"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > Cognitive science. Physicists can build nuclear weapons but they can't
> > build better physicists.
> Eliezer, sometimes you make me smile. And towards the end
> of winter in Seattle, that usually isn't an easy thing to do.
> However, if the physicists are approaching a complete TOE, or at
> least a sufficiently robust TOE that they can't take it any
> further without recreating a big bang, then even the very
> best cognitive science will not be able to build better
> physicists. Fundamentally physics is about reducing things
> to a set of simple principles. Once that has been done
> it becomes useless to try an extract any more from an empty
Physics doesn't end after a TOE. Not the way the current TOE is thought
of as more or less not much more than a glorified GUT. Having a TOE
doesn't mean you know everything it only means you understand the
physical lowest level basics thoroughly of the model set to date. It
doesn't even mean you understand all the implications or all of what is
possible or how to do everything that is possible or even the full
limits of what is possible.
Also I have a sneaking suspicion the TOE will only make our current
model conssitent but that the current model isn't the end of the story
at all. It only seemed like it was given the current limitations of
what we know.
> On the other hand the phase space of what you can explore
> in terms of building things based on the laws of physics
> seems phenomenally large! You really want the cognitive
> scientists to enhance the engineers who in turn enhance
> the cogntive scientists and so on and so forth. You
> will hit a limit on how much you can explore per unit
> of real time but that exploration will be a very rich
> voyage indeed.
What exactly is "real time"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT