Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com (Dan Clemmensen) writes:
>Robin Hanson wrote:
>> 4) For a subject a broad as "post-singularity", insight just isn't very
>> discrete, since there is so much relevant knowledge. We know more
>> about the year 2098 now than we did in 1898, and likely will know
>> more ten years from now. Our insight improves incrementally, so
>> there is no cliff beyond which we know *nothing*. I see no
>> "horizons," analogous to where the curve of the Earth makes human
>> visual resolution suddenly fall to uselessness.
>>
>
>I assert that the only relevant thing we know that was not known in
>1898 is that a singularity has a high probability of occurance before
>2098.
I think the limits that relativity indicates about the maximum speed
at which intelligence can expand into the universe says something
relevant.
We can tell something about what will be valuable after the singularity
by what the laws of physics constrain to be in finite supply (i.e. mass/
energy).
As long as we can't know that the chances of our property rights being
respected are zero, that tells us something important about how to
maximise our chances of being wealthy in 2098.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Critmail (http://crit.org/critmail.html): http://www.rahul.net/pcm | Accept nothing less to archive your mailing list