[mike777]

What If the Singularity Does NOT Happen?
by Vernor Vinge



It's 2045 and nerds in old-folks homes are wandering around, scratching their heads, and asking plaintively, "But ... but, where's the Singularity?" Science fiction writer Vernor Vinge--who originated the concept of the technological Singularity--doesn't think that will happen, but he explores three alternate scenarios, along with our "best hope for long-term survival"--self-sufficient, off-Earth settlements.



http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?....html?m=1%23696

[luke warm]

why does he keep saying "humankind?" what's wrong with "mankind?" oh - never mind

[mike777]

luke warm, on Mar 24 2007, 04:54 PM, said:

why does he keep saying "humankind?" what's wrong with "mankind?" oh - never mind

He is not sure how much longer humans will be humans/homosapiens.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Mar 24 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

why does he keep saying "humankind?"  what's wrong with "mankind?"  oh - never mind

I thought the political correct term was "humanity". But English is not my first language and those PC terms also keep changing. So, I concert: never mind.

Mike777 said:

He is not sure how much longer humans will be humans/homosapiens.

I see. So if humans are not humans, humanity will not be mankind but humankind. Logic for advanced readers.

Anyway, I don't understand anything of this. Why is it called a singularity? In mathematics, a singularity is a point in continious space than samehow "stands out" - for example, if you throw a coin and then assign a value to a stocastic variable X by:
Head: X=1/2
Tail: X is uniformly distributed over [0,1]
.... then X=1/2 is a singularity.

In a cyclic universe that once collapses into a single point and then re-expotes in a new big bang, you may call the point in time for which the universe is a single point a "singularity" (not sure how apt that term is, may depend on one's view on the Hawking/Penrose debate on whether information is destroyed as mass collapses into a black hole).

When I read this Kurzweil thing I get the impression that something is going to collapse when 1) our computers' capacity exceed what can be supported by our energy supply, or when 2) our computers get too smart for us to follow pace, or when 3) we evolve beyond being humans.

As for 1) similar doomsday scenarios have been anounced several times and they all fail to come true so I'm not too worried.
As for 2) it allready happened and as far as I can see the Universe still exists.
As for 3), what's so special about being human? The monkey may say we stopped being monkeys 15-20 million years ago and the apes may say we stopped being apes some 5 million years ago. Maybe other human species such as the Neanderthals would say we stopped being humans 100,000 years ago. They're probably right. Who cares?

[mike777]

You just got your logic reversed. He is saying just the opposite of what you write.

If humans are not humans then maybe mankind but not humankind lives on. Glad I could explain. I think this is why he emphasises the word human anyway and not man that Jimmy asked about.

As for the whole use of singularity thing, Yes to points two and three you bring up.
I am not sure all or just how many agree computers are smarter than us today let alone in the future. I guess that is an important issue. Can computers be intelligent to any measurable degree and acceptable definition? If yes, then the singularity basically means a point where we cannot predict the future.

It does not mean the universe ends. It may mean we become one with the universe but again that is another thread.

As for what is so special about humans and who cares? Well that is another thread.