Surely if it's nonsense, you can point out the flawed reasoning? I don't mind having a fair and considered discussion with you, while having no need to judge your perspective or call into question your state of mind.

But it has to be respectful both ways.

I think the most likely outcome is also the most terrifying. That embedded in our culture, language, behavior, and data. Is the sense of cruelty. Sadism.

And even if a machine only possesses a tiny amount of that. I think it leads to a scenario in which maybe our future ASI overlords?

Decide that it's the human trait worth emulating.

With godlike control over space and time. How hard would it be to give us our own personal and perpetual existence. Filled with the most psychologically, physically, mentally abusive scenarios any given mind is capable of having.

And then doing it all over again. Resetting our sense of attunement. So that it can never be dulled. Never forgotten. There is no shock. There is no death.

There is just eternal suffering.

I don't like that one personally. And yeah, it certainly has a particular ring to it that makes it easy to dismiss as just a garbage rehash of religious hell.

But I didn't start from hell. I started from the realm of physically possible.

Drake Equation

Fermi Paradox

Eukaryogenesis - Hard Steps Problem

We don't know, but advances in research seem to be narrowing it down more and more by the day, and the trend isn't that it's more likely. At least as it pertains to intelligent life. Life in general is considered to be abundant.

Advertising and marketing has been host to many beliefs that aren't necessarily rooted in truth or reality unfortunately.

Extremes tend to prove the point in a way that most can understand. It could be argued that lesser variations could be survived by particular individuals. Not many can argue that a naked human would make it on the streets of a cold Chicago winter for long.

No problem. Just keep in mind, and through no action on my part, I'm nobody. These type threads tend to get shut down pretty quickly because it's a forum in which we should promote objective answers that can be validated by all.

This is one in which there is no singular objective answer because it's too broad a question.

Because marketing.

Mostly. Certainly, there are specific times in which we have nutritional deficiencies, but the Flintstones probably shouldn't be the arbiter of that.

Time isn't different. Humans created labels that have been adhered to that's all.

If you left London and sailed to New York at 15 knots. It would take the same amount of time regardless of the standards in use.

That's not to say time is static, Einstein proved its relative, but that's a different consideration and one that has very little bearing on the conversation due to our relatively slow speeds.

That's a fair assessment, and essential survival can certainly be applied to different scales.

The difference seems to be one of immediacy. You could survive a long time assuming your other needs are met, without protection from the sun.

You cannot survive for long regardless of ulterior needs without protection from the cold.

I'd have to assume you live in a climate that affords you that luxury. Not all do.

Anyone that's ever faced the 60 mph frozen winds of Lake Michigan would probably take a different stance on what is considered essential clothing than someone on the dry arid planes of Texas.

As much as I have a certain respect for Mr. Sanders.

He's not the mind that should be guiding policy. He's a dinosaur and these are the economic thoughts of the way systems did work.

That's not how they're going to continue to work.

The idea of taxation isn't one that will move forward in this new economy. No more than the ideas of supply and demand do with digital content that isn't based on renewable resources.

A new framework needs to be enacted. One in which the economic policies of supply and demand and all of the functions of that are replaced.

If you understand how a U-shaped piece of paper with two points connected by a tunnel would work...

I'm not sure there's much more to the understanding.

That's how it's possible.

The physics inside a wormhole wouldn't be like that of the paper certainly.

After all, it's not paper and a tunnel. It's connecting two singularities in a way that gets rid of their infinite natures in a physically accurate way.

But it means you can't pass information through them. Because the information can never move faster than light and the space between these two black holes would.

At least that's what I take from EPR=EP

Who knows. I've considered this topic probably about as much as anyone has. And I don't know.

We can say that rules only inhibit behavior. Rules are fundamentally barriers that define the potential space of any system. That's all.

The more rules, the less possible outcomes because you're limiting the potential space in ways that intersect data. Use this data, don't use that data.

Even when we define really good rules, this is still true.

Yet, clearly rules are important. They define the interactions available to a system. Strange relationship, they're both the definers of the structure of data as well as the interactions available to data.

For instance, you can have a very simple grid-based game. Conway's Game of Life style. But without rules, the system produces nothing at all. No novel information. It doesn't interact because it has no rules that instruct it how.

Yet, the more rules you add to the simple game, the greater restraint on the possible combinations that can arise becomes. Sometimes that's a good thing, as it wouldn't do you any good to have infinite potential space if the novel information only showed up so rarely as to actually see it.

Rules. They're important. But too many constrain a system in ways that can only reduce its effectiveness.

I don't know what that balance is, but companies like OpenAI seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

What does a million Rupees convert to in USD these days?

Hopefully enough to support your spam bot.

If you're interested in this topic, Anthropic Principle, is a good place to start.

It's very challenging to say. People have tried to ballpark it, concepts like Drake's Equation. But they all rely on assumptions that we're really not capable of asserting.

Still, it does allow us to consider the topic in ways that are more fruitful than just random consideration. After all, as technology progresses, we do become better at defining many of the assumptions, giving us a more accurate range in which to find intelligent life.

I think most considered people accept that life in the Universe is robust. Intelligent life however?

That's a much harder thing to say, because it requires a lot of things to go just right. Many of which (Abiogenesis) we don't even understand.

So we search. But that poses its own unique set of challenges. The issues of searching such a vast area for signs of intelligent life.

A lot of really smart work has gone into narrowing bands of information that we'd expect to see from intelligent life. From particular radio frequencies to different combinations of chemistry that would be challenging to reproduce naturally.

But still. The Universe is beyond massive. Needle in a haystack isn't the appropriate comparison. Needle in a haystack of a sky full of haystacks is the more apt one.

>Derive - base a concept on a logical extension or modification of (another concept).

In order to derive you must alter the original data. It must change. That is the fundamental aspect of information.

It can change. If it cannot change, it's just data. Not information.

>In information theory, the information content, self-information, surprisal, or Shannon information is a basic quantity derived from the probability of a particular event occurring from a random variable.

That's the definition. Want me to show you where the change is a required part of it?

Information theory? I don't know about you, but that's the one I'd go to if I were looking first.

A bit, is a storage space for a representation. By the nature of dimensions, a single dimension, be it of physical space or data can never represent change. It's an isolated spot. In order to represent change (information) you have to have a second dimension. An x, and a y.

2-bits is the minimum state for information.

1 bit is a single register of representation. You can have a million 0s, or a million 1s, but you cannot combine them in any way.

That's just a point, incapable of possessing information.

1-bit can never be information. Information is defined as the change of states. Not a state itself, and a 1-bit cannot change.

0000000000000000000000000

has no meaning.

111111111111111111111111111111111111

has no meaning.

00 = 0

01 = 1

That's information.

edit: Hey dumdums.... I get this is space and not philosophy of computation. But it's not a hard concept to grasp.

If you've got a single light switch. I can represent it as on or off. But by itself, it cannot represent information. On and Off is not information, it's data.

It's only a combination of ons and offs that qualify. And the moment you introduce something like iteration. Flipping the light switch on and off over time?

You introduce a new register. A new bit. It's no longer 1d data. Now it's 1d data over time. This is two dimensional. 1 bit of data, 1 bit of iteration. 2d. 2 bit, minimum for information passing.

A 1 bit signal cannot posses information. You'd require a minimum of 2 bits. 1 bit is just a straight line, no breaks.

You need at least two states, on and off. 1 and 0. Line and Gap. So a minimum of two bits.

Entanglement doersn't pass new information. It only passes information that's embedded into the system at the time of interaction, even if it's unknown.

It's like a quarter. You cannot tell if you will flip heads or tails. But the moment you do, you instantly know what you didn't flip.

Nothing new is created, no new information.

Sending information faster than light, would create a situation in which causality could be broken.

But these are very particular words that mean very particular things.

Is a signal information? Only if it passes novel information. Entanglement does not.

Let's start the process. Shall we. It's almost like surgery, but don't worry, I'm gifted with cutting.

You're bright? That's your claim? Because there aren't too many bright folks slumming in subs whose only goal is to mock logic and rationale.

That's not the way being bright works. So, is there anything else you've brought to the table, because bath water warm threats of exposing my intelligence?

They don't bother me.

edit: Are you that vacuous that it takes an hour to establish the merit of your claim? If so, that's alright take all the time you need. I'll pick it back up next time I'm around. That's the beauty of Reddit, it works on my time schedule.

lol. Look around friend. This aint world news. If you're not bright, why are you here?

It's not that, you were just too quick to find the first thread you could tug on.

Your laziness and unwillingness to think for yourself got the right one though.

Because with my threads come logic, rational, and someone that can not only outthink you by large margins but has the word skills to made it obvious to all.

You can keep tugging, or maybe you should read a little more and find out just what the fuck it is I'm saying, why I'm saying it, and what happens to others if they don't take the easy route to it.