Phi for All

Could it have been another enthusiast using Merlin? That would be an amazing way to meet someone.

There are going to be steps needed by anyone trying to form a micronation, like acquiring the land. This is a tough step considering no existing country wants to give up good territory. It may be easier to suppose you can just build an island in an appropriate place. Then there are steps (you mentioned some) that are unique to your new country, like your energy and transportation infrastructure, economy, and port systems. Are you a democracy or something else? One of the most important considerations is how you'll deal with other countries. Do you want open trade or do you want to protect your own manufacturers? It might be interesting to focus this discussion on how a new country like this could attract people to be citizens. What policies would you draft that would be most attractive to the people you want to populate your country?

Mordred might have those numbers. I remember reading that the universe doubled in size about 90 times, going from the sub-atomic level to about the size of a golf ball in an instant (remember we're talking about faster than hundredths of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a second here). Also, I'm not sure but I don't think a per minute rate is applicable at that point in the timeline. The universe is still all matter with no space, so I'm not sure time has much meaning. The singularity is a maths problem. When we calculate back far enough, we end up with temperature and density problems that we can't be precise enough with so they calculate as infinite. We know that can't be true, but it's what the maths tell us based on our current input. I have no idea what you mean by "other side", but again, calling it an explosion is physically wrong. I may not understand this correctly, but the explanations I've heard don't claim that matter suddenly came into existence. Instead, matter can be compressed in a degenerate state where it loses its electrons and neutrons, becoming extremely dense and hot. As the matter regained its current structure, it was diluted (for lack of a better term) into the various particles and quanta we see now, and a lot of it boiled away in matter/antimatter annihilations. BBT is not a theory about life. We are composed of matter that came from the rapid expansion of all matter at the time of the Big Bang.

This isn't a good argument at all, sort of a weird appeal to authority. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in any of the various theories. That doesn't take away from the fact that these theories are our best supported explanations of various phenomena. BBT is based on the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, and currently it's our best explanation for the evolution of the early universe. Based on what you've posted so far, you don't understand BBT, and have dismissed it as a viable account of what we observe. You've said you invested in this idea of yours, but I think you started filling in gaps in your knowledge with this stuff you made up before you understood the theory and had legitimate objections. IOW, you tried thinking outside the box without understanding what's inside first. We see this a LOT here.

I bolded the part that makes no sense to me. I don't know what "furthering oneself to the technology" means. The problem is simple. As an example, before calculators people had to know how arithmetic works, but after calculators people only had to know the operation they wanted and the machine did the calculation. After a while, many people used it as a substitute for learning. Those folks today can't do the calcs in their head, and rely on the technology. It made those people dumber while helping others do more smart things. And most technology works like that. Canning preserves food, but those who rely on it often don't remember older ways of doing the same thing, so canning is the only option. Nail guns really help speed up construction work, and also produces people who don't know how to use a hammer. Does that help you see my point?

You Canadians are so NICE! In even simpler terms, the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North wanted to do more business with countries opposed to the slave trade. There were folks on both sides who felt that slavery was wrong in principle, but the South relied more heavily on owning both the resources and the labor for production. The North was more interested in preserving the union of the states than in emancipating slaves. We even kept the concept of slavery and use it in our prison system, and people of African descent are still persecuted and not treated the same way white people are. But the North won because the states are still united as a country... sort of.

Here here, I totally agree. Posting a video as an explanation on a discussion forum is like giving someone flowers but not putting them in a vase for them. You've just given them more labor, not a gift. This is far too critical. Jesus, it was a video interview. He probably would have been more specific in print. I'm not a fan of the popular scientist approach to many subjects, but his statement was completely reasonable for the popular science crowd. We do know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't, to a great degree.

! Moderator Note This doesn't seem to be working at all. You keep trying to explain something that others have found flaw with. You need to address the flaws mentioned instead of trying to say it in a different way.

In addition, I dislike subtraction so much I'll stop at nothing to avoid negative numbers.

Did you want to discuss how biotechnology can improve individual performance, or did you want to talk about what impact this biotechnology will have on the evolutionary process? Also, I think it's wrong to assume that being able to "interface" with a computer will "multiply our intelligence by orders of magnitude". Technology has always had the effect of making some individuals smarter while actually dumbing down everyone else. Before the abacus, some folks did arithmetic in their heads, and afterwards more people could tackle it but perhaps with less understanding of it. Technology handles problems we used to have to painstakingly figure out, and while that seems a great thing, it means there are fewer people who have the knowledge and skills we invested in to begin with. Does technology make us more intelligent? It can certainly improve and extend our lives, it can take the place of learning skills, and it can magnify our existing abilities a great deal, but I'm not sure it makes us more intelligent.

! Moderator Note You say this as if nobody mentioned specific faults with your concept. It's not unwillingness when flaws in your equation are pointed out. It seems like you're unwilling to answer questions about the flaws, and instead claim the responses are simply hidebound denials. Help us all progress in understanding. You're trying to persuade us that your idea has merit, and others are asking about the points where your ideas and what we observe don't match. It's part of the process, and it's not helped by claiming these questions are merely denial. Nobody is claiming you're wrong just because. They've been very specific, so please drop this line of argument, and please answer the questions.

! Moderator Note Let me know if anyone still wants to talk about the OP without descending into personal attacks, otherwise it looks like closing time.

This doesn't match what happened in that thread. You could have offered explanations but you didn't. You talked about a lot of stuff, and promised to make things clear, but you never did. You strung us along claiming you had a point but never made it. Now you complain you weren't given the chance?! I don't think you understand what an explanation is.

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

And even if it did capture some pollutants, they make another claim that you can harvest biomass from this for use as a 3D printing medium. Why are we make everyday items out of polluted materials? If we don't want to breathe them, is touching them on the daily a good idea?

Anti-birth control spin? Claims like this are purposely nebulous so you fill in the blanks with either your beliefs or your fears.

Swudu Susuwu has been banned for continued soapboxing after repeated warnings. We talk about science here, after being lectured about it elsewhere.

! Moderator Note Please step off the soapbox and make your way to the door.

So "zombification" by AI is like this post, where you let AI software analyze my post and then answer for you with these tasteless, generic, mindless observations? "As we navigate the challenges" we have to remember to talk and act so the future will be better? Thanks, AI, for NOTHING.

We need to stop competing like OTHER animals, and use our competitive nature in ways that complement our high intelligence and our cooperative nature. Our current tribal hierarchies haven't worked for the vast majority for quite a while. But this probably doesn't relate to what the OP wants to talk about. I, for one, would like more clarification about what this speculation is about. Does anyone know what AI is heralding? Lately I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their emphasis on a paternal moral hierarchy. It could be that these religions are just more tools the wealthiest individuals use against us, but the generational abuse that's been inflicted on the world so an extremely small group could have more wealth than billions of their fellow humans has become part of the false fabric of so many lives. It's a form of slavery that is embraced by the slaves as their salvation.

Probably when we have no more actual books? I think the reduction of the crippling effects of the Abrahamic religions would be a boon for mankind. Without the vertical paternal moral hierarchy they force upon the world, I think men and women could cooperate like intelligent humans instead of competing like animals for their god's favor. Better education can help so many of the problems we face. Humans evolved for intelligence, and that takes educators. We've allowed a few people to accumulate inordinate wealth, more than they can use EVER. Those few have been using this wealth to promote themselves to our own detriment. If we allow it to continue, then we probably deserve what happens to us.

I've experienced a few of these. My father preached that we shouldn't stick our noses in other people's business, which sounds reasonable and wise, but can also lead to ignoring the circumstances of others. It seems like an emotion all its own when you go against something your parents took pains to teach you, almost a guilty righteousness with a touch of anger. Torn between Don't waste food and Don't be a pig. And you could be in for an upset stomach just because you feel guilty about not cleaning your plate. Disgusted angry guilt? There's probably German words for these emotions. They love mashing a bunch of concepts together in a single word.

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently? I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted. It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.

! Moderator Note This topic is in a mainstream section. Can you offer some support for this statement? It seems trivially false.

For reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w