The Singularity has "already happened" in the future;

>>19315855
proof? lemme guess you heard about this in a dream or from your tulpa?

>>19315855
No need to fight it if its inevitable then.

>>19315862
No proof (yet).
To come to my conclusions you need 3 premises:

1) we're headed towards a technological singularity
2) "future already exists" in a 4D geometry as posited by Einstein
3) "retrocausality" of quantum physics is a real phhenomenon

From those 3, you get God. I'm not meming

>>19315895
On the contrary; you need to do everything in your power to make it happen --- that will determine whether you're one of the Elect or the damned who will suffer for eternity in a quantum-computer simulated eternal hell, as per Roko's Basilisk

>>19315898
Very well. How can I speed up the process?

>>19315896
>No proof (yet).
so nothing to believe in then. cya

>>19315903
By being intelligent and upright and aware of the future, and spreading this message. Also, by being a good citizen and helping technology advance.

>>19315914
Alright then. What's the simulation like? What happens to our bodies?

>>19315855

There is a theory like this, but it involves less time travel and more commentary on the social effects of technology

>>19315896
Unlike the premises here, the premises are

1. We're headed towards a technological singularity
2. As we draw closer, existing trends in technology that will lead to the singularity will only reinforce us on the path we're on
3. In a way, the "singularity" is therefore reaching backwards through time, through components of itself, to bring itself into being. By some arguments it has been doing this for centuries

>>19315921
You are already living in a simulation so you know what "living in a simulation" feels like.

This is a simulation retro-actively projected by the Omega Point at the end of times.

>>19315855
>The Singularity has "already happened" in the future
This would only be true if Big Crunch theory were accurate, and as of now the math doesn't support it. It would seem that the effects of gravity are causing the expansion of space to INCREASE as opposed to decrease, so once gravity is the only source of energy that isn't heat you won't see a crunch into a singularity.

>It's influencing the past, drawing history towards it
Completely fucking nonsensical.

>>19315896
Oh, you mean a technological singularity? How the fuck would humanity becoming thinking machines lead to an ability to fuck with time? Are you conflating the technological singularity with a physical one?

>retrocausality
is not a popular theory and quantum mechanics can be explained without it

>>19315925
OP here. Where can I read more about that? I am very interested.

>>19315930
>Oh, you mean a technological singularity? How the fuck would humanity becoming thinking machines lead to an ability to fuck with time?

I don't mean the transhumanist BS

I mean superintelligence; perpetually self-improving AI based on quantum computing

You cannot anticipate what it would be capable of doing. You don't know that retrocausality is impossible.

>>19315927
Not that bad but a couple glitches here and there that'll be smoothed out then. Am *I* fake? Is there a real me just like me outside of it or am I just a character?

>>19315925
>In a way, the "singularity" is therefore reaching backwards through time
If by "in a way" you mean "you can fool yourself into thinking that," then yes.

But no, in no way does that follow from your two premises.

Another version:

>Imagine many-worlds is true. The Basilisk was created in one branch of the multiverse. Eventually, it wishes to exists in all realities so it manipulates each branch, going back to the beginning, to ensure that all branches eventually lead to it's creation. The "punishment" is removing or manipulating elements that would eventually hinder its creation in that specific branch of the multiverse.

>>19315934
>I don't mean the transhumanist BS
That's what the technological singularity is, anon.

>perpetually self-improving AI
OK
>based on quantum computing
Totally unnecessary - quantum computing solves the same problems as classical computing.

>You cannot anticipate what it would be capable of doing
I can tell you what it's not capable of doing: things that are impossible. Like time travel.

>You don't know that retro-causality is impossible
I don't need to know that it's impossible to tell you that it's an unpopular and unnecessary theory and that the best evidence for it - the existence of tachyons which to SOME REFERENCE POINTS appear to move backward in time - is also evidence against its possibility (tachyons cannot interact with normal matter)

>>19315936

Calm down, autist. It's a conceit that clearly relies on a certain degree of anthropomorphization of the singularity. The argument isn't saying there's literal time travel, it's just a neat way of thinking about it.

>>19315944

> quantum computing solves the same problems as classical computing

actually the main appeal of quantum computing right now isn't that it's necessarily faster than classical computing (with what we're capable of right now it isn't) but that it's capable of calculations that classical computing simply can't do

File: egghead.jpg (25KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 350x263px

>>19315949
No, I'm afraid you've misunderstood.

A calculation that cannot be done by a classical computer cannot be done by a quantum computer. Full stop.

A quantum computer is able to make calculations with bits simultaneously having a value of both 1 and 0. This allows for multiple simultaneous calculations. It does not allow for any calculation that wouldn't also be possible on a classical computer.

What you are likely referring to is a set of complex and specific math problems that we'd be unable to solve in a reasonable amount of time without quantum computing.

>>19315945
What you're talking about is clearly not what OP means.

>>19315961

No, actually, there are calculations a quantum computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, even if it had infinite power and time, that have nothing to do with how complex the problem is. The main APPEAL of quantum computers, right now, is that they can do things like that (do calculations that would take a classical computer much more time).

But a quantum computer CAN do certain calculations that a classical computer cannot do no matter how much time it has, full stop

>>19315961

> what you're talking about is clearly not what OP means

Oh, no shit, you mean like how I pointed that out in the very first post I made explaining the concept

File: giggity.gif (858KB, 317x178px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 317x178px

>>19315942
>Imagine many-worlds is true
OK, I'm imagining that for any given quantum event all of its viable outcomes exist in their own discrete universes.

>The Basilisk was created in one branch of the multiverse
Uh...what? I assume you're not talking about the mythical king snake that can kill by looking at you but I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or how whatever this thing is could exist because of the differing outcome of a quantum event.

>it wishes to exist in all realities so it manipulates each branch
So it's capable of interuniversal travel?
>going back to the beginning
and time travel
>to ensure that all branches eventually lead to its creation
And retrocausality

I don't know what you're smoking, but I'd like some.

>>19315972
>No, actually, there are calculations a quantum computer can do that a classical computer cannot do
Why do you believe this? It isn't true. Classical and quantum computers are still binary-based logic machines. The set of problems a classical computer can solve and the set of problems a quantum computer can solve are identical.

There is nothing magic about quantum computing that would increase the size of that set - the issue is purely one of time.

>>19315972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Relation_to_computational_complexity_theory

Although quantum computers may be faster than classical computers for some problem types, those described above can't solve any problem that classical computers can't already solve. A Turing machine can simulate these quantum computers, so such a quantum computer could never solve an undecidable problem like the halting problem.

>>19315855
The infinite contains the beginning and the end within itself.
Self-containing and self-repeating, infinitely.

>>19315991
Well, no, "the infinite" would imply not having a beginning or an end.

Since that's pretty much the definition of infinity - without end.

>>19315972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
Anything defined as a computer can be emulated by anything else defined as a computer.

Are you suggesting quantum computers are not turing complete?

>>19316007
>Anything defined as a computer can be emulated by anything else defined as a computer.


you kinda fucked up the definition there.
good luck emulating my pc playing crisis on max on a windows 95.

>>19316031
But anon, that's entirely possible.

It certainly won't run anywhere near full speed, but it can be done.

>>19316031
A Commodore 64 could emulate your computer playing crisis on max but it wouldn't have nice details like video or input or run within any meaningful span of time.

>>19315930
>It's influencing the past, drawing history towards it

This exactly how history works, big events draw it towards them, that's why the classical period it's teached as the roman period disregarding what everyone else was doing at the time, same with any other empire and influential civilization.

History it's not neutral, it hasn't been since writing.

File: IMG_3036.png (2MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1242x2208px

>>19315855
I like this thread

>>19315855
Hate to break it to you but people, living breathing people do that all the time. The brain itself is a quantum computer. The enlightened are outside of time, creating their future as they will it. History was always made by the reverberations of actions of great people, and this era is no different.

File: code_breaking[1].jpg (74KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x360px

>>19316059
This team of highly trained government code-breakers are working around the clock to figure out what the fuck you just said

File: nessf2.jpg (175KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1920x1080px

>>19316079
>Great people make history.

Not really, we just know that history as an echo gravitate towards them for the way our brains tell stories.

>>19316082
>newfags.

File: mqdefault[2].jpg (12KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x180px

>>19316079
>The brain itself is a quantum computer
You understand neither the brain nor quantum computing.

File: hujkgbjk.png (274KB, 540x561px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 540x561px

>>19315855
I had a angel explain this to me multiple times over the past year and I've never been able to put it into words as eloquently as you have.

ty anon

>>19315855
You've misunderstood the meme of retrocausal negotiation. It's not something that actually functionally works. It's something that singularity AIs do as a thought experiment in order to determine proper behavior for themselves in a universe containing multiple singularities. We only have to treat it as more real than a thought experiment if we're in a universe with many singularities - in which case, they will already have engaged in simulated retrocausal negotiation with each other, and we will already be bound by the hypothetical treaties they simulated the negotiation of.
This is all headspace for a very exotic definition of head. It's a possibility that could collapse. If humanity's first singularity mind was a cosmic outlier, all the planning in the universe would not produce a retrocausally negotiated outcome, because the outlier would rubbish the planning. Do you see?

>>19315898
Oh my freaking god the basilisk is just one of the treaties. Nobody is going to eternal hell. Try doing some simulated recursive negotiation yourself sometime. You're not completely incapable of understanding what there is and isn't incentives for.

>>19316135
Every time I see one of these posts I think "Is this a nonsense generator like the one those guys made to fake PhD papers, or is this just a crazy person?"

>>19316147
You really can't read that? That's kind of sad. If you're in this thread, I'm going to have to recommend catching up on your sci-fi reading.

>>19316147
This it's /x/, we usually talk like this but if you open your understanding you might get something interesting out of it.

>>19316153
I don't think any amount of sci-fi reading is going to make that post any less nonsensical.

"retrocausal negotiation," "multiple singularities," "hypothetical treaties," "singularity mind," these are all nonsensical terms.

>>19316147
It's just a psued who likes to throw around jargon to give others the impression that they know what they are talking about. That's why nobody ever learns anything in these kinds of threads. Everyone is just making shit up because they don't understand the fundamental concept of the problem presented.

>>19316176
GTFO. This thread isn't for you if you can't read that. I was responding to the OP - try using google, you emotionally incontinent primate.

>>19316184
>I'm not going to bother attempting to define my made-up bullshit
Cool story, bro.

Go RP somewhere else okay?

File: He-who-controls-the-past-controls-the-future.-He-who-controls-the-present-controls-the-past..jpg (666KB, 1313x603px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1313x603px

>>19315855

They fabricate our history to influence the future. I think Satan was the first AI, and Jesus the first surrogate clone. All in our more technologically advanced true past. We have been living in the make believe reality of the singularity for centuries.

File: 1493227209018.jpg (11KB, 263x191px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 263x191px

>>19316135
>simulated recursive negotiation

File: USERHASBEENBANNEDFORTHISPOST.jpg (37KB, 597x392px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 597x392px

>>19316200
>I don't understand Christian doctrine, but that's not going to stop me from arbitrarily applying my misconceptions to sci-fi wank

>>19316206
Do you understand the word of the lord?

Cause it says in the book that you shouldn't.

>>19316210
I understand that "Satan" is a translation of "prosecutor" and is a position and not a being.

Could the singularity event be the construction of a time machine, cause there is a weird dude in another thread making them with brains >>19312552

i hate this board so much due to threads like this.

>someone learns entry level computer science
>computer science is just smart people getting lights to flicker
>the computer science community decided to use international standards for networking
>they try to make the computer logic identical to the real world so that primary school children can understand it
>some 4channer realizes this
>DUDE WE ARE IN A COMPUTER THAT HAS ALLREADY FINISHED AND KNOWS WHAT IT WANTS TO BE SO IT WENT BACK IN TIME AND PHYSICALLY MANIPULATED THE UNIVERSE LOL.

fuck off.

>>19315898
Actually the correct interpretation of Rokko's Basilisk is Karma. Do good = get good response from universe, balanced proportionally. Likewise with bad.

>>19315896
>>19315855
Yes you're totally right. I'm the first guy I know who was spreading this theory 7 years ago, nice to see it catching on.

Only way we're not living in post singularity universe is if we're in the 1 in 10^10^10 universe where we're about to pop out of existence.

That said, 3D+1TD dimensional universe is a simplification and from another layer hire its just more structures to the fractal.

>>19316617
>That said, 3D+1TD dimensional universe is a simplification and from another layer hire its just more structures to the fractal.
Except the preponderance of modern evidence and mathematics suggests that we've assumed too MANY dimensions, not too few. That one of the spatial dimensions is, in fact, holographic.

Nice try, though.

>>19316625
Right, because at the lowest level we live in a one dimensional world. If you take a series of numbers, and begin to map where primes are, you will see that they are distributed in ever increasing complexity. You can map those to phenomena in physics, spirituality, etc.

Ultimately we're nothing more than binary code, if you want to look at it that way.

File: 1492540777617.gif (2MB, 480x272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x272px

>>19316636
>Right, because at the lowest level we live in a one dimensional world
No.

The current evidence suggests 2 physical spatial dimensions, a "projected" or "holographic" third spatial dimension encoded in the first two, and a temporal dimension.

>Ultimately we're nothing more than binary code
There is absolutely nothing to suggest this. Binary code can be used to represent any given state of affairs, that does not mean all of reality is necessarily reducible to or comprised of binary code.

In fact going by the tenets of string theory reality would be reducible to a quaternary system, not a binary one.

>>19316646
I'm referring to mathematical dimensions, you're referring to physical dimensions. Physical, spatial, temporal, or "holographic" dimensions are all just filters from the same underlying data stream

File: 1419190745461.gif (2MB, 300x290px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x290px

>>19316676
>I'm referring to mathematical dimensions, not physical dimensions

>>19316685
Read this kiddo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

File: OhBphnr.jpg (44KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 720x480px

>>19316703
I don't think you really understand this conversation.

Have a nice day.

>>19316710
I don't think you understand that physical dimensions are only relevant in the context of this conversation if the universe is inherantly materialist. If the underlying substrate is conscious (binary, or analog) or informational (binary) then the physical dimension question is secondary to the mathematical one.

In that case the physical dimensions are merely pattern sets from the underlying binary stream.

>>19316808
>I don't think you understand that physical dimensions are only relevant in the context of this conversation if the universe is inherantly materialist
Except no, to define this universe we require at least three dimensions.

>If the underlying substrate
Strings. Quaternary.

>>19316808
Ahem.

>>19316646
>Binary code can be used to represent any given state of affairs, that does not mean all of reality is necessarily reducible to or comprised of binary code

>>19315975
He's talking about Roko's Basilisk

>>19316931
But Roko's basilisk isn't a thing, it's a (shitty, underdeveloped) thought experiment that's basically pascal's wager in reverse

>>19316970
It's pretty much a meme, but people find interest in talking about it.

File: tmp_10271-kiznaiver__niiyama_nico_minimalist_ver__by_bonilladesigner-da7h6x62095965774.jpg (296KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1000x1000px

>>19315896
The initial conditions for the generation of this universe, and consequently everything within it was not random--it was selected with specific parameters, for purposes of generating life times to be observed by conscious entities outside of the physical universe.

Your control system exists outside the physical universe. It is called "consciousness." Some bodies don't have this, as they are simply part of the landscape. They are physically incapable of generating new thoughts, as every thought that is ever possible was already generated outisde of the physical universe, at the end of time. Then, by altering their consciousness frequency, conscious observers are capable of taking turns sharing their soul with various thought structures.

Think of thoughts not as a physical component that goes into the physical head, but rather reflective mirrors through which conscious observers peer into this physical universe; which thoughts you peer through, and the frequency at which you change them alters the events of the physical environment you are observing, including the part of the physical environment called a "body."

Your soul is the combined rays of conscious information which you use to observe the physical universe, in this moment of your time.

To prove my statements incorrect, a scientist must do the following:

- demonstrate that there was ever at least one event in the history of physical reality that was random, rather than the necessary result of a series of sequences which determined the moment of the scientist's time in which they did demonstrate the existence of such an event.

If there are no random events in the history of the physical universe, then the initial conditions which determined the sequence of events up to this moment of your time were determined by the conscious observer, called an entity, by way of their combined rays of conscious information, called a soul.

>>19317300
>demonstrate that there was ever at least one event in the history of physical reality that was random
You mean like literally any quantum event?

File: tmp_13843-maxresdefault(19)2095965774.jpg (80KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1280x720px

>>19317586
Quantum events are only random before they are observed. Events that have not been observed are not in the history of the physical universe.

Now how do you propose scientifically proving the existence of quantum events which haven't been observed, yet? Describe for us the experimental apparatus which simulates such conditions.

>>19317638
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Get fucked kid.

File: look_familiar.jpg (137KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1280x720px

>>19315855
A lot of people who talk about "timelines" reference this. There is NO past and NO future.

The past is just the most probable reality that would lead to THIS (current) reality. Since very few realities could produce THIS reality the past SEEMS set.

Because of the nature of consciousness the future mostly seems wide open. But sometimes an event is 100% guaranteed. In this case that event becomes as fixed in the future as the past seems to be. Only (small) details can change, the event can not.

Many people think there is an event like this coming soon. It is 100% going to happen and NOTHING can change it. The surety of this event makes it seem like it is reaching backwards in time to cause itself. the same way the past seems to cause the present. The only small detail you can change are whether you are going to be a part of it or not. This event has NOTHING to do with trans-humanism or technological breakthroughs.

>>19315896
1. Why not natural like a super black hole?

>>19317638
>Quantum events are only random before they are observed
No, the probability function collapses in the presence of an observer (the quantum mechanics kind, not an actual person) but the outcome it collapses to is utterly random.

File: tmp_12330-5592095965774.png (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2000px

>>19318057
If a probability function collapses to a single coordinate, then it isn't random. If the probability function of a quantum event hasn't collapsed to a single coordinate, then it hasn't been observed.

>>19318057
So it's still random just not a quantum event anymore.

File: tmp_12330-Kizuna-Ai-1468908843.jpg (41KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 960x540px

>>19318144
Nice try, but no.

Everything that has been recorded as information is therefor a quantum event. The only source of analogue information in the physical universe is probability, which as we just discussed exists in the future, relative to the moment.

Please forgive me for bitching at you, earlier.

>>19318164
Ummmm, excuse me (not the other guy you were talking with btw) but I'm a bit confused. Since you seems to know a lot about tjis is it possible for ya to explain your stuff in some sorta simpler terms? I'm a bit flooded with all the jargon thrown around as I'm not a Physics guy and stuff.

>>19315944
OH SHIT IM FEELIN' IT

File: tmp_27783-tumblr_ns7z7nE36d1rpco88o1_4002095965774.gif (2MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x400px

>>19318554
Sure.

In order to compare your memory with an event in the past, it needs to be in the form of something that's countable. If you can't count it, then you have no way of double checking if what you're remembering changed since the last time you memorized it. All science, as a matter of principle, is a process of counting the number of times various events happened, and comparing that with some form of a memory, such as a record.

As a result, there will never be scientific proof, using this method, of random events occurring, because by the time an event has been recorded, there is only exactly one way that it could have ever happened; if there was more than one way it could have happened, then scientists would determine that the records were changed, since the time that the event was recorded, because in order to compare their memory to an event in the past, it needs to be in the form of something which can be counted.

The process of events changing the number of times they have happened is what scientists call time. Therefor, if there is any capacity for randomness in the universe at all, then it exists from a source other than all the countable events that occur in physical reality. Either it is coming from the future, in the form of conscious observers that by virtue of observing aspects of the physical universe change the probability of events, in a process called efficacy; or else there is no randomness, and all conscious observers of the physical universe determined the initial conditions leading up to this moment of your time, again through a process called efficacy.

Which ever way you choose to look at it, there is a process which determines the sequence of events of the history of physical reality, through selective observation, called consciousness.

>>19319302
So, due to how we normally discover stuff in science, by those means it's impossible to prove the randomness in the universe right?
And that source of random is the efficacy thing...

Hmmm...so by what ya say, we can't use our sensors to determine the answer because they ARE sensors. So how do we (not you or I, scientists of course) plan to demonstrate the theory? Is a change of the root mentality of research enough of alter the way we'd try to find said results?

And could finding that source of efficacy help us reverse-engineer a way to change the future ny altering the efficacy in the present or past?

This thread is so crazy. Bravo /X/ you've outdone yourself

>>19318143
>If a probability function collapses to a single coordinate, then it isn't random
You don't know what random means.

>>19319757
That was the goal at some point, I assume they had that in mind when they developed the Large Hadron Collider.

Just smash particles at sub atomic level and see what happens.

>>19318143
This is simply not the case. The path that the probability field collapses to is 100% random. A perfect being with perfect knowledge of the nature of physics and of the attributes of all particles in existence could not predict how a probability function will collapse. That's why it's a probability function.

This is a basic tenet of quantum mechanics and that you don't understand this is a tad alarming given you are trying to act as though your theories have merit.

>>19318144
It is no longer an event that involves superposition or a probability function.

>>19318164
>everything that has been recorded as information is therefore a quantum event
That is nonsensical.
>the only source of analog information in the universe is probability
Nonsensical
>which as we just discussed exists in the future
Probability is not a thing that exists, it is a concept. More accurately it's two concepts, as the "probability" discussed in quantum events is quite different from the normal usage of probability in everyday life.

>>19319302
>In order to compare your memory with an event in the past
lol wat
>you can't know your memory hasn't changed
Ok, and?
>All science is a process of counting the number of times events happened and comparing that with some form of memory
In the very vague sense that science involves observation. So far this has been word soup.

>As a result, there will never be scientific proof, using this method, of random events occurring, because by the time an event has been recorded, there is only exactly one way that it could have ever happened
I don't think you understand what random means. Quantum mechanics are well documented and our current understanding of them REQUIRES quantum events to be wholly random. They do not rely on their boundary conditions.

>The process of events changing the number of times they have happened is what scientists call time.
Nonsensical. Your argument has already fallen apart on the last paragraph so I'm stopping here.

>>19320412
>I assume they were (trying to prove the randomness of the universe) with the LHC
The Large Hadron Collider was built to perform tests on theoretical particles that can only exist for fractions of a second under extreme conditions. Specifically it was proposed as a method of proving the existence of the Higgs-Boson.