blueprint
> macroscopic objects
It's not about scale at all though. It's just that small systems tend to be observed with this other, specific property that we associate with causing "quantum" like effects. Not only do those effects happen at mesoscopic scale but aside from gravity, quantum theory already can be and is used to describe things on large scales too. Classical computers and desks are still "quantum" systems. Recently theory and experiments have developed to connect with gravity in many ways. I'm more confused when people say something is mysterious. They're usually referring to apparent randomness but I think even that is explained already with partitions or even just wave math (complementarity).
Could you form a specific question that you're wondering about? (Have you looked at condensed matter physics yet?)
Absolutely false statement.
No, not in the slightest. I would call this one the most dangerous and unfortunate fallacies that so many intelligent people have ever accepted and been cheated by. If it were true, you'd know everything important there is to know, and be a master of philosophy, and would have many answers to some basic questions which most people have been told have no good or concrete or verifiable answers.
And when you say "you hear", you really mean "you", not "me". I hear it a lot.
What motivated your comment?
The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one. And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.
If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent. In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all. chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.
Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate. If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so. it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears. so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.
don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.
and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.
If not, why wouldn't he just transfer the funds to a new seed?
You have some growing up to do.
You have become worse than them. Until you admit this, you will not be better. And I know that you don't care about being better anymore. You're just a racist looking to wipe out an ethnic group, not even an ideology. It's in your words.
Shame on you. If and when history confirms that your self-entitlement was the cause of the attacks you would deny it for a long time, just as you are now.
By the way, you're talking to someone whose family is from there as well. You're not the only one who has lost people. What you are doing is attempting to justify the perpetuation of an asymmetric response because you cannot admit your own falsehood, ignorance, and lack of relational depth.
If you really are the stronger and more justified party, you can chill out and allow justice to take its course. Instead, you have lost the support of your allies because you have become the murderers you decried.
This conflict will stop when you can admit that. The obvious solution that you are proposing is the elimination of a group of people, not an ideology. And that is why you can go straight to hell.
your words betray black and white thinking that demonstrates obvious externalization of responsibility. look up "splitting". it's a psychological defense mechanism.
if you were on the spiritual and moral ground you represent yourself as being on, no one else's actions or stance would change your opinion on whether they deserve love and a psychologically/relationally secure response from you. when someone is psychologically insecure, they overreact, hold double standards, externalize responsibility, and project their own insecurity as a moral flaw onto others. the term "narcissistic defenses" appears in literature. this is why it's so hard to talk to you. you are perpetuating the conflict by using the "logic" you are using. in reality you are displaying entitlement and grandiosity. and that prevents you from admitting it.
an eye for an eye makes the world blind, big man.
realistically, it's your own people and your own children and parts of yourselves that you are attempting to destroy and alienate. You're being used and you're using people.
Just for some agenda that you don't even understand but are all too willing to deploy propaganda to argue for. You remind me of a cult member or someone my grandparents fought against in WW2. Those "Arabs" are just taking your living room, aren't they?
By the way, you claim that the movement of things exists, but that is simply something you saw from your perspective without confirming the reality of that. Buddha would beg to differ given that according to him in scriptures, things were never born and don't decay etc.
If we assume that anything was actually born, then I say that it operates by the law of cause and effect, and the theory of repetition. These two laws create all phenomena and all other laws aiui. they're very simple.
And there is a difference between complexity of structures, and a given persons difficulty in understanding it. I do get the impression that you know this, but my point is that even what we call complex could be of the same difficulty to comprehend for someone who can see the universe whole. "for a real master of philosophy there is no difference in the difficulty of questions."
if you still believe that I'm missing your point please tell me again, so we can confirm.
If you say that "it is difficult to find the truth", aside from the blatant subjectivity of your claim, then , if we believe your statement, then that itself must be a "truth". And yet you invalidate your own claim immediately by saying "different for different persons". Well, if that statement is true, then it invalidates itself as well.
You cannot disprove the existence of truth by using a system that relies on truth and falsehood.