**From:** Thomas Buckner (*tcbevolver@yahoo.com*)

**Date:** Fri Jan 21 2005 - 18:19:34 MST

**Next message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My attempt at a general technical definition of 'Friendliness'"**Previous message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Technical definitions of FAI"**In reply to:**Harvey Newstrom: "Re: My attempt at a general technical definition of 'Friendliness'"**Next in thread:**Damien Broderick: "maybe we are in pi"**Reply:**Damien Broderick: "maybe we are in pi"**Reply:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My attempt at a general technical definition of 'Friendliness'"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I agree with just about everything Harvey

Newstrom says, and am especially impressed with

the definition scheme he presents; but I do have

some disagreement as follows:

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>

wrote:

*> > The 'Omega Point' condition requires that the
*

*> rate of
*

*> > information processing (computation) within
*

*> the
*

*> > universe approaches infinity as time
*

*> approaches the
*

*> > end. The idea is that a concept is no
*

*> different to
*

*> > the computational function existing in the
*

*> mind of a
*

*> > super-intelligence which generates a list of
*

*> all
*

*> > things possessing the attribute, in the limit
*

*> that the
*

*> > Omega Point condition is approached.
*

*>
*

*> Besides requiring the universe to be a mind,
*

*> your definitions seem to
*

*> require a Tipler-type omega point to occur for
*

*> your definition. Since
*

*> this is unknown and unproven at this point, it
*

*> sounds like your
*

*> definition must be unknown or unproven for now
*

*> as well.
*

I learned a great number of useful things from

Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality, however

his Omega Point depends on a subjectively

infinite energy source derived from controlling

the collapse of a closed-geometry universe. Since

this book was published we have learned that our

universe is flat, open and inflationary. No shear

energy, just a heat death, unless some of the

escape ('leakage') schemes Michio Kaku has

recently written about can be made to work. In

the end, any FAI or UFAI for that matter will

take a deep interest in such schemes.

snip

Harvey continues:

*> (On an unrelated tangent, I reject the notion
*

that infinity = everything. A number-line of

intergers from 1, 2, 3....infinity is infinite,

but it does not encode any information besides

sequential numbers. Even though it is an

infinite string of digits, there are no binary

pictures, words, messages, concepts or

information encoded in there. This infinite

sequence if relatively empty. Infinite

processing may or may not contain much of

anything. I have a similar

objection to Many Worlds. Even if their are

infinite dimensions, it does not mean that all

conceivable possibilities must exist.) End quote.

I find Nick Bostrom's assertion that either we

are in a simulation or else we have no right to

expect our descendants to do past sims

convincing. Infinite processing of something as

simple as the integer sequence creates no

complexity, but what about, say, a running

calculation of a number such as pi or phi? There

may exist in some such numbers an infinite number

of unique sequences mathematically equivalent to

a complete description of our Hubble volume (and

everybody in it) and every other possible

universe on all Tegmark levels. From there one

only needs some rules which define how each

unique number sequence is used to represent a

given universe at a given moment in a simulation,

rules controlling how one configuration becomes

another (i.e. the rules of physics) and so on.

Many Worlds satisfies Occam's Razor, IMHO, by

proposing that our universe is inevitably spat

out by some such all-possibilites machine. It's

actually less bizarre than having to explain why

there would be only one universe, just right for

us!

Max Tegmark's website explains this so much

better than I could.

Tom Buckner

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com

**Next message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My attempt at a general technical definition of 'Friendliness'"**Previous message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Technical definitions of FAI"**In reply to:**Harvey Newstrom: "Re: My attempt at a general technical definition of 'Friendliness'"**Next in thread:**Damien Broderick: "maybe we are in pi"**Reply:**Damien Broderick: "maybe we are in pi"**Reply:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My attempt at a general technical definition of 'Friendliness'"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT
*