…is no contest. The unprocessed physics of this world are crap in the extreme. An entire universe that doesn’t allow time travel, ensures ageing and decay, allows you a brief peep at the possibilities, then kills you. While separating points of interest by many light years.

Human imagination needs to take over the human realm, as has long been recognised. Unfortunately first by religion, which thought it could take the reins from reality simply by make-believe and lying.

But we’re now on the edge of a cognitive revolution which may have the power to grant human beings our own universe, subject only to laws that we devise for our own needs and desires. And the “raw physics” of the world seem to allow and even invite this kind of intervention.

Imagine being born into a world much more vivid and interactive than the “physical” realm that has always constrained us. A world in which you can choose your own worlds, from an infinite list, and your own degrees of sensitive interaction therewith, through many more senses than the few we now command.

And in these worlds you could effectively live and explore forever, with the hardware being protected by robots in the external realm, with enough copies of yourself and friends strewn amongst that realm to ensure protection from any kind of disaster.

Hoping this might be the human future, but it’s far too distant to benefit the likes of me, except in the warmth and inspiration of imagining it.

i’d assume exploration of other as you describe requires grounding in something, a home of sorts, otherwise things don’t make sense, or may stop making sense, motives for doing anything might be obliterated, or become impossible to understand

the constraints of the physical world we inhabit provide structure, in fact we are evolved structure, minds have structure originated of this physical world, even the potentials to imagine other possibilities are largely the product of that evolved structure

mortality I might add is no insignificant aspect of that structure, and contributes to what makes sense, how things are made sense of

transition said:

i’d assume exploration of other as you describe requires grounding in something, a home of sorts, otherwise things don’t make sense, or may stop making sense, motives for doing anything might be obliterated, or become impossible to understand

the constraints of the physical world we inhabit provide structure, in fact we are evolved structure, minds have structure originated of this physical world, even the potentials to imagine other possibilities are largely the product of that evolved structure

mortality I might add is no insignificant aspect of that structure, and contributes to what makes sense, how things are made sense of

What you say is true, and reinventing a universe for human needs and desires would first of all require a reinvention of human needs and desires.

Which will probably prove the most important challenge.

Bubblecar said:

…is no contest. The unprocessed physics of this world are crap in the extreme. An entire universe that doesn’t allow time travel, ensures ageing and decay, allows you a brief peep at the possibilities, then kills you. While separating points of interest by many light years.

Human imagination needs to take over the human realm, as has long been recognised. Unfortunately first by religion, which thought it could take the reins from reality simply by make-believe and lying.

But we’re now on the edge of a cognitive revolution which may have the power to grant human beings our own universe, subject only to laws that we devise for our own needs and desires. And the “raw physics” of the world seem to allow and even invite this kind of intervention.

Imagine being born into a world much more vivid and interactive than the “physical” realm that has always constrained us. A world in which you can choose your own worlds, from an infinite list, and your own degrees of sensitive interaction therewith, through many more senses than the few we now command.

And in these worlds you could effectively live and explore forever, with the hardware being protected by robots in the external realm, with enough copies of yourself and friends strewn amongst that realm to ensure protection from any kind of disaster.

Hoping this might be the human future, but it’s far too distant to benefit the likes of me, except in the warmth and inspiration of imagining it.

> Imagine being born into a world much more vivid and interactive than the “physical” realm that has always constrained us. A world in which you can choose your own worlds, from an infinite list, and your own degrees of sensitive interaction therewith, through many more senses than the few we now command.

I’m fine with the physics, it’s the biology I’d redefine.

As for human imagination, I can think of very many science fiction universes that I’d rather not live in.

For starters, world biology is limited by the fact that the entire coding for adult growth and survival has to fit within a single cell. Instead, let’s have each single organism assembled from thousands of different cells, each with a different genome. The scope for improvement would be mind-boggling.

I keep being stuck on the fact that dogs can’t use round doorknobs. Which always makes me wonder what we could do if we had better manipulative skills. A better range of senses, too. And a wider range of sex and travel options.

The real showstopper for me is human memory. If we could choose what to remember and what to forget. If our short term memory lasted longer than 18 seconds. If our short term memory could hold more than 7 items. If we didn’t suffer from long term memory filling up to capacity.

Human imagination is so limited. Mine in particular. I can only go one step beyond the real into the unreal. Better biology, better imagination.

Bubblecar said:

…is no contest. The unprocessed physics of this world are crap in the extreme. An entire universe that doesn’t allow time travel, ensures ageing and decay, allows you a brief peep at the possibilities, then kills you. While separating points of interest by many light years.

Human imagination needs to take over the human realm, as has long been recognised. Unfortunately first by religion, which thought it could take the reins from reality simply by make-believe and lying.

But we’re now on the edge of a cognitive revolution which may have the power to grant human beings our own universe, subject only to laws that we devise for our own needs and desires. And the “raw physics” of the world seem to allow and even invite this kind of intervention.

Imagine being born into a world much more vivid and interactive than the “physical” realm that has always constrained us. A world in which you can choose your own worlds, from an infinite list, and your own degrees of sensitive interaction therewith, through many more senses than the few we now command.

And in these worlds you could effectively live and explore forever, with the hardware being protected by robots in the external realm, with enough copies of yourself and friends strewn amongst that realm to ensure protection from any kind of disaster.

Hoping this might be the human future, but it’s far too distant to benefit the likes of me, except in the warmth and inspiration of imagining it.

Sounds horrible.

I’ll stick with the physical world we have, thanks all the same.

we don’t understand, if not for the physics, how do you propose to achieve a human that produces imagination

SCIENCE said:

we don’t understand, if not for the physics, how do you propose to achieve a human that produces imagination

Is this a reply to mollwollfumble or bubblecar?

As a question in biology, it’s quite interesting. Psychactive drugs is the easiest way, I’ve heard good reports about LSD. There’s the possibility of on organism having imagination but no brain. Or design a different type of cells to act as an imaginarium.

As a question in physics, I can envisage other systems of physics capable of producing a human being. The Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation certainly can. Nordström’s theory of gravitation probably can. Variable speed of light, no problem. Tweaks to the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Or Newton was right. Quantum mechanics with supersymmetry or with Lisi’s E8 or possibly even with no subatomic paricles beyond up and down quarks and the electron.

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

we don’t understand, if not for the physics, how do you propose to achieve a human that produces imagination

Is this a reply to mollwollfumble or bubblecar?

As a question in biology, it’s quite interesting. Psychactive drugs is the easiest way, I’ve heard good reports about LSD. There’s the possibility of on organism having imagination but no brain. Or design a different type of cells to act as an imaginarium.

As a question in physics, I can envisage other systems of physics capable of producing a human being. The Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation certainly can. Nordström’s theory of gravitation probably can. Variable speed of light, no problem. Tweaks to the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Or Newton was right. Quantum mechanics with supersymmetry or with Lisi’s E8 or possibly even with no subatomic paricles beyond up and down quarks and the electron.

Looks up Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation.

How could an alternative theory of gravitation that is consistent with the same observations have any effect on whether humans could evolve or not?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

we don’t understand, if not for the physics, how do you propose to achieve a human that produces imagination

Is this a reply to mollwollfumble or bubblecar?

As a question in biology, it’s quite interesting. Psychactive drugs is the easiest way, I’ve heard good reports about LSD. There’s the possibility of on organism having imagination but no brain. Or design a different type of cells to act as an imaginarium.

As a question in physics, I can envisage other systems of physics capable of producing a human being. The Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation certainly can. Nordström’s theory of gravitation probably can. Variable speed of light, no problem. Tweaks to the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Or Newton was right. Quantum mechanics with supersymmetry or with Lisi’s E8 or possibly even with no subatomic paricles beyond up and down quarks and the electron.

Looks up Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation.

How could an alternative theory of gravitation that is consistent with the same observations have any effect on whether humans could evolve or not?

assuming that you give causality primacy as an axiom then theories can’t have any effect on their evidential basis no matter how consistent they are

“And a wider range of sex and travel options”

More ways of telling someone to fuck off?

I’d vote for that.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Is this a reply to mollwollfumble or bubblecar?

As a question in biology, it’s quite interesting. Psychactive drugs is the easiest way, I’ve heard good reports about LSD. There’s the possibility of on organism having imagination but no brain. Or design a different type of cells to act as an imaginarium.

As a question in physics, I can envisage other systems of physics capable of producing a human being. The Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation certainly can. Nordström’s theory of gravitation probably can. Variable speed of light, no problem. Tweaks to the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Or Newton was right. Quantum mechanics with supersymmetry or with Lisi’s E8 or possibly even with no subatomic paricles beyond up and down quarks and the electron.

Looks up Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation.

How could an alternative theory of gravitation that is consistent with the same observations have any effect on whether humans could evolve or not?

assuming that you give causality primacy as an axiom then theories can’t have any effect on their evidential basis no matter how consistent they are

OK.

I shall ponder my question to see if re-wording makes it more reasonable.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Looks up Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation.

How could an alternative theory of gravitation that is consistent with the same observations have any effect on whether humans could evolve or not?

assuming that you give causality primacy as an axiom then theories can’t have any effect on their evidential basis no matter how consistent they are

OK.

I shall ponder my question to see if re-wording makes it more reasonable.

Brans-Dicke includes general relativity as a special case, so it can be tuned to match general relativity closely enough to match any physical observations. ie. it can never be ruled out except by Occam’s razor.

I find being alive quite disappointing, its monotonous and seems to have little purpose.

Our human created worlds are more interesting and I’d prefer to live in one of them in the post apocalypse ones

Cymek said:

I find being alive quite disappointing, its monotonous and seems to have little purpose.

Our human created worlds are more interesting and I’d prefer to live in one of them in the post apocalypse ones

Actual conversation with my daughter, when she was 3 or 4 or so:

Daughter: Every day it’s new and surprising.

Cynical Father: Really, what’s new and surprising today then?

Daughter: I don’t know —- yet.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I find being alive quite disappointing, its monotonous and seems to have little purpose.

Our human created worlds are more interesting and I’d prefer to live in one of them in the post apocalypse ones

Actual conversation with my daughter, when she was 3 or 4 or so:

Daughter: Every day it’s new and surprising.

Cynical Father: Really, what’s new and surprising today then?

Daughter: I don’t know —- yet.

Did she know then ¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I find being alive quite disappointing, its monotonous and seems to have little purpose.

Our human created worlds are more interesting and I’d prefer to live in one of them in the post apocalypse ones

Actual conversation with my daughter, when she was 3 or 4 or so:

Daughter: Every day it’s new and surprising.

Cynical Father: Really, what’s new and surprising today then?

Daughter: I don’t know —- yet.

Did she know then ¿

Well she never told me that her “new and surprising” hypothesis had been falsified, so I suppose she must have.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Actual conversation with my daughter, when she was 3 or 4 or so:

Daughter: Every day it’s new and surprising.

Cynical Father: Really, what’s new and surprising today then?

Daughter: I don’t know —- yet.

Did she know then ¿

Well she never told me that her “new and surprising” hypothesis had been falsified, so I suppose she must have.

Surely that’s because the “new and surprising” hypothesis is in fact a self-referential self-negating self-fulfilling hypothesis, a recursion, even if not a strange loop, which you can certainly be proud to report.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Did she know then ¿

Well she never told me that her “new and surprising” hypothesis had been falsified, so I suppose she must have.

Surely that’s because the “new and surprising” hypothesis is in fact a self-referential self-negating self-fulfilling hypothesis, a recursion, even if not a strange loop, which you can certainly be proud to report.

:)

For some strange reason, that had never occurred to me before.

An episode of Through The Wormhole had an episode about trying to work out some idea about the purpose of life and the closest they got was to gather information

Cymek said:

An episode of Through The Wormhole had an episode about trying to work out some idea about the purpose of life and the closest they got was to gather information

If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life’s fundamental truth: that life’s only purpose is life itself.
   — Chairman Sheng-ji Yang

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well she never told me that her “new and surprising” hypothesis had been falsified, so I suppose she must have.

Surely that’s because the “new and surprising” hypothesis is in fact a self-referential self-negating self-fulfilling hypothesis, a recursion, even if not a strange loop, which you can certainly be proud to report.

:)

For some strange reason, that had never occurred to me before.

but it’s merely SCIENCE by definition

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

An episode of Through The Wormhole had an episode about trying to work out some idea about the purpose of life and the closest they got was to gather information

If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life’s fundamental truth: that life’s only purpose is life itself.
   — Chairman Sheng-ji Yang

i’d expect once a creature is born, that situation requires the new life be, and be something, there aren’t many choices regard that, and of self-aware creatures it’s about making it up, largely everyone makes it up, the relationship between inner and outer environments, much of which I might add has probably had great similarity through time, going back, way back

much of human life resembles other animal life really, also

subject unnatural work, I have that mostly at the end of the month, doing the accounts, to the extent I have developed a fairly strong aversion