A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
en.wikipedia.org
A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#2What do you think about the dark forest hypothesis from The Three-Body Problem book? It seems reasonable to me. Are there any sociologist or math papers that describe the game theory behind the dark forest strategy and prove it?
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#3What do you think about the dark forest hypothesis from The Three-Body Problem book? It seems reasonable to me. Are there any sociologist or math papers that describe the game theory behind the dark forest strategy and prove it?
I'm not very impressed. In general, I think that the people who have hypothesized about the fermi paradox and the natural paths of civilizations have tended to dramatically overestimated the actual detectability of other civilizations, and the feasible growth ceiling of other civilizations by several orders of magnitude.
We could not detect ourselves even in a nearby solar system. And as we've gotten more developed, we tend to be MORE frugal with our energy usage.
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#4What do you think about the dark forest hypothesis from The Three-Body Problem book? It seems reasonable to me. Are there any sociologist or math papers that describe the game theory behind the dark forest strategy and prove it?
I'm not very impressed. In general, I think that the people who have hypothesized about the fermi paradox and the natural paths of civilizations have tended to dramatically overestimated the actual detectability of other civilizations, and the feasible growth ceiling of other civilizations by several orders of magnitude. We could not detect ourselves even in a nearby solar system. And as we've gotten more developed,…
But we're also not a threat - even if we did detect another civilization, we'd have no way to attack them.
I don't buy the Dark Forest hypothesis at all, but it's also just not particularly a factor for us at our current stage of technological development, any more than a stone-age tribe has to worry about Mutually Assured Destruction via nuclear ICMBs.
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#5What do you think about the dark forest hypothesis from The Three-Body Problem book? It seems reasonable to me. Are there any sociologist or math papers that describe the game theory behind the dark forest strategy and prove it?
I'm not very impressed. In general, I think that the people who have hypothesized about the fermi paradox and the natural paths of civilizations have tended to dramatically overestimated the actual detectability of other civilizations, and the feasible growth ceiling of other civilizations by several orders of magnitude. We could not detect ourselves even in a nearby solar system. And as we've gotten more developed,…
One major weakness of the Dark Forest hypothesis is that it presumes the bad guys have had interstellar travel for a long long time ... and yet in all that time they have never come to our system and left any traces behind. They didn't do anything bad to us for 4 billion years, but now they're going to do bad things because we have radio?
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not very impressed. In general, I think that the people who have hypothesized about the fermi paradox and the natural paths of civilizations have tended to dramatically overestimated the actual detectability of other civilizations, and the feasible growth ceiling of other civilizations by several orders of magnitude. We could not detect ourselves even in a nearby solar system. And as we've gotten more developed,…
One major weakness of the Dark Forest hypothesis is that it presumes the bad guys have had interstellar travel for a long long time ... and yet in all that time they have never come to our system and left any traces behind. They didn't do anything bad to us for 4 billion years, but now they're going to do bad things because we have radio?
space is big. there are probably rocks within sight of I-95 that have never been touched by a human, yet tens of thousands of humans flow by them every day. We could be in the middle of a galactic empire and not know it because our system is a little off the trade lanes and not worth visiting on its own.
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#7What do you think about the dark forest hypothesis from The Three-Body Problem book? It seems reasonable to me. Are there any sociologist or math papers that describe the game theory behind the dark forest strategy and prove it?
It seems to me that any technologically advanced civilization that is capable of completely annihilating another at such distances would likely be equally capable of avoiding detection, thereby reducing the potential threat level posed by the less advanced civilization. Avoidance would seem to be the best strategy unless the civilization posed a direct and imminent threat. Otherwise, the more advanced beings risk exposing themselves (by deploying a weapon) and declaring to the universe that they are both hostile and aggressive to others.
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not very impressed. In general, I think that the people who have hypothesized about the fermi paradox and the natural paths of civilizations have tended to dramatically overestimated the actual detectability of other civilizations, and the feasible growth ceiling of other civilizations by several orders of magnitude. We could not detect ourselves even in a nearby solar system. And as we've gotten more developed,…
But we're also not a threat - even if we did detect another civilization, we'd have no way to attack them. I don't buy the Dark Forest hypothesis at all, but it's also just not particularly a factor for us at our current stage of technological development, any more than a stone-age tribe has to worry about Mutually Assured Destruction via nuclear ICMBs.
On the other hand, better to do the weeding early than wait for it to get out of hand...
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we're also not a threat - even if we did detect another civilization, we'd have no way to attack them. I don't buy the Dark Forest hypothesis at all, but it's also just not particularly a factor for us at our current stage of technological development, any more than a stone-age tribe has to worry about Mutually Assured Destruction via nuclear ICMBs.
On the other hand, better to do the weeding early than wait for it to get out of hand...
With that sort of logic, you might as well exterminate every solar system around, whether or not it shows signs of civilization or even eventual habitability.
Re: A game theory behind the dark forest strategy?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not very impressed. In general, I think that the people who have hypothesized about the fermi paradox and the natural paths of civilizations have tended to dramatically overestimated the actual detectability of other civilizations, and the feasible growth ceiling of other civilizations by several orders of magnitude. We could not detect ourselves even in a nearby solar system. And as we've gotten more developed,…
One major weakness of the Dark Forest hypothesis is that it presumes the bad guys have had interstellar travel for a long long time ... and yet in all that time they have never come to our system and left any traces behind. They didn't do anything bad to us for 4 billion years, but now they're going to do bad things because we have radio?
For me, the Dark Forest hypothesis is very probable. However, the whole book series assumes that interstellar travel is possible for advanced civilizations. What if no new physics is discovered, and the only way to accelerate/decelerate is to throw a mass in the opposite direction? Maybe all advanced civilizations in the Milky Way are limited to their planetary systems.