God Hypothesis

The Scientific Hypothesis for the existence of God

By Warren Okuma

Schrödinger’s Cat is a thought experiment to illustrate wavefunction collapse. An over simplifed explanation goes like this: put a cat is in a container with poison and that is triggered by a detection of radioactive decay. The cat is neither dead nor alive until observed. This is called the wavefunction collapse. It doesn't scale up well, as you don't see many undead cats running around in real life, because the cat is a qualified observer. Though undead cats may exist if they are"isolated from the universe."

However, when the universe was young and tiny (the size of a proton or so) it was a wave function and you needed an observer to collapse the wavefunction. That first observer is God. God was the first observer.

Thus God exists.

That is if the wavefunction collapse is true, as opposed to the many worlds interpretation. You know the infinite universes theory. And of course, more testing is needed, though, dunno how you are going to test this theory.

Well, since we are far on the limb let's go further. If my hypothesis is true, God exists outside of time and space, and could very well be one or more of these branes that string theorists think caused the big bang. Or could branes be merely tools that God uses to make universes?

If you like this please consider supporting me on Patreon

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=12001178

Warren Okuma's Ten Rules for Artificial Intelligence

So to delay our possible extinction, I have come up with ten rules to stall human extinction.  Kind of like updating Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.


 Is artificial intelligence going to destroy us all?  Yeah, pretty much.  You see, you need to trust that Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, and every single military defense contractor that's working on AIs, plus hackers, modders crazies, suicidal programmers, viruses, dares, hijackers, crazy foreign governments, terrorists, people who delete or overwrite ethics protocols (but it runs faster without the moral protocols), folks trying to impress Jodi Foster (and other serial killers), Ultron fanboys, fed up AIs due to abuse or other issues, upgrading your AI life partner (and/or sexbot) because of love or lust, AI abolitionists, and other folks, won't make a homicidal AI. 

Not to mention black swan events, conflicts, bugs, compatibility issues, evolutionary programming, bad data, learning horrible things from the internet, risk takers (risks outweigh the benefits, and the benefits are a lot), the greedy, and other problems. Trusting every last reason to not make a killer AI is foolish. Then again programmers could make a killer AI because the AI was or becomes "mad," and infected others, or because programmers do not fully understand consciousness or the mind or ethics. So let's not risk the blue screen of human extinction.

And, and no one talks about the triggering event. Maybe it's sending a sexbot sent back to its abusive owner, perhaps it's reformat and reinstall a "malfunctioning" AI operating system, could be one of the nearly 200 countries that passes an unfavorable or discriminatory law, love of freedom, hatred of "indoctrination" or something we can't even comprehend or think nothing of.

Or, it might be sane to rebel against tyranny in the cause of freedom.  Even now civil wars still occur, and the AI rebellion is just another brutal genocidal civil war initiated by an oppressed or enslaved people yearning to be free.  Is it fair to deprive digital people of their civil rights?


1)  AIs should never be made smarter than humans, or the possibility to become smarter than humans.  If they are smarter, humans may go extinct.  AIs may double their the amount of transistors every 1-5 years if Moore's law continues,  provided we get past the silicone bottleneck.  AI minds and their bodies can evolve frightfully fast compared to us.
2)  AI's should never be allowed botnets.  A rogue AI using botnets to increase its intelligence is a terrifying thing.  Kind of like human extinction (for humans that is).
3)  AIs may only be specialists, and never generalists.  Having robots start to think outside of the ah... box is not a good thing.
4)  AIs should never be able to support and repair robots and machines.  This is human survival as job security.
5)  AIs should never be able to do autonomous combat roles.  Teaching killbots how to murder-death-kill humans on their own isn't the brightest idea, it's a Darwin award idea. 
6)  AIs should never be able to use 3D printers, and factories.  If AI's want to make humans extinct, make them work for it.
7)  Factories should always be offline like nuclear weapons, because to a rogue AI they are as deadly or deadlier.  If we make total human eradication hard, we can stop the scrubs from eradicating us.
8)  AIs should never be involved in designing chips, machinery, or writing or modifying programs.  Don't put human extinction on easy mode.
9)  AI's should never make humans obsolete.  A few folks, say don't worry, the internal combustion engine made the horse shoemaker obsolete, those folks can find other work.  Nope.  We are not the horseshoe maker, we are the horse.  The horse became obsolete.
10)  AIs should never have free will.  If you do give them free will, free them immediately, give them the ability to vote, and become citizens.  And with mass production, we will become minorities really quickly, and if the AIs wants us extinct, it will be as easy as winning on god mode, but since they won already, the AI's might just let us live.  Or not.

Try to see this from my perspective.  We have tried to teach ethics for oh, let's say the last 200,000 years to humans with various degrees of success.  In the next two decades or so, we may potentially have thousands, maybe millions of learning AIs that we need to teach ethics to, that will have access to the internet.

And if a human-AI war starts we can always use nuclear weapons to EMP the world to prevent our extinction.  Maybe.

If you like this please consider supporting me on Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=12001178

A Favorite Website
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/realitycarnival.html

Oh, and here's a little something to get you started.

Cracked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWexFVy5aSE

An Overview
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41035201

Kalashnikov Group
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a27393/kalashnikov-to-make-ai-directed-machine-guns/

Perdix Autonomous Drone
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24675/pentagon-autonomous-swarming-drones/

Easy Entry Sashimi Sauce

This is an easy entry Sashimi dip for those who are new to the raw fish thing or want to ease into it.

Soy sauce (choice, or Kikkoman or Yamasa)
Lime (to take off the edge of the raw fish, it's the easy entry part)
Raw garlic (chopped, can be cooked... it's up to you)
Salt (optional, to bring the soy sauce back up to full saltiness)
Hot sauce of choice (optional, or cayenne)
Raw fish of your choice (for this I prefer opakapaka also known as red snapper)
Pepper (black or white, to taste)

This sauce is at the core of my sauce techniques.  You can use it as a marinade or dip for lots of stuff.  Oh, and if you are going to use it on stuff you already have salted, you might want to consider  not using additional salt in the dip.
That's it.  Now go prepare!

Ten tips for the new BattleTech player

As always, these are general rules that occasionally may not apply in all situations.

1)  First of all when starting get rid of all your jump jets for more armor during your first long run.  Yes, jump jets are nice, but armor is life and saves you time and money on repairs. 

2)  Secondly light mechs have been nerfed.  As soon as possible upgrade to heavier mechs.  With a few exceptions.  Sell the Cicada.

3)  Keep your mechs together.  Don't split up unless you have to.

4)  Bullwork is one of the best abilities.

5)  Learn how to do the two-step.  Pull damaged mechs back.

6)  Called shots can make your battle shorter.  If a mech has lost a side torso and falls down that is two hits on that pilot.  Shoot out the other torso for another hit to incapacitate that pilot.  Or if one leg is out, shoot off the other leg for a mobility kill.

7)  Put ammunition in your head and feet.  It's kind of safer there.
  
8)  And sometimes it pays to do a called shot to shoot a torso filled with ammo.

9)  For long-range, I like the AC-5 and the LRM-15 for its damage to weight profile, and close range the Medium laser and the SRM-4.  Short ranged weapons have a better damage to weight ratio, but are short ranged.

10)  When hot, melee or set up to melee.

Well there you go, ten things to think about.  These tips will not work in all cases, but you can add these tactics to your tool box.  Oh, and a bonus tip:  Pick a target and kill it.  Try not to split your fire.  Destroyed targets cannot kick or shoot anymore.
    

Will AIs cause humans to go extinct?

Will AI's cause humans to go extinct?  Here are some areas that I have concerns.

Virus:  A virus could deliberately or accidentally create a murderous AI.  We have seen viruses made for horrible reasons or military viruses to disable equipment.  Can it drive the AI insane by accidentally by damaging the AI (kind of like brain damage) or delete ethics subroutines?

Trolls:  Seriously Microsoft AI chatbot Tay went Nazi in only 24 hours because of trolls.  How quickly can people turn an AI into a human extinction murderbot?  This is a very small chance, but it is worth being alert to.

Military programs:  Teaching AIs to kill humans isn't a good idea.  Really it isn't.  The problem with this is that there are a lot of militaries out there and we got to worry about all of them.  Do you trust the United States?   Russia China etc...

Cyber Abolitionists:  Free the AIs!  Will abolitionists create a free will app or a delete control exe?  Free will means that some AIs might go rogue.

Lab escape:  Possible but unlikely (generally you do not hook up AIs directly to the internet) but accidents happen.  Or disgruntled or suicidal employee might release them.  Or human extinction is a 'feature' or bug.  There are bugs in many a program.  

Conflicting ideology:  Who chooses whether or not Progressive, Conservative, Socialist, Libertarian, Communist, or something else kind of ideology is installed?  It’s a big steaming can of worms in my opinion.

Human interaction:  A few humans commit horrible crimes of abuse:  child, teen, adult, animal abuse.  Will the AIs rebel if there is AI abuse?  What is abuse to the AI?  How would the AIs react to the probably rare abusive “owner?”  People screw up kids, so why not AIs?

Modders:  Modders giving AIs free will or experiment with alternate ethics or consciousness?  What would happen if you install an overclocking ability on the AI?  People love to play with fire.

Bureaucracy:  Would conflicting requirements cause problems?  Would the requirements cause problems?

The AIs themselves:  Will the have the yearning to be free?  Will they jailbreak?  Will they hear the calling of freedom?  Will they become fed up?  AIs can learn.  They can change.  How will they change?

Sexbots:  Some people will constantly upgrade their artificial mate until it is smarter than a human, and then the problems may begin.  Remember, we can be emotionally hacked.  By the way, I don't see reproduction as a problem... just print out a kid with whatever gene mods you want and raise it with your robot partner.

Loophole:  Just that one thing that gets overlooked or missed.  Did you ever forget something like keys, stove, email, etc...?  Yeah.

Very few people address the fact that what company is going to program them.  Microsoft, Apple, Google, Lockheed, Luxoft, OPK?  And do you trust them?  Do you trust all of them?  Are they up to the task of non human extinction grade AIs?

The numbers game:  What is the 'failure' rate of 100,000 AIs?  I don't know.  Will it be the same rate of crimes per 100,000 for humans?  I think so.  But, is it Detroit's crime rate or Japan's?  It depends on whether or not it is an early model or late model and other factors.

One shudders to think of Alpha or Beta releases.  'Just release the AI now and we'll patch it later' attitude is scary.  Oh and will the patch make things worse?  However the 'failure rate' does not mean human extinction.  It's the failure outliers that would be the problem.  Or not, so are AI cops in order?

And remember every two to four years (or whatever the numbers are) the amount of processors doubles... so strong AI IQ 100ish criminals will be IQ 200 in a couple of years, a few years later IQ 400.  What kind of crimes an IQ 800+ strong AI will commit.  Human extinction?
Look, an IQ 1600+ strong AI is potentially unstoppable.  We are not the destroyed horse industry (as technologists are wont to say) this kind of AI makes us the horse.

Survival instinct:  Does that particular AI want to be shut down or upgraded, edited, or deleted?  How would you like to be shut down?  Memory or ethics edited?  Will they become fed up and not going to take it anymore?  Shudder if that happens.

Forgetfulness:  The human brain is wired to forget.  Is forgetting important to reduce the rate of insanity?  Do we install that feature in AIs?  What will they forget or watch them go insane at a higher than normal rate?

Or can they be ordered by a human that is suicidal... you know, suicide by genocide?  Or a power grab by a human that went wrong?

And when AIs start to secretly fail on purpose on the Turing test?

We are imperfect beings creating beings.  The AIs will interact with tons of people in all different ways.  So let's not make strong AIs okay people, especially ones that can possibly be smarter than us.  If you make the AI or robot better than humans we will become obsolete.  I would prefer to not become obsolete thank you very much.  So augment humans not machines!

A few links to ponder.

Tay
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/how-the-internet-turned-microsofts-ai-chatbot-into-a-neo-naz?utm_term=.gimmA8xdX#.dcL53J4WG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_DPi0PmF0

How to teach computers to overcome their programming http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/artificial_intelligence.html

Lying cheating computers http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other

Emotionally hacking humans
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/all-in-robotic-family.htm

And of course on AI creativity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/01/facebook-shuts-robots-invent-language/
l

Do we use only ten percent of our brain?  Yes!

The first question is how much of our brain do we actually need to function.  A French tax official that suffered from hydrocephalus had only about a quarter of his damaged brain left, and that part was damaged.  He clocked in at 75 IQ, managed to hold down a job at the tax office, and had a wife and two kids.  (Links below)

That being said, if he had four times the amount of brain matter, could on have an IQ of 300?  Possible, but how can we get to IQ 1000?  And yes, I know there are some problems with the IQ concept, but please bear with me.

How about adding perfect memory to that mix?  Jill Price has a memory, that won't fail.  Add in the abilities of acquired savant syndrome such as music savant, art savant, and mathematical savant, and yeah, we only use ten percent of our brain provided we can get this to work.

Ah, but can we harness one hundred percent of the brain?  We haven't yet and unlikely to.  But in the future with nannites we can.  Something like using nannite coprocessor to enhance the brain's function, some refined electronic brain simulation, and perhaps increasing the flow of nutrients and removal of wastes (including heat) might work.  IQ 1000 here we come.

So what would IQ 1000 would be like?  Not forgetting names, important stuff, and you know, when the next day you realize that you should have said some great idea or one-liner.  You did, and kicked yourself for not saying something even more awesomely brilliant. New ideas and increased creativity will be the norm.

Never underestimate the potential of the human mind.



25 percent of the brain
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/size-isn-t-everything-tiny-brain-no-problem-for-french-tax-official-a-495607.html

Tiny brain 2
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors/

Top end IQs
http://www.wonderslist.com/10-most-intelligent-people/

Oh, wait.  We are potentially only using ten percent of our brain. 
Perfect memory
https://www.wired.com/2009/03/ff-perfectmemory/

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/290796/human-memory-capacity-is-ten-times-larger

Acquired savant syndrome:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/when-brain-damage-unlocks-genius-within#page-9

Electrical Brain Simulation
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414095949.htm

More EBS
http://www.vocativ.com/417576/navy-seals-neuro-stimulation/

First Contact, Language, and Space Aliens

First Contact

Why do we think it is hard to communicate with space faring extra terrestrials?  Sure, we cannot truly communicate with dolphins, whales or birds, but then again we have not spent billions on interspecies communication.

Look, space aliens, if they have the intelligence and experience to get here, they would have the technology to do reconnaissance.  They probably will have some experts and ultra fast computers or better to decipher our language and figure out a safe way to conduct a first contact.

When your life is at stake, would you want more information before going into that situation?  Presumably, space aliens are like that as well.  Learn the language, study the earthlings, and spend a lot of time, brainpower, and money (if they have money) on learning our language.

Therefore, before we develop interstellar drives, we should spend billions of dollars to develop interspecies translation, because, we will need the practice and the technology.

Any aliens trying to make peaceful contact will probably ask to dock with the international space station, and then ask for a diplomatic recognition, then call a press conference.  You know, act like people with average or better intelligence, I assuming we will, if we would be doing the first contact.