(didn’t downvote, but) I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, but couldn’t it just be the case that being a singleton isn’t that hard? As an empirical matter, the size(as a fraction of the total) of the largest somewhat-coherent entities controlling resources on Earth seems to have been increasing over time. Space expansion could change things, but a stable singleton might already exist by then, and be faced with a relatively homogeneous set of environments to expand into. I’ve written some pieces along similar lines btw.
i agree this is the strongest objection, and I don’t want to handwave it away.
my answer is: even if a singleton is achievable, control over a domain does not exempt the controller from the pressure toward increased intelligence and command of matter. a singleton is not excused from the struggle; it’ll just have to partake in it at a higher level.
i also think “singleton” can smuggle in too much, as it contains the assumption of an eternal, immutable, perfectly stable agent. so let me define the weaker thing I’m willing to grant: a Lonelyton, i.e. a world order with a single highest-level decision-making agency capable of exerting effective control over its domain.
we have had Lonelytons before, relative to smaller worlds: Rome, the Khanate, the Aztec Empire, Uruk, Calvin’s Geneva, the British Empire, the end-of-history Atlantic order. none escaped selection pressure. at its height, the British Empire was also intensely inventive and self-modifying; it helped produce the Industrial Revolution, then stagnated, weakened, frayed, and dissolved, while lower-level components picked up the evolutionary struggle where it left off.
the same point applies upward. a lightcone-scale Lonelyton still has to manage novelty, error, infrastructure, expansion, descendants, hostile physics, and unanticipated internal dynamics. Interstellar travel and relativistic parsec-scale coordination are not “solved” just because there is one top-level agency; they are precisely the sort of problems that reward deeper intelligence.
so yes, maybe singleton formation is easier than i think. but the anti-orthogonality point survives that concession. either the Lonelyton continues the upward leap toward greater intelligence and command of matter, or it stagnates, decomposes, and selection resumes among its parts.
bookmarked your post; will comment you as soon as i have some proper attention available!
(didn’t downvote, but) I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, but couldn’t it just be the case that being a singleton isn’t that hard? As an empirical matter, the size(as a fraction of the total) of the largest somewhat-coherent entities controlling resources on Earth seems to have been increasing over time. Space expansion could change things, but a stable singleton might already exist by then, and be faced with a relatively homogeneous set of environments to expand into. I’ve written some pieces along similar lines btw.
i agree this is the strongest objection, and I don’t want to handwave it away.
my answer is: even if a singleton is achievable, control over a domain does not exempt the controller from the pressure toward increased intelligence and command of matter. a singleton is not excused from the struggle; it’ll just have to partake in it at a higher level.
i also think “singleton” can smuggle in too much, as it contains the assumption of an eternal, immutable, perfectly stable agent. so let me define the weaker thing I’m willing to grant: a Lonelyton, i.e. a world order with a single highest-level decision-making agency capable of exerting effective control over its domain.
we have had Lonelytons before, relative to smaller worlds: Rome, the Khanate, the Aztec Empire, Uruk, Calvin’s Geneva, the British Empire, the end-of-history Atlantic order. none escaped selection pressure. at its height, the British Empire was also intensely inventive and self-modifying; it helped produce the Industrial Revolution, then stagnated, weakened, frayed, and dissolved, while lower-level components picked up the evolutionary struggle where it left off.
the same point applies upward. a lightcone-scale Lonelyton still has to manage novelty, error, infrastructure, expansion, descendants, hostile physics, and unanticipated internal dynamics. Interstellar travel and relativistic parsec-scale coordination are not “solved” just because there is one top-level agency; they are precisely the sort of problems that reward deeper intelligence.
so yes, maybe singleton formation is easier than i think. but the anti-orthogonality point survives that concession. either the Lonelyton continues the upward leap toward greater intelligence and command of matter, or it stagnates, decomposes, and selection resumes among its parts.
bookmarked your post; will comment you as soon as i have some proper attention available!