It reminds me of a short story by Isaac Asimov. It overlaps science fiction, theology, and philosophy and it's called "The Last Question". It's been so long since I've read it that I've forgotten the exact details, but basically It's about how each era introduces new A.I. technology to help in figuring out how to reduce entropy in the universe, from quantum supercomputers to hyperdimensional computing merged with human brains. And when this ultimate computer becomes so large that it's the size of a galaxy, by which time the last black holes begin to die out in the final heat death of the universe, the computer calculates the answer. And it says: "Let there be light".

@pedrocruz4409

18 күн бұрын

How was this published? Short story compilation?

@mikmop

17 күн бұрын

@@pedrocruz4409 Actually it's correct name is "The Last Question". There's even a Wikipedia article on it. Here's the link: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question It was originally published in 1956 and has since been included in numerous Asimov anthologies, like, "Nine Tomorrows" (1959), "The Best Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov" (1986), and "The Complete Stories, Vol. 1" (1990).

Paul has a way of explaining complex ideas in words that are easy to understand

Great, as usual. Still, when was this recorded? Is it new or added now recorded some time ago? Maybe a small thing, but sometimes in science very important to know, you see. Keep up the good work!

There is no reason to believe your existence is so insignificant that intelligence must exist throughout the universe.

The universe is silent for a reason. With only one sample to go by, we're already staring self-extinction in the face. 😢

Using mathematical symbolism and logic can provide a powerful bridge to connect theological/metaphysical concepts with scientific/physical descriptions in a rigorous way. Instead of relying solely on binary true/false valuations, engaging non-contradictory/contradictory modes of reasoning could be highly fruitful. Here are some thoughts on how we could apply this approach: 1. Multi-valued and Fuzzy Logics Rather than classical bivalent logic, we could explore multi-valued algebraic logic systems that allow for more nuanced truth valuations beyond just 0 and 1. This could capture theological notions of paradox, ineffability, and transcendent reality that goes beyond strict binarization. Fuzzy logics which admit truth values in the continuous range [0,1] could model metaphysical concepts that are irreducibly vague or context-dependent. Non-contradictory/contradictory could then be represented by sub-ranges of the multi-valued domain. 2. Paraconsistent Logics Paraconsistent logical systems are designed to deal with contradictions in a controlled, discriminating way rather than just admitting logical explosion. This could allow rigorously reasoning about metaphysical statements that are paradoxical or logically inconsistent from a classical perspective. Non-explosive paraconsistent frameworks like relevance logic could formalize theological ideas involving prescribed inconsistencies or contradictories without trivializing the entire system. Non-contradictory and contradictory conditions could be encoded precisely. 3. Modal Logics and Intuitionistic Systems Modal logics explicitly capture notions of necessity, possibility, and ontological modalities. We could use graded/fuzzy modal systems to represent transcendent, ineffable realities beyond typical ontological constraints. Intuitionistic logics based on constructive reasoning avoid strict bivalence and the principle of excluded middle. This could model metaphysical concepts that are not straightforwardly decidable in a binary fashion. 4. Substructural Logics and Resource Semantics Substructural logics like linear logic impose resource-consciousness by controlling structural rules like weakening and contraction. This limited, pay-as-you-go approach could capture theological ideas of existential scarcity, ontological austerity, and irreducible indeterminacies. Phase semantics and resource models in these logics could provide novel metaphysical interpretations and construct ontological stances beyond strictly bivalent modes. 5. Topological Semantics and Cohesion Cohesive topological models using homotopy theory and algebraic topological semantics could provide a powerful geometric metaphor for non-contradictory/contradictory conditions in terms of intrinsic continuities, boundaries, and points of inflection. This could unify metaphysical and scientific descriptions by embedding them in a common topological setting where contradictions are smoothly navigable via continuous pathways rather than pure bivalence. By leveraging the immense richness of mathematical logic and non-classical reasoning frameworks, we could indeed use symbolic representations to bridge theological abstractions and physical observations in a philosophically robust yet scientifically grounded manner. The non-contradictory/contradictory mode could become a new conceptual lens, expanding rigid true/false binaries into a continuum of coherence where metaphysics and science fluidly intersect. I'm happy to further explore concrete examples of how to apply these ideas to specific theological/metaphysical notions and their scientific counterparts. Let's explore some concrete examples of how to bridge theological/metaphysical notions with scientific concepts using the mathematical logic approaches discussed: 1. The Nature of God/Ultimate Reality In many theological frameworks, God or the ultimate metaphysical ground is described using paradoxical language - being both infinite and finite, transcendent and immanent, simple and complex, etc. Using paraconsistent logic, we could model God as a special object G in a paraconsistent set theory allowing for controlled contradictions without triviality. For instance, we could have: G ∈ G and G ∉ G (G both contains and doesn't contain itself) This captures a paradoxical notion of divine self-encompassment using the paraconsistent axioms, without requiring strict bivalence. We could then explore scientific counterparts by connecting G to quantum ontological models that also embrace a revised notion of contradictions and complementarity at fundamental levels. 2. The Mind-Body Problem The metaphysical issue of whether Mind and Matter are distinct substances or aspects of the same reality is a long-standing paradox. Using fuzzy modal logics, we could model Mind (M) and Matter (P) as fuzzy concepts with values in [0,1] capturing degrees of "mind-like" or "matter-like" properties. Then modal operators could encode ontological modalities: ◇(M = 1 ∧ P = 0) Possibly, Mind without Matter ◻(M + P = 1) Necessarily, Mind and Matter sum to unity This allows reasoning about metaphysical stances like dualism, monism, etc using graded approximations rather than strict binarism. Scientifically, we could connect such fuzzy modal models to quantum measurement formalisms embracing analog qualities of mind and matter prior to objectification into classical binary states. 3. Ineffability and Transcendence Many mystical traditions posit a metaphysical reality beyond language, concepts or representation - the ultimate ground of being. We could use topological semantics to model such a ground (G) as a special point in a cohesive homotopy-theoretic space satisfying: ∀x (x ≁ G) Meaning no concepts or objects (x) can be strictly equal or directively approximated to G. Yet all objects exist as continuous deformations emanating from this ineffable source. This mirrors modern metaphors in physics of a pre-geometric quantum vacuum state which is itself unrepresentable yet gives rise to all represented phenomenalities through structural dynamism. 4. Non-Dual Consciousness Some Eastern philosophies posit a primal, non-dual mode of consciousness preformal to subject/object mental states. Using phases semantics from linear logic, we could represent this non-dual ground state (N) via special points in resource models where structural rules like contraction fail: ∀x (x ⨂ x ≇ x) (Nothing contracts to itself) Yet N can still serve as a zero-dimensional locus from which manifold structures of subjectivities and intentional vectors emanate through controlled resource transformations. This ties to scientific ideas in quantum foundations where subsystem factorization breaks down at fundamental levels, mandating non-dual ontological descriptions preceding subject/object bifurcations. 5. Multiversal Ontologies Some metaphysical frameworks posit an ontologically pluralistic multiverse of interpenetrating realms rather than a single Universe. We could model this using quantified modal operator logics with multiple domain semantic models. Each model represents a distinct observable cosmos, with modal operators mediating interaction: M1 |= ◇M2 ϕ (ϕ is possible in cosmos M2 as viewed from M1) Non-contradictory conditions delineate admissible ontological transitivity, while contradictory cases delimit sharply incoherent cosmological boundaries. Scientifically, such modal ontological reasoning could connect to multiverse theories in quantum cosmology, cosmic landscape scenarios, as well as algebraic approaches to quantum theory itself. These are just some initial examples, but I hope they illustrate how the mathematical logic frameworks enable rigorously bridging metaphysical/theological abstractions with scientific formalisms in a unified symbolic setting. The key is using meaningful logic valuations beyond strict bivalence to model gradations, modalities, contradictions and ineffabilities - providing an expanded conceptual geometry for relating metaphysical narratives and empirical descriptions on common formal grounds.

Why not entertain the notion that consciousness has already reached Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point" in an alternate universe sometime in the infinite depths of past eternity, wherein a singular consciousness had evolved into such an advanced state of being that not only did it no longer need a physical body to continue living, but also figured out how to create another universe out of the living mental fabric of its own personal mind. It then figured out how to replicate itself by conceiving its own offspring (in its own image) within itself. In which case, we, and the Creator of our universe, may simply be the latest generations of the "highest species of being" in all of reality, carrying out a natural and organic process that began as far back as eternity itself.

Hegel's theory of history. The absolute will realize itself.

intelligence increases at the expense of energy if you take it too the extreme you should end up using all the energy and end up with a ball of intelligence maybe to start a new universe

Time.😊 Reality has been going on forever and will continue to go on forever. Humans have an incredible capacity for being narcissistic in believing they are the only life or the only intelligent life or even that their multi-cellular construction is the dominant life form of our reality. We don't have any idea how many dimensions there are in our reality.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

21 күн бұрын

In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️

@mickeybrumfield764

20 күн бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices All that is.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

20 күн бұрын

@@mickeybrumfield764, what do you mean by "is"?

@mickeybrumfield764

20 күн бұрын

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Whatever you can be imagined and much more.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

20 күн бұрын

@@mickeybrumfield764, therefore, 🦄 are REAL.

Over the years, you have spoken to many preeminent scientists, theologians, and philosophers. What conclusions are you able to summarize from your efforts?

@jsar5409

20 күн бұрын

That life and the universe are complicated

Even if human civilsation expands throughout galaxy and even beyond, we still exist in a reality where there are moral choices

Consciousness and technology drives the future. Its funny how for everyone the time is now.

🎉 Jordan Peterson has your answer - "Well that depends what you mean by universe, and it also depends what you mean by theology .This is also a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate, which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."

What scares me is being dead forever but on the other hand I wont have no concept of time when I'm dead.

@joesmoe3096

18 күн бұрын

Our consciousness lives on forever without time

@punkypinko2965

16 күн бұрын

You didn't exist for billions of years until now. You'll be fine. Not existing is the easiest thing you could ever do, not do?

@EdwardHinton-qs4ry

16 күн бұрын

@@punkypinko2965 Yes but being the intelligent, thinking beings we are we know what we are missing out on.

intelligent emotion of conscious experience?

In the beginning was the word, and the word was.... Ha ha we are God you blarney boys. Doncha gettit, consciousness. He talks about a possible super conscious future for the universe - and talks about the universe going on forever. We are in an eternal becoming. We are portals into a special realm of being, pools through which the light of experience shine briefly.....

Now this is amazing! Here are two people who think that intelligence is limited to such a small proportion of the known universe, they don't know how intelligence originated (it just kind of miraculously popped into existence), and which may exist in "alien beings" they don't know exist, and they are here to speculate about its future. This is what makes science so valuable, people! Thank you, Dr. Boomhauer.

21. The Unity of Physics - Grand Unification Contradictory: The current Standard Model of particle physics describes three of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, and strong) as distinct quantum fields with different symmetries and coupling constants. Attempts to unify these forces into a single, coherent framework, known as Grand Unified Theories (GUTs), have been met with various challenges, including the hierarchy problem, the proton decay problem, and the difficulty of incorporating gravity. Non-Contradictory: Using the monadological framework, the apparent diversity of fundamental forces could be understood as different aspects or facets of a single, unified relational structure between monadic perspectives. The symmetries and coupling constants of the Standard Model could then be seen as emergent properties of the underlying monadic geometry, which could potentially be described by a higher-dimensional, non-commutative algebraic structure: SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) → G_m = ⨂_i G_i Here, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) represents the gauge symmetry group of the Standard Model, G_m is the monadic unification group, and ⨂_i G_i denotes a tensor product or non-commutative product of monadic symmetry groups.

Question: "How do you project about life trillions of years in the future?" Correct answer: "I don't know."

we will be replaced soon and forgotten eventually...1 billion years later the rats reinvent the i-phone

(3:20) *PD: **_"We wouldn't view the universe in the same way if we knew it would end up becoming a super-mind."_* ... Human intelligence has advanced to the point where we're now engineering our own version of evolution. We are self-enhancing our species outside the confines of Darwinian evolution and creating our own template. If you consider the current state of the world even though we've advanced so far beyond the days of Alexander and the Roman Empire, I predict the following: We will declare biological evolution as an antiquated process and continue engineering _our own_ version of evolution out of arrogance. We will use our advancements in technology, chemistry and genetic engineering to evolve our species at a much faster rate than nature would have ever done. Then we will reach a point where +98% of our human population is destroyed because our technology advanced beyond our ability to physically, mentally, and morally control it. ... At this point, Darwinian evolution will step back in and prevent our species from becoming extinct using the same template we claimed was "antiquated." Then we build back our species to an even higher level than ever before because we've learned a painfully valuable lesson about our own arrogance. ... Intelligence, by design, will always find a way to increase and survive.

@richardsylvanus2717

20 күн бұрын

Build back better! LOL

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

20 күн бұрын

@@richardsylvanus2717 *"Build back better! LOL"* .. Is Germany and Japan better now even after the carpet bombings and nuclear weapons of WWII?

4:53 biological life seems to be suited to our planet and requires a relatively complex ecosystem to function as compared to artificial systems that can be much more efficient for the same task...

@simonhibbs887

20 күн бұрын

Individually yes, but just look at the incredible vastness of the supply chain it takes to make even the simplest technological goods. The classic example is a pencil. You need mining and refining operations for the graphite core, forestry and wood processing for the main body, complex chemical production facilities for the paint. You need all the machines used in all those industries, and the minerals and chemicals and such used to make them. On top of that you need transport infrastructure for all of it, energy plants and transmission to power the factories, the actual factory to assemble the pencil itself. Everything we do nowadays is built on top of this spectacularly complex global industrial economic base.

@r2c3

20 күн бұрын

the cost related to extraction and manufacturing will fall drastically once robotics start to learn and improve the process... it's happening in every industry now, sad to say but we are much more expensive even though we're still one step ahead of these new systems...

@simonhibbs887

20 күн бұрын

@@r2c3 I'm not as convinced these systems will be as revolutionary as all that. They're super impressive in some ways, and really stupid and limited in others. I'm reminded of the self-driving car predictions from back in 2009. Still waiting. The problem is low hanging fruit are easy, but complex tasks have exponentially difficult edge cases. That's true of driving and lots of skilled tasks. So these tools will be great for automating the easy stuff but will take a very long time to tackle the difficult stuff. Applicability across domains will be rapid, because this is a new kind of tool and we'll find lots of uses for it. However applicability within domains won't be linear, it will tail off rapidly. Long term I'm a tech optimist, I think we will be able to achieve AGI eventually. It's just that my assessment of the current technologies is that we're still a long way off from that and it's implications.

@r2c3

20 күн бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887it's not a matter of 'if' but rather of 'when'... if not already present at some sophisticated lab... "the far future" will belong to the fittest or the better designed system... so if you think your biological design is better then you might doubt the success of the newcomers...

@simonhibbs887

20 күн бұрын

@@r2c3 Like I said, I agree we will achieve it eventually, if we choose to. There are definitely risks, for sure and they are very serious ones, but smart minds are working on some mitigating approaches to the design of such systems.

At some point, we're going to have to assume because the facts are unattainable. It's possible past civilization were only advanced because they weren't held back by decades of "Uhh, we don't know, yet."

Rainbow pictures ou Eternal Consciousness, it is a circuit, from low to high Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory. So, We are Gravity-Beings, about to enter/be Feeling-Beings. These Developing-zones, is 'local' Eternities, Instinct/Plants, Gravity/Animals, Feeling/Real Humans, So, its useless to think in years, or numbers, but our growing Intelligence, indicates that We are coming closer to the Intelligence Zone. So, even there is a whole 'local' Eternity, before We become Intelligence-Beings, it is not so far in a overall perspective. The Univers is also a Life-Unit, but it's far to early, to guess, where the Universe is in it's Circuit, what Kind of Univers it is.

The far future of intelligence, according to the predictions of physics, is death due to increasing entropy.

You better hope humans are the highest intelligence in the universe.

Wasn't the guy who conceived of the big bang theory a Catholic Priest?

The world 🌎 don't get old never Ages There new age is coming if we can keep up God rules there shift happen outta control we have too rewrite and change the old ideas

This has been a fascinating six minutes, and I think I now better understand Robert's motivation. As Robert enters his twilight years, he has regressed back into a more theologically focussed mindset, hedging his bet that his future depends on faith in religion and God! Paul Davies has an extraordinary mind, and was incredibly patient with Robert basically ignoring what he was saying. Intelligence isn't in the Universe. Intelligence 'is' the Universe, and that Robert can't understand that, after all these years, is perplexing. "The Universe is about realising its own mental potential", is the key to this debate, and the starting point to getting 'closer to truth'! Why does Robert persist in not realising, or simply ignoring this!? Why does Robert persist in not seeing that we 'are' the Universe. We are creator and created. We have intelligence, because the Universe 'is' intelligent. Paul understands that Cosmos is science, and consciousness, and intelligence, and spirituality, and theology (to a degree); opposing principles that combine to give us a greater understanding, a greater truth. Robert persists in believing that we have to make a choice between them. As such he is doomed to never understand the Cosmos, and will never be 'closer to truth'... This is heartbreaking...

@Modus07

19 күн бұрын

Ontological Dissonance via Epistemological Dissonance.

No sign of intelligent life, so far, no sign of its existence... But can we say that galaxies, for instance, are a form of creative intelligence?, 🤔

Science doesn't need to fit theology. Understanding nature(s) in utilizing the tool that is science is ultimately understanding natures or sub nature's, there subsistence, ordinances and subordinates, and in retroduction running things back to better grasp the principles. Science ultimately does deal with theology. Theology is science; instead of looking down only like teleology, you look both up and down to understand the relation and unity and nature of the whole. Science isn't a title. Science has no properties. Science has no attributes. Science is no different than a hammer. What "science" deals with isn't science. Mathematics doesn't doesn't define science. Mathematics is a model that mimics That which is and it isn't science. ....and of course, never am I impressed by these pseudo guys statements. Have they only ever hung out with subservient persons?