Bitcoin Forum

http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/JJBell-singularity_chart2.gif

If you know transhumanism is bullshit you should be able to draw your conclusions from there. IF not welcome to the south sea.

OK, I'll bite.

Turn it upside down and the same case applies with just as much fervour.

Market cap of $1T, price of $50K/BTC @ 21M coins mined in a few long years, after the expected ups and downs.

That's nowhere near a singularity Mr Kurzweil ;D

Transhumanism is actually already happening to various degrees. There are all kinds of useful implants and genetic therapies appearing on the market. Doesn't mean a singularity will happen like Kurzweil goes on about. Eventually our computers/smartphones will be thought controlled and probably just seamless implants in our skulls that won't even be visible. Thought controlled computing already exists. Even some crazy brain to brain interfaces for rats let them SHARE brains. It is incredible.

What is bullshit about transhumanism?
There is no way of stopping it, imo.

The following response shalt be considered the end of this thread. OP is free to lock it afterwards:

Cool story, bro. You sound mad.

I'm not mad, overall I've earned money from this bubble. Not as much as I would like but I am not complaining.

Oh hey it's Mucus with more bear stuff.

Should have posted this in your other thread that's already full of fail.

It pinnacles in a construction called Tiplers Omega Point. (Google it if you are interested) That's the realm of religious superstition.
That and hyperbolic development of any kind hasn't been observed to result in anything other than a disaster, historically. Plus technological progress is proven to be subject to exponential curves during the beginning and sigmoid curves overall.

Since everybody is spamming anyway I think I can be excused this incident.  :)

Tipler is interesting - The Physics of Immortality especially:  a book worth reading, and one I consider to be on an intellectual plane with Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

After that I'll grant you he fell pretty much all the way down your "religious superstition" rabbit hole.  Still, whatever one might believe, worth reading.

None of that mumbo jumbo is required for transhumanism.
This Tripler person seriously thinks that entropy of the universe will in the end decrease to zero.
My guess is he hasn't kept up with physics for the past 50 or so years.

Tripler is an idiot that doesn't understand basic mechanisms like entropy and speed of light.

Tipler is just the most delusional transhumanist.  It is right that other concepts aren't that far fetched but they are still irrational.

This can be demonstrated on the graphic I posted in OP which basically comes from the book on transhumanism. It discards the limitation on resources, the Hubbard peak and the tendency for laws of accelerated change to topple out at some point. Kurzweil may not be as delusional as Tipler but he still is an Idiot on my book.
The next requirement, so called self-aware machines are an impossible transformation in a cybernetic sense. I am not saying that it is impossible to enable mechanical life but it would case to be machines at this point, since a machine is by definition a lifeless object. So that leaves us with the conclusion that machines inventing new machines isn't possible either.

Mind you the floor is high, we could reach a tremendous level of technological sophistication but it will not be subject to hyperbolic growth, at optimistically exponential, realistically sigmoid and pessimistically bell-shaped. (Yes we could actually die out too)

Well, I think the Kurzweillean singularity is a plausible scenario. He's a bit selective in some of his statistics, and has made some predictions that have been plainly wrong (e.g. the solar singularity which isn't progressing on his schedule). But the basic insight is sound I expect (Unless the peak-economiclally-recoverable-energy limit is hit like some people expect). I don't think he's an idiot.

But you don't need to believe any of that to anticipate BTC to be a commodity more valuable than it presently is.  Yes, we know the risks. There's a good chance it will be a zero eventually. But there's also a good chance it could ultimately be regarded as a co-equal asset class with gold. By which I mean it's market valuation could equal that of gold. All gold in the world is roughly $10T US. In order for bitcoin to have that same valuation, it would be $1M/bitcoin (using 10M BTC, or half that value at 20M BTC).

I don't think that self-aware machines require anything we call life in the biological sense.

And i think that our technological advancement is limited by the bandwidth of applied brain power.
There are only so many humans working on any particular problem while the amount of things to find out only increases.
I think that any shape of this growth will depend on how humanity will develop. I mean, in 50 years we could be colonizing the solar system, which gives us room to breed and produce more scientists.
On the other hand the increase in technological knowledge allows us to extend our own capabilities which is considerably speeding up the process.
But i think a real singularity is out of  the question. We will just have to deal with the occasional paradigm shift, if we can deal with it.
I think we are riding a linear surfboard on a log scale so to us it always looks as if the future is impossibly steep, untill we get there.

In the end i think that we can achieve synthetic conciousness. But i don't want to speculate about the properties of such a conciousness. It depends on a lot of factors and not all can be predicted if it's anything like an emergent phenomenon, which i think it may be.

I'm not sure why you think self aware machines are an impossible transformation per se. I find that a process like evolution takes any chance it can get. Whatever works, works.
Life itself is not much more than machines building more machines.
And if life can make a brain then you can make a brain with a machine.

But seriously, Kurzweil's singularity will simply never happen - there is ALWAYS a bottleneck somewhere inside or outside of the system.

I do like the idea of living your life at the speed of light though, essentially immortal until you log out.

Will money matter if we see the singularity?

And this has something to do with speculation... because?

 ???

Money won't mean the same thing. If we all became machines the only thing that would matter would really be raw matter and the ability to control it so we can use it for processing power. A post scarcity economy would probably be prevented because of this. But it essentially would be damn near post scarcity because if everyone are machines or at least enhanced, extreme education, communication, merged consciousness all come to the table and completely change the human experience.

are you saying I cant believe?

Um, seriously, Unicorns riding bicycles will never happen
But what about cucumbers should there be unicorns?


Look around there are actually people who call this bubble the "bitcoin sigularity" "financial singularity", etc...

Raw matter is only an energy storage configuration.

And both are still finite. Finite means, in economic terms, scarce. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Cheap we can do. Free is not possible.

Free is such a relative term.
Once energy becomes ubiquitous things are valued differently.
The word free will be very much redefined in the future.
I'm pretty sure that energy will become rationed because it is not wise to have individuals play around with more power than the complete nuclear stock of the world.
So the economics will work differently. If there is any scarcity it will be artificial.
Then, if we expand into space we get to play with the big stuff but by then there will be very little limits for us humans. Hopefully we will not destroy our universe...

The limiting factor of, we'll call it... an "energy economy," is the rate at which it can be generated/collected. This, too will always be a finite number, and if human history holds out, smaller than demand. Would such an economy's poorest members have astronomically better lives than the richest of today? Undoubtedly, but "free" is not the same as "really, really cheap."

As i said, we will reach a top of consumption where we will have more energy available than is healthy for us. We will have very serious reasons to cap our usage is some ways and in any case our whole world would be transformed. Mechanisms like supply and demand will become more a question of logistics than of finance.
The more energy we would have available the less we would care about its value.
Would the word economy still have a real meaning when energy is almost free to get?

In short, yes, because "almost free" is not "free."

Supply and demand have always been about logistics. The finance is merely the grease that keeps the machine running smoothly.

And you're thinking very small-scale. In order to achieve the energy levels we're talking about, We'd need to control a significant portion of the energy output of the Sun. "World" is a very poor word choice.

Sure, i just want to say that the word free becomes more meaningless the easier it is to acquire energy.

Supply and demand are driven by value in an economy.
As i said, we would have to rethink everything we call economy.
We could eat the cake and have it.

What i wrote above would be the pre-space situation.
In space we will have to deal with other things.
First of all, interstellar travel is not possible without superluminous speeds. If this was possible then we would have cracked the universe and energy would be indeed free.
But i assume that this kind of technology will take very very long to develop and by the time we solve that we will probably not be human anymore.
So we will be stuck in the solar system for a now.
And here the only energy source is the sun.
But it gives off incredible amounts of energy, 3x10^31 J per day.
I cannot think of anything that would make our lifes better that uses so much energy.
The only possible reason to think in those orders of magnitude of energy is to get to other stars. But then we will need superluminous crafts first or we won't get far.
There will be little use for all this energy for most people. Even if you take into acount the fact that our population grows, the logistics and the actual relative size of this are nothing compared to the amount of power the sun gives off. It would take a very very long time for us to reasonable be able to use some substantial portion of the suns output. By that time i fully expect us to have changed completely so i'm not sure any of our concepts would apply.

In the mean time for the most part people will somehow acquire a molecular assembler (you can use it to make more molecular assemblers) and feed it sun energy to become fully self sustaining energy wise.

It's easy to acquire energy now. It's acquiring large amounts, in a usable form, that is, and always will be, a bit of a problem.

Not really. We could eat a very large slice of cake, and still have plenty left over, but that's not the same as eating the cake and having it too.

Then perhaps you simply don't have enough imagination. And even if it gives off that much energy, there's still the problem of catching it. To say nothing of transporting it, and putting it to use.

Nah, in a few decades you'll be able to capture more energy on your roof than you can reasonably use in the same amount of time.
'Bit of a problem' is again a human notion. If you put a device to work then there will be no more problem, there will just be entropy.
We are rapidly approaching a time where the sunlight above your house will be enough to completely power your life.
That will make most people independent of power companies so our oil economy will have to change completely. Energy will become ubiquitous and very cheap.
Acquiring enough energy in usable form to live a normal life will not be a problem for most people in the future.
The other thing that is changing is production. In the future you will just have a device that can somehow transform energy into usable things like food or tools. The need for things like stores will decline because everyone will become their own producer.
That means that most people won't put a price on many things in the future. Most people will just have enough of everything to live their life to fullfillment. It may be even that the idea of monetary value disappears at some point. I don't think that the powers of supply and demand will play a big role. There will be increasingly less need for an economy to provide in needs. So economy will shrink in some ways.

On the other hand projects you refer to are so complex that they will likely occupy muliple generations before completion. Things will need to work very differently from our current short term clifhanger mentality to make that even remotely possible.

I was talking about stuff like bubble universes that completely destroy our enthropic situation.
We can eat our cake and have an unlimited amount of more cakes to chose from.
YMMV and some say there was no cake in the first place.

Ow i can imagine quite a lot. Doesn't mean i think just anything is realistic tho.
Seriously, by the time we will be able to use even a small part of the sun we will already be in a society that has almost no resemblence to ours.
And to get to that point we have enough energy sources on earth.

If humanity has taught me anything over the years, it is that we are infinitely capable of pushing back the definition of "reasonable."

But you're not going to power that with the sunlight hitting your roof. E=MC². Do a quick napkin calculation and see if you can guess how much energy is required to synthesize one gram of matter. Now, how much energy hits the roof of a 100m² house over the course of a day? How do those two numbers compare?

The cake is a lie.

Here, at least, we agree. We don't even rate on the Kardashev scale. And we're talking about a Type II society, or I leading to II.

I DUNNO, ALL THAT SOUNDS WAYYYYY TOO OPTIMISTIC TO BE TRULY SCIENTIFIC
::: pushes up nose of glasses with index finger :::
 ::)

We don't use anywhere near the energy contained in mass. We use mass as an energy carrier but we don't touch the mass itself.
So we don't need to synthesize matter, altho i think it would be handy.
To start we would need some bulk mass that would need to be recycled.
And i can imagine matter re-synthesis. We could upgrade or downgrade useless but superfluous atoms and things like that.

Besides, the sun is not the only usefull energy source. e=mc^2 means matter itself is an energy source. I can't imagine this will not be a superfuous energy source in the future. How much mass would you need to make a sandwitch, that kind of thing.

It's actually more like "There is no spoon".

I find his classification a bit arbitrary. I'm pretty sure we canot forsee the consequeces of the incredible scientific discoveries that no doubt will be made if we continue on this path. Maybe humanity will cease to exist after being type 1 because we gain the technology to link our brains into one super consciousness. Maybe we will enhance our biological form and continue on like cyborgs. Maybe the A.I.s will take over. Who knows.
I'm quite sure that from our perspective we cannot even start to imagine what is needed to orgaize a galactic civilization.
Light takes about 120000 years to cross the milky way so this makes such a civilization pretty impractical unless you have ways to travel much faster than light. But if you have that then i think you can create your own universe as well. So what does civilization even mean in those situations.
I think the cosmos is too weird for mister Kardashev.

Now you're starting to talk sense. Matter ----> Matter is much easier to do than straight Energy ----> Matter. There would still be a need for matter, though, the raw building blocks to make things Some of this could be acquired from recycling, which would be orders of magnitude more efficient with nano-assemblers, but not all of it.

So my idea is that mechanisms like supply and demand only work in a situation where there is less supply than demand.
I kindof see it as a rubber band.
If you stretch it even a little you can transfer information over it.
If you don't put this potential in the system (you don't stretch it at all) you cannot make it transduce information in this way.
Same goes for economy. If there is not enough potential between 'have' and 'want' there won't be a clear path between them. The good will start flowing sidewards as the value of the good will become less relevant.
And i think this potential will become marginalized in the future up to the point that most needs can be fullfilled without the system we call economy.

On the contrary, it works just fine in the event of a surplus. Here's the way supply and demand works:
High demand, High supply, price stable and high.
High demand, Low supply, price increases until demand is met.
Low demand, High supply, price decreases until surplus is exhausted.
Low demand, Low supply, price stable and low.

If everyone is a manufacturer, then obviously the demand of manufactured goods would be low, perhaps the only manufactured good that would actually see trade would be the "printer." Instead, there would be a demand for raw materials, especially the rarer elements. Division of labor would likely hold out, but for fewer things. The economy might look something like this:
Energy producers --energy--> general populace --energy--> Matter producers
Energy producers <--matter-- general populace <--matter-- Matter producers

No, because printers will be expected to be able to manufacture more printers.
Big manufacturers will find it very hard to future-proof their income with gracefull sabotage. Since people will become their own manufacturer it is in their own interest to make more durable stuff.
So as soon as everybody has their printer not only will the printer market collapse but any market whos needs can be fulfilled by the printer.
There will be some market for raw materials but it won't be very lucrative since you can recycle atoms pretty well.
I think that for some things the demand can crash completely.
Like the demand for sand in Egypt. For sure there is some demand for some exotic sand in Egypt or just large quantities of nicely packed sand. But for most people when they need sand, they just go to their back yard and pick some off the ground.
I think this will happen to energy as well.

I think this will happen

Yes, but without a printer, you can't make a printer.
Population is always increasing, people keep making more people. And they don't come out of the womb with a printer in their hands. Thus, the only manufactured good that would see trade is the printer.

There will be a startup phase, of course.
But once enough printers are made (by both big manufacturers and home producers) the market will collapse.

You two :)

shall I move this thread somewhere else since this debate has evolved into something else?

But people keep making more people. These people will need printers. Thus, they will trade with someone who already has a printer, in order to get one. Thus, the only manufactured good that would see trade is the printer.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall.