Will machines completely replace all human beings?

You say that “a clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable ‘particle’ – a ‘standing wave’ of noise”. But you don’t say where the noise comes from.

The question is not what noise physically is, but the question is where noise comes from according to RM:AO.

If you are now referring to physics, the affectance noise is ever present. It is impossible to be without affectance noise. One of the definitions for “God” is “the impossibility of nothingness”. Or as I put it, “nothing is possible until something is impossible”. Nothingness is impossible (as shown in another thread), thus affectance “noise” cannot be avoided. It is literally always everywhere.

Socially, the “noise” is the activity of people.
Psychologically, the “noise” is the cloud of perceived potential hopes and threats.
Economically, the “noise” is the activity of trade by every means.

So you are saying that the noise is as well eternal as the universe.

And because noise is electromagnetic you are also saying that the electromagentic “force” is - as well as the elctromagnetic field (thus: affectance) - eternal.

That’s all without any beginning and without any ending.

You got it.

Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of “noise” must first arise from the physics of noise, “random EMR”.

So noise and every analogy to noise can cause a so called „black hole“ because the noise can increase as much as it is possible (probably to infinity) and the social analogy to the physical noise, especially the noise field, is really „confusion, conflict, and disorder“, as you say: „Such confusion and disorder naturally retards itself into anomalous congestion, commonly known as »cities«. The city is »a particle« of society, as well as states, nations, and empires. The most immediate concern is that such confusion causes undue conflict and suffering, commonly know as »Hell on Earth« and reigned over by deception (aka »Satan« and »The Matrix«). Because none within the field can do anything substantially certain to change anything, the larger particle of noise continues unopposed: »Eternal Hell on Earth«: A single great particle, »black-hole«. … Socially, the »noise« is the activity of people. Psychologically, the »noise« is the cloud of perceived potential hopes and threats. Economically, the »noise« is the activity of trade by every means. … Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of »noise« must first arise from the physics of noise, Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of »noise« must first arise from the physics of noise, »random EMR«.“ So the noise can’t disappear and has a posive and negative charge, personally or socially said: a posive and negative character.

And because „machines merely conflict faster, making the »noise« more substantial, »louder« (such as guns …)“ the probability that they or their creators may cause a „black hole“ is higher than without machines. Said in your terms: „Machines, being far more intelligent and rational than humans eventually surmise that the only efficient way to handle the work load is to maintain small groups of relatively autonomous machines (packs of androids) networked together in a specific manner (SAM Corps) and networked to the entire world of machines in a specific manner (A vast body: Machine Manifestation), void of human interference and thus becoming far more capable than anything on Earth at maintaining themselves and accomplishing all needs: surviving by eliminating inefficiencies such as humans and all organic life.“ So one of the conclusions of this is that for you the probability that the machines will eliminate all humans is higher than for me.

Futuremagazine.net: “THE COMPETENCE BETWEEN HUMANS AND MACHINES.”

Correct. And without an effort to do otherwise, will be neutral of charge, containing equal amounts of both: a huge society that doesn’t care one way or another about anything going on around it, a “neutral character”, not the “positive character” that people imagine.

True unless you can fill me in on any trend or significant event to the contrary.

The Globalist Black-hole particle will be consuming, digesting, and gestating everything it possibly can over and over and over in the name of “environmentally green”. Nothing will escape the Globalist social mechanism except for accidental waste. And as the efficiency rises, even literally light will not be allowed to reflect off of Earth back into space. All energy will be contained within the system for reuse. Realize that the “Solar Freakin Roadways” is merely an attempt to do just that, absorb all possible energy. And what color are solar panels? They are black for a reason. The Earth itself will be literally blackened by the greed of Man. And if Man was left to continue his reign, a literal physical black-hole would inadvertently emerge.

But machines are a lot smarter, a whole lot smarter. So machines, foreseeing that devastating ever climbing potential, will distribute their energy more wisely and ensure that nothing happens that could even inadvertently trigger a physical black-hole. But even the machines have no reason to not become a “black-body”, absorbing all light from the skies. The difference is that they are smart enough to not make themselves into merely a churning cauldron floating in space, void of ability to do anything but digest anything around. Machine intelligence is smart enough to assemble itself into a mobile body with “hands and feet”, capable of moving and grasping, much like a typical living animal. The New “Androidium” will be a vast living creature, simply void of organic life and not like Man’s mindless global cauldron (an empire of fools).

So the Earth actually gets saved from being nothing but a black-hole floating in space, by humans being removed from authority, and from the entire planet.

What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

There are many things that Man could do, but won’t. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.

What must be done is simply to distribute the wealth that is life such that the density can never reach a maximum. The separation must be maintained by natural means. In the past that has been done by land, language, culture, and ontology, the very things that Globalism seeks to unite and homogenize into a great glob. What keeps life safe and continuing is its disbursement. But even that has a balance. Rather than a great single particle, there must be very many autonomous particles merely networked together to share wisdom, not obedience. And to keep them separate, he must learn wisdom. The human body does not simply grow ever larger, but disperses into many relatively autonomous bodies that share their wisdom.

When a man finally learns of the exact make of life, he no longer seeks for ever more and more, but seeks only precise balance, never actually too much nor too little, yet carefully swaying between a little more and a little less so as to keep track of the varying limits. Having ten wives, a wise man would most probably give up eight and possibly all of them, but in the right way. Having millions of dollars, a wise man would give up most of it, and in the right way. But until he learns of the make of life, he hasn’t any idea what to give up, how much, nor of the right way to give.

So homosapian would have to learn of the actual make of life and then very precisely distribute the wealth that is life accordingly, something that machines can be made capable of doing far more precisely than humans. Machines have a place with homosapian. Machines properly designed and used enhance life where ever they are. Humans properly taught enhance life where ever they are as well. Even animals recognize that in humans. There is no more to be gained than that.

But Man cannot do what Man will not do.

I’ve expected this answer.

The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I’m sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? (1) Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality. (2) “Communal particles” or “SAM” (“Social Anentropic Molecule”) corporations? Perhaps. (3) A mix of empires and communal particles? Maybe, and if so, then in a more globalistic way. (4) Other social forms? With the untmost probability: No; but perhaps in the future, after the globalists will have disappered, and: if the machines will not have taken over. With the utmost probability all other social forms will not be possible anymore because they will have been destroyed totally then.

Well, I don’t know what you want to call them, but basically the continents (North America, Africa, Asia, Europe,…) become the primary separation between centers (which I would call “nations”) with “provinces” within each. It is more like a polyparticle (“weak force” holding the empire together).

And SAM doesn’t become a significant part of anything until the very end of the blind lusting. SAM IS the end of the blind lusting and the dissolution of the last empire.

The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That’s the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

Oh it would take a lot more current detail to predict each detailed blow by blow step. The new film, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is the first of a trilogy of films to give the writers perspective of past and future events (and it’s a bit slow for such a film). Of course all fantasy films are metaphor. But maybe they will answer your questions. :sunglasses:

So let me come back to my question.

Because your answer was:

If “his fate” is really “so certain”, why should we then form a “communal particle” or a “SAM” (“Social Anentropic Molecule”) corporation?, why should we then defend ourselves against the globalists?, and whys hould we then defend ourselves against the machines?

Well, imagine that you teleported back in time to pre-Roman Empire days. You know what is going to take place, an empire is going to form. And you know that it is going to get nasty, corrupt, and fall. Are you just going to throw up your hands and say, “Oh well, nothing I can do about it” and roll over and die? Or are you going to prepare for it in the best way you can at the time? Take care of at least yourself?

You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM.

That’s right. So the human “fate” was not very much seriously meant by you (I took you at your word!), wasn’t it? You said: “Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.” Who is “Man” in that sentence? If “Man” means “all human beings” in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire “is going to fall toward, SAM”.

Don’t confuse “Man” (Mankind as a whole) with “a man” nor with “every man”. Just because Man forms into an empire, doesn’t mean that every single man is an imperialist.

If your goal is to alter Man, you have some extremely powerful competition who won’t even let you know of their goals and will be very presumptuous about, and condemning of, yours. Altering Man is a monumental task, very unlikely to succeed or change hardly anything. Thus Man has a relatively fixed fate. But an individual man, having more influence over his own life, can alter his own fate through devoted decisions.

And then by someone, anyone, displaying the effectiveness of SAM when the time is finally right (whenever that is), Man as a whole will catch onto the idea sooner and if Man is in sufficient control of most men (being dictatorially imperialistic), the idea of SAM will very quickly become the fate of Man.

The only question is whether Man will be made of homosapian-humans, transhuman-humans, cyborg-humans, or machine-humans at that time.

I thought that you meant the human beings as such, or that man who rules or represents all human beings, when you used the word “Man”.

Yes, or as I said:
The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That’s the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

But again:

Please answer my question I “once” asked you:

Who is meant with the word “Man” in that sentence?

“Man” in that one sentence can apply to any groupings of humans. But I was responding to your the earlier post;

The point is that the fate of “Man” (as a whole) is not necessarily the same as the fate of a man (as an individual) nor of a small group of men.

The masses in the West have been repressed through a particular psychological means. Thus their will is turned against themselves. The result is that they won’t do anything but bow and obey. Sociology is merely psychology applied to societies. People today are victims of social engineering (or psychological engineering/manipulating applied to societies). Each individual doesn’t see his repression, but rather senses oppression from everyone else. It is just a mind game with the masses as a whole.

Thus a small group of men can do what the larger whole cannot do simply by absolving their repression. But they do not have the influence to absolve everyone’s repression.