2
   

Almost plausible scary conspiracy theories.

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2019 03:30 pm
@edgarblythe,
AGI or Artificial General Intelligence. Operating in all domains, not just Chess or Go or Driving cars...world top experts estimate it to arrive in between 20 years to 100 years but all agree it is inevitable.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2019 03:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2019 07:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I’d offer to take bets on that AGI thing happening but 'inevitable' is a bit open ended.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2019 08:40 pm
@Leadfoot,


This guy optimism is scary...his comprehension on challenges suffering and death is poor, to say the least.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2019 09:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
BEN GOERTZEL - WILL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE KILL US? How The Singularity is Coming

Quote:
He is one of the world’s leading experts in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), with decades of expertise in applying AI to practical problems like natural language processing, data mining, video gaming, robotics, national security and bioinformatics.

He was part of the Hanson team which developed the AI software for the humanoid Sophia robot, which can communicate with humans and display more than 50 facial expressions.Today he also serve as Chairman of the AGI Society, the Decentralized AI Alliance and the futurist nonprofit organisation Humanity+.


Watch the FULL EPISODE here: https://londonreal.tv/e/dr-ben-goertzel/
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Aug, 2019 07:10 am
Back to Dark Matter we have to talk about Quantized Inertia...here is a sum up:


Found this counter in the comment section:


Quote:
Stephen Debacco
6 months ago
Joe,

Quantized inertia might be a thing, but it's most definitely not a viable explanation for the collection of phenomena that lead astrophysicists to the conclusion of dark matter. McCulloch's claim on this point is an example of doing science backwards: Start with a pet theory, interpret an observation through a lens that assumes the correctness of the theory, then explain away or entirely ignore observations that are inconsistent with the theory. His ideas (at the very least in relation to dark matter) are largely ignored by mainstream scientists not because they are too controversial or because astrophysicists can't let go of dark matter as he would have people believe, but because they are wholly without merit and easily disproven.

If galactic rotation rates were the only evidence for dark matter, QI would still be in the running as a possible explanation. There is, however, overwhelming and varied evidence against all modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) species of explanations (of which QI is one) for the galactic rotation anomaly. Scientists DID at one time consider MOND theories to be viable and did not discard them simply out of a bias in favor of dark matter.

If QI or another MOND theory were the true explanation, one would expect to see the same amount of dark matter (or the same amount of QI or MOND masquerading as dark matter, if you will) wherever we look in the universe. This is not at all the case. Most notably, there are recent discoveries of a few diffuse galaxies behaving as if they contain almost no dark matter. These could not exist if QI were the reason most galaxies don't fly apart. All galaxies would obey the same laws. But if matter and dark matter are two different, separable things, it's easy to imagine how their proportions might not be the same everywhere. Speaking of which....

The Bullet Cluster and others like it also rule out non-dark matter explanations. These are galaxy clusters that we observe in the aftermath of a "passthrough" collision. The galaxies pass through without touching each other, but the intergalactic gas collides, heats up, and is currently concentrated between the galaxy clusters. When you measure, using gravitational lensing effects, both the total mass of the entire complex, as well as the masses of the lobes (galaxies) and of the central gas, you find that most of the mass is concentrated in the galaxies. However, when taking inventory of the visible light matter, most of it lies in the central gas. This is exactly as dark matter regimes would predict (the dark matter halos stay with their galaxies, since dark matter doesn't interact with normal matter except gravitationally) and requires an alternative (and almost necessarily convoluted) explanation if you're using something like quantised inertia to explain the galactic rotation anomaly.

Gravitation lensing can also be used to map the mass of non-colliding galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Again, the maps show massive halos surround and engulfing the visible matter in galaxies in a manner that is inconsistent with Dr. McCulloch's ideas and would therefore require an alternative (and almost necessarily convoluted) explanation if you're using something like quantised inertia to explain the galactic rotation anomaly.

Large scale simulations done by supercomputers fed only the known laws of physics and the observed proportions of dark matter, regular matter, and dark energy yield results that are substantially similar to the observed universe, from the time of the CMB all the way up to the present day. They also simulate back to the Plank era (I think), but of course we don't have direct ovservations to match up with that. If dark matter doesn't exist one would expect these simulations to yield results that look nothing like the observed universe.

Similarly, galaxy collisions can be modeled by supercomputers using the known laws of physics, dark matter, and ordinary matter (dark energy is not relevant on this scale). Again, the simulations match very well with observations. If dark matter did not exist, the simulations should not match observations.

I am not a physicist and confess I lack the expertise to evaluate Dr. McCulloch's many other claims. As a scientifically literate layperson, I can, however, say that his body of work contains many fantastic claims made without the same equivocation or caution you would expect to hear from virtually any reputable person in any field, especially science, when discussing potentially game-changing ideas. The fact that the one claim he has made that falls within my realm of knowledge and understanding can be easily dismissed tells me the rest is most likely junk science and can be safely ignored until and unless the mainstream scientific community decides it has merit.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Aug, 2019 07:17 am
What about the bright flare up of dark matter that has been in the news lately.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2019 10:43 am
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2019 12:08 pm
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2019 10:37 pm
Quantized Inertia doesn't explain the bending of light around areas that have no visible mass...nor dark galaxies...anyway I am still intrigued.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 08:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I love Joe, but I find it funny that he starts out with the same kind of fallacy (that we are the product of the specific conditions on earth) that he points out in earlier men (that Earth is the center of the universe).

Both of these ideas are unsupported by any scientific evidence. I find that mind blowing. Until someone can find another planet with Any kind of life, this is mere speculation.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 08:42 am
@Leadfoot,
No, you didn't go it. Earth is very much at the center of our visible bubble of the Universe at large...if you move to Alpha Centauri, Alpha will be at the center of its visible bubble of the Universe it can see too. Check about Universe event horizon and the expansion of space and far away galaxies.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 09:00 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
But again, that’s just based on our inability to see past the horizon, not reality.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 09:05 am
@Leadfoot,
Indeed. In Science that which we what we cannot see we cannot talk about. That is why I prefer Philosophy. Moreover, although most scientists seem ignorant about it science is just a method, the discipline is Natural Philosophy!

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 09:09 am
@Leadfoot,
Also, think of a Globe, every point in the Globe is at its center...not saying the Universe is like a globe surface. But if it is like a fractal loop than the result is pretty much the same.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 09:31 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Your comparison of the universe to loops (Mandelbrot ?) is interesting. Might be right.
I sometimes look at the cosmological argument as an opening break pool shot where only every striped ball on the table is sunk, and the que and 8 balls perfectly lined up for an easy shot to win. Whoever he was, he had hella skills.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 08:07:01