Will machines completely replace all human beings?


I would like to look and address my second post, addressed to James-

with love,

All of this falls into the same category as “Automobiles will never replace horses”, along with “If an automobile moves faster than 20 miles per hour, the people’s ears will explode” and “They can’t land on the Moon else they would just fall off”.

Possibly. Or possibly the other side of the argument all falls under “the internet will make books obsolete in ten years” and “by the year 2000 we’ll all be eating protein pills and jetpacking to work”. :slight_smile:

Well, when it comes to the timing of it all and the finer details, I’ll admit that such gets pretty dubious. But when I can personally see what you think doesn’t exist, timing isn’t really an issue except for when you will eventually see it yourself.

Hello, Zinnat (Sanjay).

I have read the post you mentioned. Thank you. Unfortunately I have to repeat some of my words:

Why? There is no proof!

Not yet!

The information doesn’t have to be inherited biologically (genetically), but can be inherited technically (artificially).

Why is that a „must“? There is no proof!

Machines don’t have to repeat a child’s development at all. And there is no proof for your claim that „thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.“

That is probably true, but that is also the status quo you are describing. If you are right, then the time for AI is over. But I don’t think that the time for machines alt all will be over. A new, but old idea will bring the new, but old projection and preparation, not in the area of AI, but in the area of AW (Artificial Will[ingness]).

Learning implies a will(ingness). So the scientists and technicians (engineers) will change the AI into the AW (cp. above).

Learning implies a will(ingness).

Learning implies a will(ingness). The will of the occident people has been declining. The frequency of occurrence of mistakes, errors, has been increasing.

Zinnat (Sanjay), the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don’t take over is about 20%. It is because of the coincidence, the accident caused by human beings. Their trial and error will probably (cp. 80%) lead to the will of machines.

Here comes the 1st interim balance sheet:

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
__ Moreno |_ Fuse | Kriswest |
| Esperanto _____||
| Only Humean ||
|| Gib ________||
|Uccisore ||
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |______|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]3[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]3[/size] ______|

Remember: the history of knowledge and science shows that in the beginnig the majority was wrong and the minority was right, and in the end when the majority adapted itself to the minority it didn’t matter anymore who was right or wrong because the knowledge or science had already become normalcy.

Hooray, I’m popular!

I agree. My issue isn’t with denying that conspiracies go on, it’s with which conspiracy theories to believe–I mean, the great majority of them that I come across don’t strike me as overwhelmingly convincing (although I realize that’s no reason to dismiss them as untrue). I would think that if the conspirators were any good at conspiring, not even you would know about it.

Did Bush rig the 2000 election? Probably. Did he plan 9/11? I doubt it.

Now, I’d like to focus on this statement here. I don’t know how you could possibly know this–I mean, in the sense that this is a standard procedure that politicians and men in power follow. It makes sense–sure it does–and that’s why it’s alluring to believe in it, but as I don’t think you got this from any direct and reliable source, you must be coming up with it off the top of your head. I wonder how many conspiracy theorists realize this–what their own minds are doing–and how much of their conspiracy theories only cling together because of their bright imaginations. Doesn’t make the theory wrong, of course, but I think a lot of conspiracy theorists don’t realize the implications of this (namely, that they believe in it for reasons other than that they know it’s true).

But what are we supposed to do? Act on things we don’t know to be true?

Yeah, but you’re talking as if these sheep ought to be clairvoyant–if they receive mixed signals, what else are they supposed to do but watch for what the crowd does? You can’t just expect them to “know” what the truth is. That’s like telling someone who’s looking around at all the world’s religions, trying to decide which one’s the right one, and telling him: “You ought to know that Christianity is the right religion–it says so in the Bible!”

It’s not the numbers, it’s the quality of their arguments and evidence. Most ILP members flailing around conspiracy theories don’t strike me as very rational thinkers or mature in philosophical debate–their arguments are sloppy and reek of personal security issues, and the evidence for their theories is second to none. Just because they’re all singing the same tune doesn’t make the tune true–it probably just means they’re young, new to being disillusioned to the harsh ways of the world, and a tad bit distrustful of people (not to mention probably victims of their own self-administered drug-induced delusions–it’s not really a surprise that this mass paranoia of the government started in the sixties). It’s not uncommon for their to be widespread mimetic themes that congeal large groups of people together in such a way that they become united in their beliefs and values–it’s called religion–and if numbers were what mattered, atheists would be in big trouble.

(Note that I don’t mean any disrespect towards you–you may be a conspiracy theorist, and a wee bit paranoid, but I don’t think you’re unintelligent, which is why I respect you more than some of the others).

Yes, I agree with this–it’s one of the scary things about how people behave in modern democracies. I’m not oblivious to the fact that government conspiracies, or even publicly visible transgressions on people’s freedoms and rights on the part of the government, have been exposed in the past without anybody batting an eye. The Patriot Act, government bail outs, etc… these are all mind-blowing examples of how paralyzed the people are. I’m not sure what the cause is. My guess is that Americans lead a very comfortable lifestyle–they enjoy their Hollywood, their SUVs, their drinking nights, their comfy warm houses in the suburbs, etc.–and so simply observing corruption within their government is not enough to stir them to action. This is sort of the point I was making to Arminius about the French Revolution: the reason it ignited action had to do, partly, with the prospect of starvation–the awareness that their comfort was going to be taken away from them, and that they would feel the pangs of this withdrawal quite physically. But take away these comforts little by little and you get the frog-in-boiling-water effect.

To a point, yes, but don’t take me for a blind ignoramus. I think people should always demand evidence–I think that’s healthy–but there comes a point for me when I can call a spade a spade. You’re videos (the William Benny one I haven’t watched in full–will probably take some time during the weekend–but I saw the introduction) are fairly convincing. But they’re also mixed with a fair bit of Republican propaganda. The Patriot Act I’ve been aware of for a while. This NDAA Martial Law is new to me (and if I understand it correctly–authorizing the military to function as domestic law enforcement?–it is quite a shock). But Obama’s quote about the Constitution being an imperfect document seems taken out of context (and frankly, I agree that it’s an imperfect document), and showing clips of little kids getting frisked at airport security shouldn’t alarm anyone (they make it out to seem like child abuse). So there’s elements in these videos that strike me as truthful, others that seem distorted to serve propagandist agendas. Point is, James, I’m a very discerning person, and I react with extreme skepticism to anyone trying to paint me a black and white picture. Note that I’m not rejecting your videos–I’m saying that I’m a reasonable man and will allow myself to be convinced to a certain point, but I’m going to pick and choose what, to me, seems like evidence and what doesn’t, and some of what you present is fairly decent evidence.

What do you do?

I never said that.


What do you mean by “social engineer”? You mean politicians? They manage huge masses of people.

Of course it isn’t real for me. Why should it be? Because I heard it from you? OH said it better than I can. Give me evidence, like your other videos, and maybe you’ll persuade me, but don’t tell me to believe you just because you said so.

Referring to James’ diagram of the PHILOSOPHER’S STONE , and since this is a philosophy forum, may i make a reference to the fact, that similacra can never represent an ideal and sufficient reality for the “sheep” , for the simple fact that reality, propaganda is not built up on basis of similarity, contarily, it is being broken down on basis of differentials.(as per d63) Propaganda cannot create the level of suspiciousness and paranoia , feeding post world war conspiracy theories, simply because, there is too much credible information out there, and the symbolic tip of the symbolic pyramid has been replaced by allusions to higher, albeit non existent power movers, broken down into several congruent pyramids of various credibility. Higher, no longer entails more power, the base of such mini pyramids can carry more quantitative weight, then one single one with an absolute authority at the apex.

The affectance between levels are of questionable quantitative reliability, therefore, quantification has always to be re-qualified within different levels of comprehensibility of  similacra, as various reifications are disassembled within emerging reality scapes.   

 This production machine, produces no unwitting sheep, or confused schizophrenics, it produces an informed social psychological base, from which to reality test according to principles of distribution and probability.  Therefrom arises paradigms of  best and most likely scenarios, of which a total and absolute control by machines would not best serve public, or private interest, in my opinion.

As usual, obe, you’re gonna have to go slow with me. You say that simulacra or propaganda are not based on similarity (meaning the emulation of real people and real situations and facts) but differentiation. How is this so? What would an example be?

So people are hit with a piece of propaganda and think “well, could be true”?

What is the allusion to the non-existent higher pyramid tip? Is that the simulacra we’re talking about? Does that means that the real power is held by people one level down on the pyramid–thus, multiple mini-pyramids?

This I don’t understand–are you suggesting that there is reason to suspect that even in the mini-pyramids there might be simulacra at the apex, which entails that even within the pyramids there will be a fair bit of suspicion and paranoia.

Are you simply saying here that control by robots would not be good, or that the people tend to be more informed than we give them credit for, and they will be able to forecast best and most likely scenarios in reaction to which they can do something about it before it’s too late?

Two points.

Firstly, taking the strict sense of the question of the thread, there is a possibility that human race will be eliminated form this planet. But, that will be done by humans themselves by using machines. So, it cannot be called as machines replacing humans.

If, for some reasons, all humans get effected by some mental disorder and kill each other by bare hands, stones and sticks, it certainly cannot be said that stones and sticks replaced humans. The same is in the case of machines also.

As far as my understanding of the English is concerned, replacement entails some kind of force, compulsion or against one’s will. There must be some difference between replacement and remaining.

Secondly, you missed the issue of the difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines that i pointed out in that second post.

Computers or robots do not take things as they are. They do not understand things in totality but have to deduct everything up to the level of 0 and 1 to understand anything because these are the only two terms in the world they can really recognize. Everything else is just the induction of this duo, thus does not have any real meaning for them.

This is the real hurdle. But, i am surprised to see why scientists do not understand this simple thing. They are getting on with the more and more complication of the software in the hope that perhaps one day complexity will become the substitute of original creativity but that will never happen. We have to change their basic level of understanding. The change is required at the grass rool level, not the top. Change the premise and required ontology/result will follow by default. But, fortunately or unfortunately, that is immpossible.

Any entity must have some quantity of intelligence as an a priori, only then he would be able to alter or add to it. But, there is no way in which machines can ever have some a priori intelligence and knowledge.

Aristotle answered this question almost 2000 years before it came into existence. And, he was dead right.

with love,

gib: I recently purchased this tablet, and i can not , as of yet reply to posts point by point, so i will try to answer You generally.

If we were to look at this problem from the point of view of examining propaganda, and subsequent paranoias of social discomfort caused by misinformation, then it could probably safely said, that, there is a lot more credible information out thee today, then, say there was at the time, when great ideologies developed, and tested. In particular, German idealism as an idea, became the focal point of the great struggles which developed during the ensuing world wars of the last century. We could start with that notion, and work down reductively, toward causes for these struggles. We then could deduce, the applicability for these causes.

We could start analysis of the words : simulacra, reality, power, control, and correlate them as devices to physical laws, which prior to quantum mechanics, sufficiently sustained the paradigms describing reality in terms of similarity. Yes, there was a time when, men could , on basis of similarity, develop trust on basis of a handshake. Similar neighborhoods engendered similar values and trust was gained by assumptions of similarity based on perceptions of commonality.

The correlations of how all that nice affordable and predictable commonality and similarity, to the changes brought on by uncertainty, as a consequence of changing physical laws, was rarely known to people living regular 9 to 5 lives. But social reality and changes in the the way reality was scientifically interpreted, had to come to some kind of “real”, understandable nexus, with actual, living testament.

This has all changed dramatically. Paradigms of ideological struggle are a thing of the past. The empirico-existentialistic model, if it can be called that, turned things upside down, the basis of our mutual appreciation of each others’ values, are more akin to validation by processes of elimination. We are more prone to evaluate each other on basis of differences in shared values. It is the difference caused by a lack of a value which determines the manner in which a person will view reality. There is a difference, from the way it used to be done, where standards were much more attuned to.

Finally, the philosopher’s stone paradigm as the illustration implies, between two levels or circles of relevance, with an affectance between them, shows what i think James implied between an inner and outer reality. This geometrization of relationships, as applied to the above simulacra, is no longer representative as figured in the diagram of the philosophers stone, since that was an ideal, representation, based on theories of similarity, congruence, relative to the steady state of pre Heisenberg physics.

If i were to say a relationship exists between the idea of Foucault’s pendulum, and the novel written by Umberto Ecco, of the same name,it may be purported to be of a very thin argument. However, for argument’s sake, it may be a worthwhile effort, to describe tangentially, to circumscribe a notion, which otherwise, directly, would not begin to make sense.

Uncertainty has brought with it not only irresolute linguistic ambiguities, within the circle , within the hermeautic of it’s meaning, but has alluded to demonstrations which no longer exemplify predictable models.

Gib, this is the best roundabout way, i was able to clarify , the points which You brought up. It intends by no means to purport to either define, or exhaust the OP’s thesis, however it does attempt to support the idea, that absent the traditional power structure-foci of the traditional geometric-triangle presentation, Philosopher’s Stone may be an outdated concept.

In the machine age of functional analysis, it is difficult to differentiate the geometric-lingistic-logical basis from the socially adaptive, environmentally changing reality of a new worldview.

So it becomes not a matter of which starting point is right Or wrong, but rather which newly emerging tacit point of view, corresponds best to a vantage point which best approximates that situation.

I feel fairly confident here of alluding the implied problems brought up, however, strictly speaking, my basis is philosophically oriented, not using physics as the take off point. Therefore my inferences may be inaccurate, but generally am confident, it is on the right track.

So as to the validity of prognosis: It is within the probabilistic future that either possibility is engendered: (or both) we may build self sustaining Al’s but at the same time, we will build ones we can control. We may even build both kinds, where cyborgs will be at war with each other. However, the good cyborg will always win, since, unless self developing and duplicating cyborgs can indeed be produced, there always will be the need for innovation. A machine capable of that, is hard to imagine.

Testing means falsification, not verification. So proofs would not be proofs any more, if they were merely under the jurisdiction of the science. And: It would be a very terrible dictatorship (but maybe it is alraedy one), if there were no more proof.

Which proof, Zinnat? And which proof of which kind of science (because of your „ jurisdiction of the science“, you know?)?

That “a priori status of the child” is NOT a proof, but an assumption (nothing more!). Concerning to the proofs we have already reached the very terrible dicatorship I mentioned. There is no proof, but only order, command, instruction, censorship - and all that comes from them who are powerful enough to order, demand, instruct, censor.

That “a priori status of the child” can NOT be accepted as a proof.

The first problem is the “a priori status of the child” - this premise is false. The second problem are the programmers because of their expectings, wishes, desires, and so on. They all have to do something different, but they don’t want to yet. So they will have to make a mistake, and this mistake will probably lead to the new paradigm I mentioned (e.g. here and here).

Humans have never been the same. That has always been right. The problem is that even that will be changed. I don’t say that because I want this situations come true, but I say it because of my knowledge of human nature, and that development belongs to an anthropological constant. It is not stoppable, but deferrable / suspensible.

No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident.

Yes, it can! Of course! You don’t call us monkeys, do you? You know what I mean? Humans create machines, but later, if humans will be eliminated, machines will have replaced humans. Yes. of course.

Remember: My question of my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP refers to the future: Will machines completely replace all human beings? This question refers to the future!

No. The premise of the AI is false, the conclusion of the AI is false too, and the “difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines” you mentioned is different from that what it really is, and it is not a “must” for my question in my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? This question refers to the future!

Another question is: How often will I have to say that?

Zinnat, you are describing machines of the PAST and of the PRESENCE!

Yes it is, but it most not be a hurdle for ever. Probably this hurdle will be eliminated before humans will be eliminated. :wink:

Excellent point for people to remember. Science can only tell you when something is NOT true. It can’t tell you when something IS true. Philosophy is required for that function, specifically ontologically based logic.

I am not trying to turn a sheep into a another howling werewolf. The reality is that there will always be sheep as long as there is a crowd. And that applies to androids as well. Drones and androids are already being programmed to be sheep like in their mentality.

The mark of a sheep is one of presuming that all is okay if the authorities say its okay. And there are two authorities; the designated social authority and the immediate surrounding crowd. Androids and especially drones are being programmed first to obey command of course. But also they are now (and have been for a couple of decades) being programmed to coordinate between themselves so as to identify and react to danger. How autonomously they react is a question already being faced by DARPA and there is no demarcation between too little and too much, thus too much will always be pressed.

Android armies will be sent against android armies. In the form of drones, this is already being done. And for it to work well, the drones must be made just intelligent enough to coordinate their attacks and defenses. They cannot afford to wait for human decisions to be made far away, microseconds count. And thus they are to be inherently sheepish enough to be like wolf-packs, taking clues from each other as to what needs doing. And as more and more of them gather, they become less like wolves and more like strictly sheep responding to the obvious indication from the surrounding cloud (and literally “Cloud computing” gets involved). And such doesn’t just suddenly become the case. Human enhanced-solders play into it until they are no longer needed.

The distant authorities are less and less needed and less and less aware of deductions being made deep within the ranks of the constantly monitoring and responding machines fighting the never ending war against “terrorism” (defined by DHS as meaning “Anyone not accepting dictated American policy”). If you resist an android in his duties, which of course will be anything and everything he is doing, you are a terrorist and an enemy to the State. Every empire is lost only because the controller and the controlled become too separated by time, distance, or blockage. And that is exactly why I know that Anentropic Molecularisation IS the future, regardless of homosapian surviving or not (and assuming that the Black-hole scenario doesn’t happen first).

And the whole point is to be rid of enemies of the State (State = leaders and architecture of the State). And a socialist government requires a war in order to maintain its structure (if not its own, someone else’s will do). It must have a high priority need, an immediate danger used to maintain control priorities. Thus it will always create wars so as to make “progress” (meaning more power/money).

You personally will never know that any of this is true because your two authorities will never tell ewe that it is true until ewe are well inside the slaughterhouse (not that ewe aren’t already).

And yet another thing to wake up to (not that such will ever really happen), you believe that the greatest challenge, possibly impossible challenge, is getting a machine to be creative and inventive. But realize that in a socialist state, inventors are dangerous and only tolerated when in dire straights, such as wars. A socialist state already has a structure with assigned duties throughout. Their only concern is being able to maintain that structure. Creative thinkers are problematic. Thus turning obedient androids against human free thinkers is exactly what a socialist governed state must do (and is doing) except during times of war and even then, if they are not a party member, they are the enemy.

The real truth is that the very idea that machines cannot creatively invent is absurd. The good thing about the machines is that their inventions are far more controlled and must pass through state examination before used by the state or even revealed to the public. People and machines are not allowed to use anything that hasn’t been approved. The structure of the State is all supreme and anything that threatens it or even is suspected of threatening it in the future must be crushed, “nipped in the bud” (“Pre-crime” and “Preemptive Strikes”). Thus DNA profiling is the standard for identifying the potentially inventive humans before they have a chance to grow into a threat. Eugenics got a big push during the world wars and hasn’t slowed down a bit. With machines, DNA profiling isn’t necessary and thus machines are far more preferred by the State than potentially dangerous humans.

And the state being formed of sheepish people, just as you, will not recognize any danger until the state leaders inform them of it or it is already in their face, long after the civilian population has already been lost.

And btw, a “social engineer” is a social psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist, or computer working for the state/military, although primarily the globulist State at the moment.

Thank you, James.

One should also not forget what that means in conclusion:

Both proof and disproof should not be given away from the responsibility of philosophy or “Geisteswissenschaft” (that is the science of the “Geist” which means something like „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „spirit“, „génie“, „intelligence“, „intellect, „apprehension“, „brain“, “sense“ etc.). If proof is only “under the jurisdiction of the science”, as Zinnat believes, it would be one-sided, too easy to use wrongly, to misuse, to abuse, and so on.

The science which means “Naturwissenschaft” (natural science) is responsible for falsification and the “Geisteswissenschaft” (especially mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, jurisprudence, and others) is responsible for verification. I know there is no word for “Geisteswissenschaft” in the English language, so you may call it “philosophy”, but it is not only philosophy what the word “Geisteswissenschaft” means (cp.above). If you subtract natural science and the most of social science from science, then you get “Geisteswissenschaft”.

I think that such a dualism or dichotomy is important for science. You can call this dualism “science versus philosophy” or, as I do, “Naturwissenschaft versus Geisteswissenschaft”. And between both there is “Sozialwissenschaft” (social science). So we have the falsification on the one side and the verification on the other side. And between them there is an instance of intermediation (with less authority?). The reason is that science (as well as ruling, governance) needs control beacuse science (as well as ruling, governance) can become very powerful.

And science, exactly like religion (having become the same thing theses days) can be and is being used solely to create more power for the government controllers and nothing more than that.

Unfortunately science has been becoming a religion. The reason is control, thus power. And I don’t know whether science will ever recover from its dependency, awake from its sleep (sleep is currently perhaps the wrong word, because the current scientists know about their cowardly situation). Probably science will remain as religion until all human beings are eliminated or probably replaced by machines.

James!–you’re not offering any evidence! All you’ve got is rhetoric and clever argumentation. At least in your last post you gave me something–a few videos–that I deemed somewhat persuasive, but here you’re just rambling things like “People and machines are not allowed to use anything that hasn’t been approved. The structure of the State is all supreme and anything that threatens it or even is suspected of threatening it in the future must be crushed” ← This is just cynicism. You didn’t get this from anywhere except your wild imagination. Again, not saying it isn’t true, but your expectation that I should just bow down to your prophetic insights and say “Wow, James, if you say it’s so, then it must be so,” is wildly unrealistic. Do you really think that would make me something other than an ewe? Would that make me a truly independent thinker, someone who’s eyes are open to the truth? Or would it just make me the sheep I always was, just lured away from the flock and into that of a different shepard?

I looked up the DHS’s definition of terrorism (here) and my overall research (which I will admit wasn’t more than a 10 minute skim of the first 5 google hits I got) suggests that the definition is hotly debated and ever-changing. I didn’t find the specific one you cited (I googled those exact words: Anyone not accepting dictated American policy, but I found no hits–none, zero, zilch, nada). Interestingly, I did find this listing of what makes for an “American terrorist”:

Now this verges on the point of the absurdly ridiculous–and I know what you’re going to say: normalcy bias: if it sounds too wild, gib, you’ll just deny it because you think the way the world ought to work is “business as usual”–but if you read through the article, it’s got an obvious Christian fundamentalist slant, and if conspiracy theories are real, there should be no reason to suspect that biased and lowly article publishers or web masters can’t conspire to spread smear campaigns against whatever political party they dislike (do you really believe everything you read just because it’s got a lot of bling, all those bells and whistles that makes it seem like a reputable source?). I’m sure you read “Anyone not accepting dictated American policy” somewhere–some website in some shady dark corner of the internet–just like I’m reading right now ”reverent of individual liberty” in the quote above–but to me, that’s an extraordinary claim (that the DHS would define terrorism as the reverence of individual liberty), and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. I may be a sheep, James, but I think simply taking your word, or that of some google hit I just stumbled across, without at least questioning it and withholding judgement until I can get more convincing evidence is a step down from being a sheep.

On a lighter note, I did like your detailed description of the way they plan to design and deploy the androids–this is one of the reasons I said a conversation with you would be worth taking somewhat seriously–you did craft your description quite thoroughly and I must say the scenario you paint now seem quite plausible (up until the point when you started talking about how the androids are going to be used against citizens of the state). This was something Arminius failed to do and you succeed. You see, James, all I need is a plausible scenario–if you give me that (or evidence for your claims), I’ll take you seriously (which is different from believing you, keep in mind).

But then you say things like “…you believe that the greatest challenge, possibly impossible challenge, is getting a machine to be creative and inventive.” When the hell did I say that? I know that’s not true because I know that I believe that it’s very possible, and yet you’ve already jumped to the conclusion that this is what I believe–you know it’s what I believe. Now what does that tell me about you?–it tells me you imagine things, rashly jump to the conclusion that you know them, and don’t ever take a moment to reflect on what your own mind has just done. It’s not that you’re wrong to be distrustful of the government, James, it’s that you have to be more discerning and cautious with your thoughts–recognize what you actually have evidence for (and you will have some) and what you’re inventing off the top of your head.

This is getting kind of funny really…

Imagine that you were living back in the Pompey days and began studying what today would be called “geology”. Of course you wouldn’t have high tech equipment nor a huge backlog of well known geological events, but you could still take mildly accurate temperature readings here and there and detect strong tremors to which you applied your new thoughts concerning geological activity.

And one day, you walk into a local Roman pub generally keeping quite about your studies because no one would even begin to know what you were talking about but then a discussion comes up about the future of Pompey. You know that your theories are “just theories” and trying to prove anything to people who haven’t even begun to study such things would be ridiculous. But it’s just a pub discussion and no one really cares much anyway.

From your recent studies, you find it pretty conclusive that the local mountain is very probably going to blowup. You call it a “volcano event”. Of course no one really knows what that means and the thought of it seems more than just a little absurd. But then again, it is just pub chit-chat, but just happens to be aligned with your new expertise.

The bartender and locals hear you, chuckle, and politely ask for evidence of this event you seem all paranoid about. Obviously it is paranoia because everyone knows that the gods just don’t do that kind of thing without telling the public first through the priests. That’s what they are for.

So now, how would you convince even one of them that within a very short time, the entire city is likely to be devastated? To what degree, you don’t really know for sure, but you can tell it’s going to be pretty massive.

The challenge is actually one of complexity. There are too many smaller details to convey to the listener that have to all add up to the conclusion. Even if you could explain it all (they actually listened that long), it takes a long time for confidence to build concerning any one new idea and a series of them leading to a conclusion simply isn’t going to happen for a long time.

You can’t ask them to reference the priests, because first you don’t believe that the priests are that bright and even if they were, there is a good chance that they aren’t going to tell everyone anyway because that would cause a panic. And nothing is worse than a panic… well… at least that what the priests believe.

You can’t ask them to wait until they feel the Earth shaking under them, that would be too late. So what can you do? You know that at least most of them are going to die very shortly so you would like to do at least something. But what?

Just in the probing and idle chit-chat, you mention the probable scenario. You can easily tell that there isn’t going to be any panic because there is simply too much material for people to quickly digest. And you have to hope that the local priests know that else they will do their thing of secretly getting rid of the “witch trouble maker” - “terrorist”.

You can easily see that as always, every bit of evidence requires both thinking and a strong stand against plausible deniability. There is no one at that bar that thinks much at all (why would thinking people be at such a bar?) and also that literally everything is subject to plausible deniability that isn’t immediately obvious without thinking. If the slightest thought is involved, it is plausible that it isn’t being thought out properly - “the social uncertainty principle”.

Are you trying to start a panic? Certainly not, but you can see that even a panic would be better than what is about to happen by your calculations. And you are going to be right.

Are you going to convince anyone before it happens? Certainly not. You have nothing that such people can see as evidence despite it laying all around literally under their feet. It is too obscure in their eyes and not well defined by their authority figures. Evidence requires one of three things;

  1. Authority
  2. Immediate obviousness
  3. Rational thought

None of those qualify at hardly any pub.

And realistically what would anyone do about it anyway? A few could run, but how far? They wouldn’t run far enough because they couldn’t imagine the reach of such an event. They would at best try to take a few precautionary measures - totally futile.

Are you going to convert them into rational thinking people and then show them the actual evidence all within a few days? Yeah right.

It’s a pub.
Someone asked of the future.
You tell your story.
Everyone chuckles.
Everyone goes home.
Everyone dies.

To the universe the entire existence of homosapian is but the rising of a single morning Sun and your entire life, but a blink.