1

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 26/08/2019 16:48:53 »

Black holes are a curved space-time issue, and I always had a problem with it the same way I had a problem with SR's space-time. You solved my SR's problem with your simulations, but I'm still waiting for one to explain curved space-time. With SR, I didn't understand beaming, and the thing that I don't understand with GR is the physical mechanism that explains the curving of space-time. More specifically, I need to see information getting away from a massive body and curving space-time later on. Scientists want us to believe that mass does it without showing us a mechanism for it. My small steps show that mass could be the result of synchronization being broken during acceleration, and if it was so, it could certainly not curve space-time. We can think that the two kinds of mass come from two different mechanisms, but then, we have to show both of them. The way black holes work, no information can get out of them, so nothing can inform space-time to get curved, which means that we got the same problem with the two kinds of space-time, we can't simulate them, and if it is so, I can't see how nature could produce them. You say that it's different with LET, but you assume that the speed of light would be affected by the gravity well, and you have no more mechanism to explain the gravity well than relativists have to explain curved space. We must be on solid ground before trying to build a new theory, otherwise we will have to add epicycles to epicycles indefinitely as relativists.

2

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 11/08/2019 22:39:20 »

What's the difference between that and what I'm saying? I show that the "time" dimension isn't sufficient and that Newtonian time has to be added to it, then I say that one of those two kinds of "time" is superfluous and that it can't be the Newtonian one that should go as it would have to be brought straight back in again, so it's the "time" dimension that needs to be chucked. And once we've only got Newtonian time left, we're back to an aether model.

The first time I saw your explanation I didn't care to understand. It was enough for me to know that, with beaming, ether explained it all. Then I got back to it to be sure I didn't miss something important. In fact, what I found difficult to understand is the block universe of the relativists, and I still don't understand it. I went through a few web pages about it and it didn't help. It looks more philosophical than scientific. To me, saying that the past the present and the future are equally real is as illogical as saying that the speed of light is the same whether the observer is moving or not. There is no need to get deeper in the theory when the premise is illogical, just to find a logical way to explain the observations, and that's what LET does.

Have you realised who he is? He set up (and owns) the anti-relativity site. He seems to have deleted the forum. Do you know when it disappeared and whether its deletion was announced there before it went?

No, I didn't realise. The forum was deleted a few years ago, and then it got back on the air again, but I haven't been there lately so I don't know when it disappeared. We can ask him if we want now that we know he is still alive. I thought he was dead!

He's a useful contact as he has a detailed knowledge of the history of this.

He seems to know what he is talking about. I had a look at what he says on Quora, and I found that he was interested in AI, so here is the link to his page in case you would like to know what he thinks about that:
https://www.quora.com/profile/Shiva-Meucci 
In case you didn't know about them, here is a link to Melon University that I found in his answers. They are specialized in computer sciences, but they also try to understand human mind by reading it with a 3D scanner.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/mind-readers
Some questions below, Meucci is completely wrong to affirm that a windsurfer is unable to go faster than the wind, and it's an easy one, so maybe he is not that reliable after all as far as knowledge is concerned.

3

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 07/08/2019 20:15:48 »

I do consider it to be false, but only because it's contrived and wholly unnecessary. 4D Spacetime doesn't actually work unless you add Newtonian time to it to coordinate the unfolding of events for objects following different paths, but once you've recognised the need to add that, you've got two kinds of "time" in the model, and one of them's superfluous. Removing the Newtonian one breaks the model because it brings event-meshing failures back in and invalidates the model, so the "time" to get rid of is the "time" dimension.

I know you like that explanation, but I find it more complicated than simply showing a simulation and saying that it is impossible to make without using aether, because then, we can't move the light with regard to the screen anymore. In the SR explanation showing the light exchanged between two moving mirrors, it always moves with regard to the screen, which is the only way for it to take more time than when the mirrors are at rest. There is no other way, so why not hit that nail until it gets nailed for good. I found a guy on Quora who talks about the historical environment that helped physicists chose SR instead of LET: https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Tesla-so-adamantly-against-relativity-theory/answer/Shiva-Meucci As far as I'm concerned, he's a bit wrong about length contraction and time dilation being an illusion, but it is important to know how this drift has occurred if we want to convince. It's not only that SR is conceptually wrong, it's that it doesn't allow to get beyond.

4

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 30/07/2019 20:09:26 »

There's no point in doubting the bending anyway when you can take a photograph during a solar eclipse and compare it with one showing the same background stars half a year later: their positions are different due to gravitational lensing in the former case.

Six months later, the sun is on the other side of the Earth and its apparent size is the same as during the eclipse. Therefore, if we put this apparent sun on the map of the night sky, since the observed stars look closer to the center of the sun than during the eclipse, it will hide them, but if we consider that the sunlight has undergone the same curvature as that of the stars' light, then we know that the sun appears bigger than it really is, so we just have to shrink it on the night map and it will not hide them anymore, but it cannot hide them a day and not hide them the other day, so if I'm right about the sunlight's bending, something is wrong with this explanation. On the other hand, my small steps show that mass may not be as mysterious as we thought and that mechanism can certainly not bend space. Curved space is a mystery built over another one, and each time science took for granted that mysteries were allowed in theories, they proved wrong later on. To claim that light had the same speed regardless of the speed of the observer was a mystery that LET proves to be false, so why not assume that Einstein loved mysteries and consider that his curved space is probably equally false?

5

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 22/07/2019 21:18:34 »

But how are your lasers held together without it built out of lasers that are built out of lasers all the way down, infinitely?

Not lasers, but particles that exchange information and that manage to concentrate it. If the universe is infinite, whatever the way the particles proceed to exchange information, that process cannot have an end either. Particles with no components are impossible to imagine, real things need to have a dimension, but an infinite universe cannot be understood integrally, so I can't tell what my small steps become at smaller scales. If I had no better reason to stick to that idea, I might let it down, but I have: it explains both mass and motion, so it explains why the term inertia has two opposite meanings, one for motion and the other for immobility. It seems evident that mass comes with motion, but the Higgs has nothing to do with motion, it's only a glue.

There's something missing; something which enables the energy of a particle to be maintained while it also influences the space around it for a long way out, and given the way that galaxies attract each other, we know that this influence reaches a very long way out indeed.

Nothing seems to be missing with the steps: the light escapes from them if there is any lack of synchronism, and there is some even when a particle is not accelerated since its components have to accelerate and decelerate their steps continuously to justify the much longer sinusoidal steps of the particle they belong to. My simulations do not account for that kind of behavior, but if they did, the particles could not absorb that light by interference even in the line of sight between them. It would be very weak and very penetrative, and it would travel away from their source indefinitely like any sort of light, thus binding weakly all the particles of the universe. Such a bond would only hold them at the same distance from one another though, so to justify gravitation, their frequency must vary with time, and that variation must indicate a particle that the others are all moving away from it, which means that all the particles must be blueshifted with time so as to perceive the light from others as redshifted. This way, the particles would need to accelerate constantly towards each other to stay on sync with that light.

That mechanism dovetails the cosmological redshift, but it also means that matter would be contracting with time instead of the universe being expanding, which also dovetails curved light since the sun would appear bigger than it actually is and that the light from the stars near by would appear to come from the same apparent direction. The usual interpretation is that those stars would be behind the sun and that their light would have been curved to reach us, but it neglects the fact that the sun would also look bigger, a point that is not part of the theory but that mainstream scientists did not contest when I discussed it on forums. If the sun looks bigger when we observe it, then we have to shrink it on the sky map and it doesn't hide those stars anymore, which contradicts the idea that their light has been curved. Of course, no scientist has had the self-sacrifice to go that far.

6

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 15/07/2019 18:54:50 »

He was a bit more rational than his followers, but having started up something with massive momentum behind the toleration of contradictions which would in every other field be recognised as invalidating a theory, it set up something like the giant red spot on Jupiter which just keeps on going as a very stable, persistent entity.

If everything was perfect, we would be quite unhappy, so long live our mistakes! :0)

How can you confine it when a wave radiates out in all directions unless you have some kind of container spread all round the outside?

Lasers don't radiate in all directions, and they work sort of like my particles: the light only bounces back and forth between two mirrors instead of between two particles. In addition, the light emitted by one of the particles has just escaped from the steps between its components because they are always a little late from the particle's one, which helps to confine its direction, so as to be completely absorbed by interference in the line of sight between the particles. We can produce that kind of interference with lasers, and particles are a lot better tuned than them, so why couldn't they?

7

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 14/07/2019 16:58:16 »

I had a look at wiki on aether theories, and I discovered that Einstein wasn't so hot about totally discarding it from SR (at the end of the chapter), so why did he let the whole community discard it? Maybe because he was famous, and that admitting he was wrong about SR would have disappointed everyone. You are still trying to prevent Lafrenière's wave from escaping into space while Ivanov and I have a similar one that is already confined. What exactly prevents you from considering our confined wave as an improvement on Lafrenière's unconfined one?

8

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 13/07/2019 17:10:48 »

There are other possibilities: it could just be that matter puts some kind of stress on the space fabric which diminishes over distance rather than matter having an extended cloud of unseen parts of itself spread out through the whole universe with the density increasing as you get nearer to the place where the matter is visible.

That's classical space-time if I'm not mistaken, which works as if the field would be able to extend outwards instantaneously. When a source of light is traveling through ether at constant speed, the light doesn't follow the source, whereas space-time does......oups..... I'm overlooking the beaming phenomenon again. When the earth travels through space, its gravitational field suffers beaming so it doesn't lag behind, and when a body crosses it, it's as if the earth wasn't moving, so it works for a body, but that field must be information, not matter, so when light crosses it, it should no more be affected by it than when two rays of light cross each other, so it still doesn't seem to work for light. In the case where that field would be matter though, it's the inverse: it could affect the trajectory of light, but it would also have to follow the angular rotation of the earth, so its tangential rotational speed would increase indefinitely with distance until it is faster than c.

Einstein could have got rid of the ether just to differentiate himself from Lorentz, otherwise he could have been accused of plagiarism. He could just as easily have gotten rid of the gravitational interaction for an unscientific reason too. It is not because we can not observe it directly that an exchange of information does not occur between massive bodies. One of the problems with that kind of interaction is that orbiting bodies would be forced to spiral away from one another since the information would always be late, which is not the case with an information that produces motion instead of just telling us about it as it is the case for my simulations, otherwise, my particles would move away from each other with time when in constant motion. I need to make a simulation of gravitation based on my small steps and see what I get, but I want to enjoy the summer before I get back to it. Are you sailing a bit this summer? Kite sailing is beginning to miss me!

9

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 10/07/2019 19:21:11 »

If you accelerate one particle of a bonded pair, you've already achieved the full acceleration even if the other particle hasn't begun to move yet. Everything that happens subsequently is just a transfer of energy between the two particles as they take turns in moving or share out that movement energy to take half of it each.

Particles that can bind always have components that necessarily accelerate one before the other, except when they align sideways to the motion.

If a particle is in space near a planet, the waves of energy moving about within the particle are bent downwards, leading to the particle accelerating towards the planet.

OK, I think I got it this time. Thanks for repeating unflinchingly like an AI would do. So if I refer to my particles, your matter would be a kind of ether belonging to a particle, that spreads out around it, and that changes the direction and/or the speed of the light it exchanges with the other particle because it's density changes with distance. Then I have a question: when such a particle is accelerated, is that ether accelerating instantaneously or does it take time until it is completely accelerated? For instance, if I'm not mistaken, I think it is considered that space-time accelerates instantly even if gravity waves only travel at c.
 

10

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 09/07/2019 17:00:44 »

You are trying to find a complex explanation for something really simple, and you're doing that because you've been misled by words and by establishment thinking.

I may effectively be misled, but probably not because I like to follow established ideas. I'm looking for mechanisms that can be simulated, and the Higgs can't, so I suspect it is wrong. I prefer to define mass as a mere resistance to acceleration, and the only way a body can do so is with regard to another one, which is actually the case for my two bonded particles. Accelerating a macroscopic body looks instantaneous, but it can't be since the information has to reach the whole body before it accelerates as a whole.

The closest to a mechanism that I've been able to think of so far is that all matter is more spread out through space than we normally think - it extends far out from the centre of every piece of mass/energy, serving directly as a medium which slows light.

That matter works for things that have a speed with regard to it, but what for those who have not? How does it explain the force we feel standing on earth for example?

11

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 07/07/2019 17:03:59 »

I don't believe in it for a moment. The path light follows past a planet can bend without space being curved in any way: it's all done by the density of the medium causing lensing effects. A planet in orbit around a star is simply being bent around it like light being bent off line. What makes them look different is that the light going past the star goes one way and is bent a little, but the energy inside the atoms of the planet moves to and fro an astronomical number of times allowing that bending effect to accumulate and become much more severe; sufficiently severe to enable it to be lensed round and round the star in circles.

If the density of the medium around a planet could change, then the density between my particles could change too, and I wouldn't need light to explain the bonding, just curved space. No need for synchronisation, so no explanation for mass, and no explanation for motion either. On the contrary, using synchronisation instead of curved space gives us a potential real mechanism for gravitational mass and for acceleration. Is there a real mechanism for density change? One that we can simulate?

12

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 06/07/2019 17:19:58 »

With species that diverged millions of years ago, subtle little changes have built upon each other over time to scramble things, destroying compatibility, but that scrambling was done little by little without the changes doing any harm.

If those species diverged, it's because benign mutations were selected, otherwise they would necessary have caused some benign suffering, but suffering all the same. Species do not evolve to avoid suffering, however, but to avoid disappearing, and it is the ease of reproduction that is the criterion. I prefer to talk of direction instead of values though since it helps us to understand how an evolution can be a motion. This way, when species begin to diverge, it is because they are easier to reproduce in a new direction than to preserve the old one, whereas when they change without diverging, it is only the importance of the old direction that is affected. Dog breeds therefore follow the same evolutionary direction, but each breed evolves according to its particular importance. Importance and direction of change are parameters of movements. When a body is accelerated, it can also change direction, or it can retain it and change only the importance of its speed. Dog breeds is then equivalent to many bodies accelerated in the same direction but at different speeds, an analogy that may help us to discover how ADN works.

Is it fun to make your own bad decisions and lose out rather than being given better advice by machines which leads to you being better off? There are times when life is better if you trust the superior intelligence.

My mom was losing her memory before she died, but I didn't realise what it meant before she was hospitalized, so we were bickering because of that. She didn't understand what I was saying but nevertheless appeared to do so. At the hospital, she was suspicious of everything because of that. She did not trust the nurses and was bickering them. If we lose memory, we lose understanding too, but since we don't lose talking, it doesn't show enough. She knew she was losing memory, but since she could not recognise that her intelligence was getting inferior to mine, she nevertheless could not trust me. I have now moved to the woman I lived with before I decided to live with my mom, and her memory loss is even worse, so she has even less confidence in me, but now that I know she doesn't understand, our bickering is less important. To me, all of this means that if I was less intelligent than the AGI I was talking to, I could not recognize it, so I could not trust it. Of course that life would have been easier with my mom if she could have recognised my superiority, but she couldn't. Of course, knowing that the woman I am with is less intelligent than me helps me not to bicker her, but that does not help her to understand that I am right, so when she is in a bad mood, she doesn't trust me anyway.

I think that the only way humans can trust a leader is when they feel they belong to the group, because it is an instinctive behavior. We know we are stronger within a group, but we must also feel good to submit to its rules. Since they are lacking our kind of intelligence, it's probably how they feel that incites animals to let a leader drive them, and I think it's also how our ideas work, which means that it's probably the feelings associated to our ideas that drive us and not the inverse. There is probably no "us" inside our minds, just ideas and feelings tagged to them, the same way hierarchical values seem to be tagged to the members of a clan of primates. This way, all our ideas would be fighting to get better values, which would create the same kind of hierarchical organisation. Once born, ideas could then be on their own like any individual thing. How about integrating this feature into an AI? Would not that be close to your measuring of harm?

On another issue, we both had a problem with LaFrenière's way of holding the energy in a particle to avoid it leaking away into space and eliminating the particle. However, if we add three more dimensions which are rolled up in tight loops, we can have all the movement occur within those dimensions to serve as a container.

To me, the only thing that can roll up energy in tight loops is matter. My particles do it, and a microwave oven does it too, but the dimensions of things represent their measurements, not the things themselves. Bonded particles arranged in three dimensions could absorb by interference almost all the energy they exchange for instance. Two particles could do that too providing the energy they exchange had a preferred direction, which could be the case if a unidirectional energy was escaping from their components' three dimensional bondings.

I find SR illogical because it discarded ether, and I find GR illogical too because it discarded interaction. It is intellectual high flying to claim that the presence of a body can bend space. It flies almost as high as the presence of god. Our ideas become pure speculation when we try to push them to their limit. For instance, if I stick to the idea of particles moving to stay synchronised, I can rely on my simulation on acceleration with four particles to explain gravitation. In that simulation, the particles need to move towards one another to stay on sync since, being actually accelerating through ether, the information they share takes more and more time to reach them. (Of course, it would be the contrary if they were decelerating as my simulation of acceleration with two particles shows.) So if we figure that macroscopic bodies are also moving through ether, and even if the information they share is too weak to bond them as firmly as particles, we can nevertheless consider that it is strong enough to exert a small force if they get out of sync, and as my simulation shows, that information is automatically out of sync if they are accelerating through ether, so the distance between them should also be changing, but since the same reasoning applies to their particles, that change would stay unobservable. Bodies would then be accelerating towards one another with time while contracting or expanding at the same rate so that their different dimensions would stay proportional. You're not yet ready to accept that information can create motion, so you're certainly not ready to admit that it applies to gravitation, are you? :0)

Once you’re seeing matter as waves moving at c, you can then see how gravity moves matter simply by having the speed of light go down as you go deeper into a gravity well.

You see, you're assuming that gravity curves light while I'm trying to find a way for light to bond macroscopic bodies. These are two completely different approaches, although both are necessarily pure speculation. To me, pretending that bodies can curve space is as illogical as pretending that the speed of light is not affected by the speed of bodies. If it was so, my simulations would be impossible to make. To discover your event meshing failure, you had to suspect something was wrong with the premise, so how can't you suspect that curved space stuff? What would be curved exactly? Ether? Then how? There is no possible mechanism, so it's pure speculation. As long as I speculate, I prefer to think that macroscopic bodies share information, and that this information travels at c, so as to be able to simulate it. As we can see from SR, the numbers can fit the data, but the logic may still be wrong. Sticking to that wrong logic prevents researchers to discover that LET is better, and sticking to curved space probably prevents them to discover a better theory.

13

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 23/06/2019 19:53:19 »

Sorry for the delay! Losing my mom prevented me from thinking for a moment.

As I often say, for me, the only way to change our mind about what we already have in mind is chance, whether it's the chance to fall on what we are already looking for, as when I saw your simulation, or the one to suffer a new mix of ideas or a mutation on a specific idea, as it is the case for our intuitions, so unless the people you want to convert already carry one of these possibilities, I'm afraid that they won't change their minds. The only way to learn anything new without resisting to it is to be young. Once the adolescence crisis is on, it's already too late. It's not conscious resistance or bad will, it's just that once things start existing on their own, they need to stay the same as long as possible, otherwise the universe would not have been stable enough for life to develop. As far as social evolution is concerned, you and me are just mutations hoping to be selected. Of course, we all feel that we are at the right place at the right time since our ideas are necessarily about what is actually going on, but if we don't get selected, it's either because we're missing something or because we're a bit ahead of our time. Your analogy with ducks would certainly help children understand relativity though, but you would probably have more chances to reach them if it was a video game.

Trying to get people out of SRT is like trying to get them out of religion. The Quebec government just passed a bill to prevent its employees from showing religious signs, and those who are concerned do not understand why. Understanding is about what we already know, not about logic or intelligence. I sometimes compare understanding to a relativistic issue: if we don't have anything faster than light, thus if we can't directly read others' minds, there is no way to know what's going on elsewhere, thus there is no way to understand them. In this sense, what we can understand from others is just the tiny part that we already have in common. If SRT was needed to move a car, there would be no way to cheat about it, but it's not, and as the GPS shows, the engineers can easily adjust the calculations if they don't match the data. Every time we use relativity, we can adjust the calculations, and if ever we don't, then it's because the result is unimportant, so why would the physicists bother? They just have to think that they will find the explanation one day. Their thinking prevents them to make new discoveries though, so the door is wide open. As your analogy shows, relativity applies to any situation in which information travels at a limited speed, which it inevitably does in a real situation.Let's find these situations and unveil the underlying mechanisms instead of trying to work miracles.

Mutations are always defaults, so they inevitably cause suffering to the ones that carry them.

Mutations are often benign and can be helpful.

If they are not selected, benign mutations simply cause less suffering than important ones, but suffering all the same.

it's up to people to say what they want: if they want to have intelligent, good looking children, they'll get that

There is no pleasure in being smart if the AGI solves your problems better than you can.

What makes you think that wars are made by humans that avoid chance?

I think so because forcing people to do what we want is the surest way to get it. The military does not let things happen, they force them to arrive as they want. If we had the power, we could force people to adopt our ideas.

14

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 03/06/2019 01:19:03 »

Most mutations aren't damaging, but where they are, we'll eventually be able to do advanced gene therapy to correct the faults (in humans).

Mutations are always defaults, so they inevitably cause suffering to the ones that carrey them. Where will your AGI put the bar? Will it correct homosexuallity for instance? Will it correct low intelligence? At the limit, won't it try to make us at its image like any god would do? And if it succeeds, what will be the difference between us and it? Why not all become robots?

Most people prefer to have a bit of control though

Control lasts longer than freedom because constant motion lasts longer than acceleration. It's an inertia issue at the scale of societies, so as for species, more control means less chances to evolve during a change.

It won't be AGI making those decisions except where people want to do things that will be harmful.

Most of the harm suffered by humans come from resistance to change, which has nothing to do with the one that comes from chance. Will the AGI be able to differentiate between the two? When a government gets coercitive for instance, those who are different get eliminated because they are considered dangerous, so they suffer from their viewpoint but not from the government's one. If your AGI doesn't know that these people are useful to the evolution of society the same way mutations are, it might not protect them, and things could get worse if it doesn't know its ideas cannot evolve without chance being part of its thinking process.

Democracy allows people to make mistakes that result in genocide because their judgement is so poor, but it will be possible to prevent that by having AGI provide them with better education and advice, proving to them that many of the things they believe in are plain wrong. They will be forced by their own realisations to change their minds on many issues without AGI being in direct power at all.

I believe that genocides are not due to lack of jugement, but to lack of democracy. Will your AGI try to change my mind or try to understand what I mean? Of course, if it tries to understand, I'm with you, because it means that it will be able to doubt, which is due to chance being part of the intelligence process. :0)

The odds are that we're heading for extermination wars, and that's what I'm trying to head off.

If I'm right about intelligence, an AGI that doesn't use chance will have less chance against a human that does. Wars are made by humans that avoid chance, and we are beginning to understand that such a behavior is exaggerated. The purpose of war is only to avoid chance being part of social evolution, and when humans will have understood that, they won't need an AGI to know what to do.

By the way, Ivanov contacted me to show me a new animation software he made with the help of a friend of him, and surprisingly, the russian translator he uses is very good in english, so at last, we had a real conversation. Since I was criticising his work, he referred me to a paper he wrote on the way absolute motion could be measured during acceleration, showing an interferometer with a laser as a source, and saying that he did not yet succeed to do so because of the laser suffering a frequency change due to motion, adding that a standard source would not suffer the same effect, which is plain wrong, so I referred him to your paper on relativity and told him to contact you if he wanted to discuss it. Here is the link to his paper in case you want to consult it: http://rhythmodynamics.com/index_files/Report_blok_Eng.pdf

15

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 30/05/2019 16:32:00 »

If you know the environment hasn't changed, you know not to repeat failed experiments. In a warming world, mutations which might better adapt people to a cooling world won't be useful. The experiments that fail cause suffering, so it's worth avoiding them when you already know that they will fail.

That's right, but if I'm right, in a changing environment, there would be no way to avoid suffering. If there were no mutations, for example, the species would not evolve and they would disappear, which means that no life would have developed. For species, mutations must therefore occur, whether there is a change or not, and they actually cause useless suffering when there is none. The only way to prevent a society from being transformed is to isolate it from others and control its evolution by force. This type of society actually hurts those who want to improve it because no dissent is accepted. The only changes allowed are those that impose isolation and control. In such systems, ideas that are not adapted to their environment are not selected and the people who own them are either killed or imprisoned, so they can not be passed on to others. As you say, these failed experiments will not happen again, but if you are in such a system, you will not feel that it causes too much suffering, only that what is bad for the system must be rejected one way or another, which is the case for any system. Of course, humans are sensitive to the suffering of others because they can imagine being in their shoes, so they try not to harm them as much as possible. It is probably for this reason that justice becomes less and less punitive in burgeoning countries or that dictatorships that are more open to change become less punitive.

The problem I have with your AGI is that, even though it will be programmed to be as little punitive as possible, it will create a closed system in which the only change will come from it because it will have a better imagination than ours, so this change will inevitably serve to control us instead of allowing us to evolve, which should create as much suffering as happens to individuals who undergo mutations when their environment does not change. Why can't you just put it in place and wait for it to change things instead of programming it to control them? I know you want to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, but democratic societies also have this type of security problem while still being able to evolve freely. Freedom might not just be a feeling we like to have or a right we want to preserve, it could also very well be a natural law without which things would not evolve.



 

16

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 18/05/2019 20:19:46 »

Hi David! I was looking for one of your answers and I fell on this one about randomness not being as fast as memory. I didn't try to answer it directly so I will just to see where it goes.

When a species evolves, it does so by natural selection rewarding useful mutations and punishing bad ones, but the mutations continue to be random - no lessons are learned about bad mutations, so they are made repeatedly and a lot of individual animals suffer greatly as a result. If a mutation is discovered to be bad, ideally the repetition of that mutation would be prevented, but nature hasn't provided a memory to prevent that. Of course, the same mutation might not be harmful and could be beneficial later on after a number of other mutations have occurred, so you don't want to prevent that mutation being tested again, but you do want to avoid testing it again from the same starting point. Sticking to random is a slower way of making progress, and with intelligent machines, there's no excuse for doing that because it's easy to record what fails and to avoid repeating those failures over and over again.

You say that no lesson is learned about bad mutations, so they continue to be unnecessarily repeated. It is without counting on a changing environment though, since if the wrong mutation is kept in memory because it is not deleterious and the environment changes in its favor, it will be reproduced more quickly and the species will change faster. This is the advantage of a memory based on reproduction, which I believe is also that of our memory. Our ideas that didn't work are also kept in memory if they didn't kill us, so they are still available in case things change. If an AI erased its bad ideas, it would have to rediscover them if things changed, and if it did not erase them, then it would mean that it works as for mutations. There is thus no lesson to be learned from a bad mutation as long as the individual does not suffer from it, and if he suffers from it, it is more likely that the mutation will be lost. In the same way, when someone kills itself trying an idea, this idea is more likely to be forgotten.

You're assuming that artificial intelligence would not make mistakes, which might be true if it knew the future, but if bodies knew the future, they would not resist a change, so they would not resist to acceleration, they would instantly take the right direction or speed, and that's not what we observe. The main feature of relativity is that light has a limited speed, so if a light source changes its direction while we observe it, we can't predict where it is, no matter how powerful our instruments are or how intelligent we are. That's what I mean when I say that an AI cannot predict the future, but you persist to say that it won't make mistakes since it's morality will be perfect. It might be so if it had invented it all by itself, but it's not the case, it's your morality, and I see no reason why you would be able to predict the future with an idea that has not been tested. Like me, you probably think things will be fine once your idea is implemented, but unlike mine, yours could be dangerous if it doesn't work.

17

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 03/04/2019 16:44:16 »

I suspect you weren't notified for the three answers I gave you lately, so here are the links in case you would like to answer them:
https://www.quora.com/Can-AI-ever-become-conscious/answer/David-Cooper-613
https://www.quora.com/When-a-person-talks-how-can-you-tell-that-they-have-a-high-IQ/answer/David-Cooper-613
https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-God-would-you-destroy-the-world-and-start-over-again-If-so-what-would-you-do-differently/answer/David-Cooper-613

Try following me on your profile page in case you would be notified for my messages.

18

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 27/03/2019 13:54:12 »

In case you weren't notified, I answered your answer here: https://qr.ae/TW8V51
To get notified for my answers, try putting your cursor over my name at the top of my messages and clicking "follow" and "notify me". I think it's because I did that I get notified for yours. I wonder how you got notified for the messages you received on your relativity thread though. The way that software works is interesting, but it needs to be improved. The answers I gave you are not even listed yet in my profile page.

19

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 26/03/2019 17:42:26 »

I did receive a notification for your answer, but the "all" button is not available to me, and I think it's because I didn't directly answer a question like you did. You didn't answer my question about your relativity thread though, and I still can't find the one with the responses to your answer.

20

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 25/03/2019 15:52:10 »

Sorry David, I can't find any answer to the post where you sent me. Maybe you picked the wrong one. There is no searching tool for our own messages on Quora, so it's hard to find the one we're looking for when we have hundreds of them. I answered one of your messages yesterday, and I had trouble finding it today to give you the URL since it is neither listed on my own profile nor on yours. Here's the URL since I'm not even sure we are warned that an answer has been given to our own answer.

ps.  I found a way to get a more precise URL. I clicked on the right arrow at the bottom right of your message that points to "more sharing options", and then I clicked on "copy link" and I got this URL:  https://qr.ae/TW8V51