Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Down_The_Rabbithole t1_iv50d89 wrote

Reply to comment by TheHamsterSandwich in Ray Kurzweil hits the nail on the head with this short piece. What do you think about computronium / utilitronium and hedonium? by BinaryDigit_

No, that would be pseudoscience. By definition things are always beholden to the laws of physics. Else they wouldn't be the laws of physics.

This is not a religion based on hope. It's a science based on observation and mathematical constructs.

That Arthur C. Clarke quote is just that, a funny quote. It isn't actually factual or something you should adhere to. It's just a funny remark.

Concepts like Entropy however are actual real science and the laws of physics are things everything in the universe by definition adheres to. These things are not the same.

5

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iv56d74 wrote

Who said our understanding of physics is complete?

2

ratsoidar t1_iv63vns wrote

They are stuck in Plato’s cave allegory. Imagine 300 years ago suggesting there are atoms that can be split to release unbelievable amounts of energy. Or that computers can be created with tiny rocks and electricity. Speaking of electricity, pretty new too. We can vibrate our food to temperature in a little box in the kitchen now. Without modern tools and a foundation of research and development we would have never had any idea. How can anyone believe we are simply done learning anything new now? It’s a litmus test of ignorance imo.

2

KSRandom195 t1_iv5bwon wrote

Our laws of physics are based on our current understanding of the universe. They used to think the Earth was flat. The best science at the time believed it was this way.

Further, we already know we have some pretty big unknowns, for instance, dark matter and dark energy exists solely to fill a gap in our understanding. And we also know we have some big assumptions that the same laws of physics apply everywhere.

For the applications we typically use these assumptions for, stuff we’re doing around Earth and the Sol system it’s fine. For principles of the universe these assumptions and unknowns are a much bigger deal.

2

[deleted] t1_iv61dud wrote

I don't see how this will go against entropy, computation does not decrease the entropy of the universe in any way. if it did it would go against the laws of physics. What made you make that statement?

2

KSRandom195 t1_ivazyt0 wrote

It decreases the entropy of the thing being computed.

Deriving that 2 + 2 = 4 necessarily orders the location that the 4 is stored.

However, the computation itself consumes energy from an external source.

1

turnip_burrito t1_iv56f3b wrote

Sounds like you just need to belieeeeeeve.

We can run computronium off of these farts if they are plentiful enough

1