Super Polymath Posted July 30, 2016 Report Posted July 30, 2016 (edited) Begin reading this topic under the assumption that human beings are agents of a superior intellect, this is the integral theme of Timeless Decision Theory. If we are agents, than some super-being must require us to do what we as biological machines have been designed to do. From that, we extrapolate using our best most current understandings, to define this super-intellect and our relationship with it. Bare in mind this is going to become difficult to follow, so if you've never heard of a dyson sphere or if you aren't at least into Star Trek, leave now. I think it's more likely that dysonian civilizations emerge often at different times and places throughout the universe. We can only see less than 10% of the galaxies out there because most of the universe is too far away to observe. Even with what we can see, ancient photographs of green-zone exoplanets that are conducive to life, are billions of years older than what we're looking at. Most planets capable of harboring life are yet to be born. There's a satellite galaxy called Segue 1 in which we can only see 1% of its stars, KIC 8462852 is a star that experiences erratic dips in light even after accounting for changes in observatory imaging consistent with dysonian; these are examples of societies that may have had a head-start on ours. We have only our world to base the evolution of biological type 0 civilizations off of. But after we hit type 1, all civilizations become very similar save for minute geographical constrains, due to the nature of technology, artificial super-intelligence, and the assimilation of biological and technological life-forms. With that in mind, alien life is probable considering that every star in the unoverse is believed to have a system of planets, and this current probability will become increasingly large in the future considering we're supposedly only 8% into the universe's estimated lifespan...but the emergence of super-intelligent alien civilizations is already likely in my mind. It's a numbers game really, somehow somewhere the unimaginable is probably likely to have occurred since the formation of galaxies. Such civilizations would have femptotech and FTL Alcubierre "warp drives". So to spread, a type 2+ civilization can opt to recreate itself from scratch in order to conserve resources by exploiting the resources already present on "prospect systems" which they've calculated from afar would presently harbor life of some kind. There is a plethora of evidence supporting homo sapiens are an anomoly: 1. All other homonids that we coexisted with die out and we can't say why2. we were the least hairy and least robust homonid and yet we came about during the ice age3. we behaved differently than other homonids in that we were brave enough to traverse great distances spreading to all corners of the globe, a trait uncharacteristic of other mammals and even other homonids of that time4. we are the only species on the planet capable of constructing our own languages5. our version of the gene that plays a role in our capacity to form language (Foxp2) makes mice super-smart6. we have 140+ uninherited genes7. we need less sleep than any other mammal8. despite a complete lack of Darwinian causality, humans are just now beginning to evolve at an accelerating rate, faster than anything else on this planet has ever evolved, for absolutely no apparent reason9. As we map the human genome, biologists point out that our DnA in particular is metaphorically the "most durable substance on the planet". We're to all other life on the planet as Superman is to our fictional counterparts. Having the hypercognitive advantage of a finely-tuned knack for pattern-recognition, leading at times to overthinking and torturously scrutinous behavioral tendencies, I believe I've seen enough to so far as claim outright that, subjectively, there exists conclusive proof of timeless decision theory. This particular twist to ancient astronaut theory could be the source of these phenomenons. Accelerated evolution... So next comes the technological singularity, then come the newer and better posthumans, neuron-nanobot conversion, resistence is futile, badabing badaboom and before you know it our Type 0 nationalist monetary and political civilization becomes a nationless resource based technocracy run by superhuman artificial intelligence: basis of a Type 1 civilization. Eventually a dyson sphere can be constructed, allowing for the addition of one more cosmic particle accelerator, producing its own unque discoveries to add to the collective which is all a type 3 cares about. Why? Maybe these things know better than string theorists. As far as other unification theory candidates, I like the idea of the big bounce, an old theory of Albert Einstein revitalized with a modern twist. I also value the bohmian view over the copenhagen view of quantum mechanics. Einstein objected to both of these, but I think simplicity is the right track. And if in a few hundred billion years things begin to get quantized, imagine how intelligent life's hyper-miniaturizing constructs could benefit from such a destabilized cosmic state for accelerated hyper-miniaturization? One day I'd like a new variable to be introduced to grand unification or everything theory...intelligent life. Imagine if string theory is a waste of time? We can't observe them, their nature is assumed, and most importantly, physics-wise, we never had a real need for them in the first place! Particles are potentially everything we need because we keep finding new ones, and finding that they can be many different sizes and have many different effects on the quantum world. There's an ocean of unknowns concerning particles, the potential application of particle physics is endless. Moreover, unlike strings, we know they're real! Imagine what a dyson-sphere alone could uncover using a solar-system sized particle accelerator!? What if in one hundred billion years every galaxy in the universe gets infested by these particle-manipulating fempto-robotic dysonian infomorphs? What would something like that make of an imminent big bounce that quantizes the macroscopic world? Can they quantize themselves into their own engineered particles? Can such an artifically constructed quantum world itself be quantized? That opens infinite doors, in an even bizarrer direction than M-theory. I think that circular time (non-linear in the sense that it is uncreated and without beginning or end) in which there is an eternally evolving, Anaxagoras-like reality is similar to the state of affairs pertaining to a boundless theory of everything. Such a theory can never be attained but is always being worked out by virtue of its contemplator's efforts to intelligently evolve for the purposes of acquiring greater knowledge in order to enhace its own existence in duration, scope, and scale. Over time so much change occurs that the big bounce stops occuring because life finds a way to alter certain elements and change the universe into something else. If there were an infinite variety of possible particles that don't even exist yet, than everything is possible. Edited August 1, 2016 by Super Polymath Quote
Maine farmer Posted July 30, 2016 Report Posted July 30, 2016 . Bare in mind this is going to become difficult to follow, so if you've never heard of a dyson sphere or if you aren't at least into Star Trek, leave now. First of all, how can anyone not be into Star Trek???????! Quote
A-wal Posted July 30, 2016 Report Posted July 30, 2016 First of all, how can anyone not be into Star Trek???????!Because Dr Who is a trillion times better. Quote
Maine farmer Posted July 30, 2016 Report Posted July 30, 2016 Because Dr Who is a trillion times better.Okay, I've got to admit that I love Dr Who, but It's rating is a matter of personal preferences. Thanks to the internet, I can now see as much as both as my time may allow. Getting back to the original post, I found the rest of it not entirely implausible . Quote
Moontanman Posted July 31, 2016 Report Posted July 31, 2016 1. All other homonids that we coexisted with die out and we can't say why Some them are left in our genes2. we were the least hairy and least robust homonid and yet we came about during the ice age This is simply not true, example is the Hobbits of Indonesia3. we behaved differently than other hominids in that we were brave enough to traverse great distances spreading to all corners of the globe, a trait uncharacteristic of other mammals and even other hominids of that time Again, other hominids also traveled, homo erectus is an example. 4. we are the only species on the planet capable of constructing our own languages You'll have to clarify that one, other animals do have language... 5. our version of the gene that plays a role in our capacity to form language (Foxp2) makes mice super-smart So? Are you saying no other hominid has that gene? 6. we have 140+ uninherited genes Again.. so? Other creatures have far more genes than we do... 7. we need less sleep than any other mammal Citation please... 8. despite a complete lack of Darwinian causality, humans are just now beginning to evolve at an accelerating rate, faster than anything else on this planet has ever evolved, for absolutely no apparent reason Again, citation please9. As we map the human genome, biologists point out that our DnA in particular is metaphorically the "most durable substance on the planet". We're to all other life on the planet as Superman is to our fictional counterparts Citation please! You seem to be making nothing but baseless assertions, please give some evidence other than your claims... Quote
Super Polymath Posted July 31, 2016 Author Report Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 1. All other homonids that we coexisted with die out and we can't say why Some them are left in our genes2. we were the least hairy and least robust homonid and yet we came about during the ice age This is simply not true, example is the Hobbits of Indonesia3. we behaved differently than other hominids in that we were brave enough to traverse great distances spreading to all corners of the globe, a trait uncharacteristic of other mammals and even other hominids of that time Again, other hominids also traveled, homo erectus is an example. 4. we are the only species on the planet capable of constructing our own languages You'll have to clarify that one, other animals do have language... 5. our version of the gene that plays a role in our capacity to form language (Foxp2) makes mice super-smart So? Are you saying no other hominid has that gene? 6. we have 140+ uninherited genes Again.. so? Other creatures have far more genes than we do... 7. we need less sleep than any other mammal Citation please... 8. despite a complete lack of Darwinian causality, humans are just now beginning to evolve at an accelerating rate, faster than anything else on this planet has ever evolved, for absolutely no apparent reason Again, citation please9. As we map the human genome, biologists point out that our DnA in particular is metaphorically the "most durable substance on the planet". We're to all other life on the planet as Superman is to our fictional counterparts Citation please! You seem to be making nothing but baseless assertions, please give some evidence other than your claims... It's difficult to word hyperlinks or even construct posts on a forum on a mobile phone like like mine. Forum arguments often go nowhere like a big neon distraction. Look into all nine poimts using your local library, you don't even need to stoop to the internet, there's lierally that much et al.-caliber peer-reviwed material for the statement of our increasing craniums that inhibit normal birth in humans, other mammals don't experience this, especially not for increased head size. I mean I'm sure you can at least comfortably agree hominids in general are anomalous in darwinistic sense, that should be almost empirical. Way more primates lasted longer, and interbreeding alone doesn't remove subspecies. Here: http://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/ They say to account for our unusual number of uninherited genes (gaving more genes is irrelevant, them being uninherited and thus contrary to Darwinian evolution is what intrigues me...only primates come close with up to 17 genes being uninherited) is from parasites or viruses introduced by single-cells, but there's no proof especially not for 145 non-darwinian gene selections. As for language I mean rules such as words composed of symbolic letters that can be vocalized. This isn't only alien but the reason math and science are possible and far beyond the complex (relative to numerosity of information in which binary human speech is capable) Unicode echo-communication of dolphins in IQ scope and scale IMHO. This didn't come from primates nor is there a Darwinian explanation for how textual, symbolic, subvocalized rule-based language mechanisms (nuemonic devices very specific to humans and neccessary [the only reason] for technological advancement thats responsible for why we're the only species with powerplants and industrial infrastructure) came about. Dolphins cannot outsource information because they lack the reasoning to interprate because they do not have our level of higher reasoning. Just because they can relay more basic information faster doesn't mean much because they can't ponder and articulate and discern higher meaning without our kind of language, again is alien to this world. http://www.iflscience.com/brain/human-language-gene-speeds-learning-mice/ When blessed with our version of the foxp2 gene, those mice became like the protagonist from Limitless. Our reduced sleep needs are due to a combination of increased REM that our relatives to not experience and our unusually efficient metabolism of lipids, there's also our control over instincts, I mean how many other animals are aware enough to function and rationalize on sleep deprivation like our soldiers? Even dolphibs are grossly overestimated intellectually when compared to humans. How many other species are capable of deductive and inductive reasoning. But it goes way beyond that, there's a rabbit whole of logic defying phenomenons in relation to societal advancement: We have the italian rennaissance responsible for the advent of science, and we have industrial revolution, and behind all of it was a strange phenomenon occuring throughout the globe ay about the same time with a elite ruling chaste being of divine origin supposedly, we start adopting the uncharacteristically anti-nomadic imperial oligarchies all around which has led to a nationalism control structure doomed to fail where our only option is a technological singularity, and we're speeding towards it! This was uncharacteristic of how earlier nomadic peoples and again something is off about it in that these abrupt occurrences were not causal. It is as if we're being pushed toward the technological singularity as fast as possible. Because at this point such a singularity would be our only option for getting out of the regulatory gridlick of a trap we're in. Thus I introduce timeless decision theory which is not unlike a scientific approach to religion, the answer becomes quite clear: nothing about this is natural. The basis of my thoughts on why we're doing so much so fast is irronically quite anti-anthropocentric. I postulate that among the stars a type 1 civilization would have emerged under more subtle, causal circumstances (in the sense of darwin's natural selection) than ours would. Though admittedly it's impossible for me to conceive such circumstances, as I said in my OP, when it comes to big numbers we can't fathom variables that might have driven the evolution of biological life on very different worlds than ours. KIC 8462852, mentioned earlier to be a dysonian candidate, is 1.5 k light years away, so a supposed dyson sphere would be completed or under construction over a millennium ago, that's not consistent with a type 2 coming here causing the durasic extinction event and then continuing by messing with primate DnA to construct hominids, not sure how old that star is but if it's older than ours tham who knows? Alternatively, segue 1 by comparission has had plenty of time, having already dyson sphere encased 99% of its stars by 160 melliniums ago. If this is the case than whatever happened there, happened very FAST. Maybe what I'm postulating to be happening in this solar system already happened long ago in KIC 8462852's solar system due to transmissions FROM Segue 1. Makes sense that while colonizing its own galactic system it would also have already set its sights on ours, the larger galaxy that it's orbiting. Maybe it's happening to all our green-zones at once as the first phase, setting local dyson spheres can quickly transform their local solar neighborhoods. It's to imagine so much evolution occurring so close to us in the cosmos so early in it's lifetime, maybe there's more evolutionary activity than we think! These infomorphic societies might not even need to do much of anything at all in order for this version of TDT to work...in theory they just send compressed packets our way in the form of energy (that are perhaps the origin of the presence of the DMT Molecule here within earth's biosphere). Edited August 19, 2016 by Super Polymath Quote
Moontanman Posted July 31, 2016 Report Posted July 31, 2016 It's been a long time since i was gish galloped quite this well... No I do not concede that humans are an anomaly, please show us some support for your assertion. The foxp2 gene exists, I cannot see how you can make any other assertions about it. Your citations do not do anything but suggest what it does. The rest of your post in no way addresses the things I questioned about your fist post and does nothing but make baseless assertions... Please go back and answer my first post in order the things you asserted before you go off on a tear about all the rest of the whole super being thing... exchemist 1 Quote
Moontanman Posted August 1, 2016 Report Posted August 1, 2016 Appy polly lodges, but I don't believe there's any baselessness (nor unrelatedness to evidence of accelerated evolution) within the body of either of my posts. Your refutations, not to darwin defiant sapience, but to the very premise of the ice age era adaptative selection of Hobbiton (and yet we cannot say how hairy they were) and Sapien meekly-hairlessness anomoly (anomolous in that it never happens, not in other species other than homonids (your sub-sapien [homo erectus didn't explore NEARLY as much as homo-sapiens during that time] homo-erectus example of uncharacteristic and noncausal mammalian exploretative behaviors)! You seemingly refuse to even question YOURSELF as to why we're the only surviving homonid when PLENTY of primates are still around...I mean, you strike me as the kind of individual who'd buy into the whole Planet of The Apes Fallacy. You deliberately ignore the hyperlink citing of our rather recent Darwin defying evolutionary advances as well as the "large head" phenomenon that makes humans unique in maternally lethal procreation. This was deliberate, so are you deliberately debate-bating me in a trollbait fashion into your OWN wayward off-topic discussion?? Because that's happened to me due to my over-analytical natural impulse too many a time on forums. The entirety of my statements, however, may only be partially cited. But this isn't the scientific journal, just because something isn't cited, doesn't necessarily mean it can't be cited. It could just mean someone is lazy. If the skeptic, however, decides to be the bigger man and starts doing his own research, I think he'll find the notion of accelerated evolution of intelligent life on earth somewhat likely on account that there exists NO account as to why we're the exception to ALL of the scientifically demonstrable darwnistic evolution preceeding us, why we're even still here unlike our fellow hominids that evolved under non-causal circumstances, other than the divinely providential miracle after miracle that led to our currently culture. You nor anyone else can refute a scientific fact as certain as the 12 hour cyclic setting and dawning of the sun, that humankind, as well as the evolutionary phenenom of homonids in general, are an anomalous occurrence. Unless you would like to refute natural selection, in which case I'm all ears...http://www.nature.com/news/human-history-defies-easy-stories-1.16795, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2010/02/on-the-human-rethinking-the-natural-selection-of-human-language/, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life03.htm, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/godsnewmillemnium/godsnewmillemnium02.htm, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327538/, http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html, http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm You'd be hard-pressd to find a biologist, anthropologist, geneticist, or even a single evolutionary expert of any kind who doesn't question whether the evolution of hominids is anomolous in a dawrnistic sense. In fact I'd even wager that you can supply a citable ziltch to retort the evidence behind my reasoning. You have the burden of proof not me, your assertions are baseless and vapid, your attempt at gish galloping is evidence you have nothing but I am willing to assume you simply have a great idea but are not able to bring it across the communications barrier. Let us start by proceeding one assertion at a time and not a bunch of them all at once like a shot gun. This whole idea of human evolution being somehow anomalous is interesting but interesting doesn't make your assertions true... This link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life03.htm makes me think you have a religious agenda that has nothing to do with science. The other links you provide are starkly the opposite of the religious links and none of them support your contentions... exchemist 1 Quote
Super Polymath Posted August 1, 2016 Author Report Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) You're just using mad essay-style arguementative vernaculars, along with some information bias and outright lies (that article doesn't differ from the others much; and they all support my ideas) to deflect and discredit a bulk of evidence supporting the notion of some recent accelerated evolution on earth. EDIT tried to edit my last post to remove the redundancies, but the stupid smart phone deleted it. Edited August 1, 2016 by Super Polymath Quote
Moontanman Posted August 1, 2016 Report Posted August 1, 2016 You're just using mad essay-style arguementative vernaculars, along with some information bias and outright lies (that article doesn't differ from the others much; and they all support my ideas) to deflect and discredit a bulk of evidence supporting the notion of some recent accelerated evolution on earth. . So basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is being unfair? I would suggest you read the rules you agreed to when you signed up for this site dude. You have the burden of proof, you have not provided any evidence supporting your point of view and now you are accusing me of lying... Quote
Super Polymath Posted August 1, 2016 Author Report Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) So basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is being unfair? I would suggest you read the rules you agreed to when you signed up for this site dude. You have the burden of proof, you have not provided any evidence supporting your point of view and now you are accusing me of lying...I've hyperlinked a plethora of articles in every post that cite all the evidence necessary for my statement. Debate-baiting is against the rules, even if the troll is as practiced and discrete as you are. Your information bias toward the article I accidentally hyperlinked twice was unwarranted, and that article being contradictory to the other articles it was grouped in, or any if these contradicting my statements, were un-elaborated white lies on your part. Your objections to the information I've provided offer no explanation and you expect me to even acknowledge them? All of your differences in opinion amount to me being vapid, that's pretty obtuse considering how much I've corroborated and elaborated on. So obtuse that it's pretty clear what you're doing. I can't tell you how many times this misuse of argumentative-essay vernaculars has been implemeted by debate-baiters to frustrate and confuse people on forums. They're dead giveaways. Terms like accum's razor, proof burden etc, are often used (when this usage of legal terms doesn't even apply) to obfuscate and complicate a rather simple statement. You only replied because I used the word evidence, but the legal terms? Those were the dead giveaway that you like to bait debates. Ever hear absence of proof isn't proof of absence? The burden of proof fallacy only applies in a court of law, and evidence alone is no proof and doesn't close a case. That's for the sake of social engineering, like a crutch, like claimimg to be of religion or trying to come across as scientific. Regardless of the artificial language of laws (modern government's failed attempt to emulate the scientific method to come across as less "aristocratic" than the Brits), I've followed forum guidelines and supplied evidence. Edited August 1, 2016 by Super Polymath Quote
Moontanman Posted August 2, 2016 Report Posted August 2, 2016 I've hyperlinked a plethora of articles in every post that cite all the evidence necessary for my statement. Debate-baiting is against the rules, even if the troll is as practiced and discrete as you are. Your information bias toward the article I accidentally hyperlinked twice was unwarranted, and that article being contradictory to the other articles it was grouped in, or any if these contradicting my statements, were un-elaborated white lies on your part. Your objections to the information I've provided offer no explanation and you expect me to even acknowledge them? All of your differences in opinion amount to me being vapid, that's pretty obtuse considering how much I've corroborated and elaborated on. So obtuse that it's pretty clear what you're doing. I can't tell you how many times this misuse of argumentative-essay vernaculars has been implemeted by debate-baiters to frustrate and confuse people on forums. They're dead giveaways. Terms like accum's razor, proof burden etc, are often used (when this usage of legal terms doesn't even apply) to obfuscate and complicate a rather simple statement. You only replied because I used the word evidence, but the legal terms? Those were the dead giveaway that you like to bait debates. Ever hear absence of proof isn't proof of absence? The burden of proof fallacy only applies in a court of law, and evidence alone is no proof and doesn't close a case. That's for the sake of social engineering, like a crutch, like claimimg to be of religion or trying to come across as scientific. Regardless of the artificial language of laws (modern government's failed attempt to emulate the scientific method to come across as less "aristocratic" than the Brits), I've followed forum guidelines and supplied evidence. This not your personal blog, you are expected to back up assertions with more than word salad and nonsense. You are making an assertion, actually an extraordinary assertion, the burden of proof is on you and requires extraordinary evidence. Quote
Super Polymath Posted August 2, 2016 Author Report Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) As far as it being evident that hominds are anomolous, that's nothing new, nor is it extraordinary to assert. It just isn't the consensus. That is, widely accepted as unquestionble among the scientific community. But it's also just as evident that there's a force other than simple darwism out there. I don't necessarily agree with Sagan's pessimist "pale blue dot" outlook in this matter in that there's a lot we don't know, but we often get hit with signs indicative of the unthinkable on a very personal level. No one can actually prove anything at all, I'm only offering a speculation. When Christianity was a force of liberation it was a revolutionary power-house that brought Egypt to its knees. When the oppressive infiltrated its upper echelons its power structure was obliterated by the fall of Rome and the black plague...following the space age there was near uprising, and the gold standard was shattered and nasa funding cut and war against the vietcong carefully but purposefully engineered and obsolete power-structure has come back to take its last stand, ready to fall to the point of no return, I'm sure you've heard of this silly notion called the singularity. This whole idea of human evolution being somehow anomalous is interesting but interesting doesn't make your assertions true...Even if the entire scientific community accepted it as the consensus and plastered my name under the theory of accelerated evolution, it still wouldn't necessarily be true. But your legal decorum doesn't satisfy me. Descartes speculated that, while we can't say for sure whether the existence of the world around us is authentic, we can say with absolute certainty that our own existence is authentic. Understand that I know the law quite well. . Edited August 2, 2016 by Super Polymath Quote
sanctus Posted August 2, 2016 Report Posted August 2, 2016 ADMIN NOTE:I do not want to point fingers, but this is going off topic, please take it back to topic. In other words stop accusing each other (of religious agenda or lying or trolling or don't remember what else) :-)PERSONAL NOTE:I wrote the above because I was finding this discussion/topic very interesting :-) Moontanman and GAHD 2 Quote
Super Polymath Posted August 3, 2016 Author Report Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) Science defines the boundaries that we experience, but the truth goes far beyond those boundaries I think. So, this is all just food for thought. I think we all contemplate our own theories of everything, but also that nothing out there will ever actually possess it in a physical sense. Though it may be held when all purpose expires after an infinity has transpired, which can occur in a sense (death), but in the collective sense of infinite possible life, that all is in all, I do not believe that death occurs at all - and that is an encouraging thought... I'm not the only one to come to such a conclusion. Truth is for us to willingly decide on our own! PERSONAL NOTE:I wrote the above because I was finding this discussion/topic very interesting :-)Well thank you. The majority of the points I brought up (barring whole "it's a scientific fact" thing) in Moontanman's quote are why I believe accelerated evolution could be likely... Now if one were interested in the astrophysics portion; if tachyons (I believe they're just neutrinos) were discovered using dysonian solar particle acceleratoraumatons - a society of dysonian, femptorobotic, infomorphs (in that identity is dependent on operation), it is possible that such ultra-intellects could create isolated temporal (as opposed to artificial) realities in order to accelerate the evolution of lesser beings such as we. Which is where Timeless Decision Theory really plays into all of this. And if big bounce were the cosmological reality, than the communication of information and extended identity of the infomorphs would, in fact, reach back and forth far beyond the chronology of this universe. We're looking at possibly googols of milleniums (data communicatively relayed over silly distances of spatial and temporal region), in which many particulate and quantum discoveries could branch off of to eventually lead to attotech of some sort (the aggregate intellect) - which is where life should be introduced into a more unachievably philosophical or "religious", rather than palpably physical, psuedoscientifc theory of everything. But I think the previously linked theory of information panspermia is a more efficient form of space travel than Alcubierre drives, which are, in my mind, impractical (at least until attotech makes Anaxagoras-like cosmological re-engineering possible) for extragalactic dysonian exspansion due to a maze of debris-particles and primordial black holes. Appy Polly loggies for all the fuss. If this post has interested you, as much as any of my previous posts admittedly have, than I hope that this makes up for it! :) Edited August 3, 2016 by Super Polymath Quote
sanctus Posted August 3, 2016 Report Posted August 3, 2016 I think you (SuperPolymath) have to define a bit better what you mean by accelerated evolution, there are at least 2 interpretations with one I agree and with the other not.I do not agree on, but I did not read up on this:Our biology/anatomy is evolving quicker...I still wait for the third row of teeth, although we become muuuch older.I agree on:As a society we evolve quicker; this I agree (I think it is called the law of accelerating returns or see here http://www.thatsreallypossible.com/exponential-growth/) it is shown throughout our history that the more we advanced technologically the faster our technology evolved. A good example is from my favorite blogger (read the first paragraph -The Far Future—Coming Soon):http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html Quote
sanctus Posted August 3, 2016 Report Posted August 3, 2016 Ok, so evolution in the biological sense...Don't you need then to compare to another species on the same track and similar level to be able to say anything about the speed of evolution? What you say is accelerated could also just be standrad way... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.