@simplic10 assume an observer with unlimited power consistent with known physics, can they always get out of the way?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@simplic10 Some of Mandelbrot's work on random fractals seems relevant.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@simplic10 yes I was trying to invoke chaos theory and an epsilon delta argument1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@simplic10 I think...Penrose, maybe?...had an argument for immortality via computers running at logarithmic speed.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@simplic10 Wasn't he the one who thought humans could solve turing-uncomputable problems, therefore woo?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@simplic10 It might not have been Penrose. Actually probably wasn't, since Penrose thinks sims impossible.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@simplic10 yeah that follows from human woo supercomputation1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@simplic10 The concrete problem of running a computing system under the deep-time entropy barrier is interesting by itself tho.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@simplic10 hmm. Maybe in the same sense avoiding all grbs is...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@simplic10 Yes, that's my actual point. Dodging in a fat-tail environment.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@St_Rev @simplic10 ah, my actual point was that it's an unrealistic problem for us now. But dodging fat tails is not!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.