Tech levels and the end of the universe

[Sword of Spirit]

I also like the idea of alternative paths of technological development. It can be tricky to manage suspension of disbelief if you posit an advanced society without computers, but you can also focus on technologies we are on the verge of today and imagine different futures based on some of them being pursued and others never really looked into. Some rules guidelines or suggestions of how to make cultures that include and exclude different technologies is always welcome.

 

[Morrus]

I also like the idea of alternative paths of technological development. It can be tricky to manage suspension of disbelief if you posit an advanced society without computers, but you can also focus on technologies we are on the verge of today and imagine different futures based on some of them being pursued and others never really looked into. Some rules guidelines or suggestions of how to make cultures that include and exclude different technologies is always welcome.

Oh, that's trivially simple to do. I'm using an open-ended based approach (not boxing things) - so you can say the Delorians on Beta Eridani IX are a level 9 civilization in general, but have level 10 medicine and, being an aquatic species, are bit behind on spaceflight with only level 7.

 

[GreyLord]

The only difficulty I have is if you have the power to end the universe...might the end of the universe occur?

Just like MAD...which perhaps had a better than 50% chance of happening (thank goodness we didn't all destroy each other), if there were two opposing forces with that ability, wouldn't the chances favor that the end of the universe would happen with everyone and everything being destroyed?

I suppose this is more a philosophical question, but it appears MAD on a universal scale would be possible for a longer period than MAD on the world scale.

 

[Alzrius]

The question of how many tanks Germany had is WWII seems quite different than the question of how many people will ever exist. I'd need a lot more detail to morph those into similar questions.

I'm not seeing how you're reaching that conclusion. Both are instances where you know how large a given subset is, and can use some conservative estimates to try and calculate how large the entire group is. Insofar as I'm aware, it's not really any different from any standard use of probabilistic sampling.

As well, a technique can get the right answer for the wrong reasons. A detailed analysis is still necessary to determine if a technique is valid.

The detailed analysis is on the Wikipedia page, so again I'm not sure what specific problems you have with this formula. You're certainly not citing any "wrong reasons" for how a correct number could be reached.

For these sorts of problems, the question must be very precise to even begin to reach an answer. None of what is on the WIKI or has been mentioned here is even close to the necessary precision.

What level of precision do you feel is necessary here? Moreover, why do you think that what's already there isn't precise enough? You're not demonstrating the claims you're making.

Also, why are you capitalizing the word "wiki"?

The WIKI page throws out a number of formulas, but also throws out a huge number of assumptions. Maybe the math is correct. But it is all meaningless without a hard look at the assumptions, and without a clearer tie between them and the math.

Again, what assumptions? The whole point of a probabilistic argument is that it's based on a set of assumptions with regards to the problem you're trying to solve, so the fact that there are assumptions there to begin with isn't undercutting anything (a la a Fermi problem).

As it stands, the WIKI page provides an amusing question. I wouldn't base any conclusions on it.

That page is explaining its work; you're not giving the same level of explanation for what fault you find with that work.

 

[Morrus]

The only difficulty I have is if you have the power to end the universe...might the end of the universe occur?

Just like MAD...which perhaps had a better than 50% chance of happening (thank goodness we didn't all destroy each other), if there were two opposing forces with that ability, wouldn't the chances favor that the end of the universe would happen with everyone and everything being destroyed?

I suppose this is more a philosophical question, but it appears MAD on a universal scale would be possible for a longer period than MAD on the world scale.

Guess it depends how many civilizations possess that power. Or whether The Doctor is there to stop them. That's what RPGs are for, right? You get to be the heroes preventing mutually assured universal destruction!

 

[Nagol]

Or at least being able to issue a 'reboot' when things do manage to go horribly wrong.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I love the idea that we can saying things like "latching onto reality between two points" and nobody blinks an eye! But yeah, conceptually that's up in the 14-ish level.

I was reading Starplex recently, by Robert J Sawyer. There, humans from trillions of years in the future sent stars back in time, enabling them to effectively "create mass" in the present by doubling up stars, and halt the expansion of the universe. It was an odd concept, but kinda groovy.

Have you ever read Stross's "Iron Sunrise"? At the beginning of the novel, somebody uses a 'causality violation device' to wrap the core of a star in a pocket universe, age it billions of years, and then return it to the star as an ultra-dense chunk of iron a split-second after it was removed. This results in the instantaneous detonation of the star, destroying a nearby civilization.

I don't know what tech level that is, but it's pretty cool.

Speaking of causality violation and/or time travel: the first book in Stross' series introduces a powerful AI that has given itself the task of enforcing the laws of causation. Basically, it hunts down anybody who tries any time travel shenanigans and punishes them. It might be a good idea to have optional 'time cops' in the NEW system so that the GM can side-step all those thorny time travel problems if they so choose. Because basically once you have time travel, no options are off the table and you're pretty much playing a different game altogether.

 

[tomBitonti]

I'm not seeing how you're reaching that conclusion. Both are instances where you know how large a given subset is, and can use some conservative estimates to try and calculate how large the entire group is. Insofar as I'm aware, it's not really any different from any standard use of probabilistic sampling.

The detailed analysis is on the Wikipedia page, so again I'm not sure what specific problems you have with this formula. You're certainly not citing any "wrong reasons" for how a correct number could be reached.

(Text omitted.)

That page is explaining its work; you're not giving the same level of explanation for what fault you find with that work.

Using a value to predict the size of the whole requires a lot of assumptions on the possible distributions. Obtaining a meaningful answer (or range of answers) requires a precise description of these assumptions. There are some references to justify the assumptions, but none go to any great detail.

The formulas are probably fine. But, the formulas are the easy part of the work. The hard part is matching the formulas to the assumptions. That needs very solid work.

What estimate do you get for the maximum age of the universe (say) using the reasoning as provided by the wiki page? Is this a reasonable application of the technique?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Morrus]

Have you ever read Stross's "Iron Sunrise"? At the beginning of the novel, somebody uses a 'causality violation device' to wrap the core of a star in a pocket universe, age it billions of years, and then return it to the star as an ultra-dense chunk of iron a split-second after it was removed. This results in the instantaneous detonation of the star, destroying a nearby civilization.

I haven't; but I will now!

Speaking of causality violation and/or time travel: the first book in Stross' series introduces a powerful AI that has given itself the task of enforcing the laws of causation. Basically, it hunts down anybody who tries any time travel shenanigans and punishes them. It might be a good idea to have optional 'time cops' in the NEW system so that the GM can side-step all those thorny time travel problems if they so choose. Because basically once you have time travel, no options are off the table and you're pretty much playing a different game altogether.

Actually, though that chart mentioned time travel, I'm going to leave it completely out of - at least - the core. Too big a topic! Maybe a book of its own at some point (though I would recommend TimeWatch to those who enjoy time travel games).

 

[Alzrius]

Using a value to predict the size of the whole requires a lot of assumptions on the possible distributions. Obtaining a meaningful answer (or range of answers) requires a precise description of these assumptions. There are some references to justify the assumptions, but none go to any great detail.

I'm presuming that you're referring to the link to the Copernican principle here, right? The wiki page for the Doomsday argument does go into detail about that, leaving aside its link to the page for it, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The other assumptions regarding the nature of the argument - such as a standardized average lifespan and the total capacity for how many people the Earth can support at one time - are plainly stated.

That said, you're not specifying what assumptions on possible distributions you think are required, and why they're required. What's presented seems feasible to me, e.g. the Copernican principle says you can be 95% certain that you're part of the last 95% of all humans to live.

The formulas are probably fine. But, the formulas are the easy part of the work. The hard part is matching the formulas to the assumptions. That needs very solid work.

Again, what specific solid work do you think isn't here that should be? Can you cite an example?

What estimate do you get for the maximum age of the universe (say) using the reasoning as provided by the wiki page? Is this a reasonable application of the technique?

I'm not sure that is a reasonable application of the technique; we know enough about the universe to know that there are some major factors that we can't reasonably predict which will play a major role in how long it lasts (e.g. if the rate of expansion changes again).

That's not the case for a probabilistic sampling, which (as I understand it) is premised on being able to keep most of the assumptions within a reasonably narrow band, so as to be able to use that to calculate likely values for the whole of the thing being determined.