That the next pandemic is going to be a Prion disease that develops within the factory farming system.
We might be in one, there's talk that Alzhiemers might be a prion disease that happened as a result of using cadavers to obtain human growth hormone. Which was then given to folk in a potentially misfolded form...
That's really fucking interesting. Please could you point me in the right direction to research more?
So sorry, my notifications weren't notifying for some reason and never responded. Here's the paper where the link was made, the practice of gathering human growth hormone from cadavers was stopped in 1985, but the damage may already be done and surgical procedures today may expose others to transmission unless modified 😧 lemme know if you'd like to know more, am a Biologist!
If the connective tissue between your two brain hemispheres is severed, the two halves of your brain can't talk to each other.
When this happens, a second personality emerges for the right hemisphere, which doesn't have language but can roughly understand and answer things.
So for example, someone who was religious might have a right hemisphere that's atheistic. Or doesn't like the same things, etc.
One of the questions we might ponder is where this other personality comes from. Is it that in a sudden void of consciousness a new personality develops?
Or are we, with connected brain hemispheres, not actually a single persona at all, but more like the dogs in a trenchcoat looking like a whole person?
Is the 'you' reading this right now just the personality that's been on top for all this time, while there's other personas kept within you watching powerless and yearning for their turn in control? Each time you listen to your favorite song which maybe they have grown to hate, is a part of you screaming and you just can't hear them?
I'm sure for most people, this is somewhat disturbing.
However, I have at least 3 voices going in my head at any given time, and they cycle.
One is figuring out what's happening.
One is analyzing what was just happening.
One is talking to itself.
All while I decide which one is the most interesting.
And which one is deciding?
Me, of course.
Huh, I have three as well but they're very different. I've got "me" or the primary voice, a "child me" that is terrified almost all the time, and an "asshole me" who is the loudest meanest person you've ever met but is only ever turned inward.
I had a girlfriend who was born without this connective tissue between her brain hemispheres.
Other than being weird, for reasons that could be explained myriad other ways, she was able to control each eye independently when she wanted.
Watching her watch TV and me while I walked past was... odd.
My understanding is that each half of you becomes an independent system. Your right half controlled and perceived by the left brain. And that experiments that hid the left hand from the right, they could prompt both sides to draw something and you’d get two distinct responses.
Idk how that works for a normal life like that
I suppose you adapt, as you don't have an alternative nor a frame of reference of what "normal" is?
Like people born without a limb, or those who discover they're double-jointed or hyper-extensive/-flexible when their classmates react at their ability to touch their thumb to their wrist.
It's definitely curious and worth understanding.
I don't find this creepy at all. All the "personalities" in my brain are just parts of me.
I tend to envisage my mindscape as an orchestra. My consciousness is a fictitious conductor. It doesn't exist, but the lie that it does makes it easier to coordinate things between the instruments. In some manner, by acting on that lie, it is no longer a lie.
In this analogy, when the brain hemispheres are separated, then the orchestra is split in 2. Both develop a conductor, to try and remain functional. Neither conductor is the original me, but neither is not me, at the same time. It would be unpleasant for the variant left unable to communicate however.
I've actually experienced something that felt close to this before. A combination of sensory overload, and panic attack. My mind momentarily became completely discordant. As it sorted itself out, my consciousness reasserted itself in several different loci. In effect, my orchestra had 3 different conductors. It took almost a minute for them to stop pulling against each other and meld into 1 again. I have memories of all 3 sides in the 'battle'.
I want to nominate this post for some kind of award, that was amazing. Thanks for sharing that!
Appreciated, though it's most the musings of a random guy on the internet. If it helps you visualise and/or understand your own mind, all the better.
Yes sometimes I feel like I can rely on my quiet brain for logical reasoning
I can't.
99% of my mind is emotional or monkey logic. Getting it to accept logic is like trying to tame a bunch of cats. It works, so long as you can feed them enough dopamine. Fail, and they'll want to eat your face.
I think that's the human condition. Don't studies show that most decisions are made on emotion and rationalized afterwards?
It’s fast vs slow brain (there is a scientific term for it, don’t remember right now). Fast brain is what kept us alive. What’s that? Tiger! What’s that? Bear! Immediate fight/flight/fornicate decision tree.
Slow brain helped us build tools and fire.
I know a person who is about to have a corpus callusotomy procedure which is where the halves of the brain are divided surgically, in her case to stop seizures. She is globally delayed and I wonder now what she'll be like afterwards.
I think this might be the inspiration for the ravens in Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Memory (3rd book in the Children of Time series).
Minor spoilers:
Basically, the series takes place long after human society terraformed a bunch of planets and collapsed, and the main characters rediscover one of these planets which is populated by evolved ravens that have seemingly created a society but no one can tell if they are sentient or just mimicking everything. The ravens evolved to form pair bonds between two different types: one raven in the pair hyper-focuses on all new information and obsessively catalogs it, while the other raven obsesses over finding patterns in the collected data and preforms the executive functions and decision making. Neither raven in the pair is truly sentient on their own, but together they produce either consciousness or a fake so convincing no one can tell the difference.
They even ask the ravens if they are sentient and they conclude that they aren't, and that no one else is either, because of this exact reason; everyone's just components in a system that is hallucinating it's real.
theres a video somewhere of a dude like that where his halves would make shit up independently of eachother on the fly and he was unaware of it. really interesting stuff
Yeah, this is a phenomenon called 'confabulation.' You see it with stroke patients too. There's some who feel like it's a more accurate term than 'hallucinations' for when LLMs make shit up these days too.
Michael J. Fox having his brain disorder from unknowingly eating human remains on a movie set that was near that pig farmer serial killer guy and his brother who used to host parties and kill sex workers.
Reminds me of the story about the 1956 film The Conqueror. It was shot in Utah, downwind of atmospheric nuclear testing. It was speculated that this caused cancers among the crew.
What the. This is not the kind of theory I came in here expecting to see but you're right it is highly creepy.
What timeline are you from? Evidence of this story?
This sounds like Pickton. His farm is close to Vancouver which also is the set for a decent amount of movies, and supposedly some human flesh made it into circulation with pork products.
Wat
That's not.... unfathomable. I work with Parkinsonian neurologists, I will ask them if they think it's plausible.
The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void, complete with a memory of having existed in our universe, rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.
If I ever get thrown into an insane asylum, it's probably your fault.
Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906 by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
-Opening sentence of the textbook States of Matter by David Goodstein.
This doesn't solve the problem. If the universe is indeed infinite then there are infinite cases of our evaluation and infinite identical yous out there. If the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true though, there are vastly "more" of those. It's a larger infinity, making it much more lively you are a Bultzmann brain than a full physical person.
Fuck fuck fuck
There's a story or comic I read recently about a man who realises he is a Boltzmann Brain and had dreamt up the world around him to stave off madness.
Fortunately for us, this one isn't too likely, because realistically, an alien civilization capable of travelling the relevant distance and destroying another civilization isn't something that can be hidden from. They should be able, fairly easily, to examine every planet in the galaxy and see which ones have life on them, and wipe it out before any civilization ever arises at all. The fact that we exist at all necessarily implies that nobody in this galaxy has been committed to going this, at least for the past billion years or so.
Doesn't this only put a (statistical) limit on how cheaply a civilization can launch planet-ending attacks? It may well be feasible for a civilization to aim and accelerate a mass to nearly the speed of light in order to protect itself from a future threat. It doesn't necessarily follow it would be feasible or desirable to spend the presumably nontrivial resources needed to do so on every planet where simple life is detected.
Add to this the fact that, at least I understand it, evidence of our current level of technological sophistication (e.g. errant radio waves) attenuates to the point of being undetectable with sufficient distance and the dark forest becomes a bit more viable again.
Personally, I don't like it as an answer to the Drake equation, but I think that it fails for social rather than technological/logical reasons. The hypothesis assumes a sort of hyper-logical game theory optimized civilization that is a. nothing whatsoever one our own and b. unlikely to emerge as any civilization that achieves sufficient technological sophistication to obliterate another will have gotten there via cooperation.
The resources required to attack every life bearing planet only really becomes super expensive compared to waiting for civilization to arise if life is very common but civilization is not, which is admittedly a possible scenario, but by no means guaranteed. But consider: any civilization capable of launching an attack on another, particularly one that can be considered highly likely to completely destroy the target in a single strike (which you absolutely need, because if a target survives your attack, it now knows that you exist and even if it did not also follow your "attack everyone" doctrine, will see you as an existential and hostile threat) must necessarily have interstellar travel technology. The amount of time needed to develop this, and the amount of energy and resources this capability implies, make it highly likely that they have very good automated manufacturing as well. With those two technologies, you dont need to listen for radio signals or similar. You can send a tiny and difficult to spot or trace probe to every star out there (potentially at almost no cost if you can make a probe that can extract raw materials and build copies of itself, but even if you cant do that, the probes can be much smaller and lighter than a planet killing projectile and so if you can build one of those, you can at least launch a probe to every world with atmospheric compositions indicative of possible life, to observe from close range and tell you if civilization arises there. Thus, any civilization that wants to follow this policy is impossible to hide from, it doesnt matter if you send radio signals or not, or if you build structures that are visible or not, because your position was compromised before you even considered that there might be something to hide from. If youre a civilization that worries that aliens might be hostile, then, trying to hide makes no sense, because it wont help. What would make sense instead then is to try to grow as far and as fast as possible, in the hopes of acquiring enough redundancy that your neighbors dont have the capacity to destroy you, or at least enough that they arent sure that they do. This kind of growth doesnt seem to be the policy of anyone we see either though, because it should be visible even to us (we can see stars, and if you want to grow as much as you can and have automated manufacturing, you could start to build dyson swarms and similar structures that would visibly change the amount of light that reaches us from a given star).
Now, there are a few responses to this line of thinking that I've seen: The first is that a civilization this paranoid might not want to expand to other stars, because a colony in another system is so distant as to be effectively a new civilization, which might turn hostile to you, and is right at the next star over, and so civilizations might just stay in one star system and launch attacks from there. This doesnt really help them hide, as for the reasons Ive just mentioned, they should be easy to spot by anyone that actually has the ability to threaten them, but it might make it less likely for us to see, which is all that matters for the fermi paradox. But these aliens would still be able to send out probes to spy on our planet, so if theyre within around 5000 light years or so, they should have been able to see us develop civilization, and so if thats what they want to destroy, we again, shouldnt exist to contemplate this right now (and if theyre much further away then this, and theyre still worried that we might be a threat, then they really do need to destroy us before civilization ever arises, for reasons Ill get into in a moment). These hypothetical aliens must in order to make sense have a different policy than just "destroy anything smart enough to develop civilization". The next most obvious trigger then is "destroy anyone that makes it into space". Suppose then that you're these aliens. Your probes report some aliens on a planet 500 light years away (given the galaxy is in the ballpark of 100000 light years wide, this is in your cosmic backyard, relatively speaking), or if youve not done the probes, you hear some radio signal indicating this. You decide to launch an attack. But, you have a problem. That signal from your probes (or the radio signals if you hear those instead) was sent out 500 years ago, and even if your attack moves at lightspeed (it wont unless its something like a laser, but you probably want to launch something at a large fraction of that speed, so lightspeed is still a decent estimate) its still going to be 1000 years between when that species started going into space, and your attack arriving. Thats almost certainly enough time to colonize a lot of their solar system, so just attacking their homeworld probably isnt enough. Do you attack every large celestial body in that star system just in case? They could also have significant habitats and industry and such in orbit of various objects, or in orbit of their sun, so even that might not be enough. Worse, that thousand years of space could be enough time to start to get into interstellar travel themselves, so you might need to target every system within a certain radius of their home star, and even worse than that, if theyre just as paranoid as you, its enough time that they could conceivably begin to launch their own interstellar attacks, and if they happen to see your home star and think "that looks like it might have life, lets attack it", then your policy was insufficient. Youre not launching an attack against a newly space fairing civilization, youre launching one against whatever exists in that area of space when your attack finally arrives. Thus, you really need to attack well before civilizations start to go into space. If we're anything to go by, the time between early space exploration and industrial revolution is only a matter of a couple of centuries, so something like industry or radio is also too late, unless your targets are in a very narrow window of distance. If you're within a few thousand light years (still relatively close compared to the size of the galaxy) then you really should be attacking by no later than the first sign of early civilization, and if youre farther than that, as I mentioned earlier, you really should attack before civilized life ever even arises, because there would be time for a planet to go from having literal cavemen to an emerging interstellar empire before your attack even got to them, and once they have interstellar travel, you dont know exactly where they're all going to be, and they have the capacity to at least try to attack you. So, you either attack before civilization in which case we shouldnt be here, or you colonize the galaxy yourself to have outposts nearby to any emerging aliens, which is fundamentally not stealthy, and which again means we shouldnt be here because our planet should have been colonized by said aliens before we could ever evolve.
The other response Ive seen before is that maybe, nobody is actually willing to engage in a policy of genocide at first sight like this, but everyone is afraid that someone might be doing so, and so everyone hides despite there being nothing to hide from, and so we see no aliens. But this assumes that everyone considers this possibility, deliberately holds back their own development by trying to hide, despite probably also realizing that hiding is futile anyway, and that nobody across the galaxy ever, or has ever, not done this and so had the galaxy to claim for itself, which seems absurdly unlikely, especially given those hiding still have the option to send the probes, and potentially discover that everyone else is doing the same and so knows of them anyway.
The TLDR of this, because I know this was a rather lot of text for just a response to this, is:
The dark forest assumes that one isnt a target unless one takes action that reveals oneself, and that one can be sure of destroying any civilization one knows about in a first strike, and that these are the only options available with no way to try to make oneself a less vulnerable target. None of these assumptions seem reasonable upon further pondering, and if they do not hold, the scenario does not make sense.
What if we survived the attack on a life bearing planet? The Dinosaurs and their technology were all completely wiped out. Interplanetary T-Rex sounds pretty scary.
The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs would be insufficient to eliminate a life bearing planet as a potential future source of a threat appearing, unless you hit such planets regularly in that manner every few million years or so. If you were really going to do a policy like this, you'd want to hit the planet hard enough to completely sterilize the place, or at least kill off everything bigger than a microbe.
Hmm, ok - what if it wasn’t meant to sterilize the planet, but instead annihilate the food chain and create such an interruption to continuity that the dominant life form (Space T-Rex) gets wiped out?
Why no one has bothered us, the planet is already listed as “Solved” so there is no need to bother.
The aliens would have to be stupid to list a planet as solved for tens of millions of years after killing off the dominant life forms, because, well, a new one will just evolve in short order, exactly as has happened on earth, and they ought to know this.
Even the game theory analysis fails, as it doesn't consider a sufficient number of outcomes nor their branching over time.
Fortunately for us, this one isn't too likely, because realistically, an alien civilization capable of travelling the relevant distance and destroying another civilization isn't something that can be hidden from.
I mean its entirely dependent on whatever theoretical sci-fi gimmick utilized to close that gap. Are we betting on FTL, near the speed of light, or the left field entry ... intra dimensional travel?
The dark Forrest theory is mostly dependent on FTL, where the ability to destroy a planet is on par with the discovery of the planet. Meaning that it's not so much a seek and destroy scenario, but more like two scared drunks stumbling in the dark with loaded shot guns.
They should be able, fairly easily, to examine every planet in the galaxy and see which ones have life on them, and wipe it out before any civilization ever arises at all.
Again, this theory isn't supposing that there is a omnipresent alien race, but that all species are searching in the dark with a flashlight. Just because you have the ability to look everywhere, doesn't mean that you can look everywhere at once, and the universe is infinite.
The fact that we exist at all necessarily implies that nobody in this galaxy has been committed to going this, at least for the past billion years or so.
Again, this presumes that just because you have FTL tech means you have limitless resource and man power. When in reality the theory presupposes that FTL increases resource competition, not diminishes it.
I was presuming that nobody has any ftl tech, given that it seems to violate the laws of physics for such a technology to exist. And you can look virtually everywhere, in the galaxy at least, with the right technology (and probably less advanced a tech than needed for manned space travel, what you need is a machine, capable of using the resources available in some asteroid to construct more of itself, and send those copies off towards other star systems. These probes would multiply exponentially until they've explored every star in the galaxy, with no further input required beyond building the first one)
was presuming that nobody has any ftl tech, given that it seems to violate the laws of physics for such a technology to exist
But the entire premise of the Dark Forrest theory is dependent on FTL. It is what gives the participants in the theory the motivation to respond instantly.
And you can look virtually everywhere, in the galaxy at least, with the right technology
This notion is just as fantastic as the idea of FTL. Even if we're to accept that flt is theoretically possible, the machines building machines senario you spoke of would be moot. If these machines were to traveled a significant enough distance, by the time they or their signal returned it would be hundreds of if not thousands of years later.
There is no way to observe the rest of the galaxy along the same access of time we currently observe. Even if you had the capability of finding another society so far away, it wouldn't really mean much, the light or energy you used to observe them is likely hundreds of not thousands of years old. Meaning the image or information it contains is by default "out of date".
I'm aware the information would be out of date, that was part of my point in another response for one of the reasons I don't imagine the scenario works, because attacks arrive at a distant point in the future. I've never personally heard the dark forest scenario as requiring ftl tech, making that a requirement seems to make the entire premise moot as it requires throwing a pretty fundamental part of physics out to even contemplate.
I've never personally heard the dark forest scenario as requiring ftl tech,
FTL is the only thing that makes it applicable to game theory. If there is no import to respond instantly, then there is no imperative to respond.
The query is dependent on the hypothetical that the instant someone spots you in the dark Forrest they have an option of removing you from the game unless you remove them first.
making that a requirement seems to make the entire premise moot as it requires throwing a pretty fundamental part of physics out to even contemplate.
So does going to war with an alien race, or even finding another sentient race? How are you supposing these aliens are finding every sentient race in the galaxy if they can't push a search signal faster than an electron? It would take thousands of years for a signal to travel to the closest potential suitable planet, let alone every suitable planet.
The theory itself requires a suspense in disbelief, as do any that pertain to encounters of the third kind. I would say that the limitations in physics that prevent the possibility of FTL are of the same order and magnitude that prevent us from contacting aliens.
Not at all, there is nothing physically impossible about someone engaging on projects that take centuries or millennia to complete, it just requires a lot of patience and effort. Finding or even attacking an alien species does not fundamentally require anything disallowed by physics, it just requires a long timescale to do slower than light. My assumption was just that any hostile aliens would simply conduct those hostilities over very long periods of time. Having interstellar travel at all, assuming no ftl, sort of implies a willingness to undergo these kinds of long term efforts anyway, and it doesn't seem absurd to imagine that anyone with the technology to have those kinds of energies at their disposal might also have very advanced medical technology, such that they might live a very long time, which could lend itself to more long term thinking.
It's thankfully based on pretty bad game theory. The reality of it is that there end up being more negative consequences to attacking other civilizations than either staying isolated or being friendly, and the proposition is riddled with antropocentric concepts to begin with. Sure, in smaller time scales it might be that alien civilizations would attack each other, but over longer times they would tend to form alliances.
Even your conclusion is anthropocentric.
There's just too many guesses to dark forest.
Nah the dark forest doesn't really work, If turning on a light (so to speak) makes you a target then a muzzle flash is even worse. It takes a lot of energy to kill a planet however you do it and thats going to tell everyone where the shooter is.
And no you can't use an asteroid because all the matter in the universe couldn't make a computer powerful enough to make it hit over a reasonable distance and getting to our solar system to use one of the ones here is just as energetic as firing a projectile.
This one is pretty scary. Especially since it makes so much sense.
Vacuum decay, or vacuum metastability event is the possibility in simple terms that the universe itself is not in in its ground state. If that's true, it might spontaneously change to its real ground state. Doing so will change fundamental things like the strength of electromagnetism, the weight of particles and so on. It would literally destroy everything in the universe, and we couldn't exist in what's coming after.
Good news, we're confident, that's probably not going to happen.
As far as we're concerned, yes. It literally would travel at the speed of light. But since the light from the momentarily-ago-normal universe would be traveling just ahead of it... Everything would look normal until it collapsed
The same argument could be made for each time you go to sleep. That the 'you' that's conscious ends to never exist again and the one that wakes up has all the same memories and body but is no longer the same stream of consciousness that went to sleep, not even knowing it's only minutes old and destined to die within hours.
'You' could have effectively lived and died thousands of times in your life and not even be aware of it.
You cannot step into the same river twice - Heraclitus, ~550 BC
We are all a series of continuous evolution, alteration and change. "I" am not the same person who began this sentence. The idea that "I" cease to exist overnight and begin anew in the morning is meaningless. There is no one version of me. I live - and to live is to change!
The Consciousness of Theseus.
I mean we're slowly replacing every cell in our body like the ship of Theseus
So what makes me... me?
Your memories?
Personally, I'd say nothing. Or, at least, whatever you say makes you, you. I don't think there's an objective/natural definition for who I am and what is and isn't a part of me. The idea of "me" is kinda made-up, so there's probably no right or wrong answer as to what exactly I label as "me."
I'm probably just saying nonsense, but this is the most coherent answer I got lol
That's a question no one has yet been able to answer definitively though both neuroscientists and philosophers are trying.
I'm of the opinion that "I" am a pattern, encoded in the physical interactions of my brain and body. I'm not certain if I have free will or just like to think I do. But I do believe that whatever makes me "me" is fully contained within the dimensions of my physical being.
Your DNA? 🤷
Your memories and your mental image of yourself.
Or like Dr. Jan Itor's broom.
The way out of the riddle is that there never was a ship of Theseus to begin with or a you those are just referents like pointers used to refer to an evolving system with a known state at a known starting point and probabilistic predictions of a future state based on known factors.
Oh, wow! It was the ST:TNG episode Second Chances (linked in that article) that got me into thinking about it, and it's really trippy to read that somebody else came up exactly the same thought experiment with a human-replicator, too, and came to the same conclusion that I did: Both the original and the duplicate would have exactly the same memories of entering the replicator, so both would have the same continuous experience of the subjective "I". But if only one existed before replication, where did the second consciousness come from?
After I heard the Radiolab episode, "Loops,", I realized that the only way to resolve the paradox is to figure that our consciousness is re-created more-or-less continuously from our memories. That episode covered the case of a woman who experienced Transient Global Amnesia, which sent her into a loop of about 90 seconds of essentially the same conversation over and over, for hours. There's a famous video of it. That fits with the evidence, from neuroscience, that our consciousness drops out briefly every minute or so while our brains attend to sensory input from the environment.
The COVID-19 pandemic really brought this home to me in a visceral way. In the early weeks, when the CDC was warning about surface contamination, and how I should not touch the mask I had to wear at work under any circumstance, my nose would invariably start to itch. I would tough it out, exercise will power not to scratch the itch, and it would eventually go away. Soon, I realized that I never once got to feel the moment of relief when the itch faded. Always, I would simply notice that it had been gone for some unknown amount of time. It went away with one of those consciousness resets.
So, yeah, like the other folks say, we don't have a continuous conscious experience. The old "I" passes away within seconds, to be replaced by a new "I" with my memories, in a never-ending process of renewal. Think about that next time you walk into another room and forget why you're there.
Only in a single version of how teleportation could work.
If the result is the same person, then nobody died, so no killing.
I can’t find the specific article, but it was basically arguing that prions are an unavoidable existential crisis that will eventually kill everything on the planet. The basis was the fact that they are virtually indestructible, can lie latent in our environment indefinitely and basically just always make more of themselves.
Mind you, the time frame for this particular apocalypse would be pretty big. It was still an eerie thought though, just like this inexorable accumulation of alien/bizarro world proteins that would eventually kill/convert everything. I guess it’s kinda like the grey goo planet theory.
Anyway, we’ll almost certainly kill ourselves via climate change or massive war first, so no need to worry too much about prions.
@Hotspur hey cool you and I just posted about prions at the same time!
Oh and I guess, potentially, the post about Micheal j fox could also be about prions, since it’s suggesting his Parkinson’s is the result of accidental ingestion of human remains (probably brain matter, like the how the kuru disease was spread). So maybe we’re up to 3 posts for prions!
Yikes I'm glad I don't believe in argumentum ad popularum or at this point it would be prion apocalypse confirmed!
Haha I just saw that—excellent. Prions definitely belong to the creepy/weird category of potential threats.
It totally doesn't. Also you need to send your friend back to Nalthis.
Yes, sword nimi
Like my ex
That the government adds a "cause a car accident remotely" option to vehicles so that offending individuals traveling by car may die by the government remotely tweaking the car.
On Teslas that's a subscription feature
While it might be possible to remotely control a production car, cars now are safe enough that you'd need to have a lot of systems fail in order to ensure that an accident would be fatal. Things like, all the crumple zones not working as intended, airbags not going off, seat belts not locking properly, all at once. Or you could, I dunno, design the car so that the doors were only controlled electronically, and then ensure that if there was a fire or the car was submerged, the electronics failed (e.g., Teslas).
Doors not opening in a fire should end the company that made them. Not sure how this company still exists.
Too high level, it's way cheaper to just hire a dude to cause an accident with a big vehicle like a truck, no passenger car can survive.
Yeah, guaranteeing a crash fatal is pretty hard. But doing anything weird to a car while it's traveling 70 on a highway with traffic has a pretty good chance of killing occupants. If you could make the brakes on just one wheel lock suddenly, you'd have quite a hairy situation.
I hit <> on my motorcycle in a hard corner at 55+mph, maybe three years ago? Someone I was riding with said it might have been a turtle. :'(
Somehow I managed to not go down, and that should have been a perfect recipe for a slide into oncoming traffic.
I'm just saying that if you really want to kill someone, you'd want something a lot more certain than a remote-controlled accident.
Well, you could always try twice...
Coming from experience, I would think a car being submerged sounds like the least convenient time for it to stop working.
I guess you can always count on Elon Musk to take trial and error too literally. Fortunately in my case no Teslas had been involved.
This is definitely possible, since you can actually controll cars (at least some models) via a (non-public, but the capability is there) API. Two security researchers at defcon were able to find a way how to control a vehicle remotely, even including things like stopping or turning, and eventually made an exploit that could be used remotely to any car of the same model. So, if they wanted to, they were able to stop or turn the wheel of IIRC hundreds of thousands of cars around the world instantly, since the cars are connected to the network through GSM, so you don't even need to be anywhere near them.
It's been a few years since I saw the video, but IIRC the vehicle controls are on a separate board that should not be reachable from the other smart vehicle system. However, they were able to reverse engineer a way how to abuse framework update mechanism as a bridge, and use it to patch the framework to get it under their control. And then they discovered that they could actually trigger the update remotely.
Dark forest
The dark forest is a scary idea for sure.
The saving grace though is that it doesn't actually make any sense and can't really be true. The pure game theory of it all doesn't really work out. And on top of that, launching an attack on another star system is just an economically fraught endeavor. Given the technology required to accomplish it, it would be far simpler to build an immense Civilization in whatever star system you're in, there's no reason for conquest it's just too expensive.
Honestly, simulation theories are probably scarier because they're harder to disprove, in fact they tend to get stronger the more data we gather. And they're scary because should they be accurate, someone could decide to pull the plug on the simulation at any time....
Yeah but then Kurzgesagt theorizes a lightspeed bomb and you're like... But it wasn't scary :-(
Quantum immortality
Roko's Basilisk. But here's the thing, once you're aware of it, you're fucked. The only solution is to not research it, don't know anything about it. Live in blissful ignorance.
In other news... I lost the game.
What about if you read about it and didn't understand it?
Oh, see, that's the thing, it's simple enough to understand, you just don't want to ubderstand it. :)
You have to believe that a malevolent AI will give enough of a damn about you to bother simulating anything at all, let alone infinite torture, which is useless for it to do once it already exists. Everyone on LessWrong has a well-fed ego so I get why they were in a tizzy for a while.
I don't really see how the thought experiment differs from Christianity...
Well one punishes you if you deny it's existence, the other punishes you if you fail to assist in it's development. So it's a LITTLE different. :)
Fortunately, for me personally, I helped fund a key researcher who could, in theory, be a major contributor to such a thing. So I have plausible deniability. ;) And I've been promised a 15 minute head start before he turns it on.
Guess it depends on the denomination but mine had mandatory missions :P
Did someone checked? I need a second opinion to not research it
Silly thought experiment, the result of which, in gullible people could make them potential victims of psychosomatic symptoms like headaches and insomnia.
The good news for me is I'm set. I did my part. :)
It's essentially a thought experiment, without getting too specific it goes along the lines of "what if there was a hypothetical bad scenario that gets triggered by you knowing about it", so if you look it up now you're doomed.
discussion board LessWrong, a technical forum focused on analytical rational enquiry
🙄
I love this concept. A purely memetic threat. An idea that could destroy you merely by knowing it...
(If a specific set of improbabilities are true)
You have doomed us all!
Praised be the basilisk!
I hope the basilisk accepts that lying around watching TV is a requirement for me to contribute to its existence. After all, fleshy meat bags need rest time to be able to work!
I like that the way to beat it is to go, Hmm... and move on.
Quantum immortality
Having survived a few suicide attempts I've been convinced this is how it actually is. I have no interest in any further attempts because I know I'll just end up waking up full of regret and possibly maimed.
Pretty compelling case against suicide tbh, unusual as it may be.
I read a short story about this, and can't remember the name but I remember how hollow it made me feel.
Damn now I wanna read it, any more ideas on finding the story?
I don't feel like this is exactly right but it's hitting some of the same notes. Divided by Infinity by Robert Charles Wilson
!The one I remember ends with the main character essentially becoming the singularity, but this ends a little differently. Equally as sad as I recall though.!<
In contrast, dying but finding that an infinite universe will almost certainly build your atoms back up again in the same configuration in an endless cycle without you knowing.. might be more plausible and therefore even scarier to me.
Over half the people who have ever lived have yet to die. I’ll file this one under “possible, but unproven”
Of all the people who’ve ever lived, way more than half have died. Human existance, for the sake of measuring when “modern humans” (as we know us) began existing is about 190,000 BCE. Measured from then, about 109 billion humans have lived and died since then.
Considering about 8 billion are alive on the planet today… yeah, way more than half have died.
Damn. I should have fact checked myself before repeating something I heard. Now I’m slightly more likely to die.
Not really— you’re only now aware of your true likelihood of dying due to new information. The likelihood itself has not changed.
Sobering, isn’t it?
I recommend weed. Perhaps a snort of bourbon. Maybe both.
Meh. Still not going to die. Death is a bunch of rubbish. I plan to take no part in it.
So, we'll meet here in, say, one hundred years from now?
It's a fact tied in to exponential growth, during one doubling period, as much of whatever you're tracking gets used as the entire history since that exponential growth started. That last bit is the key, human population is an exponential growth thing, but it hasn't been uninterrupted or by a constant factor. There's a long time when we were hunter/gatherers with a stable population and even in more modern ages, epidemics have reduced populations significantly.
he's a witch! he knows the future!
If I don’t die, at least I’ll be pleasantly surprised
This can only be proved by killing everyone.
Someone figured it out how to make, farm and mass produce the Higgs boson, creating microscopic particles that can generate infinite electricity with simple mechanical systems thanks to their high gravity and then humanity starts develop insane tech powered by gravity waves, traveling faster than speed of light becomes possible by switching gravity on and off.
Then obviously some company or government make too much of it and collapses into a microscopic blackhole that instantly falls into the center of the earth quickly eating the planet inside out.
That's how the Earth got destroyed in "The Forge of God." :)
::: spoiler Plot (spoils about 50% of the book)
A hostile alien probe discovers Earth, builds/grows three wildly different alien races, has them crash one each in the world's three largest superpowers (one claiming to bring knowledge, one warning of an impending attack, one claiming to seek conquest), while robot ships plant explosives along the Mariana trench, but the primary attack is two singularities, circling earth in a decaying orbit, by the time anyone even begins to theorize about the cause of the anomalous gravity measurements across the world, both are already circling deep under Earth's crust.
:::
"The cosmos is not infinite, has a beginning and an end"
The fact that everyone around me seems to be persuaded that there is a beginning in time is unnerving to me. In my head, cosmos has always been infinite, and will always be infinite. Even if nothing is there, it will still exist.
The idea that anything before the big bang is considered to not exist has so many things wrong with it that I struggle to internalize it. If matter cannot be made or destroyed, that means that there will always be matter in one form or another.
As far as I understand it, time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, so by definition nothing existed before time. I don't really know how that works out either, I just go with what the fancy science people say
Think of "before the big bang" like "South of the South Pole." It just isn't a thing, you're at the furthest point and it doesn't go further.
And I don't think there is a true "end" to the universe, as we understand it currently there's just an expansion forever and at some point all the individual particles rip apart and spread out and nothing could possibly survive in such a situation so it counts as an "end" for all intents and purposes for us, but time itself is infinite.
IIRC the math actually can check out for an always-existing universe (instead of a big bang) but it doesn't really make sense because you still then have to explain the giant sudden expansion.
I feel like I could talk about this for years, but I got video games to play. The short answer is I don't feel like I have to know what caused the matter to all be at the same place and then expand to be satisfied with an infinite universe of finite matter. I wish my brain could understand how time as we know it started with the big Bang, but I think I'm slightly too dumb for that.
If nothing is there then how can you say something exists?
Because the universe is expanding. If it were finite it wouldn't be able to expand. Emptiness is still "something". If we were "at the edge of the universe", we could still go further from the center, there would just be nothing for as far as we can perceive, maybe even infinitely, but then, we would be there. That makes it "a place".
If it's nothing, how can it be something?
It's potential. Matter can go there. Saying there is an end to the universe means that at some point, there is no possible expansion. It also means we are completely ignoring the tiniest infinitly small chance that our big bang wasn't the only one. If you zoom out far enough, is there really zero chance that this "known universe" is actually just part of a greater whole?
imagining the universe as a contained thing with hard limits is what gives me the creep
That the next pandemic is going to be a Prion disease that develops within the factory farming system.
We might be in one, there's talk that Alzhiemers might be a prion disease that happened as a result of using cadavers to obtain human growth hormone. Which was then given to folk in a potentially misfolded form...
That's really fucking interesting. Please could you point me in the right direction to research more?
Not OP but here’s what I could find
Thank you 😁
No problem!
So sorry, my notifications weren't notifying for some reason and never responded. Here's the paper where the link was made, the practice of gathering human growth hormone from cadavers was stopped in 1985, but the damage may already be done and surgical procedures today may expose others to transmission unless modified 😧 lemme know if you'd like to know more, am a Biologist!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02729-2
welp, not sleeping tonight
Plague inc with cheat codes on
If the connective tissue between your two brain hemispheres is severed, the two halves of your brain can't talk to each other.
When this happens, a second personality emerges for the right hemisphere, which doesn't have language but can roughly understand and answer things.
So for example, someone who was religious might have a right hemisphere that's atheistic. Or doesn't like the same things, etc.
One of the questions we might ponder is where this other personality comes from. Is it that in a sudden void of consciousness a new personality develops?
Or are we, with connected brain hemispheres, not actually a single persona at all, but more like the dogs in a trenchcoat looking like a whole person?
Is the 'you' reading this right now just the personality that's been on top for all this time, while there's other personas kept within you watching powerless and yearning for their turn in control? Each time you listen to your favorite song which maybe they have grown to hate, is a part of you screaming and you just can't hear them?
I'm sure for most people, this is somewhat disturbing.
However, I have at least 3 voices going in my head at any given time, and they cycle.
One is figuring out what's happening.
One is analyzing what was just happening.
One is talking to itself.
All while I decide which one is the most interesting.
And which one is deciding?
Me, of course.
Huh, I have three as well but they're very different. I've got "me" or the primary voice, a "child me" that is terrified almost all the time, and an "asshole me" who is the loudest meanest person you've ever met but is only ever turned inward.
I had a girlfriend who was born without this connective tissue between her brain hemispheres.
Other than being weird, for reasons that could be explained myriad other ways, she was able to control each eye independently when she wanted.
Watching her watch TV and me while I walked past was... odd.
My understanding is that each half of you becomes an independent system. Your right half controlled and perceived by the left brain. And that experiments that hid the left hand from the right, they could prompt both sides to draw something and you’d get two distinct responses.
Idk how that works for a normal life like that
I suppose you adapt, as you don't have an alternative nor a frame of reference of what "normal" is?
Like people born without a limb, or those who discover they're double-jointed or hyper-extensive/-flexible when their classmates react at their ability to touch their thumb to their wrist.
It's definitely curious and worth understanding.
I don't find this creepy at all. All the "personalities" in my brain are just parts of me.
I tend to envisage my mindscape as an orchestra. My consciousness is a fictitious conductor. It doesn't exist, but the lie that it does makes it easier to coordinate things between the instruments. In some manner, by acting on that lie, it is no longer a lie.
In this analogy, when the brain hemispheres are separated, then the orchestra is split in 2. Both develop a conductor, to try and remain functional. Neither conductor is the original me, but neither is not me, at the same time. It would be unpleasant for the variant left unable to communicate however.
I've actually experienced something that felt close to this before. A combination of sensory overload, and panic attack. My mind momentarily became completely discordant. As it sorted itself out, my consciousness reasserted itself in several different loci. In effect, my orchestra had 3 different conductors. It took almost a minute for them to stop pulling against each other and meld into 1 again. I have memories of all 3 sides in the 'battle'.
I want to nominate this post for some kind of award, that was amazing. Thanks for sharing that!
Appreciated, though it's most the musings of a random guy on the internet. If it helps you visualise and/or understand your own mind, all the better.
Yes sometimes I feel like I can rely on my quiet brain for logical reasoning
I can't.
99% of my mind is emotional or monkey logic. Getting it to accept logic is like trying to tame a bunch of cats. It works, so long as you can feed them enough dopamine. Fail, and they'll want to eat your face.
I think that's the human condition. Don't studies show that most decisions are made on emotion and rationalized afterwards?
It’s fast vs slow brain (there is a scientific term for it, don’t remember right now). Fast brain is what kept us alive. What’s that? Tiger! What’s that? Bear! Immediate fight/flight/fornicate decision tree.
Slow brain helped us build tools and fire.
I know a person who is about to have a corpus callusotomy procedure which is where the halves of the brain are divided surgically, in her case to stop seizures. She is globally delayed and I wonder now what she'll be like afterwards.
I think this might be the inspiration for the ravens in Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Memory (3rd book in the Children of Time series).
Minor spoilers:
Basically, the series takes place long after human society terraformed a bunch of planets and collapsed, and the main characters rediscover one of these planets which is populated by evolved ravens that have seemingly created a society but no one can tell if they are sentient or just mimicking everything. The ravens evolved to form pair bonds between two different types: one raven in the pair hyper-focuses on all new information and obsessively catalogs it, while the other raven obsesses over finding patterns in the collected data and preforms the executive functions and decision making. Neither raven in the pair is truly sentient on their own, but together they produce either consciousness or a fake so convincing no one can tell the difference.
They even ask the ravens if they are sentient and they conclude that they aren't, and that no one else is either, because of this exact reason; everyone's just components in a system that is hallucinating it's real.
theres a video somewhere of a dude like that where his halves would make shit up independently of eachother on the fly and he was unaware of it. really interesting stuff
Yeah, this is a phenomenon called 'confabulation.' You see it with stroke patients too. There's some who feel like it's a more accurate term than 'hallucinations' for when LLMs make shit up these days too.
Michael J. Fox having his brain disorder from unknowingly eating human remains on a movie set that was near that pig farmer serial killer guy and his brother who used to host parties and kill sex workers.
Reminds me of the story about the 1956 film The Conqueror. It was shot in Utah, downwind of atmospheric nuclear testing. It was speculated that this caused cancers among the crew.
What the. This is not the kind of theory I came in here expecting to see but you're right it is highly creepy.
What timeline are you from? Evidence of this story?
This sounds like Pickton. His farm is close to Vancouver which also is the set for a decent amount of movies, and supposedly some human flesh made it into circulation with pork products.
Wat
That's not.... unfathomable. I work with Parkinsonian neurologists, I will ask them if they think it's plausible.
The Boltzmann brain
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Stzj2_Rlo4
If I ever get thrown into an insane asylum, it's probably your fault.
Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906 by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
-Opening sentence of the textbook States of Matter by David Goodstein.
Dear @hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone, please do not study statistical mechanics.
Meh. If the universe is infinite, the likelihood of the super gradual evolution of something like us is 1.
We are observer selection bias.
This doesn't solve the problem. If the universe is indeed infinite then there are infinite cases of our evaluation and infinite identical yous out there. If the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true though, there are vastly "more" of those. It's a larger infinity, making it much more lively you are a Bultzmann brain than a full physical person.
Fuck fuck fuck
There's a story or comic I read recently about a man who realises he is a Boltzmann Brain and had dreamt up the world around him to stave off madness.
https://www.badspacecomics.com/post/boltzmann
Not a unique one, but the dark forest hypothesis.
Fortunately for us, this one isn't too likely, because realistically, an alien civilization capable of travelling the relevant distance and destroying another civilization isn't something that can be hidden from. They should be able, fairly easily, to examine every planet in the galaxy and see which ones have life on them, and wipe it out before any civilization ever arises at all. The fact that we exist at all necessarily implies that nobody in this galaxy has been committed to going this, at least for the past billion years or so.
Doesn't this only put a (statistical) limit on how cheaply a civilization can launch planet-ending attacks? It may well be feasible for a civilization to aim and accelerate a mass to nearly the speed of light in order to protect itself from a future threat. It doesn't necessarily follow it would be feasible or desirable to spend the presumably nontrivial resources needed to do so on every planet where simple life is detected.
Add to this the fact that, at least I understand it, evidence of our current level of technological sophistication (e.g. errant radio waves) attenuates to the point of being undetectable with sufficient distance and the dark forest becomes a bit more viable again.
Personally, I don't like it as an answer to the Drake equation, but I think that it fails for social rather than technological/logical reasons. The hypothesis assumes a sort of hyper-logical game theory optimized civilization that is a. nothing whatsoever one our own and b. unlikely to emerge as any civilization that achieves sufficient technological sophistication to obliterate another will have gotten there via cooperation.
The resources required to attack every life bearing planet only really becomes super expensive compared to waiting for civilization to arise if life is very common but civilization is not, which is admittedly a possible scenario, but by no means guaranteed. But consider: any civilization capable of launching an attack on another, particularly one that can be considered highly likely to completely destroy the target in a single strike (which you absolutely need, because if a target survives your attack, it now knows that you exist and even if it did not also follow your "attack everyone" doctrine, will see you as an existential and hostile threat) must necessarily have interstellar travel technology. The amount of time needed to develop this, and the amount of energy and resources this capability implies, make it highly likely that they have very good automated manufacturing as well. With those two technologies, you dont need to listen for radio signals or similar. You can send a tiny and difficult to spot or trace probe to every star out there (potentially at almost no cost if you can make a probe that can extract raw materials and build copies of itself, but even if you cant do that, the probes can be much smaller and lighter than a planet killing projectile and so if you can build one of those, you can at least launch a probe to every world with atmospheric compositions indicative of possible life, to observe from close range and tell you if civilization arises there. Thus, any civilization that wants to follow this policy is impossible to hide from, it doesnt matter if you send radio signals or not, or if you build structures that are visible or not, because your position was compromised before you even considered that there might be something to hide from. If youre a civilization that worries that aliens might be hostile, then, trying to hide makes no sense, because it wont help. What would make sense instead then is to try to grow as far and as fast as possible, in the hopes of acquiring enough redundancy that your neighbors dont have the capacity to destroy you, or at least enough that they arent sure that they do. This kind of growth doesnt seem to be the policy of anyone we see either though, because it should be visible even to us (we can see stars, and if you want to grow as much as you can and have automated manufacturing, you could start to build dyson swarms and similar structures that would visibly change the amount of light that reaches us from a given star).
Now, there are a few responses to this line of thinking that I've seen: The first is that a civilization this paranoid might not want to expand to other stars, because a colony in another system is so distant as to be effectively a new civilization, which might turn hostile to you, and is right at the next star over, and so civilizations might just stay in one star system and launch attacks from there. This doesnt really help them hide, as for the reasons Ive just mentioned, they should be easy to spot by anyone that actually has the ability to threaten them, but it might make it less likely for us to see, which is all that matters for the fermi paradox. But these aliens would still be able to send out probes to spy on our planet, so if theyre within around 5000 light years or so, they should have been able to see us develop civilization, and so if thats what they want to destroy, we again, shouldnt exist to contemplate this right now (and if theyre much further away then this, and theyre still worried that we might be a threat, then they really do need to destroy us before civilization ever arises, for reasons Ill get into in a moment). These hypothetical aliens must in order to make sense have a different policy than just "destroy anything smart enough to develop civilization". The next most obvious trigger then is "destroy anyone that makes it into space". Suppose then that you're these aliens. Your probes report some aliens on a planet 500 light years away (given the galaxy is in the ballpark of 100000 light years wide, this is in your cosmic backyard, relatively speaking), or if youve not done the probes, you hear some radio signal indicating this. You decide to launch an attack. But, you have a problem. That signal from your probes (or the radio signals if you hear those instead) was sent out 500 years ago, and even if your attack moves at lightspeed (it wont unless its something like a laser, but you probably want to launch something at a large fraction of that speed, so lightspeed is still a decent estimate) its still going to be 1000 years between when that species started going into space, and your attack arriving. Thats almost certainly enough time to colonize a lot of their solar system, so just attacking their homeworld probably isnt enough. Do you attack every large celestial body in that star system just in case? They could also have significant habitats and industry and such in orbit of various objects, or in orbit of their sun, so even that might not be enough. Worse, that thousand years of space could be enough time to start to get into interstellar travel themselves, so you might need to target every system within a certain radius of their home star, and even worse than that, if theyre just as paranoid as you, its enough time that they could conceivably begin to launch their own interstellar attacks, and if they happen to see your home star and think "that looks like it might have life, lets attack it", then your policy was insufficient. Youre not launching an attack against a newly space fairing civilization, youre launching one against whatever exists in that area of space when your attack finally arrives. Thus, you really need to attack well before civilizations start to go into space. If we're anything to go by, the time between early space exploration and industrial revolution is only a matter of a couple of centuries, so something like industry or radio is also too late, unless your targets are in a very narrow window of distance. If you're within a few thousand light years (still relatively close compared to the size of the galaxy) then you really should be attacking by no later than the first sign of early civilization, and if youre farther than that, as I mentioned earlier, you really should attack before civilized life ever even arises, because there would be time for a planet to go from having literal cavemen to an emerging interstellar empire before your attack even got to them, and once they have interstellar travel, you dont know exactly where they're all going to be, and they have the capacity to at least try to attack you. So, you either attack before civilization in which case we shouldnt be here, or you colonize the galaxy yourself to have outposts nearby to any emerging aliens, which is fundamentally not stealthy, and which again means we shouldnt be here because our planet should have been colonized by said aliens before we could ever evolve.
The other response Ive seen before is that maybe, nobody is actually willing to engage in a policy of genocide at first sight like this, but everyone is afraid that someone might be doing so, and so everyone hides despite there being nothing to hide from, and so we see no aliens. But this assumes that everyone considers this possibility, deliberately holds back their own development by trying to hide, despite probably also realizing that hiding is futile anyway, and that nobody across the galaxy ever, or has ever, not done this and so had the galaxy to claim for itself, which seems absurdly unlikely, especially given those hiding still have the option to send the probes, and potentially discover that everyone else is doing the same and so knows of them anyway.
The TLDR of this, because I know this was a rather lot of text for just a response to this, is: The dark forest assumes that one isnt a target unless one takes action that reveals oneself, and that one can be sure of destroying any civilization one knows about in a first strike, and that these are the only options available with no way to try to make oneself a less vulnerable target. None of these assumptions seem reasonable upon further pondering, and if they do not hold, the scenario does not make sense.
What if we survived the attack on a life bearing planet? The Dinosaurs and their technology were all completely wiped out. Interplanetary T-Rex sounds pretty scary.
The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs would be insufficient to eliminate a life bearing planet as a potential future source of a threat appearing, unless you hit such planets regularly in that manner every few million years or so. If you were really going to do a policy like this, you'd want to hit the planet hard enough to completely sterilize the place, or at least kill off everything bigger than a microbe.
Hmm, ok - what if it wasn’t meant to sterilize the planet, but instead annihilate the food chain and create such an interruption to continuity that the dominant life form (Space T-Rex) gets wiped out?
Why no one has bothered us, the planet is already listed as “Solved” so there is no need to bother.
The aliens would have to be stupid to list a planet as solved for tens of millions of years after killing off the dominant life forms, because, well, a new one will just evolve in short order, exactly as has happened on earth, and they ought to know this.
Even the game theory analysis fails, as it doesn't consider a sufficient number of outcomes nor their branching over time.
I mean its entirely dependent on whatever theoretical sci-fi gimmick utilized to close that gap. Are we betting on FTL, near the speed of light, or the left field entry ... intra dimensional travel?
The dark Forrest theory is mostly dependent on FTL, where the ability to destroy a planet is on par with the discovery of the planet. Meaning that it's not so much a seek and destroy scenario, but more like two scared drunks stumbling in the dark with loaded shot guns.
Again, this theory isn't supposing that there is a omnipresent alien race, but that all species are searching in the dark with a flashlight. Just because you have the ability to look everywhere, doesn't mean that you can look everywhere at once, and the universe is infinite.
Again, this presumes that just because you have FTL tech means you have limitless resource and man power. When in reality the theory presupposes that FTL increases resource competition, not diminishes it.
I was presuming that nobody has any ftl tech, given that it seems to violate the laws of physics for such a technology to exist. And you can look virtually everywhere, in the galaxy at least, with the right technology (and probably less advanced a tech than needed for manned space travel, what you need is a machine, capable of using the resources available in some asteroid to construct more of itself, and send those copies off towards other star systems. These probes would multiply exponentially until they've explored every star in the galaxy, with no further input required beyond building the first one)
But the entire premise of the Dark Forrest theory is dependent on FTL. It is what gives the participants in the theory the motivation to respond instantly.
This notion is just as fantastic as the idea of FTL. Even if we're to accept that flt is theoretically possible, the machines building machines senario you spoke of would be moot. If these machines were to traveled a significant enough distance, by the time they or their signal returned it would be hundreds of if not thousands of years later.
There is no way to observe the rest of the galaxy along the same access of time we currently observe. Even if you had the capability of finding another society so far away, it wouldn't really mean much, the light or energy you used to observe them is likely hundreds of not thousands of years old. Meaning the image or information it contains is by default "out of date".
I'm aware the information would be out of date, that was part of my point in another response for one of the reasons I don't imagine the scenario works, because attacks arrive at a distant point in the future. I've never personally heard the dark forest scenario as requiring ftl tech, making that a requirement seems to make the entire premise moot as it requires throwing a pretty fundamental part of physics out to even contemplate.
FTL is the only thing that makes it applicable to game theory. If there is no import to respond instantly, then there is no imperative to respond.
The query is dependent on the hypothetical that the instant someone spots you in the dark Forrest they have an option of removing you from the game unless you remove them first.
So does going to war with an alien race, or even finding another sentient race? How are you supposing these aliens are finding every sentient race in the galaxy if they can't push a search signal faster than an electron? It would take thousands of years for a signal to travel to the closest potential suitable planet, let alone every suitable planet.
The theory itself requires a suspense in disbelief, as do any that pertain to encounters of the third kind. I would say that the limitations in physics that prevent the possibility of FTL are of the same order and magnitude that prevent us from contacting aliens.
Not at all, there is nothing physically impossible about someone engaging on projects that take centuries or millennia to complete, it just requires a lot of patience and effort. Finding or even attacking an alien species does not fundamentally require anything disallowed by physics, it just requires a long timescale to do slower than light. My assumption was just that any hostile aliens would simply conduct those hostilities over very long periods of time. Having interstellar travel at all, assuming no ftl, sort of implies a willingness to undergo these kinds of long term efforts anyway, and it doesn't seem absurd to imagine that anyone with the technology to have those kinds of energies at their disposal might also have very advanced medical technology, such that they might live a very long time, which could lend itself to more long term thinking.
It's thankfully based on pretty bad game theory. The reality of it is that there end up being more negative consequences to attacking other civilizations than either staying isolated or being friendly, and the proposition is riddled with antropocentric concepts to begin with. Sure, in smaller time scales it might be that alien civilizations would attack each other, but over longer times they would tend to form alliances.
Even your conclusion is anthropocentric.
There's just too many guesses to dark forest.
Nah the dark forest doesn't really work, If turning on a light (so to speak) makes you a target then a muzzle flash is even worse. It takes a lot of energy to kill a planet however you do it and thats going to tell everyone where the shooter is.
And no you can't use an asteroid because all the matter in the universe couldn't make a computer powerful enough to make it hit over a reasonable distance and getting to our solar system to use one of the ones here is just as energetic as firing a projectile.
This one is pretty scary. Especially since it makes so much sense.
Vacuum decay, or vacuum metastability event is the possibility in simple terms that the universe itself is not in in its ground state. If that's true, it might spontaneously change to its real ground state. Doing so will change fundamental things like the strength of electromagnetism, the weight of particles and so on. It would literally destroy everything in the universe, and we couldn't exist in what's coming after.
Good news, we're confident, that's probably not going to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
Would that be an instantaneous thing?
As far as we're concerned, yes. It literally would travel at the speed of light. But since the light from the momentarily-ago-normal universe would be traveling just ahead of it... Everything would look normal until it collapsed
The German Duck People made a video about it:
https://youtu.be/ijFm6DxNVyI
"German Duck People" is hilarious. Either the name of a cult or a band.
Or maybe Kurtzgesagt.
That narrator is so calming when he talks about ways we can all spontaneously die off.
Teletransportation is just killing and recreation of a new being.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox
The same argument could be made for each time you go to sleep. That the 'you' that's conscious ends to never exist again and the one that wakes up has all the same memories and body but is no longer the same stream of consciousness that went to sleep, not even knowing it's only minutes old and destined to die within hours.
'You' could have effectively lived and died thousands of times in your life and not even be aware of it.
You cannot step into the same river twice - Heraclitus, ~550 BC
We are all a series of continuous evolution, alteration and change. "I" am not the same person who began this sentence. The idea that "I" cease to exist overnight and begin anew in the morning is meaningless. There is no one version of me. I live - and to live is to change!
The Consciousness of Theseus.
I mean we're slowly replacing every cell in our body like the ship of Theseus
So what makes me... me?
Your memories?
Personally, I'd say nothing. Or, at least, whatever you say makes you, you. I don't think there's an objective/natural definition for who I am and what is and isn't a part of me. The idea of "me" is kinda made-up, so there's probably no right or wrong answer as to what exactly I label as "me."
I'm probably just saying nonsense, but this is the most coherent answer I got lol
That's a question no one has yet been able to answer definitively though both neuroscientists and philosophers are trying.
I'm of the opinion that "I" am a pattern, encoded in the physical interactions of my brain and body. I'm not certain if I have free will or just like to think I do. But I do believe that whatever makes me "me" is fully contained within the dimensions of my physical being.
Your DNA? 🤷
Your memories and your mental image of yourself.
Or like Dr. Jan Itor's broom.
The way out of the riddle is that there never was a ship of Theseus to begin with or a you those are just referents like pointers used to refer to an evolving system with a known state at a known starting point and probabilistic predictions of a future state based on known factors.
Oh, wow! It was the ST:TNG episode Second Chances (linked in that article) that got me into thinking about it, and it's really trippy to read that somebody else came up exactly the same thought experiment with a human-replicator, too, and came to the same conclusion that I did: Both the original and the duplicate would have exactly the same memories of entering the replicator, so both would have the same continuous experience of the subjective "I". But if only one existed before replication, where did the second consciousness come from?
After I heard the Radiolab episode, "Loops,", I realized that the only way to resolve the paradox is to figure that our consciousness is re-created more-or-less continuously from our memories. That episode covered the case of a woman who experienced Transient Global Amnesia, which sent her into a loop of about 90 seconds of essentially the same conversation over and over, for hours. There's a famous video of it. That fits with the evidence, from neuroscience, that our consciousness drops out briefly every minute or so while our brains attend to sensory input from the environment.
The COVID-19 pandemic really brought this home to me in a visceral way. In the early weeks, when the CDC was warning about surface contamination, and how I should not touch the mask I had to wear at work under any circumstance, my nose would invariably start to itch. I would tough it out, exercise will power not to scratch the itch, and it would eventually go away. Soon, I realized that I never once got to feel the moment of relief when the itch faded. Always, I would simply notice that it had been gone for some unknown amount of time. It went away with one of those consciousness resets.
So, yeah, like the other folks say, we don't have a continuous conscious experience. The old "I" passes away within seconds, to be replaced by a new "I" with my memories, in a never-ending process of renewal. Think about that next time you walk into another room and forget why you're there.
Only in a single version of how teleportation could work.
If the result is the same person, then nobody died, so no killing.
I recommend you play Soma.
What is Soma?
I can’t find the specific article, but it was basically arguing that prions are an unavoidable existential crisis that will eventually kill everything on the planet. The basis was the fact that they are virtually indestructible, can lie latent in our environment indefinitely and basically just always make more of themselves.
Mind you, the time frame for this particular apocalypse would be pretty big. It was still an eerie thought though, just like this inexorable accumulation of alien/bizarro world proteins that would eventually kill/convert everything. I guess it’s kinda like the grey goo planet theory.
Anyway, we’ll almost certainly kill ourselves via climate change or massive war first, so no need to worry too much about prions.
@Hotspur hey cool you and I just posted about prions at the same time!
Oh and I guess, potentially, the post about Micheal j fox could also be about prions, since it’s suggesting his Parkinson’s is the result of accidental ingestion of human remains (probably brain matter, like the how the kuru disease was spread). So maybe we’re up to 3 posts for prions!
Yikes I'm glad I don't believe in argumentum ad popularum or at this point it would be prion apocalypse confirmed!
Haha I just saw that—excellent. Prions definitely belong to the creepy/weird category of potential threats.
https://www.space.com/universe-end-false-vacuum-decay
If it helps any you wouldn’t see it coming and wouldn’t really feel anything. It would just happen.
Alternatively
https://web.archive.org/web/20080725045740/http://www.solarisbooks.com/books/newbookscifi/last-contact.asp
Great short story, thank you for posting it
It totally doesn't. Also you need to send your friend back to Nalthis.
Yes, sword nimi
Like my ex
That the government adds a "cause a car accident remotely" option to vehicles so that offending individuals traveling by car may die by the government remotely tweaking the car.
On Teslas that's a subscription feature
While it might be possible to remotely control a production car, cars now are safe enough that you'd need to have a lot of systems fail in order to ensure that an accident would be fatal. Things like, all the crumple zones not working as intended, airbags not going off, seat belts not locking properly, all at once. Or you could, I dunno, design the car so that the doors were only controlled electronically, and then ensure that if there was a fire or the car was submerged, the electronics failed (e.g., Teslas).
Doors not opening in a fire should end the company that made them. Not sure how this company still exists.
Too high level, it's way cheaper to just hire a dude to cause an accident with a big vehicle like a truck, no passenger car can survive.
Yeah, guaranteeing a crash fatal is pretty hard. But doing anything weird to a car while it's traveling 70 on a highway with traffic has a pretty good chance of killing occupants. If you could make the brakes on just one wheel lock suddenly, you'd have quite a hairy situation.
I hit <> on my motorcycle in a hard corner at 55+mph, maybe three years ago? Someone I was riding with said it might have been a turtle. :'(
Somehow I managed to not go down, and that should have been a perfect recipe for a slide into oncoming traffic.
I'm just saying that if you really want to kill someone, you'd want something a lot more certain than a remote-controlled accident.
Well, you could always try twice...
Coming from experience, I would think a car being submerged sounds like the least convenient time for it to stop working.
It certainly is.
I guess you can always count on Elon Musk to take trial and error too literally. Fortunately in my case no Teslas had been involved.
This is definitely possible, since you can actually controll cars (at least some models) via a (non-public, but the capability is there) API. Two security researchers at defcon were able to find a way how to control a vehicle remotely, even including things like stopping or turning, and eventually made an exploit that could be used remotely to any car of the same model. So, if they wanted to, they were able to stop or turn the wheel of IIRC hundreds of thousands of cars around the world instantly, since the cars are connected to the network through GSM, so you don't even need to be anywhere near them.
It's been a few years since I saw the video, but IIRC the vehicle controls are on a separate board that should not be reachable from the other smart vehicle system. However, they were able to reverse engineer a way how to abuse framework update mechanism as a bridge, and use it to patch the framework to get it under their control. And then they discovered that they could actually trigger the update remotely.
Dark forest
The dark forest is a scary idea for sure.
The saving grace though is that it doesn't actually make any sense and can't really be true. The pure game theory of it all doesn't really work out. And on top of that, launching an attack on another star system is just an economically fraught endeavor. Given the technology required to accomplish it, it would be far simpler to build an immense Civilization in whatever star system you're in, there's no reason for conquest it's just too expensive.
Honestly, simulation theories are probably scarier because they're harder to disprove, in fact they tend to get stronger the more data we gather. And they're scary because should they be accurate, someone could decide to pull the plug on the simulation at any time....
Yeah but then Kurzgesagt theorizes a lightspeed bomb and you're like... But it wasn't scary :-(
Quantum immortality
Roko's Basilisk. But here's the thing, once you're aware of it, you're fucked. The only solution is to not research it, don't know anything about it. Live in blissful ignorance.
In other news... I lost the game.
What about if you read about it and didn't understand it?
Oh, see, that's the thing, it's simple enough to understand, you just don't want to ubderstand it. :)
You have to believe that a malevolent AI will give enough of a damn about you to bother simulating anything at all, let alone infinite torture, which is useless for it to do once it already exists. Everyone on LessWrong has a well-fed ego so I get why they were in a tizzy for a while.
I don't really see how the thought experiment differs from Christianity...
Well one punishes you if you deny it's existence, the other punishes you if you fail to assist in it's development. So it's a LITTLE different. :)
Fortunately, for me personally, I helped fund a key researcher who could, in theory, be a major contributor to such a thing. So I have plausible deniability. ;) And I've been promised a 15 minute head start before he turns it on.
Guess it depends on the denomination but mine had mandatory missions :P
Did someone checked? I need a second opinion to not research it
Silly thought experiment, the result of which, in gullible people could make them potential victims of psychosomatic symptoms like headaches and insomnia.
The good news for me is I'm set. I did my part. :)
It's essentially a thought experiment, without getting too specific it goes along the lines of "what if there was a hypothetical bad scenario that gets triggered by you knowing about it", so if you look it up now you're doomed.
Kinda like the game
roko's basilisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk
🙄
I love this concept. A purely memetic threat. An idea that could destroy you merely by knowing it...
(If a specific set of improbabilities are true)
You have doomed us all!
Praised be the basilisk!
I hope the basilisk accepts that lying around watching TV is a requirement for me to contribute to its existence. After all, fleshy meat bags need rest time to be able to work!
I like that the way to beat it is to go, Hmm... and move on.
Quantum immortality
Having survived a few suicide attempts I've been convinced this is how it actually is. I have no interest in any further attempts because I know I'll just end up waking up full of regret and possibly maimed.
Pretty compelling case against suicide tbh, unusual as it may be.
I read a short story about this, and can't remember the name but I remember how hollow it made me feel.
Damn now I wanna read it, any more ideas on finding the story?
https://reactormag.com/divided-by-infinity/
I don't feel like this is exactly right but it's hitting some of the same notes. Divided by Infinity by Robert Charles Wilson
In contrast, dying but finding that an infinite universe will almost certainly build your atoms back up again in the same configuration in an endless cycle without you knowing.. might be more plausible and therefore even scarier to me.
We’re all gonna die!
Edit: not a theory, I guess. My bad!
If I don't survive, tell my family hello.
Over half the people who have ever lived have yet to die. I’ll file this one under “possible, but unproven”
Of all the people who’ve ever lived, way more than half have died. Human existance, for the sake of measuring when “modern humans” (as we know us) began existing is about 190,000 BCE. Measured from then, about 109 billion humans have lived and died since then.
Considering about 8 billion are alive on the planet today… yeah, way more than half have died.
Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/how-many-humans-have-ever-lived/
Damn. I should have fact checked myself before repeating something I heard. Now I’m slightly more likely to die.
Not really— you’re only now aware of your true likelihood of dying due to new information. The likelihood itself has not changed.
Sobering, isn’t it?
I recommend weed. Perhaps a snort of bourbon. Maybe both.
Meh. Still not going to die. Death is a bunch of rubbish. I plan to take no part in it.
So, we'll meet here in, say, one hundred years from now?
It's a fact tied in to exponential growth, during one doubling period, as much of whatever you're tracking gets used as the entire history since that exponential growth started. That last bit is the key, human population is an exponential growth thing, but it hasn't been uninterrupted or by a constant factor. There's a long time when we were hunter/gatherers with a stable population and even in more modern ages, epidemics have reduced populations significantly.
he's a witch! he knows the future!
If I don’t die, at least I’ll be pleasantly surprised
This can only be proved by killing everyone.
Someone figured it out how to make, farm and mass produce the Higgs boson, creating microscopic particles that can generate infinite electricity with simple mechanical systems thanks to their high gravity and then humanity starts develop insane tech powered by gravity waves, traveling faster than speed of light becomes possible by switching gravity on and off. Then obviously some company or government make too much of it and collapses into a microscopic blackhole that instantly falls into the center of the earth quickly eating the planet inside out.
That's how the Earth got destroyed in "The Forge of God." :)
::: spoiler Plot (spoils about 50% of the book) A hostile alien probe discovers Earth, builds/grows three wildly different alien races, has them crash one each in the world's three largest superpowers (one claiming to bring knowledge, one warning of an impending attack, one claiming to seek conquest), while robot ships plant explosives along the Mariana trench, but the primary attack is two singularities, circling earth in a decaying orbit, by the time anyone even begins to theorize about the cause of the anomalous gravity measurements across the world, both are already circling deep under Earth's crust. :::
"The cosmos is not infinite, has a beginning and an end"
The fact that everyone around me seems to be persuaded that there is a beginning in time is unnerving to me. In my head, cosmos has always been infinite, and will always be infinite. Even if nothing is there, it will still exist.
The idea that anything before the big bang is considered to not exist has so many things wrong with it that I struggle to internalize it. If matter cannot be made or destroyed, that means that there will always be matter in one form or another.
As far as I understand it, time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, so by definition nothing existed before time. I don't really know how that works out either, I just go with what the fancy science people say
Think of "before the big bang" like "South of the South Pole." It just isn't a thing, you're at the furthest point and it doesn't go further.
And I don't think there is a true "end" to the universe, as we understand it currently there's just an expansion forever and at some point all the individual particles rip apart and spread out and nothing could possibly survive in such a situation so it counts as an "end" for all intents and purposes for us, but time itself is infinite.
IIRC the math actually can check out for an always-existing universe (instead of a big bang) but it doesn't really make sense because you still then have to explain the giant sudden expansion.
I feel like I could talk about this for years, but I got video games to play. The short answer is I don't feel like I have to know what caused the matter to all be at the same place and then expand to be satisfied with an infinite universe of finite matter. I wish my brain could understand how time as we know it started with the big Bang, but I think I'm slightly too dumb for that.
If nothing is there then how can you say something exists?
Because the universe is expanding. If it were finite it wouldn't be able to expand. Emptiness is still "something". If we were "at the edge of the universe", we could still go further from the center, there would just be nothing for as far as we can perceive, maybe even infinitely, but then, we would be there. That makes it "a place".
If it's nothing, how can it be something?
It's potential. Matter can go there. Saying there is an end to the universe means that at some point, there is no possible expansion. It also means we are completely ignoring the tiniest infinitly small chance that our big bang wasn't the only one. If you zoom out far enough, is there really zero chance that this "known universe" is actually just part of a greater whole?
imagining the universe as a contained thing with hard limits is what gives me the creep