[Link] A superintelligent solution to the Fermi paradox

Perhaps I should also note that I disagree with your analysis on various points.

Because of the schizophrenia you have previously mentioned here, you make a lot of weird observations, and have trouble interpreting mundane coincidences as mundane.

I'm schizotypal I suppose, but not schizophrenic given the standard definition. I don't think I have any trouble interpreting mundane coincidences as mundane.

You also picked up a lot of ideas from the Less Wrong community.

Not especially so, actually.

So you reach out to the hoax hypotheses to justify your d

... (Read more)(Click to expand thread. ⌘/CTRL+F to Expand All)Cmd/Ctrl F to expand all comments on this post

I rarely troll—few of my LessWrong comments are downvoted.

(Empirical data: According to a karma histogram program someone posted some months ago (I saved a copy locally, but regrettably have forgotten the author's identity), 294 of 2190 of your recent comments (about 13.4%) have negative karma as of around 1735 PDT today.)

[Edited to add: However, as Will points out in the child, it might be misleading to simply count downvoted comments, because it is believed that some users mass-downvote the comments of certain others rather than judging each comment i... (Read more)(Click to expand thread. ⌘/CTRL+F to Expand All)Cmd/Ctrl F to expand all comments on this post

[Link] A superintelligent solution to the Fermi paradox

by Will_Newsome 1 min read30th May 201275 comments

-1


Here.

Long story short, it's an attempt to justify the planetarium hypothesis as a solution to the Fermi paradox. The first half is a discussion of how it and things like it are relevant to the intended purview of the blog, and the second half is the meat of the post. You'll probably want to just eat the meat, which I think is relevant to the interests of many LessWrong folk.

The blog is Computational Theology. It's new. I'll be the primary poster, but others are sought. I'll likely introduce the blog and more completely describe it in its own discussion post when more posts are up, hopefully including a few from people besides me, and when the archive will give a more informative indication of what to expect from the blog. Despite theism's suspect reputation here at LessWrong I suspect many of the future posts will be of interest to this audience anyway, especially for those of you who take interest in discussion of the singularity. The blog will even occasionally touch on rationality proper. So you might want to store the fact of the blog's existence somewhere deep in the back of your head. A link to the blog's main page can be found on my LessWrong user page if you forget the url.

I'd appreciate it if comments about the substance of the post were made on the blog post itself, but if you want to discuss the content here on LessWrong then that's okay too. Any meta-level comments about presentation, typos, or the post's relevance to LessWrong, should probably be put as comments on this discussion post. Thanks all!