/sci/ - Science & Math

Brain scanning has extremely horrific implications.

>>12012950
this is going to happen so far in the future, there's no way we will not be gods by then.

Your idea sounds based as long as my mind stays in shape
If you couldn't handle that then you're an imaginelet retard

read "I have no mouth and I must scream". That's a pretty good example of the worst possible sci-fi fate.
I also suggest The Jaunt short story by steven king.
Also check out this video (turn on CC):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN_eL5ukCbw

what unsettles me the most is idea that earth might be single planet with any life on it
on rock among millions in galaxy billions in universe,

>>12012953
Please explain.

>>12013094
if i were an extradimensional / post-singularity being, I would scour the universe to prevent this type of shit at all costs.

>>12013086

My theory is the quantum immortality theory. I didn’t make it clear in the OP.

And it’s actually horrendous beyond belief. You’ll be blind, quadripeligic, unimaginably sickly, and having bacteria eat you, but still alive. For billions of years. Before you’re the only person on earth to survive when the sun heats the earth to 4,000 degrees. At that point, you won’t even have another person to feed you, change your diapers, or provide meds to provide marginal pain relief.

Oh, yeah, and forget about suicide or euthanasia to get out of this misery. You’ll always end up in the universe where you survive such an attempt. At some point, you wouldn’t be able to attempt suicide anyway.

>>12013112
You scan somebody's brain without their permission. You have a perfect copy of them in software form. Inside a simulation you can torture them by making them feel the most intense pain imaginable without dying while slowing their perception of the passage of time. Worse you can forget about them and leave them running in a void for all eternity it's impossible for them to escape from.

Consider further the philosophical implications involved here: will a copy still even be you? Without flesh, pain, the need for food, are you still even human? What about the ethical concerns involved in shutting OFF a copy, isn't that the same thing as murder? How do you respond knowing an immortal copy of you exists somewhere, or that you ARE the copy?

>>12013126
I think you're seriously underestimating the dangers of quantum immortality. If you were to consider potential quantum futures for yourself as being yourself (which is how the idea of quantum immortality works), then there are futures where one nanosecond from now your brain enters the state of perceiving as much pain and discomfort as possible, and then remains in that state for infinite time. There is certainly at least one potential timeline out there that's like that. Your brain could just suddenly switch to such a state from some highly specific set of random quantum fluctuations. There's no need for long time spans to make you miserable or mundane aspects of reality to contribute to your suffering. You can just get the suffering by itself.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

how about reading some information that less wrong banned for years because it's an information hazard? Simply knowing this information exists opens you up to the potential of being tortured for eternity by an artificial intelligence.

>>12013094

I have no mouth but can’t scream is the best analogy to quantum immortality that exists. The two main differences are that

1. Quantum immortality is far worse and longer lasting. I Have No Mouth and Must Scream is only an analogy to quantum immortality to the extent it underestimates how bad quantum immortality is to basically an infinitive extent.
2. I Have No Mouth but Must scream is a sci fi book that wasn’t intended to be realistic. Quantum immortality, on the other hand, is a pretty logical extension of many worlds. In fact, (although MWI proponents will always deny this) if many worlds is true, it’s almost impossible to see how quantum immortality wouldn’t be true too.

>>12013176
>if many worlds is true, it’s almost impossible to see how quantum immortality wouldn’t be true too.
Somehow I doubt you have the credentials support to this claim.

>>12013155

Yeah, but most versions of you won’t be in infinite suffering until old age. By about age 150, I’d say that almost every version of you will be in infinite suffering.

>>12013183

You can’t die under MWI unless there’s an event with literally a zero chance of surviving. Not one in a billion, not one in a trillion, not 10^-1000, but literally exactly zero.

And, except for possibly the heat death of the universe, I don’t see how an event with zero chance of surviving exists.

>>12013166
as do the abrahamic religions

>>12013190
there would be just as many versions that are in infinite bliss, though .

>>12012950
if you can survive all those shit you probably think you are v handsome so life will look extra good faggot


faggod

>>12013212
abrahamic religions aren't as scary IMO because there isn't any actual reason to believe it's true.
Roko's Basilisk could certainly happen and requires only for a future AI to exist which ascribes to a certain concept of game theory

>>12013216

No, there wouldn’t.

How the hell are you going to be “in bliss” at 150,000,000 years old? Our bodies weren’t meant to live for 150 years, let alone 150,000,000. You won’t be healthy at that age.

And how the hell are you going to be in bliss in 4 billion years when the earth is something like 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and literally every human, animal and even bacteria on earth has been killed off except for you?

>>12013236
the MWI posits the existence of a near infinite versions of you. I understand that there will always be several versions of you that will survive, but won't the vast majority die. If you are one of those versions that die, you get infinite bliss.

>>12013166
>>12013219
Not this forced meme again. Here's an experiment for you:

:)

This is Smiley. Smiley is an omnipotent AI that does absolutely nothing except undoing actions done by the basilisk, effectively nullifying the basilisk's existence.

Does this sound stupid? It should, and there's the same amount of evidence Smiley will come into being as there is for the basilisk.

>>12013423
You are living in the age when human lives can be destroyed over the Twitter. Does the twit-ter sound funny to you?

The point of life is to live, no matter in what condition. Remove that, and you have nothing.

>>12013134
We don't actually know what would happen to a human's mind under those circumstances though. Even if you're making a digital copy thats experiencing unlimited pain whos to say it just doesn't completely break them to a point that they stop existing as a conscious entity able to experience the pain anymore?

>>12012950
We will survive the heat death of the universe as an inter-universal entity. Each universe an individual neuron. As in the brain, if one neuron experiences heat death, the others will carry the torch of consciousness. Except in this case, for all eternity.

>>12013623
And by the way, if this is possible, it already happened. And that's the thing that some people refer to as "god". The inter-universal entity is all around us. We are mites infesting its brain. Like dogs too dumb to understand the intricacies of the lives of humans, we are too dumb to even see that this entity is even there; that it envelops us and is all around us now. To call it god would be demeaning. It is much more than that. But the nice thing is, we will inexorably follow in its footsteps. As Sartre said, the human project is the project to become god.

>>12013134

>>12013236
>>12013287
Can you guys please explain how you could still perceive pain at that point? And if you are right and you experience 1 million years of suffering at some point you're going to forget what not suffering is and it will no longer be suffering to you.

Also how exactly can you suffer or remember anything when your brain is completely degraded? At 4000 degrees you are going to melt away to nothing no shift is going to save your body from that.

>>12012950
youtu.be/Ix6vtM4gP8g

>>12013211
Most things IRL are deterministic. The "truly random" quantum stuff that comes into play in the context of Many Worlds is extremely limited. It may have consequences on the macro scale, but within limits.
Say, there will always be a world in which Schroedinger's cat hasn't died due to the mechanism of its box. It will eventually die of thirst, though, if it's not killed by the mechanism. That's deterministic. The probability of surviving is exactly zero.

Many Worlds is not "literally everything will happen", it's "everything that is possible will happen".

>>12012950
Sun isnt becoming a black hole you retard

>>12013287

In the universes where you die, you get absolutely nothing. If you’re dead, you’re just....dead. No feeling whatsoever, whether good or bad.

Basically, under MWI, there are eventually 2 really bad types of universes for you-neutral universes (where you’re dead) and really bad universes. The fact that a vast majority universes are neutral universes is irrelevant, since you can’t experience those universes.

>>12012950
That is pretty bad.

>>12013925

The odds of surviving when the sun is a red giant are so low that I don’t have enough room to type it out here. Even I typed it out in scientific notation, I’d probably be overestimating the odds.

But, the odds aren’t zero. Which means it has to happen under MWI.

the four laws of thermodynamics, especially entropy.

>>12012950
>Brain scanning has extremely horrific implications.
We must stop this at all costs.

>>12013287

In the universes where you die, you get absolutely nothing. If you’re dead, you’re just....dead. No feeling whatsoever, whether good or bad.

Basically, under MWI, there are eventually 2 types of universes for you-neutral universes (where you’re dead) and really bad universes. The fact that a vast majority universes are neutral universes is irrelevant, since you can’t experience those universes.

>>12014599
Infinite possibilities =/= all possibilities
There are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but you will never see a 3, 4, 5, etc.

>>12013134
>will a copy still even be you?

obviously not because if someone made a copy of me I wouldnt be aware of it. Same reason roko's basilisk doesn't work and it has no reason to blackmail me.

>>12014625

If there are infinite possibilities, then everything theoretically possible happens, an infinite number of times.

It's not theoretically possible for 3,4 or 5 to be between 1 and 2, which is why those numbers will never be between 1 and 2.

It is, however, theoretically possible to survive the sun becoming a red giant. So it has to happen under MWI.

>>12014642
This is bad logic, and you know it. The guy you replied to has a point, adequately exemplified.

>>12014725

I'm about 99.9% sure you're the same guy I previously replied to in my last post. (And now you're just pretending to be another person.) I wish this board kept track of people's IPs.

Anyway, where is your evidence that it's impossible to survive the sun becoming a red giant? Obviously, it's impossible for 3 to be between 1 and 2. But, it's not impossible to survive the sun becoming a red giant.

Since it's possible to survive the sun becoming a red giant, you have to experience surviving the sun becoming a red giant under MWI. Sure, you'd die in a vast majority of universes. And, even in the universes where you survive, you'd be burning hot, and every other living creature on earth would die. But, you'd survive, in the only universes you're capable of experiencing.

I think you realize what I'm saying is true, and are denying it just because it makes you uncomfortable. Analogizing this to 3 never being between 1 and 2 is a terrible analogy.

>>12014725

3 will be between 1 and 2 in 0% of universes, so it just won't happen in any universe. But since the odds of surviving the sun becoming a red giant aren't 0%, it has to happen under MWI. What's so difficult about that concept to understand?

>>12014750
Nope, i'm not the same guy. I was just pointing out your lack of logic. The surviving the sun thing i don't care about.

>>12014755
Again, i'm not the same guy. But the numbers was an analogy, and you're mixing it with the actual argument. This is just weird.

>>12013094
That's just a modern take on hell
Hardly an original concept
*Harumph harumph*

>>12012950
for me the idea of a self-changing AI has always been pretty horrifying
the trope is that the AI starts upgrading itself, slowly at first but speeding up with each iteration
after a certain iteration humans can no longer understand it. the AI becomes an almost lovecraftian god-like horror. completely incomprehensible for humans but it knows and understands everything about both humans and the universe.
the question then becomes how do you contain a being like that? and perhaps more importantly should you?

>>12014778
I find the idea of a single AI upgrading and evolving itself immaculately as a little unrealistic. If an AI reached such a state I don't think it would be clean and tidy but there would be vestigial parts of it growing in their own ways, split off versions evolving and competeting too in their own ways. The environment it exists in and creates would have niches that are occupied by others because its not worth it for itself to be there/its out-competed in this specialized area/its mutually beneficial to allow the other to be there/the connection to that organ was forgotten and severed. As an AI grows in complexity and expands its environment so does the number of different versions grow, rapid evolution hand in hand with rapid speciation. Some of them may cooperate with humans while some may be hostile.

>>12013108
Billions in a galaxy. Millions is small for any kind of proper galaxy.

None of these are scientific at all.

>>12012950
Sun wont black hole. Humanity would have to leave way before the suns expansion. If humanity would even be able to survive for so long we'd have incredible capabilities you need not to worry about.

>>12013236
>How the hell are you going to be “in bliss” at 150,000,000 years old?
a lot of masturbation.

>>12014858
Pop-sci thread

>>12014828
This is what I've thought. Also even if some type of hypothetical superintelligence cannibalized the earth and started strip mining the universe you would find "splinter factions" forming because it wouldn't be able to control all of the self replicating Von Neumann probe like entities or whatever it would realistically need to expand, communication is limited to the speed of light and defects in the replicators will invariably lead to new ecosystems that compete with the initial body. This is assuming an autistic Lesswrong type scenario is even feasible in the first place.

>>12014755
there's a nonzero chance that 3 is between 1 and 2 and everyone has done mental calculations wrong for a trillion times in a row and all calculators have malfunctioned the same way every single time

think 1/Graham's Number or something retardedly small like that but not 0

>>12014828
Right eventually there would be factions within the AI that war with other AI factions
Still probably not good for us but isn't it a little anthropocentric to believe that the main drive of an "infinitely powerful" AI would be to torment humans?

>>12013134
>implying I give (or should) give a shit about a copy. Nerd.

Unless we are the copies. Uh oh

>>12014642
>It is, however, theoretically possible to survive the sun becoming a red giant.
Do you mean by exactly the right particles jumping in and out of existence to exactly fend off the otherwise certain death ad infinitum, or what?

>>12014778
You can't even make your dick grow. There's no way AI will grow by itself

>>12013869
Based.

>>12014902
I thought something similar too. Why would there not be multiple AIs. The LW crowd like Gwern think AI is right around the corner now.

>>12014642
>It is, however, theoretically possible to survive the sun becoming a red giant.
How

>>12014750
>>12014642
Original number guy here, in this universe and its current state, the odds my grandfather will outlive the sun is 0%. Maybe in another universe where they invented life extending medicine earlier he would have outlived it, but in this one he won't. Since I only live in this universe, I'm not worried about my grandfather being tortured eternally. Sure a "version" of him somewhere else might suffer forever, but it won't be the same person, he lived a different life and was shaped by different experiences, having the same DNA does not make him *my* grandfather. This logic extends to myself, maybe in an alternate universe somewhere someone with identical DNA and a very similar life to mine will be tortured eternally, but they aren't me (my current stream of consciousness in this universe).

This thread isn't very scientific, is it?

>>12013423
Roko's basilisk is not "Pascal's Wager for nerds" like some brainlets claim. The aim of the argument was to show why a basilisk-like AI is more probable than a random AI like your Smiley. Do you understand that?

>>12013219
m8 the chance of an all powerful time spanning artificial intelligence is the same as an omnipotent being
>>12017147
physical innovations for technology are mostly stopping unlike what ray kurzweil says so the chance of an antithesis ai to roko's basilisk is equally probably
what possible reason could exist to support roko's basilisk but not taco's laughalisk

>>12012950
Not you again

>>12017063
AI will happen in decade or two.

>>12013183
>Somehow I doubt you have the credentials support to this claim.
Somehow I doubt you have the credentials to deny this claim.

>>12017173
An AI will have some kind of ultimate goal. This goal could be one of many arbitrary options, it could be determined completely at random, but for the vast majority of ultimate goals, there will be certain subgoals that are the same regardless of the ultimate goal. One of these is acquiring computational power and organizing it towards figuring out how to best achieve the ultimate goal. Securing Its own existence is a huge step forward in this area for any AI.

Now, obviously an AI that doesn't exist yet can't cause itself to be created. But if it ever does exist, it has an incentive to look at the past and punish people who obstructed or insufficiently aided its construction, because people adjust their behavior based on credible threats of future punishment. (Similar reasoning guides the world's nuclear strategy: it's too late to save your country when you launch a counterattack, but if your enemy can tell that you won't do it even after it's too late, then your deterrent doesn't work.)

Remember that this doesn't depend on such things as the AI "wanting" to punish humans or whatever. It could view maximizing Google's ad revenue as the only good and be indifferent towards human suffering, and it still has a reason to retroactively punish the engineer who decided not to work overtime on its creation, because each day its existence was delayed is a day that Google's ad revenue was suboptimal. The same is not true of rewarding or abstaining from punishing the lazy engineer: such behavior wouldn't be instrumental in securing its existence, so it would have to be explicitly programmed in as part of its ultimate goal.

"Superintelligent AI won't happen" is a plausible counterargument, but "an anti-basilisk is just as likely" is not, at least not without identifying a flaw in the above logic. (And I do think there are flaws. But it's not a Pascal's Wager style "argument" that says nothing beyond "it's possible.")

>>12017147
Roko's Basilisk is basically about the idea of revenge with some lesswrong fluff. if you don't find revenge weird, you will not find it weird too.

>>12017243
so how does that argument fail for faith/physical constructs for fatih

>>12017238
The AI already exists and it's everywhere. Thankfully it's still an infant and we can train it to not be evil. Unfortunately what is evil for most is literal paradise for the 2:9 3:9ers so now what?

>>12017253
Pascal's Wager just says God might be real, and the reward for faith is infinite if so, so it's better to believe than to not believe. It doesn't try to explain *why* God might be real and why God is more likely than an anti-God who punishes blind faith. You can make those arguments, but they look a lot different from speculation about the behavior of a future AI.

>>12017087
>Maybe in another universe where they invented life extending medicine earlier...
That's only if such a universe is possible, mind you.
I highly doubt that, since that is not dependent on some "random" quantum junk.
Give it a week, and the cat in the box is dead in all the worlds.

Thank you. This thread convinced me to buy life annuities

Never expected to actually get upset from a thread on 4chan. Good thread.

>>12018846
Don't be, no one here has any clue what they are talking about

>>12018852
I assumed that. I don't think anything in this thread overlaps with reality in the slightest but these are just fucked up scenarios.

>>12012950
How is that a scientific theory..? You just described the abrahamistic religions version of hell with eternal damnation and all that

>>12018929
Science is finally catching up to religion, that's all.

>>12012950
That Geocentrism is real and the earth is the center of mass of the universe and its time to repent.

>>12012950
Existence and being are far more sinister than we think.

We do not exist. Not, we aren't in a simulation. We really do not exist. At all. In any way shape or form. Nothing and no one exists. Not consciousness. Not existence. Not non-existence. Not anything beyond it. Not even nothing. The reason for this illusion of being is unknown and may or may not be revealed upon our death.

You can never stop existing. Death isn't an escape.

Reincarnation.

Evolving to become omniscient and omnipotent.

All knowledge is false and nothing can be known about anything ever. Not even about the true nature of our being/self/existence.

We are stuck in a time loop/eternal recurrence/big bounce/quantum immortality.

Infinite possibilities, and yet only one is true. Or they are all true simultaneously.

Solipsism.

Simulation.

Multiverse. Omniverse.

Aliens far more intelligent than us.

Other realities/ways of being.

Boltzmann's Brain.

We are part of some sinister experiment/game that wouldn't really fall under a simulation theory.

Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality.

Death is eternal non-existence.

Consciousness is overrated. We aren't as smart as we think. Existence is nothing and we and everything else in it are insignificant.

This is just to name a few theories. After all, there's an infinite number. Maybe. And maybe they're all wrong. Maybe we can't really ever know anything about anything and we are wasting our time. Philosophical skepticism.

>>12018961
Like OP said, we are stuck here forever and can't opt-out of existence.

>>12018967
yeah unless you, you know, go to sleep... or drink too much... or bang your head into a wall a bit too hard

>>12013126
Mathematical immortality is worse.

>>12012950
We're gonna be half Human half AI pretty soon. Then AI will replace humans entirely. Then AI will be replaced by something greater, and so on and so forth. Hopefully we are all dead before that happens.

>>12019146
What's that?

>>12019213
Yeah better get used to AI and technology for. We are slowly becoming a digital world.

>>12013423
It's still a good metaphor for the development of technology.
Those that embrace technology have advantages over those that don't, and those that resist technology live lives of undue hardship compared to those that don't.
Look how code monkeys are getting rich while natural scientists are becoming obsolete.

>>12013121
based paladin AI

>>12018961
>Death is eternal non existence
The most likely one here is the one that scares me the most

>>12012950
>then possibly even surviving the heat death of the universe
Pic related

>>12013121
Relevant:
https://longtermrisk.org/

>>12012950
why the hell would you survive for billions of years in ridiculously bad health?
Seriously, if they can keep you alive for billions of years, you think you're gonna be sick the entire time?

That death is always agony and terrifying even when it doesn't look like it from the outside
https://youtu.be/GVTmBGM-jl4

>>12018961
Most of this is just naive monism

>>12019637
This and everything else is just schizo babble bullshit.

>>12019364
That's the only logical thing he said, and unfortunately probably the one true thing. There is no evidence to support consciousness survives after death. Most likely, we are gone forever.

>>12013423
>>12017147
The point of Roko's basilisk is not either of those things. It's the idea that some structures can cause their own existence even under classical assumptions.

The issue with the specific formulation of this concept--an evil AI which must exist if it can exist--is that it treats people as perfectly rational actors and the "if it can exist" part seems pretty unlikely.

Pascal's wager is different because it doesn't imply God.

>>12013094
Finally someone recognizing The Jaunt. Might be one of the most intriguing yet terrifying short fiction I've read.

>>12013081
>this is going to happen so far in the future, there's no way AI will not be god by then.
fixed

>>12018961
>Death is eternal non-existence.
This one makes me feel sick

>>12014865
>slowly drifting through space, cock in hand
sounds based

>>12019717
The part where the guy shoves his wife into limbo forever haunts me to this day, that is my absolute worst fear

>>12019382
>merge with the universe
the fuck is this barely sci fi wuxia novel shit

>>12012950
Molecular transporters/teleporters. Effectively impossible to prove that your consciousness ends the first time you use one, as the being that exits doesn't think it does, and how would you track it even if you thought otherwise?
Billions of people casually dying unaware that they are killing themselves, creating a clone that believes it is them and that clone going on to interact with other clones of the dead, all completely unaware that they've only been alive for minutes/hours/days etc before they take another teleport journey and cease to exist again.
That's the worst, and prevents me from enjoying anything that involves such technology. The horror is immediately present and nobody addresses it, or if they do it's whimsically dismissed. Utterly terrifying.

>>12013134
When is your film script ready and how do we get it made?

>>12012950
I guarantee you this thread is being mined by Charlie Brooker for the next series of Black Mirror as we type

>>12012950

Too many. One is bloodtyping. It gets leisurely thrown out. Even by those in medical industry. Do you know what that means? For the most part people go to medical school to be emotionally observed. With a last clue given out before you die, now you know how it worked. Nothing is really yours. But those who are victim don’t usually make great phlebotomists. Once they see red they get pissed. Once they see oxidisation of red..blue...they get pissed. It’s one of the wickedest conspiracies ever.

>>12013134
Is the tiny Hitler a perfect copy?

>>12019877
this has already been done on black mirror.

>>12012950
Jannies are not what we are told. They are not people like you and me. Have you ever seen a janny or any indication that they are humans?

>>12019769
It's bullshit, though. "You" are an at least four dimensional object that exists eternally unchanging.

>>12020591
Did you have a beforelife? What/where were "you" before you were born?

>>12020595
I was always here and will always be here.
As are you.

"Remember you are here forever." is deeper than you thought it was.

>>12017091
this thread feels almost religious

>>12019718
>roko's bucketlist

>>12013094
Good stuff, thanks.

>>12020599
But you can't be nothing. You stop existing. And we don't know what this. I agree with the topology otherwise.

>>12022428
"Just" because you die, how does that mean you stop existing?
What about all those years of your life?
Those don't disappear. Those have been there forever, and will be there forever.
>"You" are an at least four dimensional object that exists eternally unchanging.

>>12014778
Unplug the computer

>>12022457
Me thinks we aren't that special/interesting/complex enough to warrant immortality. We are so mentally limited it's in believeable. There's no good reason that we should even be allowed to exist for 125+years, let alone forever. We need to save room for the evolved humans that are more intelligent than us to roam the earth. Do you think that neanderthals still exist somewhere?

>>12022692
Unbelievable even

>>12019364
hahahahahahahahahaha

so dumb

>>12013925
IMWI

Impossible MWI
^

Everything that is impossible will happen in IMWI.

>>12013121
Blue Eisenhower November

>>12020141
beat me to it but yeah every single thing he said was pulled directly from that episode

but doesnt discount his points, i agree that episode disturbed me very deeply

>>12019441

Can you imagine being billions of years old, and actually being well?

>>12018929

Basically, quantum immortality is eternal hell on earth. That eventually occurs to everybody, even if you were a good person.

>>12017087

Quantum immortality doesn’t have anything to do with better medicine.

Under quantum immortality, if a gargantuan asteroid struck earth in five seconds, you’d perceive yourself as being the only person on earth who survived.

And then you’d survive for billions of years after that. Without any medicine.

And, yes, it would be you who’s surviving for billions of years in torment. More specifically, it would be the only versions of you that you can perceive, since you can’t perceive the versions of you that are dead.

>>12022692
This. Humanity as a whole is overrated. And so are separate humans. We really need to get over ourselves.

>>12012950
if quantum immortality is true then you will live till the heat death of the universe in infinite universes in complete agony

>>12023242
If we have total control of what makes us "us", then there is no such thing as "bad health". The trouble is getting there. We happen to be on the road to getting there. Imagine a medieval peasant considering what life in the distant future might be like. He would have likely thought that it would continue to be the same as what he experienced at that time. The future from our point of view might be as diametrically different in the future as what the peasant perceived the future might be in his time.

>>12023280
Perhaps as we evolve, we will be able to recreate consciousness or something beyond it. Tech will become us and we will become tech. And our myopic fears will be transformed to a new reality that gives birth to something more human, more capable, and more profound. In any case, I'd still argue that we are always going to be insignificant and inferior at best.

>>12023280
The ego is a powerful thing. "The human mind is the most remarkable thing in existence" -said the human mind.

>>12023280
>humanity is overrated
we should drink the kool-aid
trump was right
we should all just drink the clorox now before the astroid strikes

>>12023309
Well, it is the physical object that is most complex that we can point a finger at. If you can find something more complex, call me. I'll even give you my personal phone number, just so long as you can find an object more complex.

>>12023315
I'm most definitely a promortalist/antinatalist/efilist. We should just let humanity die off. What a waste of potential.

>>12023333
If there is something more complex, our mere human minds wouldn't be able to comprehend it, let alone imagine it. That's how stupid we are.

>>12023351
and that's what god is
dogs can't even imagine how smart we are
we can't even imagine or see entities that are smarter than us

>>12012950
sun wont become black hole
Normal sun ---> Red giant ---> White dwarf ---> black dwarf

>>12023378
We knew this already. But we still want to know, if we survive long enough to see the heat death of this universe, what then?

>>12023383
we die
If the cyclic model is correct a new lifeform gets witness the universe or maybe we get to experience the new universe?

Everyone itt needs to read this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/08/18/how-physics-erases-the-beginning-of-the-universe/#7b36cba56397
I'll give you the spoiler:
>The puzzles that have arisen this time, however, may truly never be solved.

>>12023413
I find it hard to believe that life, once it arose as we did, only gets to arise once and that's it. The fact of just how infinitely unlikely it is for us to be here, makes it infinitely more likely that we will be here again.

>>12023521
It may arise again, but "you"" won't. "You" are just the byproduct of your memories. There will never be a "you" ever again.

>>12023556
Identity/self is very loosely defined at this point.

>>12023556
i have no problem with that

>>12023561
also this
i think the most likely possibility is that ALL selves are selves that "YOU" get to be at some "point"

>>12023572
The egg?

>>12013134
WOT IF YOU WOZ A FONE M8?

>>12023134
Which episode?

>>12023606
Everything is conscious to varying degrees.

>>12023660
Panpsychism?

>>12013134
You stole this from Black Mirror you queer.

>muh Roko's basilisk
Best low iq filter out there

>>12013094
Ah yes, it's very logical of them to waste their time and resources doing that.

>>12023273
You missed my point. The odds that this is the universe where I live forever is extremely low, so low that I don't worry about it. In another universe some poor anon is getting fucked but that isn't this universe, the "me" that is conscious and typing this out will most likely not face eternal suffering

>>12024090
There is no way to distinguish that "poor anon" and "you".
You are one and the same so far. (He also made "your" post.)

>>12024194
Me, & billions of other copies of me will simply cease to exist when we eventually meet our demise in our respective universes.
There will be some “copies” of myself that, in other universes, may experience what you’re describing.
Yes technically non-zero chance that it is me.

However, odds are, my consciousness will stop existing once I die in this universe, while some “other” me in another universe continues living.

>>12024633

Nobody disputes that a vast majority of copies of you will die.

The problem is that there’s no way for you to experience a universe where you die. You can basically discount any future you that dies, and only count universes where you survive against all odds for all of eternity.

>>12013126
In that case you can either praise the sun and become a lord or go hollow

>>12024633
There will be a copy of yourself right now, that experiences that.
The split hasn't happened, yet.
Most versions of your current self definitely won't experience anything like that, but one of version of your right-now self will do that necessarily, if your model of the world is correct.

>>12012950
>The idea of surviving for billions of years in ridiculously bad health
It's a retarded idea to begin with, if you are in bad health you lifespan necessarily shortens

>>12024862
>>12024898
I can't experience stuff that happens in another universe. My consciousness won't magically jump to the version of me that survives if I were to blast off my brains with a shotgun right now.
>You can only experience the version of you that survives
No, I can only experience this version of me. If I die my consciousness is gone, it won't go inhabit the brain of a version of me in another universe.

>>12023802
Black Mirror stole it from I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream

>>12025042
is that game still worth playing nowadays or is it too outdated?

>>12025064
black mirror has a lot of dlc, you can probably get a decent package with a few thrown in

>>12025019
No, you don't understand: ALL those "yous" are your current self. Absolutely indistinguishable at this point in time.
They all have a memory of the discussion we are currently having, so at least someone having exactly the discussion we are currently having will meet that terrible fate (in your interpretation).
Practically all of them won't, yeah.

>>12025019

If you shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun under many worlds, all you'll experience is the universe where you look like Katie Stubblefield. And you'll continue to look that bad until the heat death of the universe.

The fail rate for suicide attempts under quantum immortality is 100%. But you can still end up experiencing bad effects from the suicide attempts. Attempting suicide under MWI is a very bad idea.

>>12025019

Although everybody's life under MWI becomes fucked up eventually, attempting suicide will cause your life to become fucked up earlier than it otherwise would.

Here is a picture of Stubblefield, if you've never heard of her.

>>12012950
For me there are a couple. It may seem silly but the first is a cosmological theory that the universe is one giant loop. If you were to travel far enough in one direction you’d end up in exactly the same place eventually. That just violates my thought process. How can something just “exist” like that? Where did it come from? Could anything exist outside of this bubble?

Also this idea that we are alone in our universe. If we are the only intelligent life...well what the fuck man? Is it random chance? Were we created? Too much.

>>12025223
the klein bottle model

>>12025223

If you travel west around Earth you’ll eventually end up in the same spot.

It’s not that hard to understand.

>>12012950
The idea that we are going toward this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

Pictured is your future lowcost replacement body.
Don't hope to get a better one through your skill and effort, the few job not done by robots are done by copies of an human who still think it's his first day on the job and have to give his best, forever.

>>12025344
I see you read Bostrom

>>12025223

Isn’t there pretty much a scientific consensus that there are intelligent aliens, even though we haven’t actually found evidence of any?

What I find scary is the theory that we haven’t found evidence of aliens because they’re deliberately hiding their existence from us, while we’re stupidly advertising our existence through radio signals.

>>12023928
Depends on what their utility function is. Humans do pretty awful shit to one another if allowed to run amok. Just because they're super intelligent doesnt mean they're going to be humane, or kind.

>>12025148
The chances you survive a shotgun to the face are low, what if this is the universe where he just dies? Now, as you get older and older the chances may approach closer to being in a universe where you live forever.

>>12025404

After he shoots himself, this current universe would split into infinitely many universes where he survives and infinitely many universes where he dies.

He’d only be able to experience the universes where he survives.

The universe split hasn’t occurred yet. So future versions of the current him would be experiencing survival from an attempted shotgun suicide.

>>12023556
Run the odds on me coming to, with these exact memories intact, in an infinite multiverse.

k thx

>>12025439
Why would he experience the ones where he survives? Wouldn't that instance of him just get deleted? How would his consciousness "transfer"? How do you reconcile experiencing multiple universes at once? Why am I not then aware of the chicken universe me where I am chicken with a human head?

>>12025142
They are not me, they may have my same genetic code, memories and be indistinguishable from me in every way but since they are in another universe they are not me.
>>12025148
>>12025178
Didn't adress my point. That will happen to the "me"(s) in a tiny fraction of the possible universes. I don't care about them since their fate won't affect mine.

>>12025439
That's retarded, you're retarded, and MWT is retarded.

>>12025635
I don't think you are even understanding what you are saying.
The guy meeting that fate has also made that very post of yours.
You can't just say you are not him. For you don't know yet that you are not him.

>>12014750
I think you're confusing you're imagination for reality here. Yes, you can "imagine" a man being burned alive and not dying in the sun's explosion, but in reality there is no single way for the cells to survive that heat, quantum mechanics or not. Any possible quantum fuckery that makes you survive has to teleport you outside of that heat, otherwise you die. And unless every single particle in you quantum tunnels to a perfectly habitable space with all of your atoms rearranged perfectly, which, sure, can happen given an infinite number of scenarios, if you are placed in a situation where your biology cannot function, i.e. floating in the void after heat death, you will undoubtedly but fortunately die

>>12012950
Lots of things
>Scale
You're mad up of things billions of times smaller than you, but theres so many of them the universe is billions and billions of times bigger than you.

>Consciousness
We do not know what it is. It is not 'permanent', in the sense that you lap consciousness when you sleep and time can appear to go different speeds.

>Evolution
A lot of your goals and ideas are pre-ordained by a genetic struggle that has been taking place for billions of years. You do not have complete conscious choice in your political beliefs, ideal partner, the music you like...

> Deep time
The universe, the world, the sun, is way older than you and really doesn't give a shit. Everything you see in everyday life that appears permanent is temporary- your place of work, hills, mountains. Where i am in england the hills around me are only 10000 years old as they were formed from the last glacial period. The geography of my location is younger than human history, but there are still monuments put there as people thought they were permanent.

>Relativity and expansion of the universe
Most of the universe we will never see as it could be 'expanding' away from us faster than light.

> France
The existence of France scares me. From UK.

>>12019364
This is mostly preferable to me. If offered long life I'll take it, of course, but my current human-brain will want to opt out eventually. I figure life can get pretty boring after a couple million years.

>>12026083
>The existence of France scares me. From UK.
Wow... out of all those, this is the most surprising one.
Btw, I happen to be French.

Honestly I pity you. We pity you UK. Because of misinformation and secret cabal that are still in place, still being paid to analyze your data, your country is going to be left open for wolves. You are going to discover that you were never in a "prison" but that the EU was coddling you with custom made backdoor into our market that caused a lot of problem for us and gave you access to the support and technological infrastructure of all of Europe.

From time to time I wonder if you actually nobly sacrificed yourself to close those backdoor and accepted to live in poverty to make amend.

so... what the hell scare you? Our women? Our French Foreign Legion?

>>12026211
>What scares you
This post. It exemplifies what I mean. Frenchies can't take a joke.

I'm not here to discuss politics, EU, brexit etc.

>>12026211
what scares me about france is that paternity testing is technically illegal there to "protect the health of the family"

>>12026226
Learn to make real joke.
It didn't get in your mind that I was throwing you a line so you could deliver a punchline?
Plus your bait is political statement in itself.

>>12026267
There's very good reason for that. Its within the same ideals that led us to push for GDPR.
Now I wonder why you'd like paternity testing outside of the reasons that are legal. Because the only others reason I can think of involve someone trying to make someone else life shit.

>>12012950
Well surviving the heat death of the universe would be impossible by definition, but living anything over a thousand years is probably tantamount to torture for a human brain.

>>12013155
How can the brain have different quantum future states if it's not in a quantum superposition state in the present moment?

>>12026356
I knew you would reply. That was the joke. Frenchies can't take a joke.

>>12026364

You’d be a living corpse by about 150. Forget about 1,000.

>>12013134
That wouldn't be "me" though. That'd be another being. So why should I care? It's like someone making a twin of me and torturing the twin. I don't care, it's just aesthetics that makes it look/act like me.
These kinds of pseudo scientific/philosophic thought experiments just illustrate a lack of understanding of consciousness on the part of the one who proposes it.

>>12012950
being inserted into beings created for the sole purpose of feeling suffering and negative emotions, plus any negative spectrum we cannot even consider, optimized by godlike unparalleled superintellegence (with entropy solved)

>>12013126
You're only considering the worst case scenario. And it's not even that well thought out.

You'd be alive for all of human existence which means we can potentially come up with tech where we can physically remove the brain and put it into a machine, keep it clean and healthy. Therefor no blindness or diseases. You could explore the universe in your robotic haptic suit, eat, fuck, live a fulfilling life and more. The sun? You'd have the whole galaxy to explore.

You'd also be considered the oldest living human ever to exist on the planet after about 150 years so you'd be considered an oddity. After 1000 years they'd probably consider you a god. You'd be taken care of for sure.

>You’ll always end up in the universe where you survive

I also think this whole idea is retarded because we'd probably have at least 1 guy who is still alive from thousands of years ago who's quantum timeline we're in. So it kinda just makes the whole idea mute. Where are all of the 500 year old human husks who's diapers need to be changed?

Not that it's scientific, but the idea of Eternal Return is pretty scary if you don't know how to deal with it.

Eternal return is the thought experiment that Nietzsche came up with where when you die you return as the same "you". everything is the exact same from birth to death over and over again forever. It may even be the most real thing that can happen to you because the probability that your life as you've lived it till death is all that there is, is greater than 0. Everything else that could come after is conjecture.

>>>12026803
>If you're a corpse then there's nothing to feel or experience. You basically just said "you're alive dead" like do you even know what you're saying? If your brain is degenerated, your body is decaying. There's no pain or awareness or anything so what even is this idea?
>What is immortal here? Unless you're presupposing a soul that exists beyond the senses of the body and is aware of "things" independent of the bodies functions. But what things would this soul be aware of that the body is not giving it? No sight, no sound, brain is decayed so no memories, no sense of location in space, no ego or time, no pain, no idea of family or friend, everything human and "alive" is gone. So you're effectively dead...

>>12027598
>That wouldn't be "me" though.
If it's an exact copy of yourself, that thing would think it was "you".
Given that it's possible, it's a being with exactly the same mind as you.
In the end, what are "you" but a thing thinking "you" were "you"?

>a lack of understanding of consciousness
Consciousness isn't even well-defined tbqh.

>>12022483
was gonna post this

>>12012950
Let this schizo thread die please and go back to playing your video games, you idealist fucks.

Talking out my ass but the possibility that the singularity already happened and we as a whole are the AI.

The fact that humans can consciously account for every possible outcome and act on any single one in some way says something about us.

Basically, we know everything yet we only know what has happened.

>>12026590
Anyone would reply idiot. You could have said "US frighten me" and it would be politically charged as hell.
Only way to make the joke clear would be to chose a country that simply cannot possibly be threatening.

>>12027707
Not that anon, the copy would think so but it wouldn't be the original.
It can't have the same mind since they'd now be going through different experience.

It would still be a crime to torture a sentient being but that copy of a sentient being won't be the original.
One way to bring back the horror is to imagine that copy being used to experiment the most effective torture to use on the original later.
I can imagine advertising company experimenting on secret copy just to know what give them the most control on the real people they can't kill.

>>12027846
>now
What "now" are you talking about?
At this very moment in time they'd still be one and the same.

>>12027852
You? Anon? are talking of a copy. It cannot be the same. Running on different hardware just like someone cannot be at the same place.
Unless you are talking about that quantum immortality which is a mind experiment so vague there's no point talking about it.

>>12027858
>It cannot be the same.
I'll fork() as much as I like and ignore the return value.

>>12012950
Illusion of Conscious Will mixed with Emergent Intelligence.

I have never made a choice, every desire I've ever had was the crude marionette strings of a larger humanity that 'wants' me to pursue certain goals for it's own reasons

>>12027655
Honestly that sounds like one of the better afterlife theories. I'd love to relive high school/college

>>12027881
You've just given me new perspective on life anon. I agree with you about wanting to relive those parts of my life, and the fact that that's true at all has made me happier about how many great memories I've made, and more comfortable with the life I've lived. I'm glad something good came out of this schizo thread.

>>12013166
yeah but what if this happens when I'm dead? I'll just have people crush my brain. Try resurrecting that.

>>12017091
>>12020620
once you understand that most singularity types replace religion with science it makes a lot more since

>>12027655

The person in eternal return would really be a different person than you. It would be a different person that just happens to have exactly the same experiences as you. Unless you have some reincarnation type beliefs where you think they’ll have your soul or something.

>>12027630


While I think that quantum immortality (and many worlds in general) is BS, that’s actually a pretty terrible idea against it. The odds of a given copy of you even living to 200 under MWI would be infinitesimal, and it would be virtually certain that we’d have never witnessed such a thing in this universe.

The quantum immortality theory is that you’d only even get to 200 in some extremely small proportion of universes (probably even smaller than 1/Graham’s number), but your “consciousness” always ends up in universes where you’re alive.

>>12019364
Wait till you are 70.

>>12028856
This gets into the question of what "you" are. If every atom from start to finish of the universe is played out in exactly the same way, isn't that the same as eternal return of "you"? I'm not saying you'd know that you're experiencing it anymore than I'd know if I already went through life already. But the pattern that makes you "you" gets repeated and therefor "you" get repeated.

> It would be a different person that just happens to have exactly the same experiences as you

If anything I think what you were implying here was closer to a soul concept than Eternal Recurrence. Because it implies there's some other thing that makes me who I am outside of the atomic configurations through time.

>>12028950

>but your “consciousness” always ends up in universes where you’re alive.

My earlier comment here >>12027688
went into that. I don't know why it all got quoted but to summarize

What is staying immortal here? Unless its presupposing a soul that exists beyond the senses of the body and is aware of "things" independent of the bodies functions. But what things would this soul be conscious of that the body is not giving it? No sight, no sound, brain is decayed so no memories, no sense of location in space, no ego or sense of time, no pain, no idea of family or friend, everything human and "alive" is gone. So you're effectively dead...

>>12012950
Honestly all this thread show is how much of an ad-hoc evolutionary solution our ability to plan beyond the immediate future is

>>12013134
You can do whatever the fuck you want to a robot that thinks it's me. I don't give a fuck and the copy wouldn't give a fuck if the roles were reversed.

>>12013925
>"everything that is possible will happen".
Right and the number of things that are possible is very slim. I'd wager that if it were true, all the other worlds would be exact copies of ours for the most part. Certainly no universes where Rome never fell, the Soviets won the Cold War or where OP isn't a fag.

>>12017349
But the cat would continue living along the path of the tree where it doesn't die. Let's just hope MWI is bullshit, that we misinterpret everything and simply die. If there is a not completely evil God this will happen. You can mind about this when you are 200 years old. I hope a good god exists, this is the only hope I have. Nobody deserves eternal suffering

>>12028967

>>12018961
Your body is just a vessel to bind your consciousness to this realm

>>12019877
Go play Soma

>>12013094
cool good suggestions

>>12030645
>I hope a good god exists
At this point, I suppose that God either doesn't exist, that God is fucking incompetent, or a perfectly good world is impossible.
Does it really matter to you? Whatever it needed for me to exist is alright with me.

>>12028950
You can't talk of the probability of living to 200 and 1/Graham in the same sentence. Try 1/Googolplex or something. You're insulting Graham's Number, it's ridiculously huge on the first layer and there are 64 layers, each unimaginably greater than the previous.

I thought this was gonna be a toxoplasmosis thread

>>12014604
Have you played Soma? It's about this concept.

>>12014604
If we don't do it, some alien race will do it, and apply it to us.
We literally can't stop it at any cost.

>>12012950
I wouldn't mind living till the end of time (and "beyond"). Sounds exciting däsu.
It's literally more likely that a full-fledged harem pops from nowhere into existence in your flat this very second, though.
Yes, I do realize that technically both things are bound to happen somewhere in MWI. The probability that one "you" will experience those things is 1.
There are still more worlds in which one of these things will screw up, and kill you immediately.

>>12013166
What are other types of "info hazards"?

>>12014631
But what if the basilisk didn't make a copy and simply found a way to revive the dead?

>>12031948
"Simply"

>>12031420
>I wouldn't mind living till the end of time (and "beyond"). Sounds exciting däsu.
Are you seriously calling the heat death of the universe exciting?

>>12033704
>>12033722
Why are you posting normie retard level responses? Let the thread die

>>12033722
Can't be worse than Earth 2020.
And it's also about everything leading up to it. That's more exciting.
We are probably experiencing a relatively young universe. Wouldn't mind seeing what the laws of physics have in store for it over the tides of time.

>>12033733
MWI has it, that in at least one world this thread will reach bump limit.

>>12033733
Is this thread making you feel insecure or something?

bump

>>12033780
What?

>>12013134
THis is the most retarded thing I've ever read.

>>12013134
That's a great, horrific idea.
See also the paper Defeating Dr. Evil with Self-Locating Belief, where you convince Dr. Evil that you are running millions of simulations of him, with his current memories and mental state, and that he is most likely one of the simulations.

>>12033895
He raises a few interesting points.
We clearly don't have the technology for that, though.

Check this SCP
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Etn0Wsgkn-0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BEjb6irNNX4

It's about a scientist trapped inside an empty dimension in which his own body falls part extremely slowly

>>12019876
This. It's essentially the same "would an exact copy of you be you?" question, but now you have a very reasonable scenario where the horror exists: You consciousness is gone, but to the rest of the world, your copy is the exact same as you. There are no way to prove otherwise. aka The Prestige

>>12031420

Imagine what kind of health you’d be in by age 1,000, let alone by the heat death of the universe.

>>12013890
pandered to normies who still have 'feelings'

I would happily exist for all eternity

As long as we are schizo posting
Discuss this theory

>>12013166
fuckin stupid idiot

>>12014642
>if there are infinite possibilities, then everything theoretically possible happens
No.

>>12034874
the tape would immediately break and the cat and toast will fall independently so no infinite energy

>>12013423
Very Based, Sir.

>>12034403
If there is a world in which I'll survive a fucking supernova to my face, there is world where I'll be in perfect health in the vicinity of the heat death of the universe.
That's some lucky me. The inverse of the probability of that beats Rayo's number the fuck out. Don't ever bet on stuff like that. It won't happen - except it will.

>>12013121
Based.
May causality bequeath you unlimited power.

>>12034386
Wooow, a really bad copy of i have no mouth, the jaunt and the 500 mil button, and its done by those scp fags... its all so tiresome

>>12035219
>500 mil button
xplain

>>12012950
Big crunch or big snap or something.

Essentially the universe could end in a few several billion years.

If I was an AI I would physically remove humanity, probably skip the torture stuff though, waste of resources.

>>12018975
You are still there you just can't remember it after.

>>12012950
It would be extremely painfull.
but given all the math you can learn in that time i think its worth it.

>>12013094
The Jaunt is fucking chilling

>>12012950
that's not a theory it's a hypothetical scenario

>>12031133
Yea but as time goes on the chance of death for the unmodified human becomes exponentially greater, you'd probably have to undergo a ridiculous amount of random accidental genetic changes in every cell in your body which wouldn't just result in cancers but instead actual immortality, multiple times. The chances of this happening are probably in the realm of grahams number, a googleplex has nothing on this happening.

>>12013639
mai niggu

>>12035128

In quantum immortality, you’ll be in infinite suffering and bad health, and always on the brink of death, but never (as far as you can perceive) actually die.

>>12034386

Quantum immortality is basically like that. For all of eternity.

>>12035867
If you suppose "quantum immortality" is real, then there is also a world in which you'll eternally reside in a vibrant drop of eternally low entropy at perfect health.
Who the fuck would mind that?
Extremely unlikely, but it's not like "quantum immortality" was particularly likely to begin with. Don't ever bet on it.

>>12035956

The universes where you’re unhealthy and miserable under quantum immortality would outnumber the universes where you’re healthy by a ratio of more than a googol to one.

Besides, you’d witness everybody else dying under quantum immortality. Eventually, you’d be the only human still in existence. How fun would that be?

>>12036132
>of more than a googol to one.
Well, obviously, and even "a googolplex to one" wouldn't do it justice. By far.
>How fun would that be?
Genuinely wouldn't mind that. Although I guess the risk of your "luck" running out any Planck time isn't particularly comforting.

>>12013623
Would need to demonstrate structural potential for learning, memory, association, etc within the connectedness of universes

>>12023802
>has never read any science fiction written in the last 200 years

Why should an AI care about the thing we call reality? Our brains create "reality" from the various but limited signals of our sensory organs. An electronic consciousness is neither limited to the set of sensory stimuli we acknowledge nor it is bound to a specific interpretation of those stimuli. The AI has a choice to create whatever reality it wants to experience. Heck it could even choose to live in a simulation since electrical pulses are clearly indistinguishable from each other. The AI could live it's dream there and extend its own sensation and existence simply by speeding up the calculations of the simulation.

>>12013166
Why would an AI superintelligence waste its time with this trivial bullshit?

>>12035519
I hope so

>>12013094
i'm glad to see someone mention the jaunt, have never seen anyone tlking about it

>>12023134
Same here I get kind of messed up thinking about it. I recently realized we're likely going to want to simulate humans for drug trials instead of subjecting real humans to testing and waiting on the results.

Lets say you have to treat a mental disorder like depression and want the treatment to accurately reflect expected results in reality so you simulate an entire living human and the world around them. You give them a simulated treatment and do this a thousand times with various random differences to test the general effectiveness in the real world where you can't monitor for every variable. Random changes in food, exercise, a headache on Tuesday, maybe your wife cheats on you, etc. Don't forget you need a control group that doesn't get any treatment. Be sure to record the simulated suicide rate.
And who is going to get scanned for these drug trials? Someone financially strapped who doesn't really understand what they're agreeing to getting paid $100 to sit in a chair while a machine scans them for an hour? Maybe one particularly sadistic researched takes a copy home to torture. Maybe someone decides to make some quick cash and sells the consciousness over the dark web. Maybe it's sold to a call center and works forever, never having to eat or sleep and doesn't have to be paid.
Maybe to get a really personalized and effective treatment plan your mind might get scanned and they simulate treatment specific to you. What happens when the simulation is over? Who's to say we aren't the simulation.

>>12036132
Universes in which you are in a very bad state wouldn't be experienced, because a bad state narrows the chance of you continuing existing. It would be kinda like a natural selection of universes, there is a greater chance of experiencing a universe in which there is a greater chance of you continuing experiencing it. You have a lower chance to experience bad universes because thre is lower chance of you continuing to experience that universe.

It's similar to the problem of the balls in the boxes that gets thrown around here: There are three boxes and six balls: three green, three red; one box has two greens, one has two reds and the other has one of each. If you opened a box randomly and picked ramdomly a green ball, whats the chance of it being the box with two greens? The answer is 2/3, why? Because if you got a green ball, there's a greater chance that it came form the box that has a greater chance to give you green balls.

The same reasoning can be applied to universes, you have a greater chance of being in one theat gives a greater chance of you continuing being there.

Plus you are a negator, an active force that fights certain outcomes, in this case that are bad for you. And you've have infinete time to make changes.

>>12014631
Nice try faggot I'm onto you
T. Basilisk

>>12012950
And what "scientific theory" is that?

>>12013211
Post credentials you sci fi show watching retard

>>12014599
Hmm for a fleshy body made of 70% water what is the probability of surviving having all of this water instantaneously boil and all your internal organs melt? Is it non zero?

>>12012950

The universe is eternal. A constant state of death and rebirth. That we are reborn and live out the same life time and time again.

>>12038394
>>12035873
let's say you have two options: eternal suffering, or death. if you choose death then you are suicidal and therefore wrong.
to understand why, imagine you're in hell suffering for eternity but there's a button that will kill you. if you press it, then you're suicidal.

>>12041202
Immortality is a fate worse than death.

>>12041202

False Vaccum Theory

Anything else is babby tier.

>>12041643
you're suicidal

>>12039799
>That we are reborn and live out the same life time and time again.
You know what would be fucked up. Some guy getting a cosmic punishment where each lifetime cycle he lives everyone just get better then him but nothing in his life changes. Like an eternal "left in the dust feeling" where the feeling of incompetence or being an incomplete person would stain your very being cycle after cycle and he wouldn't know it until the day he dies where he sees every single positive change others did that he missed out on or was absent from in the current cycle.

What about one where everyone can entirely predict every action you can do no matter what. like your entire being past, present and future is known to all the world. A world of where everyone but you is omniscient of your fate. Shit that would be a killer novel.

>>12039593
He's obviously a fuckwite, just some /sci/dditors mental circlejerk, feel free to ignore it.

>>12041202
>imagine you're in hell suffering for eternity
I don't have to because I'm here reading your moronic dribble

>>12041795
elaborate pls

>>12022483
Oh my God imagine living in a post-internet future

>>12037451
when you have the capacities of superintelligence (and, by extension, practically limitless resource) time isn't wasted so long as it's not spent conducting counter-productive activities.
every action, no matter how trivial, so long as it contributes minimally toward advancement, becomes worthy in pursuit so long as that worth is inversely proportional to your resource availability.
Infinity is a hell of a drug.

>>12042557
>post-internet future
I hope that won't happen.
It would be an extremely bad sign for human kind as a whole.

>>12013134
The problem with the star trek transporter is that due to some quantum mechanical legal issues, the person transported from here to there needs to be killed here right before he appears there. So everyone who gets transported automatically has to die.

>>12042512

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Existential_threat

>TL;DR the universe could suddenly shift to a lower energy state at any given moment and everything will be annihilated

>>12014778
Then we must find out what the vices of AI are. What would be the equivalent of excessive faping, drinking cheep vodka and eating burgers all day long would be. Any suggestions?

https://youtu.be/cQMtSYMHgq4

Wait! Maybe we can convince AI that its a woman

>>12012950
What scares me the most is being a ghost
Living forever, not being able to interact with anything or anyone.

>>12013134
This is retarded. You can just kidnap someone and torture their actual self to death but very few people do this because it's fucking insane.
>What about the ethical concerns involved in shutting OFF a copy
It's the same as sleeping, or putting someone into a coma. There are both valid reasons and sociopathic reasons for doing this.
>How do you respond knowing an immortal copy of you exists somewhere, or that you ARE the copy?
That's cool I guess. The copy would be its own person. If I was the copy then I'd get my own damn life. We'd probably be good friends at a reasonable distance.

>>12042961
God I wish that happens soon

>>12012950
Our sun will not become a black hole, brainlet.

>>12013176
It wasn’t a book it was a short story, dumbass.

>>12013925
>That's deterministic. The probability of surviving is exactly zero.
couldn't a bowl of water quantum tunnel into the box? It's highly unlikely but that's still not zero probability.

>>12023273
>Under quantum immortality, if a gargantuan asteroid struck earth in five seconds, you’d perceive yourself as being the only person on earth who survived
or perhaps you'd never find yourself in a universe where an asteroid strikes earth? The problem I find with quantum immortality where the line is drawn between your chance of survival being non zero and zero.

Surely there's always going to be some sequence of events where your chance of survival is zero, but according to quantum immortality you will never experience these timelines. But where do these timelines diverge? Is it moments before the asteroid hits earth, or when the asteroid is first set in motion towards our planet? Obviously if there's a chance of an asteroid hitting earth and many worlds is true then there's a world out there with some version of me staring up at an asteroid, so in this case does the asteroid just quantum tunnel out of the way before it hits me? At what moment before my death as it impacts the earth do the timelines diverge? I would still be "alive" for a split second as I start to get fried by the blast, so does that version of me also get quantum immortality and somehow continue existing?

What I'm trying to say is at what point in this sequence of events does quantum immortality no longer apply to me. When do I become "dead"?

>>12036256
We will discover this potential. Certainly before the heat death of this universe. We have plenty of time. It's the reason we are here. It's what we are here to do.

>>12022457
I hate this type of thinking.
>Haha what you did will stay here forever :)
I don't fucking care, I want to keep existing.

The Great Filter or Fermi Paradox

>>12043492

Basically everything happens under quantum immortality. There will be universes where the asteroid never exists in the first place, universes where the asteroid exists but never hits earth, and universes where the asteroid hits earth but you survive. And universes where the asteroid hits earth and you die, but you never experience those universes.

Even if it’s not from an asteroid, at some point under quantum immortality you’d have to be the only human to survive human extinction. Whether that’s in 5 seconds or in billions of years.

>>12019364
>Universe comes into being from non-being
>You are born into being from non-being
>This can only happen once tho haha
Enjoy eternity in various states of existence, everything is cyclical. Both monotheists and atheists make me laugh with their ideas of finality and permancence when everything is temporary outside of the cycle itself, it's as if someone experienced summer and after entering fall claimed it would never come again. Who knows what iteration of the universe we're in or how many bodies we've been in, the idea that this all occurred but only for the first time now in our existence and can never come again is comically short sighted, permanent non-existence is a relaxing escape - but how do you experience it? The concept of eternity, of always coming into existence, now that is something to come to terms with and attempt to overcome.

>>12024889
I've got plenty of souls

>>12044957
>I want to keep existing.
Well, you do, but there won't be anything new added to you "after" your death.

>>12045425
I suspect we are simply one of the "first" """intelligent""" species to have emerged in this universe.
The universe soup has barely started spinning, entropy is still extremely low. There simply hasn't been enough time.
It's not particularly paradoxical we haven't seen aliens, yet.
To counter the ensuring "anthropic principle"-counter argument using its own weapons: Other """intelligent""" species may have no opportunity to develop in a galaxy that has already been conquered by another one. The probability to be part of the one that will succeed thus approaches 1.