From: Daniel Radetsky (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 22:13:05 MDT
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:31:49 -0400
"Michael Vassar" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I agree that no convincing argument has been made that a deceptive proof
> could be made, or that a UFAI could exploit holes in our mathematical logic
> and present us with a false proof. However,
I'm sorry: "proof" means an argument that that the AI should be unboxed?
> c) "magic" has to be accounted for. How many things can you do that a dog
> would simply NEVER think of? This doesn't have to be "quantum cheat codes".
> It could be something as simple as using the electromagnetic fields within
> the microchip to trap CO2 molecules in Bose-Einstein condensates and build a
> quantum medium for itself and/or use electromagnetic fields to guide
> particles into the shape of a controlled assembler or limited assembler. It
> could involve using internal electronics to hack local radio traffic. But
> it probably involves doing things I haven't thought of.
I'm no physicist, so if you think that those are reasonable possibilities, then
I'll have to take your word for it. However, I don't see how you can justify
positing magic on the grounds that we haven't considered every logical
possibility. It is true that what we believe is a box may not be a box under
magic, if there exists some magic, but you'll have to give a better argument
for the existence of this magic than an appeal to ignorance.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT