R
roytheshort
Guest
Have you never heard of partying?we just suicide, because after all we have nothing else to do in the universe.
Have you never heard of partying?we just suicide, because after all we have nothing else to do in the universe.
What would the reason of partying be? We would be all a single entity with such a powerful "mind" that emotions, luck, fun, partying, anything, would be useless. Since we have nothing else to do in our universe, we are presented with the choice to a. stop existing (aka "suiciding") or b. create a new universe.Have you never heard of partying?
Is knowing everything about the universe the same as knowing every possibility that could happen within a universe to the point that there is nothing new?The point is reaching a status where we know everything about our universe just by thinking about it.
At that point, our universe becomes "boring" since there's never anything new.
That is the hypothesis I'm posing. If that ever happens, to the point where nothing new could not be calculated in a matter of nanoseconds, then we only have those two choices.Is knowing everything about the universe the same as knowing every possibility that could happen within a universe to the point that there is nothing new?
If you know everything that will happen, you will also know what your smaller universe contains because it follows the rules of your universe, and you'll know what will happen when you die.That is the hypothesis I'm posing. If that ever happens, to the point where nothing new could not be calculated in a matter of nanoseconds, then we only have those two choices.
I think my Intel quad core is pretty close to the minimum requirements for such a feat. Maybe in a few months the new generation CPU architectures can handle it. Fingers crossedto the point where nothing new could not be calculated in a matter of nanoseconds
Knowing everything of the universe you're in is unrelated to what will happen when you simulate another universe with your "singularity mind", because they're literally two different universes.If you know everything that will happen, you will also know what your smaller universe contains because it follows the rules of your universe, and you'll know what will happen when you die.
lol yeah and AMD will also provide CPUs that overheat, so that the heat death of said simulated universe will never happen.I think my Intel quad core is pretty close to the minimum requirements for such a feat. Maybe in a few months the new generation CPU architectures can handle it. Fingers crossed
/s
You keep thinking about the universe you're in, but not the one you're imagining. Sitting back and relaxing while watching what your simulation becomes is not the same as watching this universe grow. It is not said that things will "evolve" into atoms and planets and living forms. It might become something different. It might have its own laws of physics. the possibilities are endless.But your mind is in the Universe.
Aside from the blatant false dichotomy, the premise per se is meaningless. "Answer to life" is a recursive problem. That means the answer to it is contained to all possible futures you may have and the only solution to it would be a self-consistent one (for example of a self-consistent solution check out Novikov's principle). This removes all difficulties afterwards because whatever you do is already consistent with the behaviour included in calculating the (vaguely defined) "answer to life."It remembers me of that theory about humanity reaching the singularity and our thoughts and minds working together to figure out the answer to life in a matter of milliseconds. As soon as we accomplish that, we realize that now our existence is useless, so we have two choices
All of the things I talked about were simplified extremely for the sake of not spamming the topic with random information that barely anyone would understand anyway.Aside from the blatant false dichotomy, the premise per se is meaningless. "Answer to life" is a recursive problem. That means the answer to it is contained to all possible futures you may have and the only solution to it would be a self-consistent one (for example of a self-consistent solution check out Novikov's principle). This removes all difficulties afterwards because whatever you do is already consistent with the behaviour included in calculating the (vaguely defined) "answer to life."
Why, aren't we feeling pretentious?All of the things I talked about were simplified extremely for the sake of not spamming the topic with random information that barely anyone would understand anyway.
Alright, since my point obviously didn't go through I'll repeat it in a simpler way. When you do calculations about an overall concept that encompasses past present and future such as what is "the meaning of life," you run into problems as you described if you don't understand that it's a recursive problem. Recursion means that it's a function that feeds itself into it in order to obtain a (sometimes) convergent solution. However this singularity is built, obviously if it's going to do its job well enough it's going to also iterate all future events into this solution.The idea is that the "singularity" is capable of knowing whatever will happen in whatever moment whenever it wants, for the events of its universe. Once it can do that, there really is no meaning to it's "life". It will know everything just by thinking about it, and it won't need this information anymore. Staying focused on the universe you know is like rewatching the same movie a lot of times consecutively: it gets boring.
This might sound pretentious, yes, but what I meant is that people here don't know the details of my "macaroni theory". You'll see what I mean later.Why, aren't we feeling pretentious?
I know what a recursive problem is. But as I said, I tried to explain the concepts of my theory as simply as I could, and it didn't work. Past, Present and Future don't have an exact meaning in my theory, since different timelines can "behave" in different ways in an infinitely-dimensional time. I'm not going to explain what I mean with that since it's a pain and as I already stated, it'd take a lot of space. Just know that present, future, and past, are your point of view from your position in a certain timestring (different timestrings compose a timeline). That is as simply as I can put it without spamming this topic with text.Alright, since my point obviously didn't go through I'll repeat it in a simpler way. When you do calculations about an overall concept that encompasses past present and future such as what is "the meaning of life," you run into problems as you described if you don't understand that it's a recursive problem. Recursion means that it's a function that feeds itself into it in order to obtain a (sometimes) convergent solution. However this singularity is built, obviously if it's going to do its job well enough it's going to also iterate all future events into this solution.
Okay, I see your point there. But remember that this is a purely hypothetical situation. Once the singularity is reached, it doesn't "exist" anymore in its original universe. "Existing in an universe" in my theory indicates wether or not a set of information is present in a certain "universe". Since it's not technically "in" the universe, and it's calculating what can "happen" in that universe (aka all the results of the information in the universe), the singularity will not have to deal with itself.If the solution to the "meaning of life" renders it useless, as you described, then it isn't a good machine and it just made a mistake. We'll assume this machine is perfect and doesn't get errors. So that scenario is now impossible. How? A self-consistent solution. A solution in which it itself is a factor in the calculation, which means that the fact of conveying to the machine what its purpose is, will still be itself a factor in determining the solution. And the "meaning of life" will be correct and will not lead to your nihilistic conclusion.
That's an interesting comic. The problem is that in all your definitions and sentences, you stick to the general definition of universe we have today.The problem that arises, the way I see it, is proving that such a solution exists since not all recursive problems converge to a single or a finite set of values. Anyway, this comic seems relevant now.
Yes it does, the laws in that Universe have to follow the ones of the Universe it's currently in. That doesn't make any sense.One last thing aboutt he paradox that I'll say is that you'd think the singularity could also predict everything in the new universe, but it doesn't have any experience about its laws so it can't calculate anything.
Exactly. To create the new universe, or simulate it, requires the singularly to be aware of the new laws?Yes it does, the laws in that Universe have to follow the ones of the Universe it's currently in. That doesn't make any sense.
AI singularly has begun. They no longer need us.
The sense of terror and dread I feel from watching those clips is just a natural instinct of knowing that we've been beaten, we have met our overlords. It's too late to stop it. We must give in to our fear and surender if we want the privilege to live as slaves to the superior beings.
Pic's still there, though you have to click on it to see it.Oh, hrm, probably should have realised it's a bad idea to put people's names on the internet.
E: Have I removed the picture? My edits don't seem to be working...
Money might not buy happyness but I'd rather cry because of the onions on my pizza from my lifelong supply of pizza.Marketing done right.
Big fan here x3Has someone heard about Hatsune Miku (or tried if you were lucky enough) yet?