**From:** Warrigal (*ihope127+w@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Thu May 21 2009 - 20:13:07 MDT

**Next message:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Previous message:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**In reply to:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Next in thread:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Reply:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:46 AM, John K Clark <johnkclark@fastmail.fm> wrote:

*> Well, even if we prove that immortality is possible we won’t know that
*

*> WE are immortal; but can we even do that?
*

*> As I said immortality depends on Physics and Cosmology but as Gödel
*

*> proved there is not even a complete theory of consistent mathematics, so
*

*> there is probably not a physical theory of everything either.
*

Goedel's theorems do not apply at all here. His theorems state that

there is no set of axioms that can express certain things under which

every true statement can be proven. The analogous statement for

physics would be that there is no set of laws such that every

phenomenon expressible as a mathematical sentence (including things

like "the atoms can be read as a Turing machine that does not halt")

can be derived from these laws. We don't care about deriving every

phenomenon that is expressible as a mathematical sentence; we only

care about coming up with laws that merely imply every phenomenon that

can actually be measured. The analogous goal for mathematics would be

coming up with axioms that imply every statement that can be proven,

which is trivial.

*> And even if there is such a theory figuring out all the implications of
*

*> it is almost certainly not possible; you
*

*> can learn the basic laws of the game Go in a few minutes but it takes a
*

*> lifetime to get good at it and nobody
*

*> is even close to being perfect at it.
*

Mechanical engineers do not design systems that can be proven correct

based on our theories of quantum chemistry. Go players do not use

strategies that perfectly match the minimax game tree.

Super-intelligent beings do not prove that every possible outcome

leads to them being immortal.

Now for a counterexample. Suppose that I am a super-intelligent being,

and I've figured out the laws of physics. It turns out that they're

Conway's Game of Life. Having done this, I know what actions I can

take that could kill me; since I'm rational and I desire life, I know

that I will not take any of these actions. I also know that the

universe is finite and wraps around; knowing this, I know that it

contains nothing but me. Since I will not kill myself and nothing

other than me will kill me, I will never be killed; I am immortal.

--Warrigal

**Next message:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Previous message:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**In reply to:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Next in thread:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Reply:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT
*