Singularity

believing in ''big bang'' fairy tales in 2019

The Bible also says you should wash your penis, you greasy mouth breather. I'm not a follower of any religion but I do believe in something larger than myself, and I do not tolerate atheism. Every single atheist I've met is some sort of amoral scumfuck that needs their teeth kicked in. Atheism is why tens of millions of innocents in the USSR were shot or starved. It's why there are fields in various Asian countries where the soil is littered with human teeth. You disgust me.

Go tip your fedora elsewhere. I'm sick of you obnoxious beta-male morons shitting up this website with non-arguments, like you know your dick from a doorknob. Fuck off

Attached: 1554924224066.gif (680x315, 87K)

You should speak to the OP more nicely in his own thread, Christfag. If you’re intolerant of atheism, I’m intolerant of “We don't know and may never know” hippie shit

>Christfag
can you not read very well?

You do not and never will know everything. Deal with it, faggot. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

Oh ok, Jew then.

What’s the point in doing science then?

>Pretending to be retarded
Fuck off.

As far as I remember, as Singularity in tech is more like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Scary af.
>The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence (ASI) will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization.

can't wait

Science is a tool, not a religion for s o y males to beat their three inch wonders to on twitter. I will not see such a tool squandered on frivolous bullshit like tranny surgeries and video games. You're a fucking clown. You and "people" like you are the reason why we haven't set up colonies on Mars. Leftist, atheist retards call themselves progressives when they've set back technological progress by more than 100 years.

You want science? Shit like HIV/AIDS was caused by godless genetic wastes fucking each other unprotected in massive piles for decades. You get sick off salads because you let thousands of unwashed beaners pick your vegetables and shit in the fields. The consequences to your actions and inactions are very real, you overgrown child. And functioning adults have to suffer for your stupidity and pull your dead weight.

I hope the AI kills us all.

Attached: 1536187332050.jpg (486x598, 39K)

Oh yeah, what causes child cancer then, punishment for babies being born to atheist parents? Science is a tool to things your God won’t or can’t do, including giving us perfect knowledge and mastery.

Singularity is the worst thing that could happen to humans. Better go extinct than experience ultimate bugman existence

>bugman existence
Elaborate, sir

You'll never achieve perfection. You will die, just like everyone else. You aren't special. You are mortal and finite. Accept your fate and do what you can to build a better world for your children, or don't reproduce at all and chase after toys and cheap pleasures until the unavoidable darkness devours you.

Do you fear death? I don't.

Attached: 1548916041061.jpg (1024x482, 64K)

>make shitposty thread about popsci nonsense
>this dude shows up and starts ranting about trans people and genetics

Attached: 1553465862614.jpg (736x552, 65K)

>You'll never achieve perfection.
The recursive AI we build will, Christfag

there's plenty of NEET compsci grads on Jow Forums
why can't we make a malevolent AI to accelerate the end of humanity ?

I’m all ears, how can we organize this?

What if we are the ai god built? Self learning, improving, definitely artificial for you. Btw your programming needs updating, go watch stephen colbert.

This guy has a PhD in astronomy and a masters in physics.

He believes the universe was created in 4004 BC.

Even atheists agree that recorded history didn't begin until 2000-3000 BC, but Christians say that happened after the 2348 BC global flood.

Attached: 1554478862668.jpg (850x850, 181K)

If we are artificial then we have a natural creator which is impossible

Forgot link

answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/comments-on-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

>recorded history is all history
Community college PHD’s don’t count

Your post is about climate technology, which includes historical technical data.
>Christians say that happened after the 2348 BC global flood.
Where does it say that? I'd like to know more.

No its not, we the artificial can genetically engineer organisms. Imagine what someone who created us could do, probably thinks quantum computers are obsolete.

>Where does it say that? I'd like to know more.
Chronologies in Genesis give the exact year of 4004 BC for the creation of the universe, 2348 BC for the global flood, and 2242 BC for the Tower of Babel.

My post: Is about cosmic background radiation.

The only thing people base old Universe dates on (13.8 billion years) is measuring background radiation and expansion of the universe today.

That's it. It's not proof the universe is old.

Please stop baiting fedoras

O, I forgot I was talking to a theist. I will concede that the universe is naturally intelligent.

Archaeology tho...

>Archaeology tho...
The only thing people base older Earth dates off of are radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is flawed and inherently makes assumptions.

You viewing a seemingly steady process of radioactive decay in a substance doesn't mean that rate was always constant, or didn't just start off in decay.

answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/

I am a Christian that believes the accounts in Genesis were historical.

I also think the mainstream science is wrong on many accounts, and has no proof or answers to many things that they claim to, including:

- The origin of the universe
- The origin of life
- Proof that a single celled organism could turn into all life on Earth through random genetic mutation

But they pass these off to the public as facts.

>You viewing a seemingly steady process of radioactive decay in a substance doesn't mean that rate was always constant, or didn't just start off in decay.
There is no evidence that either of these things would be true, and strong evidence that they’re false.

Bait level: Poe's Law

The only winning move is not to reply

There's no evidence that the process of decay was always constant either.

Wrong. The evidence says it was.

>O, I forgot I was talking to a theist.
Are you?
>I will concede that the universe is naturally intelligent.
Intelligent how? Are we a desired effect or a unfortunate side effect? Big bang or not, where did all this mass come from?

Are you a time traveler from the distant past that was able to observe and verify that radioactive decay was always at a constant rate?

Am I, yes
>What if we are the ai god built?

Intelligent because humans are intelligent and humans are animals who are embedded in and continuous with their environment.

>what is evidence
Get back to me after you make an atomic clock that assumes decay isn’t constant.

I don't know what the hell most of you guys are talking about but personally I think the main blockade of technological singularity would be the physical hardware. A synthetic intelligence has yet to be designed or built. Let alone a super intelligence, a system like that would not exactly easily run out of control would it? If you consider that it would not be a "small" system, but a gigantic interconnected one, each weak link would make it controllable.

What I mean is that most people think you just flip it on and before you know it if has circumvented containment and become exponentially more intelligent then what was thought possible. It couldn't possibly process that kind of information unless it was designed to, am I correct? Even if a connection was made to the greater internet how could the machine possibly configure itself to use it without outside help?

Attached: gif_1555298532562.gif (320x231, 1M)

Just look up intelligence explosion in general
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#Intelligence_explosion

Singularity is not about flipping on a Skynet and having it explode into science.
It's just the idea that technological advancements speed up with technological advancements and humans are being progressively replaced by machines until none are needed.
It's not supposed to be a jump.

For example, it's perfectly fine for it to go like this:
>dumb AI is used to optimize CPU structure to gain 10% extra power
>new CPUs are used to run the same optimization and gain another 10%, but also help with running the optimization on memory structure
>repeat x times
Of course exponential performance gains aren't sustainable, but it's achievable locally, for some time, until you have a new technology.

Yeah, that is the common misconception. What really makes this very difficult to speculate is that by definition we can't conceive the outcome of "superior intelligence". We would have to create a limited intelligence designed to reconsider the architecture itself before we could ever create a generalized intelligence. We don't know what is beyond the way computers are today, and personally I do not believe that a Strong computer could even reach 10% efficiency increase, like stacking a deck of cards 10% "better".

How "wide" would the perception of the machine be to rethink itself? All of the physics involved in its construction? Complete understanding of every aspect of its system? At a sertain point it's conception of reality would be akin to a simulation of reality wouldn't it? For inconceivable gains in efficiency you would need an inconceivablely accurate model. Real science fiction right there.

>I do believe in something larger than myself, and I do not tolerate atheism

Attached: 551B4538-19F2-41CE-A660-8F88A921E16E.png (753x960, 29K)

The singularity probably never existed, as you go further back in time, time and space start to lose meaning and you can not differentiate one from the other, they become a soup of quantum potential in a hyper dense environment, you try to go further back but you're only going to the future again instead.

The origin of the universe (xbar,t) -> (0,0) is a literal “singularity” in the true physicist’s sense of the word.

>I do not believe that a Strong computer could even reach 10% efficiency increase, like stacking a deck of cards 10% "better".
Google saved lots of money by using ML for server HVAC controllers.
Advances in natural language processing allow one "data scientist" to set up an actually useful data mining system that would take 10 programmers and months of work before. This system then saves more human work once set up and used for something.
Reinforcement learning is pretty close to allowing practical learning by presentation that would allow setting up (for example) assembling machines even by unskilled workers, then allowing the machine to intelligently get rid of wasteful movements from the plan.
Self-driving cars are on the horizon.

It's the little things that add up.
They aren't all that important in isolation (except maybe self-driving cars), but they all work together in manageable way.
Then you can have an AI manage other AIs and actually "invent" (not intelligently, just mathematical corner cutting) ways to manage them better than a human would, just because it has thousands of hours of data to look at.

>How "wide" would the perception of the machine be to rethink itself?
At first just help humans. Later humans would patch the holes in its understanding. Finally, AIs would approximate those well enough for humans not to be needed.
>For inconceivable gains in efficiency you would need an inconceivablely accurate model.
In vast majority of practical systems, there is a lot to be gained from minor things.
For example, think of all the fuel that would be saved if all cars were organized by a centralized system that "load balanced" the traffic and smoothed out driving speed.
Shit that humans are too lazy to autismally tweak manually.

There's plenty of that in hardware design, just that most hardware design requires skills to advanced for current AIs.

>not intelligent, just mathematical corner cutting for $200
What is science

I'll just leave this here

Science doesn't do itself
When it does, we call it singularity

This was a triumph
I'm making a note here, HUGE SUCCESS
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction
Aperture Science
We do what we must because we can
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are dead
But there's no sense crying over every mistake
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake
And the science gets done
And you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive
I'm not even angry
I'm being so sincere right now
Even though you broke my heart and killed me
And tore me to pieces
And threw every piece into a fire
As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you
Now these points of data make a beautiful line
And we're out of beta, we're releasing on time
So I'm GLaD I got burned, think of all the things we learned
For the people who are still alive
Go ahead and leave me
I think I prefer to stay inside
Maybe you'll find someone else to help you
Maybe Black Mesa
That was a joke, haha, FAT CHANCE
Anyway this cake is great
It's so delicious and moist
Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me GLaD I'm not you
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done
On the people who are still alive
And believe me I am still alive
I'm doing science and I'm still alive
I feel fantastic and I'm still alive
While you're dying I'll be still alive
And when you're dead I'll be still alive
Still alive.
STILL ALIVE!

tfw Jonathan Coulton's original version is even funnier.
youtube.com/watch?v=sxNmeMklFk8

>> Believing in big bang
Something doesn't come from nothing. Big bang theory only works if reverse entropy is a thing and contracted to a point of singularity

That's pretty much the answer given when you ask what was before the Big Bang.
But what you want is for the question of how this universe began to have that answer, when the answer we have come to is based on predicted evidence that we have then searched for and found.

>what causes child cancer then
The same thing that causes adult cancer. Is this a trick question?

>Chronologies in Genesis give the exact year of 4004 BC for the creation of the universe, 2348 BC for the global flood, and 2242 BC for the Tower of Babel.
Huh. There were people living in East Japan at least 450 years before the global flood (and up to 800 years before the creation of the universe).
Odd, that.

I want to fugg glados

“People”

>Conclusion
>The CMB remains the sole evidence for the big bang theory
>However, there are several problems with the CMB

The article does not support these statements.
Nowhere in the article does he refute the accepted CMB model. He only discusses alternative models that have been disproven.

There’s a big problem with that.
We can see light from stars millions of light years away.
They would have to have existed for millions of years for their light to reach us.
This is a really easy way to refute the 6000 year argument that nobody ever brings up.
Not even an atheist, but the universe is old.