Almost everyone is the hero of their story. If they think something it’s because it’s right and smart and if someone disagrees it’s because they’re bad and dumb regardless of the actual truth.

You’re welcome to your opinions. I mean yeah it’s definitely an idea and from a scientific mindset we can use it to make predictions and see if those predictions are accurate to see if the idea is accurately modeling reality or not. The amount of novel events seems doable to define and attempt a measurement so at least as a hypothesis I wouldn’t say it’s utterly unscientific.

Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that’s my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You’re right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there’s still starvation. It’s moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it’s not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You’re right that climate change is an issue and by this point we’re far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.

True, it’s a lot of assumptions either way one chooses. I just like the idea that everything that can be, is.

Like I said you’re free to say whatever you want. There’s no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don’t agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that’s also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that’s with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I’m not claiming that’s what an AI is but it can be used as such, it’s functionally identical if one sets it up that way.

I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn’t the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that’s not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I’m not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you’re free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I’m from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it’s essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.

A clandestine group using a model to aid in developing a nasty disease seems like the most likely uh oh scenario right now. Either that or an accidental scenario where AI was used somewhere it shouldn’t have been.

You don’t need a deity to get decent instructions on how to make a pretty nasty disease in a clandestine home lab.

The horrors like a bagel without cream cheese?

Reality as far as we know has a limited resolution aka the plank scale. It kinda makes sense. If an object like an atom required infinite information to encode it would collapse into a black hole.

I’m not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It’s like the Gattaca example, I’m not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.

Nothing? I’m not sure that’s true. If the universe is infinite and homogeneous then that would infer all finite permutations of energy occur, not once but infinitely many times. As for actually proving the universe is infinite? It’s not possible. We can only infer with measurements and physics which make accurate predictions we can measure. I mean not unless there’s like some cool way to traverse truly unheard of distances. Like if you could move 10^100 light years in a direction and it’s still the same even that wouldn’t prove it’s infinite but would really lend itself to the idea that it is.

I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.

Current astrophysical data shows that the large-scale spatial geometry of our universe is flat, meaning parallel lines remain parallel and triangles add up to 180°. However, flatness does not strictly prove the universe is infinite; a flat, simply connected universe is mathematically infinite, but a flat, multiply connected universe (like a cylinder or a hyper-torus) could be finite.Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background have measured this geometry with incredible precision, though slight margins for error still allow for the possibility that the universe curves on scales far larger than what we can observe.Whether the universe is finite or infinite remains an unresolved question in physics, though scientists generally use an infinite, flat model for standard cosmological calculations because it is mathematically simpler.

How much cancer will it give me? Still cool though

Reality isn’t continuous, at least as far as we are aware. Past the plank scale at least our models don’t work. Infinite information to encode everything seems like it would all just collapse into a black hole immediately so having some limit somewhere makes sense at least in that way.

It’s not always a crime necessarily but harming people to get what one wants is usually a crime. As for constraining human behavior there’s really only two tools, benefit the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don’t want. People will obviously be self interested and will sometimes cause a lot of harm to get what they want but they wouldn’t if they knew for a fact they would be caught and punished. It’s more so the likelihood of being caught than the punishment that’s actually the deterrent. You can have an extreme punishment for something but if it’s unlikely someone will be caught then they will take their chances. Downside is with a higher rate of catching bad behaviors we diminish privacy. An extreme would everyone being watched and recorded 24/7 would make it trivial to catch any bad behavior or crime but there would be zero privacy.

As for Gattaca,. I think it’s more so that they used it to differentiate society into two groups where one was treated very poorly more so than the gene editing itself being the issue. For sure we will cure genetic diseases and then move into grey area stuff like giving people perfect eyesight and so on. I think it’ll be far too tempering to make designer babies though, higher IQ, better looking (subjective), better physique, better health and so on. Of course anyone who’s ever bred animals knows you can breed them to constrain their behavior so one could theoretically alter humanity to be more compassionate and less of a jerk to itself.

Yup essentially. Although as far as physics is accurate and our measurements are accurate currently it seems to be the case that spacetime is actually flat and homogeneous aka it goes on and on in all directions and is equally full of shit. No way to prove that though, just infer from what we can measure using laws that accurately predict other shit we can measure.

Nope just one really big (infinitely large) universe. Eventually it starts looping. Like a small example, if I have 5 cups and 10 balls and I put all the balls into a cup eventually I get more than one ball in a cup because there’s more balls than cups. For any finite volume there’s a finite number of ways to arrange energy so with an infinite universe with infinite stuff it just starts looping eventually just like the balls in the cups situation.

In short you’re overthinking it. With Infinite space dust, you start making the same shit totally by accident eventually.

I’m a flat spacer, I think spacetime is flat, continuous, and homogeneous therefore ensuring any finite arrangement of energy is occurring infinite times in any direction you can point. Is there an atom for atom replica of the earth, it’s entire history, and me? Yup, infinitely many in any direction one can point, along with all other finite arrangements of energy.