**From:** Brian Atkins (*brian@posthuman.com*)

**Date:** Tue Apr 24 2001 - 22:30:36 MDT

**Next message:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Previous message:**Brian Atkins: "Re: Journalism"**In reply to:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Next in thread:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Reply:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Check out the thread from last November about "limitations of finite minds":

http://www.sysopmind.com/archive-sl4/0011/

Ben Houston wrote:

*>
*

*> Hi Eliezer,
*

*>
*

*> May I ask what the reason we need infinite computing is? This is not
*

*> meant to be a troll type of question but I actually am curious. Of
*

*> course, I am assuming that finite computing (ie. classical and quantum)
*

*> on earth or nearby is adequate for super human AI.
*

*>
*

*> Kind regards,
*

*> -ben houston
*

*> http://www.exocortex.org/~ben
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> > -----Original Message-----
*

*> > From: owner-sl4@sysopmind.com [mailto:owner-sl4@sysopmind.com] On
*

*> Behalf
*

*> > Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
*

*> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:14 PM
*

*> > To: SL4
*

*> > Subject: Infinite computing
*

*> >
*

*> > By request, I'm posting a summary of the known proposals for achieving
*

*> > infinite computing power. Since it's easy to demonstrate that
*

*> physical
*

*> > law permits computing elements that operate millions of times faster
*

*> than
*

*> > neurons, and this quite suffices for superintelligent, far-transhuman
*

*> AI,
*

*> > I no longer have a need to speculate about Moore's Law literally going
*

*> on
*

*> > *forever*, with transhuman smartness finding loopholes in any and all
*

*> > "physical limits". Which doesn't mean that I think infinite computing
*

*> > power is implausible; just that I got sick of hearing catcalls about
*

*> it.
*

*> >
*

*> > --
*

*> >
*

*> > The most famous way of achieving infinite computing power is, of
*

*> course,
*

*> > the Omega Point proposed by Tipler; as temperatures rise ever faster
*

*> > during the Big Crunch, the asympotically increasing energy densities
*

*> > permit the performance of an asymptotically increasing number of
*

*> > computational operations, such that an infinite number of computations
*

*> is
*

*> > performed before the Universe ends. Unfortunately, this requires
*

*> waiting
*

*> > until the end of our Universe, which now appears to be open rather
*

*> than
*

*> > closed anyway.
*

*> >
*

*> > If you can perform infinite computation during a Big Crunch, you can
*

*> > probably also perform infinite computations during a Big Bang. Thus,
*

*> one
*

*> > proposal for infinite computing power involves pinching off a section
*

*> of
*

*> > spacetime from our own Universe and creating a new Universe, with an
*

*> > accompanying Big Bang. When this new Universe began to cool off,
*

*> perhaps
*

*> > after 1e-43 seconds (post-Planck-time), another Universe could be
*

*> created
*

*> > and so on ("Alpha Line" computing).
*

*> >
*

*> > Less ambitiously, the "Linde Scenario" would involve opening up a
*

*> series
*

*> > of basement Universes connected to our own via wormholes. "Each new
*

*> > universe could be the parent of many new universes, so that the whole
*

*> > population would grow exponentially, the gradual entropic degradation
*

*> of
*

*> > old universes playing only a negligible role in slowing down the
*

*> > process." (Nick Bostrom.) This does not achieve actual infinite
*

*> > computing speeds at any given point, but it does permit life and
*

*> growth to
*

*> > continue indefinitely, and the performance of an unboundedly large
*

*> number
*

*> > of computations as time goes on. Which is all we really care about,
*

*> > right?
*

*> >
*

*> > Linde Scenario:
*

*> > http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/linde.html
*

*> >
*

*> > Our Solar System contains a limited amount of mass, and Conservation
*

*> of
*

*> > Mass and Energy says that we can't just make more. However, the laws
*

*> of
*

*> > physics contain no statement asserting Conservation of Material. If
*

*> > negative energy can be manufactured, then positive matter and negative
*

*> > matter could be produced in paired amounts - in theory, in indefinite
*

*> > quantities. Furthermore, because the total mass would be zero,
*

*> > interlacing negative and positive matter would permit the construction
*

*> of
*

*> > arbitrarily large dense megastructures without those megastructures
*

*> > collapsing into black holes. Thus, rather than life running into hard
*

*> > limits when all the matter in our Solar System is consumed, growth
*

*> could
*

*> > continue indefinitely. Since negative energy would also permit FTL,
*

*> time
*

*> > travel, wormholes, and the violation of the second law of
*

*> thermodynamics,
*

*> > many people postulate that Cosmic Censorship prevents the manufacture
*

*> of
*

*> > negative energy. (Frankly, I think this is a rather warped way of
*

*> > reasoning about the laws of physics; the only way to find out whether
*

*> > negative energy can be manufactured is to try it. When did it start
*

*> > becoming permissible to reason from a-priori philosophical constraints
*

*> > instead of experiment? Oh, never mind.)
*

*> >
*

*> > As long as you're constructing arbitrarily large computers, why
*

*> construct
*

*> > them from mere molecules, which have a maximum theoretical switching
*

*> speed
*

*> > of 1e15 hertz before the energies used tear them apart? Neutronium,
*

*> being
*

*> > far denser, permits much faster computing speeds from a given amount
*

*> of
*

*> > mass, with a maximum switching speed of 1e21 hertz. An even denser
*

*> > material is Higgsium, produced using the negative Higgsino at the
*

*> center
*

*> > of the nucleus, and orbiting protons serving the function now served
*

*> by
*

*> > electrons. Higgsium is 1e18 times denser than water; a thimbleful
*

*> weighs
*

*> > as much as a mountain. Monopolium uses a light monopole of one
*

*> polarity
*

*> > (North) bound to a heavy monopole of the opposite polarity (South);
*

*> the
*

*> > density is 1e25 times that of water, and a thimbleful weighs as much
*

*> as
*

*> > the Moon. (Hence the need to use interlaced positive and negative
*

*> > monopolium structures, to prevent the collapse into a black hole of
*

*> any
*

*> > reasonably-sized structures.)
*

*> >
*

*> > Neutronium, Higgsium, and monopolium:
*

*> >
*

*> http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Moravec-H/HDPSF.html
*

*> >
*

*> > Of course, if you keep on manufacturing more and more zero-mass
*

*> > "interlaced matter", you eventually run out of *space* in your Solar
*

*> > System. I believe that I was the first one to propose solving this
*

*> > problem using Van Den Broeck's "micro-warp" adaptation to Alcubierre's
*

*> > warp drive - also known as the "tardis warp" or "warp bubble". Van
*

*> Den
*

*> > Broeck found a solution to the General Relativity equations which
*

*> permits
*

*> > a large space, say 100 meters in diameter, to be connected to the rest
*

*> of
*

*> > our Universe through a tiny bottleneck, much smaller than an atomic
*

*> > diameter. Thus, you can pack a very large number of Van Den Broeck
*

*> > bubbles into a volume the size of our Solar System. Furthermore, as
*

*> far
*

*> > as I know, there's no theoretical reason why you can't open up one Van
*

*> Den
*

*> > Broeck bubble inside another one, which would permit total living
*

*> space to
*

*> > keep growing exponentially forever. You'd probably want to use a
*

*> wormhole
*

*> > network to keep all the bubbles in communication.
*

*> >
*

*> > In short, this is a design for a galaxy-sized computer built of pure
*

*> > monopolium that fits inside your pocket and weighs as much as a
*

*> Kleenex.
*

*> > As far as I know, I was the first to propose "fractal tardis
*

*> computing" as
*

*> > a means of achieving indefinite exponential growth.
*

*> >
*

*> > Alcubierre warp drive:
*

*> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009013
*

*> > Van Den Broeck tardis pocket ("micro-warp"):
*

*> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9905084
*

*> > (Googling will uncover plenty of less technical explanations.)
*

*> >
*

*> > Finally, of course, there's the idea of using a closed timelike curve
*

*> to
*

*> > send the result of a computation back to before the computation
*

*> started,
*

*> > permitting an infinite number of iterations to be performed in what
*

*> looks
*

*> > to the outside Universe like a finite amount of time. Of course, this
*

*> > only works if you can construct a closed timelike curve, which IIRC
*

*> was
*

*> > proved to require negative energy. Cool stuff, negative energy. (Ha
*

*> ha
*

*> > ha! Sorry.)
*

*> >
*

*> > I think someone also claimed infinite computing power using black
*

*> holes,
*

*> > but I haven't heard any specifics on that one.
*

*> >
*

*> > -- -- -- -- --
*

*> > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/
*

*> > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
*

-- Brian Atkins Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.intelligence.org/

**Next message:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Previous message:**Brian Atkins: "Re: Journalism"**In reply to:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Next in thread:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Reply:**Ben Houston: "RE: Infinite computing"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT
*