From: Tommy McCabe (rocketjet314@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Feb 11 2004 - 18:37:26 MST
--- Tomaz Kristan <me2icq@icqmail.com> wrote:
> The Beckenstein bound -- if true, I guess it is --
> more
> or less finishes two popular assumptions.
>
> First, that the growth is an eternal state, and the
> only kosher future.
>
> The second is the imploding civilizations, after
> they
> reach their Singularity conjecture.
>
> It more looks like to me, that in fact it is a
> finite
> world, in which we will have to live a sustainable
> way
> of life.
>
> The current most widely accepted paradigm among
> Transhumanists of starting into infinity, is quite
> probably wrong.
>
> Fortunately, the finite amount of goodies we can
> expect, is probably larger, than we can imagine
> under
> the popular "infinite possibilities" paradigm.
>
> And it is a lot of room for Metaqualia's views also.
> Just get there and become a Conservative then! --
> it's
> quite likely a single reasonable scenario.
Yes, and I suppose the heliocentric solar system has
to be wrong because it is quite obvious that the stars
and planets and what-not quite clearly move through
the sky. The Earth can't be round because people would
fall off the bottom end. You can probably show
interplanetary flight to be impossible because of the
low specific-impulse of black powder. Flight is
impossible because calculations have shown that the
human arm-muscles can't power a flight machine.
Evolution is impossible because
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html,
hundreds of creationist arguments with associated
debunkings). Desktop computers, and especially
laptops, are impossible because you can't fit so many
vacuum tubes into such a space. Einstein's theory
can't be right because Newton's theory is so well
validated and makes so much sense and simplicity. I'm
sure you could list more. All seemingly condemning
problems that turned out to have obvious-in-hindsight
solutions. And just think of the seemingly impossible
limitations that could be overridden by having higher
intelligence instead of just time- I'm sure no ant or
group of ants could think of not only how to do
something, but the act of doing it in the first place,
as obvious-in-retrospect and as useful-in-retrospect
as making fire, given any span of time (without
evolution, of course, I mean present-day ants). And so
on (there are probably dozens of examples).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT