Yeah, my bad. My memory failed me. Tasmanian Tiger is what I thought about.

So, there are quite a few issues with that. The animals we want to ressurect are those we had preserved remains of uncovered, like the wooly momoth from the siberian [no longer] permafrost. So we have good samples of their DNA. What else, we have similar animals, from the same family that can bare the offspring.

IIRC we didn't figure out bird cloning, as their reproduction is a bit weird, but I also think the dodo has no close relative species that can carry the egg.

Green houses allow to control the climate inside in a way that is impossible outside. Outside you're a slave to the wheather and the seasons. Inside you set the seasons. So you can grow crops out of season, and grow crops that can't flurish in the local climate otherwise.

So you’re basically saying, why won’t we throw all that we know and validated by experiments throughout the last century and just do some magic because AI will figure it out. Why ask the question then? Why do you care what anyone else says? Why did you post this?

No, you can’t effectively shrink anything without crushing it. The atom is like 90% empty space, but it is maintained by nuclear forces. To shrink it you need to actually crush things with suck force that it effectively destroy anything. There are places in the universe where these forces are overcome but these places are rather extreme. Like centers of stars, where overcoming the nuclear forces starts the fusion reactions.

Nature does not allow for “shrinking”.

The sun right is powered now by fusing two hydrogen atoms and creating helium. The fusion creates a lot of heat and pressure outwards, which is balanced by the pressure from the mass of the star, keeping it from collapsing in on itself.

That hydrogen is finite, and it will eventually run out. “The end of its life” is the or the end of our suns main sequence, when it can no longer keep fusing hydrogen. It will begin collapsing in on itself and the buildup of pressure will begin another reaction — for a very short while it will be fusing helium. This reaction, at the very edge of the suns core will push outwards and overcome the gravity, enlarging the diameter of the sun quite drastically. It is expected that the earth will be eaten up bu the sun. But all the while, as the sun grows, it also cools. Eventually it will shrink and form a white dwarf that will cool and become ever so dimmer over billions of years.

perhaps, but its integration into buisness will be slower than AI. robots need to be manufactured in units, and distributed, they might replace menial labour, but it will be that individual robotic units replace several humans, but not all of them, like an installation of AI can do with office workers.

Especially in the US, with how much influence the rich have over the politics, the situation seems rather grim, I agree. But the issue of automation is not one that wasn’t thought of before. That’s where the Guaranteed Minimum Income comes to play. Basically the government pays to sustain its not working population by taxing all corporations, or those that replace labor with automation. The issue is that people thought it would be robotics that will replace people in menial labour, but now it seems that AI will be the frontier of automation, and it targets white colar jobs — the top earners of the working class.

It is still left to be seen how will the whole thing play out. But it seems to me that there will need to be a reform in taxation that will either disincentivize the use of AI, or will compensate for people that lose their jobs to AI.

Year is what we define it to be. For us as humans it was easy to set a year relatively to the cycle of seasons. Only later that we found out that a year is how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

So you see, every planet has its own year, its own orbital period. Venus year is 255 earth days, what with it being closer to the sun.

Neptune being so far, it's year is as long as 165 earth years.

The reason we look at the age of the universe in time relative to us – to the earth year, is because it's much easier to conceptualize it, instead of spending time inventing a new unit of time.

Even speed on a galactic level we measure in the distance light travels in an earth year.

So, was a year different in different times?

actually... yeah, though not how you might think. Different calendars had slightly different day counts for years. For instance, old persian calendars had 360 days in a year. The old roman calendar – before the introduction of the Julian calendar was 304 days long. When transitioning to the Julian Calendar there was a transitional year with 445 days.

But when speaking of age of the universe, people refer to it as it is today – 365 days per year –> 24 hour per day –> 60 minute per hour –> 60 second per minute. a Second scientifically defined in relation to the frequency of a caesium 133 atom.

So the year one of the universe, is the same year you expirience today.

that was part of the idea the big crunch. The thing is once the Big Bang was theorised, people tried to figure it out. The Big Crunch stipulates that eventually gravity of all the material in the universe will pull everything together and basically return everything to the conditions right before the big bang, ending the universe in a crunch.

So, let's try and make a predictions out of this hypothesis, how would it work? and what would we expect to see in the universe that would affirm it?

Well, the idea is that the moment the Big Bang happens, everything is thrown in all directions and begins to slow down, much like with a rock that you throw, the moment a propelant is spent it slows down, because there's something that resists it – i.e. gravity. So, what we should be seeing is that galaxies away from us should be slowing down, or starting to even reverse their direction of travel (but that would be typical of a much older universe). And that's exactly what scientists were looking for.

But guess what they found? The universe isn't slowing down, it's actually accelerating. I'm talking that since that first observation, about fourty years of further observations confirm the same findings. There are areas of uncertainty there, but the evidence that the universe does not slow down is rather consistent.

But to your other point, we are still trying to figure out reality. How big is the universe really? how is it shaped – i.e. is it flat or is it curving (our current observations say it's flat), so on and so forth, and there are more and more scientists that stipulate that there are more universes out there that we can't see or interact with, at least not yet. I think they didn't make any workable prediction that one can measure and draw any conclusions from, but you're not alone in this. Still, our understanding of the universe is incomplete, and is evolving. It's just based on theories that correlated with observation and science.

Let me introduce you to the scientific method. At the very basic level, it has only four steps: Observation —> Hypothesis —> Prediction —> Experiment.

This is an ever ongoing process. You observe nature, form a hypothesis based on that hypothesis you make a prediction on what would happen if the conditions were X, and then you test then you observe the result of the test and either validate or adjust your hypothesis then make a prediction and test it again, so on and so forth.

If you look at modern cosmology, you will see this thread of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimenting leading it throughout history. It is ever evolving.

Now, for the sake of argument and start with your hypothesis — “the universe is ever lasting, perpetual and non-changing.” Now lets make a prediction based on it — what would the universe look like, how it would behave if that would be true?

Let’s start close by — our sun. If your hypothesis is correct the sun shouldn’t exist. Let me explain why — the sun is fueled by a fusion reaction. Two hydrogen atoms are being squeezed together so hard that they combine to make helium and as they do a lot of energy is being released. Some of that energy escapes as light and heat and reaches us.

But that presents your hypothesis with a hurdle. The fusion reaction itself is finite. Because the mass of the sun itself is the limit. Eventually all that hydrogen will be converted to helium and the reaction as we see today would stop. We can actually calculate it. I won’t get into much detail but its basically taking the mass if the sun, then dividing it by the mass of hydrogen being converted to helium via fusion at a given amount of time. This in itself violates the principal of your observation — the universe is never changing, therefore the reaction cannot be finite. So for your observation to be true the sun must therefore be powered through a different process. It needs to shine somehow, right?

But that means that our understanding of nuclear fusion must be wrong — because if we put the mass of the sun in hydrogen in a place the size of the sun it must start fusion. Because it will create the temperatures and pressures needed for fusion. That also means that all of our lab experiments where we recreate this process are also wrong.

But more than that — that means that our understanding of matter is wrong —> our understanding of chemistry is wrong —> our understanding of basic biological processes is wrong and so on and so forth.

So to fit your hypothesis most of our understanding of nature must be wrong. Most of the observation and hypothesis and predictions that were successfully validated with experiments done since the 17th century must be wrong.

Believe me, scientists constantly try to pole holes in our understanding of reality, they look at every constant, every factor and try to see if it can be explained otherwise. You think that your hypothesis is so unique? No, it isn’t up until maybe late 19th century it was the working hypothesis. There was no reason to believe anything else.

But with science done ever since, we’ve grown to understand how many elements in so many scientific disciplines interact. And the most exciting thing is — we still got a ways to go.

I would actually look inwards about this. Anything that happens in the universe on a galactic scale is a process that takes many many many years. It rarely, if at all, has any consequence on a human being.

Why then does it bother you either way? 13.8 billion years, or trillions of years, a life of a human, even humanity in general, is less than a tick of a second in relation either way. We saw almost nothing with our own eyes, and we, as humanity are likely be long gone, before even the life of our own star ends.

None of this will ever have any bearing on your life, or the life of anyone that may live today.

What about it fills you with existential dread enough to keep you up at night?

>the universe is not meant to be understood

This kind of thinking would have us, as a species stagnate, peaking at 16th century technology. Beforehand people believed that the universe is fundamentally unknowable, and that the body is regulated only by four humors. Nothing would be learned if we thought it doesn’t matter, because it isn’t meant to be understood.

The fact is, whether we will understand all of it or not, we benefit greatly trying to figure it out. You may not appreciate it, but every technology the modern world has, is because someone tried to figure it out. Because they were curious and he observed and experimented. It was an astrologist that discovered magnetic resonance that now is the basis of how MRI works. Curiosity makes us all better, even if you don’t see the immediate benefit of it.

We have theories about the universe because we go to the length of actually observing it as much as we can. Looking at the data, we can see things happen and we try to figure out how it works. The Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have now to what we see in our observations and how we understand the physics involved. It didn’t pop out of nowhere, it is culmination of hundreds of years of observation, calculation, testing. We don’t ‘believe’ in it because we were told to. Is it perfect? No. It actually has some holes in it, but scientists see these holes and they get excited, because these are opportunities for study and discovery, rather than blocks in their way.

The report that stipulated that COVID leaked from a lab was marked as low confidence. Just FYI.

Other than that, AI being developed today is selected for. I.E. it is optimized for a certain function. These AI are not general AI, ones that can select inputs from a variety of sources and after process start controlling external things. All these AI do is exactly what they are trained to do. A chat bot can only generate text, a image bot can only generate images, a driver AI can only do path recognition/selection for a car. An AI like that cannot rewrite itself to do other functions. So it is unlikely, at least from the process as it is now, that AI will need containment the same way viruses do.

Might that ever change? Possibly.

Our stress response should be triggered for short periods. People who live in constant stress however, thats a significant issue.

The edge of the universe is not necessarily observable for us. But the edge of the universe that is observable to us is not only far away, it is far away in time, more primordial than anything.

According to our current observation and understanding, the universe is expanding and accelerating. That is to say that is expanding ever faster, to the point that at the edge of our observable universe it expands faster than the speed of light. That creates a kind of spacial horizon we cannot observe beyond, because light coming from the other side will never reach us. And this horizon is drawing ever nearer to us. Eventually, many of billions of years in the future an observer from our galaxy, may not be able to see past our galaxy.

It would sound like a deafening mess and creatures would not develop the sense of hearing that much, because it would all be just white noise.

That’s the realistic answer. But even that is assuming this interplanetary atmosphere would just suddenly appear out of nowhere. If it would exist throughout history, our star system would look very different indeed

Exactly my point, we are likely not be able to recognize the consciousness, it would be different than anything we understand.

Yeah, I don’t think there can be an AI with emotions like us. The whole assumption that it might like us and care for us. There are whole pathways in the brain that get stimulated by endocrine systems electrochemically that just don’t doesn’t exist in an electronic system.

I again, don’t think that AI consciousness will be even recognizable for us. We just don’t know how it would look and behave.

It might never develop some more organic tendencies. Why would it ever decide it needs to perpetuate itself, keep itself alive?

You’re assuming that the AI would possess a kind of consciousness that is recognizable for you. That is absolutely will not be the case, unless it is specifically designed to mimic human psyche, or by some improbable miracle it just spontaneously develops it, maybe through the process of deep learning.

But excluding those possibilities, it is very likely the AI intelligence will be nothing that is recognizable to us. It might not interact at all with anything visual, it can possibly be purely process based with no understanding of the physical world at all, where everything it can interact with are software modules.

I personally don’t think that AI gaining consciousness will be an automatic threat to our survival — depending on its role, authority, connectivity and function. It may never develop self preservation imperative, where it will try to identify threats to itself, or an imperative to optimize its surroundings, where we might be a nuisance for.

In any case, it won’t likely be like us, able to love or care for us.

Brains are powerful but they are also very energy demanding. A chess player can burn 600 calories for a 2 hour game, equivalent to a 2 mile run.

Basically what happens is that our brains learn to conserve energy and save stress. If you train your brain up to remember details, it will be better and more consistent with that part, but otherwise, unless some pathways are consistently used, they stay inefficient. It is

important to note that human brains, are incredibly powerful, we develop language, motor, spatial and social skills that are very advanced. But they are geared for survival, not for optimal function.

You’re absolutely correct. My bad.

Wood is not a basic element, its a lot of organic material made of carbon, and carbon, in general doesn’t melt, it sublimes. While metals have a melting point that is achievable, carbon melting point is like 3,5K degrees and before that it combusts and becomes smoke.

EDIT: I was corrected, there are carbon based organic compounds that melt, like plastics. But it so happens that compounds in wood do not. Just for clarification.

Surprisingly good article that goes into details how the coroner eliminated other factors concerning the deceased other health factors. The deceased was sick with covid the year before, and the coroner accounted for that.

The article also cites numbers of myocarditis in Singapore. 65 cases of myocarditis out of 8.5 million vaccinations administered, and this is the first recorded death, happening about three weeks after the injection.