Is there a coming singilarity?

The only singularity I know if is spoken of by Ray Kurzweil and he talks about man and technology coming together, not that technology will overcome mankind.

I don’t see it happening anytime in the near future.

I don’t know, seems like it could happen pretty soon. But probably not this century.

Only if the closed universe model is correct, which it looks like it’s not.

I’m curious what people think of Kurzweil’s predictions

Is mattbrowne in the building?

Not in the 21st century. We were supposed to have widespread commercial nuclear fusion reactors by 1960, and personal jetpacks and flying cars by 2000. People usually overestimate the speed of technological progress.

The Singularity is a religion for athiests.

I give a lot of kudos to Terrence McKenna’s Novelty Theory. It speaks of a Great Attractor, in that, we are not being pushed away from the Singularity of the Big Bang, but rather we are being drawn towards a Singularity.

He speaks of it HERE

A deeper explanation is a multi-part series on Timewave Zero describes how he discovered this.

Applications demonstrated at the end of This Vid Part 1 of 3.

Do not dismiss this. Do not fear this. This is not the end of the world. This is not doomsday. Many will claim that it is. Many will attempt to profit from fear. Do not give way to astonishment.

You can download the Timewave Zero program HERE and even run your own personal Timewave. This is not numerology.

My personal belief is that the 2012 date depicts the moment in history that humanity will no longer be capable of lying to one another. Any claim will be verifiable within moments on the web. This will be a big problem for Governments and Gangsters of all sorts. They will do anything to protect their ability to lie. They will loose that ability shortly.

In this way, the reign of Truth will return. In this way, the second coming of Christ will be fulfilled. Not as a God/Man that tosses bad people and the devil into a bottomless pit. But as the essence of Truth that is accessible to anyone who so desires it on the web. In this way, Deception and Deceivers will meet their fate of doom.

We’re already being dominated by computers. Systems designed and maintained through computers. It’s not a single clump of processors ruling us, nor is it just the processors that run all over the world. It’s the network man. IT’S THE MATRIX! THE SINGULARITY HAS ALREADY ARRIVED! AND WE ARE ALL UNDER CONSTANT CONTROL!

. . .

I’m gunna go check my facebook. . .

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Your religiousiness betrays the generations that may survive whatever sets off the scenario where lots and lots of people die within a relatively short period of time, sometimes referred to as “The Apocalypse.” Try to find some other way to cope with misery.

What “religiousiness” did I present? What religion preaches what I present?

What evidence do you have to suggest “the generations that may survive whatever sets off the scenario where lots and lots of people die within a relatively short period of time, sometimes referred to as “The Apocalypse.”

That’s what religion teaches my friend. I certainly don’t adhere to that. Do you? And why?

@Fausnaught: really, read more on the subject. you don’t seem to have digested the concept because you have given the most oversimplified and distorted summary of it. read a book on it. (I suggest The Spike by Damien Broderick for ease of readability.) or find some articles online and read them carefully.

I get a kick out of people that think it will be a big deal when computers reach human brain power. I thing those people don’t get out enough. It will be a long time before computers can overcome the power of stupidity. No creature in the universe tendency towards stupidity like man. I have faith the the vast majority of humanity is really stupid and the stupid breeding rate far outstrips the intelligent. There is no singularity on our future.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: ice cream and cake for everybody. and it won’t make you fat. everyone wants that. you want to believe in it, so you do.

though I consider McKenna a smart guy, though we think we know what novelty means, it could mean anything.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: okay, when you say “what religion teaches” you mean certain varieties of Protestantism.

a sociologist examining contemporary religion would find the now-current 2012 craze of interest, for sure. it would fit in squarely in the occasional millennial anxiety which occurs every now and then in Abrahamic and Abrahamic-influenced religions. essentially, the old world ends, the Abrahamic God (or similar) shows up to put things right. then ice cream and cake and sunshine forevermore.

examples: the Ghost Dance religion, the Boxer rebellion, the current evangelical obsession with the apocalypse, countless medieval religious movements. the Jehovah’s Witnesses, even.

@Ria777 as soon as McKenna said that he received the information from channeling, I understood him as just another New Age Guru. He looks at the I Ching as a real fortune telling instrument. I don’t believe in god, why should I believe in a pseudo-numerologist.

@Ron_C: if by channelling you mean relating what mushrooms told him, I wouldn’t call that channelling. channelling means an updated version of trance mediumship, which McKenna never did.

by the way, he died in the ‘90’s. you shouldn’t use the present tense.

@AstroChuck: you mean the Big Crunch. the question does not have to do with the Big Crunch.

@Ria777 he said he recieved the information from an “outside source that within” him. I think that’s channeling and apparently fortune telling, not science.

@Ron_C I’ve researched McKenna for nearly a decade. I do not do drugs or psychedelics. You can argue with the source. But this is more than channeling, or hallucinations. This is Mathematics, and that’s really all we should be concerned about. If there is a hole in the Math, then the argument fails. If the Math is sound, then it doesn’t really matter where it came from.

@Ria777 It’s the religious and the opportunistic that preach/teach the doomsday scenario. Discovery Channel is one of the biggest opportunist’s among others. Nothing I have said fits either one of those descriptions unless you take it off somewhere on your own. You can do that if you wish. So may the sociologists. But that will be your doing, and not mine.

My simple comment stands. 12/21/12 will simply be the moment in history that humans will no longer be capable of lying to one another. Many will fear loosing that ability, and they will attempt to create doomsday scenarios in order to protect themselves from the coming age of Truth. That’s all I’m saying. Take it anywhere you want from there, but you’ll travel without me.

@Ron_C Why do you think I asked the question. So people would fill in the spaces. That is what this site is for right? Don’t be so pompous.

@Ron_C: in that case you have used a much broader definition than the standard one.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: This is Mathematics, and that’s really all we should be concerned about. If there is a hole in the Math, then the argument fails. If the Math is sound, then it doesn’t really matter where it came from.

what about the assumptions behind the math?

I’m not sure what you mean by that @Ria777. There is nothing subjective about a finite amount of 64 hexagrams. I don’t know why there are 64 hexagrams any more than I know why there are 64 codons in the genetic code. It’s a number we are given to work with. It is beyond assumption. It is a finite set of 64.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: the subjective part comes in constructing a theory around the significance of the number 64. (a chessboard has 64 squares. spooky! and and and… I won’t belabor the point.)

earlier, by the way, when you said “the religious preach/teach the doomsday scenario”, sure they do. yes, some Biblical literalists say so. they also say that the elect will then get to live in the City of God forever. so ultimately a hopeful prophecy.

if you want to get to predictions of doom unrelieved by a happy ending, you can look at scientists and economists.

the real problem, though, comes down to your circular logic. “the religious” who certain beliefs according to you and that defines them as religious. you do not subscribe to those beliefs, therefore making you not religious.

Sorry @Ria777 I understand your point about the chessboard, but there is a bit more to it than just the number 64. You can explore Novelty Theory on your own if you are interested.

The rest of what you said about doomsday and religious, and me being one way or another… Honestly, I mean really honestly, I just don’t understand what you are trying to say to me about this. I’ve read through it a couple of times and the syntax of ”“the religious” who certain beliefs according to you and that defines them as religious. you do not subscribe to those beliefs, therefore making you not religious.”

What? I really don’t get it. Please explain again, for I certainly don’t wish to embrace “circular logic”. Thanks for your patience.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: please don’t talk down to me. I would not have offered my opinion on the theory if I did not understand it or know a bit about it.

I would also like to point out that the McKennas’ theory lacks any way to disprove it. without a way to disprove it, you can’t call it science. (again, it comes down to the vague nature of what “novelty” means. though it may seem obvious to you what it means, when you get right down to it, other than big events like the creation or end of the universe, which we couldn’t experience directly anyway, it remains undefined and undefinable.)

I meant that you 1) define religious in a particular specific way (i.e. predict doomsday or how they wear their hair or any number of other things) and then 2) define yourself as not religious based on your particular definitions.

so: ” ‘the religious’ hold certain beliefs according to you and that defines them as religious. you do not subscribe to those beliefs, therefore that makes you not religious.” I just rewrote my original statement. I leave out words sometimes.

I wasn’t talking down to you @Ria777. I had a genuine concern to discuss this with you. The opportunity does not arise very often. And without me butchering the Theory, I suggested further pursuit on your own if you were interested. I didn’t realize you had already studied it.

McKenna defines Novelty as a spike in Information. The opposite of Novelty being Habit, a form of Entropy that prevents advancement.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a few issues with the Theory myself. The biggest of which is that the graph was subjectively placed for a “best fit”. There was no defined starting point. It has been adjusted at least once (McKenna admits) but with the assistance of other mathematicians and historians. It was a group effort. Though it still bothers me that the placement is subjective, I cannot argue with their choices. Apparently “best fit” lined up for all to see when the Information spike was found to line up from Homers Illiad and and onward to the discover of the Mars meteor.

And if I misunderstood you earlier, I apologize. I thought I was originally being accused of embracing religious doomsday scenarios, of which I am not. I’m actually fighting against that position.