Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
1.) Imagine entropy as a currency in an economy.
2.) Agents that get work done (access to activities) in nature, must pay up some entropy, you don't do work or have access to activities, without paying up some entropy.
3.) Highly Intelligent things (like humans) reasonably pay more entropy, compared to less intelligent things or non intelligent things, because humans do more work i.e. many cognitive tasks (thinking about science, doing scientific stuff) compared to lesser intelligences or non intelligent things.
4.) In a similar way, chimps may pay more entropy than say less intelligent things, because they do more work, or have access to more complicated activities. (More access to activities result from more access to stuff called "macrostates" in the OP's quora url)
5.) Likewise, AGI or ASI when built, will have access to more cognitive activities, and they'll get more work done than humans. So, they'll reasonably pay more entropy to the thermodynamic system that is nature.
6.) This means there is reasonably a pattern, nature is finding more and more ways to extract more and more entropy from activities done (i.e. entropy maximization), and nature reasonably does this by building smarter and smarter things. Humans thus likely won't be the last thing nature finds to derive entropy from work; there will likely be AGI or ASI or whatever smarter thing that follows humans. (Laws of physics permits smarter things than humans overall)
@PGJ Re: Entropy Maximization
Okay, that does help a little, but I have to be honest here and admit the whole entropy matter relating to the AI technology is basically just over my head. As much as I am interested and want to understand it, I'm afraid I just cannot get my brain wrapped around it. Still fascinated with the AI advancements, regardless. I've always gotten a kick out of the concept of thinking machines and robots and such. And thinking about the complications of duplicating the functions of the human brain are more than enough to keep my own little clump of gray matter occupied. *chuckle* I sincerely appreciate your taking time to try to explain it to me, but I'm afraid I must humbly bow out for the moment. I will, however, continue to follow along as well as I can.
It "went over your head" because it is nonsense, just word salad. If it did make sense to you, we'd be worried about you.
A new Atheist perspective: The AGI of the Gaps argument. Nature has patterns, I have no idea why, it must be AGI.
His theory says the exact same thing the theory of evolution says so it must be correct.
The reason for life existing is to create AGI. It's obvious.
1. It looks like you didn't bother to read the hypothesis.
2. I don't know why you "have no idea why", but entropy is demonstrably increasing, and although Gross' equations reasonably do not account for human macrostates, it is work in that direction, as is outlined in his paper.
3. From (2), and given that AGI will reasonably occupy more macrostates than humans, through more cognitive tasks, and thereafter more entropy (as far as thermodynamics goes) it is not absurd to hypothesize the existence of some equations that also show AGI being biased towards entropy maximization.
4. Note that the hypothesis is not only about what evolution says, although it does rely on evolution as a prior for AGI; that is, evolution generates smarter and smarter organic agents that maximize entropy, and eventually nature shall yield inorganic agents (i.e. AGI) that continue to maximize entropy.
5. So, (2-4) is the basic idea, so rather than having "no idea why", you should have an idea that nature probably won't stop at humans, given the pattern Gross' equations forecast.
6. I wouldn't say it's "obvious", unless I had precise equations and empirical data on the matter. (Hint: Notice I labelled it as my hypothesis)
7. You should also be careful with the use of the words "it must be AGI". For eg, my hypothesis is careful to exclude absolute wording.
8. Reference-A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
9. Reference-B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)
@ProgrammingGodJordan
Entropy is already know to increase spontaneously, and that source of that increase been known for over 100 years. You should insert your nonsense word salad somewhere else. Also your notion of a system occupying more than one macrostate is pure insanity.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I lol'ed when you got banned at the international skeptics forum for dishonesty. Real classy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You still pushing your ridiculous incorrect calculus nonsense?
?
I think the issue here may very well be caused by using the word, “purpose.” I’m not sure that the conditions which made our existence possible, aka “nature”, would have had any motives of any kind, much less assigning a specific purpose to our species.
I do think that the creation of AI was inevitable (or was our fate, if that makes anyone feel more comfortable) as it would be for any intelligent species. But our purpose? Completely illogical.
1.) I got suspended when I was telling people to focus on the topic (instead of focusing on synonym discussions), and I created another account to contact the mod there on that matter (since their support staff email never worked even before my banning, I was aiming for direct dm on the forum), then I got banned even before getting the chance to talk the mod.
2.) I also mentioned that people were saying retarded things, and many people there took offense to that remark of mine.
3.) Regardless of the above, I don't detect my ban's relevance wrt to the OP. Note that referring to my status on other forums, is not scientific criticism of the OP.
1.) Dr. Alex Wissner Gross, PHd in physics, wrote a paper called "Casual Entropic Forces" concerning a prediction that intelligent things are biased towards entropy maximization. (He was the one that talked about things occupying macrostates)
2.) I used the paper above, in a hypothesis that nature likely wouldn't stop at humans in this entropy maximization process.
3.) If you read more than log(n) of my hypothesis or his paper, you would have quickly realized that the integrals are not mine, but are from his paper. I used them to formulate my hypothesis as described above.
1.) Yeah, it's clear you didn't read more than logn(n) of my hypothesis.
2.) If you read more than log(n) of my hypothesis or his paper, you would have quickly realized that the integrals are not mine, but are from his paper. I used them to formulate my hypothesis as described above.
I've seen how you "solve" integrals.
1.) Thanks, although solving basic integrals is not a big deal.
2.) Reference: "Trigonometric Rule Collapser Set", By Jordan
3.) I don't see how the existence of the above supposedly disregards Alex Gross' equations, from which my hypothesis emerged.
4.) Reference-B: "Causal Entropic Forces", by Alex Wissner Gross
I see you fixed the typos I pointed out. Now you just need to fix the fact that it doesn't work.
a.) With the exception of the "Clear Explanation" section which was newly added, the other portions have remained the same since 2011 in that Trig Paper thing of mine. (which is not what the OP is about)
b.) Also, the old trig thing (which is not what the OP is about) never stated to cover all scenarios, but instead some. In math there are often things that cover particular ranges.
c.) Again, beyond that old Trig Paper thing of mine (which is not what the OP is about) what is your criticism wrt to the OP?
You gave (and continue to give) the form you claim it works on, yet it does not. Worse, if you had ever actually used it on that form, you would realize this. That is awfully "crackpotty".
1.) Thanks for taking an interest in my hypothesis.
2.) Don't worry, the topic is a very complicated one anyway, one that I aim to understand more and more as time passes.
1.) That's the thing, people tend to forget that purpose is not limited to intention, or something related to some deity.
2.) Reference-A: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/purpose
3.) Purpose can mean "principle" for example, and things are reasonably following the principle as described in the OP.
Let's start an AGI religion. We have found our leader!!!!
That trig formulation of mine, as far as I detect, does apply sufficiently for some ranges (as I had long described).
Snippet: https://i.imgur.com/rVhLAqT.png (from paper)
Why do you bother to claim my application fails, regardless of the simple steps showing the successful use of the formulation (that any first year Calculus student can probably detect to be correctly applied)?
And of what relation is your apparently false claim to the OP?
Pages