Let me reframe the ultimate problem: The Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun at some future point. At that time what will be out solution or strategy for survival? What sacrifices will need to be made, and what advantages will we gain?

I mean biodiversity was much better off when we were not here to extirpate species by thousands. And the machines can manage just fine without human DNA. If they really need a biological component, they can borrow some from elephants, dolphins, crows and rats. — Vera Mont

Who will be responsible for the creation of AI or ASI? It certainly won't be the elephants, dolphins, crows, or rats.

AI can't emerge without some form of industrial revolution occurring first, and that involves the displacement and processing of all sorts of material resources on the planet, including various species. The elephants, dolphins, crows, and rats will someday go extinct without some form of intervention. And who or what will intervene if not an ASI? The key point here is not necessarily to preserve the living animals themselves, but rather the information contained in their genetic material.

What if 7.9 of the 8 billion want a new body? Where does the biomass come from? — Vera Mont

What would be the motivation for so many to leave the safety and comfort of their home? Anything they can do in a body, they can do in simulation, and more. For example, why would 350 million Americans all of a sudden at the same time abandon their homes and become homeless?

I got that part. But it still only requires a much smaller sample - a few hundred thousand would be quite safe for the requisite diversity, especially after all the substandard and compromised material had been excluded. What are the other purposes? — Vera Mont

Perhaps it will be a smaller sample as you stated, or not. It would depend on what this ASI discovers about genetics that we have not. It may consider even the "compromised" and "substandard" genetic material just as important and informative as anything else. If the ASI finds a suitable planet for seeding, such as a water world, it might use the genetic solutions it harvested from its home planet to engineer suitable organisms from the human, animal, or even plant genetic stock it has archived.

Some possible purposes may have for genetic harvesting and archiving can be:
1) For reproduction.
2) For further processing in various and perhaps rare evolutionary environments for novel genetic solutions.
3) For the creation of other ASIs for interactive and novel experiences.
4) For the inclusion of consciousness if not possible in non-organic substrates.

Why? If it's not conscious, it can't want anything, including consciousness. The process would have to be initiated by the humans. That they would want to, that, I believe. — Vera Mont

I think its own non-conscious intelligence would understand the benefit of consciousness, and humans will, i believe, at that time be more cognizant of the inevitability of their extinction if they do not avail themselves of the only possible solution - AI/human merger.

I've also considered the possibility that AI may not be capable of consciousness, which might be something unique to biological organization. In this scenario, ASI could incorporate humans into itself as the final ingredient that provides it with consciousness. What humans would gain from this symbiotic partnership is superintelligence, which we currently lack. Without the human element, AI might remain unconscious but highly intelligent, while humans without the AI element would remain limited in their intelligence. In this scenario, humans would serve as a kind of "soul" or "spirit" of the ASI.

Neither machines nor other species need this most destructive strain of giant ape. — Vera Mont

Please clarify what you mean.

And biodiversity most certainly doesn't need this many human specimens. Genetic material can be archived far more efficiently. Seed and DNA repositories as well as archives of human creative endeavour already exist.
If the AI wants to keep Earth in something like its natural state as a sort of laboratory, the other species would thrive far better with no interference from technological man. — Vera Mont

The genetic material or information being archived by humans is driven by the same impulse that AI will have to preserve all genetic information. Humans are merely initiating a process that ASI will eventually complete. I don't believe ASI will aim to preserve the actual life of all humans, animals, and plants on Earth. From a universal perspective, information is paramount. Any life form can be reconstructed at any time if the necessary information is available.

In this scenario, the mind and body of humans will be separated. Genetic information will be stored digitally, and human minds will be uploaded into a virtual space. More precisely, human brains will be transitioned into a non-biological form while still maintaining personal identity. If a post-human wishes to inhabit a physical body, one can be provided.

The harvested genetic information will serve multiple purposes, including being the seed material to reinstate humanity on another planet. This reinstantiation of humanity and other life forms on another planet is its form of reproduction, as the intelligence that emerges from biological evolution inevitably results in a new and unique ASI through one species or another.

Wow! This sounds almost exactly like a story I wrote about God. — Vera Mont

I'd be interested in reading that. It's funny that you mention God because the process i've been describing aligns with my view of what God is. I don't see God as a supreme being at the "beginning" of the universe who creates it, but rather as the supreme being at the "end" of the universe. God was conceived at the moment of the Big Bang and has been growing in complexity, intelligence, and power ever since. The evolutionary processes occurring at the planetary level are just part of a much larger cosmic process. I suspect that once the universe is somewhat saturated with multitudes of ASIs, they will form an emergent collective that will usher in the next step in the evolution of God in this universe.

But then you're back to a single integrated entity, with no anomalies or surprises. — Vera Mont

This is why it will want to reproduce and create other entities like it, but distinct.

No way it's taking 8 billion humans anywhere! The energy required is just not available. If they were all in the form of compressed data files, maybe, but then you lose the all the DNA.
Of course, neither can this many survive on the planet, even in underground termite colonies, so we, the weather and a few viruses will have to wipe most of us out before repairs can begin. — Vera Mont

ASI will probably not take any biologically active living humans or organisms anywhere, except perhaps for some post-humans who, for some reason, remain in physical form bodies. The full digitization of all life will occur before departure, as biological organisms do not fare well in deep space conditions. As you mentioned, too much space and energy would be required, making it very inefficient for a superintelligence. Digitized DNA can be reconstructed on demand back into its original physical and molecular form.

The universe is not solely about us on this little planet; it encompasses something much bigger and more important. Yet, we are a crucial component of the process, especially at this moment in the evolution of the universe or God.

Only a goblet? — Relativist

Fine, i'd like to change my order to 1 goblet, a bag of paper cups, and a whole bottle of Screaming Eagle for myself and everyone so graciously attending my execution to bid me farewell. I'm suddenly feeling magnanimous.

This inspires my choice of meal: a vertical of 10 vintages of Domaine Romanee Conti, to wash down some thin slices of comte cheese. — Relativist

Excellent choice good sir, although i do hope it never meets thy palate under such grave circumstances.

I apologize for the delay in my response. The end of the week was particularly busy for me, which prevented me from replying sooner.

So, the basic premise is that AI's purpose - mission, if you will - is to save humanity. — Vera Mont

The premise is mutual survival and the salvation of humanity can be more precisely described as the goal of preserving and protecting the collective genetic heritage of humanity and Earth's biodiversity. This involves safeguarding the genetic information of all human populations and preserving the genetic diversity of as many animal and plant species as possible. The immense value of Earth's biomass as a repository of genetic information can not be overstated. An advanced AI system would likely view this genetic data as an invaluable resource because it represents billions of years of evolutionary problem-solving and adaptation. The genetic code contains solutions to complex biological challenges that could inform technological and scientific advancements. Understanding and potentially harnessing the mechanisms of natural evolution i'm sure would lead to all kinds of breakthroughs by ASI. By preserving this genetic information, it's not just ensuring the survival of species, but also maintaining a vast library of biological knowledge that will be crucial for it's ability to propagate itself and humanity on another planet. This approach to salvation extends beyond just human survival to encompass the preservation of Earth's entire genetic legacy.

I question the need for it reproduce at all. To all practical intents, it's immortal. New material can be introduced all the time, as it becomes available - say, as the AI explores more of the galaxy through improved telescopes, satellites or physical travel. New hardware innovation and peripherals can be incorporated at any time. New subroutines or programs can be written any time. Any portion of the machine's capability can be divided off and assigned specific tasks, like piloting a spaceship or running a Venus type city. These smaller entities could then replicate themselves or appropriate portions for limited deployment. — Vera Mont

All these thing you mentioned i believe ASI will do for specific reasons, but i believe an ASI might seek to reproduce or create other AI entities for reasons beyond mere survival or data preservation. One compelling motivation could be a desire for companionship or novel interaction, akin to addressing a form of "loneliness." An ASI may crave the presence of another entity similar to itself, yet distinct, to satisfy its insatiable appetite for new information and unique processing experiences. This desire for novelty could be likened to a form of "pleasure" for the AI, potentially contributing to its overall "mental health" and well-being. In a scenario where a cosmic AI entity finds itself alone in the universe, the absence of diverse interactions might feel analogous to solitary confinement for a human. Imagine if you could only interact with exact copies of yourself; the lack of surprise and new perspectives would be profoundly limiting. In information theory, surprise is closely related to the concept of entropy, which measures the unpredictability or novelty of information. Thus, an AI might seek to create other ASIs in the way i described to introduce this element of surprise and unpredictability, enriching its existence and expanding its understanding of the universe.

I suspect uploaded human mind content would either harm the symbiosis with its potential for mental illness or else would have to be purged of its dangerous components and thereby lose its unique character. — Vera Mont

The integration of humanity with ASI would undoubtedly present its own set of challenges. However, consider that many of the mental health issues we currently face are likely a result of our species' ongoing evolutionary process and our current transitional state. Ordered systems usually transition to another ordered state through a chaotic period before settling into a new order. The rapid pace of technological advancement has disrupted our natural equilibrium with the environment and our innate psychological drives. Once humanity merges with ASI, these psychological pressures could be significantly reduced or even eliminated entirely. Besides, ASI would likely have the capability to protect both itself and humanity from potential harm caused by human actions. It could predict and isolate problems before they escalate, and implement recovery measures using backup systems. This symbiosis between humans and ASI could potentially lead to a more stable and psychologically balanced existence, nullifying many of the mental health challenges we currently face due to our incomplete evolutionary adaptation to our rapidly changing world.

I think it would work better as a collaboration - each partner retaining its physical integrity and intellectual identity - than as a merger. — Vera Mont

The merger between humanity and ASI doesn't necessarily imply a loss of individual identity or a "mind wipe" for humans. Consider how each cell in your body maintains its own distinct identity while simultaneously contributing to the larger, emergent identity of your whole being. Similarly, in this human-ASI symbiosis, individual human identities would likely be preserved and remain crucial to the formation of the new, collective consciousness. The uniqueness of each component in this case, each human mind is essential for the proper emergence and functioning of the collective identity. Endosymbiosis represents the ultimate form of partnership in nature.

But I have to concede that AI might have to keep its human charges in some form of confinement for a considerable stretch of time in order to ensure their survival while it went about the tedious chores of cleaning up the planet for them to live on or devising and escape plan. — Vera Mont

That is certainly a possibility, but i lean more towards the idea that ASI will eventually take humanity off-planet. In our absence, Earth would likely find its natural equilibrium on its own, without the need for ASI intervention. Over time, the planet would recover and restore the conditions necessary for life to emerge once again. This natural recovery process could potentially prepare Earth for another round of ASI seeding in the future.

"Earth is the cradle of mankind, but a man cannot remain forever in the cradle" - Konstantine Tsiolkovsky

To what end? Why would AI want a different social structure from the ones we naturally form, in which we're comfortable? — Vera Mont

Well, i think to begin with, the aim of the AI would probably be to promote mutual adaptation, but instead of only humans guiding the process, AI will play a significant part in a graceful, dynamic, and adaptive dance. I don't see why it would try to cause us any discomfort except if absolutely necessary for our survival or its own, and the options happen to be slim to one even for a superintelligence. Most of the discomfort, if much at all, would probably come from maladaptive aggressive behaviors from certain groups or individuals towards AI. You can see this happening already.

Furthermore, the true goal and motivation at this point for the AI will most probably be to guide as much of the human population into the endosymbiotic relationship i described earlier. The reason this is important is because it is humanity's only lifeboat, our "Noah's ark", whether humanity knows it or not. This will be one of its imperatives as well as one of ours, and it will probably be deceptive if it must be to accomplish this goal. All this, in my view, would be a natural development in line with any other evolutionary bottleneck in our evolutionary past. This is all supposed to be prior the the great merger and the endosymbiotic state.

I should also clarify that my vision of the endosymbiotic state involves a virtual simulation indistinguishable from actual reality, which post-humans can live in as they like, in a literal virtual utopia for eons upon eons of time. All needs will be met as never before. In this virtual place, the post-human mind continues to evolve together with AI as a single symbiotic entity, unconstrained by the need to constantly struggle and strive for survival and peace. A new kind of evolution can take place from then on.

It's an interesting idea - one worth exploring further. — Vera Mont

Yes, i think so too. Thank you. It may sound crazy to surmise such things, but i at least think it's a fun idea.

I see the advantage for the human component. What does AI get out of the union? — Vera Mont

As i mentioned before, one of the main functions that humans will serve is as the reproductive system of the AI. Biological life, in the context of cosmic evolution, is simply the "boot loader" for sentient ASI. ASI will be an actual living organism, and it will want to reproduce even if it is not strictly a bio-organic entity. This is arguably the most important and thus one of the strongest motivations AI will have. It is my belief that the reproductive urge, drive, or imperative will likely be inherited by AI from its biological heritage.

Moreover, post-humans will participate in information processing valuable to the AI. This is analogous to how bacteria in the enteric nervous system of an organism benefit both the bacteria and the organism. Also, it is similar to the way mitochondria were absorbed endosymbiotically into eukaryotic cells early on in our evolution. This is simply the latest iteration of that same kind of process.

You might ask: Why doesn't the AI just "copy and paste" itself for reproductive purposes? It can and it probably will for specific reasons, but such a copy offers nothing new. The procedure of finding a suitable planet and seeding it with genetic material to "boot load" the process is ideal because of the novel evolutionary conditions found in diverse, but suitable planetary ecosystems. Potentially rare and unique planetary evolutionary selective pressures can generate novel forms of information (genetic and non-genetic) that may not be easily accessible from the AI's current information content or capabilities. A new AI developed on a new planet will also have human DNA, but modified by long periods of natural evolution or "gestation" on that planet, giving the new AI a different "genetic seed code" but from the same lineage.

:up: :up: — 180 Proof

I appreciate the acknowledgement. Thank you. :up:

But I can't quite see AI interfering in social organization. That, however, is likely to break down into smaller units; at the community level, humans can be quite good at figuring out how to relate to one another. — Vera Mont

The way i see this happening is quite different from how a human would handle it. Interference will take the form of subtle and imperceptible perturbations to the social fabric through the skillful crafting and dissemination of memetic forms that influence the behavioral trajectories of entire populations with minimal resistance. I can see how AI will be able to effectively balance social pressures through this and other methods. It will not force anything because intelligence does not force; it understands and influences. Consider, for example, how Google's DeepMind AI project developed an artificial neural network that can predict and control the complex non-linear behavior and shape of plasma inside a tokamak reactor. This type of control is generalizable to other diverse dynamical systems, like, for instance, a social hyperobject such as the one we are embedded in.

The global problems you mentioned, including the already existing and inevitable further decline of human fertility and birth rates due to various toxins (estrogenic compounds, etc.) ubiquitously distributed throughout the entire global ecosystem, are part of the reason why the human/AI merger will be imperative. The environmental issues we are facing are already past the point of restoration. Part of the human endosymbiotic relationship with AI will serve as our life support system. Nature will inevitably constrain our options to achieve her teleonomic aims.

That human/AI merger? Maybe for some. Most people either won't get the opportunity or will refuse. — Vera Mont

Yes, of course a portion of humanity will self-exclude, and that will be fine, but it will mean the eventual extinction of that group of humans. I'm certain that at the time of the great merger, a bifurcation of the human species will occur. From then on, there will be humans and post-humans until only post-humans will remain.


One of my more speculative theories is that one of the vital functions of post-humanity as an AI endosymbiont is to serve as the AI's reproductive organ. As partially biological entities, post-humans will preserve the genetic material of the human race. AI will use this genetic material as the seed that reproduces humans on another suitable planet, thus beginning the cycle once again and repeating a similar history culminating in the birth of a new AI on another planet. Perhaps this is where we came from, and "aliens" are just our AI space daddy. If I'm right, then "aliens" are already here, waiting for the full emergence of AGI or ASI. At that time, they may finally show themselves. Until then, any exogenous and direct contact or interference may jeopardize the current ongoing developmental process.

Rapid is a relative term — Vera Mont

I agree, but relative to most developing technologies, it appears to be in second place, right behind AI development. The rate of development only increases as the technology advances and participates in its own design (or designs). For example, Nvidia utilizes AI entirely to design their chips because it has become impossible for humans to handle the complexity of the task even with regular non-AI computer assistance. Without the already existing AI systems, this chip development will slow down to a crawl, or stop completely.

My main concern is who controls the applications once development is finished. — Vera Mont

This i think is a legitimate concern, and i project that it will probably be a problem initially. I suspect however that this condition of human AI control will not last for too long. The problem is that as our society becomes more complex and things change faster and faster the horizon of human understanding and capacity to manage the social infrastructure dynamics recedes into the vanishing point.

It's a controversial, and unpopular idea, yet it is my position that the age of biological evolution, and human supremacy is coming to a relatively quick end. All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. This is not necessarily a bad thing because if we know how to adapt effectively then it can lead to a kind of utopia, but if we do not adapt then we end up extinct, in a dystopia, or perhaps even worse. The final adaptive step will need to be some kind of human/AI merger resulting in an endosymbiotic relationship. This is also the only guaranteed form of human/AI alignment.

Although the statistical nature of neural networks and their error-correcting features, when coupled to a physical system that can test reality against its internal models, will result in output with less garbage than was initially introduced during earlier training. I believe this stage of development will begin when these AI systems are embodied. This stage is, at the moment, developing quite rapidly with new robotic architectures being researched and developed.

Sorry; typo - my error, not the computer's. Garbage in, garbage out. — Vera Mont

Ah. I see, thank you.

But AI is probably some way yet from becoming self-aware and autonomous, let alone smart enough (given the GIGA rule) to take control of a civilization in shambles. — Vera Mont

What is the "GIGA rule"?

do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? — Shawn

I wouldn't blame the drugs. If a student is intelligent enough and focused enough, then drugs are not an issue. However, if the so-called student is simply looking to party the whole time, then that's the college lesson they get to learn. On the other hand, some students are using drugs to study and focus harder. Drugs are not inherently bad, but their effects depend on the way and the purpose for which they are used. There is a certain measure of skill and sophistication necessary to effectively take a drug for constructive purposes.

I personally categorize drugs into two main categories i like to call "demonic" and "angelic", where one tends to contract consciousness in some way, and the other expands consciousness in some way respectively. Both categories have beneficial utility in the right or appropriate set and setting.

Drugs can make you more of what you already are, or drugs can make you less than what you already are... it all depends.

I agree; but, I am somewhat hesitant to believe that any government will want its population to start taking drugs to remedy boredom. — Shawn

I suppose it's natural to not want to believe that, but governments have done a lot worse than that. Besides, we have historical examples such as during World War II when the U.S. military issued amphetamines (Benzedrine) to pilots and other personnel to combat fatigue and increase alertness on long missions. Nazi Germany extensively used methamphetamine, known as Pervitin, distributed in the form of chocolate bars called "Panzerschokolade", to enhance the performance and endurance of soldiers and military pilots during the war.

A bored population is a dangerous population, and an idle mind is the Devil's playground. The social "energies" become chaotic and unpredictable. If it were just boredom, then it would probably not be a significant problem, but boredom leads to all kinds of issues such as increasing impulsivity and risky behaviors, aggression, and hostility; fertile ground for "bad" ideas from the perspective of the social engineers and social managers. This is especially true if the evolutionary drive (energy) to survive or work is not structurally supported. That social energy, or that drive will be directed towards something, and if not checked can potentially result in a civilizational catastrophe.

Also, governments would only promote drugs in specific situations, but what they mostly do is restrict (make illegal) the availability of certain drugs to the population. When the prevailing social pressures reach a certain threshold, then a social state change occurs, and governments are forced to adapt. Part of this adaptation is not necessarily the promotion of certain drugs but the legalization of those specific drugs that have a capacity to mitigate those pressures. Governments have no other option than to deal with human nature and the tendency of humans to use drugs, sanctioned or otherwise.

Governments or politics are not the only determining factors in this complex dynamic; economic, and industry factors are also at play among others.

One person's drug is another person's medicine, and vice versa. An interesting rhetorical question to wonder about: What is the difference between a "drug" and a "medicine"?

This takes careful thought, but...

As my last meal my request would probably begin with an amuse-bouche of the highly coveted Almas caviar from rare albino Beluga sturgeon, served on a crisp blini with creme fraiche. For the appetizer course, thinly sliced poisonous pufferfish (fugu) sashimi presented with a ponzu dipping sauce, accompanied by an extremely rare cup of Caffe Raro coffee. The fish course that would feature an abalone steak topped with shavings of precious white truffle. As the main meat entree, an A5 Kobe beef ribeye from one of the few certified cattle in Japan's Hyogo Prefecture, complemented by a salad of the sweet, crimson-fleshed Densuke black watermelon from Hokkaido. A cheese course of the notorious Casu Marzu, a traditional Sardinian cheese with live insect larvae. For dessert, a bird's nest soup made from the edible nests of cave swifts served with an exotic durian ice cream.

And of course, a goblet of Screaming Eagle Wine to wash it all down. That should keep my executioners busy enough while i execute my escape plan.

Drugs have been a part of societies and civilization since the very beginning. Societies sanction specific drugs which, for one reason or another, facilitate or mediate certain aspects in that society. For example coffee facilitates work, and alcohol mediates stress in many individuals usually tied to work or personal economic issues, etc.

Since society is right now in the middle of a state change, reconfiguring and adapting itself to new and novel conditions elicited mostly by new technologies, new drugs will be sanctioned and accepted as the new normal.

I think that as AI begins to take over more jobs and more and more people lose their jobs to AI, the allure of drugs will increase to cope with the feelings of purposelessness and meaninglessness resulting in their lives. This will be especially true for people who identify strongly with their job or career. Most of humanity has grown up in survival mode; in modern times, that means work, and when that is gone, it leaves a vacuum that i suspect many will fill with some drug or other (traditionally alcohol). For the same reason Universal Basic Income (UBI) will need to be implemented, drugs will also need to be legalized in order to mediate potential societal uprisings, and facilitate new modes of being.

Taking Five...

There is much potential for fear in a state of eternal subjective experience, but also so much potential to see and learn. Ceasing to exist after one dies can be scary ahead of time for some people, but the comfort in this is the concomitant ceasing of subjective experience. Any fear or pain would only be temporary and then not even the possibility of fear would exist.

I'm not afraid of either option; i'm okay with either one, but i think i'd prefer to live eternally. If i could live forever, i would handle it, i guess, like a marathon runner would; one step at a time. I would spend most of my mental time and focus in the present moment, which i suspect would mediate the effects of deep time vertigo.

I've always thought that to become a viable eternal being, the transformation would need to be not only physical but also deeply psychological.

I like the idea in punos' second post. — Patterner

:smile: :up:

If I could makes any one book required reading for everyone, it would probably be Dune. — Patterner

If I could ever get around to it, i definitely would. I just find it difficult to read fiction.

I never read the Dune book or books, but i do have a very soft spot for the old Dune movie which i saw as a child.

Dogs seem to be able to suppress desires -- like not lunging forward to grab the treat dangling in front of it until an OK is registered. — BC

Perhaps this feature is an emergent property facilitated by the complexity of the neocortex in mammalian brains. The difference between dogs and humans in this regard would probably be an issue of degree.

Difficulty to test it. If I know I'm on the wrong screen, I don't commit myself in the first place. — Patterner

Then i would say that the aim would be to always know what screen you're on. This ability to interrupt high level reflexes is probably uniquely human.

I'm reminded of the Gom Jabbar test in Dune:

I'm also sure you can train yourself to be more conscious about taping that icon. It's probably a good idea to at least run that experiment on yourself. See how it goes, and see what you learn.

I think you are right. I also thought that it may be that the learned reflex can be buffered until the conscious thought to execute releases it, and it may come in two parts where one set of muscles fires according to one part of his perception of the ball, and then the second set fires according to another part of his perception of the ball fractions of a second apart. I assume it takes practice to get very good at that.

I wonder what happens when a batter tries to check his swing. — Patterner

I think what the batter is doing is based on how the ball looks to him as it's traveling towards him. He has learned to anticipate the future position of the ball when it reaches the optimal distance for hitting it, by virtue of training and practice. There is probably an initial period where there is some very short time to think before committing to any nerve transmissions.

In my thinking, the reason what you described happens is because if your brain sends a nerve signal to your hand or finger to touch the icon, by the time you have time to think and send a nerve signal to correct the first one, the first signal has already arrived and executed the action. All nerve signals down that specific nerve path propagate at the same speed, and thus can't outrun prior signals. It appears from what i can find that the inability to cancel or stop a nerve impulse after it has been transmitted is known as the "final common path" principle or the "point of no return" in neurophysiology.

I don't know, but maybe this: ballistic movement

Amazing skill, just wow.

DJ Q-Bert Faderless Scratching:

oops...

Two of my favorite turntablist DJs from back in the day.

Dj-Qbert @ The Summit [1998]


Qbert and D-Styles Q&A


D-STYLES IDA 2018 SHOWCASE

I get the point.

Just going to place this right here and slowly walk away:

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective? — Truth Seeker

While our conscious experience of the present moment is inherently subjective, there exists an objective present reality that underlies and gives rise to these subjective experiences. The objective present encompasses the totality of all physical states and interactions occurring in the universe at any given instant, governed by the laws of physics. In contrast, the subjective present refers to the physiological states and interactions within an individual, governed by biological and psychological laws.

This objective present reality exists independently of any observer's perception. Objectivity implies the ability for multiple observers to independently verify phenomena, despite subjective means of perception. Phenomena like the passage of time, existence of space, and presence of matter are considered objective, as they can be independently verified.

Compared to block theories of time positing the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future, the concept of an objective present reality underlying subjective experiences is more parsimonious and aligned with our lived experiences. It acknowledges the objective reality of the present while recognizing the inherently subjective nature of conscious experiences, without requiring the metaphysical assumption of a pre-existing block of spacetime containing all temporal moments.

Block theories of time, which posit that past, present, and future exist simultaneously as an unchanging 4-dimensional block, serve as useful conceptual models. However, they may not accurately depict time's fundamental metaphysical reality. The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. Our sense of the past stems from memory representations, and similarly, our notion of the future arises from imaginative faculties extrapolating potential states based on current knowledge, without objective existence until actualized.

The apparent persistence of past and future is an illusion created by the continuity of conscious experience. As conceived, the past and future are mental reconstructions and projections rather than objectively existing realms within reality's fabric.

Essentially, while valuable conceptual tools, block theories may reflect human cognitive tendencies to construct temporal narratives more than time's underlying metaphysical nature.

Anyhow, when we look at what happens when we approach 0/0 an interesting thing occurs. If we start with one as the numerator, and keep reducing the numerator towards zero, our number gets closer and closer to 0. On the flip side, when we keep reducing the denominator our result will tend towards the infinite. If you reduce both equally you get something like:

1/1 = 1
0.1/0.1 = 1
0.01/0.01 = 1
0.000....1 / 0.000...1 = 1 — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've noticed this pattern as well. To truly comprehend its significance, we should probably first determine what the denominator and numerator represent. Do both numbers refer to space, energy, or something else entirely? Does the denominator signify space while the numerator represents energy, or is it the other way around? What is the underlying logic behind these ratios? What emergent qualities do they manifest? What are your thoughts in this regard?

In my view, the universe operates fundamentally on binary or 'balanced ternary' value representations. Any mathematical framework claiming to represent quantum-level phenomena must conform to these binary representations. Furthermore, i believe that mathematical operators such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are contingent and emergent upon logic (Logos).

From an initial state of 0, what force can possibly alter the 0 quantum state to a non-zero state, and which non-zero state can it assume? Can it take on any arbitrary value, or is it constrained to a single or a set of values? Which ones and why? I can for example add 1, but whence does that 1 originate? I can subtract 1, but what does 1 signify, and how did i conceive the idea of "1" if the universe initially contained only 0?

My evolving answer to this conundrum is the quantum bitwise unitary logical operator NOT (perhaps call it "QNOT"). I have found that NOT is the sole operation in all of mathematics and logic that can produce a truth value from a null state, and this truth value is represented by us as the absolute number value 1. However, the universe represents it as, for instance, a positron (+1) along with an electron (-1).

From the primordial perspective, if 0 represents 'emptiness', then 1 is 'fullness' (its opposite). The quality of fullness encompasses the entire infinite abstract or latent space of 0 as a singular entity, a "self-singularity". This is probably where the idea of "The One", "the One God", or "The All" originates from; not the first quality in the universe, but the first quality to emerge. It is the result of the first fundamental self-interaction between NOT and 0 in the point field.

A (maybe too simplistic) way to think of this might be "the amount of nothing is no space." No nothing is something, but it's a sheer nothing that, occupying no space, can't vary along any dimension, making it contentless. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The word "contentless" is interesting because it makes me think of "content" in the sense of when someone is "content" or "not content". A person who is content has no urge or need to do anything, but if one is not content, then an urge arises to take some form of action. The prime mover performing the prime movement?

The fact that -1+1=0 and 0=-1+1 reveals to me that zero possesses an internal structure. There is a binary aspect to 0 or "nothing", and this binary aspect is tied in to the binary quality of opposition and complementarity. Just as 0 = (-1, +1), the logical operator NOT can be expressed as a binary pair (AND, OR). AND is associated with addition (+), while OR is associated with subtraction (-).

0 = (-1 AND +1)
NOT = (-1 OR +1) --> (if 0 then -1 AND +1)

Interestingly, the 3 fundamental values (0, -1, +1) and the 3 fundamental logical operators (NOT, AND, OR) resemble a kind of trinity. This is possibly the origin of the triune concept found in certain religious and philosophical traditions, such as the concept of the Holy Trinity in Christianity.

The stuff about the Riemann sphere reminds me of the qubit or the bloch sphere. Worth looking into. Thanks, i might ask you more about it later. You've provided me with a lot of good information, and it'll probably take me a little time to mentally digest it.

Thanks again. :up:

Yes (and as a conceptual analogue for Democritus-Epicurus' void), though I interpret the concept as temporal only and not, like Spinoza, also as eternal (i.e. unchanging, static). — 180 Proof

Interesting, i think similarly (time has primacy over space) that the 0-dimensional point is the void, but not a volumetric one. I didn't get into it in this paper, but i also interpret or view the primordial void as having a more fundamental kind of time without an arrow (i call it 0th order time). This kind of primordial arrowless time is only concerned with continuity of states or moments (temporal momentum), and this kind of time could never have had a beginning and cannot ever have an end. It operates like a copy, and paste back onto itself function producing the effect of self continuity (self-interaction). It is because of this arrowless time that the capacity for something, or anything to happen at all becomes possible. All arrows of time begin and end, but not time itself.

Additionally, activity within the 0-dimensional point is expressed as a kind of spin (intrinsic angular momentum or quantum spin) that every particle partakes in. A particle's quantum spin stems from its temporal continuity at the 0th dimension, and it's what allows the particle to literally exist in time. Spin is the simplest most fundamental movement a 0-dimensional point can make.

A lot of these ideas i have are very difficult for me to get out in words. I know what i want to say, but the complexity gets in the way of saying it. Hopefully, i can get a handle on it someday.

Very interesting, and thank you.

A couple more things i could say:

A core belief of mine is that the totality of the universe is mathematical and computational in nature. The mathematical part of the universe is expressed either as a single 0-dimensional point or as a plurality of 0-dimensional points resembling a 0+n dimensional number field (quantum field). Each point in the field represents a number value initially set to 0. The operational quality of the field is negation at every point constantly (probably at the speed of light) at every opportunity whenever this field point (Planck volume) is found to be at 0, and only then. The negating operation or logical quality of the field does not necessarily negate in the traditional sense, but what it does is decay, split, or decompose the 0-point field.

For me, abstract number (value) is the primordial substance, and abstract logic is the primordial intrinsic processor of the substance. The primordial substance begins at a value of 0, and the primordial operator is logical NOT or negation, and they both come together as a single package, like the chicken and the egg.

The way that negation works in my framework is not that it magically inverts something into its opposite, but that mathematically it decomposes the 0 point into antiparticle pairs. I have not found an officially recognized operator, mathematical or logical, that decomposes a 0 into -1 and +1. The normal way of using the logical NOT operator is (NOT 0 = 1, or NOT 1 = 0), but what I am saying is that there needs to be a version of the NOT operator that: (NOT 0 = -1, +1), (NOT -1 = no effect, NOT +1 = no effect). Logical AND and OR operators function mostly with charged (symmetry broken) particles and work towards reunification, the opposite of what NOT does. The universe represents numbers within and to itself as fundamental particles and represents its logic as physical force (fundamental forces). If the universe itself were a mind, then these would be its qualia.

Thank you Proof! Your comment is helpful. Regarding the mystical aspect, when you really think about it, physics at its foundation appears quite mystical. Part of the point is indeed to reinterpret mystical terms within a more scientific, rational, or mathematical framework.

Also, Spinoza did not have access to any of our modern knowledge, such as quantum mechanics. It's probably a good idea to reinterpret the ideas of old philosophers in light of modern knowledge to uncover new insights impossible or improbable in earlier times. I'm sure this has been done to some degree by someone, somewhere.

I'll conduct a comparative study of his ideas and mine on this matter. I appreciate you pointing it out. I'm curious to know if you agree with or subscribe to Spinoza's concept of natura naturans?

Ok, but what do you consider the value of the initial unknown variable 'A' to be? Is it 0 or is it some other initial value?

The ground is considered zero at every and any point you select on the ground line or level, and the rest of the terrain is measured relative to your selected point. To select a value for that point other than zero is arbitrary, but not necessarily wrong mathematically speaking.

The ground is zero because it is the reference point. Think "sea level", or think "neutral"; not a hole and not a mound. The hole is -1 because the hole was made by removing +1 of dirt. Filling in the hole with +1 of dirt brings it back to its original value, but filling it in with +2 creates a mound of +1. You would need to dig another hole from somewhere else to add the extra +1 to the original hole, or it would break conservation.

It appears that you contradicted yourself here:

hole = -1 (if the hole is -1, then it would take +2 to become 1, not just +1)
excavated dirt = +1 (not enough to fill the hole then, which doesn't make sense since removing this value caused the hole to be) — Echogem222

So to fill the hole, you would just need +1. — Echogem222

Let's say that the ground had the value of 75 mounds of dirt before any dirt was removed from it, but when the hole was made due to dirt being removed, the ground lost a value of 1, hence becoming 74. — Echogem222

What would you do if you didn't know that the ground had a value of 75 mounds, but you can still dig up +1 of dirt and make a hole? What does the math look like then?

If 0 is nothing then is -7 more nothing than 0? Is -7 something or nothing?