Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? (nautil.us) 264
What if alien life were so advanced that its powers were indistinguishable from physics? It's the one-year anniversary of a startling article which appeared in Nautilus magazine. Long-time Slashdot reader wjcofkc writes: Caleb Scharf, astronomer and the director of the multidisciplinary Columbia Astrobiology Center at Columbia University presents an intriguing thought experiment.
"Perhaps Arthur C. Clarke was being uncharacteristically unambitious. He once pointed out that any sufficiently advanced technology is going to be indistinguishable from magic. If you dropped in on a bunch of Paleolithic farmers with your iPhone and a pair of sneakers, you'd undoubtedly seem pretty magical. But the contrast is only middling: The farmers would still recognize you as basically like them, and before long they'd be taking selfies. But what if life has moved so far on that it doesn't just appear magical, but appears like physics?"
The original submitter included their own counterarguments against the idea, but the astronomer follows his proposal to its ultimate conclusion.
"Perhaps hyper-advanced life isn't just external. Perhaps it's already all around. It is embedded in what we perceive to be physics itself, from the root behavior of particles and fields to the phenomena of complexity and emergence."
"Perhaps Arthur C. Clarke was being uncharacteristically unambitious. He once pointed out that any sufficiently advanced technology is going to be indistinguishable from magic. If you dropped in on a bunch of Paleolithic farmers with your iPhone and a pair of sneakers, you'd undoubtedly seem pretty magical. But the contrast is only middling: The farmers would still recognize you as basically like them, and before long they'd be taking selfies. But what if life has moved so far on that it doesn't just appear magical, but appears like physics?"
The original submitter included their own counterarguments against the idea, but the astronomer follows his proposal to its ultimate conclusion.
"Perhaps hyper-advanced life isn't just external. Perhaps it's already all around. It is embedded in what we perceive to be physics itself, from the root behavior of particles and fields to the phenomena of complexity and emergence."
No (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not. It's not even intelligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Faith (Score:2)
You might be right. But assertions without evidence fall into a category of ideas called "faith." You can have faith in God, or you can have faith that there is not a God. Either way, you are taking your belief on faith.
Re: (Score:2)
As always, any claim about God, always has to have the follow up, not my God. So faith in God, how about my God is the totality of existence, can I have faith in the totality of existence and that existence does in fact exist, hmm, based upon my current interactions with existence, yes. So for me God exists and my existence is the proof, that upon the basis that I consider God to be the totality of existence and not some goat herder wish machine the supports the deceit of monarchy (face it believing in that
Re:Faith (Score:4, Insightful)
So for me God exists and my existence is the proof
Maybe you're right.. who am I to say? But that's not "proof." I could just as easily claim that "my God is a carton of milk and my ability to eat soggy cereal is the proof."
I don't mean to mock your faith.. just arguing that what you call "proof" is indeed still just taken on faith.
Then again if you want to get really philosophical, even your own existence that you're premising your "proof" on is up for debate ;).. There's actually no way to prove that you (and the rest of the universe) aren't just some figment of my fever dream and I may wake up at any moment and you all just poof into nothingness.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Human experience is shallow and base. Lizard brains are curious; lizards will stop and observe you motionlessly for many minutes. There is no fight, there is no flight; there is curiosity and communication and love in their slow eye closings. I recognize a fellow mortal, independent of all you humans, and my shared experience with the lizard is priceless.
Attributing base human impulses to the "lizard brain" maligns lizard brains.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yesssssss. 3
Re: No (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of what sort of asshole I resemble on here (grin), I'm actually a highly-empathic vegan with Buddhist leanings who loves all animals...
But are you really?
Many say that we are what we outwardly resemble, that we are as we present ourselves to others, and our outward manifestation is quite often a hazy reflection of our inner being. So maybe others do not see you as a highly-empathic vegan with Buddhist leanings. Many shades of "being" muddy the waters, and how we think see ourselves is often a very, very distorted representation of who we really are.
I have given up any search for "meaning", as the concept itself is so malleable as to be wit
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The lizard remains motionless to:
1) be hard-to-see by predators. This is the "freeze" in the freeze-flight-fight response, which is popularly misrepresented as merely "fight or flight".
2) be hard-to-see by prey.
3) have an easy time observing both predators and prey as moving objects in an otherwise still environment.
4) absorb warmth from the sun, which primes their muscles for optimal performance (they are cold-blooded).
5) conserve calories.
You are anthropomorphizing them. This "shared experience" is entirely in your imagination.
And the lizard brain is primarily responsible for basic survival. The moral judgments placed on principles of sound survival notwithstanding.
Re: No (Score:5, Insightful)
Pass the bong.
Re: No (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let them suit themselves, the human mind (fantasy) allows for a multitude of unconfirmable ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
If physics is considered a form of life, then we'd also have to consider global warming to be a form of life. This of course raises a serious problem: if we try to stop global warming, then we're potentially killing a very unique and special form of life.
And if we don't try to stop global warming, then we're potentially killing a very unique and special form of life. Namely, us.
We may be part of the grander "life equation" of the universe, but we also have freedom of choice. In particular, the ability to make choices that preserve our existence.
Re: (Score:2)
If physics is considered a form of life, then we'd also have to consider global warming to be a form of life.
You do realize that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you responded to the wrong post.
And yes, I do realize that sentence makes no sense. Except perhaps that climate can be studied with physics.
Someone already thought of it (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have a name for their possible existence: god.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Indeed there is a strong argument to be made that physics is (part of) God, that whatever existed at the time of the big bang and will continue to exist is God.
I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but new discoveries in quantum physics align amazingly well with Biblical explanations of the creation of the universe, wording in the ancient explanations that didn't really make sense until we understood quantum physics.
Language issues make it difficult to express in English since "is" has many meanings, Spanish and other languages are more precise, but basically whenever "God" was asked "what are you?" or "who are you?" the answer was "I am what has always been". (Soy que es in Spanish) To the extent that physics is timeless, physics *is* God and God is physics, according to God's word.
There is this branch of Hinduism, part of Advaita Vedanta (non-dualist philosophy; there is no dualism, no "us and God") which says that the universe comes from Gods efforts to know more about itself.
God wanted to understand itself. So it shattered itself into countless shards, forming this universe, everything in this universe and every possible universe.
Each of these shards goes on to experience everything that can possibly be experienced, gathering up all knowledge and information.
Eventually, in some inf
Re:There is indeed a strong argument that physics (Score:4, Insightful)
I read the book. It does not explain anything about physics. If you cannot elaborate, then the only thing I can do is believe or do not believe. Therefore, this is not physics, but religion. BTW: Have you ever read a physics book? Including those in high school. I doubt that.
Re: There is indeed a strong argument that physics (Score:2, Insightful)
Which of many books did you read? (Score:2)
"The book"? Which of dozens of books on the subject did you read? Even just limiting it to books written by physics professors, there are several recent ones.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that we're talking about the Big Bang, most likely Genesis. And really, if you're willing to play a little fast and loose with interpretation:
1) Light created. Check.
4) Heavenly bodies (in particular, the sun) "controlling" day and night. Check.
2) Firmament created. Check.
5) Creatures come to exist. Check.
3) Water recedes to leave dry land. Check.
6) People come to exist. Check.
7) God rests. Given the above time scales, maybe that's why we haven't heard from him in 6000 years? It could be anot
What if the physics of our alien was alien too? (Score:2)
And what if the physicis of the physics-alien of our physics-alien was an alien intelligence also?
Mind... blown!
Re: (Score:2)
And what if the physicis of the physics-alien of our physics-alien was an alien intelligence also?
Mind... blown!
Are we in the Miniverse or Teenyverse?
Re: What if the physics of our alien was alien too (Score:2)
Re:What if the physics of our alien was alien too? (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if the physicis of the physics-alien of our physics-alien was an alien intelligence also?
The alien intelligences will converge to being turtles, all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Given infinite god-aliens, one of them is bound to be a turtle.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard of a guy that was playing with razors. He may have some insight here.
Re: (Score:2)
That presumes that said alien even exists in a domain where something like "physics" has any meaning.
It's sad to say that there is nothing in our existence to suggest that everything that we believe and experience to be entirely real is not actually simply part of some alien intelligence's imagination, existing on a level of higher reality than anything I dare say that anyone has even dreamed of. And the only reason that we might perceive any consistency or "rules" about how the universe seems to work a
Re: (Score:2)
If such a fantasy-alien exists, it has some equivalent of physics.
That's because "physics" would be whatever enables the alien to exist.
In our reality it means mass and energy and such.
In the fantasy-alien's reality, it might mean something completely different, but by definition there must be something or else that fantasy-alien cannot exist.
Unless you go all religious and confuse a refusal to think about something as a lack of that thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire notion of "enabling to exist" for such a super-real alien intelligence implicitly suggests that there could have ever been any other possibility. This is an artificial projection of our experience of reality upon whatever might exist beyond it, and does not necessarily apply.
I would dare say that we are incapable of recognizing such intelligence for what it is unaided because of how tightly bound it is to what we understand as so-called physical laws.
Interesting point of fact about such an
Re: (Score:2)
I would dare say that we are incapable of recognizing such intelligence for what it is unaided because of how tightly bound it is to what we understand as so-called physical laws.
I would dare say you speak only for yourself. Why would it be tightly bound to our physical laws. Why even assume that our reality would be the only one it created?
Denying our ability to reason logically about such a theoretical alien still sounds like a setup for introducing some sort of god-like entity.
Re: (Score:2)
getting esoteric (Score:2)
I'm so based I *am* the laws of physics. The laws of physics are me.
Quick questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Some quick questions:
1) Does this hypothesis have testable predictions,
2) Does the theory imply observations that we could make that would invalidate the theory?
I'm a fan of "Hey, Martha!" stories, they're entertaining and thought provoking, but I don't know how much serious consideration such a proposal warrants. (Compared to, say, the survivability of "The Martian" or whether aspects of the "Star Trek" universe are physically realizable.)
Re: (Score:2)
So, we have postulated the existence of .... God. And all that implies.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the same as "we're all living in a sim", isn't it?
Good response (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the same as "we're all living in a sim", isn't it?
That's a very good question.
So far as I can tell, there are testable predictions that the sim theory makes. These are predictions that are not required by the theory, but that, if we see them, would be good indications of the sim.
Consider scanning a color document, separating the color channels into R, G, and B, and then doing a histogram of each channel.
If the envelope of the red histogram is smooth and goes to zero at each end (at R=0 and R=255). then we might conclude that the scanner spans the entire range of "red".
If the envelope is smooth but has discontinuous jumps at zero and 255, it means that there are intensities of red smaller than the minimum value the scanner can distinguish, and intensities higher than the highest value. Basically, all the high intensity pixels in the image max out the A/D converter in the scanner, and all the low intensity pixels register as zero even though there is significant variation.
The discontinuities at either end of the measurement imply that there is information outside the measurement range of the scanner.
We can apply that logic to certain astrophysical measurements in the universe in certain cases. If we see measurement distributions which are smooth, but have discontinuous jumps at either end it might indicate that there is information outside the measurable universe, even though we cannot measure it.
Re:Quick questions (Score:5, Funny)
1) Does this hypothesis have testable predictions,
Yes. The aliens would likely implement physics with some specific features to conserve resources. Here are some predictions:
1. To localize causality, the propagation of information will have a speed limit rather than happening instantaneously.
2. At the lowest levels, reality will be discrete, or "quantum", rather than continuous. The degree of quantum granularity will depend on the size of the floating point registers in the alien computers. Planck's Constant is 6.626e-34, which implies a binary mantissa of at least 115 bits.
3. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons. Since only an infinitesimal portion of the Universe is actually observed, this is a huge optimization win.
All of these are actually true of our Universe. Ergo, we are just alien puppets, and our only purpose in "life" is to provide them with entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Number 2. Is actually evidence we are a simulation... it is not a conservation technique but evidence that the whole thing is run on a digital computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well hanging a bit on definition, but I'm going to call you wrong. Engineering equipment that can maintain superposition long enough to be useful is very difficult. But once you have that equipment, the computations that are amenable to quantum algorithms are much much easier to compute (exponentially easier, to be precise) and non-quantum algorithms would, in principle, run no worse than a classical computer by simply ignoring the superposition capability and forcing the desired classical state onto the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's some pretty strong limits on how complex dark matter can be. In particular, its not "clumpy" like regular matter, indicating that if there are any "dark" forces that only act on dark matter particles, they can't be significantly stronger than gravity.
A stronger-than-gravity attractive force would cause dark stars, dark planets, etc to form and a stronger-than-gravity repulsive force would prevent dark matter from clustering around galaxies and the like. But as far as our observations have been abl
Quick Answer: It's a religion not science (Score:2)
Falsifiable test? (Score:2)
Not even a scientific hypothesis...fucking navel gazing dweebs.
I 'say' the laws of physics are a n dimensional clockwork. Using probabilistic collisions between parts to generate the modern physics parts. Prove me wrong?
Re:Falsifiable test? (Score:5, Insightful)
As is said here, physics requires not only an idea that matches the data, but an idea the results in tangible novel predictions that can be tested. Physics is open to new ideas, such as the idea that energy is quantized, but requires those ideas to be formalized and used to create new verifiable knowledge, like the tunneling electron.
In short, physics focuses on practical results while natural philosophy focuses on fanciful conjectures. Physics is does not necessarily lead to a more absolute 'truth' but does provide a reasonably objective method to determine if a particular truth is personal or universal.
In this case, there may be an intelligence behind the physics. My question would be, how does this change the laws and assumptions and results we already have? One this I would suggest is that intelligence can change it's mind, so we would see evidence in the universe of differing laws. In fact we might see this, for instance the lack of antimatter. The second question is does assuming an intelligence help us develop a formal result to explain the discrepancy.
Alien Life, Meet Today's Media Cycle (Score:2)
Alien Life that is in and all around us in the guise of physics? Call their agents and warn them of the impending class action and cancelled deals.
Pirsig Morality (Score:2)
In his books, Pirsig develops the concept of morality as equivalent to rules of nature. To Pirsig, a helium molecule is moral when it obeys the requirements of chemistry: Rising in air, not burning at room temperature, fusing in stellar furnaces. We could view physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. as sciences for empirically learning the morality of the universe.
I'm also reminded of Madoka, of course, but that's a completely different line of thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Pirsig was a paranoid schizophrenic who wrote memoirs disguised as pseudophilosophical twaddle.
Sad memoirs being a way for him to deal with remembering that at one time he was institutionalized and treated with electroshocks, which caused him to suffer memory loss.
At one point he stopped giving interviews after hearing himself on TV and thinking he was having hallucinations again.
Also, he wrote as a way to prop up his own ego.
Which is why he writes himself a ready and inquisitive yet flawed audience to list
Re: (Score:2)
*Said memoirs...
Re: (Score:2)
Pirsig was a paranoid schizophrenic who wrote memoirs disguised as pseudophilosophical twaddle.
At least after a learning curve he was able to fix motorcycles. Most paranoid schizos don't get that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Pirsig has a different dictionary than I do. He's spouting Humpty Dumpty.
the current plateau of physics (Score:3)
This is really about dark matter and the crazy ideas that crop up in physics when we don't understand something and lack the tools to even start figuring it out.
It's not scientifically reasonable to ascribe life to a set of physics that we don't have any direct evidence of existing, but it's fun to think about. In the past, this would just be written up as science fiction. I'd be interested to know if Caleb Scharf is a fan of Greg Benford, or any of the other physicist created science fiction out there that contains similar ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd be interested to know if Caleb Scharf is a fan of Greg Benford, or any of the other physicist created science fiction out there that contains similar ideas."
The guy who wrote this article thinks physics is done by physicians.
Re:the current plateau of physics (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fine with calling it science fiction, or more broadly, art.
Art often presents the vanguard of human ideas, before they make their way into other fields.
Short Answer: No. (Score:2)
Basicly, calling physical laws either an alien intelligence or a product of an alien intelligence is nothing else than the question if we are living in the reality, or if we ar
Re: (Score:2)
Physical laws are rules. They are valid everywhere, for everything
That depends on your definition of everywhere.
And even more on your definition of "are" (more commonly phrased as what the definition of "is" is).
Is there a concept of space, even below the Planck length or outside the universe?
What is a wave and what is a particle, and is there a law governing the duality that leads to different physical laws for the two?
, and non-discriminatory
That too is in question. The Copenhagen school of thought on quantum mechanics tend to disagree - observation causes discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between an intelligent thought process and physical laws is about the same as the difference between a game of chess and the chess rules.
I think you're confusing the chess rules with the being who created them.
Give me that nu tau religion (Score:3)
We're all seeing that this and saying we live in a simulation, etc., is simply recasting spirituality and the idea of gods in a new form, right?
Which is fine, you can do that. But as someone used to seeing their religion in the crosshairs, it does strike me as a bit weird whenever the people instinctively scathing about religious ideas decide they really want them afterall, just co-opted under different labels.
Re:Give me that nu tau religion (Score:4, Interesting)
We're all seeing that this and saying we live in a simulation, etc., is simply recasting spirituality and the idea of gods in a new form, right?
Which is fine, you can do that. But as someone used to seeing their religion in the crosshairs, it does strike me as a bit weird whenever the people instinctively scathing about religious ideas decide they really want them afterall, just co-opted under different labels.
"In ages of fervent devotion men sometimes abandon their religion, but they only shake one off in order to adopt another. Their faith changes its objects, but suffers no decline." Alexis DeTocqueville, Democracy in America.
As a Christian, I am endlessly amused by these attempts to obtain spirituality without meaningful guidelines, and to explain away the inexplicable by positing an alien whose characteristics must be awfully similar to God's.
Re: (Score:2)
The percentage of christians that are spiritual is extremely low.
For spirituallity you don't need guidelines, especially not christian ones.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea why you might be amused by that.
You have inherited or perhaps decided to embrace one particular solution, where three is one, teenage single moms are venerated, and the rest is based around worshipping a self-doubting homeless dude who brought loads of wine to a wedding party, hung around patronizing his male friends, then ended up getting himself nailed by some guys in togas. Oh, and apparently you should no longer be put to death for wearing wool and cotton together, but it was bad at one point.
Which of these are your meaningful guidelines again?
I'd tell you, but you're not particularly interested. You're just here to attack. Any reader who is actually interested should seek; because they will find.
For you, I offer Matthew 7:6:
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Rewritten Headline (Score:2)
Un-testable hypotheses are not science (Score:2)
If the idea is inherently un-testable, it's not science.
That's not to say it's right or wrong, just that you shouldn't be discussing it as if it were science. After all, the world may very well have been created by an outside-this-universe entity 1 second ago with all of our brain cells wired to think we've been alive for years or decades, but that's not a testable hypothesis and it has no place in science.
Now, if an idea is un-testable now but it might be someday, well, that might be within the realm of s
A waste of slashdot's front page? (Score:2)
1 - You can't Prof it, ever, just like God.
2 - You will still end up with the question of what is the basic law on witch that intelligence would exist, making it a recursive paradox. Just like "who created God"
3 - And the worse part is that ppl already believe some Alien created and rules this existence... Aka "GOD".
If we exist in some kind of a contained/simulated existence then who ever owns this existence may be a Alien to it's peers but will
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Science too suffers the problem of infinite regress. Scientific assumptions are conclusions without proof. Stop being so smug.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, there is some scientific basis for thinking that the universe had a beginning story some finite amount of time ago, so it is fair to question its origin. There is no such similar notion for god and so the question of about who or what created god need only arise if one baselessly presumes an origin for god in the first place.
Of course it is possible for the whole idea to be âoeturtles all the way downâ, but even if were true, that would be inconsequential for our purposes.
Keep Alien Physics Out Of the US! (Score:2)
#BUILDTHEWALL
Re: (Score:2)
And make the aliens pay for it?
Re: (Score:2)
A wall wouldn't be much use. Maybe a Dyson Sphere?
Whither Slashdot? But a related TotD? (Score:2)
There is a fundamental equality among universal Turing machines, but not when time is taken into consideration.
Took me many years to complete that computation, but a sufficiently faster UTM could have finished in that many seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. -- Albert Einstein
Physics, and in particular, cosmology, is not just about discovering laws. It is also about examining why certain laws work and others don't, and following those forms of inquiry to other conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
What if physical laws was just a jigsaw puzzle? (Score:3)
But that could easily because we can't see the "big picture". Once we develop an understanding of all the laws of the physical world, then it could be that there is inevitably only one way they could all be fitted together. There would be no need for an alien intelligence or "higher being" to have created them
The only question that would arise would be: who or what is the picture about?
The picture is plain, but you don't like it. (Score:2)
We seem to have lots of independent, confusing, unconnected pieces. All of which appear to be separate and independent.
But that could easily because we can't see the "big picture". Once we develop an understanding of all the laws of the physical world, then it could be that there is inevitably only one way they could all be fitted together.There would be no need for an alien intelligence or "higher being" to have created them
The only question that would arise would be: who or what is the picture about?
The pieces are only independent, confusing, and unconnected because you revolt and shuffle around the puzzle when a recognizable image starts to appear.
Romans 1:20- "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
If there's is no creator who made us on purpose, for His own reasons, their our lives are about nothing. You're no more meaningful than a gold fi
Just another god! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe people are so affraid to imagine a world without gods that they find a way to create another one!
Re:Just another god! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure you know the actual citation, but for the benefit of others:
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer. -- Voltaire
[tr: If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.]
Irrelevant (Score:2)
Unless you provide a test for it, from a scientific standpoint it's about as sensible as wondering whether there's a pink teapot in the middle of a black hole. Or wondering what was before the Big Bang. There is exactly no way to test it in any way, so any speculation is as good as any other and none of them can be tested or falsified.
Next question?
Already answered. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bear in mind sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from trollery.
Re: (Score:2)
End Run (Score:2)
This is not, "an intriguing thought experiment" any more today than it was millions of years ago when the first active brain cell asked this very same question. The second active brain cell answered, "what the fuck have you been smoking?!"
Complete Nonsense (Score:2)
Not the god thing again (Score:2)
It is the matrix, god, simulation, higher being rubbish. Now in its new form omnipotent alien. Actually, god is also an omnipotent alien, who created the universe or maybe only hovered over the water. The Christian Bible is a little bit imprecise and ambiguous. Anyway, if you cannot test it, it is not a theory, it is an believe. You can believe all you want. It is also not a thought experiment. Thought experiments are used to construct a hypothetical reality and identify its features. Then you try to test t
I've heard this befor (Score:2)
This is echo some of the arguments made in this book - https://www.amazon.com/New-Pro... [amazon.com] ... specifically that the fact that there are laws and they favour life is evidence that and advanced civilisation/god exists.
Intelligence of physical laws (Score:3)
Where would be the intelligence in physical laws? I would expect an intelligence form to make decisions, and we do not say "physical laws" by mistake: they are supposed to be valid anywhere, anytime.
When out observations mismatch with a physical laws, it is not the law that took a decision. We just got outside of the law's domain of application, and we start over with a more general physical law.
s/Alien Intelligence/God/ (Score:2)
I thought we're beyond that.
Can an ant even comprehend what a human is? (Score:2)
There's about 80 million years of differential, evolutionarily, right there. (And that's discounting the accelerating pace of change once a self-aware species can do things like direct its own evolution.)
If an ant goes out foraging, insofar as it has any thought process at all, if it comes back and its nest is wrecked, that's just something that HAPPENED - I doubt even a self-aware ant could ever conceptualize the idea that "oh that's just a big thing like me backing his car out of the garage that did it".
Ceiling Cat (Score:2)
Always remember: Ceiling Cat [knowyourmeme.com] is watching you masturbate.
TFA merely raises some interesting speculations, regarding the true nature of Ceiling Cat. But his purpose in this universe remains unchanged.
This was discussed before (Score:2)
As proposed extension of Kardashev scale, type IV.
See this science paper for an example: http://mono.eik.bme.hu/~galant... [eik.bme.hu]
UFO's 2.0? (Score:2)
This is sounds like a more extreme version of the current "UFO theory" or "greys theory" in which humanity is basically a zoo and/or breeding farm being watched over or managed by alien beings who do their tasks largely invisible to us.
I know people who are adamant they witnessed some really odd stuff. I cannot outright dismiss it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as bad thinking. There's such a thing as not following the train of thought to conclusions. Thought experiments and sking "what if" is great, and we need that, but it needs to be followed with scientific discipline, like attempts at establishing a null hypothesis, whether this can lead to a falsifiable theory, and what steps can be taken to mitigate bias.
As this is presented, it smells of veiled theism, published without the scientific precautions in place. That's bad, but asking "
Re: (Score:2)
Mighty small straw you have there. Planning to murder your neighbor for shits and giggles is bad thinking. Not following through is good thinking winning out.
Re: (Score:3)
Mighty small straw you have there. Planning to murder your neighbor for shits and giggles is bad thinking.
Planning to murder your neighbour is not bad thinking - it's the "for" part that makes it bad thinking, putting the cart before the horse.
Not following through is good thinking winning out.
Not necessarily, no. The not following through is likely related to jumping to a conclusion from a premise that either murder or being caught is bad. Without justifying either premise, it's bad thinking.
Given infinite time, every person should ponder things unlikely to become action, including how to murder one's neighbour, or how to make white asparagus ice cream. Tha
Unfortunately, you are right (Score:3)
The article is the same old $deity argument. The we live in a bottle, matrix, simulation argument, which always points to a higher being who controls the damn thing. I have read some nice science fiction books on that topic. Nice thought, but really not a thought experiment. And yes it shows the demise of the enlightenment in the US. And as always Europe is behind you be 20 years. So the rest of western civilization will convert back to a gelatinous state or medieval times. Currently, we are approaching feu
Re: (Score:3)
SETI and the computational universe [youtube.com]
Also, if you are interested, there's a short paper by Robert Freitas on the Sentience Quotient [rfreitas.com] and xenopsychology.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who decided to go and check would know.
Re: (Score:2)
making Timothy Leary come back from the dead, slap his forehead, punch himself in the nuts, go, 'WTF', and do the hokey pokey before exploding into a million pieces?
In the fictional story of Leary's cryo-preservation, only his head was saved. So, no hands to slap his forehead or punch his nuts. And no nuts for that matter. IMHO, I'd rather stay frozen.
Re: (Score:2)
Atoms that we see each a solar system in its own right.
There is only one Solar system. There are however numerous star systems. Just sayin’...