Recent content by javisot

Completely agree with both.

I don't know what to say... based on Barandés's words, I'd say his interpretation doesn't correspond to the textbook. Since its correspondence excludes any result that, in a standard way, implies non-locality. In the terms you used, Pines Demon, local causality is not causally local. It seems...

I'll extract two noteworthy paragraphs about that: "Causal locality: Physical influences as described by a system’s stochastic dynamics cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. That is, the stochastic dynamics of a localized system during a specific time interval cannot be conditionally...

I'll make a single comment on something you mentioned. First, note that I was one of the first in this thread to mention the problem of not knowing how to artificially create humans. My comment isn't meant to solve that, but rather to mitigate the need for exotic technology. We don't have to...

Me too. I don't understand why Dave wanted to derail the conversation.

But that premise makes no sense and nobody said it, "any problem" is not even a defined concept. When I said "a- Demonstrably capable AI," I didn't mean being able to literally solve any problem. What you're describing isn't AI; it's AGI, and not even that. Solving "any problem"? Do you really...

Why do you think that?

We can all agree that if: a- We have demonstrably capable AI b- Human life can be created without human intervention (except for the contribution of biological material) Then this is the most efficient and simplest plan. I would venture to say that if a and b are possible, this type of...

Well, in this case we'll have to settle for thinking, "At least they have the AI; it would be worse if they didn't even have that." I don't think an AI would raise feral children, typical of those who haven't received any kind of upbringing.

Yes, but we're talking about plans that don't allow for such prediction and automation. The timeframes are so long that factors like the physical evolution of the crew, technological advancements, or, in the case of no crew, the evolution of the destination planet, for example, come into play...

What you said, and I agree with it, is equivalent to "abiogenesis is very probable, panspermia is very improbable."

Imagining ourselves in the future having reached the technological limit is analogous to imagining ourselves in the future having reached AGI. Obviously, a technological limit exists, ultimately dependent on the laws of physics. But we don't know what that limit is, nor can we determine what...

So we have something in common with viruses.

If I could vote again, I would vote for you to win in every category😂

It's true that the thread has veered off course quite a bit. Initially, I interpreted the main topic as "probability of abiogenesis?" But everything has changed. Furthermore, the person who raised the question is not participating, so moderation is still necessary.