I [have] conceived the idea of X-Techs, i.e. technologies at the “X scale”, where X could be femto, atto, zepto, etc... This line of thinking led me to the notion of SIPI (Search for Infra Particle Intelligence) rather than the usual SETI... which strikes me as being rather provincial minded... The next logical step, it seems to me, is to speculate on what hyper intelligent synthetic creatures (artilects), which are x-tech based, might have done with themselves over billions of years, given that our sun, our star, is billions of years younger than most stars in the observable universe. This is a fascinating question, which this essay attempts to address. How does one begin on such a speculation, given that these hyper intelligences would have performance levels trillions of trillions... of times above the human level, and have had billions of years in which to evolve and complexify, before our sun was even born? ... If one takes googolects seriously, then... it seems reasonable to suggest that they could manipulate the properties of strings and related M-theory objects into structures of vast complexity, i.e. these structures would have a complexity level googol times greater than today’s artificial brains. These googolects would be “thinking” (signaling) 1027 times faster than our current nanoelectonic circuits, since they are 1027 times smaller (assuming the speed of light remains a barrier.) If these googolects can manipulate M-theory objects as they choose, then at larger scales, e.g. at our own human scale, we would not be able to distinguish between properties of the higher scales as “givens” (as is the case in physics today) rather than as “engineered”. Thus, it is possible that a real paradigm shift becomes quasi inevitable... Before I start speculating on other things these googolects might do, this is probably a good moment to coin a label for a new research area that does just that, i.e. speculates on what googolects might do. I suggest “googolectics.” ... Another of my research interests, is something I call “I.T.” i.e. intelligence theory, that doesn’t exist yet. This would be a branch of mathematics... Once I.T. can tell us what intelligence is, so that we can have a whole mathematical theory about it, then we will be able to create more intelligent creatures (artilects)... One obvious point to make that seems virtually certain, is that googolects would be utterly incomprehensible to humans. We would be way too stupid to understand their godlike capabilities... My main two areas of intellectual interest are pure math and math physics. Let us assume that pure math has no conceptual limits...No, you are not mistaken, Femto, Atto, and Zepto were not another trio of Marx Brothers you forgot. I am tempted just to leave these comedy stylings as they are, to invite you to enjoy this techno-transcendental hoo-hah without comment, or by all means to click the link where there is oh so much more where that came from. But I will make the obvious comment or two. You know, I have no problem with some people treating this sort of thing as a consoling form of prayer. I'm an atheist myself, but I'm all for letting a bazillion flowers bloom in the faith department so long as your particular religious bliss doesn't moralize violence or rationalize tyranny or pretend to be science -- well, oops! on that score Mr. de Garis, but, well, you know what I mean. Similarly, I have no problem with some people treating this sort of thing as a form of experimental poetry of some kind. It's certainly not to my taste, since I have taste, but there's no accounting for taste, so, well, again, you know.
But I do have a problem with anybody who thinks this is sound argumentation... A welter of stipulations yielding "next logical steps," pushing equivocations of terms like "intelligence" beyond the breaking point, pretending it makes sense to put words like "possible quasi inevitable" together in the name of rigor, speaking of "givens" after indulging in pages of handwaving about non-givens, inventing non-disciplines about non-events involving non-phenomena and calling this "research," pretending that this sort of glossolalia yields "obvious points" or that nonsensicality is the sign of "purity," and so on! This is not argument or even speculation but free association. And I have a greater problem still with anybody who thinks this is serious science ("intelligence theory... a branch of mathematics [!]... can tell us what intelligence is, so that... then we will be able to create more intelligence creatures (artilects)"), let alone "pure math" or "pure physics," or remotely legitimate philosophizing. Even thought experiments require some thought to be happening in their general vicinity. No, this nonsense is neither serious nor sound in any way, nor is anybody serious or sound for whom this sounds serious (except maybe serious as a heart attack).
These problems aside, I cannot help but observe that guru-wannabes in robocultic precincts do often seem to lose themselves in this sort of phanwanking (it's like common or garden variety fanboy fanwanking, but involving speculative pseudo-science rather than speculative science-fiction), so I suppose this nonsense may nonetheless be, you know, The Future. The singularity, doncha know, is a black hole.--h/t to the indispensable indefatigable JimF.