From: Dr. Rich Artym (rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 21 1996 - 06:56:28 MDT
In message <01I9Q67U9HXE8WWTRP@delphi.com>, Lyle Burkhead writes:
> Calling this a "singularity" implies that we can't understand it.
It's not intended to imply that we can't understand it, only that we
can't predict much about any of the details with any degree of certainty.
> My point is that everything costs something.
Or, just as validly, everything costs nothing. After all, when you look
at the component costs of the items underlying some "costed" enterprise,
you'll find that they in turn rely on others, and they on others, and so
on, in an infinite regress. At the end of it all, there is nothing ...
just the time that individuals spend on doing things. If they did not
need to pay to survive then nothing material would cost anything. :-)
[Non-tangible items may be somewhat different, debateably: eg. uniqueness.]
It's only the vicious circle created by Man himself that attributes
costs to items. That was a very valid thing to do in a world where
time is limited to just a few decades apiece and where almost nothing
can be achieved in a material sense without involving others. That
basis for costs disappears when everyman can create cross-continental
engineering works (as in my saltwater pipeline example) without any
outside involvement nor extra resources nor any other expense. We'll
just have to wait and see what happens: there is certainly quite a
major discontinuity heading our way, even without nano goo scenarios.
Rich.
-- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Email : rich@galacta.demon.co.uk 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk 194.222.245.150 # ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW # ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano ########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST