[ExI] immortal

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 7:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 3:21 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:35 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> >> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> > we should reach the best physically possible technology within 200
> years at current rates
> >>
> >> I see no possible justification for that claim.  The best physically
> >> possible technology is, by definition, unknown until we possess it.
> >
> > Physical constants provide right upper bounds on the best physically
> possible computers.
>
> For a given architecture, perhaps.  But the constraints on traditional
> electronics are not exactly the same as the constraints on photonic
> computers, neither are exactly the same as the constraints on quantum
> computers, and none of them are exactly the same as the constraints on
> some architecture we have yet to discover or invent.


These constraints apply to all classical computing architectures physically
realizable given the laws of this universe. It doesn't matter if we use
photonic computers, super conductors, nanotubes, etc. No physical computer
can run at a clock speed greater than that of Bremermann's limit, not even
quantum computers.


You implicitly
> rule out any possibility of that last category without proof;


The proof is based on established physical constants and known laws of
physics. If Planck's constant is different from what we think it is, or if
there is a way around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then we could
build a faster computer. But absent being very wrong about what's generally
considered to be well-established physics, we have a clear picture for how
fast a computers can operate, regardless of engineering breakthroughs.


based on
> historical evidence, you are probably no more correct in doing so than
> for someone in the 1930s to declare that the limits of vacuum tubes
> dictated the limits of the best physically possible computers.
>

Did you review any of the links I sent? These are not my claims, I am
merely pointing you to results others have achieved regarding the best
physically possible computers (based on our currently understood physical
laws).

I grant you that our physical understanding could be wrong, but the kind of
discovery required to disprove the relevant understanding is akin to
finding out the speed of light is not what we now understand it to be --
possible, but doubtful.


> > So it will take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to get
> there. Over the past century the trend has been fairly consistent of
> computing technology doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months
>
> Even if we were to constrain ourselves to traditional electronics,
> Moore's Law has been pointed out as not necessarily holding steady -
> and it's been an economic law, not a physical one.
>

I think it is more generally a property of recursively improving systems.
As Kurzweil described:

Let W = the total world knowledge about how to build computers
Let V = the total speed of all the computers in the the world

If V increases as W increases, and if the rate of growth for W depends to
any degree on V, then the result is exponential growth of W and V.

It's easier to see why this is so if you imagine all the world's scientists
running on uploaded computers. The faster they can get the computers to
run, the faster they make discoveries and engineering breakthroughs and
hence W increases at a faster rate. This in turn leads to faster computing
substrates, and so on ad infinitum. Or at least, until we reach the
physical limits.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250803/5026c370/attachment.htm>