From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun May 14 2000 - 23:51:16 MDT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Interesting what one would consider 'magic physics' and what one considers
> within the realm of coherent probability? Many people, yes even scholars
> educated in physics, astronomy, biology, and computer science; would, sadly,
> be very scornful of this entire mailing list and the subjects that govern it.
> Perhaps some guidence might be in order for levels of acceptability on what
> falls into the realm of reality and what is beyond the pale? Are multiple
> universes magic physics or non-locality?
Mitch, from my perspective, anything that is outside the realm of
what we can **construct** as engineers (software or hardware) *today*
or in the *near term* future (because it does not violate laws of physics
and is clearly on the path of current engineering technology)
*is* magic physics.
Time travel, multiverses, quantum computers are *all* in the realm
of magic physics from my perspective. Given our current understanding,
the probability that they could be "managed" by us is highly
doubtful. On the other hand if they do become "manageable"
they probably increase the likelyhood that we are all running
on a simulation.
Please beware that I do not discount the possibility that your
hopes and desires *may* be correct. But I draw the line between
what we *can* or *are likely to* do, and what we *cannot* do. Tipler
may be wonderful at inventing new physics, but if he cannot
tell us how to make it useful for our lives in the next 10-20
years, then it is irrelevant from my perspective.
Moravec on the other hand seems to have two possible perspectives --
the humans are doomed because the robots are superior or the obsolete
humans will be supported by taxes on sentient but controlled robots
(e.g. salves). Both of which I find highly undesirable.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:37 MST