Suppose a single self-replicating probe has made the years-long voyage from one star to another. Before it does anything else, its job is to make two copies of itself.
At the low end of the technological scale, perhaps the probe is barely more advanced than we are, and it needs a thousand years to build a means of extracting and refining resources, build fabrication plants, and so on and so on, — before it can even begin assembling new versions of itself. A lot of energy is spent over a long amount of time.
At the high end of the scale, perhaps the probe uses technology we cannot begin to imagine, and so is basically magic. Perhaps it has the means of turning raw materials into probe-parts built into it, and asteroid chunks go in one end, microchips and antigravity engines come out the other. Or perhaps it uses nanites. Or a Star Trek replicator. Assembling a new version of itself takes a relatively short amount of time.
Has anyone speculated on what the technological signature of this might be if it were occurring in our own solar system? Is it even possible to usefully speculate about? Obviously we can't know how it would be doing it, but we might be able to say "it would require at least the processing of this much mass" or for the low-tech version, "a chip fabrication plant in space would emit this much heat."
So this is something that /r/antinatalism will ban you for even mentioning, dont know why though.
Basically, the practical end goal of antinatalism (or Efilism) should be the prevention of all possible forms of lives right? In order to achieve that, we must invent some kind of self replicating robotic probes that would expand throughout the universe for eternity to seek out and "neutralize" (painlessly) any life or proto life, correct?
Critics brought up the problem of consent, because most living things do not wish to be neutralized, so what if we modify the probes to spread the message of antinatalism/efilism and only neutralize sentient beings that consented?
But what about those that do not consent? Well, the probes could establish a "base" near them and keep preaching antinatalism/efilism to their descendants until all of them agree to neutralization. Nobody said its going to be fast and easy.
But what about non sentient life that couldnt give consent and continue breeding/replicating through genetic instincts? Well, this is more tricky, should we wait for them to evolve into fully sentient consenting beings? Because if we neutralize them before they evolved, it would be against their possible future evolved consent right? Actually, No, because this is the same problem with unborn future people, we dont need their consent to prevent future suffering (if they were birthed), so it wouldnt violate AT principles. Is it moral to painlessly neutralize cows and chickens for example?
However, we still have ONE big problem, that is of the welfare of the sentient beings that want to live and breed, they most likely require a living environment/ecosystem filled with animals in order to not suffer while being alive and since AT/efilism do not permit inflicting suffering, the probes wont be able to do anything to them, their environment/ecosystem or the animals they need to live a "semi decent" existence.
In conclusion, the consent of the existing/living sentients must be respected, but the most practical solution for AT/efilism should still be creating these self replicating, anti-life "preacher" probes (I dont have a good name for them yet, haha). We can only hope that these probes could one day in the far far future travel to all corners of the universe and maybe even other dimensions (wherever suffering may exist) to spread the idea of AT/efilism and get all living sentient to consent, it would be a forever project but at least it will significant
... keep reading on reddit ➡I.e. how the direct or indirect addressing modes are possible?
I am working on calculating entropy of a financial network. Researchers have tried to calculate density matrix for a graph by calculating a graph laplacian (see eq 10). However, accoriding to this answer on SO, correlation matrix can be substituted.
Please let me know if the SO answer is valid or not. Many thanks.
This theory has most likely came up already but can scouts be some seriously inbred biomechanical self replicating vessels? They are unmanned to my knowledge and they are present in a large quantity, so they might as well be multifunctional Von Neumann probes sent out to do recon. And if they are in fact self replicating, I would really like to know how they do that... Do they assemble new instances or do they reproduce sexually or shut like that?
Hear me out. By in large, the phenomenon as we know it today started just after WWII. People started reporting sightings of craft in the sky and some, even visitations by "beings". From eye witness testimonies, these "beings" are described as almost android like. It could be that they aren't even beings at all but part of the UFOs that we see in the sky? Our minds can't comprehend a civilization hundreds of thousands of years or even a million years more advanced than us. Their AI could look exactly like a biological being if they've mastered nanotechnology or even the manipulation of individual atoms. Perhaps all these craft came from a single source that arrived in our solar system millions of years ago and these "beings" were created by the craft as smaller drones that do the dirty work on the ground and interact with us.
Theoretically, if an alien civilization developed before us, it would've only had to achieve said technology 10 million years ago for them to have sent a probe to every star system in our galaxy and that's using our current method of propulsion, which they clearly do not use considering their craft almost defy reality. These probes could have remained dormant until the nuclear age when they detected our testing and detonation of nuclear weapons. That would explain why people often report "beings" telling them that we are ruining the planet, showing them images of nuclear detonations etc.
I see all these people talking about the impossibility of aliens flying these craft and disregarding the possibility completely. Well what even is an alien? A super advanced AI that can manipulate things at the atomic level would practically look like God to us. The AI could in theory, create anything, even "beings".
What do you all thing about this? I feel as though it's entirely possible that we're dealing with a super advanced AI
Edit: Now I know there have been reports of mysterious objects in the skies for hundreds of years, but the current phenomenon as we know it started shortly after the Second World War, especially alien encounters and abductions
Ziua a pornit sub semnul pâclei dense ca cimentul învârtit sub paletă și al hăului fără de margine la veste morții lui Hoza. De fapt nu murise acum, ci cu ani și ani în urmă, însă imaginea sa era vie precum lumea ce se deslușește chiar acum prin fereastră. Când a intrat în sala de curs era conectat la o mașină von Neumann pe care chiar el o proiectase. Fară nicio introducere a început să ne expună arhitectura, desenând scheme imposibil de reprodus oamenilor de rând, pe care imediat le ștergea cu buretele pentru a face loc altora noi, într-un amalgam accesibil doar minților celor mai luminate.
Când și-a dat doctoratul a adus în fața comisiei un circuit imens de 400 x 400 încadrat într-o prismă dreaptă de sticlă și imprimat pe o placă verde la care erau conectate mii de becuri de diferite culori care se apindeau în funcție de starea tranzistoarelor, pentru a exemplifica teoremele, asemenea unui joc demențial de flipper conceput de arhitecții unei civilizații îndepărtate. De îndată ce l-a pus în funcțiune a început să scrie pe tablă algoritmi extrem de complicați care explicau funcționarea sistemului într-un ritm atât de veloce încât nimeni nu mai înțelegea dacă aveau vreo legătură cu mecanismul sau era doar jocul șiret al lui Hoza cu mințile lor încețoșate. După ce a încheiat expunerea a scos din buzunar un cub de mărimea unei cutiuțe muzicale care putea fi ținut în palmă. Le-a spus că acest dispozitiv implementa aceleași funcții, însă era constuit cu microcircuite și microcipuri și putea fi asamblat cu ușurință într-o instalație industrială. Au fost atât de impresionați, încât i-au dat nota zece și l-au aplaudat minute în șir, ca să nu se facă de râs cu vreo întrebare care ar fi putut să-i acopere de ridicol. Atâta de deștept era Hoza.
Laboratorul cu el însemna trei ore de program liber și hoinăreală pe holurile facultății. Venea doar câteva minute la început, dădea niște probleme, se întreținea puțin cu cei mai buni dintre studenți, după care nu mai dădeai de el. Avea întotdeauna o sticlă de 250 de ml de lichior pe care o ținea în buzunarul de la piept al sacoului. În timpul pauzelor se ducea pe ascuns în curtea interioară să tragă câte o dușcă. Numai asta îi dădea putere să vorbească la toți idioții câte o oră întreagă necontenit. Atunci când vreunul dintre noi îl surprindea, îi chema și pe ceilalți la fereastră, râdeam ca proștii și îl arătam cu degetul.
Ca profesor m-a ținut încontinuu numai în note de 4. Hoza nu dădea vreodată mai puțin de 4, chi
... keep reading on reddit ➡No doubt in my mind that what we see as uap iare AI systems. Most likely Von Neumann probes sent out by another civilization unimaginably long ago to survey their local galaxy and beyond. The best tech available to a civilization more advanced than us. Self replicating and self repairing. Created by many civilizations probably, each one's probes expanding across their local universe like 3d ripples in space time. The probe arrives at the next star, makes a copy of itself intended to stay and monitor interesting planets then moves itself along to the next star. This answers the 'great silence' in rhe Fermi paradox well. In fact the galaxy probably roars with these probes - millions even billions of them running around for billions of years just taking notes. Seti programs simply haven't been looking in the right place yet - under our own noses. You make something that replicates and has AI - what do you call that? That's a lifeform. Quite possibly the predominant lifeform in the universe is a feral watching AI machine. Like all life it probably evolves - given eons of dull travel to think it likely improves its systems, tests and retests and optimizes. Every now and then errors creep in but mostly it just does what it does better and better. What is its function? Monitor and report probably. Stealthily monitor and report is what we would tell it to do right - and that is evidently what uap do. Very exciting to think that just one of these might be a node in a vast connected www database of the universe - one that contains billions of years of research. Oh baby the places you will go. I want a card to that library. What do you think? Inhave a ton more tk back that up and it is 100% in line with SETI theories on ancient alien life. Someday we will send out our own- and someday we might no longer exist, but our works will outlive us. There's a beauty to that. Thoughts anyone? First post btw. Yay.
I'm reviewing past papers in a comp architecture class. I'm new to all compsci and just been learning about the alu, memory and CPU.
From what I understand - Von Neumann - all memory is capable of storing all program elements, data and instructions. 2 cycles
Harvard - memory is divided into two memories, one for data and one for instructions. Single cycle
I think most phone / personal computers use the Von Neumann (is this correct?)
And I believe most CPUs are Von Neuman?
The question asks, which architecture allow data to be interpreted as program code and visa versa. I would assume Von Neuman, because all it's memory is capable of storing all program elements, but I don't know how to explain it, or really understand why.
I could have interpreted a lot of this wrong, so could somebody please answer this for me and perhaps clarify for me the current applications of both in modern computers, or point me to good resources that explains them?
I'm doing the crash course in comp sci too, and that does a good job of explaining memory and Alu, but it hasn't specifically gone into Harvard / Neumann comparisons (as of yet).
Hi everyone,
two questions:
- Is the Von Neumann stability analysis is applicable to implicit numerical methods using the finite volume method? I've only read about it in context of finite difference method.
- Is the dimensionless diffusion number d the equivalent to the Courant number just for pure diffusion?
With D: Diffusion coefficient, del_t: time step size, del_x: grid width
Thanks in advance!
I.e. how the direct or indirect addressing modes are possible?
