If we manage to completely align our social structure with inclusive fitness I am disinterested. I find the idea of being selected subservient to a yeast god repulsive.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
yet bacterial biomass is worth more then the temp. human race. is where the bulk of earths billions yrs of evolutionary intelligence (infinity games on surface of the quantum ocean) is contained, the more that is lost the longer real time sentient evolution takes to develop, yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eschersand
Given a large enough surface, prokaryotic evolution is blindingly fast when compared to geological time spans. Eukaryotic evolution seems to have a larger search space and is more prone to local optima before it gets to general intelligence. And we don't seem to be sustainable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Eschersand
Ah, correction. The problem with evolving large multicellular critters is that the numbers of individuals are very small, generations are extremely long, and dependencies on habitat and food chain ecology are complicated, when compared to single celled organisms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
you'd probably have to be a condensed matter researcher to even begin to comprehend the scale of computational complexity of nature. (and valuation via processing time) .. or perhaps the subject is over humanities head entirely. I suppose Elon Musk suffers from the same handicap
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eschersand
Why? I don't think it is so hard. Seth Lloyd gives a decent way of estimating the upper bound on the number of operations in a given spacetime volume.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
and he's been pretty roundly debunked too. as a side note, if you comment on your last comment it doesn't fragment the thread
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eschersand
Could you please link me to a debunking of Seth Lloyd's argument? I may have a chance to ask him about it tomorrow.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
is the gestalt of physics knowledge that debunks past calculations on such things as overly conservative as we map new relations. the exponential expansion of the devils work. but here is one element (that is admittedly still under debate) https://futurism.com/sorry-elon-physicists-say-we-definitely-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eschersand @Plinz
and while I diverted to a different topic, I think the "simplest" proof against simulation theory is in the philosophy of boltzmann brains, but that's far beyond where academia has yet gotten to
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Why? Under some assumptions, we can estimate the probability of being Boltzmann brains. In any case the theory is not deeply interesting because it has no predictive power and there can be no possible evidence.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Boltzmann brains don't actually exist but it does set a bounds on the parameters of the possible and governing laws of the cosmos. Ultimately philosophy is the hardest of the hard sciences. But human philosophy isn't even in the game.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.