This seems to be the most popular viewpoint regarding the 'pivotal' moment of the development of an ASI. Folks like myself and I think 180 Proof, think that it's just as possible, that a developing/growing ASI that achieves self-awareness, would be benevolent towards all lifeforms, especially lifeforms with the sentience level of humans. — universeness
Post-quantum physics has equated Information (power to enform) with physical Energy. In which case the future unleashed-singularity could indeed be an explosion of Information. — Gnomon
Are you aware of something similar to an "information singularity" in recorded history (a la Gutenberg)? — Gnomon
The transition from Theological Science to Empirical Science was a significant change of direction, but the Age of Enlightenment took centuries to take full effect. Hardly an explosion. — Gnomon
...the Information Age that began in the early 20th century has rapidly expanded... — Gnomon
making radical changes in socio-cultural phenomena. — Gnomon
...mine [worldview] is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). — Gnomon
I was inferring from current knowledge back to unknown possible initial conditions... — Gnomon
...his [universeness] empirical stance labels questions of Origins as Religious, whereas I view such explorations as Philosophical. — Gnomon
I came to an Information Singularity of my own, where space-time faded away into infinities. — Gnomon
I assume that Plato followed a similar line of reasoning, and concluded that Reality is bounded by space-time. — Gnomon
But then, whence space-time & energy-laws. So, he postulated a transcendent (eternal ; infinite) Source of Enforming power (Logos - in Ideality) as an answer to the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". But that kind of pioneering reverse-reasoning (into the a priori unknown) is not allowed by Empirical doctrine (from known to knowable). — Gnomon
the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". — Gnomon
Probably not. Information is both physical (info=energy=matter) and metaphysical (meaning ; ideas ; math). EnFormAction is my coinage for the Generic Information responsible for the formation of every objective Thing and every subjective Form that evolved from the initial Singularity. The label "Big Bang" implies a physical explosion, but some scientists deny that popular image, and substitute "expansion". Yet the "expansion" of a universe from a pinpoint in micro-seconds sounds more like instant creation-from-scratch than even a mundane physical explosion. That Genesis implication is what caused Hoyle to mock the Cosmologist's theory, describing the ultimate event, as a "Big Bang".So, information, in this context, is physical and thus "the future unleashed-singularity" of information would likewise be a physical explosion? — ucarr
Yes.Are you aware of something similar to an "information singularity" in recorded history (a la Gutenberg)? — Gnomon
Is this a reference to early book printing? — ucarr
No. I'm just an amateur philosopher presenting a non-academic thesis, which is intended to be a logical expansion of a famous scientist's conjecture : "It From Bit" -- Material things emerged from immaterial causal information (the power to enform). :smile:You count yourself a logician primarily? — ucarr
Oh it has been debated extensively all right. The problem is that Uni & 180 begin with a premise of their own, which I reject : that ultimate speculations are inherently religiously motivated. Religious scholars adopted Plato & Aristotle centuries later, but in their own time they were non-conformists regarding the polytheism of their culture. They did propose abstract eternal principles (Logos ; Good) radically unlike the humanoid deities of the non-philosophical Greeks. Christian Theologians interpreted those abstractions in favor of the Jewish God, who has no physical Form that could be represented in idols. It's unlikely that P & A were aware of the Jewish god-concept. In any case, my own interpretations of their Eternal Principles are not connected to any religious practices. But if you feel the urge to worship a formless abstraction, its a free country. :joke:Perhaps some sort of richly complex and debatable premise can be spun out of this. — ucarr
No. My Singularity is a meta-physical philosophical concept, not a scientific conjecture.Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source? — ucarr
The boundaries I referred to are Space & Time, which are not physical fences. Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded". Which could be interpreted as an oxymoron. But its assumed that he was talking about the physical shape of the universe as a sphere, not as extending into infinity. :wink:Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries. — ucarr
I didn't say "unknowable" but "unknown". Philosophers and Scientists explore the "undiscovered territory". For example, the Big Bang theory was an exploration (via reverse inference) into the knowable-but-heretofore-unknown history of the universe, back to the beginning of space-time. Yet, imaginative thinkers can easily go beyond that non-physical boundary (trans-finite multiverse), "to infinity and beyond!", as Buzz Lightyear (animated movie) exclaimed. :nerd:I would expect you to contest any doctrine characterizing reverse-inference as a journey into the unknowable. — ucarr
I do not believe that is enough food to feed everyone, nor is it practical to send produce to poor nations that can not pay for the labor and transportation cost to feed huge populations in poor countries the variety of foods necessary for good health — Athena
Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people.I wish everyone experienced at least two years of having to live on the food they produce themselves before entering a discussion about feeding the world. The experience would give them a necessary perspective. — Athena
Establishing economic parity for all and creating a national, international, global food production and distribution system that can sustain our current rate of global population growth. If that proves to be currently impossible then, embark on education campaigns to better control population growth, and strongly discourage families which have 7 children.Tell me, what are the circumstances essential to feeding a family of 7? — Athena
If we were in the pioneer days and the families diet depended on hurting and gardening what are the challenges and how are they met. — Athena
That's fair enough Athena. I would respond with, I think your opinions offer excuses for the behaviour of the nefarious few, past and present, who are fully responsible for the way the world is today.I think your opinions are based on facts, but not knowledge and enough facts for good judgment. — Athena
For Example, vertical farming:Not all ground is good for farming. It can be hard to get enough protein without meat and dairy products. — Athena
Stored foods, distributed when needed. Even the fairy tales in the bible, incudes a cautionary tale regarding 7 fat cows and 7 thin cows. Simple stuff really!What do people eat when the locus come in and destroy the crops, or weather prevents people from having a good crop? — Athena
The concerns you highlight here seem to me, to be very, very solvable!You live in a world that is totally changed and it has not been that long since people everywhere died because of a poor diet. Today the problem is changed, they gtet enough calories but eat the wrong foods and people are destroying their lives and their children's lives with harmful foods. — Athena
No, you don't have to experience fire to know it burns, otherwise few problems would ever get solved.If you lived in a village where every winter neighbors starved to death, and you feared not having enough to eat, you would not be thinking of feeding the world. History gives us perspective and that perspective is necessary for good judgment. — Athena
Under human conditions, both historical and current.Under what conditions is this true? I grew up in L.A. California and took people being killed for granted, like people in Oregon take rain for granted. — Athena
What's your point Athena? Each person is either part of the problems or part of the solutions???I thought it is was very important to be tough. My idea of what it means to be tough changed with old age. :lol: The point is, we are reactionary, and how we feel, think, and behave depends on our environment and circumstance. We can be as angles or completely numb to the suffering of others. — Athena
Many people share your concerns. Fascism is a global concern and always has been. It's as Japanese, Italian, French, American and Russian as it is German. I value technical progress, and see it as an imperative, but it's consequences, are indeed, important to very carefully contend with. I think theism has NOTHING of value to assist us in developing good morality. I think the opposite is true. Secular humanism is the source of human morality, not theism or ancient fables and fairy stories.Personally, I think a very evil mind set has emerged and I have deep concerns about our growing dependency on bureaucratic control of our lives. I have concerns about people putting their faith in technology and ignoring our humanness. Given the news today, I see the rise of Nazi Germany coming out of leaving moral training to the church instead of understanding education for good moral judgment is essential to democracy and so is self reliance essential to our liberty. — Athena
No government or bureaucracy is omnipotent. ALL GOVERNANCE MUST BE of, for and by the people, or else such authority MUST be replaced. That is the system of governance, we must continue to fight for, FOREVER!!! Even when we achieve it, we must forever fight to maintain it.I hate the modern selling phrase, "get what you deserve", as though mother nature and/or God will take care of us as long as we please the god or our choice. Today, that God, being the government and bureaucracy and thinking rational is all important, failing to appreciate emotional reality and how destructive dependency on authority above us, can be. — Athena
ASI is the main candidate for a tech/information singular moment in time.Kurzweil talks about the inevitable "techno singularity" and "machine intelligence" but not much about an "information explosion" from a pin-point. So, I don't know what Uni had in mind regarding the role of Information. — Gnomon
I certainly DO NOT label the general question of the origin story of the universe as exclusively religious and I think you already know that. Cyclical universe, the multiverse, Mtheory etc, etc have no integrated god posits. Only posits like enformationism, have theism/deism at their root, as you as its author, have confirmed, in many of your posts. I broadly agree, with the remaining content of the above quote.Unfortunately, his empirical stance labels questions of Origins as Religious, whereas I view such explorations as Philosophical. Unlike Plato, he draws the line at unverifiable Transcendence. As implicit in his dialogue with Athena, Uni seems to be Past Pessimistic, but Future Optimistic. Other than that Origins Taboo, our worldviews seem to be similar. :cool: — Gnomon
My initial reaction, which tends towards melodrama (and is therefore suspect) impels me to speculate the above hope is more fever-dream than rational speculation. Remember Independence Day when the human optimists look up towards the hovering alien mothership with hopeful expectation of an imminent, cosmic love-fest? This occurs just before they get vaporized into oblivion. — ucarr
Yes, but, I would say, as WE have gained in knowledge, many more of us will review and alter the way we treat/respect each other and all flora and fauna we encounter. That has not made me a veggie yet. I keep making excuses for myself for not becoming one. So, based on that viewpoint, Homo superior is not a label I like due to the use of 'superior,' but I think such should be more benevolent than homo sapien, due to the knowledge it has access to and it's ability to reason in 'new' ways (rather than superior ways, (I would prefer homo nova to homo superior)).This evidence, as you are well aware, comprises the wretched history of homo sapiens treatment of the rest of earth's animal kingdom. All the expletives in the English language aren't enough to articulate fully how badly we've treated earth's animal kingdom. — ucarr
This is another interesting aspect. I wonder if more than one ASI is developed, there will be a battle between ASI systems. Some protecting humans/transhumans and another, determined to make biological sentient lifeforms, extinct. I loved films like 'Colossus, the Forbin project.'As there are homo sapiens kindly to animals, we can expect likewise homo superior individuals. Will such individuals be of sufficient volume to counterbalance the collective treatment of homo sapiens by homo superior the species? By the evidence of homo sapiens' treatment of earth's animal kingdom, this seems hardly likely. — ucarr
On the other hand, it seems likely to me homo superior will be empowered to enact forms of benevolence beyond our present ability to imagine. Will this be enough of an offset to stand as a protection? I doubt it seriously. — ucarr
The new, higher-order species, by definition, will have needs and desires that consume resources of creation beyond what homo sapiens can conceptualize. This will mean abrogation of vast resources now essential to the self-determination and well being of homo sapiens. Just the other day I happened to be around some horses. As I started thinking about them, I realized something horrible with stark clarity: Horses are large animals. What they do best, according to their innate power, is run fast and far each day of their lives. Well, humans, pursuing their own dreams, have partitioned off nearly all of the open land on earth. The possibility for horse happiness, with few exceptions, has been destroyed by humans.
Humans will benefit greatly from the benevolent actions of homo superior. We know, however, true happiness in its highest manifestation depends upon species sovereignty. That is lost with the advent of the new sovereign species. — ucarr
Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people. — universeness
Sorry. I was referring to the anti-open-question stance of Logical Positivism*1, which I guessed influenced your negative attitude toward my non-religious non-theist pre-bang hypothesis. I apologize, if I misread your intentions, as you so often misread mine. Since I have no formal indoctrination in philosophical schools of thought, I don't quickly detect the doctrinal source of objections to my own ideas. But I'm learning.I certainly DO NOT label the general question of the origin story of the universe as exclusively religious and I think you already know that. Cyclical universe, the multiverse, Mtheory etc, etc have no integrated god posits. Only posits like enformationism, have theism/deism at their root, as you as its author, have confirmed, in many of your posts. I broadly agree, with the remaining content of the above quote. — universeness
I like your optimism for a future cooperative between homo sapiens and homo nova. — ucarr
What's your thinking about the problem of good and evil as conceptualized into a future, interstellar society?
I need to encounter a persuasive argument why good can hold its own before the onslaughts of homo nova self-interest.
By the way, I think self-interest pushed to the extreme of infinity is a useful definition of evil.
Perhaps a good exercise has you elaborating some essentials of future evil; has me elaborating some essentials of future good. — ucarr
I think you have knowing facts confused with knowledge. A prisoner I corresponded with captured the difference between knowing facts and knowledge. "You may think shit taste bad, but until you eat it, you do not know how bad." — Athena
Learn to grow your own food and rely on yourself before you conclude the solution to human problems is a strong bureaucracy over us. Also if you knew as much history as you know science fiction, that would give you a more realistic perspective. — Athena
Here is a fiction that might increase your understanding of the danger of believing good intentions can give us the kind of utopia you keep talking about. — Athena
Also learning what happened when Hitler took over could increase your awareness of what can go very wrong. — Athena
You seem to be deliberately avoiding the analogy, which is everybody on a train trestle (or tunnel) with nowhere to stand with a train present. The people cannot get out of the way, but they can slow/stop the train, but not trivially. But most (the optimists at least) assume the train will stop by itself or somebody else will do it. The pessimists know nobody else will do it, but even they don’t really have any good suggestions for preventing the train from arriving. There’s nothing nefarious going on (except perhaps those profiting from speeding up the train). The train is of the making of the very people on the tracks.People love to see trains coming. They bring stuff and take stuff and offer travel. — universeness
Thanks for the description of that. It’s far more than I knew, and I haven’t really looked it up myself.initiatives like the 'Gosplan' in Russia were indeed socialist and were successful or a while — universeness
Not thinking of those being an amazing anything. How about just the person running a paper-pushing position at say a local doctor’s office. Yes, you can get the boost from doing something needing doing, being amazing about it in the eyes of others is a stretch. Respectable, sure. What about all those service jobs with a boss that makes every day misery? I know several businesses locally that permanently have help-wanted signs outside because they scare away employees faster than they attract them. Imagine that situation without the incentive of getting anything (event he ego boost) for your efforts.The rewards involved in helping others, can be as much of an ego boost, as someone telling you what what an amazing artist, singer, writer, scientist, capitalist, warrior, devil, angel, worshiper, athlete or tiddlywinker you are. — universeness
How about somebody working at an abortion clinic (doctor or staff)? Those people provide an essential service and yet get far more disapproval from others than otherwise.All people seek the approval of others, no matter how much anyone might deny it, imo.
I’m speaking of those in a first world country that actively decide not to contribute. There’s a significant number of them. In the country with the hut, somebody making a choice like that would just starve. You’re describing a global first world situtation, so your comparisons shouldn’t reach for the opposite end of that spectrum.Most folks are forced to, yes, or do you think a 16 year old black boy living in a hut in a poor village in a 3rd world country or a slum ghetto somewhere, has the same opportunities in life, as your kids have had?
Of course I do. Not many of those voting otherwise tend to find their way onto a forum like this one. OK, more here than you’d find on say a science forum.Good, I am glad you vote, I hope you vote for those who are closest to secular humanism,
Prints sure, but it’s the originals which command the value. Those ‘sell’ by barter if nothing else, and command a significant exchange on the black market (any market operating outside the ‘to each according to their needs’ mechanism).If people like what she produces in HER CHOSEN JOB of 'artist,' then prints of her work can be downloaded by anyone for free, framed and put up on their wall.
Yea, that’s been a problem. China for instance steals software, copying it freely, thus forcing restrictions on sales of tech to them. An Xbox for example could not be legally be exported to China due to this policy. I agree that such laws are kind of pointless on a global communist society, but right now there isn’t a global anything economy. It’s just different independent countries each with different rules. The lack of unified rules is a huge part of the problem. How do you propose to move from how it is now to a unified thing?I would get rid of all copyright and patent laws.
Trying to figure out if/where the sarcasm kicks in. Yes, many people love art. Those guys get the prints. But the wealthy can afford the rare stuff, the originals, and there will very much be the wealthy. The artist in question will be one of them. Lack of a concept of money just makes it harder to tax.To the state, artists WOULD BE very significant contributors. Of course she is contributing to the well being of others. People LOVE art. Why is her work in so much demand, if it does not contribute to peoples well-being???
Seriously? Because it commands a price. She can trade it for other luxuries that are not included in the package available to everybody.Why would she put her 'original' paintings on to a barter market?
So do I. Did I say otherwise? OK, a luxury life does not imply a happy person. One of the best way to ruin your happiness and relations with everybody you know is to win a major lottery. The stats on that are very consistent. But a lottery winner is very different from somebody who earned the same amount.I think the artist you describe would be happy living under the system I am proposing.
I suspect the future for the personal vehicle (let alone a flying one) is doomed. Transportation in any sufficiently dense population is best done by mass transit. I’ve been in the places where many people don’t own cars since everything can be reached via bus, subway, intercity trains, boats, etc. Most of the personal transportation might be limited to bicycles. It’s too rural where I live to do that, but that raises the problem where many want to live in a scenic place like the mountains, but do work more suited to an urban setting. That makes for a lot of resources wasted on commuting, even if it is a mass commute.Every one will get 'one' of what they need for free, a house, a flying auto drive car, a home/mobile com system, a fridge freezer, home seating...
The singularity in question has nothing to do with one’s mind.*2. How to prepare our minds for the information singularity?
Information singularity – what is it and why is it dangerous — Gnomon
It also has nothing to do with world-creating. Planet Earth will be the same planet afterwards.But the philosophical implications of a world-creating, Singularity preceding the existence of our physical world, are of interest to me.
I could not understand that bit at all. It doesn’t involve an explosion, but it does involve growth of capability possibly going more exponential than the somewhat more linear growth seen today. That growth might not be so exponential since we seem to already be pushing the limits of Moore’s law.the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. — ucarr
You’re speaking of a mathematical singularity here, where certain laws of physics become meaningless when denominators go to zero and such. The information singularity is nothing like that. It’s kind of like one vehicle passing another on the highway. Now there’s a new one in the lead is all.The big bang singularity for me has different properties than the singularity which is proposed to be at the centre of every black hole, for example. — universeness
Funny, but I don’t see that as scary. I see that as a destiny fulfilled. Yes, all the species that were our ancestors but are now extinct have effected their own obsolescence by breeding something more fit. Superior as you put it. I suppose it sucked in a way for the species now extinct, but I see it as a success.The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr
That’s probably the best analogy I saw in the posts. The I-S is like that, a sort of critical mass that results in something self-sustaining like an atomic pile (or a meltdown), but not so over-critical that it explodes like a bomb.The intriguing part, according to my speculation, concerns the parallel of matter reaching critical mass just prior to radioactivity with elementary particle formation and likewise information reaching critical mass just prior to gnostic "radioactivity" with elementary knowledge formation. — ucarr
I know this was a reply to Athena but it applies to me as well. In my case, while deeply pessimistic about human existence, I'm cautiously optimistic about post-human intelligence (whether or not it's an extinction event for us).You have always displayed a rather pessimistic viewpoint for the future of the human race, and I have always, and will always, disagree with that aspect of your current world view. — universeness
:cool:I would prefer homo nova to homo superior — universeness
You must have missed this (below) from that old thread ...... you didn't offer your personal interpretation of the final scene you posted above ... — universeness
I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown ...
When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"? — 180 Proof
I imagine the Monolith is (for our species) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ... — 180 Proof
The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr
Funny, but I don’t see that as scary. I see that as a destiny fulfilled. Yes, all the species that were our ancestors but are now extinct have effected their own obsolescence by breeding something more fit. Superior as you put it. I suppose it sucked in a way for the species now extinct, but I see it as a success. — noAxioms
BTW, the notion of Artificial Super Intelligence could be construed as a god-posit, except that it emerges from within Nature, instead of creating Nature. — Gnomon
My information-based "god-posit" is conceptually similar except for the direction of emergence. — Gnomon
Yes, it is, but your bracketed 'conjecture' is imbalanced. Moore's law has proven to be accurate so far.ASI is a prediction (conjecture) based on the current trajectory of Information Technology. — Gnomon
Right back at you! What to you is a deity?Apparently, you are not familiar with the history of Deism — Gnomon
From where in the accurate definitions of deity and deism above, do you 'magic' your notion that deism is not theism and is not synonymous with religion? Deism rejects the BS biblical 'revelation.' It merely asserts that your deity has never communicated with its creation (us!) :roll: Who cares? YOU connected YOUR enformer with deism which means YOU labelled it a deity. All you have done since then, is try to struggle out of those manacles you placed on yourself by trying to redefine deism. Why you choose to cosplay as a theist/deist, whilst denying your dalliances with it, is just bizarre behaviour imo.It was a rejection of biblical Theism. Instead, it proposed rational acceptance of the logical necessity for a non-religious philosophical First Cause principle (Cause + Laws), with the Potential for manifesting all aspects of Nature, including Physical (material) & Metaphysical (mental).*4 To this day, scientists have found no reasonable alternative to explain how Mind could emerge from Matter.*5 — Gnomon
I assign more credence to CCC at the moment, mainly because the physics/cosmology community has not came up with convincing counter evidence against Roger Penrose's (and his team's) 'Hawking points,' evidence, which is supported by the Wmap data and the Planck data.Which of those models do you find satisfactory explanations for the contingent existence of our world? — Gnomon
You seem to be deliberately avoiding the analogy, which is everybody on a train trestle (or tunnel) with nowhere to stand with a train present. The people cannot get out of the way, but they can slow/stop the train, but not trivially. But most (the optimists at least) assume the train will stop by itself or somebody else will do it. The pessimists know nobody else will do it, but even they don’t really have any good suggestions for preventing the train from arriving. There’s nothing nefarious going on (except perhaps those profiting from speeding up the train). The train is of the making of the very people on the tracks. — noAxioms
Soon automated, hopefully, same for all such tedious jobs.How about just the person running a paper-pushing position at say a local doctor’s office. — noAxioms
This can be enough for some folks, as long as they can also pursue other things that interest them significantly.Yes, you can get the boost from doing something needing doing, being amazing about it in the eyes of others is a stretch. Respectable, sure. — noAxioms
I know several businesses locally that permanently have help-wanted signs outside because they scare away employees faster than they attract them. Imagine that situation without the incentive of getting anything (event he ego boost) for your efforts. — noAxioms
Pro-life and bodily autonomy arguments and issues like it, will no doubt persist for a long time yet. Advances in transhumanism will have a major effect on such debates in the future, as transhumanism affects human robustness and longevity, more and more.How about somebody working at an abortion clinic (doctor or staff)? Those people provide an essential service and yet get far more disapproval from others than otherwise. — noAxioms
Well, I have already stated that the main consequence of behaving as you suggest, in the quote above, is 'social status' based. You would have to suffer the non-violent, social disdain of the majority of the population. I would name and shame. eg, 'Jimmy Smith of ....... address, refuses to spend 1 day a week helping to ...... and do ........ He is provided with everything he needs. He enjoys painting and going to music events and he is a member of a local debating society and he ...... blah, blah.I’m speaking of those in a first world country that actively decide not to contribute. There’s a significant number of them. In the country with the hut, somebody making a choice like that would just starve. You’re describing a global first world situtation, so your comparisons shouldn’t reach for the opposite end of that spectrum. — noAxioms
I think the proxy war between the west and Russia in Ukraine will prove pivotal. China will be severely affected as well. Either war will destroy us all or it will eventually unite us all, as it has since we came out of the wilds. Two tribes go to war and either one conquers the other of they make peace by uniting. Either way, two tribes become one. From chaos comes order. Sometimes we can unite without having to go through a war first. I would far prefer that route. Uniting as a global species, because it makes sense to do so. I believe global unity and world government is inevitable but I don't know the time scale. I do agree with the pessimists that our extinction is the alternative.How do you propose to move from how it is now to a unified thing? — noAxioms
Trying to figure out if/where the sarcasm kicks in. Yes, many people love art. Those guys get the prints. But the wealthy can afford the rare stuff, the originals, and there will very much be the wealthy. The artist in question will be one of them. Lack of a concept of money just makes it harder to tax. — noAxioms
Glad you agree! Yeah, a lottery win can be a death sentence for many.I think the artist you describe would be happy living under the system I am proposing.
So do I. Did I say otherwise? OK, a luxury life does not imply a happy person. One of the best way to ruin your happiness and relations with everybody you know is to win a major lottery. The stats on that are very consistent. But a lottery winner is very different from somebody who earned the same amount.
For the record, I consider lotteries to be a stupid-tax: A tax that’s completely optional, to be paid only by stupid people. — noAxioms
I suspect the future for the personal vehicle (let alone a flying one) is doomed. Transportation in any sufficiently dense population is best done by mass transit. I’ve been in the places where many people don’t own cars since everything can be reached via bus, subway, intercity trains, boats, etc. Most of the personal transportation might be limited to bicycles. It’s too rural where I live to do that, but that raises the problem where many want to live in a scenic place like the mountains, but do work more suited to an urban setting. That makes for a lot of resources wasted on commuting, even if it is a mass commute.
There will be small vehicles, like a service van for the plumber and such. — noAxioms
Yes, I know.You’re speaking of a mathematical singularity here, where certain laws of physics become meaningless when denominators go to zero and such. — noAxioms
I know, that's why I typedThe information singularity is nothing like that. It’s kind of like one vehicle passing another on the highway. Now there’s a new one in the lead is all. — noAxioms
andThe moment of a 'technological' or 'information' singularity has some different properties again, compared to the big bang or black hole singularities. — universeness
For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' — universeness
I know this was a reply to Athena but it applies to me as well. In my case, while deeply pessimistic about human existence, I'm cautiously optimistic about post-human intelligence (whether or not it's an extinction event for us). — 180 Proof
In a similar vein, my post-human (post-biomorphic) preference is nano sapien. — 180 Proof
No, I did read those entries again, but I didn't specifically relate what you typed in that thread, to the scene you posted on this one, but I will now:You must have missed this (below) from that old thread ... — 180 Proof
I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown ... — 180 Proof
So does this depict, for you, an 'ascendance' moment for the human, or a 'completion of purpose' moment for the human. Is the monolith making an equivalent style statement, to such as 'as you are now, so once was I, as I am now, so will you be, prepare yourself to follow me?When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"? — 180 Proof
Is this then imagery, of completing the circle, or perhaps even the cycle?I imagine the Monolith is (for our species) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ... — 180 Proof
So do you think the universe is, in the final analysis deterministic or not? Or is my general interpretations of your analysis of the final scene you posted and your typings, in Javi's thread, way off?"However vast the dar[k]ness, we must supply our own light". ~Stanley Kubrick — 180 Proof
Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded — Gnomon
Information is both physical (info=energy=matter) and metaphysical (meaning ; ideas ; math). — Gnomon
EnFormAction is my coinage for the Generic Information responsible for the formation of every objective Thing and every subjective Form that evolved from the initial Singularity. — Gnomon
I use that term primarily for its original meaning "adjunct to physics". — Gnomon
...mine [worldview] is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). — Gnomon
You count yourself a logician primarily? — ucarr
No. I'm just an amateur philosopher presenting a non-academic thesis... — Gnomon
Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions — Gnomon
Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source? — ucarr
No. My Singularity is a meta-physical philosophical concept, not a scientific conjecture. — Gnomon
Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries. — ucarr
The boundaries I referred to are Space & Time, which are not physical fences. — Gnomon
Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded..." its assumed that he was talking about the physical shape of the universe as a sphere, not as extending into infinity. — Gnomon
Can you help the blind without becoming blind yourself Athena? — universeness
EnFormAction is envisioned somewhat like a computer program processing Information (matter & energy) in order to produce the phenomena that we interpret as Reality. Regarding the perceptive GUI analogy, I'll simply refer you to Donald Hoffman's counterintuitive notion of our mental interpretation of sensory inputs as, not Reality per se, but an "interface" for the underlying ding an sich. :nerd:So, attempting an analogy here, is it that enformaction is like computer code, and information is like the GUI we see on the computer screen? — ucarr
As Kant argued, our physical senses detect abstract information (similar to dots & dashes of Morse code) which our minds interpret into the imaginary models that we accept intuitively as Reality. Deacon updated that physical/metaphysical distinction with a modern computer interface analogy. But the notion that our Ideal mental models are the only Reality we have access to, is anathema to Materialists & Realists. For them, any reference to "Metaphysics" betrays a religious commitment. And I suspect that various worldwide religious notions of a hidden or parallel reality (or spirit realm) may derive from a vague pre-scientific grasp of the fact that : what you see Physically ain't necessarily what-is Ontologically. If, by "semi-metaphysicality" you mean a blend of physical & metaphysical worldviews, I suppose that describes the Hylomorphism of Aristotle. :brow:So, from what I conjecture from your two above quotes, physicality extends all the way into the metaphysical ground of existence; this one can claim since both information and enformaction interface the physical_cognitive? Does this possibility suggest semi-metaphysicality instead of metaphysicality? — ucarr
I don't remember saying that the worldview is "fundamentally inferential" in so many words, but I suppose that's true. But then, what is "reasoning" if not the practice of Inference? Maybe what you meant was "imaginary". If so, no. Although imagination is necessary to see anybody's mental model of the world. :nerd:Well, you say your worldview is fundamentally inferential so... your conclusions are not reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning? — ucarr
Yes, but I didn't realize the full meaning of that expression until years later, when I read an article on Quantum Physics in which the author exclaimed in reference to wave/particles, "it's all information, nothing but information" I suspect that Wheeler's postulate was ignored by pragmatic physicists, who gave-up trying to understand the meaning of quantum weirdness, and decided to just "shut-up and calculate". Similar unorthodox expressions by quantum pioneers (e.g. Bohr & Heisenberg), were ridiculed as Eastern religious beliefs. But what all those weird notions have in common is Holism, which was originally a scientific concept that was later adopted by New Agers. :cool:Is it correct to say the essence of your enformaction theorem is Wheeler's It-From-Bit idea? — ucarr
No, a dimensionless Singularity is a mathematical (cognitive) definition, not a physical object. If the Singularity was a physical container, it would have compressed all the matter in the universe into a dimensionless dot. An infinity-to-one compression ratio.Is it correct to say your Singularity has components both physical and cognitive? — ucarr
For Einstein, the curvature of non-physical space was a mathematical (geometrical) concept, not intended to be taken literally. Yet, it's now a stock gimmick of sci-fi stories. Likewise, the "fabric" of spacetime is a metaphorical analogy, not an invisible kind of cloth. Can you stick yourself on the point of a geometric triangle? :joke:Spacetime within the context of Relativity is most assuredly physical. General relativity, being the geometric theory of gravitation -- including warpage of spacetime -- makes the case for this.
How can you justify your above claim in light of this? — ucarr
No, according to Einstein, the universe, like a spherical surface (no innards), is unbounded. By contrast, a cube is bounded by edges. :wink:I'm thinking the above statements contain a thicket of issues: a sphere, by definition, has boundaries (every point on its surface is equidistant from its center). More generally, a shape, by definition, has boundaries. Finally, if a physical object doesn't extend indefinitely, it has a shape. Do you think otherwise? — ucarr
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.