The context of the ‘granting wishes’ phrase is the Cryonic one, not extending a normal life for a human. And in either case, one will be forced to come to terms with one’s own death. — noAxioms

You seem reluctant to find empathy for desperate people who do desperate things and understand why cryonics has it's adherents. I think it probably is a forlorn hope, just like theism, but I don't utterly condemn desperate people hoping against hope. Like the ancient Egyptians, bothering to embalm dead people.

Well I see plenty for the individual of course, but I thought the subject of this topic wasn’t the individual. We’d have to eliminate aging, meaning that we’d stay young and fit for a long time. Last thing we need is 80% of the population in some kind of retired state. If we do that, we have to do it to everybody, and that’s kind of a problem with a large population. This would be a disadvantage for the species. There’s a reason evolution invented aging. — noAxioms

The global population is made up of individuals! Anything that happens to an individual has the potential to affect everyone. The subject of this topic is what is 'emergent' in humans. I am interested in what is ultimately emergent in all humans, yes, or future humanity, as it might manifest collectively, or as a totality, but that must be a collective/totality which begins by consideration of what is emergent is each person, individually, to consider if such are just variations on themes with underlying commonalities.
The aging process is very much under current scrutiny. There are many studies on such as telomeres etc.

The extraterrestrial habitats are jails at best. If you want to put people in a box, it’s easier to do it here. If you want people to actually live on another world, they need to be evolved for that world. They cannot be human. There’s no planet B. — noAxioms

I was able to link to the article on first click. It seemed quite desperate to repeat the 'there is no planet B' mantra, but I did not find it's offerings of why 'it's too hard or impossible,' for any future human attempts to become extraterrestial to succeed, off putting. All human pioneers live rough for a while. Perhaps in space exploration and development, it will be a long, long while before we are able to create the kind of lovely habitats we have on Earth, in space habitats, or on habitats on other planets, moons etc. BUT WE WILL, despite your big fearty, doomster type, exemplars, of what we cant do and why we cant do it.
I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'

then we can afford a population much bigger than the current 8 billion on Earth.
You say that like it’s some kind of benefit that a bigger number is better. — noAxioms

I say so, in the same way natural selection evidence suggests that reproduction, is a survival of species imperative. If there are more of us existing in many extraterrestial places, then we are less dependent on the Earths continued existence for survival. Seems like common sense to me.
Annihilating 8 billion of us, might be survivable in the future, if there are 50 billion of us all over the solar system. I do agree that a large global population is an issue when we have such vile economic systems as capitalism and vile political systems such as autocracy or plutocracy as our mainstream operating systems, for 'how humans are allowed to live.' But many are ever trying to change that and I believe they will NEVER desist until they succeed.

Longer life doesn’t make one smarter. A little more wise maybe, but not more intelligent. You can breed for intelligence if you like (something that is currently being naturally de-selected), but again, by your analogy of re-inventing the wheel, why do we need more intelligence when the tool already exists? — noAxioms

Not more intelligent but more knowledgeable and if this is accompanied with what you yourself suggest is true, 'a little more wise maybe,' or perhaps for many, 'a lot more wise,' then I think we will progress faster and in more benevolent directions. A higher level of general intellect is not a reinvention as it would be an advance. It's not 'more intelligence' as you are employing the term, it's either folks who don't demonstrate much intelligence, learning how to demonstrate 'more intelligence' or it's intelligent people gaining a higher level of intelligence via more knowledge via having more time to study! Nothing is being 'reinvented,' in either situation.

If there is some kind of purpose served by maxing out the number of humans that exist, trimming the population permanently down to around 6% of what is is today would be a great start. Less existing at once, but far more in the longer run. — noAxioms

:lol: Yeah, there are many autocrats/plutocrats/totalitarians or even theists, who believe in BS like the rapture, etc, etc who would support your trimming of the population down to 6%. All hail Ebenezer!


I think it's more important to create equitable social/economic/political ways to live,
This planet COULD sustain 8 billion of us, if we adequately redistributed wealth and employed control over the means of production, distribution and exchange which benefitted all, instead of a mostly nefarious, few, and we could achieve this, without destroying the planet but I fully admit, that we can't sustain an ever increasing population, without developing extraterrestial resources and living space.

Or better, to help the tech become that interstellar species. If you want humanity to make its mark on the universe, that is how to go about it. — noAxioms

I think it's likely that 'all of the above' style attempts will be made before we find out which methods of space exploration and development are the most successful based on whatever tech levels we have achieved at the time.

Yea, what are humans good for if we can’t change the laws of physics? So put that on your list and jettison the VR thing which is just a fancy telephone. — noAxioms

We can't change the laws of physics but we can learn more physics and start to know, as you do, that there are different laws of physics for the macro and the sub atomic. Classical physics laws and quantum physics laws, and the search for the physics that encompassed them both, is still for the seekers. I certainly would not be so short sighted as to jettison, in anyway, shape of form, the very exciting and wonderful areas of VR, AR and holotech. A current mobile smartphone would not even deserve the dismissive term 'fancy telephone,' as it is obviously a palmtop/handheld computer and the connection to the technology called 'phone,' should have been dropped years ago.
You can hardly buy any device nowadays, that can be accurately labelled mobile phone (as that function is only one of it's many functions.) They have been palmtop computers for quite a while.

Either you’re misreading his words, or he’s a quack. If his assertions actually said that and had merit, it would be huge news in the physics world. All of Einstein’s theories would get falsified and we’d have to reinvent a new theory to replace it. Time travel would become possible since I could observe something that hasn’t yet happened.
Sorry for all that, but perhaps a quote that leads you to this conclusion would help. It was a long vid to attempt to hunt down something I don’t think he said. If I had a quote, I could help interpret it since I’m not a total noob at this. I spend more time on the physics forums, and am a moderator at one of them. — noAxioms

Firstly, it seems I have the spelling of his first name wrong and its Leonard Susskind. He is certainly no quack and is held in very high regard indeed, within the Physics community.
I have now watched the video I posted twice and probably will many times more. Under an hour is a very small price to pay and is worth every second. Here are some quotes from it that might wet your appetite towards watching it:

1. Ads/cft (anti-de sitter / conformal field theory)
Gravity is the hydrodynamics of entanglement.
2. As soon as reliable quantum computers become available, entanglement can be studied much more successfully in low energy lab environments.
3. Quantum mechanically, an Einstein-Rosen bridge can be explored, it's properties studied and reported on.
4. Messages can be securely transmitted from the vicinity of one object to the vicinity of the other, without leaving any trace in the laboratory space between. Teleportation through the wormhole, 'so to speak.' This is not possible classically.

He then goes on to exemplify 4, in a 'simple quantum teleportability' thought experiment, using an Alice and Bob type scenario involving qbits. As this developed, and due to stuff he states later on in the lecture, I began to think that, he was suggesting that superluminal communication, may not be impossible. But perhaps I misunderstood some of what he was saying, and you could perhaps identify my misinterpretations, if you listened to the lecture. I am willing to do this via PM's or via a new thread titled 'Leonard Susskind's lecture on debunking quantum gravity.' If you like, and even if the mods decide to chuck such a thread into the lounge or somewhere else.

That’s like you and me picking a random number from one to 10 million, and both of us guessing the same one. Odds are they’re either as developed as lichen, or we are the lichen in comparison to them. Neither might recognize the other as life, or at least not as something one might attempt to communicate with. Do we share our technology with the squirrels? The squirrels have picked a number insanely close to ours, but not the same number. — noAxioms

Spacefarers could meet, who have similar tech levels. I agree that if they can visit us and we cant visit them, then the tech comparison, probably will be like comparing lichen to us. Carl Sagan stated often that in that case, there would be no Star Wars, as there would be no competition.
So, two planets, far from each other, that developed life/intelligent life/technology at a similar pace, who meet somewhere out there!
What are the chances? Probably something similar to the chances of any sentient life forming anywhere in the universe. But we know that has happened at least once on this planet, so who knows for sure?

See? Time to first change who we are before we spread out and just make enemies of our colonies. Most every attack is justified as defense to its own people. Ever read up on what the Russians are telling its citizens about the Ukraine thing? Remember Bush and Iraq’s WMDs? “We’re doing this for defense”, not just to get back at somebody who insulted his daddy. — noAxioms

But we know not to accept such justifications, just like you refuse to accept the attempted justifications made by Putin or Bush. Just like I didn't accept the justifications of Blair in the UK for the WMD BS, regarding Iraq. Hopefully more and more of we will get better and better at not accepting fake news in the future. A good goal for all of us, agree?

If physics is perfectly deterministic and unitary, then yes, the omnipotent entity would know exactly that. But physics might not be all those things, in which case there’s no right answer to know. — noAxioms

No right answer to know, surely suggests an invalid or currently unanswerable question or a question that can only be answered via unscientific conjecture, but so what? That's been true from the beginning, and is the basis of all theism and theosophism. It's also why, I type that there is no omniscient existent and there never has been or will be. I don't mind the 'fantasist,' I can wear that hat comfortably for fun, just like anyone else, but unlike the theist. I will try my best to make clear the evidence available (or lack of) for any posit I make.
If it's just my opinion, then I will say so. You do the same, yes?

You are trying to contemplate an omniscient god with your feeble human intellect.
How so? A thing that knows all answers vs a question that literally has no right answer. Even a feeble intellect can detect something wrong with that. — noAxioms

I am merely echoing the claims of theism. My conclusion is the same as yours, that no omniscient exists. I have merely further stated that if such terms have any use at all, it is a use of no more value than me being determined to win the 100 meters at the Olympics. I can at best asymptotically aspire to such and by doing so I might improve my fitness level but I will never reach that goal.
For me, that's a reality of a 'closed system.' If I was given secret tech help then maybe I could run faster than Usain Bolt over 100 meters. But I agree that no matter what tech humans develop in the future, they will never become omniscient. They can still aspire to it!

An omniscient has all possible tech or else it is not omniscient.
Omnigod does not need a barometer, as it already owns all data/information in the universe, past, present and future.
The two above statements seem to contradict each other. You apparently suggest that a god has a closet full of completely unneeded stuff. He’s a hoarder, unable to keep the place neat.
All possible tech already exists as part of omnigod
So it doesn’t have a useless barometer in it’s closet, but rather has a useless barometer as part of itself, sort of like having eyes despite never using them. A human apparently strives to achieve a state where eyes and other senses are useless. — noAxioms

No, I am simply trying to 'qualify' and 'quantify' the omniscient god hypothesis. A flippant steelmanning if you like. The tech that the posited omnigod has, is manifest as god functionality, yes. Many theists anthropomorphise god imagery, many don't. Most pantheists don't and even many panentheists don't, and then we have the panpsychists and cosmopsychists etc. I don't really care how a person personifies an omnigod and whether or not they posit such as an eternal, or as an emergent, but I think we should completely reject all of them for now, and focus on who we are as a species and what we want for our future, if we assume, or we are convinced, we have one. I do give credence to the idea of an emerging collective 'knowledge base' that humans have been building on, since we came out of the wilds and I notice that it is growing in very tangible and demonstrable ways and I muse on running that forward, for a few million or billion years, to 'philosophically' (with perhaps a little science projection thrown in,) consider the 'ultimate' consequence of such a growing knowledge base.

Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural.
— universeness
I appreciate your willingness to engage in philosophical dialog, even though my posts may express a worldview that at first glance appears to violate your personal belief system. — Gnomon

I will respond to this post tomorrow Gnomon as I don't have enough time to respond to it as I would want to, as It's now 4:20pm here and I am only 10 mins away from hearing the command of my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky experience. Have a good night!

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? What is emergent is never to be found in the stuff it issues forth from e.g. chemistry is not sufficient to explain biology and the same should apply to posthumans. What comes out of humans is, so, unlikely to be (greater) intelligence, but something else entirely, which to my reckoning is, at present, beyond our event horizon.

what is your enformation fundamental? — universeness

Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind*1. So, the "fundamental" element of Information is Difference*2*3. You are talking in terms of Physics (e.g. Matter ; Particles ; Objective), while I'm talking about Meta-physics (e.g. Mind ; Meaning ; Subjective). :smile:

*1. Someone once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your lab?". He silently held up a pencil. Albert was a theoretical scientist, a philosopher who focused his razor sharp mind on abstractions (e.g. Energy) that can't be seen under a microscope or dissected with a razor-sharp blade.

*2. Difference is a key concept of philosophy, denoting the process or set of properties by which one entity is distinguished from another within a relational field or a given conceptual system. ___Wikipedia

*3. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences".So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Atoms of knowledge & meaning are invisible bits (binary distinctions) of Information. Those bits are mathematical relationships (ratios : rational) that add-up to bytes, then to concepts, then to personal meanings : relationship to self. If that sounds like religious dogma to you, then our worldviews & vocabularies are incompatible or immutual.

GENERAL COMMENTARY

A. Physical Science has no need for metaphysical gods & spirits. But, scientists use different names for similar concepts. Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology.

B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. Some religious believers would agree that their infinite-eternal creator-god is not immanent in the space-time creation. In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events. Another way to explain away the sudden emergence of Something (our everything) from Nothing (ultimate set) is to use the mathematical vocabulary of an "empty set", or "vacuum energy", to avoid the implication of ex nihilo by "divine fiat". Same notion, different words.

C. In order to explicate the Enformationism thesis, I have developed my own alternative philosophical vocabulary, intended to avoid the doctrinal presumptions of both religious and scientific language. Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!"

BothAnd Blog Glossary : https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Note -- this list of Enformationism terminology is out-of-date, because the science of Information (and my understanding) is progressing so rapidly.

my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky — universeness

:yum: Cheers.

:chin:
Matter constrains life ...
Life constrains intelligence ...
Intelligence constrains transcension (formerly from 1938, "ephemeralization")?

Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology. — Gnomon

:sweat: :lol: :rofl:

Please refute ...

postscript:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676 Yeah, it's déjà vu all over again. :smirk: — 180 Proof

(link to post that loads slowly)

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith

The yardstick should be chosen to suit the object to be measured. If we are discussing the evolution of physical/material stuff of the Earth, a physical instrument would be appropriate. But the topic of this thread -- 'information/technological singularity" -- is about Cultural/Technical evolution. So the proper way to measure such a not-yet-real future state of human ingenuity would be to apply the philosophical tool of Reason, which seems to be directly related to Intelligence, n'est-ce pas?

The topical question is about "credence", not substance. So, on what basis would you believe a description of some projected event that has not yet come to pass? Some thinkers seem to take it on faith, in human intelligence/ingenuity, that a techno-utopia will eventually come to pass. Personally, unlike some philosophical pessimists, I agree that cultural evolution -- both ethical & technical -- is generally progressing in a positive direction. But my notion of Utopia is different from that of Vernor Vinge and Ray Kutzweil.

As an amateur philosopher, I'm more inclined toward the information-systems interpretation of progress, than the technology-faith scenario. Yet I remain agnostic about the teleological or teleonomic destiny of the world. So, my Enformationism graph of Hegelian progress (not to scale) ends with a question mark. :smile:



Note -- The Hegelian ups & downs are smoothed-out at this cosmic scale. From our local earth-scale perspective the up-jumps & set-backs may appear like like a chain of mountains.

I think [Cryonics] probably is a forlorn hope, just like theism — universeness

Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. On the other hand, plenty of lives are lost to theism, so go figure.
I’m trying to concentrate on the emergence, what humanity might become or where it might go. Preserving people seconds from death doesn’t seem to play a significant role in that.

The global population is made up of individuals! Anything that happens to an individual has the potential to affect everyone.

No doubt. A group of people split into life-expectancies of 70 and 200 won’t cause any trouble at all.

The subject of this topic is what is 'emergent' in humans. I am interested in what is ultimately emergent in all humans, yes, or future humanity as it might manifest collectively or as a totality

Nice summary, thanks. I have suggested that what is emergent in humans will not be human. To resist this is to waste our potential.

I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'

I say that too, but I also say it’s a lot easier to fit the creature to the environment than the other way around. Be its friend instead of making yourself its enemy.

I say that in the same way natural selection evidence suggests that reproduction, is a survival of a species imperative. — universeness

But not out-of-control reproduction. When I moved to this new place, there was a frog plague going on. Frogs everywhere. What good did it do them? Some months later they were all gone, populations back to (or even somewhat beneath) normal levels and it was easier to stop at the intersections again.

If there are more of us existing in many extraterrestial places, the we are less dependent on the Earths' continued existence for survival. Seems like common sense to me.

Ah, so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. That might be better served with the 95% population reduction and learning to get along with each other. If we can get through the collapse without extinction, it may actually sustain itself going forward. Hence my vision of the world in 1000 years in some prior post. Imagine a world with people but almost no metal.

when we have such vile economic systems as capitalism and vile political systems such as autocracy or plutocracy as our mainstream operating system for 'how humans are allowed to live.'

Got suggestions? I’m actually quite interested in ideas for a stable government system that doesn’t depend on the whole system of the poor being slaves to the rich. I don’t much know what I’m talking about here, so my views might be quite naive.

It's not 'more intelligence' as it's either folks who don't demonstrate much intelligence, learning how to demonstrate more intelligence or it's intelligent people gaining a higher level of intelligence via more time to study!

Studying doesn’t increase intelligence. But agree with the rest.

lol: Yeah, there are many autocrats/plutocrats/totalitarians/theists who believe in BS like the rapture, etc, etc who would support your trimming of the population down to 6%.

First of all, the theists have a lot to do with encouraging overpopulation. The Catholics consider it a sin to not breed like bunnies. Their moral code forbids the very steps that would save humanity, perhaps as a way to eventually force God’s hand, like he’s got to step in before the crash. As for the rapture, I think most of its adherents would suggests a figure like 1-2% disappearing, not 94%.

I think it's more important to create equitable social/economic/political ways to live

Not while the pope lives...

This planet COULD sustain 8 billion of us

Sorry, but no. If we’re not putting back what we dig out of the ground, then it is mathematically unsustainable. Playing nice with each other (sharing all the world – Lennon) is probably the worst strategy because everybody dies simultaneously, or you didn’t do it right.
Work out what needs to be done without the non-renewables, then do the calculation of how many can be sustained. I know, you label me a doomster, but you seem to have no answer to this simple thing except hope that the magic will continue and fuel from the ground never ends.

I think it's likely that 'all of the above' style attempts will be made before we find out which methods of space exploration and development are the most successful based on whatever tech levels we have achieved at the time.

How to do an interstellar colony: Build a smart ship that can do everything. Bring DNA with you. Take 100000 years to get somewhere, perhaps refueling if it doesn’t seem workable at close inspection. If it passes, introduce simple life, and then direct it just like at the teleological theorist posit. In perhaps less time than it took to get there, you have your life on the new place. Some of them might even be intelligent, especially if the advances are being directed. Un-natural selection. Point is, it’s a lot cheaper by many orders of magnitude than ferrying a small number of colonists from Earth and then telling them the won’t be a hospitable environment for them yet, or maybe ever except in this little box it made for them, which they’re used to since being stuck on a ship is all they know.

We can't change the laws of physics but we can learn more physics and start to know, as you do, that there are different laws of physics for the macro and the sub atomic. Classical physics laws and quantum physics laws, and the search for the physics that encompassed them both, is still for the seekers.

Classical physics is a function of the more fundamental quantum physics. They’re not separate branches of some yet to be discovered encompassing thing. QM encompasses classical physics just like relativity encompasses Newtonian mechanics.

I certainly would not be so short sighted as to jettison, in anyway, shape of form the very exciting and wonderful areas of VR, AR and holotech. A current mobile smartphone would not even deserve the dismissive term 'fancy telephone,' as it is obviously a palmtop/handheld computer and the connection to the technology called 'phone,' should have been dropped years ago.

No argument except that it has little to do with the topic. Yea, we have an information device that’s always with us. Nobody say how that would revolutionize everything, including revolutionizing the whole concept of truth.

Firstly, it seems I have the spelling of his first name wrong and its Leonard Susskind. — universeness

Well there you go. Had you spelled it right, I would have accepted his reported assertions.

He is certainly no quack and is held in very high regard indeed, within the Physics community.

So I suspect, so I’m actually going with you not actually interpreting his comments the way they were meant.

1. Ads/cft (anti-de sitter / conformal field theory)
Gravity is the hydrodynamics of entanglement.

CFT is Penrose’s thing, no? No wait, that’s conformal cyclic cosmology.=

4. Messages can be securely transmitted from the vicinity of one object to the vicinity of the other, without leaving any trace in the laboratory space between. Teleportation through the wormhole, 'so to speak.' This is not possible classically.

This is done today, but it’s not anything faster than light. Points 2 and 3 seem to just be suggested areas of exploration.
Perhaps this is what you meant by “he proposes that manipulation of quantum entanglement may indeed mean we can observe and measure what going on at large distances without any 'signal travelling involved”.
OK, this may be some weird kind of security thing, but not a faster-than-light claim. It doesn’t look like a claim of ‘do something to one end and the other entangled end is ‘immediately’ affected’ that I took it for. I’ll withdrawn the declaration of ‘bunk’ for now. But really, a security feature isn’t exactly going to make interstellar exploration more possible. There’s no reason for the communications to not be open.

He then goes on to exemplify 4, in a 'simple quantum teleportability' thought experiment, using an Alice and Bob type scenario involving qbits. As this developed, and due to stuff he states later on in the lecture, I began to think that, he was suggesting that superluminal communication, may not be impossible.

OK, that’s the part I balk at. Got a time stamp where he goes into that? Sorry, but an hour is a lot to me right now.

Spacefarers could meet, who have similar tech levels. — universeness

Not buying it. Utterly improbable odds.

Carl Sagan stated often that in that case, there would be no Star Wars, as there would be no competition.

Star wars happen between two worlds both populated by us. That puts us both more or less at the same tech level. Another reason not to branch out to new worlds until you breed a less war-like creature to populate it.

What are the chances?

We’ve been technological for perhaps 3 centuries out of 1.5e8 centuries, so the odds are something on the order of a 1 in 7-8 digit number. Maybe 1 in 5-6 digits to find something to which you can communicate.
Intelligence has a marker and there’s only two species on earth that has it. The marker is menopause, an adaptation that only benefits intelligent races. The other species is the killer whale. Why don’t we try to communicate with them? Odds are they’re the most intelligent non-human thing out there. So suppose we get to the alien world and find the equivalent of killer whales. We have our intelligent ET, but what would we do about it? Hard to talk. They’re not building space ships anytime soon. Are they to be afforded the same moral code as any intelligent species encountered?

Probably something similar to the chances of any sentient life forming anywhere in the universe.

Depending on your assumptions, the chances of that one is 1. The long-odds thing was meeting one at an equivalent level of development. It wouldn’t be clear who would win in a conflict.
The odds being 1, what role should humanity play that we can’t just leave to all those other guys on similar paths? Why does it have to be us? You’re the one positing the big purpose the universe has for us.

But we know not to accept such justifications

I did at the time. Only in hindsight was it made clear, and then only because the news is supposedly free. What will the Russians tell their people if they have to withdraw, or if they annex this country that did nothing to them? There’s a lot more media control there, but the people can still read news from other countries. I’m from the USA and find one of the best ways to get actual news is to consult something foreign like the BBC. Every supposedly legitimate domestic news source seems to attempt to spin each story one way or the other.

Hopefully more and more of we will get better and better at not accepting fake news in the future.

It’s getting far worse actually, mostly due to how people get their news today, which is by popularity picks by google or facebook or something. They push the stories that gather more clicks and not the ones that actually tell it like it is. Really, the social media thing has done more damage to general knowledge than anything I know. It isn’t just natural selection that’s making us dumber.
I don’t yet have a mobile phone. It’s coming, but dang, the things are pure evil.

No right answer to know, surely suggests an invalid or currently unanswerable question or a question that can only be answered via unscientific conjecture, but so what?

First of all, conjecture isn’t an answer, it’s just a guess. If there’s no answer to know, then the omni thing must simply say that: I can’t say what the weather will be 6 months hence, despite my omnipotence. That’s the truth, it’s right, and the people asking are simply wrong to assume that there must be (however unknowable by science) exactly one answer that’s actually correct. It isn’t a requirement of the omniscient entity to know the right answer when there isn’t one.

If it's just my opinion, then I will say so. You do the same, yes?

I try to frame my opinions differently than assertions, but I sometimes come across wrong.

My conclusion is the same as yours, that no omniscient exists.

Of course not, but besides the point. Is the positing of one even consistent? I don’t see why not. I don’t see a contradiction in the ‘no answer’ answer above.

I have merely further stated that if such terms have any use at all, it is a use of no more value than me being determined to win the 100 meters at the Olympics. I can at best asymptotically aspire to such and by doing so I might improve my fitness level but I will never reach that goal.

Didn’t you posit that all people are striving for this known unreachable goal? I didn’t agree with that. Sure, they maybe take steps to swim faster, but never with the goal of being the best really being a factor. Yes, they can aspire to it, but most probably don’t.

A flippant steelmanning if you like.

Had to look that one up. First I’ve heard it.

The tech that the posited omnigod has, is manifest as god functionality, yes.

Don’t understand. Why have a measuring device if the measurement is known before the measuring is done?
I had done a study on how creatures would have evolved in the world of luck where all quantum measurements occur by pure chance in the most beneficial way to the measurer. It evolved the sort of omni-thing you speak of. It knows everything, and thus also nothing since it doesn’t need to actually know anything. It doesn’t need eyes to find food because food is always right where it reaches every time. Eyes provide information, and this thing already has it all, so it doesn’t need more. I see similarities with that and what I’m describing based on your descriptions (if that makes any sense).

I think we should ... focus on who we are as a species and what we want for our future,

That’s what I’ve been saying that humans are particularly bad at. They focus on ‘my’ future, but little beyond that.
I mentioned finding a better political system, and one of the problems is the short term limits which tend to discourage efforts that reap benefits at a time beyond the term of the official. The current system all but destroys any long-term efforts concerning ‘our future’.

Most interesting — Ms. Marple

?

It is as I surmised - the cogntive singularity aka the technological singularity is beyond our event horizon i.e. we don't know what it is going to be (like).

A question: What exactly do we mean by technological singularity as in überintelligence?

A question: What exactly do we mean by technological singularity as in überintelligence? — Agent Smith

Consider the following quote from one of the first technoscientists – after von Neumann but before Vinge or Kurzweil – to run through the gedankenexperiment later called (the) Technological Singularity (aka "rapture of nerds"):

Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. — I. J. Good, (Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine) Advances in Computers, vol. 6, 1965.

:nerd: :up:

:rofl:

I've been wondering about the possibility of intelligence explosion. I've seen many students surpass their teachers for instance, but is that because the students were already more intelligent or were they made more intelligent by the teacher?

FWIW, I assure you that my BothAnd philosophy is not anti-science or pro-religion. However, it's also not pro-classical-science or anti-religious-philosophy. Instead, it views those contentious belief systems from a novel perspective, that may seem wrong-headed to those on one side or the other of the credence abyss. — Gnomon

This just leaves folks to assume neutral or anti, when you type not pro and pro when you suggest not anti. In science, the term 'novel,' just means 'new.' All together, I think the quote above is far too broad to be of much use to our discussion.

Since Enformationism does make philosophical inferences that go beyond the knowable origins of Nature though, you could be forgiven for categorizing those conjectures as "super-natural". Yet quite a few professional scientists have put-on their philosophical hats, and conjectured non-empirical notions (e.g. Multiverse ; Cosmic Inflation) about the time-before-Time, and the pre-Big-Bang nature of Nature. — Gnomon

I would not say that a multiverse theory is completely based on no empirical evidence and is a 'philosophical' viewpoint. Most modern multiverse theories have a empirical basis of 'superposition' and reference such as:
"Larger objects have been observed to have such inherently quantum properties, but the observation of Robens et al. is based on a stringent test, considered to be the gold standard for confirming that a superposition exists."
You would have to explain further what you mean by 'time before time.' If you are typing about the idea that inflation of the singularity happened before the start of the expansion, badly named, as the big bang then the inflation occurred after t=0 and did not happen in a time before time. Roger Penrose's CCC does suggest a cyclical universe based on time aeons but he also employs the empirical evidence of the existence of 'hawking points,' which are supported by both the data from the Wmap project, and the Planck project. Again, CCC, is not a purely philosophical hypothesis. Dark matter and dark energy are further examples of concepts that some may choose to label 'philosophical' or currently 'beyond the knowable origins of nature.' This just reinforces the point that we must be ever vigilant to make sure that gaps in scientific knowledge, does not allow any woo woo of the gaps, to be passed off, as valid contributions to possible scientific truth.

Remember, some of Einstein's colleagues cringed at his poetic references to God, but didn't attack him openly — Gnomon

Einstein had to work within an environment which had to contend with a much stronger theistic power and influence base, than scientists have to tolerate today. Any theistic dalliances Einstein felt compelled to employ in the public domain that existed then, was much less, than those that had to be employed by Copernicus or Galileo or the murdered Giordano Bruno. The influence of theism remains very pernicious but things are a little better now, than they were then.

I don't see what that question has to do with AGI —> ASI ...

:up:

I don't see what that question has to do with AGI —> ASI ... — 180 Proof

Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible , base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0, but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130 and the latter came from the former.

:roll:

For example, Emergentism is a feature of Holistic worldviews, which to detractors indicates an Anti-reductionism (hence anti-science) Oriental religious belief. But it is also held by several prominent Quantum scientists. Also, Reductionism is an appropriate method for dissecting physical objects, but not very effective for parsing philosophical concepts.
Emergentism :
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
Emergence :
Cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. — Gnomon

There is plenty of space for notions of reductionism and Emergentism to find common ground.
I think it's basic, that complexity emerges from fundamentals, no god required.
From Wiki:
Emergentism can be compatible with physicalism, the theory that the universe is composed exclusively of physical entities, and in particular with the evidence relating changes in the brain with changes in mental functioning.

I use the term "Spiritualism" in a provocative manner, to provide a strong contrast with "Materialism". Both are belief systems & worldviews that hark back to ancient Atomism and Animism.
Today, Quantum theory has pulled the materialistic rug out from under Atomism. And Einstein's equation of intangible Energy with measurable Mass/Matter, has given us a modern way to interpret the invisible causes of Nature. :cool: — Gnomon

You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. I don't relate to your 'rug pulling' imagery at all. There simply seems to be laws that only hold firm under macro conditions and others that only hold under quantum conditions. As a macro object, I certainly cant seem to pass through a wall like one of my quantum excitations (like a proton) seems to be able to do, via quantum tunneling.
No doubt, in time, we will discover the 'bridges' between classical and quantum physics which are rigorously scientific and in doing so, expunge any, let's say, fringe philosophical or 'silly' theological musings, on the subject.

Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith

I would not suggest that increases in individual intelligence or in the collective/totality of human intelligence, is THE 'yardstick' or the only important variable, when considering what is emergent in the human race, both as individuals and as a collective. Legacy may be as important and perhaps could be considered as having 'stand alone' properties. Our accumulating external knowledge base and our technological breakthroughs may also have stand alone aspects which are separate from human intellect, even though they are outputs of human intellectual efforts. I have witnessed some animals employ human tech for example. Increasing intellectual ability certainly is however, a very significant emergent, in humans. I think most neuroscientists would suggest that the ancients were intellectually, as capable as we are, but they could not unlock the potential of the application of human intellect, coupled with the increasing pace of learning, which is emerging from human scientific effort, demonstrated today.

Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind — Gnomon

Ok, that's fine, but you must expect, and accept, a higher level of critique than might be fired at the work and results of scientists working in labs. At the risk of offending any philosophy fundamentalists on TPF, I would suggest that scientific rigor will always be the final arbiter of philosophical musings.

A. Physical Science has no need for metaphysical gods & spirits. But, scientists use different names for similar concepts. Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology. — Gnomon

I think the 'but' above is nonsense. Theists love to conflate scientific terminology with concepts of the divine but most attempts are almost comedic. Inflation is not comparable with notions of a divine creation as no aspect of inflation requires a divine creator. Energy allows work to be done and I am fine if some folks wish to refer to 'movement' or 'work being done,' as animation or spiritual. In the Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual”
Breathing uses energy and animates your chest up and down. I am ok if you use the word spirit or spiritual, as Carl suggests you can.

B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. — Gnomon

Does something like Roger Penrose's CCC allay such need for a 'creation event,' or first cause or prime mover?

In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events — Gnomon

It's not metaphysical, as it's not beyond or after that which is physics. The big bang singularity maybe currently, a loosely defined object, but it is physical. Roger's singularity does not inflate, as it does not 'demonstrate' any aspect of 'size' or 'dimensionality.' It occurs after the process of heat death has occurred and the universe has no 'matter' left and all remaining black holes have radiated away, but it does have very large 'extent' but such 'extent' has no meaning at that point and can be called a singularity and time=0 and a new aeon begins.

Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!" — Gnomon

Yes, they will! It will ever be your burden to deal with that then until you can provide convincing empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.

my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky
— universeness
:yum: Cheers. — 180 Proof

Cheers! Twas a nice evening. Only me and my auld ma in the hoose, but It was still a good wee night.
I had two generous measures of a 16 year old Lagavulin, along with some beers.

Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. — noAxioms

Not sure what you mean by this? Example?

Preserving people seconds from death doesn’t seem to play a significant role in that. — noAxioms

Based on a BBC article:
Several hundred people have already paid to have their bodies cryogenically preserved in three existing facilities in the US and Russia, and there are as many as 1,250 on waiting lists.
A very small number of takers then and I agree they are unlikely to have a significant impact on 'what humans might become.'

I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'
I say that too, but I also say it’s a lot easier to fit the creature to the environment than the other way around. Be its friend instead of making yourself its enemy. — noAxioms

I have already stated that I think that 'all of the above will be attempted.' I am hardly therefore 'an enemy' of any idea for how best to develop and explore space.

But not out-of-control reproduction. When I moved to this new place, there was a frog plague going on. Frogs everywhere. What good did it do them? Some months later they were all gone, populations back to (or even somewhat beneath) normal levels and it was easier to stop at the intersections again. — noAxioms

It's a lot easier to control frogs that to control human population, especially when there is still so much poverty. The temptation to have a lot of children, as they can look after you when you can no longer look after yourself, is very strong, in a global society that is still mostly under the control of a nefarious elite.
We can just dispose of a currently existing excess human population. So, we can only continue to combat the consequences of the current power and status of the nefarious elite. Whilst we also try to educate people into understanding their current local circumstances and the folly of having children they and the government they live under are unable to, or are too corrupt to, or are to much under the influence of international interference to, support.

Ah, so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. — noAxioms

Both goals handshake imo, and I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.

Imagine a world with people but almost no metal. — noAxioms

No metal? Please explain!

Got suggestions? I’m actually quite interested in ideas for a stable government system that doesn’t depend on the whole system of the poor being slaves to the rich. I don’t much know what I’m talking about here, so my views might be quite naive. — noAxioms

I am a socialist and secular humanist who no longer sees value in party politics. I would remove money as the means of exchange and I currently support notions of global unity, world governance and a resource based economy such as that envisioned here in the Venus project:

:lol:

Studying doesn’t increase intelligence. But agree with the rest. — noAxioms

I am not suggesting we are more intelligent than the ancients or that we will be 'more intelligent' in the future, in that sense. I am saying that we have a legacy, knowledge base to work from that the ancients did not have and that knowledge base increases at an increasing pace for each new generation. So, our knowledge increases as a collective. This is another example of what is emergent in humans.

. As for the rapture, I think most of its adherents would suggests a figure like 1-2% disappearing, not 94% — noAxioms

Yeah but it's an 'end times' curio. Those who are not 'raptured,' perish! so only the 1-2% have some kind of existence. Earthly humans are made extinct and the evanhellicals, don't posit trans or post humans other than the raptured ones.

Not while the pope lives... — noAxioms

We don't need to kill popes. We just need to continue to try to prevent the label 'catholic' and dispel all myths of popery and reveal a pope, as what it truly is, 'A residual, who inherits what's left of the Roman Emperors', who held the same title (since Augustus), as all previous and the current pope, 'Pontif (pontifex) Maximus.'

I know, you label me a doomster, but you seem to have no answer to this simple thing except hope that the magic will continue and fuel from the ground never ends. — noAxioms

I more agreed with your own labelling of yourself as a doomster.
How about genetically modified foods?
How about vertical farming?
I do not advocate magic solutions, but I do hope for scientific/technological and social/economic/political solutions to the problem of human over-population.
It not like no-one is talking about it. For example,
https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/five-ways-we-can-feed-the-world-in-2050.html

How to do an interstellar colony: — noAxioms

Yep, many ways to start a process. We have the already demonstrated human pioneer imperative to work with. I am not too fussed about which methodology proves to be the most practicable. Trial and error is a legitimate scientific approach.

Humans think, or do they?, that god is just the best human.

Well there you go. Had you spelled it right, I would have accepted his reported assertions. — noAxioms

Yeah! this is not the best way to instal confidence in why you might accept the scientific assertions of the very learned and well established, Leonard. :scream:

OK, that’s the part I balk at. Got a time stamp where he goes into that? Sorry, but an hour is a lot to me right now. — noAxioms

Not really, as he builds on an Alice, Bob and Tom scenario. The small amount of maths he included was over my head, but the reason I kept musing towards superluminal communication, was his continued reference to the concept of 'transportation through a wormhole' with entangled micro black holes at either end and his statement that he thinks wormholes may well be physical realities.

So suppose we get to the alien world and find the equivalent of killer whales. We have our intelligent ET, but what would we do about it? Hard to talk. They’re not building space ships anytime soon. Are they to be afforded the same moral code as any intelligent species encountered? — noAxioms

I think that we would be ecstatic initially, but eventually, we would probably be somewhat disappointed that we came so far to find only the equivalent of killer whales. Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there. :cool:

The odds being 1, what role should humanity play that we can’t just leave to all those other guys on similar paths? Why does it have to be us? You’re the one positing the big purpose the universe has for us. — noAxioms

Maybe the answer to your question is expressed somewhere like:

Every supposedly legitimate domestic news source seems to attempt to spin each story one way or the other. — noAxioms

Sadly true but it has been ever thus, that the reports are written by the victors not the vanquished.
We probably currently live in 'the best of times,' at least so far, when it comes to being able to combat fake news.

I don’t yet have a mobile phone. It’s coming, but dang, the things are pure evil. — noAxioms

:lol: That's almost technophobic sir!

Didn’t you posit that all people are striving for this known unreachable goal? I didn’t agree with that. — noAxioms

I suggested such as a 'collectivised' or 'totality' of intent and purpose of the human race. At an individual level, folks like me demonstrate such purpose more than others and there are also individuals that demonstrate such purpose much more than I do and perhaps some who also do so but don't cognise their participation.

A flippant steelmanning if you like.
Had to look that one up. First I’ve heard it. — noAxioms

Just some terminology that's recently became more and more popular. I have even heard many UK politicians employ the terms strawmanning and steelmanning, recently, during TV interviews or panel debates.

Don’t understand. Why have a measuring device if the measurement is known before the measuring is done? — noAxioms

An omniscient already knows EVERYTHING by definition. Which for me and I think you to, is enough to be sure that no omniscient exists or ever could.

It evolved the sort of omni-thing you speak of. It knows everything, and thus also nothing since it doesn’t need to actually know anything. It doesn’t need eyes to find food because food is always right where it reaches every time. Eyes provide information, and this thing already has it all, so it doesn’t need more. I see similarities with that and what I’m describing based on your descriptions (if that makes any sense). — noAxioms

Interesting, but how did this, I assume, 'electronic manifestation' demonstrate it's omniscience?
Could you ask it questions?

The current system all but destroys any long-term efforts concerning ‘our future’. — noAxioms

We can only keep trying to tweak 'the system,' constantly, until it becomes as benevolent as the most humane of us, want it to become.

Humans think, or do they?, that god is just the best human. — Agent Smith

So, god as a mere projection of human fears and aspirations and not something that has an existent.
If that's what you are suggesting then, I agree. God, the best human would still be a mere fallible, mortal, limited, human who exists only within relative space and time.
No omni abilities whatsoever.

So, god as a mere projection of human fears and aspirations and not something that has an existent.
If that's what you are suggesting then, I agree. God, the best human would still be a mere fallible, mortal, limited, human who exists only within relative space and time.
No omni abilities whatsoever. — universeness

Something like that. Have you come across via negativa?

Interesting "article". :up:

Just a question: I wonder if saying "a system based on disorder-order-disorder" is intentional, i.e. if disorder prevails or rules or is basically the fundamental state of everything, and that everything starts and ends with disorder. Or that there's an alternate state of disorder and order. Can there also be that everything is a combination of order and disorder, i.e. it is both ordered and disordered?

For example, what it looks like disorder can actually be (also) order. The following image looks a kind of random drawing or graph, lacking structure, etc. Yet, it shows a soundwave that represents a well-structured musical sound. And vice versa. If you analyze a well structure musical sound, you get such an image. It all depends on the way you are observing and examining something.

Something like that. Have you come across via negativa? — Agent Smith

No, I had to google it. Subtracting the non-essential to improve the chances of success at achieving a goal, seems very valid to me, in situations which don't have any moral issue associated with them.
But if there are issues of human morality involved, then there must be judgement involved, that must not prioritise the goal over all other consequentials involved.
I accept the 'lesser of two evils,' type scenario's etc, as horrible as some of those can be in certain circumstances.
I assign no value or significance to:
"The idea comes from a Latin phrase used initially in Christian Theology to explain what God is by focusing on what he isn’t.
If God transcends all things, humans cannot apply qualities and attributes to him in the affirmative (God is light, God is love, etc.). Instead, via negativa presents God as a mystery that humans cannot describe in words."