From: Stuart Armstrong (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 10 2008 - 01:53:55 MDT
Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> My question is whether "after the singularity" makes any more sense than
> "before the big bang".
> This model assumes no forgetting. In reality, K(S1|S2) > 0, so "after" is
> a partially ordered relation with a beginning but no end. (This is true
> in cosmology and general relativity too, so it should not seem so
This is very like a project I'll be working on soon, and it's a
pleasant surprise to see it in the SL4 context!
> In physical time, knowledge is assumed to accumulate at a hyperbolic rate.
> A singularity occurs when knowledge becomes infinite, say, after 40 more
> Earth orbits around the Sun. In perceptual time a singularity seems to be
> infinitely far into the future. Thus, "after the singularity" does not
> make sense.
You take is very interesting. I was envisioning the singularity in a
physical sense - a breakdown of our ability to predict the future -
rather than the mathematical sense. Even if our abikity to predict
breaks down, thought, we can take steps to try and influence the
ultimate result - which is why I brought it up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 18 2013 - 04:01:10 MDT