From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 13:24:22 MST
I think that "known physical laws" versus "unknown physical laws" is a
human-knowledge-based distinction that will probably seem highly amusing to
a transhuman AI.... We shouldn't take the patterns we've observed, and
decided to pompously label "physical laws", all that seriously...
-- Ben G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Keith
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 3:21 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Encouraging a Positive Transcension
> At 09:19 AM 14/02/04 -0800, "Tomaz Kristan" wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:52:22 -0800 (PST), Tommy McCabe
> > > That I thought of in five minutes
> > > at my desk- imagine what a transhuman could do!
> >The question, whether or not we can smash through some
> >barriers, is of course important.
> >Can we ignore the Energy conservation law? Or the speed
> >limit c? Or Beckenstien bound? I am quite sceptic, we
> >Of course it is a chance, that those limitations will
> >be put behind us, but we can't count on that.
> Further, the order of change you get when *any* of these can be
> ignored is
> even more of a jump than between here and the singularity.
> Perhaps we need to distinguish between a singularity that is bounded by
> ordinary atom based materials, conservation of energy and c and
> one that is
> not. I am open to discussion as to how they should be
> distinguished. "Bounded" and "unbounded" might do as would
> "known physical
> laws singularity" perhaps shortened to or "KPL singularity" vs "UPL
> singularity" for unknown laws. If someone has a better term or there is
> one already in use, please post.
> >There was never a natural law "you can't fly", "you
> >can't go to the Moon", "you must grow old and die" ...
> >and so on. That is why we have overcame them - or we
> >can do it in the future.
> >But some constrains (most probably) do exist and they
> >are the boundaries and the very fabric of our to be
> >Paradise. Or Hell, depends how clumsy and silly we are.
> Again agreed.
> There was a time before I became more aware of the ugly aspects of large
> and larger governments (dependent on fast communications) that I thought
> FTL was highly desirable. Now, especially after becoming a refugee, FTL
> seems like a really bad idea.
> Keith Henson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:00 MDT