toastywombel

Now you are just looking to make yourself a victim, when you were initially the aggressor. Your narcissism and ignorance show through your inability to accept facts. Your arguments at the beginning of the post were incoherent and hard to follow, when more than one person pointed this out you insisted we were wrong. The vast majority of the scientific community believes the theory of evolution is a sound one, even more so since we started mapping the gnome of species. So either you are wrong, or the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. How many experiments have you done? How many experiments has the scientific community done? The ego and narcissism amaze me.

What the heck? Why did you post two links about male lactation?

Why should anyone waste their efforts to explain the theory of evolution to you when no matter what you will deny it. It would be the same as if I tried explaining it to a rock. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore your title is not even appropriate CTD. Theories and vaporware are two totally different things. Vaporware is software that does not really exist, like urban legend-software. It would have been more logical to say theory or speculation instead of vaporware

Go look it up yourself on wikipedia. I'll even give you the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

CTD I find it funny, you are putting your livelihood at risk by arguing against evolution? Seriously? HAHAHA

I see now thank you for answering my question beyond just "no"

Amen Mr. Skeptic !

CTD you don't want a theory you just want to raise hell

There seems to be two schools of thought forming on this issue so far, very interesting.

Wow this is completely ridiculous, you are arguing against the theory of evolution because it is not simply stated in a sentence, or because the definition of the word "theory" is flawed. You really cannot be expected to be taken seriously. Religious beliefs are based on no evidence, thats why its called faith. Evolution is based on facts gathered from the observation of nature. They are totally different. Furthermore your tone is very hostile, you would be better served to ask questions about evolution. There are very smart people on this forum who could answer these questions. But to go on a rant about semantics and speculation about the definition of words. Thats hardly scientific and rather immature. What I get from your above text is that you are a creationist that is angered by the theory of evolution. You are most likely angered because you yourself have doubts about God, but you are afraid of the consequences if there is not a God. And you feel the need to go out of your way and attack evolution because you no longer have faith and you feel a need to justify it. I understand, it can be hard to let go of a concept that you have held for so long, but remember your are simply going through the five stages of grief. First you denied the theory of evolution, then as you continued on your rant you became more angry and pointed in your attacks on evolution. Next you will try to bargain. You will agree with some aspects of evolution (bacterial evolution happens all the time) that are undeniably fact, but you will not want to give up your beliefs totally, so you will try to mix-match them. When you realize this is not logical you will probably not post for a while, you will feel depressed that there may not be a God as described in the bible or as you previously understood him. Hopefully you will finally accept the truth. There may still be a God, but evolution is a very sound theory.

I just gave my two bits on basis of what I know from algebra/trig. I want to help you answer you question but my math skills are limited lol. Someone more qualified that me please help this man!

I feel a creationist is about to argue how the invisible man in the sky who designed us is a better scientific theory than evolution.

Okay if the photon is its own anti-particle through wave interference, quantum physics views all particles as waves-particle dualities, then would not all particles be there own anti-particle?

All those questions depend on who develops the AI, and how the AI is developed. I think the question you raised about inserting "individual will" into the code is a very interesting and good one. This would raise another question, could one copy their conciseness to an AI system, if so would that mean that the AI systems would just be a different form of humans? A way to make a human immortal, possibly? I don't know the answers to your questions. It depends on how we design and program these machines. And until we design an AI system that is as efficient at learning from its environment as lifeforms are it will be impossible to answer these questions. We can only theorize, but the answers may come in our lifetime. I am just arguing that a technological singularity where machines take over humanity is not inevitable. I am a firm believer that we control our own destiny. I think this is what your getting at. Some nut-job/special interest group/crazies in the future could design an AI system with the will to destroy humanity, but then you could argue that someone else could design an AI with the will to preserve humanity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think if you look at the history of humanity we are becoming more unified and more collective over time. Wars are still waged, but people as a whole are becoming progressively smarter and unified. You and I for example most likely have far more knowledge than someone from the 16th,17th, and 19th century. We here and now understand things in ways that people from the past had no way of even contemplating. Also I don't think we have come close to reaching the limit of the human brain, humanity has always been able to look deeper, question more. Finally do you think if the military created killer-robots they would not make sure that they could control it? Of course some rogue scientist could try to create a super-human AI race, but I think there would be a intense backlash. If someone created a super-human AI someone else would invent a way to destroy it if it was out of control.

I see your point but we can make coding that cannot be ignored by the AI no matter how self correcting or intelligent it might be. Humans cannot consciously choose to ignore the code in our brain that tells our heart to beat. There are things within our own mind that are hard coded within the vast majority of us that control certain aspects of our body. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And why would it only make sense that the AI's existence would be its own highest priority? The only reason human existence is humanity's highest priority is because we have an instinct to survive. If we did not program an instinct to survive and conquer within the AI it would not have the drive to survive and conquer on the same level of life.

Why not, we are creating the AI in our image, for it to be considered an AI it would have to have the properties of a NI? you could easily right a program of moral rules that the AI must follow. Furthermore one machine might believe that wiping out humanity would serve a greater purpose but not all the AI machines would believe that, if they all learned from different experiences they would all have different conclusions. Hitler was a natural intelligent being, even though he believed wiping out the jews would serve a greater purpose not everyone agreed with him. Furthermore if you programmed the AI to believe it was human, would it not feel an obligation to its kin? There are so many ways to prevent an AI from overthrowing humanity. And I think that just accepting that they will eventually rule us is mentally weak. You are suggesting we have already lost and we are going to lose. I think that goes against the drive of the human spirit which aspires to solve problems, live and create. You are arguing that we will be able to create an AI, which may be one of the most difficult tasks ever, but you don't think that we could limit its abilities. Well of course we wont be able to with that attitude. Still this is a worthy debate, and us having it now makes us aware of the future problem, so don't get me wrong your argument has a valid point. Nothing is inevitable.

But there was a beginning to time and space and as far as we know it was the big bang. Spacetime does not exist without matter and energy in it. It is undefined! Mathematically you are wrong. Its like asking for the function of a graph with no points on it. It is undefined

Exactly my point, space and time are finite not infinite

What if man did not have hands, do you think he could have achieved what he has?

no you cannot simply multiply sin(theta) by sin(phi) to simplify, they are separate unknown variables. the expression could not be [math] \frac{d}{d(\theta)} sin(\theta)sin(\phi) [/math] your sin(theta) should be sin squared(theta).

I thought about this a little more and these are my conclusions If you were to make an AI, you would have to design it so it could learn from the environment around it and come to conclusions about that environment. One could argue that it must also learn how to priorities thoughts and what thoughts or information is important. This would mean if you mass produced these AI units, they would all learn from having different experiences. This means they would come to different conclusions about there environment. It could be concluded then that some AI units would disagree with other AI units because they have conflicting thoughts, and both of the units have classified these thoughts as "high priority". This suggests that these AI units would not be a uniform group against us unless we attempted to alienate them, and even more likely they might be just as unique as us. Finally an AI system could be limited physically to what it would be able to do. Example if you had an AI that could reproduce itself, take small samples and transmit the data, but you limit its physical abilities to only those specific tasks. The AI described above could make decisions about moving around and determining where to go, what data to transmit, what samples to take, conclusions about the data, but the AI described above could not do anything outside its physical limitations that we decide. Another comparison, what if dolphins were are smart as we are, but they don't have opposable thumbs? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What do you think it would lead to? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne more thing, you said that a huge effort was made to consolidate the control of the nuclear weapons around the world implying that it is a failing one. My argument: we have not blown ourselves up yet.

The problem with creating a self-sustaining/improving AI: as a amateur programmer I know that all one needs to do is put in hard codes that would limit the A.I.'s abilities to undermine humanity. Also, I believe we will first have to understand our own mind and the way it works before we make an artificial intelligence machine. Computers today in every way (hardware, software, etc) are designed to take commands. IE) it is easy to design a robot to calculate how to navigate a room, but how on a binary system (which most all computers are based on) could one write a program that allows a robot to choose how to navigate a room. We would have to first implement new hardware that works more like the way our brain works. Finally us being aware of this changes everything as well, don't you think since we are aware of this problem, we will do everything to avoid it in the future?

Actually spacetime expands with the Universe. Furthermore if there was an infinite amount of spacetime in the universe it would create a problem. Space can only be defined by objects in space. If there are no objects in the space it is undefined. Also if you argue that space is infinite, you would have to argue that time is infinite. If time was infinite, then there would be an infinite amount of time before and after the Universe was created. If there was an infinite amount of time before the Universe was created, then the time of creation would never be reached because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to that point.

What about the theorized hawking radiation? this states that the mass of a black hole decreases through this process. Causing it to eventually evaporate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedalso are there any ideas involving an anti-light particle. I know about destructive/constructive interference involving waves, but light shows wave properties and particle properties. Could it possibly have an anti-particle?

Ah. I learn something new everyday. I am sorry I came to the false conclusion of anti-matter having negative mass. I figured as much since anti-matter being sucked into a matter black hole decreases the mass of the black hole because it annihilates some of the matter inside the black hole. Are anti-matter atoms made up of the same quarks as regular matter? or are there such a thing as anti-quarks? I know the higgs-boson is the hypothetical particle which has only been observed in computer simulations and that is the hypothetical particle that gives atoms there mass, but could there be an anti-higgs-boson?