|
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
haha omg you just made my day 
|
human beings should understand that if aliens behave according to game theory, the most probable way that Earth will encounter alien life will be in the form of a relativistic kill vehicle (RKV) that instantly and without warning sterilizes the planet. We will not see any cute spaceships or wise aliens--it will simply be a 130 MT to 200 GT explosion happening somewhere on the earth's surface. (The latter explosion would turn us into Alderaan.) This is because across interstellar distances, talking is slow (bound by lightspeed), while RKVs and interstellar weapons are, relatively speaking, fast, so it makes sense to kill everything and ask questions later.
no, that actually doesnt make any sense at all, sorry.
|
On January 06 2012 08:20 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 08:14 turdburgler wrote:On January 06 2012 07:48 beg wrote:
not even humans, the most fucked up race on earth, would try to RKV-kill an alien civilization.
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. the ops already brought up arguments to this, even if 99.9% of aliens are peaceful, if even primative species (us) are able to destroy entire planets then the few that are super BM could go around destroying everyone who they ever encounter. it also explains why the most developed species (atleast by realistic standard) could be destroyed by the savages. i agree that its unlikely (developed species are probably in ships, chances are the distances are just too big or time differences etc) but the discussion is about the proper reaction to finding another species. What would compel this super BM species to actually act with a unified will? I would assume that they are too busy bombing each other to even pay attention to a silly little civilization like us.
Maybe this other civilization had a terminator-style robot apocalypse and instead of running into Quarians we run into Geth?
You guys are taking this thread wayyyy too seriously. Needs more space dicks imo.
|
this is why you should never try to have a discussion after a night of drinking, you are probably going to talk alot out of your asses and have no idea what youre talking about, not saying i know jack shit about this or so but yeah my 2cents.
Id rather want Aliens to abduct me introduce their homeplanet and live like a king over there and then gather up all the forces and invade Earth just because I CAN AND will save my family first and enjoy my life in another planet in another galaxy
ps. Only Day9 Tasteless and Artosisis allowed to join my ship and survive. + 3 hot chicks for them to make sure mankind will survive.
|
Good read. How the hell do you hit a planet revolving around a star which may be revolving around something (e.g. a blackhole) which is in a galaxy which is rotating with an RKV whose trajectory would absolutely be effected chaotically by the myriad of gravitationally non-negligible sources (and without getting too close to a blackhole) from just a radio signal though? I can't think of a more difficult target.
|
On January 06 2012 08:20 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 08:14 turdburgler wrote:On January 06 2012 07:48 beg wrote:
not even humans, the most fucked up race on earth, would try to RKV-kill an alien civilization.
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. the ops already brought up arguments to this, even if 99.9% of aliens are peaceful, if even primative species (us) are able to destroy entire planets then the few that are super BM could go around destroying everyone who they ever encounter. it also explains why the most developed species (atleast by realistic standard) could be destroyed by the savages. i agree that its unlikely (developed species are probably in ships, chances are the distances are just too big or time differences etc) but the discussion is about the proper reaction to finding another species. What would compel this super BM species to actually act with a unified will? I would assume that they are too busy bombing each other to even pay attention to a silly little civilization like us.
Because unified species that actively exterminate tend to survive past those that aren't. When you are dealing with an infinite range of possibilities, you have to use evolutionary logic to start weeding out all the possiblities which won't make it in the long run.
|
So many stupid people in a single thread. Fun to read though.
|
On January 06 2012 08:20 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 08:14 turdburgler wrote:On January 06 2012 07:48 beg wrote:
not even humans, the most fucked up race on earth, would try to RKV-kill an alien civilization.
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. the ops already brought up arguments to this, even if 99.9% of aliens are peaceful, if even primative species (us) are able to destroy entire planets then the few that are super BM could go around destroying everyone who they ever encounter. it also explains why the most developed species (atleast by realistic standard) could be destroyed by the savages. i agree that its unlikely (developed species are probably in ships, chances are the distances are just too big or time differences etc) but the discussion is about the proper reaction to finding another species. What would compel this super BM species to actually act with a unified will? I would assume that they are too busy bombing each other to even pay attention to a silly little civilization like us.
even a single nation on a planet like the US would be able to do these things, we are assuming that most planets will form a single government by the time they reach space age. we have large power blocks on earth, and we've only been space faring for 50 years. give it another 100, is it unrealistic that world war 3 doesnt leave a single power around?
|
The biggest flaw in this post is this statement
"If the universe is anarchic and civs are competing with each other"
Civs are not competing with each other. I don't care how close to the speed of light you learn to travel, this scenario just cannot happen with the scale of space. You might be able to find two civilizations in the universe close enough to compete if you had the luxury of searching through all of it, but no civilization will ever turn itself into a machine of destruction directed at all these civilizations which could not compete with them or be relevant to their lives. Even if distant colonies of civilizations could conflict, you yourself pointed out the aunotomous nature they would have to adopt.
|
On January 06 2012 08:26 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Good read. How the hell do you hit a planet revolving around a star which may be revolving around something (e.g. a blackhole) which is in a galaxy which is rotating with an RKV whose trajectory would absolutely be effected chaotically by the myriad of gravitationally non-negligible sources (and without getting too close to a blackhole) from just a radio signal though? I can't think of a more difficult target.
Seeing how even balistic missile defense has been nothing but a horrible failure, I think this is the main concern. Sure, we can throw rocks at planets. We'll just never hit them.
Hilarious thread tho.
|
On January 06 2012 08:26 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Good read. How the hell do you hit a planet revolving around a star which may be revolving around something (e.g. a blackhole) which is in a galaxy which is rotating with an RKV whose trajectory would absolutely be effected chaotically by the myriad of gravitationally non-negligible sources (and without getting too close to a blackhole) from just a radio signal though? I can't think of a more difficult target.
You use a shotgun, of course. You put a H-bomb into the asteroid, and split it up into chunks as it's getting close to the general area of the planet. Actually, better yet, you fling about 100 RKVs at the star it's orbiting, each fragmenting into 100 chunks, so you have 10,000 mini-RKVs, each of which is carrying enough energy to burn off the planet's atmosphere. Essentially, a carpet bombing of an entire solar system.
In that case, you'd only have to plot the course of a star, which is a trivial exercise any first-year astrophysics student could do.
|
Obviously it's a fallacy to ascribe unity of agency to a community of billions of individuals. This is just one of many problems with the analysis in the OP, which are all about the same amount of jumping the gun ...so to speak. And I'd rather address a much more compelling issue than any out of the marble bag of problems with the assumptions and reasoning.
Intelligent life quickly (in cosmic terms) moves beyond the need to simply survive and proliferate. Aside: our next energy revolution will solidly cement the dawn of this new paradigm globally, aided by our ever-improving information systems. I doubt such a civilization, either concentrated or scattered, would be able to maintain a unified policy of shoot first, for all the politico-logistic problems the OP analysis ignores, but more importantly because a "civilized" ideology -- any speck of dissent -- will nullify the whole policy. Moreover, that ideology is the natural first step of anyone with a scrap of serious, scientific existential introspection who has security of means.
Essentially you take a pessimistic view of alien life that assumes for some reason that a scourge-barbarian mindset is predominant. That's like saying everything is out to get you, germs animals and other people, when clearly, most of each of those three categories are no such thing.
Do you see how a non-violent, pro-communication mindset has an implicit high ground of agency? This is only magnified by the scale and sparseness of the universe.
To be even more abstract and possibly muddle the point entirely: self awareness breaks any game theory analysis because one dissenting agent in a non-idealized reality throws the rationality underpinnings out the window. But more than that, intelligent agency with ever-increasing command of physical resources must extend its self awareness to others that reside in its purview, be they inert (a specious term) or themselves possessing agency (again a specious distinction). The environment, the fellow and the alien are all increasingly the self.
The scenario proposed in the OP isn't impossible, so I would like to make clear I don't think it's complete garbage. It is one unfortunate contingency, like an initial state that shows promise and then dies out unexpectedly in the game of life. Personally I find it unlikely.
tl;dr -- Self preservation on the level of biology is a medieval trait in cosmic terms.
|
I can't imagine humans being OK with committing genocide against an entire planet's life as a first act and I see no reason to assume other intelligent species would either. If a species has lived long enough to develop interstellar weaponry it seems far more reasonable to assume they must be relatively peaceful.
There is next to no chance of humans ever finding intelligent life "out there" anyway (if there is even any to find), and that minute chance approaches zero if you're talking about the lifespan of people alive today.
|
Sorry, but your game theory is wrong. You need to understand that you as a human will never know how advanced the most advanced civilization in the universe is. The ideal strategy in universal diplomacy/warfare is peace and cooperative communication; thus RKVs are not needed and should not be discussed.
The universe is so big that the most advanced species will probably never know that they are the most advanced. Therefore there is always a huge risk in attacking another species' planet with the intent of genocide. If humans are the most advanced race in the universe, we would never know it. If you have a race that knows what's going on in 60% of the entire universe at all times, they still cannot know for certain that they are the most powerful race. What if we are simply being imprisoned in a matrix-like universe by an interdimensional species? It's like arguing for or against god.
There is no reason to believe any higher civilization wants anything other than universal peace. This logically follows from the above thought experiment. Therefore there is no reason for humans to even want to develop interplanetary weapons and defense.
|
On January 06 2012 08:21 Tor wrote:
In the case of your game theory there actually is a win/win. If noone shoots than everyone wins, and if someone shoots it doesn't matter because there is nothing you can do about it anyways, therefore the safest option is simply not to shoot and reap the economic rewards of cultural exchange.
This is not how game theory works. The existence of a win/win scenario doesn't mean it's safer not to shoot.
On January 06 2012 08:26 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Good read. How the hell do you hit a planet revolving around a star which may be revolving around something (e.g. a blackhole) which is in a galaxy which is rotating with an RKV whose trajectory would absolutely be effected chaotically by the myriad of gravitationally non-negligible sources (and without getting too close to a blackhole) from just a radio signal though? I can't think of a more difficult target.
The engine is ON THE WEAPON. It's not throwing a rock, it's launching a missile. This isn't speculation, Project Orion (Freeman Dyson) and derivative research explain how to launch a probe to an interstellar destination at relativistic speeds.
On January 06 2012 08:21 Tor wrote:
Since we aren't currently dead, we can assume that no alien species wants to destroy us. Since the aliens aren't currently dead, they can assume we don't want to destroy them. Since there is no incentive to destroy the aliens unless we assume they are going to destroy us then we can happily live in a peaceful universe. The only time it would be a good idea to destroy an alien race would be if we both met simultaneously and no clear assumptions about our motives could be made (not going to happen, and totally unverifiable anyways).
The first sentence assumes all aliens know "we" (or any target species) exist.
Actually, the best way to undermine the argument is to explain the apparent silence by the prevalence of xenophobic hermit civilizations that just don't talk, rather than there being certain apex species that just obliterate most of the others. Of course for argument's sake we can grant that there are enough species around.
|
United States15275 Posts
On January 06 2012 08:17 Warfie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 08:12 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 06 2012 08:12 Warfie wrote:
So many replies in this thread are in bad taste. Game theory in its essence is rational, cynical and logical. If you think this thread is full of bullshit then you must either disagree with the assumptions its logic is based on, or base your disagreement on logical flaws in the arguments that derive from the assumptions. If you actually studied game theory then you would know that you are wrong. Please elaborate. I don't study game theory, so I am not one to disagree. But what I'm trying to get at is exactly this - no one ever cares to explain anything, all they do is state a fact as if it were obvious to anyone and everyone. In this instance I am eager to learn about what the 'essence' of game theory might be, if I can assume you have studied it, but your post doesn't lend itself as of right now.
Game theory is developing mathematical models as applied to decision-making between rational agents (which range from individuals ----> civilizations). It's closely related to decision theory and no more cynical or logical than Marxism-Leninism and analytic philosophy. It doesn't assume that everyone shares the same values and goals, it incorporates those possibilities into the models themselves to provide better explanations and hypothetical scenarios. And of course for the more complex scenarios you need a lot of prior information to make assumptions about said goals and values. Often times cooperation and altruism results in better rewards than mere self-interest.
|
Wait, so where exactly was the math? Game theory isn't just some conspiracy funding bullshit. If you're saying something makes sense according to game theory, do the fucking math so we actually have something to discuss instead of just throwing some un-checkable undiscussable assumptions out there and pasting a label on it with game theory?
Having said that, reading your post was fun OP, and I've seen some pretty epic replies. Still approve of this thread 
edit: also reminded me to start reading some asimov as I haven't yet and apparently it's pretty epic
|
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/804/aliensl.png/
I'm not seeing it. How would killing benefit aliens?
Case 1: Humans also kill
Aliens die either way. Makes no diff. what they choose
Case 2: Humans are unaware
Aliens live either way. Makes no diff. what they choose
Case 3: Humans are aware and don't kill
Aliens live either way. Makes no diff. what they choose unless they see value in integrating aspects of human culture.
If there are NO benefits to trying to befriend humans then sure, kill us. If there's even an inkling of a chance that contacting humans could be beneficial, why would you kill? How does game theory arrive at the conclusion that aliens will instantly shoot space dicks at everyone?
|
5003 Posts
|
On January 06 2012 08:31 sviatoslavrichter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 08:26 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Good read. How the hell do you hit a planet revolving around a star which may be revolving around something (e.g. a blackhole) which is in a galaxy which is rotating with an RKV whose trajectory would absolutely be effected chaotically by the myriad of gravitationally non-negligible sources (and without getting too close to a blackhole) from just a radio signal though? I can't think of a more difficult target. You use a shotgun, of course. You put a H-bomb into the asteroid, and split it up into chunks as it's getting close to the general area of the planet. Actually, better yet, you fling about 100 RKVs at the star it's orbiting, each fragmenting into 100 chunks, so you have 10,000 mini-RKVs, each of which is carrying enough energy to burn off the planet's atmosphere. In that case, you'd only have to plot the course of a star, which is a trivial exercise any first-year astrophysics student could do.
How much area is that RKV taking up? 1km wide square of RKV's? 10km2 ? 100km2? Even 10000km2 is small in space. What's your margin of error? Over a 20ly distance you'd still require essentially 100% accuracy, no margin for error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://savingearth.co.cc/images/content/others/pushed%20toward%20extinction.jpg)
