Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Superintelligent Extraterrestrial Life, Accelerated Evolution, And The Fate Of The Universe


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#137 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 05 January 2017 - 02:19 PM

I didn't quote you directly, CraigD, but in the last few posts I've responded to everything you've brought up in your latest and quite informative reply. With the exception of a couple points:

 

 


I think you’re failing to appreciate how weird FTL signaling, which could (and given the technological advantages of doing so, I find it hard to imagine anyone could resist doing so) violate causality, would be. I tried to impress this on everyone in this post.

In short, if you can use tachyons in computing, you can have an effectively infinitely fast computer. It becomes, then, pretty unimportant what you make them out of – even if they were made of Babbage-engine-esque brass gears, they’d still be effectively infinitely fast.

 

It might only generate/harness such particles for very specific purposes, given their cost. Such as remote networking with femptotech in this galaxy sent from another galaxy.

 

 


No, the Big Bang cannot be the ignition of a fusion reactor, because it resulted in the creation of mostly the lightest element, hydrogen (1 proton), and smaller amounts of slightly heavier elements helium (2 protons) and lithium (3 protons) while a fusion reactor requires light elements, such as hydrogen, and fuses them into heavier ones, usually helium. Stars are fusion reactors, and they didn’t form until about 150,000,000 years after the Big Bang.

 

Let's not take my metaphorical musings of a Type V civilization to heart, lol. I mean, if you exist in multiple timelines and are made up of objects that are surrounding and collecting energy from more stars than there are quarks and gluons in the universe, who knows what you might do. Especially considering 96% of the universe is composed of particles that might do things you couldn't imagine, and that these infomorphs have particle accelerators advanced and large enough to generate and utilize them. 

 

In any case the cosmos as a construct is a place where more infomorphs can be added to a transtemporal thought-engine that is virtually infinite in scale. Such artificial realities can defy causality without defying causality. I call it the omega (or alpha?) dyson sphere, because an infinite collective intelligence composed of infovoric omega point technologies existing in multiple timelines could be perceived as spherical from a super position. I mean, it's metaphorical synapses are a collection of isolated ftl signals between infomorphic entities. To be completely stoic, my idea is not unlike an ethereal spectre that posses all of the material world that acts on its behalf, even less advanced ethereal spectres (Type II-IV civilizations). And an excellent and very novel sci-fy theme. 

 

However, I maintain that this shouldn't be anymore in the strange claims forum than should the possibility of a SETI search for the presence of hyperminiaturized alien technologies right on our front door or Dyson Spheres that existed a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, or the notion of us building space elevators, artificial intelligence, or alcubierre (aka warp) drives, the search for tachyons. Research for such technology is taken as possible even though it's a long way's away. 


Edited by Super Polymath, 05 January 2017 - 03:44 PM.


#138 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7947 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 11:53 AM

I’m eager to get back to this extropian thread, the only recently at hypography. I though after reading Accelerando (anyone with extropian leanings who hasn’t read this novel, read it now!) more than a decade ago that by now the internet would be abuzz with such discussion, but that didn’t happen. A web search for discussions mentioning it finds only a handful, many of them by me here at hypography. :(

Maybe book reviewer Thomas Wagner had a better sense than I of how popular optimistic talk about the future of our civilization would be when he wrote in this 2005 review “...the Singularity, dude? Come on. That is so five years ago”.
 

I think you’re failing to appreciate how weird FTL signaling, which could (and given the technological advantages of doing so, I find it hard to imagine anyone could resist doing so) violate causality, would be. I tried to impress this on everyone in this post.

In short, if you can use tachyons in computing, you can have an effectively infinitely fast computer. It becomes, then, pretty unimportant what you make them out of – even if they were made of Babbage-engine-esque brass gears, they’d still be effectively infinitely fast.

It might only generate/harness such particles for very specific purposes, given their cost. Such as remote networking with femptotech in this galaxy sent from another galaxy.

I find it hard to imagine that, if tachyons existed, and a technology able to use them, that people wouldn’t use them as I’ve described to have effectively infinitely fast computers.

Causality violation is so disturbingly weird that I can imagine a civilization with the ability to do it choosing, by way of a strict ban, not to. Such bans are a staple of science fiction, constituting the heart of an entire genre, in which “time cops” hunt down villains seeking to change their present by changing the past, so all one needs to imagine them is to pay attention to books, movies, videos and TV shows, not even have an original idea. The infinitely fast computers I describe could be made to avoid the kinds of causality violations feared by such civilizations (eg: traveling back in time and killing the hero’s mother before they are born), sending back in time only information used to compute results that could be computed in an arbitrarily short time by an arbitrarily fast computer. The system used to do this would likely be large and require a lot of power, so easier for the ban-imposing government to secure and control than something small and cheap. So the effective causality violation ban would just require a strong cyber security agency.

I think some grounding in science is needed here. At the heart of causality violation is faster-than-light signaling. A particle that travels faster than light, known as a tachyon, is one way FTL signaling could be done (other schemes involve exploiting subtle quantum mechanical effects, but appear to me to be much, perhaps prohibitively, more difficulty). The best current scientific theory and evidence strongly suggest this is impossible.

Some physicist, like Robert Ehrlich in this paper, have suggested that the well-known (but difficult to detect) neutrino is a tachyon. Though I pretty sure, for many reasons, that he’s wrong, Ehrlich made predictions that can be tested with data from the KATRIN beta decay spectrometer, which is expected to begin producing non-test data in 2017, so we won’t have to wait long to know.

If I’ve given the impression that causality violation using FTL signaling would be easy, provided tachyons exist and can be readily and in a controlled way emitted and detected, let me correct that misimpression. The key working part of such a system is a device (“Carol” in the excellent old Sharp Blue webpage referenced earlier) with a different velocity than the distant receiver of the message (“Bob”). The amount of time the system sends the signal into the past is [math]t_2[/math], where
[math]\lambda = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2}}[/math]
[math]t_1 = \frac{x_1}{v_s}[/math]
[math]x'_1 = \lambda \left( x_1 -v t_1 \right)[/math], [math]t'_1 = \lambda \left( t_1 -\frac{v x_1}{c^2} \right)[/math]
[math]D = \frac{v_s+c}{-v} v t'_1 +x'_1[/math]
[math]x'_2 = x'_1 -D[/math], [math]t'_2 = x'_1 +\frac{D}{v_s}[/math]
[math]t_2 = \lambda \left( t'_2 +\frac{v x'_2}{c^2} \right)[/math]
[math]v[/math] is the speed of Carol and Dave relative to Alice and Bob,
[math]v_s[/math] is the speed of the signal, and
[math]x_1[/math] is the distance between Alice and Bob.

All of this is a straightforward application of the Lorentz transformation. If you happen to have an implementation of the MUMPS computer language, such as the free one available here, you can use the following little program to perform this calculation for whatever [math]v[/math] and [math]v_s[/math] you enter
f  r "v=",v,"  vs=",vs,! s L=v**2*-1+1**-.5,x1=1,t1=1/vs,xp1=t1*-v+x1*L,tp1=x1*-v+t1*L,D=v*tp1+xp1/(-v/vs+1),tp2=D/vs+tp1,xp2=xp1-D,t2=xp2*v+tp2*L w "event",?18,"t",?33,"x",?48,"t'",?65,"x'",!,"A sends",?18,0,?33,0,?48,0,?65,0,!,"B & C get & send",?18,$e(+$j(t1,0,14),1,14),?33,$e(+$j(x1,0,14),1,14),?48,$e(+$j(tp1,0,14),1,14),?65,$e(+$j(xp1,0,14),1,14),!,"D & A send & get",?18,$e(+$j(t2,0,14),1,14),?33,0,?48,$e(+$j(tp2,0,14),1,14),?65,$e(+$j(xp2,0,14),1,14),!!
Some interesting results of this calculation:
  • when [math]v_s = \infty[/math], [math]t_2 = \frac{v x_1}{c^2} [/math].
    For example, if [math]x_1[/math] is 1 lightyear and [math]v[/math] is 0.5 c, Alice receives her message 0.5 years before she sends it.
  • for a signal to travel into the past at all, [math]v_s[/math] must exceed a minimum determined by [math]v[/math]. I’ve not done the algebra to find this function, but for small [math]v[/math]s, it’s about [math]v_s > \frac{2 c}{v}[/math], and as v approaches c, [math]v_s > \frac{c}{v}[/math].
    For example, if [math]v[/math] is 0.1 c, [math]v_s [/math]must be greater that about 20 c, if [math]v[/math] is 0.999999 c, [math]v_s[/math] need only be greater than about 1.001415 c.
  • A causality violating system involving distances and velocities on a scale of present day physics experiments could send signals a noticeable time into the past.
    For example, for a [math]v[/math] of 0.999 c, a [math]x_1[/math] of 731 km, and a [math]v_s[/math] of 1.1 c, [math]t_2[/math] would be about -0.0017 seconds.

However, I maintain that this shouldn't be anymore in the strange claims forum than should the possibility of a SETI search for the presence of hyperminiaturized alien technologies right on our front door

It’s not the subject matter of a thread like this that gets it moved to the strange claims forum, but the lack of links and references backing up the claims made in it. If you want you threads not be put in strange claims, you must follow our number 1 site rule to back up your claims with links or references (links preferred, ‘cause this is the internet, not a printed paper)

I’ve tried to help out by giving supporting links to some of the ideas in this thread, but have only addressed a few of them. Finding and linking to information, especially on subjects like super-intelligent ETs, can be a lot of work - I imagine it takes me a lot longer to write my posts than it does you, Super Polymath. Unless you’re willing to do this extra work, you won’t be able to discuss them in hypography’s non-strange claims forums, and readers are much less likely to take them seriously.

Edited by CraigD, 11 January 2017 - 06:21 AM.
fixed math mistake in example


#139 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 01:42 PM

Causality violation is so disturbingly weird that I can imagine a civilization with the ability to do it choosing, by way of a strict ban, not to. Such bans are a staple of science fiction, constituting the heart of an entire genre, in which “time cops” hunt down villains seeking to change their present by changing the past, so all one needs to imagine them is to pay attention to books, movies, videos and TV shows, not even have an original idea. The infinitely fast computers I describe could be made to avoid the kinds of causality violations feared by such civilizations (eg: traveling back in time and killing the hero’s mother before they are born), sending back in time only information used to compute results that could be computed in an arbitrarily short time by an arbitrarily fast computer. The system used to do this would likely be large and require a lot of power, so easier for the ban-imposing government to secure and control than something small and cheap. So the effective causality violation ban would just require a strong cyber security agency.

I think some grounding in science is needed here. At the heart of causality violation is faster-than-light signaling. A particle that travels faster than light, known as a tachyon, is one way FTL signaling could be done (other schemes involve exploiting subtle quantum mechanical effects, but appear to me to be much, perhaps prohibitively, more difficulty). The best current scientific theory and evidence strongly suggest this is impossible.

Some physicist, like Robert Ehrlich in this paper, have suggested that the well-known (but difficult to detect) neutrino is a tachyon. Though I pretty sure, for many reasons, that he’s wrong, Ehrlich made predictions that can be tested with data from the KATRIN beta decay spectrometer, which is expected to begin producing non-test data in 2017, so we won’t have to wait long to know.

If I’ve given the impression that causality violation using FTL signaling would be easy, provided tachyons exist and can be readily and in a controlled way emitted and detected, let me correct that misimpression. The key working part of such a system is a device (“Carol” in the excellent old Sharp Blue webpage referenced earlier) with a different velocity than the distant receiver of the message (“Bob”). The amount of time the system sends the signal into the past is [math]t_2[/math], where
[math]\lambda = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)}}[/math]
[math]t_1 = \frac{x_1}{v_s}[/math]
[math]x'_1 = \lambda \left( x_1 -v t_1 \right)[/math], [math]t'_1 = \lambda \left( t_1 -\frac{v x_1}{c^2} \right)[/math]
[math]D = \frac{v_s+c}{-v} v t'_1 +x'_1[/math]
[math]x'_2 = x'_1 -D[/math], [math]t'_2 = x'_1 +\frac{D}{v_s}[/math]
[math]t_2 = \lambda \left( t'_2 +\frac{v x'_2}{c^2} \right)[/math]
[math]v[/math] is the speed of Carol and Dave relative to Alice and Bob,
[math]v_s[/math] is the speed of the signal, and
[math]x_1[/math] is the distance between Alice and Bob.

All of this is a straightforward application of the Lorentz transformation. If you happen to have an implementation of the MUMPS computer language, such as the free one available here, you can use the following little program to perform this calculation for whatever [math]v[/math] and [math]v_s[/math] you enter

f  r "v=",v,"  vs=",vs,! s L=v**2*-1+1**-.5,x1=1,t1=1/vs,xp1=t1*-v+x1*L,tp1=x1*-v+t1*L,D=v*tp1+xp1/(-v/vs+1),tp2=D/vs+tp1,xp2=xp1-D,t2=xp2*v+tp2*L w "event",?18,"t",?33,"x",?48,"t'",?65,"x'",!,"A sends",?18,0,?33,0,?48,0,?65,0,!,"B & C get & send",?18,$e(+$j(t1,0,14),1,14),?33,$e(+$j(x1,0,14),1,14),?48,$e(+$j(tp1,0,14),1,14),?65,$e(+$j(xp1,0,14),1,14),!,"D & A send & get",?18,$e(+$j(t2,0,14),1,14),?33,0,?48,$e(+$j(tp2,0,14),1,14),?65,$e(+$j(xp2,0,14),1,14),!!
Some interesting results of this calculation:
  • when [math]v_s = \infty[/math], [math]t_2 = \frac{v x_1}{c^2} [/math].
    For example, if [math]x_1[/math] is 1 lightyear and [math]v[/math] is 0.5 c, Alice receives her message 0.5 years before she sends it.
  • for a signal to travel into the past at all, [math]v_s[/math] must exceed a minimum determined by [math]v[/math]. I’ve not done the algebra to find this function, but for small [math]v[/math]s, it’s about [math]v_s > \frac{2 c}{v}[/math], and as v approaches c, [math]v_s > \frac{c}{v}[/math].
    For example, if [math]v[/math] is 0.1 c, [math]v_s [/math]must be greater that about 20 c, if [math]v[/math] is 0.999999 c, [math]v_s[/math] need only be greater than about 1.001415 c.
  • A causality violating system involving distances and velocities on a scale of present day physics experiments could send signals a noticeable time into the past.
    For example, for a [math]v[/math] of 0.999 c, a [math]x_1[/math] of 731 km, and a [math]v_s[/math] of 1.1 c, [math]t_2[/math] would be about -51 seconds.

 

The problem I have with the concept of causality violation is that in spite of the calculations, I can't see how it can actually be possible.  Take the so - called "twin paradox"  for example.  The one twin that travels at the speed of light wouldn't age, but the twin that stays home does age.  The effects of time dilation effect only the moving twin.  The same for the tachyon that experiences the -51 seconds.  The time would be negative for the tachyon, but not effect the rest of the universe, would it?  

 

I remain convinced that negative time in a calculation does not equate to time travel.  I suspect that if you could somehow build a vehicle that can surpass the speed of light, all that would do to the occupants of the vehicle is have them experience perhaps a reversal of the laws of physics, say gravity becoming a repulsive force instead of attractive, but who knows?



#140 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 601 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 02:57 PM

The problem I have with the concept of causality violation is that in spite of the calculations, I can't see how it can actually be possible.  Take the so - called "twin paradox"  for example.  The one twin that travels at the speed of light wouldn't age, but the twin that stays home does age.  The effects of time dilation effect only the moving twin.

It's not moving that causes less time to elapse on one twin's watch (that's proper time). Each twin is stationary in their one frame of reference with the other twin in motion (this is Galilean relativity) so each will be time dilated (that's coordinate time) and length contracted from the others perspective (that's special relativity).

 

The one that accelerates will be the one who experience less proper time and so will be the younger one once they're bacj in the same frame of reference.

 

The same for the tachyon that experiences the -51 seconds.  The time would be negative for the tachyon, but not effect the rest of the universe, would it?

I theory tachyons are moving through time in reverse, allowing for instantaneous communication even after their journey time is taken into account.

 

I remain convinced that negative time in a calculation does not equate to time travel.  I suspect that if you could somehow build a vehicle that can surpass the speed of light, all that would do to the occupants of the vehicle is have them experience perhaps a reversal of the laws of physics, say gravity becoming a repulsive force instead of attractive, but who knows?

It would require infinite energy for any massive object to even reach the speed of light because of time dilation and length contraction, although you can move between any two points at any speed you like from your own perspective in your starting reference frame (but you'll of course be moving under the speed of from the perspective of an observer in your starting frame) because time dilation and length contraction shorten the distance in time and space whenever you accelerate.

 

Gravity is always an attractive force, even if you reverse the arrow of time. This disproves the notion that any object could ever reach the event horizon of a black hole (one of many reasons) but physicists don't seem to care.



#141 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 03:52 PM

Getting back to the original topic, since we seem to have gone off on every possible tangent, I doubt super-intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, since intelligent life certainly does not exist here.  Have you seen the supermarket tabloids or daytime television?

:nahnahbooboo:



#142 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7947 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 05:59 PM

The problem I have with the concept of causality violation is that in spite of the calculations, I can't see how it can actually be possible.

It isn’t, unless we assume that something that can travel faster than the speed of light – tachyons - exist. My mention of Robert Ehrlich’s “neutrinos are tachyons” hypothesis notwithstanding, there’s no scientific evidence tachyons exist, and many strong theoretical arguments that the cannot.

What I did above is add some math expanding on Richard Baker’s 2003 “Relativity, FTL, and causality” webpage, which was all text and graphics. I’ve wanted to do this – be able to put precise numbers to Baker’s excellent explanations – for a few years, and finally took the time to do it, and answer some nagging question I had about it in the process.

But it’s unlikely tachyons exist or will ever exists, so all this is just “what it” speculation.
 

Take the so - called "twin paradox" for example. The one twin that travels at the speed of light wouldn't age, but the twin that stays home does age. The effects of time dilation effect only the moving twin. The same for the tachyon that experiences the -51 seconds. The time would be negative for the tachyon, but not effect the rest of the universe, would it?

Special Relativity give a nonsensical result for time dilation for an inertial speed. The formula
[math]\frac{t'}{t} = \sqrt{ 1- \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2}[/math]
give not a not a negative, but an imaginary number (containing a factor of [math]\sqrt{-1}[/math]) if v > c.

The physical significance, if any, of this number is what leads many to theorize that tachyons are impossible.

It leads some physicists, like Ehrlich, to speculate that some real particle, in Ehrlich’s case the neutrino, has an imaginary mass. Because 2 imaginary numbers multiplied together give a negative number, this allows the hypothetical particle to have a real speed.
 

I remain convinced that negative time in a calculation does not equate to time travel.

It’s important to understand that [math]t_2[/math] is an actual instant in time, not a time dilation factor like [math]\frac{t '}{t}[/math], and that the causality violating scenario Baker illustrated and I expanded on (which was given a name “the tachyonic antitelephone” 100 years ago by a contemporary of Einstein) isn’t much like the Twins Paradox.

In the Twins paradox thought experiment, the stay-at-home twin (let’s call her Alice) experiences more time passing that the traveling one (let’s call her Ellen), who could carry a message from and back to her. That message would arrive after she sent it, of course. Alice and Ellen would disagree about how long ago the message was sent, but neither would experience having received the message before Alice sent it.

In the tachyonic antitelephone thought experiment, we don’t ask or care about what the thing carrying the message experiences. All that matters is that Alice receives the message before she sends it.
 

I suspect that if you could somehow build a vehicle that can surpass the speed of light, all that would do to the occupants of the vehicle is have them experience perhaps a reversal of the laws of physics, say gravity becoming a repulsive force instead of attractive, but who knows?

If a vehicle could somehow be made to travel faster than light, it could play the role of the signal from Alice to Bob and Carol to Dave in the tachyonic antitelephone, and violate causality. Per the postulates of Special Relativity, however, the laws of physics would be the same for the occupants of the vehicle as for anyone anyplace.

I think it’s important to understand that, like A-Wal in his intervening post, no credible physicist has proposed that anything that can travel slower than light can travel faster than it, so vehicles like this are considered impossible, unless they somehow accomplish their travel by taking a path shorter than a straight line. That’s the principle behind Miguel Alcubierre’s “warp drive”.

Just as the tachyonic antitelephone requires either tachyons, or something that allows the exchange of information between distant points as if they were closer together – an “ansible”, neither of which are not believe by best current theory to be possible, an Alcueierre drive requires exotic matter that gravitationally repels rather than attacts other matter, which is not predicted by any well-supported theory to be possible.

#143 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 11:59 PM

If I’ve given the impression that causality violation using FTL signaling would be easy, provided tachyons exist and can be readily and in a controlled way emitted and detected, let me correct that misimpression. The key working part of such a system is a device (“Carol” in the excellent old Sharp Blue webpage referenced earlier) with a different velocity than the distant receiver of the message (“Bob”). The amount of time the system sends the signal into the past is [math]t_2[/math], where
[math]\lambda = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2}}[/math]
[math]t_1 = \frac{x_1}{v_s}[/math]
[math]x'_1 = \lambda \left( x_1 -v t_1 \right)[/math], [math]t'_1 = \lambda \left( t_1 -\frac{v x_1}{c^2} \right)[/math]
[math]D = \frac{v_s+c}{-v} v t'_1 +x'_1[/math]
[math]x'_2 = x'_1 -D[/math], [math]t'_2 = x'_1 +\frac{D}{v_s}[/math]
[math]t_2 = \lambda \left( t'_2 +\frac{v x'_2}{c^2} \right)[/math]
[math]v[/math] is the speed of Carol and Dave relative to Alice and Bob,
[math]v_s[/math] is the speed of the signal, and
[math]x_1[/math] is the distance between Alice and Bob.

All of this is a straightforward application of the Lorentz transformation. If you happen to have an implementation of the MUMPS computer language, such as the free one available here, you can use the following little program to perform this calculation for whatever [math]v[/math] and [math]v_s[/math] you enter

f  r "v=",v,"  vs=",vs,! s L=v**2*-1+1**-.5,x1=1,t1=1/vs,xp1=t1*-v+x1*L,tp1=x1*-v+t1*L,D=v*tp1+xp1/(-v/vs+1),tp2=D/vs+tp1,xp2=xp1-D,t2=xp2*v+tp2*L w "event",?18,"t",?33,"x",?48,"t'",?65,"x'",!,"A sends",?18,0,?33,0,?48,0,?65,0,!,"B & C get & send",?18,$e(+$j(t1,0,14),1,14),?33,$e(+$j(x1,0,14),1,14),?48,$e(+$j(tp1,0,14),1,14),?65,$e(+$j(xp1,0,14),1,14),!,"D & A send & get",?18,$e(+$j(t2,0,14),1,14),?33,0,?48,$e(+$j(tp2,0,14),1,14),?65,$e(+$j(xp2,0,14),1,14),!!
Some interesting results of this calculation:
  • when [math]v_s = \infty[/math], [math]t_2 = \frac{v x_1}{c^2} [/math].
    For example, if [math]x_1[/math] is 1 lightyear and [math]v[/math] is 0.5 c, Alice receives her message 0.5 years before she sends it.
  • for a signal to travel into the past at all, [math]v_s[/math] must exceed a minimum determined by [math]v[/math]. I’ve not done the algebra to find this function, but for small [math]v[/math]s, it’s about [math]v_s > \frac{2 c}{v}[/math], and as v approaches c, [math]v_s > \frac{c}{v}[/math].
    For example, if [math]v[/math] is 0.1 c, [math]v_s [/math]must be greater that about 20 c, if [math]v[/math] is 0.999999 c, [math]v_s[/math] need only be greater than about 1.001415 c.
  • A causality violating system involving distances and velocities on a scale of present day physics experiments could send signals a noticeable time into the past.
    For example, for a [math]v[/math] of 0.999 c, a [math]x_1[/math] of 731 km, and a [math]v_s[/math] of 1.1 c, [math]t_2[/math] would be about -51 seconds.
Okay, I could either go into the future when my math credentials become more encompassing, or I could shock my brain (using trans-cranial direct current stimulation) until I'm seizing and my IQ temporarily surpasses half a grand and try using brute thinking power to reconstruct the proof of a formula I've never been exposed to.

Over thinking is my strong suit intellectually, when tempered by awareness and control. Same for excess nor/epinephrine induced pathological states when I compete athletically. What normally is a disadvantage becomes an advantage when utilized properly by tools such as awareness and the capacity of clarity beyond normal perception. This is why they test military candidates by depriving them of sleep and starving them and drugging them.

My point is that you could say FTL signaling is no different for infomorphs than a transcranial electric current stimulation for someone trying to do better on his homework than otherwise possible.

Take the same ideas behind extrapianism and apply them to an AI infomorph that's trying to use behavioral pattern recognition on a biological brain that runs on this mysterious thing called human perception to guide the evolution of the entire human race from billions of light years away, and your brain is gonna need a little boost like tachyons. Then it's okay to meddle and cause temporal paradoxes.

This stuff is not being used by a government or a "people". As I said, biological forms omega point technology does not make. Meaning these aren't the kind of sentients you're factoring in.

Edited by Super Polymath, 09 January 2017 - 01:28 AM.


#144 exchemist

exchemist

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 02:28 AM

Getting back to the original topic, since we seem to have gone off on every possible tangent, I doubt super-intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, since intelligent life certainly does not exist here.  Have you seen the supermarket tabloids or daytime television?

:nahnahbooboo:

You seem to be the alter ego of either Mike Giggler (by email) or Bogbrush (from the message boards), in Private Eye. 



#145 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 06:42 PM

This stuff is not being used by a government or a "people". As I said, biological forms omega point technology does not make. Meaning these aren't the kind of sentients you're factoring in.

Many seem to be pretty unconvinced of the likelihood of substrate independence or computerized human consciousness (two paths to building super-intelligent AI). However you can create a simulant without relying so heavily upon exabyte super computer scaled combinatoric synaptic mapping using ICT implants to essentially upload a mind. And you need highly efficient nanotech to surgically replace neurons for a physical substrate independence without killing or lobotomizing the patient to create a functioning artificial android brain made of nanotech. However there's a third option that is far more reliable. 100% accurate simulated reality from the subatomic particle up you need a digital environment, one must recreate the human condition in order to get a combinatorial set of synapses to fire like a human's instead of mapping and crunching the data from scratch. This is because, with a simulated environment, you have someone very real to work with.