Seems dependent on substitute energy availability and military technology.
the expansion of the universe
There seems to be significant variance in how much humans care about such things, and achievement depends significantly on interest. Would aliens care at all about this?
If you want to pick one question to ask
I think we would do quite poorly with any one such question and exponentially better if permitted a handful.
I mean we’d do more than twice as well with one question than with two, and more than twice as well with three than with two. Usually, diminishing returns leads us to learn less from each additional question, but not here. How do I express that?
when you have only two data points.
I have zero data points, I’m comparing hypothetical situations in which I ask aliens one or more questions about their technology. (It seems Dawkins’ scenario got inverted somewhere along the way, but I don’t think that makes any difference.)
I mean we’d do more than twice as well with one question than with two, and more than twice as well with three than with two. Usually, diminishing returns leads us to learn less from each additional question, but not here. How do I express that?
That’s actually a claim of superexponential growth, but how you said it sounds ok. I’m actually not sure that you can get superexponential growth in a meaningful sense. If you have n bits of data you can’t do better than having all n bits be completely independent. So if one is measuring information content in a Shannon sense one can’t do better than exponential.
Edit: If this is what you want to say I’d say something like “As the number of questions asked goes up the information level increases exponentially” or use “superexponentially” if you mean that.
My best guess for each individual achievement gets better each other achievement I learn about, as they are not independent.
So if one is measuring information content in a Shannon sense one can’t do better than exponential.
I was trying to get at the legitimacy of summarizing the aggregate of somewhat correlated achievements as a “level of civilization”. Describing a civilization as having a a “low/medium/high/etc. level of civilization” in relation to others depends on either its technological advances being correlated similarly or establishing some subset of them as especially important. I don’t think the latter can be done much, which leaves inquiring about the former.
If the aliens are sending interstellar ships to colonize nearby systems, have no biology or medicine, have no nuclear energy or chemical propulsion (they built a tower on their low gravity planet and launched a solar sail based craft from it with the equivalent of a slingshot for their space program), and have quantum computers, they don’t have a level of technology.
If the aliens are sending interstellar ships to colonize nearby systems, have no biology or medicine, have no nuclear energy or chemical propulsion (they built a tower on their low gravity planet and launched a solar sail based craft from it with the equivalent of a slingshot for their space program), and have quantum computers, they don’t have a level of technology.
Well what does no medicine mean? A lot of medicine would work fine without understanding genetics in detail. Blood donors and antibiotics are both examples. Also do normal computers not count as technology? Why not? Assume that we somehow interacted with an alien group that fit your description. Is there nothing we could learn from them? I think not. For one, they might have math that we don’t have. They might have other technologies that we lack (for example, better superconductors). You may be buying into a narrative of technological levels that isn’t necessarily justified. There are a lot of examples of technologies that arose fairly late compared to when they necessarily made sense. For example, one-time pads arose in the late 19th century, but would have made sense as a useful system on telegraphs 20 or 30 years before. Another example are high-temperature superconductors. Similarly, high temperature superconductors (that is substances that are superconductors at liquid nitrogen temperatures) were discovered in the mid 1980s but the basic constructions could have been made twenty years before.
No blood donors (if they have blood), no antibiotics (if they have bacteria), etc.
Also do normal computers not count as technology?
Of course they do.
Assume that we somehow interacted with an alien group that fit your description. Is there nothing we could learn from them?
We could learn a lot from them, but it would be wrong to say “The aliens have a technological level less than ours”, “The aliens have a technological level roughly equal to ours”, “The aliens have a technological level greater than ours”, or “The aliens have a technological level, for by technological levels we can most helpfully and meaningfully divide possible-civilizationspace”.
You may be buying into a narrative of technological levels that isn’t necessarily justified. There are a lot of examples of technologies that arose fairly late compared to when they necessarily made sense.
My point is that there are a lot of examples of technologies that arose fairly late compared to when they necessarily made sense, so asking about what technologies have arisen isn’t as informative as one might intuitively suspect. It’s so uninformative that the idea of levels of technology is in danger of losing coherence as a concept absent confirmation from the alien society that we can analogize from our society to theirs, confirmation that requires multiple data points.
I didn’t downvote it, but if you notice, JoshuaZ concluded my use of “exponential” was “ok”, as what I actually meant was not “a lot” but rather what is technically known as “superexponential growth”.
“Even less justification” has some harsh connotations.
I think we would do quite poorly with any one such question and exponentially better if permitted a handful.
Very much agreed.
I also agree with:
I, personally, see it as a failure of imagination on the part of Dawkin’s, that he considers the issue he personally finds most important to be that which alien intelligences will find most important,
I agree with the general idea of:
If you want to pick one question to ask (and if we leave aside the obvious criterion of easy detectability from space) then you would want to pick one strongly connected in the dependency graph.
though I think it is hard to correctly choose according to this criterion. I’m skeptical that digital computers would
really pass this test. Considering the medium that we are all using to discuss this, we might be a bit biased in
our views of their significance. (as a former chemist, I’m biased towards picking the periodic table—but I know
I’m not making a neutral assessment here.)
Nuclear energy seems like a decent choice, from the dependency graph point of view.
A civilization which is able to use either fission or fusion has to pass a couple of fairly stringent tests.
To detect the relevant nuclear reactions in the first place, they need to detect Mev particles, which
aren’t things that everyday chemical or biological processes produce. To get either reaction to happen
on a large scale, they must recognize and successfully separate isotopes, which is a significant
technical accomplishment.
To get either reaction to happen on a large scale, they must recognize and successfully separate isotopes, which is a significant technical accomplishment.
Is it possible the right isotopes might be lying around? Like here, but more concentrated and dispersed?
Is it possible the right isotopes might be lying around?
Yes, good point, if intelligent life evolved faster on their planet. The relevant timing is how long it took after the supernova that generated the uranium for the alien civilization to arise. (since that sets the 238U/235U ratio).
I’m confused. I thought a reaction needed a quantity of 235U in an area, and that smaller areas needed more 235U to sustain a chain reaction. Wouldn’t very small pieces of relatively 235U rich uranium be fairly stable? One could then put them together with no technological requirements at all.
You are quite correct, small pieces of 235U are stable. The difference is that low concentrations of 235U
in natural uranium (because of it’s faster decay than 238U) make it harder to get to critical mass, even with
chemically pure (but not isotopically pure) uranium. IIRC, reactor grade is around 5% 235U, while natural
uranium is 0.7%. IIRC, pure natural uranium metal, at least by itself, doesn’t have enough 235U to sustain
a chain reaction, even in a large mass. (but I vaguely recall that the original reactor experiment with just
the right spacing of uranium metal lumps and graphite moderator may have been natural uranium—I
need to check this… (short of time right now))
(I’m still not quite sure—Chicago Pile-1 is documented here
but the web page described the fuel as “uranium pellets”. I think they mean natural uranium, in which case
I withdraw my statement that isotope separation is a prerequisite for nuclear power.)
I vaguely recall that the original reactor experiment with just the right spacing of uranium metal lumps and graphite moderator may have been natural uranium
I think this is correct but finding a source which says that seems to be tough. However, Wikipedia does explicitly confirm that the successor to CP1 did initially use unenriched uranium.
Edit: This article (pdf) seems to confirm it. They couldn’t even use pure uranium but had to use uranium oxide. No mention of any sort of enrichment is made.
Yes, CP-1 used natural uranium (~0.7% U-235) and ultra high purity graphite. It would become impossible to attain without isotope separation in just a few hundred million years, to add to the billions from the formation of uranium in the star. Conversely, 1.7 billions years ago, it occurred naturally, with regular water to slow down neutrons.
IIRC, pure natural uranium metal, at least by itself, doesn’t have enough 235U to sustain a chain reaction, even in a large mass.
What is natural is something that I, without background other than a history of nuclear weapons class for my history degree, was/am not confident wouldn’t vary from solar system to solar system.
The natural reactor ended up with less U235 than normal, decayed uranium because some of the fuel had been spent. I assume that it began with either an unusual concentration of regular uranium (or other configuration of elements that slowed neutrons or otherwise facilitated a reaction) or that the uranium there was unusually rich in 235U. If it was the latter, I don’t know the limits for how rich in 235U uranium could be at time of seeding into a planet, but no matter the richness, having small enough pieces would preserve it for future beings. Richness alone wouldn’t cause a natural reaction, so to the extent richness can vary, it can make nuclear technology easy.
If the natural reactor had average uranium, and uranium on planets wouldn’t be particularly more 235U rich than ours, then nuclear technology’s ease would be dependent on life arising quickly relative to ours, but not fantastically so, as you say.
This is a good one. I like it.
Seems dependent on substitute energy availability and military technology.
There seems to be significant variance in how much humans care about such things, and achievement depends significantly on interest. Would aliens care at all about this?
I think we would do quite poorly with any one such question and exponentially better if permitted a handful.
cringe. Please don’t use “exponentially” to mean a lot when you have only two data points.
I mean we’d do more than twice as well with one question than with two, and more than twice as well with three than with two. Usually, diminishing returns leads us to learn less from each additional question, but not here. How do I express that?
I have zero data points, I’m comparing hypothetical situations in which I ask aliens one or more questions about their technology. (It seems Dawkins’ scenario got inverted somewhere along the way, but I don’t think that makes any difference.)
That’s actually a claim of superexponential growth, but how you said it sounds ok. I’m actually not sure that you can get superexponential growth in a meaningful sense. If you have n bits of data you can’t do better than having all n bits be completely independent. So if one is measuring information content in a Shannon sense one can’t do better than exponential.
Edit: If this is what you want to say I’d say something like “As the number of questions asked goes up the information level increases exponentially” or use “superexponentially” if you mean that.
My best guess for each individual achievement gets better each other achievement I learn about, as they are not independent.
I was trying to get at the legitimacy of summarizing the aggregate of somewhat correlated achievements as a “level of civilization”. Describing a civilization as having a a “low/medium/high/etc. level of civilization” in relation to others depends on either its technological advances being correlated similarly or establishing some subset of them as especially important. I don’t think the latter can be done much, which leaves inquiring about the former.
If the aliens are sending interstellar ships to colonize nearby systems, have no biology or medicine, have no nuclear energy or chemical propulsion (they built a tower on their low gravity planet and launched a solar sail based craft from it with the equivalent of a slingshot for their space program), and have quantum computers, they don’t have a level of technology.
Well what does no medicine mean? A lot of medicine would work fine without understanding genetics in detail. Blood donors and antibiotics are both examples. Also do normal computers not count as technology? Why not? Assume that we somehow interacted with an alien group that fit your description. Is there nothing we could learn from them? I think not. For one, they might have math that we don’t have. They might have other technologies that we lack (for example, better superconductors). You may be buying into a narrative of technological levels that isn’t necessarily justified. There are a lot of examples of technologies that arose fairly late compared to when they necessarily made sense. For example, one-time pads arose in the late 19th century, but would have made sense as a useful system on telegraphs 20 or 30 years before. Another example are high-temperature superconductors. Similarly, high temperature superconductors (that is substances that are superconductors at liquid nitrogen temperatures) were discovered in the mid 1980s but the basic constructions could have been made twenty years before.
No blood donors (if they have blood), no antibiotics (if they have bacteria), etc.
Of course they do.
We could learn a lot from them, but it would be wrong to say “The aliens have a technological level less than ours”, “The aliens have a technological level roughly equal to ours”, “The aliens have a technological level greater than ours”, or “The aliens have a technological level, for by technological levels we can most helpfully and meaningfully divide possible-civilizationspace”.
My point is that there are a lot of examples of technologies that arose fairly late compared to when they necessarily made sense, so asking about what technologies have arisen isn’t as informative as one might intuitively suspect. It’s so uninformative that the idea of levels of technology is in danger of losing coherence as a concept absent confirmation from the alien society that we can analogize from our society to theirs, confirmation that requires multiple data points.
Ah, I see. Yes that makes sense. No substantial disagreement then.
I heard a Calculus teacher do this with even less justification a few days ago.
EDIT: was this downvoted for irrelevancy, or some other reason?
I didn’t downvote it, but if you notice, JoshuaZ concluded my use of “exponential” was “ok”, as what I actually meant was not “a lot” but rather what is technically known as “superexponential growth”.
“Even less justification” has some harsh connotations.
Very much agreed.
I also agree with:
I agree with the general idea of:
though I think it is hard to correctly choose according to this criterion. I’m skeptical that digital computers would really pass this test. Considering the medium that we are all using to discuss this, we might be a bit biased in our views of their significance. (as a former chemist, I’m biased towards picking the periodic table—but I know I’m not making a neutral assessment here.)
Nuclear energy seems like a decent choice, from the dependency graph point of view. A civilization which is able to use either fission or fusion has to pass a couple of fairly stringent tests. To detect the relevant nuclear reactions in the first place, they need to detect Mev particles, which aren’t things that everyday chemical or biological processes produce. To get either reaction to happen on a large scale, they must recognize and successfully separate isotopes, which is a significant technical accomplishment.
Is it possible the right isotopes might be lying around? Like here, but more concentrated and dispersed?
Yes, good point, if intelligent life evolved faster on their planet. The relevant timing is how long it took after the supernova that generated the uranium for the alien civilization to arise. (since that sets the 238U/235U ratio).
I’m confused. I thought a reaction needed a quantity of 235U in an area, and that smaller areas needed more 235U to sustain a chain reaction. Wouldn’t very small pieces of relatively 235U rich uranium be fairly stable? One could then put them together with no technological requirements at all.
You are quite correct, small pieces of 235U are stable. The difference is that low concentrations of 235U in natural uranium (because of it’s faster decay than 238U) make it harder to get to critical mass, even with chemically pure (but not isotopically pure) uranium. IIRC, reactor grade is around 5% 235U, while natural uranium is 0.7%. IIRC, pure natural uranium metal, at least by itself, doesn’t have enough 235U to sustain a chain reaction, even in a large mass. (but I vaguely recall that the original reactor experiment with just the right spacing of uranium metal lumps and graphite moderator may have been natural uranium—I need to check this… (short of time right now)) (I’m still not quite sure—Chicago Pile-1 is documented here but the web page described the fuel as “uranium pellets”. I think they mean natural uranium, in which case I withdraw my statement that isotope separation is a prerequisite for nuclear power.)
I think this is correct but finding a source which says that seems to be tough. However, Wikipedia does explicitly confirm that the successor to CP1 did initially use unenriched uranium.
Edit: This article (pdf) seems to confirm it. They couldn’t even use pure uranium but had to use uranium oxide. No mention of any sort of enrichment is made.
Yes, CP-1 used natural uranium (~0.7% U-235) and ultra high purity graphite. It would become impossible to attain without isotope separation in just a few hundred million years, to add to the billions from the formation of uranium in the star. Conversely, 1.7 billions years ago, it occurred naturally, with regular water to slow down neutrons.
Fusion is more interesting.
What is natural is something that I, without background other than a history of nuclear weapons class for my history degree, was/am not confident wouldn’t vary from solar system to solar system.
The natural reactor ended up with less U235 than normal, decayed uranium because some of the fuel had been spent. I assume that it began with either an unusual concentration of regular uranium (or other configuration of elements that slowed neutrons or otherwise facilitated a reaction) or that the uranium there was unusually rich in 235U. If it was the latter, I don’t know the limits for how rich in 235U uranium could be at time of seeding into a planet, but no matter the richness, having small enough pieces would preserve it for future beings. Richness alone wouldn’t cause a natural reaction, so to the extent richness can vary, it can make nuclear technology easy.
If the natural reactor had average uranium, and uranium on planets wouldn’t be particularly more 235U rich than ours, then nuclear technology’s ease would be dependent on life arising quickly relative to ours, but not fantastically so, as you say.