Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Black holes are not eternal , the lifetime of a Black Hole in seconds >> can be found with the formula 10,240*PI^2 *(G^2*M^3)/(h*c^4) where G is the >> Gravitational constant, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light and >> M is the mass of the black Hole in kilograms. And Bekenstein's bound says >> Black Holes can't deal with infinite information, the number of bits they >> can deal with is 4 times the area of the event horizon in Planck Areas >> (1.6* 10^-69 square meters). The formula for the maximum number of bits >> that can be contained in a sphere of radius R is PI *R^2 *c/G*h*ln2 . >> So the maximum information that can be contained in any sphere is >> proportional to the square of the radius (the area) not the cube of the >> radius (volume) as you might expect. > >
> *What I wrote about the inner horizon not continuous with I^+ is about > Hawking radiation.* I have no idea what “I^+” means but I assume you’re talking about the Cauchy horizon that is inside the event horizon of a rotating or electrically charged Black Hole. Causality breaks down inside the Cauchy horizon so I don’t see how it could have anything to do with Turing Machines because they need causality. And out present physics may break down in some places but I don’t think logical self contradictions are allowed anywhere and that is what’s you’d have if you had a complete list of all Turing Machines that halt and all that don’t. > *> It would be best if you not refer to the “Jupiter brain,” * I don’t see why, I think its pretty good shorthand for what I’m talking about. > *> for honestly that is extreme science fiction* Well it’s fiction I’ll give you that, such a thing hasn’t been constructed. Yet. > * > and not anything scientific.* Please state why scientific law that would violate. The fastest signals in the human brain move at about 100 meters a second, many are far slower, light moves at 300 million meters per second. So if you insist that the 2 most distant parts of a brain communicate as fast as they do in a human brain (and I'm not entirely sure why that constraint would be necessary) then parts in the brain of a AI could be at least 3 million times as distant. The volume increases by the cube of the distance so such a brain would physically be 27 million trillion times larger than a human brain. Even if 99.9% of that space were used just to deliver power and get rid of waste heat you'd still have a thousand trillion times as much volume for logic and memory components as humans have room for inside their heads. And the components would be much much smaller than the human ones too. It takes a human being 4 years to learn enough to graduate from Harvard, but a electronic AI would send messages between its brain components 3 million times faster than humans send messages between their brain components, so a AI could graduate from Harvard in 64 minutes. Actually it would take even less time because the AI’s brain components would be far smaller than the human ones. The human brain is about a foot in diameter, 3 million times that would be about 570 miles; well OK that’s not quite Jupiter size but allow me a little poetic license. Or do you insist on "Asteroid Brain"? > *> In fact much of this seems to me to be a case of where “prophets of > science” are trying to show that science can offer up in reality all the > fantasy promises of religion. * It would be disingenuous of me to insist there is no connection between what I’m talking about and what religion talks about, but that’s because information is as close as you can get to the traditional religious concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method. Consider the similarities: The soul is non material and so is information. It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for information. The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for information. The soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information. But there are important differences too. A soul is unique but information can be duplicated. The soul is and will always remain unfathomable, but information is understandable, in fact information is the ONLY thing that is understandable. Information unambiguously exists, I don't think anyone would deny that, but if the soul exists it will never be proven scientifically. > *> This is why I mention uploading minds into a sort of digital hell. It > would not be done by any Jupiter brain but by people who have totalitarian > agendas.* You said that before but gave no argument to support it, and you didn’t this time either. I can see how a Jupiter Brain might consider me so unimportant that it wouldn’t bother to revive me, but I don’t see why it would revive me just so it could torture me for eternity as the God of the Bible is always threatening to do. > *> Aaronson's argument seems to make it far more implausible to actually > duplicate a brain. I am not sure, but that sounds like a barrier to really > mapping brain states into a machine, for that map might be NP-complete. * If its NP-complete then how does nature do it? As I said before no physical process, biological or otherwise, has ever been found that can solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, and yet your brain has already been duplicated, the atoms in it are not the same ones that made it up one year ago. Your brain today was made from last years mashed potatoes. If random mutation and natural selection can do it then intelligence can do it too, and unlike Evolution it won’t take 3 billion years to figure out how. > *> The soap bubble problem as an optimization is a sort of extremal graph > problem, such as the traveling salesman problem. Given that brains with a > trillion or so neurons each with 10^5 dendritic connections this might be > an intractable graph problem.* You’re not trying to find a shorter path through 48 cities much less trying to find the shortest path, all you’re trying to do is duplicate a chart showing the path the traveling salesman already took. If I had a square piece of paper that graphed all those trillion neurons it would have a million neurons on a edge, but why on earth would duplicating that paper in a Xerox machine be a intractable problem? > > What might be coming to humanity soon could be not some panacea > technotopia but a sort of implosion. A century from now I doubt there will be any beings that we would recognize being human, but if we’re very very lucky there might be beings that remember being human. And its interesting that you criticize my post for being too science fictioney but you include a photo from some grade B science fiction movie. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
