From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 08:59:31 MDT
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 May 2003, Spike wrote:
> > The ultimate limit of computability
> > would be reached as soon as *every* photon that is emitted
> > for any reason is harnessed to flip one bit.
>
> Spike, we may need to have a serious discussion about
> reversible computing. I believe it may be Landauer
> who showed communication may be "free" and Bennet
> that showed computation may be "free" (please Anders,
> Eliezer or others correct me if this is wrong). If
> my understanding is correct then one does *not* need the
> photons (in other than a general way that there is
> heat present in the universe).
>
> I also suspect I could come up with multiple schemes whereby
> the energy of single photons (at least those in the UV-visible
> range) could be used to flip multiple bits.
Quite so. A flip could occur for each quanta of energy posessed by the
photon, with it proceeding down to the zero point field in leaps and
bounds like a fish ladder at a hydro dam. High frequency energy would
obviously then provide the most efficient computation. Therefore, I
would look for entities engaged in such computation around dense x-ray
sources like black holes, neutron stars, cosmic strings, assuming it is
possible to construct computational devices that utilize such.
>
> > the AI wants to get smarter.
>
> Not completely clear. The AI might want to maximize its
> longevity and that might require exiting this universe.
> The AI might want to be known as the most brilliant AI
> that ever existed -- so it is going to transmit the
> most brilliant intellectual result ever created in
> the history of the universe as it hurls itself
> (and a whole lot of other matter) into a black hole
> to generate the energy required to produce the
> computational result. So what that it doesn't
> survive, it is reknowned throughout the galaxy
> as being the most brilliant. The AI might want to
> maximize its "fun" in which case it may live fast,
> die young and leave a pretty corpse (this is why I
> agree with Eli that we need a better "fun" theory.)
I would add a function that adds value for reminiscence and sentiment.
I still derive enjoyment from things I did years and decades ago.
Therefore, the longer lived would have maximum fun, though since one
needs experiences to gain a bank of reminiscence principal that pays
maximum dividends over time, one would need to balance experience with
risk. Moderation, in other words. Acceptance of some degree of risk to
attain a certain nest egg of experience.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.blogspot.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 09:10:52 MDT