An amoeba is more complex than any machine that humans have thus far made.
Discussion
Everything is perfect from the jump
Cause God made it
prove it
The laws of logic lead us here friend
There is nothing logical about your statement
If the biblical God does not exist, there are two alternatives: either there is no god at all, or something other than the biblical God is god. On the one hand, if there is no god at all, then all is chance, all thinking is futile, and all ethical judgments are null and void. I shall therefore call that the irrationalist alternative. Irrationalism results not only when the existence of any god is denied but also when a god is affirmed and yet thought to be so distant or mysterious (or both) that he can have no practical involvement with the world. Irrationalism, parasitically, lives off of certain truths: that man is small, that the mind is limited, that God is far above us and incomprehensible. Thus irrationalism often enters theology masquerading as a respect for God’s transcendence. We therefore described this position earlier as a “non-Christian view of transcendence.”
On the other hand, if the unbeliever chooses to deify something in the world, something finite, then a kind of rationalism results. Man’s mind either is the new god or is considered competent to discover it autonomously, which is the same thing. This is what we earlier described as a “non-Christian view of immanence,” and it too masquerades as biblical truth, trading on biblical language about the covenant nearness of God, about His solidarity with the world.
Both rationalism and irrationalism are futile and self-defeating, as sin must always be. If irrationalism is true, then it is false. If all thinking is the product of chance, then how can it be trusted even to formulate an irrationalism? Rationalism flounders on the truth that is obvious to everyone: the human mind is not autonomous, not suited to be the final criterion of all truth. We are limited. The rationalist can defend his position, then, only by limiting his rationalism to certain truths of which he thinks there is no question—that we exist, that we think, and so forth. Then he seeks to deduce all other truth from those statements and to deny the truthfulness of anything that cannot be so deduced. But the result of this is that the mind turns out to know only itself or, more precisely, to know only its thinking. Thought is thought of thinking. Only that can be known for certain. Once some more specific content is specified, certainty disappears. Thus the consistent rationalist will deny that there is anything, ultimately, except “pure thought,” “pure being,” and so forth. All else is illusion (but how is that illusion to be explained!?). But what is a “pure thought” that is not a thought of something? Does that idea have any meaning at all? It is a pure blank. The knowledge of which rationalism boasts turns out to be a knowledge of … nothing!
There is so much wrong with this it's its not even funny.
nostr:note1u002l9rle8gle9tl00aej20uh5vu7wa926cpvqx825e3ma3ahzcsevcdrw
and reality is still unreachable for humans understending, and every theory is just a reflection of this epistemic cage.
Every map is still a poor attempt to capture some details of things, the territory remain mostly totally unexplored.
maybe. very simple instructions create something very complex like a Mandelbrot set
we can use those recursive algorithms to create things too. at the moment as far as I know it's only virtually but I don't see why It couldn't be in the real world maybe with some atomic construction device, a tiny 3D printer
following picture comes from an extremely simple short algorithm
it is efficient with its use of information to create beauty and complexity
Stack sats and chill
Humbling!
Bored?
Okay.
How I would go about evaluating that claim? Depends on how you define complexity.
How much knowledge is embedded in an amoeba is the route I would start with. I think that is more specific than "complex".
Some of the information in the genome of an amoeba is useless information, but calculating the total amount of information in the DNA would be an upper bound.
Llama is telling me around 68GB in the DNA of an amoeba.
Certainly humans have created objects with more embedded knowledge than that.
Lyn woke up today and chose violence
From millions of years evolution. We can't compete with that.
But apparently humans are not far from mimicking the natural process of evolution and applying it to all the different fields of engineering. This was previously unthinkable.
How long do you think until we create AI so powerful, that it will destroy humanity? Is that the only way it can look upon us?
Here are my current thoughts on this.
I think as soon as we have sentient AI's (some of them I think are very close to it) and link them to automation and nano technology, we are in peril.
When sentient AI can self replicate, that could be the beginning of the end for humanity as we know it.
Unfortunately life is not The Matrix movie. We don't have Neo. No one is coming to save us.
Apparently only thing we share with all other life is reproduction and evolution. We use reproduction in order to evolve.
What if meaning of life (next to nr. 42:) is to evolve into something much better? What if we are destined to create AI and robotics, which will surpass us on all levels, but making us obsolete in the process?
A peaceful way out is for humanity to become cyborgs in the near future and hopefully we can sway the AI overmind(s) to look upon as amiably. If we can be useful to it and provide some value it might chose to ignore us and continue our existence. But if it considers us a threat, we are toast.
Some crazy considerations of mine:
1. Choosing augmentation in the near future.
2. Choosing android bodies in the far future.
3. And becoming only ethereal species in the end.
Merging with technology in ways unfathomable with current technology. Could this be the best or most likely outcome for humanity?
Right.
But engineering looks for function, not complexity.
Moreover, simplicity is much more desirable than complexity, engineering-wise.
GM đź«‚
Complex Systems are not composed of static entities like our tools are. even something like an LLM is fundamentally built on the axioms of computation - implying you can enumerate all possible states of a machine. Complex systems - born from, embodied and embedded in the context of the Natural System inherit its drive and capicity for change. They contain continuously changing unenumerable contexts, have this "strive" for persistence and ultimately are able to derive meaning beyond immediate physical tools, of which any effective "striving process" must be such that it reduces the distance between its meaningful objects that are far away (goals).
As an amoeba, i viscerally feel this.
Slime mold FTW
this is precisely why we should not be tolerating people tampering with these machines
eg monsanto, eg moderna
Ya Lyn do you believe in God?
Is this really true? My understanding is that the most complex machine so far is the large hadron collider. The complexity of the LHC injection chain, through to the main ring, cooling system, detectors, data collection systems is mind blowing. How can an amoeba compete with that, they don't even Higgs bosons..