**Next message:**Samantha Atkins: "Re: Two essays on the violence seemingly inherent in Islam"**Previous message:**Emlyn O'regan: "RE: Singularity Blindness"**Maybe in reply to:**BigBooster: "Singularity Blindness"**Next in thread:**Smigrodzki, Rafal: "Re: Singularity Blindness"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*>
*

*> Ray Kurzweil harps on that phenomenon in his writings. It
*

*> makes sense.
*

*> Progress has always been on an exponential curve. But since
*

*> at the start of
*

*> the curve it is flat, even exponential change is barely
*

*> noticeable. Now
*

*> that we are fairly well into the curve we are starting to see the
*

*> exponential nature of technological advance. My guess is
*

*> that within the
*

*> next couple decades we will come to expect continual paradigm
*

*> altering
*

*> advances. I expect we will even come to be comfortable with
*

*> our society
*

*> becoming repeatedly racked with paradigm changes.
*

*>
*

*> -Zero
*

Just a quick point to pick with this...

Exponential curves are never flat, they are always exponential. No matter

where you stand on the curve, it looks mostly flat behind, and curves up in

front. The only thing that makes some curves seem flat at the start is when

we are fitting discrete events/improvements to a continuous curve.

For example, the famous speed-of-transport curve which starts off "For a

bloody long time everybody walked around, until some lucky dude rode a horse

without getting killed". That early part of the speed of transport curve

wasn't a curve at all, it was flat until people started riding, where it

took a big discrete jump. In terms of the fitted exponential curve at that

time, the transition from walking to riding was a mammoth technological

advance; relatively larger than any advance since?

When you get into parts of the curve where the increases aren't too massive

in relation to the absolute value of the curve, coming more often perhaps,

it really feels more like an exponential curve. I think we've got this in a

number of areas, and that we have already adapted to it. Culturally, we seem

to be able to take exponential increase in things like computing speed

completely in our stride; even qualitative advances like the introduction of

the internet are absorbed very quickly and pretty painlessly.

So to Zeroes' point above, I think we are already there. Adapting to

exponential advance means coping with a static paradigm turnover rate, which

I imagine is proportional to the doubling rate of the curve in question. I

want to emphasise this point - we seem to be able to cope pretty well with a

*constant* rate of paradigm turnover. It is really important to note that

this goes on indefinately - a scenario involving only exponential

improvement is one which does not have a singularity.

However, it is proposed by some people that we actually have

hyper-exponential improvement in many areas; that the doubling time is

decreasing. That is something to which I don't think a society can truly

adapt, and which it would most likely treat as exponential improvement, with

major upheavals every so often as the paradigm turnover rate grows

(inversely with doubling times) well below what the culture is able to cope

with, and is assuming. It is conjectured that this kind of environment has

an asymptote at doubling time = 0; the famous Singularity.

Emlyn

***************************************************************************

Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are

intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not

the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,

disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is

prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us

immediately and delete the document.

Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's

responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the

material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus

or other defect.

**Next message:**Samantha Atkins: "Re: Two essays on the violence seemingly inherent in Islam"**Previous message:**Emlyn O'regan: "RE: Singularity Blindness"**Maybe in reply to:**BigBooster: "Singularity Blindness"**Next in thread:**Smigrodzki, Rafal: "Re: Singularity Blindness"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT
*