From: Eugene Leitl (eugene@liposome.genebee.msu.su)
Date: Thu Jul 16 1998 - 11:38:56 MDT
Robin Hanson writes:
> Does saying "IMO" mean you don't think you can articulate *why* one can't
> "assign a probability"? Taken literally, your claim seems clearly false.
> So what exactly do you mean?
Robin, I'm not sure I get your meaning, but I certainly agree with
Dan's position. I'm not even sure Darwin still holds in the SI domain,
I'm not certain of anything. I do not see how anyone who goes on two
legs can sensibly speculate about that _hypothetic_ future entity/state
labelled 'SI'. If in the retrospective (if we survive the Grand
Transition) someone's visions turn out to be right in the outline, the
more power to you++. It is certainly mentally stimulating speculating
about autoreplicator colonization fronts, GUT devices, quantum and
recursive basement universe computing, etc., but just now this is
entertainment. We need the pre-SI models to dynamically adjust our
trajectories as we fall into the Singularity, and there will be
probably no discontinuity involved as the observer traverses the
prediction analogon of the Schwarzschild radius, but we should not try
to forecast too far too soon.
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:21 MST