Re: Natural Boundaries of Exponential Growth

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (
Date: Mon Jan 09 2006 - 11:30:32 MST

Russell Wallace wrote:
> (We can't prove that appropriate new physics will or will not be
> discovered; while keeping an open mind to the possibility that it may,
> it seems to me most sensible to assume for planning purposes that it
> will not, until and unless evidence to the contrary shows up.)

It seems to me that for planning purposes, the sensible thing is to
assume that *some* new physics will be discovered, but not that any
*particular* new physics will be discovered. Apples didn't stop falling
when Einstein discovered General Relativity, so contemporary physics is
surely the best bet for any *particular* prediction.

A possible exception to this rule is when a *very wide variety* of
hypothetical undiscovered physical laws could be exploited by a
loophole-seeking intelligent being to accomplish some particular feat
that contemporary physical models label impossible, *and* there is
something bad that happens to us if we label the feat impossible and we
are wrong.


My electrical utility told me to "CONSERVE ENERGY!"
I didn't realize I had a choice about that.

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT