On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 2:06:32 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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. >
The Penrose diagram for the Kerr-Newman spacetime is <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VSibmL4dKzw/Wqxj9izcVoI/AAAAAAAADRs/umaTPHfBN9QNAw-YWmd-cfQ3QnoBpZk-wCLcBGAs/s1600/Penrose%2Bdiagram%2Bfor%2BRN%2Bwith%2B2%2Bspatial%2Bsurfaces.png> The asymptotic null infinity is continuous with the inner horizon. With Hawking radiation this diagram becomes something more like what is below. <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-tOPmIkS2-NE/WqxusuFUIPI/AAAAAAAADSY/EhQy_m45zjkMQQoTfxECb6OwaPCFcF5VwCLcBGAs/s1600/Penrose%2Bdiagram%2Bfor%2BKN%2Bspacetime%2Bwith%2Bhawking%2Bradiation.PNG> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_6U_NzhaH_8/Wqxl79tcHsI/AAAAAAAADSI/9Zj4zWecTaYd3McLGDeI-a0K7lQLszsEgCLcBGAs/s1600/Penrose%2Bdiagram%2Bfor%2BKerr%2B2.png> Hawking radiation has made the r_- and I^+ no longer continuous. This means quantum mechanics prevents spacetimes from becoming Hobarth-Malement spacetimes that can be a universal Turing machine that can determine the halting status of any algorithm. The point of the NP-complete algorithm and the soap bubble demonstration is that nature does not solve them. Nature provides a "physical hack" that works well enough. This is an approximate solution to what ever the idea solution would be, and often with biology this can involve a high level of redundancy of different genes. Plants and fungis are masters at this with their tendency to polypoid chromosomes. I think there is a difference between simulating something and thinking the simulation is the reality. There are massive computer programs to simulate the evolution of galaxy domains, walls and clusters in Λ-CDM. At no point would somebody say there is a real cosmology in the computer. There is a computer brain project in Europe underway, and I don't think many people think this thing is going to start behaving like a real person. The map is not the territory. Evolution does not say much about consciousness. In fact largely it is about a stochastic randomizing of genes with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and selection mechanisms. There is then an iteracted process of SNPs and selection. The older discredited Lamarkianism actually invoked more in the way of will, teleonomy or consciousness. Biological evolution also effectively breaks down when it comes to the origin of pre-biotic chemistry and early life. Science fiction is ok up to a point. I will say that on the list of what is more probable, a Jupiter sized computer brain or that we humans blow it utterly, I think the latter is more plausible. In fact this country has a barbarian for a President who just might do the trick. However, in arguing things it is not exactly standard to say "in the future there will be a Jupiter sized brain that solves this." LC > *> 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 tat, 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.
