4 Comments
Sort by
.
Add a comment...

.
James Redford
Regarding Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the Omega Point discussed in Bella Bathurst's present article, this has been made rigorous in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. It is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013.
.
.
Tarlton Parsons
Musk’s analogy of summoning the demon has a fundamental flaw. In all those stories of summoning demons, the protagonist always knew from the start that he/she was summoning an entity that was inherently evil. That is not remotely the case with AI. Evil is a human concept that requires human context and emotional motive. Computers have none of that. The greatest risk of AI is not that it is evil, but that it does us harm either through indifference or by misguided (from our perspective) good intention. That is a very different scenario, and it is far easier to deal with an entity that is either indifferent or well-intended that with one that actively wishes us harm.

By equating AI to a demon Musk side lines all the stories about it is an angel that is summoned rather than a demon. Those typically turn out rather well.

And angels require less control because they have our best interests to heart.
Yes, there is risk in AI, as with any new technology, but there is also enormous benefit. And even if they take over, I’m not at all convinced that they could do a worse job of running this world than we do!
.
.
Anil Shopa ·
This is science fiction. We have other things to think of ......
.
.
Gregory Barnard ·
AI is like the apple from the tree in the Garden of Eden from which we continue to eat -- forbidden because in the end it will consume us.
.
.
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%