UFO's - aliens here & now

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.

I got all the way to the last sentence, which basically summarized what I call "Ksyrup's Resolution."

[Edward64]

Herein, forever enshrined as FOFC Commandment #2

Thou shall not bear any descendants or have descendants interested in running simulations of their ancestors

[Brian Swartz]

One thing I find interesting is the way that you describe what you think in ways like 'I'd prefer X' or 'I think Y is more comforting'. Whereas I tend to look at these discussions in terms of 'what is most likely to be true', which I think is more along the lines of what science tries to do. I don't personally want simulation theory to be true. I don't want quantam mechanics to be true. I don't like some of the implications of it. But I have to accept that quantam mechanics is the most true theory we've come up with and one that has been repeatedly verified in many respects, and that simulation theory is a viable, serious possibility, if I want to accept science in general.

Regarding the numbered options:

- 1 is very possible. I think it's arguable, similar to the previous though experiment I posted (and like that, this is something others have said and not original to me) that any race with the intelligence and ambition to develop will also tear itself apart through conflict. This could be an unavoidable 'great filter'.

- 2 I think is quite unlikely. I think the curiosity and intelligence required to reach that state also makes an interest in simulations probable.

- 3 I believe in God for reasons beyond the intellectual. It's more on the 'spiritual/personal experience of faith' level. I believe the Bible is true because of what happens in my soul when I read it, study it, and attempt to live it - even though there are many parts I don't understand and even don't like.

Having said that, I also recognize that logically, the programmer side of 3 makes much better sense of quantam mechanics, at least in the way I understand God and the science. Any simulation is abstracted at some level. The 'physics of the small' just acts exactly in the kind of way that I would expect that to work. Whereas this wouldn't be a problem for an infinite God. A different envisioning of God could also work, but that sort of smacks of a human-invented God for the purposes of our own comfort. Or to put it another way, it's akin to 'this is what I want to believe. What about my theology needs to change to fit that' which is backwards to how a search for truth works, which is more 'this is what I know about reality, how do my beliefs need to change'.

The other side of this is that there is much I do not now understand about God or expect to understand at least during this life. Quantam mechanics is just another item in that pile in terms of 'why was it made this way'. So that is a possibility.

4. I don't think this is a real contender with the other 3, because you still have to get to the 'post-human' stage before you can reach this. So the other propositions still remain, even if you think 4 is a possibility.

Originally Posted by Edward64

There's a good chance I rather play future (Stellaris, X-Com, Space Rangers, Fallout) vs history (Civ 6, Sims). So I wouldn't call it zero but I'd say good chance I would NOT be interest in running simulations of my evolutionary history.

The thing is that you personally don't have to be interested in it. The question isn't 'do I prefer historical sims' but 'are there any people who are interested in historical sims'. We're talking about a highly advanced species numbering almost certainly at least in the trillions. I would say it's inherent in intellectual curiosity that differenet people are going to be interested in different topics. Some people just like making sims for the purpose of doing it, not to play them at all. Some people have no interest in sims whatsoever. But it only takes a vanishingly small percentage of such an advanced society to have any interest in making a sim for a sim to be made, given the technological capability of doing so. Our experience with humanity is that people are interested in a great many different things. A species that isn't, would be fundamentally far different from humanity. I think it's very unlikely that you eliminate that divergence of intellectual curiosity and still reach the post-human stage.

[Edward64]

(Fair warning. Drinking some Jack sipping whiskey right now and have a good buzz going. I reserve the right to update below. This is a fascinating discussion topic, great thought exercise, and admit I've only spent 3-4 hours researching it)

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

But I have to accept that quantam mechanics is the most true theory we've come up with and one that has been repeatedly verified in many respects, and that simulation theory is a viable, serious possibility, if I want to accept science in general.

I agree simulation theory is viable. IMO calling it a serious possibility is a stretch at this time. There is more evidence of entanglement communication/interaction breaking Einstein's law and traveling faster than "speed of light" than there is for simulation theory. And that is still controversial. The evidence for simulation, that I've read so far, is presumed logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation based on some key assumptions which may or may not be valid.

There are many scientists, futurists that will say it is NOT a serious possibility (at this time). So I do not want to concede that simulation theory is anything but at the early stages of hypothesis, test, observe (and probably not even at test or observe).

Regarding the numbered options:

- 1 is very possible. I think it's arguable, similar to the previous though experiment I posted (and like that, this is something others have said and not original to me) that any race with the intelligence and ambition to develop will also tear itself apart through conflict. This could be an unavoidable 'great filter'.

I agree

- 2 I think is quite unlikely. I think the curiosity and intelligence required to reach that state also makes an interest in simulations probable.

We'll agree to disagree here. See last section below.

- 3 I believe in God for reasons beyond the intellectual. It's more on the 'spiritual/personal experience of faith' level. I believe the Bible is true because of what happens in my soul when I read it, study it, and attempt to live it - even though there are many parts I don't understand and even don't like.

Having said that, I also recognize that logically, the programmer side of 3 makes much better sense of quantam mechanics, at least in the way I understand God and the science. Any simulation is abstracted at some level.

Don't disagree

The 'physics of the small' just acts exactly in the kind of way that I would expect that to work.

I don't understand the first part of the statement but don't think its a big discussion topic. I think "physics of the small" = quantum physics/mechanics (?) which does NOT act like we think it should have e.g. our discussion on entanglement "non-locality" (across space) and "non-temporality" (across time) has surprised many scientists over the past 80+ years ... and still does.

4. I don't think this is a real contender with the other 3, because you still have to get to the 'post-human' stage before you can reach this. So the other propositions still remain, even if you think 4 is a possibility.

I didn't say it elegantly enough, let me try to rephrase it. See last section below.

The thing is that you personally don't have to be interested in it. The question isn't 'do I prefer historical sims' but 'are there any people who are interested in historical sims'. We're talking about a highly advanced species numbering almost certainly at least in the trillions. I would say it's inherent in intellectual curiosity that differenet people are going to be interested in different topics. Some people just like making sims for the purpose of doing it, not to play them at all. Some people have no interest in sims whatsoever. But it only takes a vanishingly small percentage of such an advanced society to have any interest in making a sim for a sim to be made, given the technological capability of doing so.

This, I think, is the crux of my confusion and disbelief. I'm going to frame up my dissension this way:

My premise is there no/little basis in the belief that our post-human descendants will have the interest or willingness invest in the effort to successfully create and maintain a simulation of their ancestors because there are so many other, alternate interesting/profitable/enjoyable etc. things to do and invest the effort in.

Key assumptions are:

1. For our post-human descendants, the ancestor simulation will take a considerable amount of time, effort, resources & money (or whatever the equivalent is) to successfully create and maintain
2. The post-humans will not have discovered everything there is to know about the universe, laws of physics, God etc. In other words, there are still a lot of other interesting things to do and invest time, effort, resources & money in
3. The post-human interest level in a project like ancestral simulation is similar to the interest level we show today for this type of genre. Let me explain further

-- (all paraphrased) In StarTalk, Neil said the rationale for why post-humans would be interested in ancestral simulation is because the equivalent of today. Today, we are much more interested in movies since the dawn of movies and not the older like in Spartacus, Cleopatra etc. I'm not sure I buy that argument but my key argument is people today are just as interested (if not more) in the future and fantasy than ancestry simulation.

-- Neil used movies as an example. I'm using computer games which is more relevant for today. What are the top computer games now? Sims, Grand Theft Auto etc. are up there but they are no match for what I would consider non-ancestral simulations like Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite etc. Heck, in the simulation, considering how popular soccer and porn is globally, we'll all be playing soccer continuously and (well you know) before doing what the day by day crap we are doing now

If I understand your point in your last paragraph, it doesn't take a lot or majority of post-humans to be interested in an ancestral simulation to successfully create and maintain one. That may be true, but if my assumptions 1-3 are true, then the "successfully create and maintain" is likely untrue (e.g. we are one screwed up simulation that is half-baked and full of bugs).

My question to you is:

Why would post-humans spend a considerable amount of time, effort, resource & money to successfully create and maintain a simulation (my assumption #1)? There are more interesting things to do (my assumption #2) and no precedence in current day (my assumption #3).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't understand the first part of the statement but don't think its a big discussion topic. I think "physics of the small" = quantum physics/mechanics (?) which does NOT act like we think it should have e.g. our discussion on entanglement "non-locality" (across space) and "non-temporality" (across time) has surprised many scientists over the past 80+ years ... and still does.

Correct, quantam mechanics does not behave the way we would expect it to based on general relativity. It does behave the way I would expect it to as the abstracted, 'only worry about that part when it's needed' part of a simulation.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The evidence for simulation, that I've read so far, is presumed logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation based on some key assumptions which may or may not be valid.

I think there's a level at which evidence for simulation theory, or against it, isn't even possible. I don't think we'll ever get to a point where we can go beyond 'it's possible/fairly likely'.

Originally Posted by Edward64

My question to you is:

Why would post-humans spend a considerable amount of time, effort, resource & money to successfully create and maintain a simulation (my assumption #1)? There are more interesting things to do (my assumption #2) and no precedence in current day (my assumption #3).

Good question. My answer is primarily that I would disagree strongly with assumption #1. There is no movie or genre of movies that takes a significant amount of time/effort/resources/money compared to the capabilities of humanity as a whole. Same for games. That's why we can make movies and games; because they are optional, non-essential activities that are funded out of surplus.

The power, riches, technological capabilities, etc. of the kind of civilization we're talking about are even more exponentially higher than ours, than our modern-day society is above a colonial society prior to the industrial revolution. They could devote the equivalent of thousand of trillions of dollars and billions of people to a project, and have it be as significant to them as it would be for us to hold a county fair or build a single restaurant. Probably even a lot less significant. In other words, not even noticeable in the larger scheme of things.

The fact that there are other competing interesting things is irrelevant. There are a great many interesting topics and nobody can care about even a very small fraction of them. We have to choose to do things and whatever we choose to do, we are choosing to not do most other things.

I have no idea if it's accurate, but wikipedia puts the most expensive game development ever at 140 million. Global GDP is about 100 trillion, almost a million times more. I would say there's every reason to expect with technological advancement that future simulation development would take a far smaller piece of the pie, but let's say that ratio is roughly analogous. That means it takes just over one millionth of a year's economic output to get it done. That's orders of magnitude smaller than you can even notice. It's similar to dropping a penny on the sidewalk for the average person, and pennies are so insignificant that we're losing money by continuing to use them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think there's a level at which evidence for simulation theory, or against it, isn't even possible. I don't think we'll ever get to a point where we can go beyond 'it's possible/fairly likely'.

I have continued to read up and look at YT videos on this. I have NOT seen anything that I would call evidence for simulation other than (1) logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation based on (in my mind, questionable) assumptions e.g. Bostrom's trilemma (2) Neil's promotion of it but still based on #1 above.

I've also seen arguments against (much less, not as interesting to youtubers I guess). There is no evidence either other than some logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation based on assumptions that I'm not necessarily bought in either. The 3 that I hear are can any simulation do "consciousness", is there enough computing power, and ... the 3rd was more interesting, there's a paper that says (greatly paraphrased) they looked for evidence of "programming" in the natural laws of X as we know it and there doesn't seem to be any procedural logic. All 3 have problems in my mind.

Others have said, you can't prove or disprove it. It's debatable if there's any evidence/test/reproduce can be done for/against it. It's a thought exercise. I agree.

Good question. My answer is primarily that I would disagree strongly with assumption #1. There is no movie or genre of movies that takes a significant amount of time/effort/resources/money compared to the capabilities of humanity as a whole. Same for games. That's why we can make movies and games; because they are optional, non-essential activities that are funded out of surplus.

The power, riches, technological capabilities, etc. of the kind of civilization we're talking about are even more exponentially higher than ours, than our modern-day society is above a colonial society prior to the industrial revolution. They could devote the equivalent of thousand of trillions of dollars and billions of people to a project, and have it be as significant to them as it would be for us to hold a county fair or build a single restaurant. Probably even a lot less significant. In other words, not even noticeable in the larger scheme of things.

The fact that there are other competing interesting things is irrelevant. There are a great many interesting topics and nobody can care about even a very small fraction of them. We have to choose to do things and whatever we choose to do, we are choosing to not do most other things.

I have no idea if it's accurate, but wikipedia puts the most expensive game development ever at 140 million. Global GDP is about 100 trillion, almost a million times more. I would say there's every reason to expect with technological advancement that future simulation development would take a far smaller piece of the pie, but let's say that ratio is roughly analogous. That means it takes just over one millionth of a year's economic output to get it done. That's orders of magnitude smaller than you can even notice. It's similar to dropping a penny on the sidewalk for the average person, and pennies are so insignificant that we're losing money by continuing to use them.

I understand you do not necessarily agree with my assumptions 1-3 just as I do not agree the assumptions underpinning Bostrom's trilemma are necessarily valid.

My assumption 1 does assume there continues to be scarcity of resources, a profit/entertainment motive and like. It does not assume there is a Star Trek like nirvana with replicators, most everyone is happy, and we've achieved a one world kumbaya. Either scenario is just as likely IMO.

An assumption of Bostrom's theory (not that I've read from Bostrom but have heard from Neil) is that each ancestor simulation will eventually create their own subsequent ancestor simulation and continue infinium (the computational power required for that is unimaginable). I believe I recall Neil say quadrillion to infinium. Or restated (and also touches on why do it) from a blurb in wiki

Physicist Marcelo Gleiser objects to the notion that posthumans would have a reason to run simulated universes: "...being so advanced they would have collected enough knowledge about their past to have little interest in this kind of simulation. ...They may have virtual-reality museums, where they could go and experience the lives and tribulations of their ancestors. But a full-fledged, resource-consuming simulation of an entire universe? Sounds like a colossal waste of time." Gleiser also points out that there is no plausible reason to stop at one level of simulation, so that the simulated ancestors might also be simulating their ancestors, and so on, creating an infinite regress akin to the "problem of the First Cause."[21]

*****

Some interesting tidbits from my further reading & watching YT videos on simulation theory.

1. Not all the videos for simulation theory adhere to Bostrom's trilemma. Many don't even mention it specifically as an "ancestor" simulation.

2. Many of the videos reframe the Bostrom trilemma with their own 1-3 or 1-5. They say their wording is basically the same. Of all the videos I watched, I would consider none of the reframing as accurately depicting what Bostrom said. So based on 1 & 2, Bostrom's simulation theory is branching out into other variants.

3. I did see one theory that our simulation (e.g. us happening now) is done by aliens and not our descendant post-humans. This actually makes a lot more sense to me in trying to rationalize "why create & maintain an ancestor simulation". Instead of us post-humans wanting to invest & play (boring) ancestor simulations, there are aliens that want to invest & play Fortnite/Roblox, and the blocky humanoids are us. The aliens are playing "fantasy" games which is a lot more entertaining (based on today's measurement of game popularity).

4. Neil went from almost certainty (videos about 5+ years old) to about 50-50 chance (videos about 2 years old). I've lost a couple rungs of respect for him. As a scientist and not insist of some sort of evidence/proof and still say it's a near certainty 5+ years ago is BS. I think the popularity of simulation theory, in no small part, is because of his advocacy. Happy to be wrong here but I'd think his videos would be - here's what Bostrom says, here's the calculations based on the assumptions, and here's why the assumptions could or could NOT be true (key part), and BTW there's likely not going to be any evidence/test that will be convincing either way. His 50-50 now is the high water mark. It'll be lower if he, at least, scrutinized the assumptions with a lot more whatabout/whatifs. If he has done this video, I've not seen it.

5. Joe Rogan had one episode on simulation theory but his guest veered off into psychedelics (WTF) and Joe started talking about how (paraphrased) humans will evolve with "augmentation" like android, AI brain in a robot etc. He believes, and I agree, that humans will inevitably become androids (e.g. the 70's Steve Austin aka The 6 Million Dollar Man). I think we can even transfer our brains into a robot/android shell. I'm not sure I believe we can or want to transfer our consciousness into a computer.

Bottom line to me. Can't help but picture Bostrom as a Matrix fan and one day, while stoned with a couple other stoned grad students watching Keanu, said "hey, great idea for a paper". I'd rather (and do) believe in a God, just as easy, somewhat equivalent, and much more reassuring. Regardless, simulation theory is interesting and thought provoking. It'll stir up good debate and basis for more sci-fi books & movies.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll leave much of that in the 'different perspectives' category.

I do think the 'where is the evidence' bit doesn't make a lot of sense here. There are many scientific theories - particularly as it relates to consciousness, but in many other subjects as well - where you don't have evidence for or against. That's generally a mark against something as a scientific theory, but on the other hand logic is just often all there is to go on. I don't think logic is less sound than science, in fact science relies upon logic and has no foundation without it.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Can't help but picture Bostrom as a Matrix fan and one day, while stoned with a couple other stoned grad students watching Keanu, said "hey, great idea for a paper".

I don't rely on Bostrom or Tyson or any other person, as much as I do the other items that have been mentioned.

3. The 'more popular with aliens' bit makes no sense to me at all. You can view historical sims as boring all you want to, but in the general strategy & simulation genre they are not at all unpopular. They just aren't. How popular they are now doesn't at all mean they won't be in the future; I think it's a big mistake to project at that level of detail onto how future generations would look at this kind of thing. But at the fundamental level even the basis of the argument is off IMO. We have flight simulators. Simulators of ant colonies. Of farming, for goodness sake if you want to talk about boring. If we make simulations of elements of life that are mundane from experiences within our own culture that we have access to - we're on a sports simulation board here!! - then there are even greater reasons beyond that for historical simulations. All kinds of simulations are enjoyed, right now.

It just feels strange to me and inconsistent (not necessarily wrong, we're in the unknowables here) to say you believe in God (as I do as well) without demanding evidence for that but to then say we need evidence for other things. To expect mankind to change when it comes to our priorities for space exploration, but say things you think (inaccurately, to my view) are boring for us today will always be boring for us in the future.

I guess as a general matter, it just feels to me too much like 'bolstering', or arranging supporting blocks around a view after having committed to the view. Whatever it may say about me, I can't get there intellectually.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It just feels strange to me and inconsistent (not necessarily wrong, we're in the unknowables here) to say you believe in God (as I do as well) without demanding evidence for that but to then say we need evidence for other things.

Personally, I don't need evidence for God because I accept on faith. And because I accept God on faith, I do not try to prove to others it is true or highly likely.

If someone is trying to prove something to me (or tell me its highly likely), then I do need evidence. Simulation theory, at this current stage, is one of those because I don't see much evidence other than an exercise in logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation based on (in my mind, questionable) assumptions. Back in the old days, and probably still now, of similar exercise in logical reasoning/deduction/extrapolation about why there was, or needed to be, a God. And pretty much has still come to naught. I suspect it'll be the same for simulation theory.

I don't rely on Bostrom or Tyson or any other person, as much as I do the other items that have been mentioned.

Maybe this is why we disagree in the fine details. I assumed Bostrom and his trilemma assumptions is the basis of your belief in simulation theory. My dissension have been targeted toward Bostrum's theory that I baselined per post #97.

[Edward64]

Interesting followup question. If you were told you were in a Matrix/simulation and had to pick the red or blue pill, what would you do ...

Blue = stay in the matrix and live the simulated life
Red = "... Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

I think I'd pick Red.

[Solecismic]

What is the probability that Bostrom himself is a simulation?

I confess that I'm not as interested in this type of tangent. It seems more religious than anything else. Something on the level of Hamlet's "To be or not to be..."

The obvious non-religious answer to Bostrom is that the answer is always undefinable. We can always add another layer or abstraction of religious being with powers far greater than ours.

AI is one thing. Sentience is another. We tend to confuse them, especially when we talk about machine learning.

Can sentience be simulated? In theory, of course. Could we, therefore, be simulated? I don't know how to address that, only that philosophers have asked questions like those for millennia. What is Plato's cave theory?

We contemplate our existence. We crave feeling more than important than we are.

Meanwhile, let's look at AI. We are already capable of and actually creating drones that kill on the battlefield. We don't have to have John Grisham's mind to wonder if companies or governments or individuals have created drones that can or have killed outside of the battlefield.

Are those drones sentient? No. But it's easy to imagine a bug or a feature that's not properly programmed can result in a drone killing in a way that seems like the proverbial newly sentient rogue cyborg gone wild. One could argue that Tesla's self-driving cars are a real-world example (at least to motorcyclists).

But the simple self-evident truth is that whatever shaped the universe made stuff possible, and discovering the secret of whatever whatever is, and whether we can control or manipulate it (through prayer or programming) can be fascinating, but ultimately the self-important fantasy we create while doing so is more interesting than the reality.

[Edward64]

Bostrom's theory was essentially extrapolating 3 assumptions/scenarios with logic & probabilities. Not God and not AI.

I was the one that brought the religious aspect into this discussion. Bostrom's theory assume post-human (e.g. super advanced humans in the future) that created the simulation. I equated that to a religious God.

Bostrom also did not bring up AI, it was me that brought in androids/robots and mentioned the Joe Rogan simulation theory show where he went off into a tangent to discuss androids instead.

But to answer your question about Bostrom being a simulation ... according to Neil about 2 years ago, its about 50-50. Five years ago, he would have said it was almost a certainty.

[Solecismic]

Can't have a simulation without AI.

From the perspective of those being simulated, their creator is a god.

So Bostrom's trilemma can be rewritten: if a god does not exist, there is a probability of 1 that mankind would seek to invent one.

It's just our nature.

In more self-aware science fiction, one common trope is having mankind judged at a primitive tribunal of a vastly superior race (always the imagery of a medieval court - even the best sci-fi writers sometimes lack imagination) and found worthy of existence because of its imagination or free will or something along those lines.

We crave that judgment. We crave significance. And for that, we need gods.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Can't have a simulation without AI.

Pretty sure I can code it with a bunch of nested if-then-else statements or evaluate statements

I'll append my statement above to

Bostrom's theory was essentially extrapolating 3 assumptions/scenarios with logic & probabilities. Not directly about God or AI.

From the perspective of those being simulated, their creator is a god.

Yes. That's why if I had a choice

It's more comforting to think of (a religious) God vs some nerdy, fat-ass programmer maintaining this simulation while dripping pieces of philly cheesesteak sandwich (or sushi) over his keyboard

So Bostrom's trilemma can be rewritten: if a god does not exist, there is a probability of 1 that mankind would seek to invent one.

It's just our nature.

I think this is true. Sure there are always going to be Atheists and Agnostics on the edge of atheism, but history of mankind shows the instinct (?) to worship higher being(s).

But I'd rewrite Bostrom's trilemma more like: there is a probability of 1 that mankind will seek to become god or god-like (e.g. with use of simulations)

[Hammer]

Controversial statement coming, but an honest one.

If someone thinks a certain God and religion is probably fundamentally true I can understand that. When someone is absolutely sure I think they have lost the plot. So many possibilities out there. To be 100% sure, is totally delusional IMO.

Exactly the same as someone saying they are sure we were created by aliens. Or by hydrothermal vents. Pick your theory.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Controversial statement coming, but an honest one.

If someone thinks a certain God and religion is probably fundamentally true I can understand that. When someone is absolutely sure I think they have lost the plot. So many possibilities out there. To be 100% sure, is totally delusional IMO.

Exactly the same as someone saying they are sure we were created by aliens. Or by hydrothermal vents. Pick your theory.

FWIW.

I doubt there are 100% certain, 100% of the time believers there. Most everyone has doubts that creep up. But yeah, there are people that are "certain" (considering this a little lower bar than your 100% sure) there is a God.

Gallup says 80%+ of Americans believe in a God. 64% are "certain" there is a God. I'm guessing it's higher globally (if we toss in Buddha who technically is not a God).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268205/...lieve-god.aspx

People are largely influenced and are a product of their environment/experiences.

If people were told they were created by aliens or hydrothermal vents for the past 2,000+ years (have to read up on oldest religion/worshipping), I can understand that belief. But they weren't and that's the difference.

[sterlingice]

I guess this brings up the question of why are are the Judeo-Christian God or Allah more popular than, say, Zeus or Odin? Zeus is twice as old as Allah, for instance, and the Greeks controlled huge swaths of land. Or, going back even further, I suspect many of the Egyptian gods pre-date the Judeo-Christian God and the Egyptian empire was huge and long-lived.

SI

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I guess this brings up the question of why are are the Judeo-Christian God or Allah more popular than, say, Zeus or Odin? Zeus is twice as old as Allah, for instance, and the Greeks controlled huge swaths of land. Or, going back even further, I suspect many of the Egyptian gods pre-date the Judeo-Christian God and the Egyptian empire was huge and long-lived.

One word - Rome.

Most influential and powerful empire at the time converts the state religion to Christianity.

[sterlingice]

And then when it falls, there's no one to pick up the pieces in the West for over 1000 years so it gets entrenched. Yeah, makes sense

SI

[Solecismic]

People want answers to complicated questions. Religion provides answers. As times change and clearer answers older questions are available, religion transitions. There are always going to be new questions.

We are in a major transition phase right now. Young people today are much more likely to worship an earth-as-god model than what we think of as conventional monotheism. Very different look to it, but the structure is pretty much the same.

Why does this happen? Belonging, self-importance. I know I keep saying that, but we want to feel important, like we can save the world and defeat evil. So we join groups and we root for specific sports teams even though we don't know a single one of the players. We form religions and we consider ourselves better than the heretics and deniers who don't believe what we believe.

[Lathum]

I wonder if aliens would be horrified by the amount of food we waste?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I wonder if aliens would be horrified by the amount of food we waste?

If there is an advanced civilization out there that has detected us, they're undoubtedly watching our satellite television broadcasts and have spent years learning how to translate the format and make sense of it.

As such, they likely would have concluded a lot of things. Food waste probably wouldn't compute, as all food is only the conversion of one form of life into another and the balance is difficult to assess.

But I wonder what they'd make of The Masked Singer. Hopefully, they wouldn't get hooked on reality television.

[Lathum]

The Masked singer is pretty addictive...

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And then when it falls, there's no one to pick up the pieces in the West for over 1000 years so it gets entrenched. Yeah, makes sense

SI

Not to mention it didn't fully fall for another about 700 years after it established Christianity as its state religion. Granted, the eastern empire waxed and waned, but it was still a cultural bastion for a long long time.

[Edward64]

That answers Zeus.

I looked up Odin. Some blurbs below. Looks like Christianity was essentially the death knell for both. But there are still remnants.

The Old Norse religion was suppressed from the 11th century, when Norway's kings forcibly imposed the Christian religion and tore down or burned buildings like the god house at Ose to enforce worship in the new Christian churches.

By the 12th century, Old Norse religion had been replaced by Christianity, with elements continuing into Scandinavian folklore.

I don't think the author below understands the definition of "going strong".

Thor and Odin are still going strong 1000 years after the Viking Age. Many think that the old Nordic religion - the belief in the Norse gods – disappeared with the introduction of Christianity. However, it did not, but was instead practised secretly or under a Christian cloak. Today there are between 500 and 1000 people in Denmark who believe in the old Nordic religion and worship its ancient gods.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I wonder if aliens would be horrified by the amount of food we waste?

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But I wonder what they'd make of The Masked Singer. Hopefully, they wouldn't get hooked on reality television.

It depends if they are looking at us as food or a race to nurture to "uplift" (aka David Brin's Uplift books).

[Edward64]

FWIW, I continue to dig deeper into Entanglement. Not whether it exists, because there is a preponderance of evidence that it does. But why/how does it work they way it does.

I found below Nova documentary which I thought did a fantastic job in explaining (in layman's terms) what it is, the history behind Einstein vs Bohr, the key experiments done, the application of it with quantum computers & encryption.

But my question of why/how really wasn't answered other than some general statements like "maybe the universe is made up of entangled particles" or "maybe entanglement will lead to the theory of everything" etc. No surprise I guess.

Well worth the watch if you are interested in the layman's primer on Entanglement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-s_CrgZp94

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bostrom also did not bring up AI, it was me that brought in androids/robots and mentioned the Joe Rogan simulation theory show where he went off into a tangent to discuss androids instead.

Half-human, robot androids are looking pretty good vs this prediction of "Mindy"

Humans may evolve to have deformed bodies, second eyelid from overusing technology - Study Finds

A hunched back, claw-handed, and second eyelid could be common features of human anatomy in the future, a new computer model reveals. A new report warns that overusing technology could be steering human evolution in a direction that leaves people looking deformed compared to what we consider normal today.

There’s no question technology now plays a constant role in the lives of many people, but what is all that screen time really doing to the human body? Researchers worked with a 3D designer to create a “future human” that accounts for all of the problems long-term tech use may cause.

[Solecismic]

That makes no sense. Evolution is about adaptation for survival over the course of generations, not temporary trends that don't serve any live-or-die goals.

Computer modeling is fun. Thinking of football games and elections. But too many "scientists" and programmers seem to think that just because you make somewhat realistic choices in what you program into a computer that the output is somehow meaningful. A computer spits out exactly what it's programmed to spit out.

And something is seriously wrong with her, um, frontal features. So no reproduction potential there - no bots will come in here and do their "hot or not" bot thing with those pictures.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But my question of why/how really wasn't answered other than some general statements like "maybe the universe is made up of entangled particles" or "maybe entanglement will lead to the theory of everything" etc. No surprise I guess.

I think that's firmly in 'we don't know' territory and likely to remain so until we find a 'theory of everything'.

AI is interesting to me because from what I've read, experts in the field almost universally think that AI is the greatest threat to the species, and has probably already surpassed human abilities. Then there's many other scientists not in that field who think that is overblown.

[Solecismic]

Pocket calculators surpassed some human abilities decades ago.

Sure, there's a danger in creating machines that can be programmed to kill. There's no danger that machines will ever decide to stop running their code and make decisions outside their programmed limitations.

Bugs with awful results, sure. Machines programmed to kill millions? Easily done with current technology. Eradication of the race because androids suddenly collectively decide humans suck? That's the fantasy side of sci-fi.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

AI is interesting to me because from what I've read, experts in the field almost universally think that AI is the greatest threat to the species, and has probably already surpassed human abilities. Then there's many other scientists not in that field who think that is overblown.

Personal data point.

I worked with AI on some specific commercial applications from a Big Tech company 3-4 years ago, and I can honestly say it's not there yet. Fancy words and messaging to "sell" essentially a vision. I've seen an application that proclaimed it was self-learning ... nope, just BS.

However, there was a time when we didn't think computers could beat Chess or Go champions. And I'm sure there are much more sophisticated stuff being done now.

So I do think fair chance AI will one day surpass humans, but I really don't believe it's near that just yet.

(And as always, it depends on what AI means. I've seen varying definitions. If it's the Turing Test, we've easily exceeded that already. But that was proposed in the 40s and, in retrospect, a low bar)

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Eradication of the race because androids suddenly collectively decide humans suck? That's the fantasy side of sci-fi.

On this, I'm just not comfortable saying that experts in a field are equivalent to fantasy sci-fi. YMMV. It's not a case of androids collectively saying it though, all it takes is one sufficiently advanced AI. The proverbial paper-clip example of such an AI being willing to do anything necessary to make more/better paper clips, and if it determines humans are a limitation on this, it hacks/co-opts/subverts/etc. whatever is needed to eliminate the threat.

If the top scientists in the field were even, say, split evenly on the issue, or there was a close consensus, I wouldn't be concerned about it. I can't find any reputable source that doesn't say they are almost all on the side of 'this is a huge problem/threat, and we're not prepared for it'.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think that's firmly in 'we don't know' territory and likely to remain so until we find a 'theory of everything'.

I really wasn't hoping for an answer that explained it (that would have been Nobel news for sure).

I was looking for some theories on how/why Entanglement worked e.g. supposedly faster than speed of light, supposedly instantaneously if the 2 entangled particles are in 2 separate galaxies. I didn't even find any theories beyond general statements. There may be some stuff out there but nothing I could find with my YT and general googling.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(And as always, it depends on what AI means. I've seen varying definitions. If it's the Turing Test, we've easily exceeded that already. But that was proposed in the 40s and , in retrospect, a low bar)

The best one I've heard is simply 'software that writes itself'. I.e. it's not limited soley to the specific boundaries that the human developers gave it, but adds it's own capabilities. This is in the 'already happening' category for about a decade now to the best of my knowledge.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The best one I've heard is simply 'software that writes itself'. I.e. it's not limited soley to the specific boundaries that the human developers gave it, but adds it's own capabilities. This is in the 'already happening' category for about a decade now to the best of my knowledge.

That wouldn't be my definition. I've seen differing definitions from Big Tech companies and don't think there is a single, agreed to definition yet. But below gives you an idea of what I was thinking is AI.

e.g. ability to learn, ability to be cognitive/think, speech recognition & natural language processing etc.

What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)? | IBM

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And something is seriously wrong with her, um, frontal features. So no reproduction potential there - no bots will come in here and do their "hot or not" bot thing with those pictures.

Tastes evolve and beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

On this, I'm just not comfortable saying that experts in a field are equivalent to fantasy sci-fi. YMMV. It's not a case of androids collectively saying it though, all it takes is one sufficiently advanced AI. The proverbial paper-clip example of such an AI being willing to do anything necessary to make more/better paper clips, and if it determines humans are a limitation on this, it hacks/co-opts/subverts/etc. whatever is needed to eliminate the threat.

If the top scientists in the field were even, say, split evenly on the issue, or there was a close consensus, I wouldn't be concerned about it. I can't find any reputable source that doesn't say they are almost all on the side of 'this is a huge problem/threat, and we're not prepared for it'.

Already mentioned WBW earlier, talking about the great filter. The AI one is another of Tim Urban's greatest hits. He talks about the paper-clip example (it's in part 2, search for "Turry").

The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1 - Wait But Why
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 2 - Wait But Why

SI

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

On this, I'm just not comfortable saying that experts in a field are equivalent to fantasy sci-fi. YMMV. It's not a case of androids collectively saying it though, all it takes is one sufficiently advanced AI. The proverbial paper-clip example of such an AI being willing to do anything necessary to make more/better paper clips, and if it determines humans are a limitation on this, it hacks/co-opts/subverts/etc. whatever is needed to eliminate the threat.

If the top scientists in the field were even, say, split evenly on the issue, or there was a close consensus, I wouldn't be concerned about it. I can't find any reputable source that doesn't say they are almost all on the side of 'this is a huge problem/threat, and we're not prepared for it'.

Hacks/co-opts/subverts what, exactly? I don't see the gain in terror from what we clearly have now (machines that can be programmed to kill) and machines that are given the tools to kill and programmed not to use them, but do anyway because of a bug.

Sure, we can create scary machines. The potential problem is not AI, it's the people programming the machines.

[Brian Swartz]

I've been thinking about the question you posed here. I didn't want to give a bad answer off the cuff. I think the issue is much bigger than machines programmed to kill. One machine that can kill malfunctioning is not nearly as much of a threat IMO. I am not an expert on this, just going by what I've read and understood (I hope) from those who are.

Consider for example the computers that run things like the stock exchange. They are crucial and not replaceable by humans at anything near the level of proficiency/calculation speed/etc. they operate at. We have robots that don't just do the tasks they were programmed to do, but also other tasks they werent' programmed to accomplish, they've learned how to do that on their own. These aren't future capabilities, but ones that are a decade old. I'm sure they are now more advanced than I have any idea of.

The fundamental point though is that when it comes to this:

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The potential problem is not AI, it's the people programming the machines.

The people programming the machines will more and more prevalently not be people at all. They will be the machines themselves. As we get better at robotics, automation, computing capabilities in general, more and more complex tasks will be given to robots to perform. They will increasingly set their own goals and act independently. There is and will continue to be economic pressure to do this, because such capabilities allow computers to be able to increase profits, handle tasks that a human used to do and better than a human can do them, and so on. Not turning over more and more decision-making to AI locks in a competitive and efficiency disadvantage. It's not a 'bug' so much as it is a natural and inevitable consequence of continually increasing reliance on computerized automation in it's various forms.

This doesn't have to be a Wargames thing where an AI takes over the nuclear arsenal. It could be that, but it could take many other forms. They could crash the financial markets, power infrastructure, other key foundational building blocks to society if they choose. They might well choose not to do that, but the moment one of them decides that to achieve their desired goals requires what we would call an act of war and what they would call eliminating an obstacle to efficiency or somesuch.

[Edward64]

Related to AI (and Skynet).

Meta researchers create AI that masters Diplomacy, tricking human players | Ars Technica

On Tuesday, Meta AI announced the development of Cicero, which it claims is the first AI to achieve human-level performance in the strategic board game Diplomacy. It's a notable achievement because the game requires deep interpersonal negotiation skills, which implies that Cicero has obtained a certain mastery of language necessary to win the game.

Even before Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov at chess in 1997, board games were a useful measure of AI achievement. In 2015, another barrier fell when AlphaGo defeated Go master Lee Sedol. Both of those games follow a relatively clear set of analytical rules (although Go's rules are typically simplified for computer AI).

But with Diplomacy, a large portion of the gameplay involves social skills. Players must show empathy, use natural language, and build relationships to win—a difficult task for a computer player. With this in mind, Meta asked, "Can we build more effective and flexible agents that can use language to negotiate, persuade, and work with people to achieve strategic goals similar to the way humans do?"

According to Meta, the answer is yes. Cicero learned its skills by playing an online version of Diplomacy on webDiplomacy.net. Over time, it became a master at the game, reportedly achieving "more than double the average score" of human players and ranking in the top 10 percent of people who played more than one game.

I played this game in college. Not since so it was cool to see it's still around.

I did not like the backstabbing aspect (almost inevitable). Always pissed me off.

[Edward64]

2030 is the year we will find alien life. On Europa!

The goals of Europa Clipper are to explore Europa, investigate its habitability and aid in the selection of a landing site for the future Europa Lander.[45][51] This exploration is focused on understanding the three main requirements for life: liquid water, chemistry, and energy.

... due to the adverse effects of radiation from Jupiter's magnetosphere in Europa orbit, it was decided that it would be safer to inject a spacecraft into an elliptical orbit around Jupiter and make 44 close flybys of the moon instead.
:
:
Studies by scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory show that by performing several flybys with many months to return data, the Europa Clipper concept will enable a US$2 billion mission to conduct the most crucial measurements of the cancelled US$4.3 billion Jupiter Europa Orbiter concept.[21] Between each of the flybys, the spacecraft will have seven to ten days to transmit data stored during each brief encounter. That will let the spacecraft have up to a year of time to transmit its data compared to just 30 days for an orbiter. The result will be almost three times as much data returned to Earth, while reducing exposure to radiation.[21]

The mission is scheduled to launch in October 2024 aboard a Falcon Heavy,[8] during a 21-day launch window.[7] The spacecraft will use gravity assists from Mars in February 2025 and Earth in December 2026, before arriving at Europa in April 2030.[7]

Or maybe a little later with a lander ...

The Europa Lander is a proposed astrobiology mission concept by NASA to send a lander to Europa, an icy moon of Jupiter.[3][4] If funded and developed as a large strategic science mission, it would be launched in 2027 to complement the studies by the Europa Clipper orbiter mission and perform analyses on site.[5]

These more speculative missions are funded by governments and not private enterprises. This is a reasonable balance or segregation of duties (for now). Governments doing the upfront investments for science (& defense), and then followed by private entities to realize any commercial benefits.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(And as always, it depends on what AI means. I've seen varying definitions. If it's the Turing Test, we've easily exceeded that already. But that was proposed in the 40s and, in retrospect, a low bar)

I'll take back the easily exceeded comment.

ChatGPT ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue has been in the news recently about how great it was etc. So I played with it.

If the test is the Turing Test, it fails. I believe I can easily discern if I'm talking to a computer vs human.

If the test is can it do or "understand" much more than a helpdesk chatbot or Siri, yes it can.

FWIW some observations:

1. I asked it to do haikus for the Razorbacks and for the Tide. The haikus were fairly generic (e.g. no mention of WPS, Hogs, Tide, Elephant) and both were similar to each other
2. I also asked it for its opinion about a subject matter. It said it was not "programmed" to give opinions.
3. I asked about something in 2022 and it said it was only "programmed" for up to 2021. This one is kinda strange. I've been around AI that supposedly scrapes news/research content and stores it in its internal-whatever-databases. I'm sure there's a reason but sounds very limiting IMO to not have ChatGPT perpetually scrape for news/research content
4. And the most telling on why it failed the Turing test, its responses didn't seem to flow naturally. You could tell you weren't having a conversation with human

Overall, pretty interesting and looking forward to see how it progresses. But not yet there in the Turing test.


EDIT: article on use of ChatGPT to write essays. My internal debate now is whether to let my daughter know this exists!

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...essays/672371/

Pass or fail? A- or B+? And how would your grade change if you knew a human student hadn’t written it at all? Because Mike Sharples, a professor in the U.K., used GPT-3, a large language model from OpenAI that automatically generates text from a prompt, to write it. (The whole essay, which Sharples considered graduate-level, is available, complete with references, here.) Personally, I lean toward a B+. The passage reads like filler, but so do most student essays.

Sharples’s intent was to urge educators to “rethink teaching and assessment” in light of the technology, which he said “could become a gift for student cheats, or a powerful teaching assistant, or a tool for creativity.” Essay generation is neither theoretical nor futuristic at this point. In May, a student in New Zealand confessed to using AI to write their papers, justifying it as a tool like Grammarly or spell-check: ​​“I have the knowledge, I have the lived experience, I’m a good student, I go to all the tutorials and I go to all the lectures and I read everything we have to read but I kind of felt I was being penalised because I don’t write eloquently and I didn’t feel that was right,” they told a student paper in Christchurch. They don’t feel like they’re cheating, because the student guidelines at their university state only that you’re not allowed to get somebody else to do your work for you. GPT-3 isn’t “somebody else”—it’s a program.

[Edward64]

NASA meeting today on UFOs.

https://apnews.com/article/nasa-ufo-...ea09e4e64a48b4

NASA held its first public meeting on UFOs on Wednesday a year after launching a study into unexplained sightings and insisted it’s not hiding anything.

The space agency televised the four-hour hearing featuring an independent panel of experts who vowed to be transparent. The team includes 16 scientists and other experts selected by NASA including retired astronaut Scott Kelly, the first American to spend nearly a year in space.

“I want to emphasize this loud and proud: There is absolutely no convincing evidence for extraterrestrial life associated with” unidentified objects, NASA’s Dan Evans said after the meeting.

Looking forward to the report

A final report is expected by the end of July.

[flere-imsaho]

The best evidence that there are no UFOs is that Trump would have been briefed on them as POTUS and there's no way he would have kept it secret.

[Kodos]

**ahem** Yes, no aliens here. Carry on. No need for any autopsies.

[Ghost Econ]

https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-...n-human-craft/

UFO reddit seems convinced. I think there had to be other life forms at some point, but everything about it seems so hard to believe. That they've been here recently, that world governments could hide it for at least decades...

[Edward64]

I'm not really a true believer but want to believe. Alien microbes in a moon with water, sure. Intelligent life that has solved interstellar travel & communications, not so much.

I agree world governments couldn't keep it a secret. But that's assuming those governments are in on it. I can easily believe we haven't been purposely contacted yet.

Star Trek: Insurrection duck blind.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin - The Debrief

UFO reddit seems convinced. I think there had to be other life forms at some point, but everything about it seems so hard to believe. That they've been here recently, that world governments could hide it for at least decades...

I just saw the story on this. Not sure who to believe here-whistleblower seems very credible and has the intelligence credentials to know what he is talking about, but just seems very hard to believe that our and other countries would be able to keep this totally quiet for all these years.

[Edward64]

He does seem credible but who knows.

It would be great if there was a congressional investigation that included select congress AND select reporters from NYT, WaPo, Vice etc. The reporters would be privy to everything and free to write their own findings. If they all come back pretty much consistent (except for some anomalies), I'll take that as truth.

The current NASA investigation (see earlier link above) consists of below. An argument can be made that they aren't truly independent.

The space agency televised the four-hour hearing featuring an independent panel of experts who vowed to be transparent. The team includes 16 scientists and other experts selected by NASA including retired astronaut Scott Kelly, the first American to spend nearly a year in space.

[PilotMan]

It's aliens!

'Crashed Las Vegas UFO' witness 'terrified' by 8-foot creatures in his backyard: '100% not human'