« on: 02/03/2020 22:35:49 »
Try teaching the game to someone else and then see if you can win. That will help to show you whether you've made any progress with it.
The following users thanked this post: Harri
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?
It is to my disappointment that my reply #258, dated 12/27/18, was our last communication, and it received no response. Perhaps due to the holidays, or perhaps because both curved spacetime speculation, and gravitational wave energy density time-delay speculation are not easily falsifiable. The association between the presence of mass and the curvature of spacetime is the same as the association between the presence of mass and the gravitational wave energy density of the local space, from the perspective of the ISU model which we are simulating.
It would be nice to know if you did understand that the role that wave energy density plays in the ISU model is the same role that curved space plays in SR/GR, because light following a curved path through spacetime, and light slowed by following a path that takes it through space containing higher gravitational wave energy density, both have the same result in terms of arrival times at a distant point.
It would have been nice to have a reply from someone of your intellect in regard to my supposition that the cause of the hemispherical anisotropy might be the result of two previous parent arenas converging to form a big crunch/bang that initiated our expanding arena, and therefore the resulting hemispherical anisotropy observed in the cosmic microwave background could have been imprinted by differing density/temperature characteristics of each of the individual parent arenas.
Sorry if trying to bring out those different aspects interfered with the discussion of the absolute time simulation. Perhaps you can take us forward in that direction.[/font]
I didn’t intentionally place my model where you perceive it to be, relative to other models. I actually developed it step by step starting with the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”
Am I giving that impression? Black holes are continually accumulating matter and energy through accretion.
Look at the description of the ISU above. Do you see any way that energy can escape? If so, I didn’t describe it sufficiently.
Granted, in some models, like GR, and like The Big Rip, the end of the universe might be like what you describe, but in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy that you see “radiating off” isn’t escaping, and before it gets away the mechanism for its replacement is already working, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density profile of space is universal, and has all the energy, and is continually being refreshed by the perpetual processes of arena action and quantum action of the ISU.
The ISU is not General Relativity. Because it is not General Relativity, in order to understand the ISU, you have to resist the temptation of see it from the perspective of curved spacetime. Spacetime, and curved spacetime, is not a feature of the ISU. Instead, all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.The energy that must be employed to curve space in GR, is there in the ISU in the form of gravitational waves that carry energy.
That is not a description of the source of gravitational waves in my model, or how they are emitted by mass in the ISU model.[/font]
That statement is based on your experience and learning of General Relativity (and SR).
When you think of the presence of mass being maintained in space by the continual functioning of the two ISU components of mass, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, you then put that in place of the concept that there is nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves. The planet, and all objects with mass are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy convergences. Each convergence has a hint of mass.
Not in the ISU model, as explained. The energy is always there in space, coming and going in all directions at all times, from an infinite history of the process of inflow and out flow that continually refreshes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
That thinking comes from your familiarity with General Relativity, and the simulation that we are looking at producing comes from a different model of cosmology called the Infinite Spongy Universe model.
I hope you can make the adjustments in your thinking that are necessary to talk about a simulation from the perspective of the ISU model. You have to disregard your own thinking, and go with mine to do a simulation of my model.
Note that I have explained where the gravitational waves that are depicted in the inverse square law diagrams, and that I describe as filling the gravity well at a declining intensity as you go up the ladder, so do you see now where the waves are coming from in the ISU?
If so, the you have the answer to the question:Quote from: bogieHow do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?Quote from: David CooperAnd if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?In the ISU, an infinite universe, the ladder in the gravity well is defined to be of infinite length, and if, for purposes of the simulation, you are using a single massive object as the bottom of the well, then the higher parts of the ladder are lower than the parts above them, on an infinitely long ladder.
I take it you are programming/coding your AGI system on your own? I can see hundreds of hours being invested in something like that...
Did it get all of that right?
How do I relate the rate that the clock ticks, to the local gravitational wave energy density?
Gravitational time dilation implies that a clock in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass 𝑀, at distance 𝑅
from the center, will be ticking at the square root √ of 1−𝐺𝑀𝑐^2𝑅 times slower,
Where G=Newton’s constant G=6.674×10−11 N·kg–2·m2
is Newton's constant of gravity and 𝑐 is the speed of light (Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second.) So if we just take the Earth's gravity into consideration, on the surface
clocks would be ticking about 0.00000000035 times slower than in "outer space", i.e., far from the Earth.
"To illustrate then, without accounting for the effects of rotation, proximity to Earth's gravitational well will cause a clock on the planet's surface to accumulate around 0.0219 fewer seconds over a period of one year than would a distant observer's clock."
You do have pretty detailed scenarios related to absolute time and space. I wonder what the list of absolutes includes, i.e., time, space, the speed of light in vacua, and I suppose many absolute values like that. Can you give me a little insight into to the path you followed that guides to adopt absolute time and space?
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.
Let’s start with that fact about your light clock at rest in deep space. You say it ticks more slowly when it is at rest.
Those two statement seem inconsistent to me. Are they supposed to be the other way around, i.e., the rest clock ticks faster, and the moving clock ticks slower? That would make more sense to me.
Let's assume that there are no uncertainty about all of those assumptions. At a glance, it seems to be obvious that the doctor should kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives.
It hardly matter , this forum lies just like every other forum. I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake.
So you want to impose an AI dictatorship. How is that any different? You are removing freedom. Ultimately you could end up where you are controlled by your own invention. I bet you wouldn't like that. Especially if the AI prevented you from meddling with it any further. Since it may now see you as a threat to its prime directive.