From: Daniel Radetsky (daniel@radray.us)
Date: Thu Jul 21 2005 - 01:45:25 MDT
> My basis for disagreement is my study of the history of science, and my
> intuition that modern physics leaves a lot of very important things
> undiscovered.
Okay, but for that claim to matter to the discussion at hand, you've got to
believe that those things left undiscovered are relevant to the task of
escaping from a box. You said:
> In fact, I don't doubt that teleportation *is* possible once
> one understands quantum gravity well enough.
"Possible" is not a very strong claim. Even if I grant that teleportation is
possible, that doesn't tell me that it is reasonable under some particular
circumstance. Why should I believe that teleportation is something that an AI
could reasonably cause its processor to effect?
> It is true that my estimate that the probability is much greater than
> infinitesimal is based on nonrigorous intuitions rather than rigorous
> arguments, but it is NOT true that my estimate is based on "pure paranoia"
Intuition, paranoia, whatever. If you don't have evidence, then how do you
dispute my claim that the probability is infinitesimal?
Daniel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT