From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Fri Jul 07 2000 - 06:14:16 MDT
Spudboy100@aol.com writes:
> Playing an actuarial game, one may almost
> conclude that given a universe where intelligence might persist into the
> billions of years, a kind of convergence of capability to manipulate even
> phyiscal laws would 'naturally' occur.
The problem here is likely semantics: what do we mean by physical law?
The word 'law' suggest something that can be broken and is amenable to
change, but given how it is used in science it would be more akin to a
computer program: exactly what is the update rule that determines how
the universe changes from one instant to the next?
If it turns out that (say) it is possible to change the value of the
fundamental constants, this does not mean all laws can be broken, it
could just mean that the parameters are changeable, the basic system
remains the same. It might turn out that we can blow up extra
dimensions to macro-size, hence changing a lot of our physics, but
that still leves most fundamentals the same. The question is if there
is total freedom (somehow we can change the laws of physics to
*chess*) or if there exists meta-rules which cannot be avoided (like a
constitution or the 200 rule set in Nomic). For the moment it seems
that the meta-rules are simple: no changes to the rules are allowed.
> <OK, I would gladly settle for a neuron brain in the interrim, no
> question about it. But it is *so much simpler* than the Omega Point
> (we can at least imagine how a nanotech version of it might work
> according to known physics).>
>
> Precisely, but its good to remember that Tipler was playing a
> decent, mental exercise on how things could happen, not an absolute
> guarantee that they would, or that it axiomatically has to happen in
> this way.
But that is the problem - Tipler did say it *must* happen in his
theory due to his Omega Point Boundary Condition. He doesn't want a
contingent Omega that may appear if we play our cards right, but
something that *will* occur (if his theory is right). Had he just
settled for the contingent version everything wopuld have been fine.
> <What would be suitable storage units? I have been thinking about
> vortex loops, they look nice and ought to be useful for something.>
>
> Hmmm. Sounds somehow, profound.
Hard science, you know... :-)
> <The problem is that it is accelerating due to the cosmological
> constant. The horizons are creeping closer and closer..>
>
> That is beyond my level of understanding. If the horizons or
> boarders of the universe are creeping closer, then it sounds like
> its a heat death colapse no matter what?
No collapse, rather forced expansion. The particle horizons are due to
the fact that accelerating expansion makes it harder and harder for
light to reach us, it has to move against the expansion so to say. So
if this scenario holds, eventually every particle will be separated
from every other by a horizon.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:45 MST