> My point is not necessarily that a given technology is feasible, and
> particularly not that it is feasible to us.=A0 The Unbreakable-Limits
> position
> says:=A0 "Such-and-such is theoretically and mathematically =
impossible
> under the
> laws of physics, in the same sense that you cannot add two even
numbers
> and
> get an odd number".=A0 I simply point out that the current, known =
laws
of
> physics make the limit a practical, rather than a theoretical, =
one.=A0
The
> Constraintarians are reduced to saying:=A0 "Well, sure, it's
theoretically
> possible, but I don't think it's practical."=A0 Well, but then the =
SIs
may
> think
> otherwise.=A0 You are no longer arguing that a given end is =
impossible
> under the
> Laws Of Physics (which change all the time, anyway).=A0 You are =
arguing
> that a
> possible end is not achieveable - because *we* can't think of any way
to
> do it.
Right.=A0 Understood.=A0 However you're making a straw-man of my =
original
post: I was very explicit in communicating that a future being might =
see
past these apparent limitations.=A0 But simply waving away the =
discussion
by saying "we don't know, we're not smart enough" is sticking your head
in the sand.=A0 Let's think creatively about how we can apply our =
limited
intellects to glean at least /some/ understanding of the future.=A0 I'm
sure you have dozens of suspicions of what things will be like (in some
limited sphere) 50 years from now, and strong supporting arguments for
each of them.=A0 That's the stuff I'd like to hear, rather than =
constant
cries of "some smarter future being will figure /everything/ out".
On a totally separate note, nice to talk to you again, Eli.=A0 It's =
always
entertaining and enlightening, to say the least!
mez=20