Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?

From Einstein E=mc^2 to the conservation of energy theory, these concepts agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed — after all these energies existed since singularity (even before the big bang).  Thus, if I agree with these concepts, it means everything within this universe can be deconstructed into the smallest of the smallest possible units, and each of these smallest units could be counted individually in a way that if they’re to be reunited they could be constructed into the whole universe again.  The question is if this is the case, is our universe static in quantity?

I surmise there is another possibility!  What if the first scenario is true but there is one exception!  The exception is that outside of the singularity there is a bigger container that could feed more energy into the already constructed universe which we’re living in.  This could mean the quantity of our constructed universe could be changed according to the limitation of the larger container which contains our universe.  If this is the case it could mean that our universe could be shrunk in size and quantity by somehow shredding off existing energy and feeding the lost energy back to the larger container.

Relatively then, from within our universe, it could be that our universe is infinite since it could be expanded forever or be shrunk forever depending on the situation.  We don’t know the limitation of the larger container so we could only see the direction of our universe as an infinite expansion or infinite contraction relatively!  There’s a saying that nothing could last forever, and so we know that even the sun and anything else that exists within our universe got an expiration date.  I suspect that our universe could be expanded forever until the larger container stops feeding energy to our existing universe which would then allow this universe to contract and die off eventually!

Advertisements

Can the age of Automation Change How We Conduct Wars of Tomorrow?

Playing games like Total War: Attila got me thinking of strategies.  Obviously, keyboard commander here which is me got no real experience in this sort of things.  Still, I want to dig into this sort of things anyway.  So, I was thinking that since the Industrial Revolution, machines have allowed the world to be much smaller which has given way to faster communication, faster travel through hard to traverse arteries such as the vast ocean and so forth.  These monumental Industrial Revolution byproducts changed how the world conducted its wars, because before the Industrial Revolution wartime strategies had to account how much time it would take for something to be set up and executed.  Of course, in today world with advanced AI, Internet, Encryption, Quantum machines, and hypersonic missiles and so forth, we still have to account time as a necessary ingredient in wartime strategy.  So imagine how much more important it was for time to be an ingredient in wartime before the time of Industrial Revolution.  Nonetheless, I think we’re in the post-Industrial Revolution period now, because the age of Automation is upon us.

My question is, can the age of Automation change almost everything that represents the Industrial Revolution?  After all, we had witnessed how the age of Industrial Revolution changed things of the age before it, right?  In my opinion, I think the age of Automation will create and change things that will outdated if not all then most of the Industrial Revolution byproducts.  For an example, wartime strategies will have to be changed to fit with time in the age of Automation.

One thing for sure, in the age of Automation, time is an even more important ingredient than ever before, because everything will speed up so much faster.  Imagine the automation of Artificial Intelligence such as self-learning for machines that would speed up the intelligence of machines so these things can self-regulate and self-plan and self-execute directives according to common sense that the humans drill into these machines’ logic programs.  Well, I think since AlphaGo, self-learning AI has already actually happened.  In my opinion, self-learning AI may speed things up so much faster that may make human decisions in wartime seem to be outdated as if we’re comparing today supercomputer with the supercomputer of the 1970s.  Even better, we should use the analogy of quantum computing versus supercomputing of the 1970s.

As we achieve hypersonic technology to speed up the deliverance of weapons and travel modes, self-learning AI will be able to automate things at much faster pace than ever before physically.  Of course, this would force humans to have less time to plan than ever before when changes occur in wartime.  Unless us humans could predict the future, us humans may use self-learning AI to pre-plan possible scenarios of wartime changes to allow self-learning AI to be even faster in execution during a war.

Furthermore, self-learning AI could allow the automation of swarming tech to advance further.  Immagine a swarming of missiles that is capable of allowing each missile to be smart and carrying its own decoys.  The idea of blocking out the sun with swarming of smart missiles and decoys and at the same time preventing the negative chain reaction among the missiles could be very interesting indeed.  What could be automated in the air could also be automated in the sea, and so we could expect more of the same smart machines that would be self-driven to attack targets using the sea as the cover and a travel medium.

Weapons and AI could be categorized as the ingredients for tactical operations, but if one thinks bigger then one could see the accumulation of tactical events would paint a picture of strategy.  Over time, automation would replace the ways that we’re using to conduct a war in wartime.

It is normal for us to belittle continental powers of the past when they disregarded naval power even though some of these continental powers were faced with vast ocean fronts.  But we have to know that before the Industrial Revolution age the ocean was regarded as a natural barrier.  Some historic continental powers took such idea into comfort till disasters struck them down for good.

Some historic naval powers were overconfident with their naval strength and didn’t develop their land forces, allowing their only strength to be taken out by their smarten-up adversaries.  If I’m not wrong, the Phoenicians were a naval superpower but the Romans were not.  Of course, the Romans turned the tide against the Phoenicians when the Romans figured out how to build similar ships to the Phoenicians’ ones.  I think the Romans caught a sunken Phoenician ship on its shore and managed to reverse-engineer it to make copies.  Afterward, the Phoenicians were history.

In today world, I don’t think countries that border ocean would dare to favor land forces over naval forces or vice versa.  Why?  Natural barriers are no longer a big deal nowadays.  Nowadays we got technology that could go undersea, on the sea, on the land, over the land, invisibly in the air, and into space — think you can take any comfort in any natural barrier?  We could be doing all of these things in hypersonic speed in the very near future.  So I think it’s foolishly for any country to rely on outdated strategies of the past ages when such a country has to confront with possible adversaries in the age of Automation.

A country such as China is not only thinking about building up a modern naval force to protect the maritime silk road, but this country is also building up channels on land to tap into all possible solutions and scenarios.  Gone the day of Zheng He’s downfall when a new Chinese emperor thought maritime power was useless because he took the comfort of a natural barrier.  Could we afford to make the same mistakes today by relying on natural barriers and other misguided comforts?  I don’t think it’s wise to take any comfort in the age of Automation because I think even self-learning AI could be hacked into.  I’m pretty confident that wartime strategies for tomorrow will be way different than the past.

 

In A Haste, My Mind Ran Wild, And Aha, Time Is A Cup Of Tea!

I’m not a scientist, and so I won’t even bothered to pretend to be one.  I’m going to use casual terms and meanings to try to explain to everyone what I think time is.  In nature, time appears to be an arrow once shoots won’t be able to go back into the quiver.  Why?  It appears as if time travels only in one direction.  Which means, time is only moving forward.  Nonetheless, this would puzzle scientists as they would ask why time could not be rewound.

If you play a CD, DVD, or any digital storage medium, you would be able to rewind and fast forward recorded time, but real time could not be streamed backward.  In fact, many people who have regrets would love to wish that they could stream time in backward motion so they could jump into their past to fix their mistakes.  Nonetheless, it seems time could only decay forward.

I could be wrong but in some religions, these folks would promote time is a flat dimension in which this dimension would stretch on into the infinity.  They would argue that the clock is a manmade concept in which it maps relative, perceptive units of time.  Since time is an infinite to these folks, they would probably argue that the relative, perceptive manmade clock is creating a fictional timeline which would help humans to be able to weave out a history of time.

Many scientists nowadays believe Einstein is correct on how time is churning, because of his special relativity theory.  Basically, Einstein argues that time is relative to the observers.  If you’re on a spaceship that travels near the speed of light, time would move slower, but if your friend is stationed on earth time would move faster.  This means by the time you get back to him or her, this person would probably grow much older than you.  This phenomenon appears to allow you to travel through time, but only in a forwarding, dimensional motion.

I have a crazy idea, and there is no proof to back it up of course.  My imagination runs wild and I let it be.  Basically, I argue that time is like a cup of tea.  Imagine a cup of tea dips into an ocean of tea and extract out a full cup of tea, but before one drinks this cup of tea it needs some milk.  I would pour in a really good type of milk to improve my cup of tea, thus this cup of tea indeed is having a great future.  Nonetheless, what if I poison the cup of tea?  If I drink it I would surely have a very grave future indeed.

Imagine I extract a gazillion cups of tea out of the ocean of tea, and in each cup of tea I would either enhance it or sour it.  Thus each cup among the gazillion more would have a very different future according to what I would color it.  Imagine the tea inside each cup is time.  It’s more like captured or recorded time.  Nonetheless, this recorded, captured time is weaved almost as one with the fabric of the universe itself, thus when the tea begins to cool there is no way to warm it up again.

Of course, unless you have a way to jump out of the cup of tea, pick it up, put it in a microwave and start to warm it up again with godly microwave heat.  Otherwise, the tea will decay naturally and never get warm again.  Nonetheless, when you jump out of the cup of tea, what space/time have you jumped into?  Once you’re out of the cup of tea, you could pour it back into the ocean of tea.  Does this mean you create a new time?  Each new event you create with your cup of tea, it still seems to be impossible to revert time back in real time.

By that I mean when you warm up your cup of tea again, in your new space it means you’re just creating a new event with your cup of tea.  It does not seem like you’re reverting time so your cup of tea would travel back in time and become the original warmed cup of tea.  Nonetheless, according to Einstein, time is relative to the observers if I understand his theory correctly, this would mean the people who are inside the cup of tea would either feel like if they’re traveling back in time.  Because their whole universe is warming up to how it was warmed.

Given the condition is right which gives rise to an appropriate mixing of necessary elements to create the origin time period, perhaps this is how one would experience a reverting time inside a warm cup of tea.

If my imagination is on the right track with time, then I guess you could go back in time and kill your grandfather yet you would still exist in the future.  How come?  Once each cup of tea got filled, it is a universe in itself.  Thus what had happened in such a universe is and will always be existed in such a universe.  Like a forensic expert who could walk back the crime scene even though he or she isn’t there because existing matters would allow he or she to look back in time to figure out what had happened.  In the cup of tea, the universe won’t just erase its events unless you pour the tea out of the cup.

Basically, I think you could kill your grandfather in one cup of tea, and with the right conditions in another cup of tea, you would still exist.  This is rather confusing, but I think it does explain why I think you could travel back in time.  By this I mean you better find the right cup of tea to jump into.  With the right condition, the cup of tea would allow you to travel back in time.  Nonetheless, what other side effects and conditions you have created when you jump out of the cup of tea?  After all, it requires you to jump out of the cup of tea’s dimension into a bigger dimension so you could find another right cup of tea to jump back into.

In addition:  I forgot to mention that in our cup of tea, the tea could evaporate in time.  After all in our universe (cup of tea) water does evaporate — given it enough time — even though it is not going to be boiled.  So if I’m correct, can each cup of tea I’d constructed in earlier paragraphs be evaporated given it enough time?  If this is true, would our very own cup of tea (i.e., our universe) be very finite?  Personally, I think our cup of tea will eventually evaporate, but our species won’t be able to survive long enough to witness such an event.

 

Nationalism Vs. Globalism, Where Does This Lead? Probably to a Nowhere!

Globalism seems to be getting a bad rap lately, because locally people are suffering from global competition.  Jobs from a global market either had already been moved to another part of the world in the name of efficiency in cost and whatnot or will be replaced by market elsewhere that is more competitive.  So, locally, people are not feeling good at all about global aspects.

We’re seeing many people try to promote local brand, local ideas, local culture, and local anything over anything global.  Of course, it’s not a bad thing to promote local culture, ideas and whatnot, because these things are essential for a local life-force.  Nonetheless, when we become too extreme in promoting local over global agenda, we may create an atmosphere that would lead to a road of violences and not of solutions.

Imagine how the Nazi or similar groups came about or will be created because of such extremism.  Basically, I believe that the Nazis were not only Hitler’s henchmen, but many of them were believing in a movement of a pure race mentality which believes in purity and superiority over other identities.  So, in Hitler’s time, if you’re a Jew, you would be considered the lowest scum of all scums on earth, thus Hitler did try to wipe out the entire Jewish identity from the planet earth.

The Nazi mentality would seem making sense for the Nazis, but on the outside most people would not agree, because such a movement promotes senseless killing and senseless violence.  Thus I think anything that is taking too extreme may do more harm than good.  So, in these days, many people are promoting local brands over global brands, and it’s not really a bad thing.  Nonetheless, I think we should do this on a scale that makes sense — by not overdoing it.  If not, we may promote a form of extremism that will only incite a bigger conflict eventually.

Imagine a scenario in which we would close off our border, stop trading with everyone else globally, and try to create a self-sustain nation in which we believe that would stop global competition and bring better economic prosperity for people within our nation — this looks a lot like North Korea now.  But we all know that North Korea isn’t doing very well economically for a very long time.  Actually, North Korea had been poor since the conception of its whole political body.

Just right next door, China, once was as poor as North Korea, but now this neighbor known as China has become the largest economy on earth in term of Purchasing Power Parity measure and many people suggest that China will become the largest economy on earth in nominal GDP term sooner than later.  The neighbors cannot be any differ in term of size and economic prowess, because the gap between the North Koreans and the Chinese seems to be the size of a galaxy — an exaggeration of course but relevant nonetheless.

China achieved all of their success not by closing down borders, stop trading, and try to be self-sustained like North Korea, but China opened and continues to open up just the right amount of space for foreign trades, investments, cooperations, and whatnot.  So, I think China did think about how to face the challenge of global competition before they opened up their economy just right which had allowed them to be where they are today.

For countries like the United States, we’re facing a challenge of cost efficiency, and so our products are more expensive to export.  Perhaps we should think about closing our door with just a right amount of space but leave the door open just wide enough to stem the outflow of jobs — creating enough breathing space for people within the country to survive and thrive and compete.

Nonetheless, such a solution is only for short term treatment, because in the future our technologies may be so disruptive that the technologies we will employ will take away all of our jobs.  When such thing occurs, no matter how many borders you close down, how many trades you stop from occurring will not be able to keep jobs at home.  So, the solution won’t be available in the basket of creating jobs for the people, but the solution would be in the basket of how to support a society in which people will no longer work for a living, on a global scale.

What is the solution?  At the moment, I don’t think any single solution would be satisfactory in answering the AI taking away jobs question, because we’re not actually suffering from a total domination from a machine overlord just yet.  Instead, we’re seeing machines slowly take away jobs from various people in various sectors.  Eventually though, the Artificial Intelligence would get so smart that it would take away most jobs from the people.

If AI is inevitably going to take away most of our jobs, we should steer the course of such a trend to benefit the humanity.  After all, we’re the humanity!  So, I suggest that we should employ smart machines to create the abundances that we need to free us all from basic necessaries, and this would allow us to focus on living better.  We then would probably question ourselves what would we do if the smart machines do all the jobs.

Will we become so bored and mindless that we rather die young than live too long?  Nonetheless, in the future we may have technologies that would extend our lifespan.  But there is a possibility in which we as the humanity as a whole would try to explore the next frontier which is the universe itself.  Maybe the smart machines would get us to be so free that we would venture out into the farthest space within the universe to explore and question not only our origin, but the universe itself — and have a better chance at doing this than ever before.

Anyway, after watching “Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide | Yuval Noah Harari” TED Talks video on YouTube, my brain starts to question a lot more about our future.  This brief essay is the result of my watching of this video.  The video is right after the break.  Enjoy!

Replacing Office With AR… Be Nice To See Combination of AR and VR in One Device

Although Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality are too different animals at the moment, I think they should be combined in the future.  As of now, VR is already ahead of AR, because many VR devices are being sold in the market.  AR is still a concept pretty much, but luckily this concept actually got working devices in the work.  So, AR isn’t a concept on paper, but it could be released to the market when it’s done being just a concept but a true working technology.

Both VR and AR require people to flap their hands as if they’re doing exercise or Tai Chi.  Some people think this is tiring.  Maybe using VR and AR won’t get you into shape, but it does require you to make your blood flows more than just typing quietly.

AR got the capability of visualizing real objects with enhanced fictional objects to create better understanding of a situation, event, and whatnot.  I think surgeons could use AR to operate on patients better, because AR can employ AI to navigate the surgeon through a patient’s body and organs with smart information and visualization without having the surgeon to be cutoff from reality.

I would like to see a possibility of one small, slim device that could combine VR and AR together, and by doing so I think VR could serve as a platform for entertainment and AR for work.  After all, VR could take you to a whole new place and block you off from the whole reality altogether.  Anyhow, check out the video right after the break to see how people from a company known as Meta talk about their AR project.  Enjoy!

China’s President, Xi Jinping, Is Telling The World Why His BRI Could Make The World A Better Place!

In our time, there are small wars break out around the world.  Although these wars seem insignificant, but you never know enough of them will eventually turn into an avalanche of World War III.  People of WWI could not have known how much worse a war could be, but WWII proved them wrong.  I think the people who experienced both WWI and WWII would definitely agree that WWII was way worse than WWI.  Both WWI and WWII encouraged humankind to go on killing each other in deranged way, but these last two insane wars got nothing on WWIII if indeed there will be one.  After all, the next war could encourage modern nuclear weapons to be unleashed on multiple bustling places of this earthly world.  I imagine modern nuclear weapons are way way more powerful than the ones that got dropped on Japan in WWII.  According to PopularMechanics.com’s article “Today’s Nukes Are Thousands of Times More Powerful Than WWII A-Bombs,” a modern nuclear bomb is like 3000 more times powerful than the atomic bomb that got dropped onto Hiroshima, Japan in WWII.  If I’m not wrong, such weapons could end humanity, because hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people will die in such a nightmare.

Unlike our historical pasts where an ocean could be a big barrier for people to get to know each other, today our world is very much connected.  From the oceans to the sky and beyond, nothing can actually be a big barrier anymore.  Our technological advances have allowed humans to communicate in seconds across vast earthly distances.  Even the space in the heaven (i.e., outer space) cannot stop us from sending robots to uncharted domains such as Mars, and we communicate with our robots from such a distance just fine.  So, there isn’t anything stopping us from trying to understand each other even though different parts of earth were civilized in different ways.  Countries from West and East, North and South, and even neighboring countries do have their own historical memories and pasts, because each country was grown and civilized in different way.  Thus, instead of dividing us and them, sowing more hatreds to sow more seeds of murderous, deranged human-made catastrophes such as WWI and WWII, we should think about how much more cooperations today humans should make so humankind can move forward without worrying about earth-kind extinction through the usage of nuclear weapons.

The 14th and 15th of this month, China is opening up a Belt and Road initiative forum, and many countries’ heads of state and delegates are going to descend upon Beijing for this meeting.  No doubts, some countries are still having doubts about China’s BRI objectives.  Furthermore, some countries even doubt that BRI could be achieved since there are so many unknown moving pieces within the agenda.  For an example, along the countries that are the path for BRI, there are terrorism activities that may hamper BRI projects.  Such doubts are logical, but other doubts are more of psychology.  For an example, U.S. may not trust China’s global ambition, because U.S. could view China’s BRI as a way to undermine U.S. global influences.  Nonetheless, China BRI is moving forward as we speak.  Some BRI projects are already either finished or in the work across the world, and many more are in the planning stages.  As BRI forum takes shape, I haven’t heard of anything in relation to U.S. meeting up with China in this forum.  It seems either China isn’t inviting or U.S. is isolating herself from this forum on purpose.  With or without U.S., delegates and heads of state of various countries are descending upon Beijing for BRI forum meeting.

Nobody would know China’s true global ambition, but China seems to be very happy in forming relationships with countries all over the world to promote globalization and world connectivity.  These cooperations among countries in the world leading by China’s BRI would promote higher trade volumes and people to people connections.  Will there be good outcomes from BRI?  I guess time will tell, but China is leading the way to more globalization.  In ancient time, when China was prosperous, ancient Silk Road was one of the ways that kept ancient China prosperous.  Today, as China is getting stronger in economic and military terms, China is striving to revive the idea of ancient Silk Road but with modern utilities to create modern Silk Road so China can keep on being prosperous.  It’s obvious, just like any other country, China is China’s first, because she has 1.4 billion plus of people to worry about.  Nonetheless, cooperation is still better than dividing in hatreds.

China’s president, Xi Jinping, has got a short film in which he narrates and promotes the idea of BRI.  In the short film he tells the world why he proposed and is backing the BRI.

If China is indeed imagining, hoping, and willing to promote and work toward a world where global community would be evermore prosperous and peaceful, I think it’s admirable and noble.  In fact, I think U.S. should have joined BRI in a big way.  After all, U.S. could also bring her huge expertise and wisdom to BRI and ensure the initiative to be even more successful.  With China and U.S. leading BRI, I don’t see how the world would see this initiative failing.  I think a successful BRI could bring the world into a more prosperous time.  Of course, I don’t have a crystal ball, and so anything into the future is very uncertain.  As of now though, my instinct says that BRI is going to gain evermore supports and attractions from countries that want to improve their infrastructures, businesses, and cultural connections.  Here is a million dollar question, can BRI help turns back the minute arm of the Doomsday Clock?  Here is another, can BRI help the world to be even more prosperous through strong infrastructure projects and business connections?  Of course, there are tons of questions in regarding to how BRI would change the world, but I guess we have to wait and see how everything would turn out in the near future for projects and parts of the world that subscribe to China’s BRI.