may end up simply using RKVs on themselves. On January 06 2012 07:42 Xiron wrote: Listen, it's actually quite easy. The universe is so silent, because it's actually in a vacuum. What does a vacuum have to do with sound, you ask? Well, sound just means, that the air around you is vibrating. It's vibrating in different frequenzies to make different notes. So, sound can only exit if there exists air. But, as one may think, the universe does not contain a lot of air outside of our planet. This means the universe is so silent because there is no air. After we explained this, could someone explain to me how magnets do work? This didn't have anything to do with anything. But in the spirit of jocularity, I will refute you with the Star Wars argument: In space, explosions are actually louder because there is no air to get in the way. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
Definitely heard this argument before, well not the whole RTV part, but definitely the communication limit. | ||
|
VediVeci
United States82 Posts
However I don´t necessarily concede the anarchic state of the galactic or inter galactic system. That conclusion seems premature given our lack of information. TLDR OP´s assumptions are a stretch EDIT: People are getting of the topic of game theory though, which is what this was about | ||
|
beg
991 Posts
why should the aliens? also, another thought experiment... three assumptions. 1) it is unlikely that the alien race is at exactly the point of development that we are. they are either way less or way more developed. 2) an RKV would only kill a less or equally developed species 3) a more devloped species would deflect the attack and kill us. draw the conclusion yourself. | ||
|
Serthius
Samoa226 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:43 Caller wrote: this isn't game theory this is needless speculation with gross assumptions in a disgusting parody of natural selection masquerading as prisoner's dillema. I could make the same example. Assume there is a 50/50 chance that a man will kick another man in the balls. If a man gets kicked in the nuts, they won't be able to kick you back. Traits are inherited genetically. Since someone who gets kicked in the nuts will likely not be able to have children, it is only natural that the only ones who will pass their genes onto the next person would be people who don't get kicked in the balls. Since all people want to pass their genes on, they will try to avoid getting their balls kicked. Because this is game theory, we assume that all indivduals make their decisions at the same time. You have two options: kick or don't kick. Neither one of these options will stop you from getting your balls kicked. However, if I see you kick someone else in the nuts, I will almost certainly kick you in the nuts just to keep myself safe. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if I kick you in the nuts or not. But since kicking someone in the nuts will almost assuredly, as a result, get you kicked in the nuts in following rounds, you have a strong incentive not to kick anyone in the nuts. Similarly, as two civilizations shooting each other with giant space dicks, I will certainly detect somebody firing a giant space dick and it exploding. I will certainly be able to tell that whoever fired that is certainly likely to do it again. Therefore, I have a strong incentive to shoot a space dick at anybody who shoots space dicks. Since shooting space dicks is now certain to get you space dicked, nobody will shoot space dicks, meaning we all live happily ever after. See how my argument makes no sense? Your argument makes even less sense. Metastupidity, in other words. tldr ow my balls This is the best post I've read in months. | ||
|
sviatoslavrichter
United States164 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:39 KaBoom300 wrote: Aliens would never shoot RKVs at anyone they suspected might have RKVs themselves. Just like with the Cold War, it's about mutually assured destruction. If there is any chance at all of a civilization having RKVs, there is also that same chance that they have methods to detect them. Even if they can't be stopped, a civilization could launch one right back and ensure the destruction of both planets. A civilization couldn't necessarily do that with reasonable certainty, though. There is no way to know where the other civ is in the galaxy on the basis of a single RKV shot pattern. Only a general direction; and given how the RKVs could launch slow, then accelerate about 2 or 3 hundred light-years away from their launch sites, it gets even harder to figure it out. The only reliable way to aim an RKV launch is through triangulating radio comms or identifying likely planets with life by looking at spectrometer results. Any civilization wanting to take out another would do things the old fashioned way and send in the fleet in order to make sure their victims couldn't respond. What if that other civ built all its RKV launchers in remote, hidden corners of its sector of the galaxy, kind of like how the US and USSR hid nukes on submarines? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
wut | ||
|
sviatoslavrichter
United States164 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:43 Caller wrote: this isn't game theory this is needless speculation with gross assumptions in a disgusting parody of natural selection masquerading as prisoner's dillema. I could make the same example. Assume there is a 50/50 chance that a man will kick another man in the balls. If a man gets kicked in the nuts, they won't be able to kick you back. Traits are inherited genetically. Since someone who gets kicked in the nuts will likely not be able to have children, it is only natural that the only ones who will pass their genes onto the next person would be people who don't get kicked in the balls. Since all people want to pass their genes on, they will try to avoid getting their balls kicked. Because this is game theory, we assume that all indivduals make their decisions at the same time. You have two options: kick or don't kick. Neither one of these options will stop you from getting your balls kicked. However, if I see you kick someone else in the nuts, I will almost certainly kick you in the nuts just to keep myself safe. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if I kick you in the nuts or not. But since kicking someone in the nuts will almost assuredly, as a result, get you kicked in the nuts in following rounds, you have a strong incentive not to kick anyone in the nuts. Similarly, as two civilizations shooting each other with giant space dicks, I will certainly detect somebody firing a giant space dick and it exploding. I will certainly be able to tell that whoever fired that is certainly likely to do it again. Therefore, I have a strong incentive to shoot a space dick at anybody who shoots space dicks. Since shooting space dicks is now certain to get you space dicked, nobody will shoot space dicks, meaning we all live happily ever after. See how my argument makes no sense? Your argument makes even less sense. Metastupidity, in other words. tldr ow my balls You can't detect the source of an RKV launch with reasonable certainty. I need to add this to the OP | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:49 sviatoslavrichter wrote: What if that other civ built all its RKV launchers in remote, hidden corners of its sector of the galaxy, kind of like how the US and USSR hid nukes on submarines? Over intergalactic distances with an inherent limitation on communication speed, such a strategy would be foolish (and costly). Also can you explain how you used game theory to come to these conclusions? | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2587 Posts
First lets say civ a is earth and civ b is hostile civ. Civ a is advanced enough to effectivly send out messeges to all planets say us in 20 years. We send a messege at ligth speed to civ b 100 ligth years away. Takes 100 years. Civ b launches rkv. Takes 200 years. In 2330 rkv reaches our solar system. Rkvs are pretty nice. But in the 1700 the most advanced weapon imaginable was a really big cannon. Today we have nukes and tech increase is exponential. There is a very good chance the rkv is obsolete waaaaaaaaay before it hits. If civ b was unlucky civ a was even infront of them in tech and destroys them and every star in a 50 ly radius with their supernova generator instead. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:50 sviatoslavrichter wrote: You can't detect the source of an RKV launch with reasonable certainty. I need to add this to the OP Let me explain something to you. I have a fucking telescope. I spot your space dick. I can trace that space dick perfectly damn well using geometry. In the time that your space dick has travelled 1 foot light travels 2 feet. If it takes 10 days for your space dick to land I see it on the 5th day. I most assuredly will not be bending over waiting for the space dick to come. I will be pissed and shoot my space dicks at you. And I can most assuredly shoot my space dicks in the 5 days before the space dick explodes all over my planet. I win again. | ||
|
sviatoslavrichter
United States164 Posts
On January 06 2012 07:52 CosmicSpiral wrote: Over intergalactic distances with an inherent limitation on communication speed, such a strategy would be foolish (and costly). Touché. However, if the RKV strategy was purely offensive (not reactive), then a communications lead time would not be a big hindrance. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
It's like arguing that it's more probably that God exists than he does not ... sure, you can make that argument, and it has been made before, and it will be made again (even in the book the probability of god by a physicist), but it ignores a very simple truth: you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about in order to make a claim about it, it's chance of existing, or its actions. Either aliens exists, or they do not. Either God exists, or he does not. IF there is a God, or some sort of Alien species, we know absolutely nothing about them, and therefore cannot make any predictions whatsoever ever them. Any predictions we make are based off what we believe, our values, our reasoning, our logic. Outside our assumptions, which are not based on facts - since we know absolutely no facts about said God or said Aliens, we have nothing to base our assumptions on. It's like saying it's 50% probability that God exists because either he does or he doesn't. Which sounds cool and all. But it's insanely stupid, because probability is based off having some facts to work with. TL;DR: Aliens if they exists obviously live off other species, and they would not sterilize our planet, because they would harvest us periodically to serve us as meat in an intergalactic hamburger restaurant. I know this, because all my assumptions of aliens are based on Killer Klowns from Outer Space, which is the only factual documentary about alien behaviour. Game Theory applied to aliens? Game Theory applied to God? Game Theory applied to unicorn riding alien elves led by God? It has the exact same meaning behind it: nothing. No value to it at all. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
| ||
| ||
