From: Paul Fidika (Fidika@new.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 20:34:22 MST
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dani Eder wrote:
>"I'm an agnostic, but I came up with an
>unscientific 'prediction' of 2027 based on
>(a) The most important date in Christ's life
>was not his birth, but his crucifixtion,
>(b) Our calendar is off by 6 years in counting
>from his birth, and he was 33 when crucified,
>(c) For some reason god likes time intervals
>that are powers of 10.
>I think the above 'prediction' is a bunch of BS,
>but it would sound plausible to a believer."
Actually, I can think of an even better Christian prediction for the singularity:
Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar in 607 B.C.E. In Daniel 4: 10-17 Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream as meaning that "God's anointed kingdom" will remain dormant for "7 times to pass over." The question is how long is one time?
"And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by
God, that they should feed her there a thousand and two hundred and sixty
days." Revelation 12: 6
So, as stated above, "a time, a times (2 times), and a half a time" (3 1/2
times total) is equal to 1,260 days. So a "time" would be equal to 360 days
(which is the number of days in the Jewish calendar). So, 7 times would be
2,520 days (7 * 360 = 2520). Now, as is the custom in the bible, 1 day is
equal to 1 year, so we really have 2,520 years. Now, count 2,520 years
forward from the "beginning of the Appointed times of the nations", which
started in 607 B.C.E., and we arrive in the year 1914 C.E. (coincidently the year World War I started).
Then, as anyone will attest to, 12 and 10 are reoccurring numbers in the book of Revelation (as is 7), so 12 * 10 = 120, add that onto 1914 to arrive at 2034. This is not to far off from the 2,000 anniversary of Jesus' death, and it actually isn't that far away from my estimated upper-bound for the singularity. Don't get me wrong, I'm an agnostic mind you, and if the singularity does happen to fall on the year 2034, it's purely a coincidence.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dani Eder wrote:
>My prediction is that as computers continue to
>improve, more and more tasks will get automated.
>This includes the task of designing and manufacturing
>the next generation of computers. Therefore
>we should see continuing rapid improvement in
>computers, and productivity as a whole accelerating.
>When we get to that time of fastest change (i.e.
>the Singularity) is when computers not only assist
>designers, as they do today, but entirely replace
>teams of designers. The cycle of improvement will
>then not be limited by how fast you can design the
>next generation, but rather how fast you can _build_
>the next generation.
No, improvement won't be limited by how fast you can design or build the next generation of computers, but how fast you can get them into use. You can create a line of the best computers ever designed, but if by the time you have the computers set up, installed, and ready to go a new, better line of computers comes along, then all of our time will be spent installing / uninstalling computers and never actually using them. If progress in computing power moves at much faster pace than it is moving now, (reaching near-singularity levels) then using the same paradigm of "design team designs computers, factory builds computers, ship computers to homes, install computers" just isn't feasible anymore.
A more likely solution is that we'll have self-enhancing genetic computers, perhaps computers which redesign themselves using nanomachines which routinely receive incremental updates from a central super Intelligence which is perpetually improving computer designs. I doubt this would work with conventional silicon, but then again I doubt that we'll be using conventional silicon computers at that time anyway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 19 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT