[extropy-chat] Reliable tech

[kevinfreels.com]

100% reliability is possible. It is layers of complexity that create the
indeterminate.
For example, if I were sitting on top of a nuclear weapon when it detonated,
I would die.
If I were traveling at 60,000 kph in space enclosed in nothing but a
spacesuit, and I hit the moon, I will die.
In fact, if I were just ejected in space without a suit I would die.
Death is, as far as we know, 100% reliable in the natural world. That is why
it takes something like mind to create the unnatural state of living
forever. But even then, the universe will surely die unless we, or someone
else intervenes.

The problem is when you rely on the detonation to do the killing. The bomb
may fail to detonate.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:03 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reliable tech


>
>
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>   These things are perceived, usually
> > incorrectly, to have no
> > parallel in the "old" ways...but even if the
> > perception is incorrect, I
> > wonder - might there be a way to make some
> > technology 100% reliable?
>
> No Adrian, I believe that statistical mechanics
> forbids 100% reliability. If perfection were possible
> there would be no guassian curve, statistics, or error
> propagation. The universe seems to require some things
> be random or indeterminate depending on whether you
> believe there is such a thing as randomness or if you
> believe that what masquerades as randomness is
> ignorance of the underlying order.
>
> In either case, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and
> the importance of initial conditions in chaos theory
> conspire to thwart our certainty about anything. Of
> course you are free to BELIEVE that there are things
> out there that have a probability of 0 or 1, but then
> that's faith. Which isn't necessarily bad, whether it
> be faith in the underlying order to the universe or
> that a lightbulb won't burn out when you switch it on.
> Everybody invests a little faith in their lights which
> is why they are so disappointed when they don't come
> on. Most of the time I board an airplane, I have faith
> it won't for whatever reason crash. Otherwise I could
> not board it. But I KNOW that there is a definite
> finite probability that it might crash just like
> switching on a lightbulb can sometimes fail.
> Technology and physiology both eventually fail.
> Vigilance, fastidiousness, and redundancy are the only
> solutions to entropy. And no matter how well one lays
> ones plans, foolproofs ones technology, hones ones
> measurements, and tightens ones estimates, the
> universe always gets the final say. But in the end I
> am comfortable with that because the universe usually
> rules in my favor.
>
>
> The Avantguardian
> is
> Stuart LaForge
> alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>
> "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't
attempted to contact us."
> -Bill Watterson
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>