Dark energy

Clearly dark energy is something that does not interact with anything but gravitation. Could it be that it is actually extremely high-frequency electromagnetic (EM) radiation?
The idea behind this suggestion is that at of high enough frequency, matter becomes transparent to EM radiation due to that the particle resonators (atoms in the case of crystals) no longer have any overlap with with the wave function of the EM radiation. This is a well known phenomenon for e.g. gamma radiation, or even UV, where the penetration depth increases with increasing frequency.
If we assume a T4-law of the radiation at Big Bang (BB), what temperature must it have been to generate 98% of the Universe energy at frequencies above interaction with the matter as we know it?

Taking this one step further, if the radiation frequency distribution at BB was some kind clock shape, there seem to be a division at different spectral lines which do not interact with each other since we are now in a situation where all radiation above this frequency is effectively non-interacting with the rest of the Universe. Except via gravitation.

Thus we need some gravitational process that is non-linear or lossy in its interaction with the high-frequency EM radiation to make a high-frequency photon decay into something with lower energy (frequency) to make it visible.

Using experiences from machine learning/artificial intelligence in pedagogics

It is interesting to see how now people working in machine learning (ML) are classifying learning strategies or learning methods. Engineering and math has the clear advantage of being very concrete. You could probably call it constructionistic. Those different learning strategies are  classified and advantages are also investigate in relation to different constraints.

Thus, I have a prediction that that is that the work now done in ML will be very useful for pedagogics. How can we use what we learned about optimal teaching in ML to teaching humans or animals? There must be a connection there.

BIVs

We are brains in vats (BIVs).

The idea that you could be a brain in a vat (BIV) is most likely true. The vat is our scull and the stimulus is from our sensory organs.

Typically it is argued that for a BIV the outside world could be whatever. But this is certainly true about our current situation. There are things in the world that we do not have any direct experience about event though they are completely surrounding us. Take e.g. neutrinos or electromagnetic radiation outside of the visible spectrum as examples. But it is also the case that we can experience things that do not exist is the normal sense. For example the rainbow or phantom pain from a lost limb. Thus, there is no direct or absolute relation between our experiences and the outside world.

However, it is still the case that we can know things about the world. We are physical entities who interact with a physical and stable world. With "stable", I mean that it is ordered and behaves according to rules that are not random. Hence, since we have a capacity to interact with the environment, we can follow that interaction, perform experiments and tests and make theories. There is no limit to how much we can know about the outside world other than in the way our interaction with the world is limited. But any part of the outside world that is not connected to us via interaction is irrelevant. It can never affect us. For if it could, we could investigate those effects and learn about that part as well.

It should be noted that the argument above makes no distinction between our "ordinary" world as we think about it in everyday life, and a more "complex" situation where we really are BIVs. We can follow the interactions in both situations. Hence, we are BIVs. It is just that our body is the vat. But there will be no difference to a can of water and some cables.

Religion, Philosophy, Science

First there was religion; the belief in a magical non-understandable world with ad-hock explanations based on sentient, often supreme, beings - i.e. gods.
Next it occurred to some brilliant people that we can try to organize thought and thus Philosophy was born. It still consists more in understanding our selves than the world around us. It aims at grasping how we can deal with something. But now in a structures critically thinking way where nature is understood as existing outside of us and being structured without requiring a grand mover.
At some point, some master stroke realized some key point and turned a part of philosophy into science. It started with the most structured = easiest parts of human thinking; math. Then came physics, chemistry, and so on...
Now comes an interesting question. What is next? What comes after science? Is the something coming? I believe there is. Not completely shore about what though. I have two possible suggestions. It is either this (1):

or this (2):

 

1. If this is what is going to happen it is semi-depressing. What will happen is that the human population will split up in several sub-sets. The world will consist of people who know something in some area putting them in the science position (in that area), and in the religion position in others. Because the world outside of my special field is simply too complex.

2. If this happens, Something new might be something that resembles religion, or a synthesis of religion and science. Science and technology will create a world that is so complex that it is simply not comprehensible for someone outside of a very narrow niche area. But we will be enlightened and know that there is a rational explanation behind the phenomena we experience. That there is a fantastically complex machine behind it making it do the fantastic thing it is doing. This is enlightened religion with faith in other humans instead of a supernatural. But it is what will have to happen since it will simple not be possible to comprehend how things can be. This is already the case in many situations and is most obvious with how children perceive the wold.