Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Artificial Intelligence is billions of years old


Eldorado
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

Other universes is a perfectly valid concept in several hypotheses. It's a natural consequence of M-theory for instance.

Just because you don't support them, does not make them make belief. (You're taking yourself too serious.)

Do they satisfy the scientific method?  Calling something a hypothesis doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Do they satisfy the scientific method?  Calling something a hypothesis doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis.

This is theoretical physics, the highest branch of science. The scientific method is rarely applied here, because it mainly operates with mathematical conjectures (and sometimes colliders).

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, zep73 said:

This is theoretical physics, the highest branch of science. The scientific method is rarely applied here, because it mainly operates with mathematical conjectures (and sometimes colliders).

The highest branch of science which doesn't use scientific methodology... and you see no problem with this statement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, zep73 said:

This is theoretical physics, the highest branch of science. 

 

DudeSmall.png

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

The highest branch of science which doesn't use scientific methodology... and you see no problem with this statement.

In anything but theoretical physics it would be a ridiculous statement, yes, but in TP we're dealing with high energy particles that not even the Large Hadron Collider can produce.
I once heard a scientist say we'd need a collider the size of the solar system to test and prove string theory. (Notice: a theory that's practically untestable, and still it's a theory!)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Avi Loeb’s bold conjecture that our solar system has been visited by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization"

That's not a bold anything. It's pure conjecture. Anyone can do it. It's just that if you're a well known scientist or a celebrity of any kind, more people will listen to you.

The thing about how AI could be billions of years old. Well, sure it could. But also, pure conjecture. It's an interesting conversation, but nothing more.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a species went electronic the idea of robots would be similar to what clothes you want to wear today. If you are exploring other planets a body/shape that might be good in one place might be impossible someplace else. Also if you are making contact with another intelligent species it would be best if you assumed a shape that was compatible to their environment and sized to a similar level.

Science starts with a QUESTION and an awareness of ignorance. Then it proceeds from there to through a path with many incorrect ideas to understanding. If you assume that because we have not yet seen an alien that not only do they not exist but that it is somehow unscientific to even consider the matter you are not allowing for learning to happen. Sadly the human species has gone down that road and worshiped ignorance for centuries. Only when we cast that idea aside did we have the giant leap in technology that we have seen in the last 150 years.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Schneider offers three observations that together, support her conclusion...

I read those observations, and they left me somewhat unimpressed...

In fact if they are all correct, we should be swimming in an electronic soup of AI from all over the place....

But we aren't,. so does that mean that all the AI has agreed to  not tell us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bigjonalien said:

If we can send A.I. to other planet, wat do u think they are sending to ours?

Would it not be more sensible to make first contact via communications? 

Why do people always think sending something first is the only option? Why not make a call? Cheap, low risk, light speed and many attempts can be made at once. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 7:14 AM, Eldorado said:

While the scientific community debates Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb’s bold conjecture that our solar system has been visited by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, philosopher Susan Schneider, who holds the Baruch Blumberg Chair, Library of Congress and NASA,  preemptively upped the ante, suggesting that artificial intelligence exists out in the Universe, and it’s billions of years old.

“I do not believe that most advanced alien civilizations will be biological,” says Susan Schneider of the University of Connecticut and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton.

”The most sophisticated civilizations will be postbiological, forms of artificial intelligence or alien superintelligence.”

Schneider is one of the few thinkers—outside the realm of science fiction— that have considered the notion that artificial intelligence is already out there, and has been for eons.

Full article at the Daily Galaxy

Not sure the Loeb claims are backed by anything substantial, but I agree that if an advanced alien civilisation exists they are likely to be postbiological. If we manage to survive I think we will be also, eventually.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zep73 said:

In anything but theoretical physics it would be a ridiculous statement, yes, but in TP we're dealing with high energy particles that not even the Large Hadron Collider can produce.
I once heard a scientist say we'd need a collider the size of the solar system to test and prove string theory. (Notice: a theory that's practically untestable, and still it's a theory!)

But not a scientific theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Would it not be more sensible to make first contact via communications? 

Why do people always think sending something first is the only option? Why not make a call? Cheap, low risk, light speed and many attempts can be made at once. 

 

logical.

I guess thats why Et said 'phone home' not 'take me home'.... :P

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Horta said:

 If we manage to survive I think we will be also, eventually.

I agree. It almost seems inevitable. We see the emergence of it now. Many of us here remember a time before social media and the internet. Kids nowadays have no idea

looking-at-phone.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 6:14 AM, Eldorado said:

While the scientific community debates Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb’s bold conjecture that our solar system has been visited by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, philosopher Susan Schneider, who holds the Baruch Blumberg Chair, Library of Congress and NASA,  preemptively upped the ante, suggesting that artificial intelligence exists out in the Universe, and it’s billions of years old.

“I do not believe that most advanced alien civilizations will be biological,” says Susan Schneider of the University of Connecticut and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton.

”The most sophisticated civilizations will be postbiological, forms of artificial intelligence or alien superintelligence.”

Schneider is one of the few thinkers—outside the realm of science fiction— that have considered the notion that artificial intelligence is already out there, and has been for eons.

Full article at the Daily Galaxy

Here is an interesting Acedemic Peer Reviewed Paper on the subject of Aliens. It is not the normal crack pot stuff we on the news and online and even here. If you have an interest in the subject you will find this a good read.

https://fenomenum.com.br/ufo/cientificos/Footprints_of_alien_technology.pdf

Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, zep73 said:

This is theoretical physics, the highest branch of science. The scientific method is rarely applied here, because it mainly operates with mathematical conjectures (and sometimes colliders).

Here is a Peer Reviewed Paper you may enjoy.

https://fenomenum.com.br/ufo/cientificos/Footprints_of_alien_technology.pdf

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Would it not be more sensible to make first contact via communications? 

Why do people always think sending something first is the only option? Why not make a call? Cheap, low risk, light speed and many attempts can be made at once. 

 

My friend here is a Peer Reviewed Paper you may enjoy.

https://fenomenum.com.br/ufo/cientificos/Footprints_of_alien_technology.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 8:34 AM, the13bats said:

So then if non bio entities were out there they likely would have infinite lifespans and time to make a trip here wouldnt be so epic to them.

The real question becomes who built them?

If this Alien Artifical Intelligence is Billions of years old, and the Universe is approximately Universe is 13.8 billion years old, scientists confirm.Jul 15, 2020. How could the builders or let's call them Engineers evolve to a point where their intelligence could reach such such a level.

Bats I think the article is theoretically impossible, now I am certainly not the smart one on this forum so maybe someone can answer our questions my friend.

Page of the Universe:

https://www.popsci.com/story/science/how-old-is-the-universe/

Take Care Bats 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

But not a scientific theory.

So, you're saying that string theory is not a scientific theory?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

So, you're saying that string theory is not a scientific theory?

You just said it's practically untestable.

Tell me the requirements of a scientific theory.

Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

You just said it's practically untestable.

Tell me the requirements of a scientific theory.

You are right. I just tried to make you defend your position. You evaded that elegantly.

It's like tomatoes. Everybody thinks it's a vegetable, but it's really a fruit.

Quote

From the article "Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory":

It may seem that, by calling it "string theory" and presenting it as a possible solution to a scientific question, we've already answered in the affirmative: yes, string theory is a scientific theory. But it's only a theory in the mathematical sense, which means it has its own set of axioms, postulates, elements, as well as the theorems and corollaries that can be derived from them. Set theory, group theory and number theory are all examples of mathematical theories, and string theory is another such example.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zep73 said:

It's like tomatoes. Everybody thinks it's a vegetable, but it's really a fruit.

 

The thing is, there is a botanical definition and a culinary definition. The saying goes 'Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad'. To be more specific, a tomato is a berry. Which is a type of fruit. They are also carnivorous. Another example is a peanut/groundnut is botanically a legume, but for culinary purposes it is treated as a nut. So, really depends on what classification you're talking about. Which will lead helpfully into my main point about words and people applying definitions of them from a different area - like botanical/culinary definitions differ.

But to your point (and I'm not particularly knowledgable on the subject, so this is my understanding based on my much smarter friends discussions with me); physical theories aren't proven. That's for mathematical theorems. String theory is a bit of a misnomer and should really be considered as a framework rather than a 'theory'. It should be called a framework because it isn't just one model but several all at once. The issue I think people have is the difference between hypothesis, theory and law. Then applying the word 'theory' to mean 'We're taking a guess' - when in reality a theory is based on dedicated observation and research. It isn't immutable, it can change or be edited, but it is a good way of explaining a thing. Law has concrete and hard to disprove evidence. Why am I saying this? Because String Theory, as I said being a bunch of different things cobbled together under the tag, isn't currently possible to 'observe'. The hope is it will be observable in the future and evidence gathered to support the 'theory'. A scientific theory requires observation, measurement and evaluation of results - you can't do that currently with parts of String Theory. Hence why I think framework is a better title... or perhaps Proto-Theory. One could say it is Schroedinger's Theory... it is both a scientific theory and not at once. It becomes one when it's observed!

It is entirely possible that string theory (framework) will never have a physical application and will remain just that - a framework. But, don't tell the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists around the globe who are working on it that. They'd either be very sad or angry. If it unifies quantum field theory and gravitation together as a foundation... then we're into some real neato stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Troublehalf said:

The thing is, there is a botanical definition and a culinary definition. The saying goes 'Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad'. To be more specific, a tomato is a berry. Which is a type of fruit. They are also carnivorous. Another example is a peanut/groundnut is botanically a legume, but for culinary purposes it is treated as a nut. So, really depends on what classification you're talking about. Which will lead helpfully into my main point about words and people applying definitions of them from a different area - like botanical/culinary definitions differ.

But to your point (and I'm not particularly knowledgable on the subject, so this is my understanding based on my much smarter friends discussions with me); physical theories aren't proven. That's for mathematical theorems. String theory is a bit of a misnomer and should really be considered as a framework rather than a 'theory'. It should be called a framework because it isn't just one model but several all at once. The issue I think people have is the difference between hypothesis, theory and law. Then applying the word 'theory' to mean 'We're taking a guess' - when in reality a theory is based on dedicated observation and research. It isn't immutable, it can change or be edited, but it is a good way of explaining a thing. Law has concrete and hard to disprove evidence. Why am I saying this? Because String Theory, as I said being a bunch of different things cobbled together under the tag, isn't currently possible to 'observe'. The hope is it will be observable in the future and evidence gathered to support the 'theory'. A scientific theory requires observation, measurement and evaluation of results - you can't do that currently with parts of String Theory. Hence why I think framework is a better title... or perhaps Proto-Theory. One could say it is Schroedinger's Theory... it is both a scientific theory and not at once. It becomes one when it's observed!

It is entirely possible that string theory (framework) will never have a physical application and will remain just that - a framework. But, don't tell the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists around the globe who are working on it that. They'd either be very sad or angry. If it unifies quantum field theory and gravitation together as a foundation... then we're into some real neato stuff.

We should call tomatoes "pizza berries", and peanuts ought to be called "nutpeas" :D

Physics theories, as with all scientific theories, are not proven, but are a mosaic of evidences. Evidences that could be interpreted differently, but makes better sense as part of a chosen theory. Chosen by consensus, and often subject to errors and improvements. It seems almost organic.

The attempt to make the math of quantum theory fit the math of relativity has many offsprings. The flock of siblings are normally called "string theory", but should be called M-theory, since that is the unification of the string theories. Another, and more successful attempt, is Quantum Field Theory.

Framework is a good choice of word. I like it! Nice post, bud!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you guys are all quacks. humans are AI. any civilization that gets smart enough will figure out that you cant package a robot with enough transistors or

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.