RE: impotent disorganized gods?

From: pdugan (
Date: Sun Dec 25 2005 - 08:00:26 MST

>===== Original Message From Phillip Huggan <> =====
>If you are concerned about a promoting FAI, then you are concerned about
stopping AIDS and hunger (among other things) if they are encompassed by FAI.
So shouldn't a Type VII be concerned with helping all single universes (among
other things). You state that this would be a futile effort. Maybe for a
Type VI it would be, but don't Type VIIs have the ability to arbitrarily
affect universes? If not, it should be possible to code information in an
"evolutionary" universe that can be accessed by civilizations with the
appropriate tools. We see no evidence of this.

  I'm concieving of these hypothetical gods as indifferent due to the very
nature of being, where the very nature of being is infinite and
probabalisitic. My analogy is to game design theory, where you have ludes, or
intelligently designed rule sets typically focused on a teleology, and paidia,
or open, essentailly chaotic nucleai of play from which many goal-oriented
ludes can emerge. If being is essentailly paidic, then play, uncertainty,
heterogenaity and what-have-you are worthwhile in and of themselves, despite
the inherent risks and sufferings, or at least its possible our theoretical
deadbeat deities see existence as such. Furthermore, in an infinite
multiverse, its impossible to affect individual, that is finitely defined
universes, in any consistent manner, because the trillion universes you step
into and save are going to be a drop in the bucket against infinity.

> I don't see how the depth of our philosophy can advance.

    You will when the depth of our philosophy advances.

> Nietzsche forwarded some details of how a god should live; a being with 100%
free-will. He didn't know how to get there. The problem is that the Type
VIIs you describe have no reason to create multiverses in the first place, if
they are so much more advanced than we are. If they do create universes with
conscious observers, we know to judge the benevolence of their actions
measured using utilitarianism.

   "create" is problematic because that implies intelligent design in the
explicit sense, rather than having conscious observers be an emergent
phenomena. I'm saying maybe the "program" just runs, spawning universes with
black holes spawning new universes until everntually you get more complex
universes with life, intelligence and so on. They don't need a reason, I mean,
for a Type VII being the whole infinite multiverse could be a bit of code
written on a sunday morning, so to speak. Play could be the only reason

> Weak Anthropics and General Relativity observations suggest the physics
underlying the formation of our >universe is so fragile, that Type VII gods
really can't exist at all. Change (evolve) the characteristics and
> constants of our universe even just a tiny bit, and nothing of value forms
at all.

   Right, but under an evolutionary universe model, given infinite
probability, you going to see the emergence of Type VII gods eventually. Its
quite possible for an evolutionary multiverse to exist without Type VII

> At best, we find a large Tiplerian infinite energy source or a small
everlasting Freeman Dyson (limited # of conscious observers admitted)
end-of-universe energy source. I'm pretty sure safely discovering the
ultimate depths of our universe's "oil-wells" will constitute the main
activity of value post-singularity.

   Thats one teleology, one game, one ludes, but I'm proposing a greater
sphere where all goals are possible, play unlimited. Tipler makes an
interesting scenario, but theres something about its homogenaity that strikes
me the wrong way, the omega point sounds really fun and great and all, but it
strikes me as contrary to the nature of reality. For one, the omega point
implies a closed universe, but the whole gist of what I'm getting it is well
noted by the phrase "open universe". The Dyson scenario implies a Type V
civilization, which I'm sure can be bettered.

> Until we know how many (if any) souls can dance forever, I don't think it's
wise to have AGI tile a whole bunch of conscious beings. Even the ethics of a
Tiplerian environment will probably resemble ours more than Type VII's.
Here's why: there is no way for a finitely bounded consciousness to achieve
infinity. The tools available to an AGI bump into (Hawking) Sing!
> at every attempt to tile an infinite consciousness. Once down here, you're
stuck here just as a slower than light-speed particle can never accelerate to
become a tachyon. Maybe there is an infinite realm but we are all too human.

  The whole idea of the inward-development solution to the Fermi paradox
implies that a singularity doesn't need to spread out to reach infinity. An
AGI might just have to tile part of the sun before it has the computational
power to figure out how to achieve Type VI status. From there the energy
sources become unlimited, and its only a matter of time (or timelessness)
before Type VII status is reached.

  Have you noticed how time seems to go faster as you get older? The more
experience you have the less currency time carries, its inflationary, like the
universe incidentally. How long do you have to live before it feels like
you've lived forever?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT