Can The Universe Itself Be A Smart AI According To Some Higher Being’s Design?

In the last blog post “Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?” I surmised that the universe (our universe among many others) could have been expanding and contracting according to how it got fed with external energy — where such force would have to wander outside our very own singularity.  Without such external nursery of energy, I surmised that our universe is like a quantifiable fish aquarium.  Nonetheless, we all know that even a human being could be intelligibly randomized things at will — thus I think according to the universe we’re sentient beings are the AI (artificial intelligent).  How about let me surmise some more and say that — what if the universe itself is a higher artificial intelligent force in which it could randomize things at will to expand and contract according to circumstances?

We human beings could only see the results of why the universe is expanding and contracting according to our very own whatever theories — but why would the universe do such a thing?  What’s the point of expanding or contracting?  Expanding to create more empty space for what?  Contracting is like a suicidal attempt of killing itself off so the existence of the universe itself would cease to exist.  Furthermore, perhaps the universe itself is like a smart TV or fishbowl/aquarium in which it was designed by a higher being.  This way the purpose of expanding and contracting won’t be the burden with which the universe has to carry.  This burden could be carried by the designer of the universe.

At this point, I think it’s more like a philosophical thinking than anything concrete on this matter, but it’s so intriguing nonetheless.  In my opinion, philosophical or not, it’s rather important for us sentient beings to dig deeper into our origin.  After all, if we could not remember how we’d come into being, then we would forever aimlessly forget about our root and forever lost — wandering in a dark forest (Three Body Problem’s sci-fi trilogy second book is also titled as The Dark Forest).  I think only when we could figure out our true root of how we’d come into the existence, it is then that we could evolve to be something greater.  Perhaps in such a quest, we could discover new technology to bring us to new heights; we could grow into even more capable and intelligent sentient beings.

Advertisements

Could Blockchain Be Used More Appropriately To Facilitate Cashless Society?

Thinking out loud is often done in a haste hints the nature of it.  Thus my thinking out loud in this post isn’t solid, but I like to dabble on here.  One thing people fear about a cashless society is that once the digital numbers are being erased somehow, their worth would be gone without any trace for recovering.  Thus, people are definitely still preferring cash as a mean for emergency backup.  After all, if their digital world is being shut down, they got cash to help them survive daily such as buying foods and whatnot.

Bitcoin is probably going to be an enemy of the banks since banks want to be the middlemen of the transactions.  Bitcoin takes out the middlemen role and allows people to have a direct transaction between the two parties.  In order for the bank to receive commission and gain liquid fund, the bank needs to be able to insert itself into the deal.  Simply put, Bitcoin is against a traditional bank which isn’t accepting Bitcoins!

Banks can accept Bitcoins, but people won’t use banks as of how they would use a traditional bank.  Bitcoin users may want a bank to behave as a trustful Bitcoin exchange to facilitate the Bitcoin transactions in safety manners.  This way any Bitcoin bank can still insert a banking role in a non-traditional way into the deal.  Since Bitcoin will be more transparent — plus demoting a traditional banking role somewhat, I don’t think the banks will be able to create more creative derivative means for creative investments.  I could be wrong since this is thinking out loud session.

Bitcoin is also very similar to a cashless society because it isn’t cash and it’s digital medium.  Taking away Bitcoin, underneath it all is the technology itself which is the blockchain.  The blockchain technology is more important than the clothes it is wearing such as a crypto coin (i.e., Bitcoin).  Why?  I think blockchain technology is good at keeping transactions honest.  This honesty is rather important for cashless society don’t you think?  Nonetheless, current Bitcoin way isn’t helpful for blockchain technology since the implementation is rather crude, allowing people to hack and steal each other Bitcoin without a clear way to trace back to the original owner of the lost Bitcoins.

If I’m not wrong, a will be successful cashless society could use the blockchain technology to keep cashless money honest so the original owner of the money won’t fear the tyranny of a cashless society shutdown event.  By that I mean the only way for a person in such a society to lose wealth is being incriminated with evidence and wealth get confiscated by a court of law.  In such an orderly way the blockchain technology could be used to keep track what money belongs to whom before the exchange takes place and long afterward so a cashless society shutdown event which occurs by any other mean besides the legal ones such as the one I stated just a moment earlier would be a futile effort.

I think people would be able to accept a cashless society when their wealth won’t be suddenly disappeared overnight in a mysterious event.  Of course, people are still going to fear that if they’re innocent and being convicted wrongly; their wealth got confiscated in such a rude event — they could be helpless as they would not be able to survive daily when their digital wealth got shut down in a cashless society.  I think once one accepts a cashless society, one has to accept such possibility as there won’t be any legal cash laying around to act as a legal tender for acquiring daily things.

By writing this blog post, it doesn’t mean I support a cashless society!  I just merely thinking about the possibilities and effects of it all when such a society occurs.  Although China isn’t a purely cashless society, because paper money is still going to be a legal tender within China.  Nonetheless, China is one of those countries that is leading the race in facilitating the use of money through digital devices such as the smartphone.  I think once the money becomes digital numbers, money is indeed facilitating a cashless society.  A cashless society is definitely taking some shapes or forms around the world, and so I’m writing this to amuse myself with both negative and positive possibilities of such a phenomenon.

Nature Isn’t Good and Isn’t Bad Either!

Is progressing a bad thing or a good thing?  Some people out there prefer that we could live like we were in the past because we couldn’t develop as much and so we didn’t pollute the environment.  They would argue that living closer to mother nature would naturally be good and be healthy, and anything otherwise is just bad!  They would argue that scientific advancements like nuclear power would be bad and so forth.  Basically, they would like to roam naked in the wood and prefer doing things more naturally!  Once again, are they right or wrong?

This specific case, I think they’re not only wrong but super stupid!  In the movies, we got superhuman, but in this case, we got super dumb ideology!  Why?  Just like any tool, it got two sides!  One good and one bad!  Like a knife, you could use a knife to cut food or kill people!  One is good, and one is bad!  So, when scientific developments are meant to be used for good, these things are naturally good.  These things are more natural than a rock which sits pretty on the ground all day long!

People who argue that developments are bad should ask the dinosaurs why they had extinct!  Isn’t it obvious that the dinosaurs couldn’t think as deep as humans thus they could not fly away for a brief vacation till things on earth cool down?  This is why scientific advancements are super crucial for the human race as a whole!  We need to be able to escape one rock and cultivate another just so we could avoid our own extinction!

Us humans tend to be not only stupid but we are also very arrogant!  We tend to think that what we got would last forever!  Unfortunately, we could not live forever, and our human race won’t exist forever also!  Why?  Even the sun will cease to exist eventually!  So, even the scale of the universe would not last forever, why would we think our earth would last forever?  If earth would not last forever, how will human race last forever?  Isn’t it natural for earthy humans to devise plans for our continuation even though we know nothing would last forever?

So, let’s get back down to earth and think simpler!  I think nature itself is just a tool!  If you’re sick and needing a cure, the right herbs naturally would cure you.  If you’re not too careful and eating the wrong mushrooms that exist naturally in nature, you would naturally die!  Nature exists as both good and bad!  So let us not be that stupid to think that developments are bad, and whatever exists naturally is naturally good!

Sometimes, hugging a tree is bad for the whole human race!  Instead of hugging a tree, we need to plant trees as a development and common sense!  Don’t argue that any development is bad!  Don’t just say nuclear power is unsafe!  In fact, I believe that we may need more advancement in nuclear power so we could suppress the tyranny of distance within our universe so we could travel far and cultivate more out-of-this-world colonies (i.e., in space) so we could lengthen the human race lifespan!

Meeting A Cousin From Another Galaxy!

Imagine that our universe is already predestined and whatever which needs to be accounted for is probably already being counted ahead of time.  Imagine a hand of God would assign one or multiple meaningful ways to combine the fates of his/her creations.  Perhaps, a hand of God decided that each of his creation is made of binary numbers, or perhaps it’s another method that would be in play instead.  Anyway. let’s assume that a hand of God decided his creations should be made of binary numbers.  In this universe, the binary numbers would be the ones and the zeros.  Combining these ones and zeros together would form a unique intelligent being.  Through the chance/random process, the possibility of creating the same unique intelligent being could be recreated, because let’s assume that the hand of God didn’t specify a rule that prevented such thing from happening.

So, imagine such a universe is real, wouldn’t you want to know perhaps us humans are not special?  Could it be that through such a randomized process (with repeated chances) the human DNA isn’t that unique in the universe?  As I alluded earlier, if the universe is already equipped with proper configurations, then it should not be too hard for the universe to give rises to chances so the process of creating human all over again would occur again.  Sometimes, the process of recreating the same intelligent being could be reproduced more than once through chances.  If this is mathematically possible in our real (not imagined) universe, then I wouldn’t be surprised if there is another human race or races out there that occupy another planet within this universe!  So, is it too outrageous to think that we could meet an alien that isn’t from this galaxy that got two hands, ten fingers, a nose, a beautiful handsome face, and similar charismatic, intelligent mannerism?

In my opinion, I don’t think it is so outrageous to think such possibility could exist out there.  Of course, we could meet aliens that are out of this world and got no feature that is similar to us at all.  But I don’t think we should discount the possibility that we could just meet up with ourselves from another galaxy!  It’s like a cousin that we never knew we had!

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.

 

So, Neoliberalism Is Wrong And Dangerous?

It was kind of hard for me to follow all the details within the YouTube’s video lecture on “Neoliberalism and History, or: How Should We Understand China?” in which professor Michael Puett of Harvard weaves a web of cautions and insights on why Neoliberalism ideal isn’t perfect and could lead to a danger of a breakdown of a society.  In the video, he also admits that people for centuries have been trying to create ideal worlds in which they believe to be natural and perfect and so whatever and whoever that doesn’t fit within such an idealistic world would ultimately be forced into accepting the ideal world or be perished through violence.  Sometimes, people in the pasts were lucky to be flourished at certain periods within such an ideal world they created and believed to be natural, but often they all failed in the end.  The dangerous thing about believing in an ideal world to be natural and perfect, professor Michael Puett points out in the video, is that the people within such a world often fail to see the hidden dangers of such a world they create and live within.  People in such a world would fail to learn the mistakes of other alternate worlds that had gotten created by other people of other cultures in the past and present since they would believe there would be no viable alternatives to their idealistic, perfect world.

Regardless the winding details that professor Michael Puett weaves on the dangers of believing in an ideal world, I think I got the gist of it all as he neatly ties all the knots together in the video near the end of his lecture.  Basically, I think what he says in the video is that China is also creating an alternate ideal world known as Confuciusism, and this Confuciusism is competing against Neoliberalism in another so-called ideal modernity-ism.  So, there are some dangers that hide within a Confuciusism too.  Nonetheless, I think he supports how the current Chinese government is regulating the Chinese economy and the Communist party itself — he talks in regarding of spheres of influences act upon another to regulate and prevent dangers — because the Chinese government is behaving in this very manner by creating spheres of various influences that prevent tycoons and corporations from controlling the market — thus preventing the market controllers to control the population and the government itself within China.

You could argue that the ultimate sphere within China is the Communist party thus the danger of this sphere is being too powerful and no other sphere could provide the check and balance to this Communist party sphere.  Nonetheless, professor Michael Puett admits in the video that all systems (ideal worlds) have mostly failed eventually within history, and so as long the never-ending learning process in constructing a better world is vibrant the flourishing society could be played out as we speak.  Thus, I think — as long the Chinese communist party is self-consciously keeping itself in check to prevent corruptions and so forth and to carry out the right regulations and policies to prevent the market from harming the populous at the same time keeping up with the demands of the Chinese populous — the Chinese government could, in fact, preserving the positive aspects of the Chinese communist party sphere.  Basically, as long the ultimate sphere in China isn’t going down the negative path, the other spheres would be kept in line to do the positive aspects that those spheres are designed to be doing.

In summary, I guess, as long the one entity isn’t believing the world they create is natural, then there is room for self-awareness in which mistakes could be foreseen and corrected.  I guess the one entity could improve one’s entity-self by learning the best aspects of the one entity’s past and other past worlds.  By avoiding the mistakes of the one entity’s past and past worlds, the one entity could avoid from repeating the same mistakes that occurred in the many periodic pasts. So the gist of it all from this lecture is that to be self-aware and to encourage the competition of different spheres of influences so a better future could be created.  Oh, one more thing, the world we create or creating isn’t natural and perfect, but it’s an ongoing work in progress.  It could be morphed into whatever shape as long the shape would provide a prosperous society and a prospect of a better future.  It could be an ongoing morphing shape so the society could continue to be prosperous as long as possible.