Re: Post-Singularity Trade (was: Sysops, volition, and opting out)

From: Christian L. (
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 13:43:13 MDT

Gordon Worley wrote:

>At 1:04 AM +0000 8/16/01, Christian L. wrote:
>>Gordon Worley wrote:
>>>I think you are totally misunderstanding the Sysop.
>>My definition of the Sysop would be something like: an entity that
>>will divide up the energy of the solar-system/galaxy/[what have you]
>>evenly among the citizens. When this entity recieves energy from a
>>citizen, the energy is converted to a form asked for by the citizen
>>(information, golf balls, ice-cream, the color of John Sticks
>>underpants, ...) in the optimal way.
>>This is my premise for scenario-building. It is not a prediction of
>>What Will Happen.
>Your premise is where I think you are mistaken.

>From The Cobuild Series English Dictionary: "A premise is something you
suppose is true and that you use as a basis for developing an idea".

A premise cannot be mistaken, it is the axiom that the rest of the
discussion is based upon. It would then seem that we were debating under
different premises.

My argument was: given a wish-granting Sysop, there would be virtually no
trade among the citizens. Do you agree to this conclusion?

>Until I see a
>compelling reason why the Sysop would *have* to offer wish granting
>services, I will not write about it formally.

Well, he doesn't *have* to do anything, but I assumed that wish-granting was
a Friendly thing to do.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT