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.
I would think, at that point, or very close to the limit to that, the event would nihilate into a non event, and become an idea. That could be the tip of the triangle, because non events do not occur. So the actual physical big bang may merely be a recurrent repetition of this so near yet so far,what we call phenomenon. The nihilation may reverse the process, just like in other black holes. There may not be an actual Big Bang.Eternal Recurrence may have a real physical basis, and not be just another discarded and fashionable idea.
So much the better that I have mentioned „antientropy“. Therefore I thank myself, but all the more I thank you for your respond.
That is known anyway. It is generally known that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
Besides:
Please read the WHOLE text of my original post:
The fact that all expensive things are replaced by cheaper things is given in my op by the sentence, which reminds on that fact, thus defends the first premise (p) you mentioned, it defends the first premise (p) AND the second premise (q): „We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.“ At first I wanted to write it clearly in the op, but than I thought, I don’t have to because this here is an internet forum and not an university logic lecture.
No, p is NOT false (cp. the most of the posts in this thread). And also at the moment p is not false. Read for example what James S. Saint wrote:
That’s interesting, isn’t it?
But nevertheless: I’ll do it. Only for Only Humean:
[b][size=114]1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
- Conclusion i:[/i] Human beings are replaced by machines.
(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.[/size][/b]
NOT “would”, they DO!
AGAIN: Because machines are cheaper and easier to control and easier to organise (machines do NOT rebel) and so on.
Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.
That’s the question because that’s the topic of my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? In that sentence one has to focus on the word „completely“ or/and on the word „all“ - both words are not used because of the tautology, but because of the fact that machines are able (a) to replace completely and (b) to replace all human beings.
There are more and especially more interesting reasons given. Maybe there’s less value in keeping humans alive or in designing humans who can do any more than function in a way that machines appreciate.
Even when it comes to think about that what will be in 250 years the stupid mass of people obeys the mainstream, although the risks and dangers of techniques (technologies), engineering, machines etc. have becoming obvious since about 225 years, or since about 125 years, at least since about 25 years. There have been being many critiques and disbelief about that since the end of the 18th century, and they have been increasing! But all these critiques and disbelief have also been being managed, organised, controlled, especially since the last 2½ decades, since gobalisation (globalism) broke through.