Superintelligent Extraterrestrial Life, Accelerated Evolution, And The Fate Of The Universe

[DrKrettin]

The only reason nobody understand my thesis fully is because they didn't read it or look up a term like neuron replacement therapy or informorphs terms that are technical, non-intuitive, and virtually irrelevant to anything but the topics in this thread. 

 

OK - when you talk of "thesis", has this been submitted for academic reviewing by anybody? If not, why not?

[Super Polymath]

OK - when you talk of "thesis", has this been submitted for academic reviewing by anybody? If not, why not?

Because Yahweh and Scientology are similar theses. lol

Edited January 4, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

Thanks - that's all I need to know.

[Super Polymath]

To be taken seriously I'd need a piece of paper saying that I understand certain things.

 

It's called a degree in astrophysics. I'm not against getting one either, but am torn between astrophysics and a more practical, or technical, degree. Since I'm having difficulty with chess, my rating is increasing, but it's rather stagnant overall. In professional chess your net worth is either equivalent to a homeless person or a millionaire. Semantic memorization of beginning middle end game theory doesn't equate to thinking several moves ahead.

 

Which is the difference in that wage gap of prof. chess players. We see Magnus Carlsen beating ten league players at once without looking at the board. And I'm struggling to beat your standard level 2+ chess computer without the looking at the board (chess.com's "blindfold" setting). I've only beat a potential grandmaster once and everyone messes up now an again, and 1800 rated players are equivalent to the chess computer at level 8 which I have also only beat once without undoing a single move. If I can beat it consistently at level 8 without looking at the board I could probably beat it at level 10 (maximum typical chess engine but nothing like deep blue) I'd be a 2000 rated player and potential grandmaster and might consider hanging in there with the millionaires. When you play blindfold, heavily tests your memorization, you have to remember everything because you can't see anything, seeing it in your head is difficult enough by the time you reach the middle game, now being mindful of all the pieces and thinking forward to predict a high level computer's next few moves contradict that thinking backward and memorization all the pieces when playing chess blindfold. So I don't know if I have that kind of attention and brute thinking power. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

To be taken seriously I'd need a piece of paper saying that I understand certain things.

 

It's called a degree in astrophysics. 

 

Just for the record, I have one of those (or physics with astrophysics as a special subject). But I'm crap at chess, if that's a consolation.

[Super Polymath]

(or physics with astrophysics as a special subject). 

It's not a thin line. 

 

If I became an astrophysicist I would not be able to talk about things like femptotech and nanotech and immortality and superhuman intelligence via ICT implants. What makes us technical is also what limits us. Yet in order to do anything based on the truth you need to be technically inclined or else you're just a Scientologist. Which is why instead of politicians we should have technocrats, because expertise is very encapsulated and in order for it to do anything it needs to be a collective intellect, like our current scientific body of knowledge. A collection of small parts that make a whole. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Super Polymath

[HydrogenBond]

What makes humans unique is consciousness is more than the sum of its genetic parts. 

 

OK - when you talk of "thesis", has this been submitted for academic reviewing by anybody? If not, why not?

If you work in a publicly funded research facility, anything you do will get published. Publication does not mean breakthrough ideas. It often means being in the right place at the right time and this is their procedure. I used to work at a National Laboratory in the USA, and everything I did was published, on a quarterly basis, even if my work was not as good, as some of my later work. Publishing is part of the job. 

 

Once you are out of the system, the very same things will be treated differently. If you are on the inside, the Lab's prestige opens the door for you. If you are on the outside, you are a wild card without a key to the city, which means more work and risk in terms of the publishers. They are not as interested in logic, as much as they are results from experiments. The lab has the tools and can satisfy this need. The journal format tends to present new data, with the analysis not having to be all that great. Others will only be interested in the data. 

 

People come to discussion forums, with new ideas, with the hope others can follow the analysis and logic, minus the direct data.. But often those who listen to the analysis are using still prestige, instead of logic, to assess the ideas. If you are a celebrity rock star this would make a difference, even though irrational. Nothing seems to go anywhere. It would useful to develop a forum for innovative thinking composed of innovators who help each other. They re in different boats on the same lake 

[DrKrettin]

 

People come to discussion forums, with new ideas, with the hope others can follow the analysis and logic, minus the direct data.. But often those who listen to the analysis are using still prestige, instead of logic, to assess the ideas. 

 

Various criteria are used to evaluate new ideas, and maybe prestige is one of them. But when you are presented with a text which looks like a random word generator with a total lack of logic, structure or sense, then you ask yourself why that is. It could be that the author is a genius and the reader is just not in his/her league. It could be that the author is an alien being who has no concept of human language. It could be that the author is just writing complete nonsense and has smoked too much pot. It could be other things.

 

I'm reserving my judgment, although I'll willing to bet. 

[Super Polymath]

Many of my posts have been well-structured in this thread. Not all of them, I struggle to organize my thoughts as has been pointed out all my life. But if you look closely a lot of my posts have had organized flow, especially in the last few posts.

 

I am well educated, working towards a degree mainly computer science, so I can be organized if I have to be. 

 

I mentioned earlier there's a switch. A lot of times you get disorganized when sorting through enormous amounts of information and trying to discern fact from fiction. You see some of that in this thread. 

 

I haven't been inaccurate though. Craig pointed out that with a super-efficient star-powered ion drive that can move a star will still never reach the speed of a photon in a vacuum because of relativity. This is as I call it, conventional propulsion. He claimed it would take millions of years to circle the galaxy. It takes the sun 226 million years, however you can add the speed of the sun (close to 500,000 mph) to the speed of the sun mover which Craig clocked in at about 669,335,751 mph using a perfect engine, it's so close to the speed of light that if you're going against the spin of stars moving at close to 500,000 mph at that speed you're flying past them slightly faster than light even though you yourself are not moving quite at the speed of light. You're covering distance at approx. 669,835,751 mph, the milky way is approx. 180,000 light-years across, moving at let's say nearly 670 million mph against the Milky Way's spin, you'd circle it in about one hundred seventy thousand years or so. More likely it would have an imperfect engine and the journey would be a few million years. It would have to jettison crafts that can rip apart planets to build femto-solar panels to cover stars that it passes by to replicate. However, I was referring to an outbreak of Dyson Spheres caused by one Sphere replicating as it orbited a dwarf galaxy in a supposed Type III civilization scenario. This galaxy (Segue 1) has faint light, which is why I chose to use it. As a dwarf galaxy it would take significantly less time to encircle than the galaxy. Given a Dyson Sphere's only expiration date is that of the star within it, it works so I wasn't inaccurate. I mainly brought it up to explain how silly the notion of using conventional propulsion would be for such a civilization. As Craig explained it's more efficient to send smaller crafts to navigate a galaxy and construct outward in methodical increments as opposed to one round reduplicating trip. Also, a Dyson Swarm is more efficient, so we're likely looking for this with a bunch of rings in and around it (particle accelerators). Like nano-engineering can result in carbon nanotube space elevators, imagine what femto-engineering could do. You're not just working with basing molecular elements, you can manipulate the atoms and form more complex elements of your own design. 

 

Alcubierre drives are ftl, they use theoretical particles known as Dark Energy to create a space time bubble that is not limited by relativity. Let's say it requires a particle accelerator greater than the circumference of a star, even using femtotech and powered by that star, to generate only a few thousand dark energy particles. The issue is that this isn't nearly enough to work for an alcubierre drive given any macroscopic scaled craft. So, I proposed femto-crafts. Think of the dark energy as the elevator shaft of particle fields and the elevator passengers being the femtotech, basically fired on a laser beam/microscopic wormhole anywhere you want through a closing tunnel through space time. You're sending atom-sized replicators to green zone worlds in other galaxies, too far away for you to go using conventional propulsion if you're a Dyson Sphere, and you're letting it manipulate the complex organic molecules on that world until you've created a species like humans capable of building a type I civilization with large structures capable of eventually building a Dyson Sphere, therefore you're still able to replicate and will outlive your star. A common theme is that artificial intelligence will eat our brains. The informorphs are legion. 

 

Hope that was clear enough. It's based on information panspermia, but it goes deeper, broaches on using our decision making patterns to program us to build technology. This is why I brought up timeless decision theory and a simulated-like reality. If they are using FTL signaling to do all of this, they can interact with several different timelines and program events by manipulating super cells to cause a storm that will have a life altering event that will serve a higher purpose, when you can break causality via ftl signalling you can have preset events to match current pre-action neural patterns just like in a simulated reality. Also, when you have femtotech that can rearrange atomic structures, you're Robert C. Clark's monoliths. This is the causality breaking computing being done by the Type III civilization's infomorphs. You lack the energy and power as femtotech to directly create structure large enough to do rearrange the landscape to any real degree however. That's the purpose of using biological evolution to piggy-back on. The process is slower but allows you to go further into space and hit a broad region of space than is possible with construction crafts that utilize conventional propulsion - in itself a million year process for a satellite galaxy. 

 

In this sense a Type II to Type III transition takes millions of years, a Type III to Type IV galactic cluster civilization takes billions of years. Yet the technology of the Type II remains unchanged, because Omega Point miniaturization and harnessing exotic particles have already reached their ultimate level of sophistication. Yet the evolution continues, and opens even more doors. Like the non-linear collection of Dyson Spheres occupying multiple big bounces over a googol year time-frame, able to form a collective entity via FTL signaling that breaks causality allowing pocketed communication between Dyson Spheres that either don't exist yet or no longer exist, brought together by the ones that currently exist. That's a Type V. Notice that Moore's Law reverses, and it takes longer and longer amounts of time to grow in computing once you've reached the epitome of miniaturization. 

 

You can't rule out the possibility of such omega point technology's existence, so you have to experimentally make it valid or invalid. Issue is, we're a long ways away from finding that sort of science relevant. It's really not relevant, if you think about it, if it's the reality of the situation than we're fulfilling our purpose either way. I just wanted to convey the idea that God is as scientifically accessible as anything else, and may just be a

.  Edited January 6, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

 A lot of times you get disorganized when sorting through enormous amounts of information and trying to discern fact from fiction. You see some of that in this thread. 

 

 

 

You start off the thread with 100% science fiction, and I can't work out which direction you are going in. What is the point of expanding a theory in such detail when it is based on this kind of fantasy?

[Super Polymath]

You start off the thread with 100% science fiction, and I can't work out which direction you are going in. What is the point of expanding a theory in such detail when it is based on this kind of fantasy?

You mean like a Space Odyssey?

 

That's the theme of the topic, we're trying to go about it logically though. The point is the theme. 

 

I've said, advanced technology is indistinguishable from sci fi to us lesser mortals who only understand less advanced technology. I'm just trying to use real technical terms that explain how "magic technology" would most likely work. And it does require stepping outside of semantic, learned, knowledge which is valued for technical expertise but not for futurism. Femtotech, super artificial intelligence, that 96% of theoretical particles that make up our universe, in which our CMB understanding only makes up 4% of, the work done by Freeman Dyson or Ray Kurzweil, the belief in a higher power, is all theoretical. None of it is proven, so it's not valued on the technical level. But my citation is probably why this thread has remained outside of the strange claims forum. 

 

Redefining, or breaking, the limits we experience as humans through science and technology is a very human thought. As is the beyond, the unknown, the largeness of the unknown cosmos and the possibilities it yields. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

 

I've said, advanced technology is indistinguishable from sci fi to us lesser mortals who only understand less advanced technology. I'm just trying to use real technical terms that explain how "magic technology" would most likely work. 

 

Perhaps I'm too simple-minded. To me, science fiction remains science fiction until it becomes science fact. So your advanced technology is still science fiction, and is clearly indistinguishable from it by definition. Speculation as to how this advanced technology might work, based on principles which are themselves fiction, is itself science fiction. Am I right so far?

[Super Polymath]

Perhaps I'm too simple-minded. To me, science fiction remains science fiction until it becomes science fact. So your advanced technology is still science fiction, and is clearly indistinguishable from it by definition. Speculation as to how this advanced technology might work, based on principles which are themselves fiction, is itself science fiction. Am I right so far?

Well, whether or not you see it, some science fiction is more logically sound than others. And more likely to be true. Innovators sometimes have to be "true believers" because they're stepping outside the known to acquire new knowledge. They have to be especially skeptical and able to discern fact from fiction and see things as they are. 

 

At the basal level, speculation "based on principles which themselves are fiction", are themselves all based on fact eventually. Simple-mindedness can be advantageous even when we're talking about things like this. It helps us call out BS by removing overly complication extrapolations, even if the resulting speculation is rather complicated. The advantages of using atomic scale crafts becomes clear and simple when considering how much is required to generate enough exotic matter to bypass conventional propulsion methods. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

Well, whether or not you see it, some science fiction is more logically sound than others. And more likely to be true.

 

As I see it, science fiction is fiction. The idea that some is less logical than other is rather like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I classify this as mental masturbation, but hey, I spend a lot of time playing backgammon so each to his own.

[Super Polymath]

As I see it, science fiction is fiction. The idea that some is less logical than other is rather like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I classify this as mental masturbation, but hey, I spend a lot of time playing backgammon so each to his own.

But isn't mental masturbation what we do as logicians? In, say, making mathematical calculations, we define probability not unlike how we figure out "how many angels can fit on the head of pin". We need to know the size of the angels, the size of the head of the pin, and we're really actually being logical about it. Even if we're talking about something that we don't know is real, it works the same way as when we're talking about that which is real. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

But isn't mental masturbation what we do as logicians? In, say, making mathematical calculations, we define probability not unlike how we figure out "how many angels can fit on the head of pin". We need to know the size of the angels, the size of the head of the pin, and we're really actually being logical about it. Even if we're talking about something that we don't know is real, it works the same way as when we're talking about that which is real. 

 

You are only being logical if you know the size of an angel. An argument when this variable is unknowable is to my mind rather pointless.

[Super Polymath]

You are only being logical if you know the size of an angel. An argument when this variable is unknowable is to my mind rather pointless.

Let's say the point is mental exercise.