• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

- - - - -

Chat For Jan 12th 2003

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 January 2003 - 04:18 AM

<BJKlein> Official Chat Begins Now
<BJKlein> Topic: Omega Point
<PD> There was a line like that in the Val Kilmer movie ;\
<BJKlein> (let's bash Tipler Time!)
<PD> lol
<Nus> heh
<PD> Bruce really hates OPT
<BJKlein> Controversial to say the least, Tipler’s Omega Point Theory appears to blur the line between Christian resurrection doctrine and pure physics. Alcor’s Life Extension Foundation principle, Michael Perry, Ph.D. makes the following **observation,
<BJKlein> "Mathematician Frank Tipler is correct that the scientific resurrection of all the dead is a logical possibility. According to Tipler, the general resurrection would take place at ‘the Omega Point’ billions of years hence. But Tipler is wrong in identifying the Omega Point with the God of Christians. This God ‘does not exist – and need not exist’ for a universal resurrection. Again, it is we who must solve all the problems that are meaningful to us. Indeed, we may develop into a civilization of benevolent immortals."
<BJKlein> Reference: http://www.imminst.o...t...l=tipler&s=
<BJKlein> ehh that just about does it for the formal intro.
<BJKlein> Let's begin the free for all
<Nus> "Again, it is we who must solve all the problems that are meaning" and it didn't get through from there
<BJKlein> It's not that I hate OPT...
<LuciferLurking> Just curious, who here has actually read the book?
<BJKlein> I don't consider myself hating anything..
<PD> Not me
<PD> lol
<BJKlein> I've read it ;)
<PD> But I read some book by Deutsch a while go which had a chapter on Tipler... or something like that
<PD> Does that count?
* Nus hasn't read it either, just the web page
<BJKlein> I actually like a lot of what he writes about
<Nus> the piece by Deutsch is on Tipler's site
<PD> lol
<PD> That's an interesting commentary on Tipler
<PD> i.e. that he has the piece by Deutsch on his site
<LuciferLurking> My understanding is that the Omega Point as Tipler describes it is physically possible.
<BJKlein> "resurection of the dead" = that's my biggest rub
<LuciferLurking> But his xtian interpretation is deeply flawed.
<PD> He reminds me of de chardin
<Nus> He has it on his site and says something like "look, a famous physicist agrees with me", and he has a piece by a famous theologist where he says "look, a famous theologist agrees with me" :)
<PD> lol nus
<Nus> correction: he doesn't actually say that, but something a bit like it
<Mythica> 2I have been waiting for the topic for discussion... did I miss anything? *looks around*
<Mind> Omega Point Theory
<Mind> ??
<BJKlein> Mind Reference: http://www.imminst.o...t...l=tipler&s=
<Nus> ah, here it is:
<Nus> Famous Theologian Defends the Theology of the OPT
<Nus> Famous Physicist Defends the Physics of the OPT
<Mythica> thank you!
<BJKlein> Welcome Mythica..
<BJKlein> I see you joined the forums
* Nus agrees with Lucifer that the Omega = God stuff is bunk and that the physics seems possible (though implausible)
<PD> I think Deutsch just liked Tipler's treatmen of the big bang
<PD> I don't really remember though
<Nus> http://www.math.tula.../physicist.html
<BJKlein> Bolverker Welcome: please reference: http://www.imminst.o...t...l=tipler&s=
<Bolverker> k
<LuciferLurking> He claims that all possible lives are simulated at the Omega Point, and identifies this with the resurrection -- but doesn't that imply that all possible life timelines for each person will be simulated, and aren't most of them bad? Sounds more like Hell to me.
<Bolverker> whats the last varaible?
<BJKlein> the link should work
<Bolverker> got it.
<Bolverker> when does the discussion begin?
<BJKlein> LuciferLurking, why would that be hell?
<Nus> Bolverker: 15 minutes ago :)
<BJKlein> we start each sun at 8pm ET
<PD> Lucifer, I wouldn't think the OP would simulate bad timelines
<Nus> If it did, I would agree that it sounds more like hell
<Bolverker> I've come across this hypothesis before. To me it seems to be Chritianity creeping into physics.
<BJKlein> yep yep
<BJKlein> that happens often as rational humans become irrational
<BJKlein> when it come to justifying death
<Bolverker> The whole resurection thing framed in 'science'. Its a nice fantasy, but has too many assumptions.
<BJKlein> they find it difficult to believe that death is the end for their fathers/mothers etc.
<Nus> Wasn't Tipler an atheist before believing in the Omega Point stuff?
* PD suspects that Tipler is still an atheist
<Nus> that he's an atheist and doesn't believe in the OPT, or that they're compatible?
<BJKlein> LuciferLurking, is googlebot working?
<BJKlein> Welcome Back Lazarus ;)
<LuciferLurking> google+: Omega Point Theory
<googlebot> googling for Omega Point Theory
<PD> His rhetoric just sounds like "look at my wonderful physical theory... even theologians agree with it!"
<googlebot> Google found approx. 206000 results for Omega Point Theory
<googlebot> The <b>Omega</b> <b>Point</b> and Life in the Universe
<googlebot> http://www.aleph.se/...s/Global/Omega/
<Bolverker> well just because one claims to be an athiest doesn't mean he still isn't infected with Christianity.
<BJKlein> nice
<BJKlein> infected heh
<LuciferLurking> he also does google10 for top 10 results
<LuciferLurking> and google10+ for extra info on each of the top 10
<BJKlein> wow.. thanks
<PD> BJKlein, you're infected with things, too, you know
<PD> Like immortalism ;\
<BJKlein> google10+: physical immortality
<googlebot> googling for physical immortality
<LuciferLurking> I'm going on 2nd hand info, but if Tipler said "all possible lives" I think that necessarily means vastly more bad timelines than good ones
<googlebot> Google found approx. 126000 results for physical immortality
<googlebot> 1. http://physical-immortality.1hwy.com/ Error! -
<googlebot> 2. http://physical.immo...eewebspace.com/ perspicacious Robert Ray Hedges taking over internet as the <b>...</b> -
<googlebot> 3. http://physical-immo...ity.tripod.com/ <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b> Robert Ray Hedges is taking over the <b>...</b> -
<googlebot> 4. http://www.ropi.net/ Reflections on <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b> by Mystic Life - Online book by Chris Ehren Life.
<googlebot> 5. http://www.ropi.net/im/ <b>Immortality</b> Magazine - An Online Magazine Devoted to Exploring <b>...</b> -
<googlebot> 6. http://physical.immortality.1hwy.com/ <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b> Robert Ray Hedges is taking over internet <b>...</b> -
<Bolverker> That's one of the toughest challenges facing transhumanism ( and the CoV)> how do we 'deprogram' ourselves from our cultural context.
<googlebot> 7. http://www.geocities...y_contents.html <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b> -
<googlebot> 8. http://www.nhne.com/...mmortality.html NHNE: <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b> -
<googlebot> 9. http://www.tedled.co...nsidecover.html <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b> -
<BJKlein> sorry
<googlebot> 10. http://www.americana...T2/zindler.html The Prospects For <b>Physical</b> <b>Immortality</b>, Winter 1998-1999 -
<BJKlein> had to test it
* BJKlein is infected with googlebot
<PD> We can't deprogram ourselves from the cultural context
<googlebot> I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. and since he is so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and give it to him.
<PD> lol
<BJKlein> rofl
<Nus> sounds like Jack Handy
<LuciferLurking> Yes, googlebot is descended from Jack
<PD> I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it. ;\
<Bolverker> I think we can attain a degree of deprogramming.
* Nus likes the one about screaming trees
<Mythica> Wow... but it sure would be funny if Douglas Adams was right... *grin*
<PD> Well, we can cerate our little idioculture that doesn't buy into the norms of the dominant culture, but that's not really what I meant
* BJKlein is infected with Robert Ray Hedges
<Bolverker> what did you mean?
<BJKlein> don't you know.. he's taking over the web
<Nus> Lucifer: I think it means running all possible Universes as in quantum many-worlds
<PD> I mean that transhumanism and immortalism are themselves memes that we are infected with, we value them contingently, they're not any better than xianity from a "god's eye view", etc/
<Nus> whether you think that's mostly good or mostly bad depends on your mood :)
<Bolverker> I suppose so. Yet I tend to think that with enough effort you can attain a significant degree of separation from the dominant meme-complex.
<Nus> So it wouldn't quite be simulating all possible lives, but it would mean simulating all possible lives of people that came from normal Big Bangs and so on
<Bolverker> You'll still be fighting the infection, but won't have 'memetic AIDS'.
<PD> I agree
<Bolverker> wouldn't such an Omega point thing lead to an infinte regress?
<LuciferLurking> Nus, that is what I meant by all possible lives too
<Nus> I see
<PD> I'm just saying that whether we treat the memes we like as viruses or as features is all a matter of our unique history of acculturation.
<Nus> I think you could probably see that as mostly bad;
* Bolverker acknowledges pd.
<Bolverker> No I tend to be very open minded.
<Nus> although on the other hand, the future will hopefully be nice and have lots of computing power, so many "possible lives" there will not be bad
<Nus> or do they just simulate up to the pre-posthuman point? :)
<Lazarus> PD, HIstory is acculturation, the creation of history is itself a memetic activity designed to create and perpetrate culture
<Mind> Why just simulate pre-posthumans?
<BJKlein> Lazarus, Welcome Back
<Bolverker> ...which leads to an interesting tangent. with all these possible post/transhuman futures it seems that the idea of self will have to change radicaly.
<PD> Laz, I agree
<Lazarus> Culture existed prior to history but was amorphous
<Lazarus> HI folks
<Nus> I agree, Bolverker
<[Nurgle]> OPT=BS. It depends on unprovable assertion about the universe.
<Nus> what unprovable assertion?
<Lazarus> The creation of cultural memory that transcends any specific generation is also an evolutionary psycholgy that attempts to promote cultural paradigms
* Bolverker listens
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Tipplers website has 5 basic requirements, all of which are pure conjecture
* Nus goes to the site
<[Nurgle]> http://www.math.tula...er/summary.html
<Mind> OP was interesting when it was first introduced but it seems now a relic
<Lazarus> But the memes evolve, mutate and adapt to social environment just as genes do to physical environment
<Nus> (1) the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has the topology of a three-sphere),
<Nus> that doesn't sound unprovable
<[Nurgle]> Unrpvable
<[Nurgle]> Nus: We can't see an edge of the universe
<Nus> that just means it's unproved
<[Nurgle]> If we could, it would imply something beyond the universe
<Nus> eh?
<PD> We don't need to see an edge of the universe to obtain empirical verification or falsification of closed or open models of theuniverse
<PD> lol
<Nus> PD: exactly
<[Nurgle]> PD: Yes, but that depends on assumptions about the unknown
<Lazarus> Nurgle, we can't see the "Outside edge" we see the inside of it expanding away from us.
<PD> What assumptions?
<[Nurgle]> and those assumptions could be very wrong
<Nus> Nurgle, you can't be 100% sure obviously
<[Nurgle]> PD: Assumption about the nature of the universe (circylar reasoning is fun :)
<Nus> the world could just have been created a few seconds ago
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Exactly
<Nus> but that's no reason to dismiss it as "unprovable"
<PD> You don't need to be 100% sure of anything
<PD> And of course there are always assumptions
<Nus> it depends on assumptions that I think I'm typing now
<PD> We never start from scratch
<Nus> and yet that doesn't mean it's meaningless or unprovable
<Lazarus> The problem is that all we have for a reference is what exists "inside " this Universe, this causes tautological reasoning
<[Nurgle]> And science has been going downhill since Einstien... (Oh, look, these observations don't fit in with reletivity... unless of cuase space and time is on a curve for no good reason)
* PD is a crazy postmodern antifoundationalist ;\
<Mind> If we are going to start re-creating past human lives through simulation it will occurr a long time for the big crunch (or big whimper)
<Nus> Science has been going downhill since Einstein?
* Bolverker is in PD's camp on that.
<Nus> That's... interesting :
<Nus> )
<Nus> :)
<PD> heh
<[Nurgle]> Lazarus: The only reason we think the universe is growing is because things are getting further away from us. What if every galaxy within 15 bn ly was caught in some kind of giant explosion....
<Lazarus> Multidimensional Theory may change our perspective and grant a new "outside" point of reference
<Nus> Mind: an infinite subjective time in the OPT, but maybe only a second in real time
<nrv8> the universe is infinite
<Nus> Multidimensional Theory?
<Lazarus> Agreed and that is my point about all current references are from within, only
<Nus> nrv8, how do you know?
<nrv8> logic
<Mind> and if there are an infinite number of dimensions?
<nrv8> ;P
<Nus> It could very well be, but we simply don't know yet
<Lazarus> Multiverse theory I should have said
<PD> Eh
<nrv8> i did the logic in my head & came to this conclusion
<PD> Multiverse theory doesn't have anything to do with frames of reference
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Whenever an observation is made which contradicts Einstien (c being variable, for instance), they bodge together an excuse for it.
<Nus> PD is right there
<Nus> Nurgle, that's because we have lots of support for Einstein's theories
<PD> And different people mean different things when they say "multiverse" anyway
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Yet there is evidence that suggests he wasn't as correct as he thought... (which is my point)
<Mind> photons can certainly be slowed down
<Nus> , and varying c is taken seriously and doesn't necessarily even contradict Einstein, I think
<PD> You mean like Smolin's black hole evolution, or like Deutsch's MWI-type thing?
<Nus> Or chaotic inflation?
<PD> heh
<Lazarus> This is dependent on the nature of the dimensional relationships between the various Multiverses. Doesn' t have to, doesn' mean it can'
<Lazarus> can't
<Nus> Nurgle, it's a long step from "Einstein wasn't as right as we thought" to "Science has been going downhill since Einstein"
<[Nurgle]> Nus: IMHO, all the baqd science we have seen in the last couple of decades can be traced back to Einstien. I'm not saying it Einstains fault, but it started there.
<Nus> Lazarus: please explain
<Lazarus> I posted an article recently on modifications to Relativity because the original formula also seems to possess a relativity of its own that must be accounted for
<PD> ?!
<Mind> The only reason science has been going downhill (which is up to debate) is because the educational system changed (and now sucks)
<Nus> Nurgle: more or less all science we have seen in the last couple of decades can be traced back to Einstein
<PD> What bad science in the last couple of decades?
<Nus> physics, I mean
<Nus> not science
<Lazarus> But it can be quantified as was suggested in the article, this is the evolution of precision
<PD> You mean all the stupid people trying to prove the universal mind-soul with QM?
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Exactly, and it's as if people are unwilling to accept that Einstien wasn't 100% correct
<PD> Physics has become counter-intuitive since Einstein, but human intuition is not always a good measure of things
<Nus> Nurgle, everyone knows Einstein wasn't 100% correct, but he was still (say) 99.9% correct
<Nus> because relativity and QM don't go well together
<Lazarus> Until someone relly unwraveles N-Dimensional physics and String Theory Einstein shall dominate. Simply because his theory is elegant and fits observable reality
<[Nurgle]> I mean, people are unwilling to consider that E=mc^2 should infact be E=umc^2 (where u is all the unknown variables)
<Mind> Inquiry and creativity used to be the "soul" of science, now students are expected to learn what was previously proven and use that knowledge to refine established theories
<Nus> Nurgle, we have good reason to believe u=1 :)
<Mind> People should question Einstein just as the question religion
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Maybe in this part of the universe...
<[Nurgle]> Mind: yes.
<[Nurgle]> Science should be about trying to disprove theories, not prove then
<Lazarus> Einstein would cetainly agree
<Nus> Physicists should question Einstein, not everyone :)
<Lazarus> certainly
<Mind> Many have questioned Einstein...I would say GR and SR have stood up fairly well
<Nus> Right, and I don't get the idea that it's a no-no to question Einstein's theories; it's just that they work well
<[Nurgle]> Nus: I've known many phycisists who laugh at anyone who says Einstien in wrong.
<Nus> heh
<Nus> That's not because Einstein is sacrosanct, but because people who say "Einstien was wrong!" are usually cranks
<Lazarus> Check out www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/physical/31LIGH.html
<PD> All serious physicists know that in the broad sense, Einstein's theory was falsified, because relativistic mechanics don't work at the quantum level
<PD> But that doesn't mean that Einstein "was wrong"
<Nus> Exactly
<JesusStoleMyLunch> grrrr
* JesusStoleMyLunch kicks [Nurgle] in the teeth
<PD> Just like Newton's physics are falsified, but they're still the first thing you learn about physics in grade school
<Nus> nrv8, what logic leads you to believe the Universe is infinite?
<Mind> Anyway...about OP, we are already simulating "pieces and parts" of human lives through computer, why would it take until the big crunch to simulate and entire human or human life...the question for me is what would we do after simulating all humans, probably move onto something more interesting
<JesusStoleMyLunch> PD: A Pratchett book called "The Science of Discworld" calls it "Lies to Children"...
<Nus> I know people who think logic dictates the Universe has to be finite and people who think logic dictates it has to be infinite, and I think they're both wrong
<Lazarus> If we simulate humans will they any more imagination then the ones we have now?
<Lazarus> they have*
<PD> Jesus, that sounds pretty stupid to me.
<BJKlein> I doubt we'll see a "big crunch" more likely a "big cool"
<JesusStoleMyLunch> it's like the story about starks carrying babies... it's easier to explain... the problem is it clouds future thinking
<PD> They teach Newtonian physics because we use Newtonian physics to calculate things
<JesusStoleMyLunch> PD: And it's easy
<LuciferLurking> Doesn't OP require a big crunch?
<JesusStoleMyLunch> LuciferLurking: Heat death
<Mind> either way bj...I am confident we will find a way to circumvent any "demise" of the universe
<[Nurgle]> Mind: We'll all be dead, so we won't care
<BJKlein> not me
<Mind> WHAT!!!??
<Mind> not me
<Nus> Lucifer: yes.
<Lazarus> PD, Newtonian Physics works quite well "on Earth" at relatively slow velocity, or under perfect conditions in a vacuum, and again at relatively slow relational velocity
<PD> No one ever tells little kids, "look, Newton got the absolute truth. Bow down to Newton." They just say "here are the equations, here's what you can do with them, here's what you can't."
<LuciferLurking> So if the universe ended in a heat death, the OP won't happen
<BJKlein> I read something recently to that effect..
* BJKlein looks
<Mind> and the basic equations of force and acceleration are what current science is built upon
<[Nurgle]> Like, schools teach that the equation for a line is y=mx+c, which is infact the equation for a plane. (the equation for a line is L=P(0) * tP(1))
<[Nurgle]> it's easier
<Nus> ...
<PD> Yes, but it works
<[Nurgle]> PD: Only on 2 dimensions
<PD> And the imperfect tgeories of relativity and QM that we have now work, too
<[Nurgle]> PD: But Newton theories work too
<Nus> but the equation for a line in 2D *IS* y=mx+c
<Lazarus> But not if we push the envelope
<PD> We need the equations to do practical things, like figure out plane schedules and microelectronic crap
<[Nurgle]> Nus: A plane in 2D is a line
<BJKlein> Tipler said:
<BJKlein> I SHOULD have predicted acceleration in the expanding phase, since the existence of a net number of baryons in the universe implies the Higgs field would not be in its true vacuum, where we would expect the positive cosmological constant (which is the mechanism for acceleration in the collapsing phase of universal history) would be exactly cancelled.
* PD just doesn't understand what the obsession is with finding the absolute truth about the world
<BJKlein> So, if the observed acceleration were to continue forever, the Omega Point Theory would be refuted. But the expansion of life to engulf the universe is EXACTLY what is required to cancel the positive cosmological constant (a.k.a. the Dark Energy):
<BJKlein> does this sound like he's changed his mind?
<BJKlein> the above is from Tipler btw
<Nus> Nurgle: you could call a line in 2D a "plane", but AFAIK no one does that
<PD> And of course no theories can ever be verified or falisified with 100% certainty, either, because of the Quine-Duhem principle
* BJKlein has fun trying to understand physics
<PD> :)
<[Nurgle]> You cannot prove anything, only disprove
<Nus> You can't even disprove anything :)
<PD> You can't disprove conclusivelym, either
<Mind> Where can I find info on Quine-Duhem?
<PD> That's why Popper got it wrong
<PD> Just google quine-duhem thesis
<Mind> ok
<PD> Use the googlebot :D
<BJKlein> googlebot: quine-duhem
<[Nurgle]> http://www.psych.uta...quir/sld013.htm
<BJKlein> googlebot: quine-duhem
<PD> Heh
<PD> Are you doing it right?
<BJKlein> google2: quine-duhem
<PD> Quine-Duhem are two different people
<Nus> google: quine duhem
<googlebot> googling for quine duhem
<googlebot> http://www.psych.uta...quir/sld013.htm
<PD> Quine and Duhem
<[Nurgle]> :/
<[Nurgle]> deja-vu
<PD> Just like Church-Turing
<PD> lol
* Nus suspects Nurgle is Googlebot
<googlebot> One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes.
<PD> lol
<BJKlein> heh
<[Nurgle]> I looked up myself
<PD> I wish I had a cryptonite cross, cause then I could keep both Dracula *and* Superman away!
* BJKlein trys out the new googlebot
<googlebot> If you ever teach a yodeling class, probably the hardest thing is to keep the students from just trying to yodel right off. You see, we build to that.
<Nus> I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
<[Nurgle]> That Quine-Duhem thing sounds very nihilistic to me (we can't prove is disprove anything, so there's no point trying)
<LuciferLurking> So it seems Tipler is saying that if life expands to engulf the universe, it will find a way to make a big crunch instead of ending in heat death
<PD> Nurgle, it doesn't say "there's no point trying"
<PD> it just means we shouldn't care about absolute certainty
<[Nurgle]> PD: It can be taken that way
<[Nurgle]> besides, the theory that the Earth is flat has been conclusively disproved
<Mind> seems like nihilism
<BJKlein> hmm, i'm not sure i'm seeing that LuciferLurking..
<[Nurgle]> (just don't tell the Flat Earth Society)
<BJKlein> looks like he's basically saying he agrees the universe is expanding..
<BJKlein> but that life will still expand to engulf
<BJKlein> no crunch involved, just infinite expansion?
<LuciferLurking> But the expansion of life to engulf the universe is EXACTLY what is required to cancel the positive cosmological constant
<PD> Nurgle, of course it has been "conclusively disproved for all practical intents and purposes"
<Nus> The Earth could be hollow and if we redefine distances just right, everything would be the same as now
<PD> But you can always alter the background assumptions and mess it up
<LuciferLurking> So the expansion of life will cancel the continued expansion of the universe
<Lazarus> Well I am going to go expand some rice into my universe so that I can end in the Curried Heat Death alternative
<BJKlein> canceling the constant doesn't mean crunch does it?
<PD> The QD thesis isn't nihilistic because it assumes that we have some intersubjective agreement about the background assumptions
<Mind> ok
<BJKlein> Lazarus, enjoy ;)
<Mythica> I have understood it as wave theory...
<LuciferLurking> I think a positive cosmological constant means heat death
<BJKlein> maybe he's just upset that he's wrong about the crunch and wants to save face
<LuciferLurking> zero means, steady state, negative means big crunch
<BJKlein> yeh.. I think so Luc
<Nus> no, that's wrong
<LuciferLurking> http://pancake.uchic...~carroll/encyc/ verifies my interpretation
<Lazarus> Thanks BJ, and after that I am going to take my new 6" reflecting telescope out into the freezing night to look a little closer at the expanding Universe, Saturns rings are GRREAT right now
<Mind> Big Bang theory is not very conclusive in my mind...
<BJKlein> nice, bungle up
<Mind> just fits what we see now
<Mind> and know now
<Lazarus> Enjoy Folks, and take an ethereal trip to the limits why don't you all :)
<Mythica> perception is not truth, that is certain.
<Mind> bye laz
<Nus> Mind, what other possibilities are there, you think?
<Mythica> good night Lazarus, happy star and planet gazing.
<Lazarus> Take care Mind,
<Lazarus> Oh by the way are you coming to the east coast at all?
<[Nurgle]> remember, don't look directly into the sun
<LuciferLurking> So Tipler has to invoke expanding life to make the constant negative
<Mind> ??
<Mind> me?
<BJKlein> seems a little shacky doesnt it lucifer?
<Lazarus> And Welcome to our little non utopic colective Mythica, nice to see a fresh face
<BJKlein> as if life has the power to control physical laws
<Mythica> if the constant is negative, are we existing in a black hole? how very strange.
<Mythica> *grin* thanks Lazarus.
<Lazarus> Yes Mind, I thought you were still in Wisco, Right?
<OcsRazor> late to the party, wanted to drop in and say hi tho
<Mind> at this point it is only about a 6.3% chance I will be able to attend the WTA conference
<Lazarus> Welcome Mythica
<BJKlein> Welcom OcsRazor :)
<Nus> look, it's Occam's Razor
<[Nurgle]> WTA?
<BJKlein> World Trans Assoc
<[Nurgle]> ah
<[Nurgle]> which is?
<Lazarus> Well that is about the odds on the exapnsion gradient for the UNiverse too ins' it?
<Mind> lol
<OcsRazor> trying not to multiply my difficulties
<BJKlein> www.transhumanism.org
<Lazarus> If the UNiverse exppands enough then here is there anyway, right?
<PD> Why doesn't MA ever come to these things anymore?
<Mind> maybe
<BJKlein> OcsRazor are you familar with Tipler's OPT?
<Nus> Lucifer and BJKlein: I'm sure Tipler believes there's some mechanism by which life can influence the cosmological constant
<nrv8> PD: he is having computer troubles
<PD> Aw
<Lazarus> Yeah, We WANT MICHAEL< WE WANT MICHAEL!!! Stomps feet to the tune
<nrv8> lol
<BJKlein> Tipler Reference: http://www.imminst.o...t...l=tipler&s=
<PD> And I just upgraded mine
<Lazarus> of we will we will rock you!
<OcsRazor> No, cosmological physics is one of my few scientific weaknesses
<BJKlein> yeh.. Michael has been laying low recently
<BJKlein> Havent seen Ziana for that matter also
* BJKlein is not exactly a physics expert either
<PD> Hmm, chat's only been going an hour and I'm already bored
<Lazarus> WEll I really do have to test the boiling point of water at a higher altitude so hasta la vista folks
<BJKlein> googlebot
<PD> New topic?
<Lazarus> See ya all at teh Omega Point Cafe
<Mind> Nus...I think our part of the universe is expanding while others are contracting...and that there are an infinite number of dimensions..of which we are a tiny part (infitessimal)
<Nus> Frisbeetarianism: The belief that when you die, your soul goes up the on roof and gets stuck.
<Nus> Mind: why? :)
<PD> lol
<Mythica> there should be a balance found within the expansion and contraction through both positive and negative states.
* PD is developing a perverse fondness for discordianism
<Mind> As it is right now...we can only see what is in our light sphere...it is certainly conjecture at this point what lies beyond our light sphere
<Mind> Also...I believe that anything that can be expressed mathematically (the language of information) is reality. Therefore...there are an infinte number of dimensions
<LuciferLurking> http://super.colorad...ambda/evol.html > pretty good graphic of possible universes
<Nus> That's true, but it's simpler to assume that the rest of the Universe is more or less like the visible Universe, unless there are reasons not to believe that
<Nus> Mind: we talked about that earlier, actually
<Mythica> that's a good way to be surprised, Nus.
<Mind> sorry to be redundant
<Mythica> *tilts head to one side and grins*
<Nus> "You see -- your stupid human brains!
<Nus> Stupid, stupid, stupid!"
<Nus> -- Plan 9 From Outer Space
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Clarify "visible"
<Nus> the part of the Universe from which light has been able to reach us
<Mind> If we travelled to the edge of our light sphere and still did not see anything different..and did not see our starting point...then we would have to change our model of the universe
<Mythica> if you are speaking of light, then you mustn't be including black holes, Nus.
<[Nurgle]> Nus: What about particles that stop light from reaching us? (e.g. black holes). They are not "visible"
<Nus> Mind: never mind that (the redundantness)
<[Nurgle]> not particles, objects
<Nus> (you couldn't know, and nothing wrong with discussing a subject more than once)
<Mythica> picky, picky Nus.
<Nus> Nurgle and Mythica: true, but only a tiny fraction of particles don't reach us because of black holes
<Nus> picky?
<Mind> Of course...it is currently not possible to travel to the edge of our light sphere...therefore we have to work with the incomplete data of current surroudings
<Mythica> *grin* yep - picky.
<[Nurgle]> Nus: My point was there are things in the universe that aren't visible, yet they affect it (heat, for example)
<Mythica> but by your definition of exploring space to only include that which reaches us along the light spectrum - you exclude the exploration of black holes.
<Mythica> and absolutely - that which cannot be seen by our limited eyes...
<Nus> Wait, "visible" Universe is really a standard way of saying: the part of it that has interacted with us by now
<Nus> nothing to do with eyes
<Mythica> alright, Nus - so doesn't your statement still exclude black holes then?
<Nus> It just means a sphere of space about 30 (?) light years across
<Nus> erm
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Something just outside of the range visible to us may have had an affect (gravitational maybe) on something which is visible to us
<Nus> 30 billion, I meant
<[Nurgle]> yeah
<Nus> Nurgle, gravity goes at the speed of light :)
<[Nurgle]> Nus: Has this been measured? :)
<Nus> Yes :)
<Nus> google: kopeikin light speed
<[Nurgle]> and how was this measured?
<googlebot> googling for kopeikin light speed
<googlebot> http://uk.news.yahoo...8/12/di2r1.html
<Mythica> "just" Nus says "just" about a 30 million lightyear spanse of an unexplored state of negative existance...
<Nus> billion :)
<Mythica> let's go for trillion!
<Mythica> : )
<Mythica> and how can gravity "go" at the speed of light when it is proportional to the mass and speed of the object and light isn't?
<Nus> I don't see why not;
<Nus> but I should go to sleep now
<[Nurgle]> same here
<[Nurgle]> I've got to be up in 5 hours
<Nus> same here
<Nus> byebye all
<Utnapishtim> hi
<PD> Late to the party, aren't we?
<Mythica> *smile* hello!
<Utnapishtim> yes very
<Utnapishtim> is the party over?
<PD> You missed all the fun stuff
<PD> Yeah
<Utnapishtim> oh well
<Utnapishtim> how was the chat?
<PD> ok
<Utnapishtim> I do not consider myself qualified to comment on the omega point theory anyway
<Utnapishtim> I have not made a serious enough study of it
<Mythica> I have a few questions... but not about the Omega Point Theory...
<Utnapishtim> Ask away mythica
<Utnapishtim> hey mermaid
<Mermaid> hi
<Mythica> 1. Do you think that immortality could be achieved through A) rapid cell regeneration; or B) cell-progeneration (no decay)
<PD> We weren't really talking that much about the OPT anyway
<Mythica> 2. Do you think that cell-progeneration could be achieved through the crystallization of the human cells? Therefore putting them into a state impervious to decay and atrophy...
<Mythica> It is theorized that the "circulation of the body of light" may lead to this crystallization process... light means a specific vibratory frequency to me - so... *tilts head to one side* could it be as simple as our vibratory frequencies?
<Mythica> *will wait patiently for answers*
<OcsRazor> mythica no and no, be more specific and I'll try to help
<Mythica> was that no-and-no to question 2 and the theorized part?
<Mythica> wasn't the Philadelphia experiment based upon frequency? Isn't time itself generally based on frequency for location?
<OcsRazor> hold on, I'm multiple chats, let me read more carefully
<Mythica> *confused*
<Mythica> *patiently waits*
<BJKlein> heh
<OcsRazor> OK neither of these technologies will likely lead to Immortality
<Mythica> what do you believe is the physiological necessity required to bring about immortality, OcsRazor?
<Mind> What the heck is the "Philadelphia experiment"?
<Mythica> oh... something that is very controversial, and based upon Einsteins theory of relativity...
<OcsRazor> True immortality will probably come about through some serious bioengineering
<Mythica> it was supposedly a government experiment for time travel.
<Utnapishtim> mind: The philadelphia experiment is a conspiracy myth
<Utnapishtim> like the roswell flying saucers
<Mind> That is what I thought
<OcsRazor> short term, you will prob see major extensions from antiox mimic drugs...
<PD> Philadelphia experiment?
<Eliezer> Mythica, I think it's safe to say that most of us here are oriented within the framework of contemporary science in our quest for immortality
<Mythica> *nods*
<PD> Is that the rigged parapsych experiment?
<BJKlein> Mythica: long term, this is a question of - what is the form of intelligence
<BJKlein> now it's biological, in the future it'll be silicon substrates
<Mythica> intelligence is a combination of capacity and energy transmission.
<OcsRazor> BJ - amen brother
<OcsRazor> ;^)
<Mind> After silicon...coherent energy forms
<BJKlein> btw OcsRazor, meet Eliezer - you both live in Atlanta
<Mythica> along the lines of current biocell regeneration?
<nrv8> he better hurry. Eli is moving soon
<nrv8> :)
<BJKlein> or at least you live there today
<OcsRazor> Hi Eliezer,believe we might have met at an Extro?
<Eliezer> ah, the neuroengineering student?
<OcsRazor> yep
<Eliezer> only if it was Extro 5
<Mythica> does anyone here know of anyone who has achieved immortality yet?
<OcsRazor> what year? didn't make the last one, was at the two previous
<Eliezer> just the last one
<OcsRazor> Mythica - if they did they are not talking ;^)
<Eliezer> Mythica - we're in search of scientific, secular immortality and nobody has that technology yet
<PD> Mythica, the irony about the title of immortality is that could only be awarded posthumously ;\
<OcsRazor> El - guess not, must have heard your name many times somewhere
<Eliezer> ah, the glories of very minor celebrity
<OcsRazor> I've been in and out of the community since 1994
<Mythica> PD, how could immortality be awarded posthumously?!? That is a contradiction, isn't it???
<PD> That's why it's ironic :D
<Mythica> Couldn't it be awarded after the person maintains themselves for far beyond "normal" human lifespans - without evidence of decay or degeneration?
<BJKlein> brb
<PD> Nah, that would be superlongevity
* Eliezer awards a good pragmatic point to Mythica
<Eliezer> it would depend on whether the longevity model was such as to create a reasonable expectation of immortality
<PD> Good point
<Mythica> besides, what happens to an immortal if the planet explodes?
<Mythica> many bits of cells going "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
<Mythica> *grin*
<PD> But I'm still musing as to whether the rhetoric should focus more on immortality or on superlongevity, per se
<Mythica> it would depend upon the definition of each , and the goal of the individual...
<Mythica> *has the feeling she should never, ever mention Atlantean principles here...*
<PD> Generally, people who are into immortalism just end up preaching to the choir and patting each other on the back
<PD> Converts are hard to get, for some reason
<Utnapishtim> PD: This is precisely my problem
<Utnapishtim> too much backpatting
<Utnapishtim> immortality has far too many undesirable connotations
<OcsRazor> such as?
<Mythica> unless it is paired with the will of the individual - that should they choose to die, they could.
<Utnapishtim> mythological conotations. It makes the proponent sound flaky
<PD> Exactly
<Utnapishtim> maybe we should not even get into a lifespan discussion
<OcsRazor> I worked on PR for longevity for nearly two years, we steered clear of the word immortality
<Utnapishtim> Merely focus on maintaining youthfulness
<Mythica> thriving vibrance...
<Utnapishtim> a goal which the vast majority of people agree with
<Utnapishtim> superlogevity is just the natural consequence of that
<Mythica> with evolution of the form, there must be an equal evolution of the mind in order to work with these new parameters...
<OcsRazor> you would be suprised how many people disagree with maintaining youthfulness
<Mythica> I mean, if an "extended-lifespan" person decided to commit a crime, who cares if they're in jail for 20-years if they don't age?
<PD> Less than the many people who disagree with immortality
<Mythica> there is a morale consideration as to the development of the human quality.
<Utnapishtim> Ocsrazor: As a philosophical issue maybe.. On a practical note? Most people I know try their best to look as youthful as possible
<OcsRazor> its interesting, if you talk about it in the short term everyone is OK with it...
<OcsRazor> but start talking about expanding lifespans and people freak
<PD> They think they're missing out on some vital part of human experience
<Mythica> procrastinators would probably LOVE an "extended lifespan..."
<Utnapishtim> look at the average cosmetics counter take a note of the names on the products. The majority of women in America over 30 or so are on an anti aging regimen. Just probably not a very effective one
<Utnapishtim> Ocsrazor: So maybe we just don't talk about it
<Utnapishtim> just talk about preserving health and vitality
<Utnapishtim> lsuperlongevity is just a side effect
<PD> I agree
<OcsRazor> When the tech comes everyone is going to want it...
<PD> I think we're being a little overemphatic about the immortality stuff ;\
<OcsRazor> in the majority of cases people with not choose to die unless they are suffering
<OcsRazor> ...will not...
<OcsRazor> sorry
<Mythica> but seriously - one needs to consider the ramifications of removing the aspect of time from a human life upon the mind of the individual.
<Utnapishtim> If we force a philosophical debate on this subject we might come to regret what we wished for. A public debate on life extension will inevitably be alarmist, childishand reactionary
<Utnapishtim> to a large extent anyway
<OcsRazor> it is not going to be a sudden transition, it will most likely be a gradual extension
<Mythica> I certainly do not intend to "force" anything here.
<Mind> I find it hard to talk to my friends about life-extension...even though I know they would reflexively extend their lives
<Mind> If they had the chance
<Utnapishtim> I'm sure they would
<Utnapishtim> Maybe that is the best way
<Mind> what way?
<Utnapishtim> Just let the market handle things and not scare anybody with deep topics of conversation that make them feel scared
<OcsRazor> Not everyone can be an "early adopter" ;^)
<Mind> ok
<Mind> that is a pretty good point
<Utnapishtim> downplay the magnitude of the social changes that will result
<Utnapishtim> after all they will take decades to be really felt
<Mind> donwplay the talk of "group consciousness"
<Eliezer> erm, I'm leery enough of the honesty of shutting up, "downplay" sounds like outright lying to me
<Mind> downplay=don't tell if you are not asked
<Utnapishtim> You are not hiding anything, Eliezer, it just depends on how you present it
<Mythica> that is total ostrich-syndrome.
<Eliezer> anything presented with the knowing intention of creating a false impression in the mind of the listener is lying
<Utnapishtim> I am concerned that life extension technologies are presented to the public in such a way as to cause as little alarm or social disruption as possible
<Eliezer> avoiding creating a true impression is something I'm less sure about, since after all there are only so many true impressions any one message can create
<OcsRazor> As long as they are not suppressed, the marketplace will take care of spreading new technologies
<Utnapishtim> Ocs: Exactly. So the main goal needs to be avoiding such spression
<Utnapishtim> suppression
<Mythica> so the marketplace will determine who can and cannot extend their lives based upon finances? interesting suggestion, OcsRazor.
<Mind> Elizer...No one had to tell me about the downsides of life-extension...I delved into it myself...I didn't feel I was lied to
<Eliezer> thank you, Mind
<Eliezer> that is important ethical input
<OcsRazor> absolutely Mythica the early adopters always pay the majority of the costs for new tech
<Mythica> what a lovely criteria for evolution.
<Mythica> *rolls eyes*
* Eliezer raises a sign saying "<NITPICK>"
<Eliezer> Evolution is neo-Darwinian population genetics
<OcsRazor> its not a criteria its a fact of nature and the free market
<Utnapishtim> If you present somebody with a hypothetical treatment that restores or reatains youthful function and appearance that is really all you need to say. If they are of a philosophical bent they can ponder the implications for themselves
<Eliezer> Techonological modification is progress but not evolution.
<Eliezer> Evolution is a strictly biological and strictly unintelligent process
<Mind> why not evolution?
<Bolverker> agreed
* Eliezer raises a sign saying "</NITPICK>"
<Mind> ok...I see
<OcsRazor> yep El, but they have many of the same features...
<Mythica> If you extend the lifespan, a type of evolution is unavoidable.
<Eliezer> much less than you might think, Ocs
*** Retrieving #immortal info...
<Utnapishtim> Could one not argue that intelligence is a tool evolution has developed to spped the rate of its own adaption?
<Mind> So technological modification is "intelligent evolution" or "directed evolution" or do you have a different word
<OcsRazor> I'm deep into complex and emergent systems right now, and I like to think of tech dev as self-aware evolution
<Eliezer> Mythica: because "evolution" means so much and has such specific scientific connotations to many of us, you should use other terms like "progress", "development", "improvement", things that don't imply changes in DNA driven by heritable variations in reproductive fitness
<Mythica> thank you for the eloqution lesson. *rolls eyes even more*
<Eliezer> Utnapishtim: No, you can't, because that effect is not something that played a role in the natural selection of present phenotypic or genotypic features
<Eliezer> it is not the cause of any present-day adaptation
<Eliezer> Mind: I like to think of it as "recursive self-improvement"
<Mind> ok
<Bolverker> Well for one thing technical progress follows and expolding curve. the rate of eveolution appears fairly constant with a hiccup here an there.
<OcsRazor> Semantics ;^)
<OcsRazor> I'm particularly attached to the word, but I'm a biologist by training
<Mind> depending on the elusive definition of intelligence...evolution could be recursive self-improvement (ok hold up your nitpick sign again)
* Eliezer does apologize for elocuting, but this appears to him to be an extremely important and nonobviously important distinction to make
<Bolverker> evolution appears to be unguided.. technology is guided to an extent.
* BJKlein pats Eliezer on the back
<Eliezer> Mind: no, evolution is characterized by the action of an external process, natural selection, on a separate complexity base, the genome
<OcsRazor> I see many of the same mathematical patterns in bio-evo and tech-devo
<Eliezer> Mind: because of interactions among genomic elements, i.e., one adaptation enables another adaptation, evolution to some extent accelerates over time
<Eliezer> Mind: however, the characteristic intelligence of evolution itself remains constant
<Bolverker> action used to love devo back in the 80's.
<Mythica> can you state that in the form of an equation, Eliezer?
<Eliezer> Mind: it is similar to the way that culture enables culture but human intelligence remains constant
<Eliezer> Mythica: it doesn't obey any simple equation, all you can do is describe anthropologically the change in prefrontal volume over time, and so on
<Mind> ...some people may say that DNA is self-aware...but at a lower level than the human mind...that is the elusiveness I was talking about
<Eliezer> Mind: They are wrong, DNA as far as anyone knows does not have that kind of reflectivity
<Mythica> if the intelligence of evolution is a constant, then it should be able to be formulated.
<Mind> "as far as anyone knows"
<OcsRazor> Not enough complexity to be self aware - Mind
<Mind> yes
<OcsRazor> Mythica - it has been
<Eliezer> Mythica: it's not a numerical constant, it's an empirically constant description of a historical process
<Mythica> *shakes head* it has been, it can't be...
<Eliezer> Mythica: owing to the fact that, while evolution is not explicitly selecting for increased intelligence, many things that increase reproductive fitness have been new cognitive adaptations
<OcsRazor> the information processing ability of the evolutionary process has been estimated, can find references if needed
<Mythica> yes, but OcsRazor said that it has been calculated... please do, OcsRazor?
<Eliezer> "A Speed Limit on Evolution"
<Mythica> Heheheee... I am sure that is relative also.
<Eliezer> http://dspace.dial.p...om/jcollie/sle/
<Eliezer> that what you're talking about, Ocs?
<Mind> Eliezer...when did recursive self-improvement take over from dumb evolution...on this planet?
<OcsRazor> As soon as some monkey made a stone Axe
<Eliezer> Mind: when Douglas Lenat created Eurisko in 1980
<BJKlein> lol OcsRazor
<Eliezer> that was the first instance of recursive self-improvement, anywhere, ever
<Mind> are you serious on that?
<Eliezer> it didn't actually *go* anywhere per se
<Eliezer> but it was the first
* Bolverker shifts around to a more comfortable position.
<OcsRazor> El - what about culture and parental knowledge as a mechanism of self improvement...
<OcsRazor> I was only half joking about the monkey
<Eliezer> though, arguably a human figuring out how to be more rational is a more complex and more intelligent case of what Eurisko was doing, if far less pure
<Bolverker> It can be argued that technology is an extension of eveolution, but I think Eliezer is saying is that the two are qualitatively different.
<Eliezer> if so, the dawn of recursive self-improvement would have been linguistic intelligence, but it would have been only a very tiny amount of recursive self-improvement
<Eliezer> the vast majority of the intelligence being constant
<Mind> so when did that begin
<Mind> I assume you are discounting animal language
<Eliezer> ocs: cultural knowledge is improved by human intelligence, but has not so far improved human intelligence - no augmentation technology
<Eliezer> Mind: I would say sometime between 10,000 and 3 million years ago, depending on definitions
<OcsRazor> working on it ;^)
<Mythica> Thanks for the link regarding the speed of evolution... anybody here have any major disagreements with it, because it's making sense to me...
<Mind> we have improved out collective intelligence
<Mind> our
<Mind> **
<Eliezer> yes... Ocs, how much do you know about the frontiers of brain-computer interfacing? I may have a question
<OcsRazor> quite a bit... shoot
<Eliezer> Mind: yes, it's possible that the printing press counts as recursive self-improvement, but it's a *tiny* amount of recursive self-improvement - almost infinitesimal compared to the complete size of the process
<Mind> good point
<OcsRazor> I agree El but that tiny increase is what produced the exp increase later
<Eliezer> Ocs: given, say, $10 million, total regulatory freedom, and suicide volunteers, what is the maximum number of neurons that could be sustainably tapped for two-way input/output?
<Eliezer> or $10 million and a primate research subject, say
<OcsRazor> right now 128
<OcsRazor> Normann lab at Utah
<Eliezer> how scalable is that technology?
<OcsRazor> soon to be ~1000
<Eliezer> what kind of improvement would it take to do a million neurons?
<OcsRazor> very, it is a signal processing problem right now
* BJKlein squints
<OcsRazor> interface is becoming easy, just growing neurons
<Bolverker> only has three neurons to work with and one is failing now.
<Eliezer> actually, Ocs, I was wondering about a broadband BCI interface between two sectors of human prefrontal cortex to see if they could learn to talk to each other
<OcsRazor> its figuring out what they are saying that is hard
<Eliezer> then you'd snoop the traffic
<Mythica> that almost sounds like a joke...
<Bolverker> HAs there been much progress recently on these types of interfaces?
<OcsRazor> that is similar to some of the stuff we are doing now
* Eliezer just realizes that he has said "BCI interface" and apologizes
<OcsRazor> too much signal to deal with, and no good math models to handle the data flow
<Eliezer> actually, I was hoping for at least some augmentation out of it, regardless of whether anyone succeeds in snooping the traffic
<Eliezer> if two human brains learn to talk to each other
<Eliezer> though that may well be unrealistic
<OcsRazor> Not really...
<Mythica> are you talking about telepathy now, Eliezer - or do these brains have mouths and vocal chords too?
<OcsRazor> I'm of the opinion that if you stuck an appliance in the right place the brain might be able to adapt to using it
<Eliezer> well, there are probably a lot of internal variables in neural language which are not fixed by selection and would produce communication incompatibilities
<Bolverker> I'd imagine that the brains would have to learn to filter in a direct interface.
<Eliezer> the two brains might learn to talk to each other
<Eliezer> but probably wouldn't be able to directly use each other's cognitive resources
<OcsRazor> No, it would be like learning to use a new sense
<OcsRazor> the bandwidth wouldn't be very high
<Bolverker> heh wetware clusters.
<Eliezer> on the other hand, if you could scale up the technology to create a 64-human Beowulf cluster you might be able to brute-force it
<Eliezer> significantly smarter-than-human intelligence that is
<Bolverker> Hmmm makes me think of Jungs collective unconsious theory.
<OcsRazor> I have a fantasy/nightmare about small distributed teams of enhanced humans taking over the world
<BJKlein> you to?
<Bolverker> If you had a bunch of brains working on a probelm, say as a background process, you'd essentailly have that.
<Eliezer> ocs: yeah, it'd be a gamble, but not necessarily more of a gamble than building recursively self-improving AI without enhanced humans to help
<Eliezer> ocs: though evaluating the tradeoffs here gets very complicated
<Bolverker> Somehow the 'distrubited human' approach seems better then AI to me. Perhaps since it deals a little more with the known.
<OcsRazor> One of motivations for doing what I do is based on the presumption that AI is coming...
<Eliezer> Bolverker: I used to think so too, but recently I've become aware of how fragile human cognition is
<OcsRazor> and I want to make sure we are part of it ;^)
<Eliezer> Bolverker: we are not designed to handle any changes, and even small changes might produce unpredictable effects
<OcsRazor> not left out of the party
<Eliezer> ocs: I suggest that you hurry like hell, then

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users