Compared to the repressive & un-camouflaged put-downs of my un-named non-interlocutor on TPF, that is high praise! My posts are not intended to be regurgitations of conventional philosophical or scientific doctrines (approximations of truth). Instead, they are my idiosyncratic interpretations of the leading edge of an emerging new information-centric paradigm. Novelty usually emerges from off-center. :smile:I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended). — universeness
The confusion about wave-nature versus particle-nature in quantum physics was partly solved by the Field Theory, which simply kicks-the-can down the road. But the notion of fields-of-Potential-in-empty-space is fundamental to the emerging Information-centric worldview. The Field per se*1 is nothing-but abstract mathematical information : relationships between ideal points in space. But with the Potential to exhibit materialistic particle properties, or holistic wave properties, "depending on how you look at it".But I mentioned this last because quantum particle theory is not considered fundamental anymore, more like a limiting case of quantum field theory. Of course there’s still also a wavefunction in quantum field theory, representing the state of the system, but it is not to be confused with the fields themselves that constitute the system… but I digress. Keep that thing about optics in mind. An ordinary ray of light can be seen as either a wave or as a ray of tiny particles depending on how you look at it. — universeness
And yet the total available renewable energy is fixed. Do you see what I’m trying to illustrate? A line that is going up has to eventually cross a horizontal one.Have a look at: Growth in energy demand, eg:
For a long time, growth in the world and the U. S. energy consumption as a function of time, follow what is known as an exponential function. Now it looks like we have switched to linear growth — universeness
That claims exponential growth, not linear.Where Greek letter Δ(delta) is the change or increment of the variable and λ (lambda) is the growth rate. After some mathematical methods, it can be shown that the equation changes to the form:
N=N0eλt
The question had been about other star systems, not stuff in local orbit. But I cannot find it economical to even do it in orbit. The energy needed to supply food to Earth from orbit seems vastly larger than the gain from the food. Sure, electricity is cheap up there, but electricity doesn’t get stuff in and out of orbit. Better to just export the electricity, except for the nasty side effect of having a giant WMD in orbit at the disposal of a species known for individuals that tend to take advantage of such capabilities.We might grow excess food in space and transfer it to Earth
Given all the hydrogen we have here, this seems kind of low priority. Also, where are you going to mine it? Jupiter has plenty, but it takes an obscene amount of resources to pull anything out of that gravity well, and then a whole lot more to transport it to Earth. There’s actually not a lot of readily available hydrogen except perhaps through the mining of comets and stuff.we may tap fuel sources such as extraterrestial hydrogen etc.
I kind of have, yes. One that works, albeit currently beyond our capabilities. That should change soon. But it takes a stupid long time to do it, so one of the most important features would be reliability and repairability. Things will go wrong and it can’t be a fatal problem.Seems like you have already set your own preconditions for our imaginary trip, ship and crew!
Yes it can, just like the Mars rovers phone back about the samples. The only reason they’d like samples back home is because there is a limited lab there on Mars, but an interstellar probe wouldn’t have that problem if complex lab analysis is a requirement.Returns? Can’t it just phone home?
— noAxioms
I'm sure it will but it can't phone home any samples it collected.
I’m not talking about rendering a person a total vegetable. I mean the indoctrination of the masses with lies designed to alter the behavior of the population in favor of whatever goals the administer desires. This goes on every day. I’m only against the lies that benefit special interest groups instead of the whole. There are good lies and bad lies, even critical lies. I believe certain things that I rationally know for a fact are false. Sounds contradictory, but its how it works.I assume you are against the concept of 'brain wiping' anyone and if you are witnessing 'brain wiping,' everyday, then I hope you are speaking out against it, in the same way you would speak out against any mental or physical crime you were witnessing daily. — universeness
The schools here are actually pretty good, albeit a bit on the dangerous side. I suppose that what I disapprove of is what lies parents are allowed to choose their children to be taught in publicly funded schools. My childhood school was not publicly funded, and the schools like that around here collapsed about 6 years ago, but are still going strong where I grew up, which happens to be ground-zero for Trump’s chosen secretary of education whose family actually funded construction of my high-school. Good school too, regularly placing tops in academic ratings.That's why I suggested you sound a bit mad sometimes in your turn of phrase. I assume you are not a fan of the current school curriculum content where you live or/and you don't approve of how some parents choose to inform or educate their children.
I agree that ‘wiping’ is too strong. Washing I think is the more usual term. All propaganda is a form of brain washing, designed to instill the masses with something other than the truth. My mother still suffers from some of the propaganda to which she was exposed as a child growing up in a Nazi occupied country.I have also witnessed what I would consider a biased or imbalanced approach to informing the young but I think 'brain wiping' is too emotive and more in-line with dystopian visions such as Orwell's 1984.
Oh yes. ‘Do no harm’ is a joke when the ending torture is considered ‘harm’. But keeping bright and comfortable person sedated deprives them of years of quality life.Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement?
Screw the sedation at least. If there was unacceptable suffering going on, then yes, she should be allowed the choice. I wasn’t aware of any, and she was actually quite fine about a month before when they reduced the sedation long enough for my mother’s visit. I wasn’t there at the time.What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?
So those recognized get the same thing as those that don’t. That isn’t recognition. You did great! You get to live. You over there, you don’t do anything! You also get to live. Yay system.The basic means of survival will be free, that's the recognition.
Somebody has to do the unpleasant jobs. You make it sound like everybody pursues their hobbies and nothing actually gets done.Yes, you would still be a contributor, as long as you wanted to try.
We are there. Anyone can blog for instance. Lots (most) of it dies in obscurity, hardly considered a vocation from the viewpoint of the system.Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites).
You have a very funny definition of ‘redundant’ then. I’ve never seen the term used that way, nor have I ever seen metadata referred to as redundant, and I’m in that biz.The fact it is required to successfully send and receive the data packet is irrelevant to the fact that such data is redundant, in the same way the stamp and envelope and paper that a hand written snail mail letter uses, is redundant. — universeness
Actually, it’s often only that content that contains redundancy, usually in the form of ECC bits and such, unnecessary if the packet arrives unaltered at its destination.It's only the textual/imagery content of a snail mail letter that is not redundant.
No disagreement here.I know, but a data packet is a more often than not, a message fragment. Many fragments make up the 'message' or the picture or the movie or audio clip. The internet is a packet switching network.
This makes it sound like quarks are not fundamental. There’s different kinds, but they’re not made of ‘parts’ like say a proton is.A quark could therefore be quantised into a series of lower level data fundamentals and be 'processed' into any of the 'quark' variants (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom).
Ah, you seem to be talking about some kind of simulation. Most simulations don’t find the need to put every simulated bit on any kind of output media. Mostly they need to know how it behaves, say if a simulated chip performs according to specifications. If it works, great. If it fails, they probably want to dig down to what part didn’t do what was expected, something perhaps not saved on the first pass.So, yes, if YOU as the programmer instructed 'make up-quark,' using some high level or low level programming code, then a program would be executed, which used stored data to create an up-quark.
Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.
That part is actually pretty clear. Even without a theory of quantum gravity, the alternative (a classical universe) has long since been falsified. It’s quantum, we just don’t have the unified theory yet.Anyway, I think it remans very difficult to prove that at a fundamental level, the universe is quantum — universeness
Just FYI then: Gravity is not a force under relativity, and relativity isn’t a quantum theory (yet). Gravity doesn’t travel. Gravitons are the delivery/messanger particle of gravitational waves (that which LIGO detects), and not of gravity (that which your bathroom scale arguably detects). Gravitational waves transmit changes to the gravitational field (the geometry of spacetime). Gravitational waves are energy, lost pretty much permanently every time masses rearrange themselves. For instance, Earth’s orbit about the sun radiates gravitational waves at the rate of about 200 watts, which, barring everything else, will eventually spin all the planets into the sun after some obscene amount of time. Earth’s orbital distance is currently changing for 4 different reasons, and that one has the least effect, but will also continue longer than the others.No graviton has ever been found yet, but perhaps gravity is not a force and therefore has no delivery/messenger particle.
And yet the total available renewable energy is fixed. — noAxioms
Yes, might never happen, it's not a fact that it will, for many reasons such as the ones I have suggested above.Do you see what I’m trying to illustrate? A line that is going up has to eventually cross a horizontal one. — noAxioms
I have suggested making use of the resources available in other planets, moons, and debris belts in THIS solar system, not other star systems. The E-ring around Saturn, produced by the moon Enceladus, for example, may be a source of water, that could be used for further space exploration and development.The question had been about other star systems, not stuff in local orbit. But I cannot find it economical to even do it in orbit. — noAxioms
Future tech such as spacelifts, might be very efficient.The energy needed to supply food to Earth from orbit seems vastly larger than the gain from the food — noAxioms
Your musings are in quicksand as you insist on wearing a 'current tech' hat, instead of musing on what future tech may allow us to achieve.My point is, for the most part, interplanetary and especially interstellar trade isn’t worth the effort for most trade goods. — noAxioms
Maybe, maybe not. It's not a vital point, as long as the necessary info is returned to those who need it, on Earth or otherwise.but an interstellar probe wouldn’t have that problem if complex lab analysis is a requirement. — noAxioms
Yeah, manipulating people, trying to fool all of the people all of the time! So, not brain wiping but indoctrination.I mean the indoctrination of the masses with lies designed to alter the behavior of the population in favor of whatever goals the administer desires. — noAxioms
:grin: Yeah, I have been typing about my secular humanist stance for quite a while now.I’m only against the lies that benefit special interest groups instead of the whole. — noAxioms
That's just confused thinking imo.There are good lies and bad lies, even critical lies. I believe certain things that I rationally know for a fact are false. Sounds contradictory, but its how it works. — noAxioms
I am against all private school education, as they are full of indoctrination, bias and they are discriminatory. A good education, only if you can afford one, is a vile concept.Trump’s chosen secretary of education whose family actually funded construction of my high-school. Good school too, regularly placing tops in academic ratings. — noAxioms
Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement?
Oh yes. ‘Do no harm’ is a joke when the ending torture is considered ‘harm’. But keeping bright and comfortable person sedated deprives them of years of quality life.
What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?
Screw the sedation at least. If there was unacceptable suffering going on, then yes, she should be allowed the choice. I wasn’t aware of any, and she was actually quite fine about a month before when they reduced the sedation long enough for my mother’s visit. I wasn’t there at the time. — noAxioms
You prefer a system based on 'you don't do anything, that I or even WE, subjectively, decide has not met OUR standards,' so you will be left to rot and starve or freeze to death?You did great! You get to live. You over there, you don’t do anything! You also get to live. Yay system. — noAxioms
Somebody has to do the unpleasant jobs. You make it sound like everybody pursues their hobbies and nothing actually gets done. — noAxioms
Who knows what the future holds for a particular item of work memorialised by someone. Most of the most revered works available today were created by people who got very little or no recognition during their lifetime and died in poverty.Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites).
We are there. Anyone can blog for instance. Lots (most) of it dies in obscurity, hardly considered a vocation from the viewpoint of the system. — noAxioms
You have a very funny definition of ‘redundant’ then. I’ve never seen the term used that way, nor have I ever seen metadata referred to as redundant, and I’m in that biz. — noAxioms
This makes it sound like quarks are not fundamental. There’s different kinds, but they’re not made of ‘parts’ like say a proton is. — noAxioms
Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.
Ah, you seem to be talking about some kind of simulation. Most simulations don’t find the need to put every simulated bit on any kind of output media. Mostly they need to know how it behaves, say if a simulated chip performs according to specifications. If it works, great. If it fails, they probably want to dig down to what part didn’t do what was expected, something perhaps not saved on the first pass. — noAxioms
That part is actually pretty clear. Even without a theory of quantum gravity, the alternative (a classical universe) has long since been falsified. It’s quantum, we just don’t have the unified theory yet. — noAxioms
Gravity doesn’t travel. — noAxioms
Gravitons are the delivery/messanger particle of gravitational waves (that which LIGO detects), and not of gravity (that which your bathroom scale arguably detects). — noAxioms
Gravitational waves transmit changes to the gravitational field (the geometry of spacetime). Gravitational waves are energy, lost pretty much permanently every time masses rearrange themselves. For instance, Earth’s orbit about the sun radiates gravitational waves at the rate of about 200 watts, which, barring everything else, will eventually spin all the planets into the sun after some obscene amount of time. Earth’s orbital distance is currently changing for 4 different reasons, and that one has the least effect, but will also continue longer than the others. — noAxioms
I found his answer informative, as it highlights some of the confusions that people have, out in the lay world (me included). I think its related to our exchange here, regarding an analogue/discrete fundamental structure to our universe. — universeness
The discrete vs continuous confusion seems to derive from two ways of interrogating Reality. Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. We perceive the movie, but we conceive the individual frames. Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details.I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo. — universeness
:100: :up:↪Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe. — universeness
Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information, he eventually gets around to speculation on the future development of his technological analogy to the biological genome. He calls it the Dataome*1, and instead being made of amino acids, it consists of core algorithms ("corgs"). Although it requires physical machines as hosts, the world-wide Dataome is essentially made of mathematical information.How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? Is an tech singularity emergent? and (I know this is very difficult to contemplate but) what do you think will happen as a result of such a 'singularity?' — universeness
Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe.
— universeness
:100: :up:
@Agent Smith — 180 Proof
In what way are natural processes such as sand production, falling rain, falling snow, seed production etc, etc, analogue?Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. — Gnomon
I broadly agree but I am more interested in what IS, rather than holistic philosophical musings (as useful as such, can be).Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details. — Gnomon
I agree, and I admire the fact that they remain uninterested in trying to fill any gaps with pure conjecture.Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. — Gnomon
I agree. That's why no-one should say, I KNOW that the structure of the universe is fundamentally digital, or I KNOW the structure of the universe is fundamentally analogue, because, no one KNOWS for sure, yet. So, a statement such as:That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon. — Gnomon
is 'silly.'The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins. — Gnomon
But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture — Gnomon
Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. — Gnomon
In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information — Gnomon
Any scientist is completely free to as such questions. Many scientists (too many imo.) remain theists.Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" — Gnomon
Yes but I think there will be a big difference between a HUMAN cyborg or augmented human and an AGI with biological components. Biological computing is still very much in it's infancy. Any transhuman must be still a free independent with full 'human' rights to autonomy.Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism. — Gnomon
Seems a reasonable way to describe the status quo.The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. — Gnomon
No, we are only lab rats, if god exists. We have scientific questions as well as philosophical ones.So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own. — Gnomon
Yeah but not the "god of religion" ...
— 180 Proof — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.