Mitchell_Porter comments on Open Thread: March 2010, part 3 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: RobinZ 19 March 2010 03:14AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (254)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 31 March 2010 12:44:03AM 2 points [-]

Can the tiles have states that change and interact?

Comment author: Alicorn 31 March 2010 12:47:19AM 0 points [-]

Only if that doesn't violate the "simple" condition.

Comment author: ata 31 March 2010 01:37:17AM *  0 points [-]

What counts as simple?

If something capable as serving as a cell in a cellular automaton would count as simple enough, I'd choose that. And I'd design it to very occasionally malfunction and change states at random, so that interesting patterns could spontaneously form in the absence of any specific design.

Comment author: Alicorn 31 March 2010 01:41:07AM *  1 point [-]

Basically, the "simple" condition was designed to elicit answers more along the lines of "paperclips!" or "cheesecake!", rather than "how can I game the system so that I can have interesting stuff in the universe again after the tiling happens?" You're not playing fair if you do that.

I find this an interesting question because while it does seem to be a consensus that we don't want the universe tiled with orgasmium, it also seems intuitively obvious that this would be less bad than tiling the universe with agonium or whatever you'd call it; and I want to know what floats to the top of this stack of badness.

Comment author: Clippy 31 March 2010 02:01:05AM 2 points [-]

Basically, the "simple" condition was designed to elicit answers more along the lines of "paperclips!"

Mission accomplished! c=@

Now, since there seems to be a broad consensus among the posters that paperclips would be the optimal thing to tile the universe with, how about we get to work on it?

Comment author: wedrifid 31 March 2010 04:56:58AM 1 point [-]

Basically, the "simple" condition was designed to elicit answers more along the lines of "paperclips!" or "cheesecake!", rather than "how can I game the system so that I can have interesting stuff in the universe again after the tiling happens?" You're not playing fair if you do that.

And that is a good thing. Long live the munchkins of the universe!

Comment author: RobinZ 31 March 2010 01:55:03AM 0 points [-]

I think orgasmium is significantly more complex than cheesecake. Possibly complex enough that I could make an interesting universe if I were permitted that much complexity, but I don't know enough about consciousness to say.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 31 March 2010 04:55:11AM 2 points [-]

Cheesecake is made of eukaryotic life, so it's pretty darn complex.

Comment author: wedrifid 31 March 2010 05:07:35AM *  5 points [-]

Hmm... a universe full of cheescake will have enough hydrogen around to form stars once the cheesecakes attract each other, with further cheescake forming to planets that are are a perfect breeding ground for life, already seeded with DNA and RNA!

Comment author: RobinZ 31 March 2010 11:00:02AM *  0 points [-]

Didn't think of that. Okay, orgasmium is significantly more complex than paperclips.

Comment author: wnoise 31 March 2010 05:29:39AM 0 points [-]

What? It's products of eukaryotic life. Usually the eukaryotes are dead. Though plenty of microorganisms immediately start colonizing.

Unless you mean the other kind of cheesecake.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 31 March 2010 07:42:41PM 0 points [-]

I suppose that the majority of the cheesecake does not consist of eukaryotic cells, but there are definitely plenty of them in there. I've never looked at milk under a microscope but I would expect it to contain cells from the cow. The lemon zest contains lemon cells. The graham cracker crust contains wheat. Dead cells would not be much simpler than living cells.