It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Throwback
This made me make my first post.
Great thread! I love reading about things like this instead of the usual conspiracy theories on this website. ... S&F. I wonder if there are books about this...
Originally posted by user414
Great read! Thanks OP for putting your ideas out there.
My brain has started to liquify a bit from all the interesting information, so I must break from reading.
However, I do have a question, and I'm not sure if it's been brought up in this post because, again, I haven't finished it.
Could the Big Bang and the creation of the universe be the end result of our conquest of everything? In other words, in your opinion, is the destruction and rebirth of everything in the universe by our own design?
Let's suppose that humans, or some other base species achieves a type 4 civilization. All knowledge would quickly spread to all living things. At that point, there would be no differential between different types of life, everything that was "alive" would simply be "life".
We would all be joined as one, even lifeforms across all dimensions. We would all know everything, be everywhere, have all we could imagine, and existence would be hum-drum.
The only thing that would be scarce is novelty. Novelty brought about by challenges and solutions. Since all challenges in existence had been conquered, the only thing left to do would be to start everything over again. The only challenge imaginable was the greatest one possible, the destruction of all knowledge with the pursuit of relearning it all.
Before the destruction, we would know that after a time, life would again return to its present state of "god like" magnificence. It was impossible for it not to. Something, somewhere, at some time, will always begin life. It will always flourish and will always overcome all challenges. We would know it was inevitable because, well, we knew everything.
Therefore, there is no risk of destroying life, no risk of ending everything forever. It will always come back, just as strong. And it will always return to the same point of singularity.
Perhaps we are simply part of a cycle. And when I say "we", I'm implying life in general. There's nothing to say that humans are the ultimate incarnation of life. We could be completely obliterated, but life would continue. We are simply a part of life.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
I used to be a behavioral therapist (applied behavioral analysis), and although I don't hold a degree in behaviorism, I've been exposed to a good bit of its principles, and 'scarcity' is not a word I ever see in the literature.
Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Hey OP, I really enjoyed reading this thread...very intriguing but at the same time a little bit disheartening to think that the key to our search is to lose it.
But I do have a personal question for you, sorry if it's a little weird but I have to ask. When this idea all sort of clicked in your head and you finally said "Aha!", did the entire way you look at life changed?
Like Christians have the Bible...you have your own constructed theory. And now that you finally believe and understand something that makes sense, has it made you a much happier person?
I've found that when you construct your own theory and buy into it, and start to grow around it....suddenly everything in your life becomes so much clearer and more important.
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by Xtraeme
So, please, if you can direct your energy towards promoting this - the idea needs its advocates.
The cultural evolution model was dismissed in the early 20th century after studies of tribal groups and a general smacking of scholars to quit thinking that European Civilization was the pinnacle of all human progress.
(31) Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel." (32) With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. (33) He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood." (34) Do it again," he said, and they did it again. "Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time.
(25) The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east.
Or worded more strongly, "the lack of something necessitates its existence."
Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by Xtraeme
Just as a mental note for myself some of the translations are:
- Reflexive-Ordinal identity:
(A ≠ A) ≡ ∅
Assuming the statement can be true rather than false.
note: (A = A) ≡ A, showing that reflexive-equality or -inequality can be simplified in both cases down to a single term as a type of substitution.
- Cardinal-Dual identity:
0 ≡ (+ ∪ -)
implying dualness has a cardinality of 2 (i.e. A + B = A - B ⇒ 2B = (A - A) ⇒ 2 = (A - A) / B, where B = 0, assuming not indeterminate here for more). This suggests an ...
- Ordinal-Dual relation:
∅ ≡ ¬(+ ⋁ -)
- Cardinal-Ordinal Dual-Reflexive relation:
(0 = [+ ⋁ =]) ↔ (∅ = [- ⋁ ≠]), or in other words 0 as summation / reflexive, and ∅ as absence reflected in lack of cardinality / irreflexive. Meaning this type of 0 ⇒ [ordinal = 2, cardinality = 1] and ∅ ⇒ [ordinal = 0, cardinality = 1]
Some fascinating characteristics start to emerge as you think about these adjacencies, for instance ∀A: ∅ ⊆ A, meaning ordinal ∅ when related to the cardinal-space has a cardinal length of ∞. Suggesting ordinality and cardinality run parallel to one another.
Correction ordinalness isn't parallel to dualness, rather it's triangular. Probably the easiest way to start to see this is to simply imagine dualness parallel to reflexivity; and [cardinal, ordinalness] as parallel and simultaneously orthogonal to [dual, reflexive]. Though there are some strange characteristics when considering (A ≠ A) ≡ ∅. It's hard to imagine ≠ ⊥ ∅ in the instance when A ≠ A as being identical to ∅. Though this may make some sense in that ≠, as a binary operation, doesn't always imply ∅ in the instances where A ≠ B is true and the values are different. Meaning the ⊥ point of intersection occurs when ≠ is ≡ ∅.
[Scarcity] seems to form all imperatives. Even more so it seems to expose a crucial element of how the human brain works. Scarcity is fundamentally a part of our psychological make-up. It's not just something imposed on us by reality through the forces of nature, but something that we strive for and actually seek out.
Consider that many millions upon millions of years from now, when humanity has the ability to fundamentally convert matter to energy and energy back to matter perfectly recycling all transitions (potentially beating the 2nd law of thermodynamics ‒ see Figure 1, point (a)); and when man has the ability to replicate and create anything whether it be cloning an exact copy of yourself, creating a planet, or summoning in to existence a TV or what-have-you:
Scarcity will still exist.
Why? Because there is no way to replicate the exact instance of the original Earth. Put another way there is only one original NY. Even if we can recreate Earth exactly as it currently exists and drop it in to another system, precisely modeled on our current solar system, there would still be only one original Earth.
Due to this people would still have battles over property and the value of a house would be subject to the whims of the individuals bidding on it. For example, the house in NY on the original earth would necessarily be worth more than the copy because it would be known by all parties as the first, authentic incarnation. So the qualitative association is what would create the value despite the two houses, environments, and conditions otherwise being physically identical.
Thus scarcity still exists as a concept in people’s minds and because of this future people will still need some mechanism to determine resource allocation (likely a stored social value system like money).
Now let me explain where this is really coming from.
A = A
They're not equal.
They're two separate things though identical in almost every way, but they're two separate instances (i.e. one is on the left, the other is on the right). Thus we create scarcity and inequality even when it doesn't exist. We seek out difference wherever we can find it.
Now imagine if you could even remove that. If we can do that we haven't removed a real scarce thing, we've removed a part of human psychology.
There's something very strange, special and magical about this idea.
A ≠ A can be objectively true and I get the impression it's at that point where the quantitative bridges to the qualitative world.
... consider what happens at the end of "lack of knowledge" and "lack of being able to be in all locations."
At that point we'll be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. So the only thing that will be scarce is "the lack of something." If you can know all things, be everywhere, and control all things what then? I see several possibilities but the most obvious are either a) start over, hit the reset button or b) become the vessel of a new sentience or universe.
Which is to say the cycle starts all over again. Even if the circle isn't the idealized version of this periodic function we're at the very least looking at something as represented in a logarithmic spiral.
Originally posted by aravoth
reply to post by Xtraeme
Nature imposes scarcity for a reason,
and that is something mankind is light years away from conquering.
Sure, humans can believe that natural laws do not apply to them, they can put themselves on a pedestal and think that somehow, of all of Natures creations, they are somehow excluded from it. But in the end, the Universe will settle the score....... The Universe always, settles the score.
Rather than attempting to be Nature's master, Mankind needs to realize that it is natures companion.
Nature is the ultimate free market. Perfectly symbiotic, inter-dependent, and completely unregulated. What happens when Man tries to intervene and control it? Chaos : Famines, drought, dust-bowls, genetically modified food that poison the entire ecosystem. Environmental policies that create endangered species.
What is the lesson? As Ayn Rand said, (in contradiction to what you just did) A=A, or, a thing is itself.
int a = [3,3];
if(a == a) printf("%i == %i n", a,a); else printf("%i != %i n", a,a);
// this prints: 3 == 3
if(&a != &a) printf("a_0 != a_1 n"); else printf("a_0 == a_1 n");
// this prints a_0 != a_1
int *b = [&a,&a];
if(*b == *b) printf("%i == %i n", *b,*b); else printf("%i != %i n", *b,*b);
// this prints: 3 == 3
if(b != b) printf("b_0 != b_1 n"); else printf("b_0 == b_1 n");
// this prints b_0 == b_1
Evolution is a thing does does not stop, a point illustrated by your post. If evolution is largely based off of things such as beauty, strength, speed, and survival, then competition is something that will never cease. Indeed, it is something that is actually required to drive the evolution of any species forward. Mankind is not done evolving, not by a long shot.
Stabilization is chaos.