From: John B (discwuzit@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 07:29:56 MDT
[quote from: Robert on 2003-07-28 at 17:41:31]
-snip-
I have a core belief that \"more complexity\" is better
than \"less complexity\". This may be modified by
\"more complexity sooner\" is better than \"less complexity
sooner\". That is because the Universe as we know it
and as currently structured might end and if one doesn't
get sufficient complexity to potentially intervene in
that process (sooner) then all bets are off. (Viewed as
another way I'm concerned that we not only have to create an
extropic reality now, but we have to create an even
more extropic reality in the future, and we potentially
have to warp reality such that increasing extropicness
is feasible and can survive the current reality.
This is driven in large part by Dyson's \"Time without
end\" perspective [1]. Alternate \"realities\" such as
Tipler's hold little attraction for me. The entire
state of our comprehension of our universe *is* in
a significant state of flux at this time (due to
work in everything from dark energy to dark matter
to string theory) -- so exactly *how* the physics
of reality impacts on maximization of extropic
perspectives I do not now know. But I *do* think
we should be thinking about it.
Robert - You make an interesting case here for complexity as a valid goal. I
in general agree, however I think you may be missing something in the
simplicity (either just for this post or in general) of those words.
Complexity in and of itself can be good or bad, IMO.
A Vingean blight is awful complex, for instance. So could be a totalitarian
state with umptillions of uploads slaving away under strict control.
How can we tell if we're heading towards more complexity in a beneficial way,
or in a detrimental way? I'm uncertain, but suspect that individual rights
(not just of meat-bodies born of the two-backed beast, but of all sophonts)
might be VERY important to such a situation. Thoughts?
-snip-
> Once you're born and living, you *count*.
No argument. But from an extropic perspective I have
to raise the question "How much do you count"? Can
you climb out of bed on a day to day basis and answer
the question "Yesterday, did I increase or decrease
the entropic trend in the universe?".
Excellent point. Unfortunately, the devil's in the details. And is the
entropic trend of the universe the be-all and end-all?
Most members of humanity do not really have the opportunity to
ask that question unfortunately. Most members of this list
and certain people in power positions do.
Disagree. The scope may not be of the same degree, but (assuming extropy is
the best goal available) ANY net extropic growth is better than none.
-snip-
[So the "horror" of nuclear weapons is removed
and one is just dealing mostly with the question of
"Is the long term future of humanity better off with
these people alive or not alive?" -- not too different
from the question that jurors in homicide cases deal
with though I'll admit the numbers are quite different.]
Just to be clear, the horror to me is not in the nukes. They're bad, true,
but they're NOTHING compared to the destruction of that many people on a
"maybe". Doesn't matter if you use nukes, chems, a knife, or cars, that many
deaths is an utter horror.
-John
---- This message was posted by John B to the Extropians 2003 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=56591>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 07:38:01 MDT