> In a message dated 7/6/00 6:11:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> << hat is not the same thing. Yes, you can move around the matter in the
> universe quite a bit using small impulses and a lot of time and
> cleverness. But the theorem actually says you cannot close an open
> universe no matter what, it has to do with the spacetime topology and
> cannot be changed by merely (say) piling all the matter into a big
> ball or something similar. To make matters worse, we have a
> cosmological constant to deal with too. Of course, quantum gravity and
> such things may complicate things enough to enable closure, but that
> remains in the realm of wishing for the moment. >>
> Oh yes, I never said that Tipler's Cosmology, which is merely a compilation
> of the work by J.A. Wheeler at U of Texas as well as the late Charles
> Meissner from MIT, was a complete theory, merely a very strong hypothesis. I
> wonder why, we give all of eternity over to these universal constants and
> then say it shall be so forever? Like Ray Kurzweil, I hold that intelligence
> (meat or silicon) is a decent way for the universe or ensamble of universes
> to change things.
Sure, I have no disagreement with that. I'm actively promoting it. But
the problem is: can intelligence convert an open into a closed
universe? Even if intelligence acts on the largest scales and has all
available physical knowledge it may not be able to do such a thing. It
may of course be that we will soon discover an easy trick of doing it
(just involving 10^12 galaxy-masses of relativistic neutronium or
something other easily obtainable :-). But you cannot build a very
believable theory on the *possibility* that the laws we know are wrong
(it would be like a theory that began "Assume relativity doesn't
hold..."). That the laws of physics seem to evaporate in the presence
of intelligence doesn't mean everything will become possible even for
> <Well, a neuron star is a nice thing when you want to resurrect your
> relatives all the way back to pre-dynastic Egypt and other small
> projects :-) But it doesn't give you the real, infinite
> calculations/memory storage, Omega Point. Accept no substitutes :-) >
> Anders please! We mammals and other carbon/water forms are indeed
> being forced to accept the subsititute called mortality. Along the
> way many people may achieve the ecshaton through cryo- or NeoBio, or
> uploading to Stellar Mindplaces or the Linde Scenario; but right now
> its the big sleep, for all of us, unless evidenced otherwise. Keep
> working lads and lasses!!
OK, I would gladly settle for a neuron brain in the interrim, no
question about it. But it is *so much simpler* than the Omega Point
(we can at least imagine how a nanotech version of it might work
according to known physics).
> <That plasma can be chaotic does not prove that it can be used to
> perform useful calculations. I'm not aware of any proofs that plasma
> chaos is of the right kind to be Turing-complete, but I can imagine it
> is. However, a real physical (nuclear) plasma is a different thing,
> and may very well have diffusion or randomness effects that disrupts
> the computations. >
> I am guessing you are correct, but then who the heck really thinks
> about even considering using plasma as a subsitiute for computation
> except a minority of people pn this list?
Well, it might be useful for a lot of pre-omega things (like
colonising the stars, literally). But of course, Tipler was really
talking about interacting modes of the Higgs field for his
> Maybe we need some insight from plasma physicists? Oh, if Hannes
> Alfvens were only here!
I guess he would have told you to read his novel "The Tale of the Big
Computer Machine" he wrote in the 60's, where he warned of
superhumanly intelligent computers and human overdependency on them
> Actually, I was looking at the chaos (poops in the plasma) as
> a potential off-on function.
What would be suitable storage units? I have been thinking about
vortex loops, they look nice and ought to be useful for something.
> To sum it up, I aggree with the notion that Tipler doesn't have
> everything, just a decent round about notion. Will other concepts
> like an accelerated expansion wipe out Tipler's thesis? No, because
> the expansion is, from what I understand, going at speeds very much
> under lighspeed.
The problem is that it is accelerating due to the cosmological
constant. The horizons are creeping closer and closer...
> Given even 10 billion years to over-take the
> expansion and I believe we've (whomever we've become or merged with)
> will modify the cosmological environment.
Sure. I hope to be there (two ancient posthumans still debating
cosmology - "See? That cluster was not relativistic either! Told you
so back in last eon!" :-) )
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! email@example.com http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:02 MDT