Human extinction

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, there's only so many more millions (possibly billions) of years any life can exist, given entropy,

If you're referring to "heat death" or the inevitable maximized entropy potential and its repercussions on the universe, that is absurdly in the future.....we're talking >10^100 years and beyond. Really really really far into the future.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
and the fact that it appears as though the universe will not contract at some point, but continue indefinitely to grow. It's just a scientific fact, and the vague futurist musings on converting our consciousnesses to energy fields or some such would likely only prolong the inevitable, not avoid it.

There's other theories which involve AI. It is estimated by some that around 2050, for all intents and purposes, god-like AI will be created. Not god-like as in all powerful but more like omniscient. Truly being able to calculate and grasp all realities, all potential realities, and all probable realities. (potential and probable realities are slightly different, imo. potential don't necessarily exist or will never exist but they could be used to better form tangible numbers on the probable, the probable is used to form tangible numbers on the real....and so forth.)

Some also believe that AI will actually envelop the entirety of the universe and have utter and complete control over things such as universal expansion and proton decay. This implies that heat death would actually become impossible.

Is it really hard to see humanity creating ways around heat death or other phenomenon? This assumes that other species throughout our universe haven't created ways around heat death or created god-like AI. Probabilities point to the existance of other "intelligent" species existing in this universe.

BTW, heat death is not the only proposed theory on the distant future of our universe. At this moment, universal expansion seems the most probable, though.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Still, Earth will go before many other planets,

I don't understand what you mean. It is possible that we will actually immortalize our planet. We may actually end up turning our planet into something that looks like a hybrid between Coruscant and a Borg Cube. Seriously. Our planet should end up as one giant organic computer.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
and our sun will go supernova before various others.

It won't. Our sun is not massive enough. It will turn into a red giant and slowly die the death of most stars. We will end up with a cloud of stellar matter that was slowly ejected from our expanding red giant and only the tiny and very dense nucleus will remain.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We can certainly prolong the species considerably by learning to inhabit other planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

I don't believe that that is a probability. We will more than likely "technology out" of existence and merge into a very advanced form of AI consciousness . This assumes that there aren't various species of AI that conflict at some level for conscience dominance. Regardless, we will evolve and become one with the AI we give birth to.

I say it won't be a probability because it won't really be "us" that teraforms those planets into giant computers for the edification of the universal AI.

DigiMark007

Like I said, futurist techno-babble promises a lot of the stuff that dudemon mentioned. It all remains speculation right now, at best. Lulz at the omniscient AI by 2050, however. If a computer with a multiversal intellect is created during my lifetime, I'll fly to your house and shake your hand.

Not that I think some of what you mentioned isn't possible. It very well might be. But talking about it like it's an inevitability that, say, earth will one day closely resemble a Borg Cube or AI will one-day control proton decay, and you lose a bit of credibility. It's a remote possibility, not an imminent future.

Although I did misspeak when I said our star would go supernova. It will have the same affect, however, since its slow expansion will eventually make earth uninhabitable. Again, though, we're talking in terms of billions of years. Though I didn't pass off heat death as irrefutable fact, so there was no need to "correct" me. It's the most likely outcome based on our current knowledge.

Emil Blonsky

Our sun isn't large enough to go supernova. It'll certainly die, as will Earth, but won't go supernova.

As for humans...I dunno, maybe if we smarten up and spread our race across the universe we'll survive for a long time. But by then, if we evolve, we may become a different species entirely.

DigiMark007

Originally posted by Emil Blonsky
But by then, if we evolve, we may become a different species entirely.

That's actually fairly likely. We can already do simple forms of gene splicing for pre-born children, and species can deviate as quickly as a few hundred thousand years (though usually longer).

Emil Blonsky

If we do change into another species, so to speak, what are we talking here? What'll be different (I'm really curious)?

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Like I said, futurist techno-babble promises a lot of the stuff that dudemon mentioned. It all remains speculation right now, at best. Lulz at the omniscient AI by 2050, however. If a computer with a multiversal intellect is created during my lifetime, I'll fly to your house and shake your hand.

Why my house? Why not the physicists who predicted it?

I qualified my statement like so:

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's other theories which involve AI. It is estimated by some that around 2050, for all intents and purposes, god-like AI will be created.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I cannot take credit for those theories. They are far from my own original ideas.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not that I think some of what you mentioned isn't possible. It very well might be. But talking about it like it's an inevitability that, say, earth will one day closely resemble a Borg Cube or AI will one-day control proton decay, and you lose a bit of credibility.

So, when I qualify my statements like so:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some also believe that AI..

You interpret that as "inevitable speak"?

Also, I qualified my statements with things such as "It is possible.." and "We may actually end up turning our planet into something that looks like a hybrid between Coruscant and a Borg Cube."

Some dude did a projection on current growth and he came up with a year that Earth will be one large megalopolis just like Coruscant. Unless something is done to curb that, it is inevitable that the ridiculous vast majority of the planet will be one city.

As far as the Earth being similar to a Borg Cube...well, if we have our way with technology, much of the planet with be computers.

Also... I was referring to the ideas of Raymond Kurzweil. He has this very canny(canny, because he isn't just guessing) ability to predict technological milestones.

Here is a nice summary of his "planet stuff" from wiki.

" * The physical bottom limit to how small computer transistors (or other equivalent, albeit more effective components, such as memristors integrated into Crossbar latches) can be shrunk is reached. From this moment onwards, computers can only be made more powerful if they are made larger in size.
* Because of this, A.I.s convert more and more of the Earth's matter into engineered, computational substrate capable of supporting more A.I.s. until the whole Earth is one, gigantic computer.
* At this point, the only possible way to increase the intelligence of the machines any farther is to begin converting all of the matter in the universe into similar massive computers. A.I.s radiate out into space in all directions from the Earth, breaking down whole planets, moons and meteoroids and reassembling them into giant computers. This, in effect, "wakes up" the universe as all the inanimate "dumb" matter (rocks, dust, gases, etc.) is converted into structured matter capable of supporting life (albeit synthetic life).
* Kurzweil predicts that machines might have the ability to make planet-sized computers by 2099, which underscores how enormously technology will advance after the Singularity.
* The process of "waking up" the universe could be complete as early as 2199, or might take billions of years depending on whether or not machines could figure out a way to circumvent the speed of light for the purposes of space travel.
* With the entire universe made into a giant, highly efficient supercomputer, A.I./human hybrids (so integrated that, in truth it is a new category of "life" wink

would have both supreme intelligence and physical control over the universe. Kurzweil suggests that this would open up all sorts of new possibilities, including abrogation of the laws of Physics, interdimensional travel, and a possible infinite extension of existence (true immortality)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

However, I did say that we will more than likely "technology out of existence" because we most likely will. In one form or another, we will not be human as we recognize it or would like to currently define it...that assumes we won't destroy ourselves first. Unlocking all the secrets of the human brain and genome open the door to many possibilities. Possibilities that lead to different forms of humanity and beyond.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's a remote possibility, not an imminent future.

No, it is the highest probable future based on current projections. I'm referring to a a Coruscant planet of course and AI's applications in things like teraforming.

As far as other forms of AI, there are computing technologies in the works such as holographic memory storage, 4 dimensional memory storage (The storage capacity on this shit is absurd), quantum computing, etc. that will make our computers look rather simple. That does not bridge the gap, though, for AI. However, I suspect that your personal qualifications for AI is anthropomorphic in nature. I agree that it is very uncertain that human-like AI is not as probable as advanced forms of AI. It is inevitable that we will create very advanced forms of AI, though. They just may not be anthropomorphic. Creating AI that can teraform a planet? That is not that far out of bounds of current AI. They already have AI that can put together a book shelf...even when presented with the "data" out of order.

I am skeptical of strong AI myself. However, I see it as a strong (pardon the pun) possibility for the future. Human-like AI? I'm not too sure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Although I did misspeak when I said our star would go supernova.

I get the feeling that your whole post was a tad defensive. I'll get to this in a sec.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Though I didn't pass off heat death as irrefutable fact, so there was no need to "correct" me.

That wasn't what I was correcting at all. I never disputed that. As of right now, that is an inevitable future. (barring quantum phenomena at the macro level, and the vacuum of space collapsing in on itself and forming an entirely different set of physics, etc...ad nauseum with the theories..)

"Well, there's only so many more millions (possibly billions) of years any life can exist, given entropy, and the fact that it appears as though the universe will not contract at some point, but continue indefinitely to grow. It's just a scientific fact,..."

I was correcting you when I gave a more accurate time of heat death, or as your inferred, maximized entropy potential.

If I said there are about 100 or possibly 1000 feet in a mile, I would fully expect your to steer me in the right direction with 5,280 feet. In this particular instance, you were off by an absurd amount of numbers, so I figured I'd shed some light on it. I apologize if it came off as "know-it-all" or condescending. My intentions were more like "I smell what you're cooking, but your numbers are off." If you don't like to be corrected, I won't do it again. I welcome being corrected when I'm wrong...I probably shouldn't expect (subconsciously) others to welcome a correction on numbers. That was my bad.

On the whole, you seem very skeptical AND dubious about strong AI. I see it is a high possibility. I also think that we as a species will probably, in one form or another, figure out a way to prevent heat death. If we immortalize ourselves with "ghost in the shell" type of stuff, we'll think of ways to stay immortal.

michelle444

hmmm...

DigiMark007

Originally posted by Emil Blonsky
If we do change into another species, so to speak, what are we talking here? What'll be different (I'm really curious)?

We can't predict how random genetic variation and natural selection will coincide to produce change. So your guess is as good as mine.

...

As for dudemon's statements, lulz first of all at accidentally putting my words in quotes that say you wrote it. But it's an understandable mistake for such a long post.

In any case, someone as researched as you on Kurzweil should be aware that there is another side to anything. For every over-zealous transhumanist who believes the singularity will occur within our lifetimes, there are equally credible scientists who doubt that the singularity could even exist. From my own readings and thoughts (I'm largely unfamiliar with Kurzweil's work, though not with many of the ideas he proposes, since he's not the only one) I side with the latter group, as their reasoning seems far more sound to me. I actually have a thread on transhumanism in this forum, and detail some of that reasoning if you're interested. It should be easy to find with the search.

But the main point is that you presented only those ideas, not their refutations or competing theories. In doing so, yes, it came across as sounding inevitable in your opinion. Being acquainted with only one side of an issue, or at least presenting only that side, is the definition of bias. You say that you remain skeptical of some of what you wrote, but your own admission of belief at the end their as well as your presentation of the material speak to a lack of skepticism for much of it.

Also, you seem to be confused as to the difference between data processing and application of it. For example: Computers could indeed "terraform the planet" in a mathematical or physical model. Yet the logistics of completing such a transformation remain far outside our, or any computer's, ability to manufacture and complete. Not to mention the political, cultural, and religious roadblocks that any such movement would encounter....which, collectively, would be enough to nullify it to a crawl, not an exponential rate of increase.

Also, the main points you outline for Kurzweil are remarkably similar to another physicist, Frank Tipler (Author of, most famously, The Physics of Immortality). As with Tipler, within the main points the logic seems sound enough, but it is between points where large logical gaps remain.
- If and when we reach the smallest that cpus can become, and there is no reason to believe it will happen soon, he also assumes that the next step will be to convert all of the earth into such material. This presumes consciousness in machines, as well as independent thought, an entirely different phenomenon than the "as small as possible" that he mentions, and decidedly harder.
- Earth as a giant computer: physical limitations mentioned earlier.
- Colonization of space, assumes widespread space travel will be possible, as well as sustainability of humans (or machines by this point, I suppose, in his theory). Life being synthetic doesn't ensure self-sustainability, so massive obstacles would need to be overcome just to maintain this on a global level....unless he's theorizing an end to entropy itself, or frictionless operation of machines, which would be yet another large jump.
- Colonization of the universe: to its credit, it mentions the problems inherent in FTL travel, however it doesn't attempt to reconcile it and blithely assumes that a solution will be found.
- Things like true immortality, overriding the laws of physics, interdimensional travel, at this point can hopefully be recognized for what they are: speculative nonsense that comes at the end of an overly optimistic list of assumptions.
- The last, and biggest, hurdle is that the Singularity may not be possible. History gives us the illusion of increased rates of change, when in fact progress is and has always been incremental. There are more "small" things to build off of as time progresses, and they group into bigger things (think of the hundreds of small inventions that help make a car, for example)....so incremental, gradual change takes on the appearance of faster rates of change simply because there is more to build off of than the past. But it doesn't mean that the rate of change itself is increasing, which is the very basis behind the Singularity.

A more trained eye would likely find more flaws. For myself, I copied much of that for my memories of scientific articles criticizing and debunking Tipler, whose conclusions are similar, and equally as unfounded.

I don't mean to sound negative, btw. Your interest is encouraging, and its certainly an interesting field of study. I just think your enthusiasm is misplaced.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We can't predict how random genetic variation and natural selection will coincide to produce change. So your guess is as good as mine.

...

As for dudemon's statements, lulz first of all at accidentally putting my words in quotes that say you wrote it. But it's an understandable mistake for such a long post.

In any case, someone as researched as you on Kurzweil should be aware that there is another side to anything. For every over-zealous transhumanist who believes the singularity will occur within our lifetimes, there are equally credible scientists who doubt that the singularity could even exist. From my own readings and thoughts (I'm largely unfamiliar with Kurzweil's work, though not with many of the ideas he proposes, since he's not the only one) I side with the latter group, as their reasoning seems far more sound to me. I actually have a thread on transhumanism in this forum, and detail some of that reasoning if you're interested. It should be easy to find with the search.

But the main point is that you presented only those ideas, not their refutations or competing theories. In doing so, yes, it came across as sounding inevitable in your opinion. Being acquainted with only one side of an issue, or at least presenting only that side, is the definition of bias. You say that you remain skeptical of some of what you wrote, but your own admission of belief at the end their as well as your presentation of the material speak to a lack of skepticism for much of it.

Also, you seem to be confused as to the difference between data processing and application of it. For example: Computers could indeed "terraform the planet" in a mathematical or physical model. Yet the logistics of completing such a transformation remain far outside our, or any computer's, ability to manufacture and complete. Not to mention the political, cultural, and religious roadblocks that any such movement would encounter....which, collectively, would be enough to nullify it to a crawl, not an exponential rate of increase.

Also, the main points you outline for Kurzweil are remarkably similar to another physicist, Frank Tipler (Author of, most famously, The Physics of Immortality). As with Tipler, within the main points the logic seems sound enough, but it is between points where large logical gaps remain.
- If and when we reach the smallest that cpus can become, and there is no reason to believe it will happen soon, he also assumes that the next step will be to convert all of the earth into such material. This presumes consciousness in machines, as well as independent thought, an entirely different phenomenon than the "as small as possible" that he mentions, and decidedly harder.
- Earth as a giant computer: physical limitations mentioned earlier.
- Colonization of space, assumes widespread space travel will be possible, as well as sustainability of humans (or machines by this point, I suppose, in his theory). Life being synthetic doesn't ensure self-sustainability, so massive obstacles would need to be overcome just to maintain this on a global level....unless he's theorizing an end to entropy itself, or frictionless operation of machines, which would be yet another large jump.
- Colonization of the universe: to its credit, it mentions the problems inherent in FTL travel, however it doesn't attempt to reconcile it and blithely assumes that a solution will be found.
- Things like true immortality, overriding the laws of physics, interdimensional travel, at this point can hopefully be recognized for what they are: speculative nonsense that comes at the end of an overly optimistic list of assumptions.
- The last, and biggest, hurdle is that the Singularity may not be possible. History gives us the illusion of increased rates of change, when in fact progress is and has always been incremental. There are more "small" things to build off of as time progresses, and they group into bigger things (think of the hundreds of small inventions that help make a car, for example)....so incremental, gradual change takes on the appearance of faster rates of change simply because there is more to build off of than the past. But it doesn't mean that the rate of change itself is increasing, which is the very basis behind the Singularity.

A more trained eye would likely find more flaws. For myself, I copied much of that for my memories of scientific articles criticizing and debunking Tipler, whose conclusions are similar, and equally as unfounded.

I don't mean to sound negative, btw. Your interest is encouraging, and its certainly an interesting field of study. I just think your enthusiasm is misplaced.

I call my perspective skeptical. Maybe you're not aware of previous convos I've had about AI. Oh well. I've stated before that I am not even sure that true AI is even possible. Oh, I'm sure that strong AI will exist, that is inevitable...but sentient AI is another story. Machines that are programmed to teraform a planet? Easy. That is almost within our capabilities now...it would take a hell of a lot of computers and programmers, though. (which, technically, makes it actually out of reach...but still plausible.)

An AI future is inevitable. A sentient AI future is what I'm skeptical of. You can call that overly optimistic if you want. I just see it as unavoidable based on current efforts. Cars that can drive themselves over terrain that most humans would mess shit up on over 142 miles? Yeah, that was impossible ten years ago.

Also, I eat up any and all skepticism or negative speak when it comes to futurists and their theories. You won't have to act like I'm a bible thumping Christian who won't listen to reason....hahahahaha laughing

As far as humans going extinct? Eh, maybe...but probably not. If god doesn't exist, humans will create it/him/her eventually. Sounds weird, I know...but it's possible.

DigiMark007

Fair enough, good talk. Just know that guys like Tipler (and I would imagine Kurzweil just as much) receive boatloads of legit scientific criticism for their ideas. I like the line of thinking, and am very interested in transhumanism...they're just overly optimistic about it, and let their ideas get ahead of themselves without properly justifying each step.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough, good talk. Just know that guys like Tipler (and I would imagine Kurzweil just as much) receive boatloads of legit scientific criticism for their ideas. I like the line of thinking, and am very interested in transhumanism...they're just overly optimistic about it, and let their ideas get ahead of themselves without properly justifying each step.

I probably hold to Kurzweil's ideas better than others only because he has been absurdly prophetic with his more current predictions. You'd think the evangelicals would be all over that... shifty

P23

i believe 50 years from now man will live on mars. if you look at mars carefully it is liveable. as for human extinction anything is possible. i do believe history repeats itself. if we became extinct i dont wanna =be in some muesum

DigiMark007

Originally posted by P23
i do believe history repeats itself.

A classic line, and not without historical precedence, though it must be prefaced with a few qualifying statements.

The laws of nature bind human action to a limited sphere of action. So too does our evolutionary programming, to an extent. So too do basic social forces that have existed throughout history (economic fluctuation and need for stability, survival instinct, procreative desires, religious, etc.). Given these factors that are present for us all, and will do so for the foreseeable future, there's only so many permutations of events that can take place.

Imagine categorizing historical events into genres. No one act will repeat itself in the details and historical implications, for the individual possibilities for action are endless. But overarching themes, struggles, causes, and effects would seem to form loose patterns. This is due to the restricting forces I mentioned earlier. The Holocaust is a unique event, for example. Yet human genocide based on arbitrary distinctions is an event that has repeated itself hundreds of times (most in much smaller forms) throughout history. The underlying ideas of intolerance, fear, and in-group desire for dominance (Aryan in the Nazi case, though usually at the local or tribal level) are all present.

So is history cyclical? Yes, but only conditionally. There aren't prescribed cycle-lengths for various events to repeat, nor a guarantee that an event will loosely repeat itself ever, nor will the circumstances ever be identical in the details, only in their overarching qualities and causes.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So is history cyclical? Yes, but only conditionally.

You may already be meaning this...but it is cyclic when a pattern or definition is applied or looked for. We tend to look for order in things. That's one of the things that makes us human, isn't it?

I'd like to think of it like the uncertainty principle (which, to me, is really what philosophy is about...applying definitions and perspectives to "stuff", but by doing so, something else is lost or a another perspective can exist that is not necessarily incorrect) The more accurately you define a particle's velocity, the harder it is to define the space it occupies and vice versa. Not to say we lose an otherwise useful perspective when another is applied, but it is just another interpretation of historical "cycles".

There are no patterns, if you want to nitpick, and just about everything is a very common pattern down to the human, if you want to get liberal.

Born, survive x amount of time, die.

I'm not sure if I am mirroring what you mean.

DigiMark007

The uncertainty principle is quantum mechanics. You're trying to apply it to sociology? Kind of a big leap there, imo.

Like I said (which you re-worded at one point): all events are unique, since the combinations of possibilities in the world are infinite. Yet, as applied to regular human understanding, we can see similar causal forces at work in a variety of situations, since our actions are limited by our nature, which does indeed have a limited number of driving forces. We're not viewing it from a physical perspective, but from a social one, which is simply a different perspective, and no less valid. Because of course there are no cycles if we break events down into a meaningless reductionist mess....but that's not what I'm talking about.

So like I said, cyclical, yes, but conditionally so, because we must recognize the uniqueness of every event before we perceive the connections, and so learn from them.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Emil Blonsky
Our sun isn't large enough to go supernova. It'll certainly die, as will Earth, but won't go supernova.

Stars like the Sun get larger as they die. The sun will still be directly responsible for killing the Earth.

Originally posted by Emil Blonsky
As for humans...I dunno, maybe if we smarten up and spread our race across the universe we'll survive for a long time. But by then, if we evolve, we may become a different species entirely.

I prefer the take that rather than becoming a new species we'll become a variety of new species. Humanity has never always gone in one direction and I doubt we'll all go in the same direction if and when we attempt to colonize other planets.

The idea is that best way to live on Earth =/= best way to live in space =/= best way to live on Omicron Persei 8. Genetic modifications to make people capable of living comfortably on another world aren't terribly unrealistic and the course of evolution would be dramatically different on different worlds.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The uncertainty principle is quantum mechanics. You're trying to apply it to sociology? Kind of a big leap there, imo.

Sorry, I'm a human so naturally, I'm trying to analyze something by finding a semblance in something else I'm familiar with. I was more or less saying that as you(ambiguous "you" wink

focus one area or concept, you become less focused on another or it becomes harder to define a perspective in terms (or in semblance) of the currently held perspective.

Who knows what types of patterns could be derived from human behavior. What if a sentient extraterrestrial, with an entirely different set of "anthropomorphisms"*, was to observe humanity's history in its entirety? What would it think? Would it come to the same general assessments as humans or come to the same cyclic conclusions? Wouldn't it "lose" some sort of essence of our humanity because of it's own set of expectations? (Back to that focus thing in the uncertainty principle.)

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Like I said (which you re-worded at one point): all events are unique, since the combinations of possibilities in the world are infinite.

I follow you here. That makes sense.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yet, as applied to regular human understanding, we can see similar causal forces at work in a variety of situations, since our actions are limited by our nature, which does indeed have a limited number of driving forces.

Okay. I follow you here.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We're not viewing it from a physical perspective, but from a social one, which is simply a different perspective, and no less valid. Because of course there are no cycles if we break events down into a meaningless reductionist mess....but that's not what I'm talking about.

Reductionist mess...

I think this is where I'm losing you. I thought that approaching subjects with a reductionist's perspective is simplifying things to the most basic element/s. It sounded like you were using reductionism to indicate that any one of those events in and of themselves are just random occurrences governed, if even slightly, by the laws of nature by which we are all in some way fundamentally driven. Then, looking at those individual events (via a reductiontists perspective), one could derive a meaning or pattern to humanity. (Kind of like putting together a one dimensional puzzle and when it is complete, it forms a 2 dimensional experience...like holism.)

Do you feel that even if we define all human events in their entirety, one can still not define what it is to be human?

Damn, I think I'm rambling now.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So like I said, cyclical, yes, but conditionally so, because we must recognize the uniqueness of every event before we perceive the connections, and so learn from them.

Hmm...

So you are not really talking about holism, then?

More on topic, though.

After reviewing as many of these human events as possible from an anthropological and historical perspective, could one derive the outcome of humanity, thereby answering this thread's intention?

Well, I think I've reviewed tons of human history and the good, the bad, and everything inbetween or unrelated, and I feel that I have a grasp on humanity. It may not be very strong but rather nebulous, but I think I have a general grasp.

I don't think humans, as I'd like to define them, will ever become extinct.(Barring our previous heat death conversation events.) Even IF we eventually become so embedded with technology that we woudn't be recognized as humans by today's anthropologists, some of our essence is still there. Maybe I think too much of humanity.

* They most certainly wouldn't be call "anthropomorphisms", but you know what I mean.

DigiMark007

Originally posted by dadudemon
Reductionist mess...

I think this is where I'm losing you. I thought that approaching subjects with a reductionist's perspective is simplifying things to the most basic element/s. It sounded like you were using reductionism to indicate that any one of those events in and of themselves are just random occurrences governed, if even slightly, by the laws of nature by which we are all in some way fundamentally driven. Then, looking at those individual events (via a reductiontists perspective), one could derive a meaning or pattern to humanity. (Kind of like putting together a one dimensional puzzle and when it is complete, it forms a 2 dimensional experience...like holism.)

Do you feel that even if we define all human events in their entirety, one can still not define what it is to be human?

The last question is an entirely different matter.

Anyway, my initial post wasn't trying to reduce things at all. I was looking at them from a sociological perspective....and I'm not sure what you mean by a "human" perspective. Physical, biological, sociological, mathematical, etc. all have a socially-shared meaning. "Human" perspective does not, so you'd have to qualify yourself heavily before I knew what you were talking about.

When I say "events" I'm talking about historical events. I initially used a genre analogy to talk about how we could find common links between such events, even though none are identical. Conditionally cyclical. Cycle implies coming back to the same thing over and over, which isn't quite the case, because every situation is unique. But natural laws and our own genetic nature mean that only so many "genres" (to use my term) of events will occur, and that in this sense history can be seen as cyclical.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hmm...

So you are not really talking about holism, then?

Too far the other direction. Holism implies far too much to ever differentiate between events. Hopefully the explanation above suffices.

Originally posted by dadudemon
After reviewing as many of these human events as possible from an anthropological and historical perspective, could one derive the outcome of humanity, thereby answering this thread's intention?

Of course not. We don't have predictive ability. Learning from the past means being able to alter known situations (altering an event in a particular genre, if you will). Like how we teach children about the Holocaust so it doesn't happen again (even though it has plenty of times, just on much smaller scales).

But we guess. We know what kinds of disasters would ultimately cause our extinction (tune into the Discovery Channel for a while, or some similarly education-based channel, and within a couple weeks you'll see a "global disasters" show, replete with massive climate change, meteors, atomic war, etc.).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think humans, as I'd like to define them, will ever become extinct.(Barring our previous heat death conversation events.) Even IF we eventually become so embedded with technology that we woudn't be recognized as humans by today's anthropologists, some of our essence is still there. Maybe I think too much of humanity.

Dinos went extinct from a giant rock. Species die out all the time. We're clearly more cognitively advanced than anything before us, so our chances are increased wildly. But it would deny nature's unpredictability and power, and, let's be honest, our own unpredictability and power, to say that there isn't a chance we could become extinct. Stephen Hawking likes to tell a joke that I won't try to reproduce here, but the gist of it is that we never make contact with other sentient species in the universe because as soon as a civilization becomes as advanced as ours, it kills itself off with excessive power. One of many possible ends. Hell, if it weren't for Jupiter's impressive gravity well protecting us most of the time, it's likely advanced life never would have occurred on Earth due to frequent meteor impacts.

I personally doubt the exotic transhuman end that you and Kurzweil posit. I think we can make steps in that direction, but that anything beyond the global or solar system level is going to be exceedingly difficult, and may never be overcome. Presuming a heat death universe, I perceive that as our end, but believe plenty of steps can be taken to prolong the species.

dadudemon

Wow wee, this is so cool. I love talking to you.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The last question is an entirely different matter.

It is. That's why I said I was rambling...sometimes I just go on and on.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anyway, my initial post wasn't trying to reduce things at all. I was looking at them from a sociological perspective....and I'm not sure what you mean by a "human" perspective. Physical, biological, sociological, mathematical, etc. all have a socially-shared meaning. "Human" perspective does not, so you'd have to qualify yourself heavily before I knew what you were talking about.

By human perspective, I mean anything that can be qualified as anthropomorphic.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
When I say "events" I'm talking about historical events. I initially used a genre analogy to talk about how we could find common links between such events, even though none are identical. Conditionally cyclical. Cycle implies coming back to the same thing over and over, which isn't quite the case, because every situation is unique. But natural laws and our own genetic nature mean that only so many "genres" (to use my term) of events will occur, and that in this sense history can be seen as cyclical.

I LOVE your use of the word "genre" in this instance. Sometimes, I have a difficult time finding the proper word that has the right "feel" for what the hell I'm trying to say.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Too far the other direction. Holism implies far too much to ever differentiate between events. Hopefully the explanation above suffices.

Sure.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Of course not. We don't have predictive ability.

I'm not sure what you're implying or if I'm taking that out of context, but, yes, we do have predictive ability. Animals do to, however, Humans can do it at a much much higher level. Maybe you're assigning something like "prophesying" or clairvoyance to "predictive ability".

I was mistaken with my question because my question fails to address environmental factors, as you addressed below.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But we guess. We know what kinds of disasters would ultimately cause our extinction (tune into the Discovery Channel for a while, or some similarly education-based channel, and within a couple weeks you'll see a "global disasters" show, replete with massive climate change, meteors, atomic war, etc.).

I don't have cable. When I moved back in Jan, I didn't get it at my new place. It's been great not having TV.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Dinos went extinct from a giant rock. Species die out all the time. We're clearly more cognitively advanced than anything before us, so our chances are increased wildly. But it would deny nature's unpredictability and power, and, let's be honest, our own unpredictability and power, to say that there isn't a chance we could become extinct. Stephen Hawking likes to tell a joke that I won't try to reproduce here, but the gist of it is that we never make contact with other sentient species in the universe because as soon as a civilization becomes as advanced as ours, it kills itself off with excessive power. One of many possible ends. Hell, if it weren't for Jupiter's impressive gravity well protecting us most of the time, it's likely advanced life never would have occurred on Earth due to frequent meteor impacts.

I've heard of that comment by Prof. Hawking. I actually disagree with it. If true AI can be achieved, it would perpetuate itself without organic intervention.

But the begs the question, where the eff is the planet assimilating AI that was predicted by Kurzweil? It's possible that the AI, in it's great understanding and uber intelligence, realized the importance of the universe and ceased to exist or had some sort of sentimental appreciation for the universe. Maybe that is the true "singularity" that will be experienced by any and all AI created. Once it advances so far, it reaches some sort of symbiotic enlightenment with the universe.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I personally doubt the exotic transhuman end that you and Kurzweil posit.

I don't. Their already hooking people's brains up to computers and those people are controlling a mouse with their brain. Is it really that hard to see in 20 or so years humans walking around with brain implants that are absurdly powerful computers and hard drives?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think we can make steps in that direction, but that anything beyond the global or solar system level is going to be exceedingly difficult, and may never be overcome.

So you see humanity, or what becomes of humanity, doomed/damned to a class II civilization or less?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Presuming a heat death universe, I perceive that as our end, but believe plenty of steps can be taken to prolong the species.

Me too.

J.P Jaeh_Poole

Only Man can make Man extinct.

Wait for Nukes and world war 3.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon

Is it really hard to see humanity creating ways around heat death or other phenomenon?

Yeah, mate, that is pretty ****ing hard.

Mindship

Ring by Stephen Baxter

"Every star in your universe is being attacked by dark matter creatures...
"Baryonic species (humanity included) are doomed to premature extinction...
"What do you do? What do you do?

"The answer lies with the Great Attractor (and I don't mean Kim Kardashian's butt)."

DigiMark007

As Bardock succinctly mentioned, dudemon, to say that there's an unfathomable gap between what we currently can do and accomplishing universal feats like conquering heat death, is a gross understatement. The chasm between the two is so wide, it's like saying we currently have technology to travel around the world within the last 100 years, so of course we'll be able to travel to other galaxies within another 50 years. It defies logic and strains credulity.

But my point is mainly that the Singularity is likely not even possible. Reaching a point where we are "beyond" what we currently consider to be human? Entirely possible, and a much safer proposition. But the singularity refers to the point at which technology increases at an exponential rate indefinitely, a rate that would need to be achieved in order to accomplish such lofty goals. Yet I maintain that an ever-increasing rate of increase simply isn't sustainable, and at the very least there is no precedent to suggest we should believe it as a possibility. It's a pipe dream, currently.

My earlier comments on incremental change in technology throughout history, even though an increased rate is perceived by many when it is not there, supports this.

Mindship

The AI Singularity is "shortsighted" with regard to the Big Picture. Or rather, it's just one more example of human shortsightedness.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As Bardock succinctly mentioned, dudemon, to say that there's an unfathomable gap between what we currently can do and accomplishing universal feats like conquering heat death, is a gross understatement. The chasm between the two is so wide, it's like saying we currently have technology to travel around the world within the last 100 years, so of course we'll be able to travel to other galaxies within another 50 years. It defies logic and strains credulity.

But my point is mainly that the Singularity is likely not even possible. Reaching a point where we are "beyond" what we currently consider to be human? Entirely possible, and a much safer proposition. But the singularity refers to the point at which technology increases at an exponential rate indefinitely, a rate that would need to be achieved in order to accomplish such lofty goals. Yet I maintain that an ever-increasing rate of increase simply isn't sustainable, and at the very least there is no precedent to suggest we should believe it as a possibility. It's a pipe dream, currently.

My earlier comments on incremental change in technology throughout history, even though an increased rate is perceived by many when it is not there, supports this.

I don't disagree. I just don't want to think humans, in any future form, will never be able to control the elements at the quantum level.

Maybe there is a technological plateau that can be reached, but I have doubts about that.

This is my opinion...

I've been looking forward to the decade between 2020 and 2030...for quite some time. That is the decade that "the good shit" is supposed to happen in. If things look very bleak for that decade as far as those predictions and mathematic models go, I'll alter my perspective to a much more pessimistic one. If some of things happen that were supposed to happen (such as printing off a heart ...yeah, that's weird, but they are working on doing that NOW...they say their technology will be done around that decade.), then I will remain optimistic with a skeptical eye. If just about everything happens that was predicted, I'll shit my pants, and then a service robot with some nice AI will clean my ass for me.

Emil Blonsky

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, mate, that is pretty ****ing hard.

At this stage in human life, I'd say it's hard to see, but I could see it potentially happening a long time from now.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Emil Blonsky
At this stage in human life, I'd say it's hard to see, but I could see it potentially happening a long time from now.

Meh, I can imagine a lot of things. Breaking the laws of this universe (if that should be one) I would see as one of the hardest things to do.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, I can imagine a lot of things. Breaking the laws of this universe (if that should be one) I would see as one of the hardest things to do.

It wouldn't be breaking the laws of the universe. It would using the laws as tools to prevent things like proton decay.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
It wouldn't be breaking the laws of the universe. It would using the laws as tools to prevent things like proton decay. Well, the heat death (should it be true) is a sort of law (unbreakable...if correct).

Bardock42

On a different note, I did enjoy this short story (quite a fan of Asimov though)

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the heat death (should it be true) is a sort of law (unbreakable...if correct).

It is a theory, far from a law.

We really don't know if weird things will start to happen as the universe "dies" at the 10^100 years of age. Very very weird things could happen and I've previously mentioned those. (very lightly). It is not a law. If we unlocked the mysteries of neutrons/protons/electrons (when know about quarks and the "flavors" they come and and some various other details), and are able to control those with various manipulations methods, it is not inconceivable to assume that we can prevent proton decay.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is a theory, far from a law.

We really don't know if weird things will start to happen as the universe "dies" at the 10^100 years of age. Very very weird things could happen and I've previously mentioned those. (very lightly). It is not a law. If we unlocked the mysteries of neutrons/protons/electrons (when know about quarks and the "flavors" they come and and some various other details), and are able to control those with various manipulations methods, it is not inconceivable to assume that we can prevent proton decay.

Dude, I said, if the theory was correct then it was a law. What you are saying already presumes that the theory is incorrect and it will not happen or can easily be changed (which, in theory, it very quite can't).

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude, I said, if the theory was correct then it was a law. What you are saying already presumes that the theory is incorrect and it will not happen or can easily be changed (which, in theory, it very quite can't).

What I'm saying presumes that Heat Death is almost inevitable and amost unpreventable. Since there are other probabilites to be had.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note, I did enjoy this short story (quite a fan of Asimov though)

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

I loved this story. I am sad that I hadn't read it sooner.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I'm saying presumes that Heat Death is almost inevitable and amost unpreventable. Since there are other probabilites to be had.

Well, then there might be other possibilities. There's a lot we can imagine, whether we can ever or will ever do it are very different things.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by dadudemon
It wouldn't be breaking the laws of the universe. It would using the laws as tools to prevent things like proton decay.

The only way to conquer heat death is with Maxwell's Demon. There's no other way to convert entropy to order on a grand scale without actually creating more entropy.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only way to conquer heat death is with Maxwell's Demon. There's no other way to convert entropy to order on a grand scale without actually creating more entropy.

In your perspective. It's unusual to think that that is the only way.

We have no clue what the future holds.

We can be certain that trillions upon trillions of years is plenty of time to "think" about it.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by dadudemon
In your perspective. It's unusual to think that that is the only way.

We have no clue what the future holds.

We can be certain that trillions upon trillions of years is plenty of time to "think" about it.

Given trillions of years, yes we might be able to break the currently known laws of physics. I believe it would still require the equivalent of Maxwell's Demon simply because of the existing definition of entropy, but it's not my area of expertise.

Blax_Hydralisk

DigiMark007

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'm guessing Scientific facts aren't really all that factual, are they?

Wut?

The quote you posted was talking about heat death. We can't calculate all mass in the universe due to some that isn't detectable by current methods. but based on best estimates, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, rather than contract into another singularity...and eventually Big Bang.

As with most scientific ideas, it is provisional and subject to change, but factual according to the best known data.

Is this a problem?

....

As for dudemon, I'm sorry bud, but you're not sounding too credible right now. You're assuming and pre-supposing a number of unknowable items (some highly unlikely) in order for your proposed transhumanist vision to come to fruition. Lines like "we don't know what the future will bring" are a cop-out, and essentially saying that we don't know, and also admitting that there are obstacles that are seemingly insurmountable, but we will ignore them for the sake of the argument.

It's like in the comic forum when someone says "Reed Richards wins with prep" but can't say how. Without the how, it's just idle speculation, not a legitimate argument.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for dudemon, I'm sorry bud, but you're not sounding too credible right now. You're assuming and pre-supposing a number of unknowable items (some highly unlikely) in order for your proposed transhumanist vision to come to fruition. Lines like "we don't know what the future will bring" are a cop-out, and essentially saying that we don't know, and also admitting that there are obstacles that are seemingly insurmountable, but we will ignore them for the sake of the argument.

It's like in the comic forum when someone says "Reed Richards wins with prep" but can't say how. Without the how, it's just idle speculation, not a legitimate argument.

Edit- If you're interested in what I had to say, I'll PM you.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit- If you're interested in what I had to say, I'll PM you.

I-i am interested in what you had to say as well.

DigiMark007

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit- If you're interested in what I had to say, I'll PM you.

Don't see why we can't discuss it here. It's on topic.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't see why we can't discuss it here. It's on topic.

It was and it wasn't. I respect your opinions and thoughts, but what I had posted, originally, wasn't very friendly. I'd rather work that out behind the scenes.

Magee

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, there's only so many more millions (possibly billions) of years any life can exist, given entropy, and the fact that it appears as though the universe will not contract at some point, but continue indefinitely to grow. It's just a scientific fact, and the vague futurist musings on converting our consciousnesses to energy fields or somesuch would likely only prolong the inevitable, not avoid it. This is interesting. I was watching Universe on the History channel and it was about this. How there are stages predicated for the universe's future, black holes dominating, freezing, darkness and stuff. One theory was that a civilization could be so advanced they could move to other dimensions / universes even creating them in a way I can't quite remember but some thing to do with bubbles in space and recreating big bangs.

I can't remember it all and I'm not articulate enough to put it in to words but to say that all life from this universe will die sooner or later is just some thing we can't know. The universe either expanding and all atoms being pulled apart or the big crunch is pretty much accepted as we can know to a degree but we don't know how / if a very advanced civilization could survive it.

However in that show they gave possible ways for a civilation to survive each of the universes stages leading to its death. The most interesting one being at the end where the universe is practicaly infinite in size and no celestial bodies / matter of any kind left. Which is where the other dimensions or bubbles / pockets in space come in to play. Some how changeing the laws of physics and setting off another big bang starting our universal cycle all over again. I hope you understand what I am trying to say as I would like to hear what you think about this.

DigiMark007

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was and it wasn't. I respect your opinions and thoughts, but what I had posted, originally, wasn't very friendly. I'd rather work that out behind the scenes.

Oh. Well, I don't mean any of my posts personally, so I hope you don't take them as such. If I disagree with you, it's because I think there are flaws in the reasoning, but that certainly doesn't extend to you personally. I actually enjoy discussing these things with you since you're familiar with a lot of the terms and ideas in transhumanism. The fact that we're on opposite ends of the discussion for much of the time doesn't lessen that respect, at least not for me.

Originally posted by Magee
This is interesting. I was watching Universe on the History channel and it was about this. How there are stages predicated for the universe's future, black holes dominating, freezing, darkness and stuff. One theory was that a civilization could be so advanced they could move to other dimensions / universes even creating them in a way I can't quite remember but some thing to do with bubbles in space and recreating big bangs.

I can't remember it all and I'm not articulate enough to put it in to words but to say that all life from this universe will die sooner or later is just some thing we can't know. The universe either expanding and all atoms being pulled apart or the big crunch is pretty much accepted as we can know to a degree but we don't know how / if a very advanced civilization could survive it.

However in that show they gave possible ways for a civilation to survive each of the universes stages leading to its death. The most interesting one being at the end where the universe is practicaly infinite in size and no celestial bodies / matter of any kind left. Which is where the other dimensions or bubbles / pockets in space come in to play. Some how changeing the laws of physics and setting off another big bang starting our universal cycle all over again. I hope you understand what I am trying to say as I would like to hear what you think about this.

No, that's all fairly correct. But the point being that anything beyond "either Big Crunch or expanding infinitely" is just speculation (with the later seeming more likely). From possible other dimensions (more the realm of string theory than universal fate), to the ways in which we might survive such a future. All are interesting ideas, but remain in the realm of untested, speculative theories. Not likely possibilities, at least at this point in time and with our current knowledge.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Oh. Well, I don't mean any of my posts personally, so I hope you don't take them as such. If I disagree with you, it's because I think there are flaws in the reasoning, but that certainly doesn't extend to you personally. I actually enjoy discussing these things with you since you're familiar with a lot of the terms and ideas in transhumanism. The fact that we're on opposite ends of the discussion for much of the time doesn't lessen that respect, at least not for me.

Oh.. uh well... embarrasment

Boy am I embarrassed. I feel bad now. I'm certainly glad that I edited my post out, then.

Basically, I said that I think that keeping an open mind about things that could happen is, imo, a "safer" more logical point of view to have. Since we can't be sure that heat death will occur because it is not provable at this moment, nor do we know enough about both quantum and astrophysics to be sure heat death will/can actually occur, I assume the best position is to assume it might happen and then speculate why it wouldn't happen. I think I've covered all possible perspectives: It will happen, it won't happen because of natural forces, it won't happen because humans or the progeny of humans will circumvent it. We can certainly plot, on a graph, maximized universal entropy, but we only have a infinitesimal glimpse at the time line of our universe and a "young" understanding of higher physics. In the last 50 years, hasn't the fate of the universe been changed in the astrophysics community more than once? (With some sticking to the same theories, some theories being disproven, other proved, etc.)

Also in my reply, you mentioned justification. Here's what I originally posted but deleted:

"Here's your justification. Future humans or AI builds a machine that is able to interact with the strong force on a very minute level but has a very large influence. This machine's precision, partly due to a computer able to calculate trillions upon trillions of things a nanosecond due to the perfection of quantum computing technologies, can use its power over the strong force to re-assimilate quarks back into protons, thereby, recycling decayed protons. Of course, the machine is upkept with picobots: a much much smaller version of nanobots. These picobots were created by overcoming or harnessing the casimir force through some yet to be discovered breakthrough. The system is a positive net change in new protons because the system creates more energy (in the form of matter) than it destroys."

Still some major gaps need to be filled. This, of course, assumes heat death is inevitable: that is possibly an erroneous premise, but for all intents and purposes, it seems inevitable enough. We can both agree there.

In my reply, I alluded to zero-point energy, instantaneous travel of matter, and harnessing exotic matter and energy for unforeseen uses. I mentioned some other things as well.

In conclusion, I guess I could leave you with semi-open ended thought: our scientific knowledge is growing geometrically, not linearly.

DigiMark007

All very interesting. I think you and I just differ on the level of trust we place in such things becoming reality. We don't even know if "interacting with the strong force" is possible. And if it is, there's the matter of developing the technology for it. You rightly pointed out that there are several very large gaps that need to be filled before such musings become viable. Assuming that they will be filled eventually is dangerously close to begging the question. And for every scientific gap that is filled, countless remain unsolved. So we can point to past successes, but we must also point to the decidedly larger amount of theoretical technology that hasn't come to fruition and may never do so.

You mentioned being open-minded, and I feel like that term is used differently by many different people. For my own part, being open-minded does not mean seeing everything as a possibility. It means listening to all ideas and judging them on their merits (or lack thereof). If they do not hold up to experimental evidence, they are lacking, and can be treated as interesting ideas but nothing else. If they test out, they are viable theories, and if confirmed repeatedly, can be treated as fact. This is subject to change based on future findings, but assumes nothing and works with what we do know, not what may be possible (because, as stated earlier, it is as likely that such things will never come about).

I look forward to people like you and Kurzweil proving me wrong, and I encourage transhuman studies. But to proclaim any of it as likely or even a scientific possibility is to get ahead of ourselves, and becomes over-zealous rather than working within an empirical scientific framework. There has already been considerable progress on the personal, human level. But that does not ensure future success with far more complex technologies. It should certainly encourage study and research, though nothing but optimistic curiosity rather than speculative predictions.

King Kandy

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We don't even know if "interacting with the strong force" is possible.

I agree. It is very much possible that we will NEVER be able to harness the strong force. To me, that seems less likely than anything we've discussed, however, it would be naive of me to think with a 100% surety that we will "never be able to harness the strong force".

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You rightly pointed out that there are several very large gaps that need to be filled before such musings become viable. Assuming that they will be filled eventually is dangerously close to begging the question.

I don't hold it as an absolute truth, not even close to it. Only a possible future. We are philosophizing on potential futures of humanity.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And for every scientific gap that is filled, countless remain unsolved.

I believe it was Evil Dead I told this too: with discovery comes more questions. I'm hard pressed to try to justify one single discovery that didn't bring more questions with it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So we can point to past successes, but we must also point to the decidedly larger amount of theoretical technology that hasn't come to fruition and may never do so.

I don't know which point of mine this addresses, however, I don't disagree.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
For my own part, being open-minded does not mean seeing everything as a possibility. It means listening to all ideas and judging them on their merits (or lack thereof).

We agree here.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If they do not hold up to experimental evidence, they are lacking, and can be treated as interesting ideas but nothing else. If they test out, they are viable theories, and if confirmed repeatedly, can be treated as fact. This is subject to change based on future findings, but assumes nothing and works with what we do know, not what may be possible (because, as stated earlier, it is as likely that such things will never come about).

I agree.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I look forward to people like you and Kurzweil proving me wrong, and I encourage transhuman studies.

I am not a proponent of things like the singularity and the like. I only submit them as potentials of the future. Interesting prospects. Something to speculate about.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But to proclaim any of it as likely or even a scientific possibility is to get ahead of ourselves, and becomes over-zealous rather than working within an empirical scientific framework.

Strong AI? Almost a guarantee for our future.

A sentient AI? Dubious and proven to be impossible thus far.

Heat Death? Based on current findings, a 100% for the future.

Is it possible that something could happen to prevent heat death? Sure.

Is it possible that heat death will never happen because our assesment of the universe was wrong to begin with? Sure.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But that does not ensure future success with far more complex technologies. It should certainly encourage study and research, though nothing but optimistic curiosity rather than speculative predictions.

...

but...

This is the philsophy section. Aren't we philosiphizing about potential futures of humanity? This is all about speculation. Do you agree that even heat death is still a speculation?

I don't remain abosulute in my convictions of things like this because I can't be sure. Can I be sure that the universe will become a massive ocean of death? Nope. Not at all. Maybe it's because I don't want to be wrong so I don't choose to pick any one speculation as my team.

Lord help us if Kurzweil is on the money with some of his further off predictions...we certainly have empirical evidence for things he's already predicted that came to fruition.

Mindship

Originally posted by Magee
I was watching Universe on the History channel...A worthy heir to "Cosmos"...

...and it was about this. How there are stages predicated for the universe's future, black holes dominating, freezing, darkness and stuff. One theory was that a civilization could be so advanced they could move to other dimensions / universes... Originally posted by Mindship
Ring by Stephen Baxter

DigiMark007

Heat death isn't speculation because it's based upon detailed calculations. That those calculations might someday be replaced with new findings doesn't mean it can't be held as a provisional truth for the time being. Evidence can be replaced, but it's far more tenable to believe in something with evidence supporting it, even incomplete evidence, than something else that has little, if any, empirical evidence backing it.

Other than that dudemon, I think we're probably more in agreement than initially realized. I'm just careful to include the skeptical, rationalist point of view along with such ideas, lest we get ahead of ourselves. But I'm glad you brought them up as ideas to explore.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Heat death isn't speculation because it's based upon detailed calculations.

But it's still a theory. Calculations are made all the time for theoretical physics and theoretical ideas that are later debunked and discarded for newer models. It is an unprovable future.

It's not the same as a particle at a fixed velocity, in a vacuum, on a linear path to a indestructible and immovable barrier. (with no fluidic resistances encountered or outside force influences, and we assume that path integral formulation has no part...lol.) Instead, heat death is one definition of a nebulous and changing entity that could have multiple futures. Picture the car's predicted future as a solid line with only one path in it's future. Picture the "cloud" as having many paths with some paths more clearer than others but with no definitive solid line like the car's. It has to remain as a "cloud" because it's possible that we were wrong about entropy, even with all of this data. Right now, it certainly looks by pretty much all accounts that entropy is inevitable, so that path will be more opaque than the others in our "cloud" model for the Universe's futures.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That those calculations might someday be replaced with new findings doesn't mean it can't be held as a provisional truth for the time being. Evidence can be replaced, but it's far more tenable to believe in something with evidence supporting it, even incomplete evidence, than something else that has little, if any, empirical evidence backing it.

I don't think we're speaking about the same things. I'm not talking about believing with some sort of surety that heat death will be circumvented or not happen: I speaking about not taking heat death as 100% fact because we can't be sure. There is a minor difference between those perspectives even though some may interpret them as the two sides to one coin.

Magee

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, that's all fairly correct. But the point being that anything beyond "either Big Crunch or expanding infinitely" is just speculation (with the later seeming more likely). From possible other dimensions (more the realm of string theory than universal fate), to the ways in which we might survive such a future. All are interesting ideas, but remain in the realm of untested, speculative theories. Not likely possibilities, at least at this point in time and with our current knowledge. I agree and just learning about these possible time periods in our universe and the ways that were put forward to survive these things was very interesting, it has kind of ignited a long lost interest in all things space related for me.

Originally posted by Mindship
A worthy heir to "Cosmos"... I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not but the new Universe series was great especially the last one about the end of the Universe. big grin

I like the sound of that book but "Space" sounds more interesting, do you know if I would have to read "Time" first or can you read them in no particular order?

DigiMark007

Originally posted by dadudemon
But it's still a theory. Calculations are made all the time for theoretical physics and theoretical ideas that are later debunked and discarded for newer models. It is an unprovable future.

It's not the same as a particle at a fixed velocity, in a vacuum, on a linear path to a indestructible and immovable barrier. (with no fluidic resistances encountered or outside force influences, and we assume that path integral formulation has no part...lol.) Instead, heat death is one definition of a nebulous and changing entity that could have multiple futures. Picture the car's predicted future as a solid line with only one path in it's future. Picture the "cloud" as having many paths with some paths more clearer than others but with no definitive solid line like the car's. It has to remain as a "cloud" because it's possible that we were wrong about entropy, even with all of this data. Right now, it certainly looks by pretty much all accounts that entropy is inevitable, so that path will be more opaque than the others in our "cloud" model for the Universe's futures.

I don't think we're speaking about the same things. I'm not talking about believing with some sort of surety that heat death will be circumvented or not happen: I speaking about not taking heat death as 100% fact because we can't be sure. There is a minor difference between those perspectives even though some may interpret them as the two sides to one coin.

"But it's still a theory."
That phrase belies a bit of a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context. That the earth revolves around the sun is a theory. That gravity exists and attracts objects to one another is a theory. I could list others, but you get the point.

You're presuming further evidence that has yet to surface, then using this assumption to say that heat death and transhuman ideals are on the same level of believability. They aren't. One has evidence to support it. The other doesn't. Saying that we don't know everything, and that something could change (any theory could change, technically), doesn't undermine what we already know. It means we keep searching, but that we can hold these things as truths until determined otherwise....but not a moment sooner.

Besides, we can calculate the approximate mass of the universe to a startling degree, even taking into account the unseen forces (dark energy, anti-matter, it's called various names and theorized about endlessly, etc.) which we cannot detect, but we can detect their existence and mass by their influence on other celestial bodies.

If we couldn't, the anthropic principles of people niggling about a fine-tuned universe (a favorite of theistic arguments) wouldn't have any weight behind them, as we'd be wildly speculating about fine tuning when we couldn't know for sure. So, personally, I see heat death as one of the more solid theories of celestial mechanics. And the fact that other theories exist, but haven't supplants heat death for lack of evidence, is valid support for such a statement.

So, as always, I don't, and never will, treat it is dogmatic truth. But that doesn't mean I can't treat it as truth at all. It is. It's simply provisional, and it could change, but only if the evidence warrants it. No sooner. Because under your interpretation, everything is "just" a theory, and so nothing should ever be treated as fact....which then opens the door to other theories and ideas that lack credibility, but hold the same ground due to such semantic wordplay.

dadudemon

Originally posted by DigiMark007
"But it's still a theory."
That phrase belies a bit of a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context. That the earth revolves around the sun is a theory. That gravity exists and attracts objects to one another is a theory. I could list others, but you get the point.

You're presuming further evidence that has yet to surface, then using this assumption to say that heat death and transhuman ideals are on the same level of believability. They aren't. One has evidence to support it. The other doesn't. Saying that we don't know everything, and that something could change (any theory could change, technically), doesn't undermine what we already know. It means we keep searching, but that we can hold these things as truths until determined otherwise....but not a moment sooner.

Besides, we can calculate the approximate mass of the universe to a startling degree, even taking into account the unseen forces (dark energy, anti-matter, it's called various names and theorized about endlessly, etc.) which we cannot detect, but we can detect their existence and mass by their influence on other celestial bodies.

If we couldn't, the anthropic principles of people niggling about a fine-tuned universe (a favorite of theistic arguments) wouldn't have any weight behind them, as we'd be wildly speculating about fine tuning when we couldn't know for sure. So, personally, I see heat death as one of the more solid theories of celestial mechanics. And the fact that other theories exist, but haven't supplants heat death for lack of evidence, is valid support for such a statement.

So, as always, I don't, and never will, treat it is dogmatic truth. But that doesn't mean I can't treat it as truth at all. It is. It's simply provisional, and it could change, but only if the evidence warrants it. No sooner. Because under your interpretation, everything is "just" a theory, and so nothing should ever be treated as fact....which then opens the door to other theories and ideas that lack credibility, but hold the same ground due to such semantic wordplay.

1. Transhumanism is not the only potential future I addressed.

2. You know the context I was implying by calling it a "theory". shifty

It is a less credible/provable theory than other more solid theories.

3. Nothing you said is in contrast to what I said. In fact, your post seems to be leaning towards my perspective. "I don't, and never will, treat it is dogmatic truth." Great! We fully agree. big grin

I'm not even sure we ever disagreed, rather, we had a varying degree of trust in the same theories we both held as truth at some level or another. At first, I thought you disregarded my analogy about the futures, but then, it seemed like you understood what I was saying. I still see heat death as the most solid potential future out of all possibilities discussed and not discussed. Like you said, we can't be as sure for less tried and true theories. (Like macro quantum phenomenon at the macro level..n' stuff. Who knows wtf that is supposed to do.)

But, I don't think the thread starter had heat death in mind when he created this thread, rather, I think he wanted to discuss things like the auto-destruction of humanity, aliens, disease, natural disasters, evolution, or transhumanism.

Mindship

Originally posted by Magee
I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not but the new Universe series was great especially the last one about the end of the Universe. big grin

No sarcasm. "Cosmos" was great in its time, and there'll never be another Carl Sagan, but science marches on (as well as special FX). I'm quite impressed with "Universe."

I like the sound of that book but "Space" sounds more interesting, do you know if I would have to read "Time" first or can you read them in no particular order? Sounds like you're talking about Baxter's "Manifold" series (which is separate from his Xeelee Sequence series, which culminates with "Ring" wink

. Read them in any order you like; they're both terrific.

Magee

Originally posted by Mindship
No sarcasm. "Cosmos" was great in its time, and there'll never be another Carl Sagan, but science marches on (as well as special FX). I'm quite impressed with "Universe." Yea Cosmos is good I used to watch them all the time when I was a kid and they still show them on some of the discovery channels.

Originally posted by Mindship
Sounds like you're talking about Baxter's "Manifold" series (which is separate from his Xeelee Sequence series, which culminates with "Ring" wink

. Read them in any order you like; they're both terrific. Well I just bought space from amazon, the summary really grabbed my attention so I hope the book can as well because I don't read many books.

Jack Daniels

Large Hadron Collider http://www.lhcountdown.com/ we could all die in 17 days? black holes , strange matter producing machine etc..lol some mf ers always tryin to skate uphill...LOL...there is a thread about this look it up on google or here jus look up black holes etc LHC......kinda scary but we should just all hope france has it under control...LOL

Blax_Hydralisk

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Wut?

The quote you posted was talking about heat death. We can't calculate all mass in the universe due to some that isn't detectable by current methods. but based on best estimates, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, rather than contract into another singularity...and eventually Big Bang.

As with most scientific ideas, it is provisional and subject to change, but factual according to the best known data.

Is this a problem?

No... but I don't see what the long response was for... you essentially just agreed with me. no expression

Da Joker

So, can someone explain what Digi said in the post quoted above? Sorry, but I still don't understand a lot of things about this kind of stuff.

Blax_Hydralisk

It's not that hard to understand, and he's actually correct. It's just funny how "scientific fact" isn't factual. It's "fact" based off of estimates and logical deduction, which means it's not an actual fact since hypothesis are never factual unless proven.

But I suppose that's why it's called a "scientific fact" instead of just your regular old fact. fact fact fact.

inimalist

Originally posted by Da Joker
So, can someone explain what Digi said in the post quoted above? Sorry, but I still don't understand a lot of things about this kind of stuff.

Its based off of old ideas about the end of the universe.

Basically, in the theory, gravity and the expansion of the universe are opposites. If one is stronger than the other, it will be the cause of the end of the universe.

If gravity wins, the universe will eventually slow its expansion, stop, and begin to shrink in on its own gravity. Some people posit that this will lead to another big bang. I don't understand how, but it is astrophysics, something that humans have a long history of being 100% correct about.

If the expansion is stronger than gravity, the universe will eventually expand so fast that it overcomes gravity, and eventually the atomic bonds holding matter together and will become some ever expanding mess of diffuse quarks.

If there are equal, the universe will maintain steady growth.

There are different ways of measuring both the mass of objects in space (which would cause gravity) and universal expansion. They find estimates for both values and put it in an equation of X/Y. X is expansion, Y is gravity. So far, the number is well greater than one, meaning that the expansion appears to be winning.

However, the "dark" matter and energy complicate things, as does the fact that we are humans.

He also added the proviso that this is all subject to change as we get better data.