[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Everything matters to me. I do not matter to the universe. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. ΔS > 0.

Only conscious entities can have values and meanings.
In an infinitely large system, the total entropy can increase indefinitely.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All of known conscious entities in existence came from their ancestors/predecessors who cared about the survival and sustainability of consciousness in their future.
Similarly, all future conscious entities will come from their preceding conscious entities who care about their survival and sustainability. It's highly unlikely that they will come suddenly from a single random event.

[alancalverd]

Only conscious entities can have values and meanings.

Only a few conscious entities have invented values and meanings, and they can't agree on any of them, so the concept has no cosmic significance - just a blip in the random nature of evolution.

In an infinitely large system, the total entropy can increase indefinitely.

Speaking as a finite system, I can foresee the point where the next increment of S becomes irrelevant to the intended function of the system and the Cosmic Torch of Progress is handed to the worms.

[alancalverd]

ancestors/predecessors who cared about the survival and sustainability of consciousness in their future.

What evidence do you have of the postmortem aspirations of a dinosaur?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

ancestors/predecessors who cared about the survival and sustainability of consciousness in their future.

What evidence do you have of the postmortem aspirations of a dinosaur?

There's evidence that some dinosaurs cared for their young.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Only a few conscious entities have invented values and meanings, and they can't agree on any of them, so the concept has no cosmic significance - just a blip in the random nature of evolution.

A few is what's needed.
Those who disagree with the universal terminal goal will eventually become irrelevant.

It seems like you haven't followed the exponential progress in technology for a long time. It will lead to singularity, which is predicted to happen within this century.

[paul cotter]

Technology will advance, without doubt, but it will be outpaced by the multiple problems mankind is facing before the end of the century.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Speaking as a finite system, I can foresee the point where the next increment of S becomes irrelevant to the intended function of the system and the Cosmic Torch of Progress is handed to the worms.

Worms are just an evolutionary accident. If life also evolves somewhere else, they aren't guaranteed to have worms.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Technology will advance, without doubt, but it will be outpaced by the multiple problems mankind is facing before the end of the century.

I don't think so.
Thinking capacity of individual humans are inherently limited by the size of the skull, which was necessarily small to allow other functions required to survive sustainaby. The same limitation doesn't apply to AI.

[alancalverd]

Those who disagree with the universal terminal goal will eventually become irrelevant.

If anyone disagrees with it, it isn't a universal goal.

[alancalverd]

Technology will advance, without doubt, but it will be outpaced by the multiple problems mankind is facing before the end of the century.

I don't think so.
Thinking capacity of individual humans are inherently limited by the size of the skull, which was necessarily small to allow other functions required to survive sustainaby. The same limitation doesn't apply to AI.

AI can't stop climate change, nor prevent politicians from telling lies.

[paul cotter]

Nor can it solve food and resource shortages, out of control migration and subsequent wars.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Those who disagree with the universal terminal goal will eventually become irrelevant.

If anyone disagrees with it, it isn't a universal goal.

It's just temporary. Just like those who disagree with universal gravity won't exist for long.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AI can't stop climate change, nor prevent politicians from telling lies.

Nor can it solve food and resource shortages, out of control migration and subsequent wars.

Why not? It depends on how much power you let it to use.

[paul cotter]

Off course, Hamdani, gun toting robots could solve all the planet's problems but it wouldn't do much for humanity. Hamdani, I think you watch too many pop-sci and sci-fi videos and you are out of touch with reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Off course, Hamdani, gun toting robots could solve all the planet's problems but it wouldn't do much for humanity. Hamdani, I think you watch too many pop-sci and sci-fi videos and you are out of touch with reality.

What makes you think that a planet can have problems?
What makes you think that humanity is better than robots?

[paul cotter]

That sounds like you would like to see the end of humanity and give the planet to the robots, does it not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That sounds like you would like to see the end of humanity and give the planet to the robots, does it not?

That should sound like a planet doesn't have a mind of its own, and there is no intrinsic value in having 23 pairs of chromosomes. Other configurations of chemistry can be as valuable in the efforts to achieve the universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Why not?

Because they all depend on climate stability, which cannot exist.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why not?

Because they all depend on climate stability, which cannot exist.

Our ancestors have survived previous climate changes. There's no reason to think that we have no chance to survive.