[extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award

[Russell Wallace]

On 5/16/06, KAZ <kazvorpal at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> OR, perhaps, that's simply a limitation of your own (and my) imagination
> and knowledge.
>
> Perhaps...in fact, I'd say it's pretty likely...there are ways to develop
> technology and measure intelligence which you have I simply haven't
> anticipated, yet.
>
> Or heck, perhaps it simply runs simulated universe models.


A computer the size of the galaxy wouldn't be powerful enough to simulate a
single protein molecule, much less a single living cell, in the absence of
feedback from real world laboratory experiments. (The required computing
power is exponential in the number of electrons and nuclei involved. That
doesn't mean simulations aren't useful, but it does mean they are only
complements, not replacements, for laboratory work.)

Any time someone says "even technology can't do that", about something other
> than the most extreme cases (speed of light, leaving this n-brane to explore
> a 11 dimensional containing universe), what they're really saying is "I lack
> the imagination to suppose that there's a way to do that which hasn't been
> invented yet".
>

Actually it doesn't stop at the extreme cases. You can say "maybe there are
ways to do X which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet" for absolutely
any value of X. Here, I'll prove it: What if there are ways to travel faster
than light or explore the 11 dimensional universe which you and I simply
haven't anticipated yet? See how easy that was? Heck, what if there are ways
to talk to ghosts or build a perpetual motion machine or cast a magic spell
to fly on a broomstick which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet?

It is precisely because "what if there are ways which you and I simply
haven't anticipated yet" can be used in absolutely all cases, that its
information content in any particular case is zero.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060516/9de30ed2/attachment.html>