from the world's big
Matrioshka Brain: How advanced civilizations could reshape reality
Future or extraterrestrial civilizations could create megastructures the size of a solar system.
- Advanced civilizations are likely to create megastructures to harness the energy of the stars.
- These megastructures could be nested, creating "Matrioshka Brains" – the Universe's most powerful supercomputers.
- Matrioshka Brains could be used to simulate reality and remake the Universe.
Why create a Matrioshka Brain
To some people, like Elon Musk, the troubling thought is that we don't really know whether we live in a "real" or impressively-rendered digital world. What makes the prospect of us living in a simulation more than a tired billionaire's flight of fancy is the possible existence of Matrioshka brains, theoretical megastructures that could harness the power of stars.
To understand how they would work, we need to look very far into the future.
With the advent of scientific thinking, humans discovered a seemingly reliable method for probing the world around us. We learned much about what the world is made of and how to bend some parts of it to our will. But what we learned and developed technologically is likely negligent compared to what's about to come, especially if we project our current rate of progress. One prediction is that the needs of an advanced society for more energy will at some point lead to the creation of megastructures called Dyson Spheres. These would encircle stars like our Sun to harness their energy.
Freeman Dyson, the physicist who came up with the idea of Dyson Spheres saw their possible existence as something to keep in mind when searching for alien life. His 1960 paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation" advocates looking for unusual emission signatures of hypothetical structures like Dyson Spheres to spot other spacefaring civilizations.
But as inventor Robert Bradbury wrote, Dyson saw his spheres as quite specifically as a place to live. For example, a "layer of habitats for human beings orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter." What Bradbury came up with is an extension of that idea - what if a Dyson sphere was turned into a computer, the most powerful machine in the Universe?
"If extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist and have reached a high level of technical development, one by-product of their energy metabolism is likely to be the large-scale conversion of starlight into far-infrared radiation," wrote Freeman Dyson. "It is proposed that a search for sources of infrared radiation should accompany the recently initiated search for interstellar radio communications.
Artist's concept of a Dyson sphere. Credit: Adam Burn.
Bradbury's year million proposal
What Bradbury envisioned in the anthology
"Year Million: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge" is that far in the future, we'd have the technology to create a set of nested shells around a star – each shell essentially being a Dyson Sphere. Because this megastructure would resemble a Russian nested Matryoshka doll, where smaller dolls fit inside larger ones, he called the concept a "Matrioshka Brain". This solar-system-sized machine would be the most powerful computer in the Universe, harvesting all the useful energy from a star, while rendering it "essentially invisible at visible wavelengths".
To work as a giant computer, or the "highest capacity thought machine" as Bradbury wrote, a Matrioshka Brain (MB) would draw power from the star and spread it through the shells. One shell (or sphere) would collect all the energy it could draw from the star and then would pass on the excess to another larger processing shell that would surround it. This would repeat until all the energy was exhausted.
The shells would be made of computronium - a hypothetical material which nears the theoretical limit of computational power. The inner shells would run at a temperature close to the star's while the outer shells would be at the temperature of interstellar space.
If they were built in our solar system, the Matrioshka Brain shells would have orbits ranging from inside Mercury's to outside Neptune's, claimed Bradbury.
How and when we could get a Matrioshka Brain
Needless to stay, the scope of the engineering and resources required for such a project would be tremendous and far beyond what humans can currently muster. One technology mentioned by Bradbury that is actually being created now and can lead to the construction of such immense structures are self-replicating factories. The company Made in Space has been making headway in its implementation and design of 3D printing tech in space, with the ultimate goals of putting factories that build themselves into orbit.
How would you, a superpower civilization that ranks high on the
Kardashev scale, use such a computer, which could conceivably have all the power of the Sun at its disposal? Among science fiction aficionados, uses of this hypothetical super-tool, a class B stellar engine, could range from uploading human minds into virtual reality to changing the structure of the universe, as imagined author Charles Stross. The computers could also be used to simulate reality, potentially creating a whole alternate universe. This, of course, leads to the question - how real is our current universe?
What if the whole world around you was just a very good simulation? One that engages all your senses, feeding you information about supposed smells, sights and sounds. But, ultimately, it's a computer program that's running and none of the things you think you are encountering are actually there. And what's the difference if the simulation is so amazingly realistic?
The mere prospect of Matrioshka Brains makes these questions have real potency. For what it's worth, Bradbury predicted that if current trends (circa 2000) were projected, humans would be able to build such a machine brain by 2250. He thought it would require most of the silicon from the planet planet Venus as raw material. Even so, the first MB would have the "thought capacity in excess of a million times the thought capacity of the 6 billion+ people," wrote Bradbury.
For more on Matrioshka Brains, check out Bradbury's paper on how to build one.
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>