Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Yes. - [size=85](the Higgs theory is incorrect)[/size]

I would have to speculate.

Good argument.
How does one say, “anti-entropic” in German?

But there is one minor nuance.

If something is growing, the word “anti-entropic” is proper because it is doing the exact opposite of what entropy would dictate. But what if it isn’t growing, but neither is it shrinking? What if it is merely not changing size? That would be “void of entropy” = “anentropic”.

A sub-atomic particle neither grows nor shrinks. It is stable in its size relative to its ambient. If its ambient changes, it changes just enough to compensate and then is stable again. Thus it is “anentropic”. But if the ambient gets too extremely dense, the particle will be inspired to grow beyond stability and continue growing and growing. At that point, it is no longer anentropic, but anti-entropic. But we no longer call it a “particle”, but rather a “Black Hole”, forever growing.

With life, you have been taught that life seeks to expand indefinitely, to simply replicate its DNA. But has that really been true? It is true that the DNA replicates. But note that after an adult body has been formed, the body stops growing. While it was growing, it was alive and anti-entropic. And when it stops growing, it is merely anentropic at best. But would you say that a man who has stopped growing is not alive? Is everyone over 30 dead?

The DNA is not replicating in order to be anti-entropic and fill the universe with itself, but rather it replicates itself merely as a means to surround itself with something compatible with itself in an effort to stop entropy, to be void of entropy. It is not trying to accumulate more. It is trying to stop losing any more. When any living thing senses that it is no longer being defeated by entropy, it stops growing automatically. That is conceptually why the body stops growing. It reaches a limit of benefit wherein more growth wouldn’t help. Of course this is in the form of biochemical reactions, but evolution has arranged them to cause that effect, “stop growing when it is no longer of anentropic benefit”. Thus the DNA process is actually an anentropic process, not really an anti-entropic process, except during growth against continued entropy.

Life on Earth merely keeps expanding because it is always being attacked (by human design). It can’t find its anentropic state. Societies that find peace, stop growing automatically. Overpopulation ends simply by finding harmony. No one needs to be killed off. That process is automatic and natural. The fear of overpopulation is specifically to justify specific people being killed off, “The Unchosen”.

Because societies don’t find sufficient anentropic cause to keep individuals alive, the individuals get replaced by continued DAN replication (or these days by androids). If they had found the cure to aging, and all other entropic effects, people would automatically stop reproducing any more than the environment required.

When I speak of “Anentropic Harmony”, I am referring to a momentous harmony that does not keep growing, but is stable against entropy. It is in harmony with its surroundings as well as being in harmony within its “body”. All need to grow has been exactly compensated. It is ecologically balanced. And it chooses to grow only when the environment demands growth in order to remain stable. It is very much like the anentropic sub-atomic particle, not the anti-entropic Black-hole.

One says “anti-entropisch” or “antientropisch” (“sch” is as spoken as “sh” in English, and as a morpheme of adjective forms “isch” is like “ic” in English). This word is not often used - both in German and in English.

When I use “X” and “Anti-X” I may sometimes refer to Hegel’s “Dialektik” in which the “Thesis” and the “Antithesis” as the Thesis’ antagonist lead to a “Synthesis”.

In our “case” we perhaps have to find the “Synthesis” of entropy and antientropy. But I don’t know whether the physicists agree to that.

That is exactly what I mean.

It is a process. If we try to find out which is stronger or weaker, higher or lower, we have to halt or break this process artificially because in reality it is always a process - until its end which is unknown because we don’t know, wether, and if yes, when and how the universe ends, and we also don’t know very much about black holes, even nothing about its interior.

That’s absolutely correct.

Yeah.

• AND of course too extremely HOT! -

Yes.

• which point, James? -

I would not say that a man who has stopped growing is not alive. When he has stopped grwoing he is more entropic than antientropic - before he stopped growing he was more antientropic than entropic. The point of “stop growing”, as you said, is - unfortunately or fortunately (who really knows?) - nearly a static point, isn’t it?

That’s right.

Okay, but “evolution” is a word which is conceptually very much spreaded. Nevertheless I agree.

After growth the process is “not really an antientropic process” because the entropic process is stronger (entropy “wins” at last), but nevertheless after growth the antientropic process doesn’t end, but is merely weaker, the end of antientropy is death. Anentropy means (linguistically) the absence of entropy, but antientropy needs entropy because of fighting against it. Anentropy is more than less a metaphysical concept, you can’t hardly prove it physically.

So I don’t wonder that your concept of “anentropic harmony” is a metaphysical concept.

Anentropy is more or less an ideal. One can or shall reach or attain it, if one is able to remain in the state of timelessness or eternalness. So it reminds me of the Buddhistic concept of “nirvana”.

Where something is, there is entropy, and even there, where nothing is, will be soon entropy.

Exceptions prove the rule.

That is true.

The first impression that one of the naive believers (e.g. the naive believers in progress) has is that “peaceful societies grow”. No! They do NOT grow. They stop growing and shrink automatically.

You can be “anentropic” then - and only then -, if you are in a void or static state or condition.

I think, in the matter we are agreed, we merely differ in concepts, definitions, thus words, exactly: lexemes.

You will find that I have only small concern over what physicists agree on (in modern English a “physician” is a medical practitioner).

That depends on who you are referring to when you say “we”.

A “static point”? So you are saying that anyone over 30 is static and although alive, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, merely fading away and nothing more?

If you get a toy spin-top, give it an eternal energy source and a means to replace its materials (both can be done today), it will spin eternally. Of course a truck might run over it. It has no consciousness and thus cannot avoid impending danger. But as a non-living entity, it is anentropic and momentous, “perpetual”. Its entropy has been canceled. It is not dying.

In the mid to late 1990’s the last few remaining causes of aging were identified. It was predicted that in merely another 25 years, each of those would be resolved as well. At this point, a homosapian can live eternally, and is conscious and thus can avoid that truck. The causes of entropy can now be canceled. Of course it is only done for the extremely wealthy, not because of the cost, but because the wealthy believe in a pyramid of supreme power floating above a Gehenna of the masses soon to be replaced by machines. But such people become anentropic. They are older than 30 years and are not dying.

So which is “stronger”, entropy or anti-entropy?

Living anti-entropic entities can learn how to not over-use the anti-entropy and thus they can become anentropic, having conquered both entropy and anti-entropy and can apply either as needed in order to continue being stable, anentropic.

Thus Anentropy is “stronger” than both entropy and anti-entropy. It is the balancing of the two, a synthesis and symphony of harmony.

As you say;

…“more”, not “less”. And doable even today. People die today ONLY because of the way homosapians are managed.

And where something is, there is anti-entropy, and even there, where “nothing” is, will be soon anti-entropy.

The Chosen have already separated themselves to live in their “Utopia”. They have already “ascended” into their Ivory Tower. It is only a matter of time before they replace the rest of the population with machines. But are they being socially anti-entropic or anentropic? They are socially anti-entropic and thus will cause a cataclysm that even they, with all of their wealth and glory cannot do anything to stop. So in the “end”, if Anentropia is not chosen as a means to live (rather than the Pyramid), anti-entropic forces are going to win = “Black-hole”. There is no greater anti-entropic entity in the entire universe than a Black-hole, perhaps the destiny of every organic civilization. They simply do not know how to stop and be truly anentropic (else they would be doing it out in the world).

In The Matrix film series, you see the battle between the Oracle and the Zionists vs the Architect and the machines. In the end, who wins? They settle on a truce, a pseudo-anentropic state. But in reality, although that began a new day, a new age, it is not the real end of the story.

What do you think happens to a truce between the eternally dying and the eternally living? A pyramid requires constant anti-entropic forces to maintain its form. And thus must constantly be fighting entropic forces, always gaining more power to win a battle that can never be won except by the annihilation into a Black-hole floating in space.

Do I have to add my last four main questions?

I add two main questions:

Will a physical “black hole” be caused in James’ sense (see above)?
Will that physical “black hole” absorb our earth or even our entire solar system?

This is just a demonstration of how stupid logic can be.

You have to ask: cheaper for what?
Maybe you can imagine a world completely run by machines, in which all the humans have died of redundancy? A world cycling on and only for millennia with a dim memory of how humans were once served by the machines, but now the machines only serve machines.
Well Duh!
As humans decline for not having any purpose, machines will not be needed, also.

Thank you. Einstein was the familiy doctor of my father till 1933, when he became the familiy doctor of your father.

No. Over 24! … All jokes aside. Sometimes we are using different words for the same concept. I was saying:

That is why I said before:

That is what I also say.

Do you actually use the words “anti-entropy” and “anti-entropic” because I used them before, or do you use them anyway, usually when it comes to the topic “anentropic harmony”?

Anti-entropic was the my first thought concerning the MCR, “Maximum Change Rate”, which spawns the sub-atomic particle to grow. And anti-entropic is what it is. So I started to say that a sub-atomic particle was anti-entropic, but something seemed wrong with that. Then I realized that the particle itself, although formed because of anti-entropy, is not anti-entropic, but merely void of entropy.

I couldn’t find a word for that other than merely “stable”. But the word “stable” didn’t really relay the deeper truth of it, that it was stable because of the detailed, finer anti-entropy countering the entropy. So I chose to form and use the word “anentropy” so as to relay that its stability was very directly tied to an issue of entropy, but opposing the common promoted notion that entropy is ever present and always wins. It doesn’t win when it comes to sub-atomic particles or anything that functions on the principle of the MCR.

Anentropy meant to me that when riding a bike, one neither leans too much to the right (anti-entropy) nor too far to the left (entropy). The objective is to remain stable, balanced and thus be able to sway and steer without falling, defeating demise, failure, death - anentropic.

So online, I emphasis “anentropy” and when asked by someone who doesn’t know anything about the issue at all, I just give the short (not pedantically accurate) response, “It just means anti-entropy” because to those who only believe in entropy as the god of all nature, it really does mean the necessary presence of an anti-entropic force of some kind. But because you got into the finer meanings involved, I have been discussing anti-entropy vs anentropy… with you.

So yes, if you had not mentioned anti-entropy, neither would I have.

But now that you have, I think we can agree. Anentropy is the goal-state, the ideal. Most others have been programmed to believe only in the omnipotence of entropy (a seemingly necessary thought in socialism; “because of the omnipotent god Entropy, “the Devil”, “the terrorist”, YOU NEED US!!!”). Well, something is certainly needed, but it doesn’t seem to be the same “us” as is promoted. What is needed is balance, stability, Anentropy throughout… Antentropia.

 How about the physical phenomenon of matter sucked into the black hole horizon being spewed out  , a functionality in addition to a mere description as inert and useless? The thought of  literary descriptions come to mind here as "You can't fall off a mountain" or " God doesnt play with dice".

Perhaps the perfect projection in order for others to represent, recreate themselves as that ideal? An image of an image. The perfect new man.

Btw, I also speak of an “Entropic Shell” or sometimes “Anentropic Shell”, although “Anti-entropic Shell” would also apply. It is a region associated with the outer perimeter of a sub-atomic particle, a society, a religion, family, or any organization or object that provides an impedance mismatch that protects the object from disturbance and entropy. What physics calls “the Weak Force” is the strongest impedance mismatching mechanism in the entire universe, protecting the nucleus from being annihilated by the electrons in an atom.

In this picture of “The Philosopher’s Stone”, that circle being drawn is the “entropic shell”, idealized as the “Weak Force” and thus actually the impenetrable shield or “shell” for the “atomic family”;

A black hole “sucks in” Matter, but it “spews out” Dark-matter", disintegrated matter, “affectance”. Objects, including sub-atomic particles, migrate into a black hole, get disintegrated, then eventually what is left of them, “affectance”, finds its way back out. If the black hole is not fed any new matter (objects), it will become stable at some point, thus become anentropic, but that is only after all matter within an entire galaxy has been absorbed and annihilated. Then it is a question of how much dark-matter, gravity field, “affectance” is remaining around it between itself and distant galaxies as to what size it will settle into.

Eventually each black-hole migrates toward the others. And then when they collide too directly at their enormous speed (having accelerated over billions of light years), the universe get s a new “Big Bang”, and it all starts over again.

True, but it is an image of a small group with a very specific understanding, a new kind of “atomic family”. The groups become the “cells of the body of Man”. At that point, Man would be truly anentropic, disease-less (having no need for them any longer) and very busy merely attending to the joys in life. The whole idea of having to have a catastrophe in order to inspire people goes out the window with the dirty water.

.

I’m back, James.

A human being is the most complex machine that we know of in the first place, other than perhaps the universe in total. Along with consciousness, needing and having purpose is one of the most interesting things about being human and in my mind, if not the best case against entropy, the most meaningful. A machine that endures the drama of the cosmos only to result in a black hole is interesting, but not as interesting as whatever would learn to harness and make use of black holes for a higher purpose.

What’s preventing any John Galt from building this motor?

So why couldn’t someone/thing intelligent enough to amass such wealth keep it distributed so as to preserve control/order over chaos? Can you not own/control wealth from a distance?

And that would be my hope for homosapian (and was for a short while)… that is if I had any.

Merely the lack of understanding of RM:AO against the momentum of a newly inspired God-wannabe, Goddictor, amassing fortune using diversion and social chaos as its fuel. An ice-cream cone can be pretty easily made with the right effort, but try doing it in the center of the Sun, especially a newly formed Sun.

One cannot truly distribute wealth and still own it, control it. The wisdom is what must be freely distributed. The wealth finds its place amongst the wisdom. When the wisdom is centralized, so is the wealth. When people are blinded and kept confused so as to maintain a higher power above the gray masses, only that higher power has true life. And even that won’t last.

Also realize that a pyramid of power MUST maintain the greatest, the maximum density of power, at the very peak. For it to exist, it MUST form the greatest density of power, approaching that of a black hole. In real physical form (graphed), it looks like this (not exactly a pyramid);

In this case, “wealth” is the “mass” or “affectance” being measured. Note that a black hole can only be avoided by maintaining a relatively poor environment. If the peak wealth density must keep climbing above the masses, it has no choice but to actually form a real physical, actual black hole. It can only be stable as long as life itself (decision making) is kept away from the masses and centralized for sake of the socialist order. People must suffer and die merely to keep the wealthy in control and on top. And that is exactly what has been going on for at least thousands of years. But now with physics being able to produce mechanical/physical mass and power, what has been merely a pharaoh king with ultimate social power against the will of the masses, has no choice but to become an actual physical king of power, The all mighty Black Hole even against the will of the humans and for all of the exact same reasons - “resistance is futile” and thus so is the future.

You’ve just concluded a premise. That’s not how logic works. You need to defend the premise: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Then from that and p, q is your conclusion.

However, assuming that such a thing were possible, a machine that could completely replace a human being would be many orders of magnitude more expensive than the cost of procreating and raising a human being. And there are many machines that can’t do so, yet are still more expensive. So p is false, at the moment.

Why would machines replace human beings? They replace many actions that human beings have to do, and make possible many new things. What’s the value in a machine that simply replaces a human being?

.
But then again;

…already replacing people. Japan as a 200% debt/GDP. So they are replacing their people with more economic machines, doing the same task. In the West, especially the USA, robots are now being sold based upon their economic operation being far superior to humans. Even pizza delivery is now being instigated via air-drones.

There was an industrial revolution 250 years ago; that machines can replace people in functions is no news at all. I can cook a meal in an hour that would have taken several medieval people an afternoon, thanks to machines. Marx wrote about the effects of worker-earned capital displacing workers with machines - modern capitalism is pretty much predicated on technological progress driving real economic growth. It’s not a new phenomenon.

The question is whether machines will completely replace human beings. I don’t see much advantage to designing a machine that can watch TV in the evenings, or support a football team. Machines will take over more tasks from people, and specialise in different ways, but there’s little value in creating a mechanical human that can do any more than function in a way that real humans appreciate.

As machines replace people, things like watching TV and ordering hamburgers become far less of a significant activity, much like shoeing horses. Machines have their own version of TV, a direct data link.

And 250 years ago, overpopulation, antinatalism, and eugenics weren’t being promoted. Nor had the Zionists arranged for Solomon’s all mighty temple of ultimate power. Nor was the UK, the UN, China, and the USA actively lusting for world globalization through environmental and economic dependency. Nor could they reduce the size of energy cells to microscopic. Nor could they create a computer with 100 times the intelligence of a human, that fits into your watch. Nor intelligent cars to convey things automatically through busy traffic. Who needs truck drivers? Cabs? Driver licenses, actors, police, farmers, solders, doctors, accountants, lawyers…

Nothing fights a drone better than an android. And self-replicating androids are already in the works.

The major churches know that The Chosen have already been chosen and you are but those left behind, unneeded and unwanted.