[extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.

Marc Geddes marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz
Fri May 6 05:37:30 UTC 2005

>There is a problem here. The indeterminate fate of
>the universe cannot be simply analyzed. That is to
>say no sentient mind below godlike intelligence
>could predict what impact its actions would have on
>the survival time of the universe as a whole even

Not true!  For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point
theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being
physically indeterminate, but it was still the case
that sentients could predict the effects of their
actions on the universe.  Tipler showed how sentients
could co-ordinate their actions to increase the
probability of the continued existence of the universe
(in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an
infinite number of computations prior to the end of
'real time').

>No. You could state it as "do not destroy the
>universe" but stating it the way you do, leads to
>conflicts with deduction (4). For example an AI might
>decide that all those sentient minds running around
>are dumping too much entropy into the universe and
>hastening its demise.

There is something problematic about the argument here


THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'


Please visit my web-site:

Mathematics, Mind and Matter


Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list