The Technological Singularity and The Ultimate Fate of the Universe
In 30 to 50 years, the human race as we know it will cease to exist. Computer power continuously doubles over some short period, leading to a quickening pace of technological evolution. This pace reaches massive acceleration beyond the knee of its exponential curve, and at that point the world becomes inconceivable to us as contemporary humans. This point is the Technological Singularity. Eventually machines will outstrip the computational and memory capacity of the human brain. Inevitably these machines will build other machines that outstrip the computational and memory capacity of all human brains. As the human brain is reverse-engineered, the primary mechanism of evolutionary progress will be handed from biological processes to technological processes. The new paradigm is human-machine symbiosis, where varying forms of real and virtual human-machine hybrids collaborate in a sociological technocracy. The ultimate fate of the universe is a merger between humanity, matter, and energy - the saturation of reality with intelligence of human origin. Continuation of the nova is bound only by the limits of the universe. An infinite universe has infinite raw material for intelligence expansion, and hence the entropic trade is unending. If the universe is finite, progress has a limit, and the saturated universe is left to revolve through equivalent self-reconfigurations of matter, energy, and intelligence.
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
RSS 2.0
Yay, Lara Croft in Ireland!
Feshti's back and this time he's counting down the top 10 movie opening scenes of all time.
Is American opinion and culture crowding out all others?
omg teh matrix!11
Comment by Stephen — December 8, 2006 @ 8:38 am
I know this stuff sounds like prize bunkum, but there are a surprising amount of frighteningly smart folks who take it seriously. Check out these podcasts from accelerating change 2005, the annual conference of the singularity folk - http://www.itconversations.com/series/achange2005.html
Comment by Gareth Stack — December 8, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
that “law” of doubling is a law of economics not physics, and it is physics that is ending it currently. while the addition of Selenium and Germanium in r&d labs has resulted in important results these are many many years away, the plain fact is computer power has not doubled over the last 18 months or the 18 before that.
Comment by owwmykneecap — December 9, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
kurzweil has conveniantly built his theory around himself. in other words, he has convinced himself he will live forever- (just in time!! well done ray!!!) the ultimate dream for some. check out aubrey de grey’s stuff. here is a far more rational and balanced view of mans perhaps inevitable ability to live forever. kurzweil’s singularity (or vinges or whoever) is another stereotype way of man convincing himself he is formidable. since the dawn of time, most men have tried to convince themselves of this, because they are generally incapable of being satisfied with the reality around them(im a good example, hence this email, hence the reason for anyone bothering ever, etc,etc)
the earth is flat. it looks like a sphere from space, but only because we have round eyes. i used to get gravity for christmas but i stopped when i realised u can download it with a zed spell…
Comment by krynn — December 9, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
how isnt Kurzweils view rational and balanced ? isnt not very balanced if you dont explain yourself
Comment by letmeout — December 10, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
the universe isnt gonna turn into a pretty flower of happy happy in 2045. it will trudge on, cold, bored. it just isnt a balanced view. now can u explain yourself?
Comment by krynn — December 11, 2006 @ 10:19 am
yes I can explain myself, my daughter just texted me from 2,000 miles away asking what time it is here in Berlin. a singularity has occured (is occuring) already around the world, in terms of speed of communication. I’ve been in the telecommunications industry for over 35 years now and I cannot tell you how remarkable the change has been here from the inside. Kurzweil slams your pathetic argument in his book ‘The Singularity is Near’ which you obviously havent read or arent reading properely. He never once says anything about your ‘happy happy’. Please, if you could be more specific and explain yourself, rather than resorting to cheap rhetoric. I’ll happily quote you page numbers in my defence.
Comment by letmeout — December 12, 2006 @ 11:26 am
i did read it, but i lent it to someone. c, the thing is, the internet is so backwards and primitive i cant even quote from a crappy book properely without waiting ages, the internet is like money, it is money. its not cheap rhetoric, its quick logic. you still havent given me a rational argument for proof the singularity will happen. ill give u a million quotes to hammer yer argument when i get the time later 2day!
Comment by krynn — December 13, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
still awaiting those quotes, krynn… before you mention, I saw Juergen Schmidhuber’s website and its interesting that you have so much faith in somebody like that. you slam Kurzweil and his optimistic approach but Schmidhuber’s ideas are way beyond optimistic. they are truly absurd. he certainly isnt going to have a replica of himself continuing his own work in 2020. yes i look forward to those quotes. and its not ages youd have to wait for that book, depending where you live you can often get it within 24 hours if you pay a few dollars extra. and the internet is very much free in many parts of the world, they are just in the process of free bandwidth induction in the area where I live!
Comment by letmeout — December 15, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
i cant quote anyone i agree with. Listen: man, and every other species, is always at one with the machine. a caveman finds it easier to drink water using a cup shaped stone than his bare hands. he has merged with the stone in that moment. william gibson says the internet is simply an extension of the central nervous system. and so is the stone cup to the caveman. we can fly from the north pole to the south with technology, and the arctic tern just does it. which species is therefore more evolved? Kurzweil would say we are. I would say neither. evolution is just a buzz term. its down to perception. by 2045, all human suffering will not have stopped. Kurzweil thinks this it will stop because he has a remarkably geeky world view. its 2006 now. 39 years from now and its all happy happy? yes androids and cyberducks and collective AI turnips will roam the land (they already are…down to perception again). i know this sounds vague, but this is what I think. I ask you this, letmeout: do u agree with me that all human suffering will not end around 2045!? ’cause that is his view…i dont have the time to hunt down net quotes right now but i know im right. also, kurweil seem s to think we are more important, more ‘evolved’ than that from which we evolved. but that viewpoint is simply a way of man convincing himself he matters . also known as pride. toss. ameoba are just as cool as us. and so on.
Comment by krynn — December 17, 2006 @ 10:51 am
yes that is pretty vague
I dont understand your correlation between the stonecup/caveman and the internet as an extension of a persons central nervous system. yes its all ‘one with the machine’ but the internet is a completely differant kettle of fish. I can tell several million (or billion) people something at the same time with technology (eg a satallite broadcast, an infamous news headline, etc). Its literally large portions of humanity merging with machine instantaneously. Cavemen simply could not do this. We are more evolved than birds. no, I couldnt fly from one pole to the other on my own, but the collective We transports millions everwhere anywhere daily inside large metal birds. Pride is necessary for survival, and yes we are more important than other species simply because we have to believe this to survive. Sorry Krynn but you have this tendancy to lapse into metaphysics whenever you try to make a point. I agree that all ’suffering’ wont ‘end’ in 2045 but once again its down to rhetoric. metaphysical hogwash again.
Comment by letmeout — December 17, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
u know exactly want i mean by suffering, its not ‘rhetoric’. suffering equals pain, despair, boredom, sadness, nerves, anything negative. It cant end in 2045 because of balance, the whole yin yang thing. Do you really fucking think if you are in, say, a forest on your own in the next 50 years you are suddenly going to merge with nature and be able to communicate with everone suddenly and become part of the singularity cult!? its crap! I presume you need to get out more!!!
Comment by krynn — December 17, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
yinyang!? what cult are you in?
Comment by letmeout — December 18, 2006 @ 8:03 am
merryxmasnewyear letmeout, u still there, u better be, i have a trillion ideas to shove at you
Comment by krynn — January 16, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
YES. weird, I just went on tcal…uncanny…weird timing, we must be linked somehow! its the SINGULARITY!
Comment by letmeout — January 16, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
er…yeh, that would be it, coincidences are an act of god…or whatever, well, obviously a singularity as Kurzweil envisions wont happen anytime soon, if ever. I am not metaphysically speaking, I am metatheoretically speaking. a singularity or an infinite amount of singularities is happening, has happened, will be happening, forever. Singularities happen all the time, eg with sound. Speeding up a pulse until it blurs into a tone and that eventually inevitably turns into random intermittant white noise which cannot be pre-concieved. In the same way we cannot pre-concieve the Kurzweil singularity. munch on that
Comment by krynn — January 16, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
I like your analogy with sound. Yes, obviously singularitys happen all the time. Surely this fact makes you dig your own hole when you argue against your ‘Kurzweil singularity!?’ As you say, its Vinges aswell…:)
Comment by letmoout — January 16, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
you changed your name to letmootout, are u trying to make another point? no, not digging my own hole, its just that Kurzweil envisions this mega optimistic view of reality, like jehova’s witnesses and lots of religious figures do. ’singulatarian’ is the daft term he uses. its idiotarian to have names like these.
Comment by krynn — January 16, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
its LETMOOUT. its a reference to cow tech but u wouldnt understand. thats not very optimisticarian of you to think that, u idiotarian
Comment by letmoout — January 16, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
im not any arian. im human
Comment by krynn — January 16, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
well i’m hum. GOT to go now but I will be back, i have to build a plague. back 10.15pm approx, jan16 07 as in 2night? its either that or play chess with myself. u better answer
Comment by letmooout — January 16, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
a singularity will not occur. i have never come across one genuinely intelligent computer. machines will always be subservient to people who can see beyond, like me. people are only subservient to machines when they are stupid enough to be subservient to them.
Comment by krynn — January 18, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
thats obviously for provokment. everything and everyone is subservient to a system/pattern/machine/etc, its all the same. art is an attempt to break the mould. anything is art, including not attempting to break the mould. the singularity is an artistic vision, like when man predicted flight, or realised the earth was flat, or spherical. its all one revelation. i think the singularity is a true, artistic revelation. it really is a fantastic idea. like speeding faster than light, perpetual motion for people, immortality, and worldwide peace (with a bit of luck, although i do agree with your cynicism on the peace one), we will get there.
Comment by letmooout — January 29, 2007 @ 12:17 am
ok just explain the immortality, world-wide peace, and faster than light travel in a rational way and and i wont provoke u anymore. just a tad optimistic, no!?
Comment by krynn — February 4, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
many trees are immortal. they are hundreds of miles wide because they are joined by their root system. a perpetual ecology. cars go on ‘forever’ if u keep maintaining them. actually, its important to make the distinction between immortal and living indefinetly. immortal means cannot die. i am referring more to living indefinetly. i believe the universe to be immortal and every system within it is lives indefinetly- eg it dies depending on context. even the moon orbiting the earth will die- the system inevitably wares itself out. people can have this type of perpetual living if they maintain their bodies correctly.
Comment by letmooout — February 11, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
i suppose it opens up a whole new world for torturers. u could keep the captive alive forever. like infinite guantanamo. u try and pop yourself but you cant. oh man. immortally insane. it reminds me of a song ,’ perpetual black second’
Comment by krynn — February 24, 2007 @ 7:16 am
thats a pretty negative way of looking at it, although i suppose some kind of perpetual recursive loop could well be possible…especially as people fuse more and more with soft/hardware. but its about balance, an opposite aposite (oh trendy words!) would be: theres a more positive way of looking at it, i suppose some kind of finite recursive loop is possible….especially as people fuse less and less with their original biology.
i just read this and im not sure what my point is
Comment by letmooout — February 25, 2007 @ 8:13 pm