A new answer to the Fermi paradox

I read a very interesting blog post about what the new big thing after IoT, drones and 3D printing will be. They name it the continuum. Of course, they are right. Further, recently, I also look at the two pod casts from Kurzgesagt about the Fermi paradox where the filter theory and other ideas about solutions to the Fermi paradox are discussed.

I have previously discussed an idea to a solution, and here is another one:

Maybe the transition for any species from "primitive" to "transcended" is of the order of a couple of thousand years. Thus, the time span is so short that the state we are now is only shared between one or very few intelligent species at a given time. Hence no one to talk to.

The "transcended" state could consist of us morphing into a single organism using the continuum as discussed in the above blog.

Is it time to skip the traffic signs?

Everyone has a personal navigator these days, so when can we start reducing the traffic signs? That would relax driving distraction, reduce cost and make the overall experience in terms of viewing the surrounding more pleasant.


Or maybe there should instead be something to help the GNSS systems, and in extension the autonomous cars, navigate?

Being an artist with focus on topology...

... really limits your audience.

But it also relaxes the requirements on drawing capabilities:

Could getting rid of sim-cards be a part of 5G?

SIM-cards are really outdated! People have been asking for years when they will be abounded. But it is not easy to replace such an integral part of the mobile systems. So, maybe do the right thing put as an item for our 5g systems to replace the sim-cards with something better?

About the structure of the transcend

Assume the human race has become what it is using evolution. Then that process should have optimized us as beings for the scenarios we encounter in our everyday lives. If we can conceive other processes, one can be inclined to believe that it is only a lucky coincidence that the structure of those processes is similar enough for us to grasp.

Thus, if we can assume that there is something that has a structure that has no resemblance what so ever with our reality. This will constitute the transcend and we will have no way to describe or understand that structure.

However, for this to have no resemblance with our reality, there can be no point of contact with our reality either. If there is, this point will have to have structure that is "compatible" with the reality we know of. And hence can be described.

With this kind of reasoning, if there is such a thing as the transcend, it is of no interest for us, since it does not interact with our reality at all.

This reasoning does not rule out that there are things in our reality that we can not understand, but it tell that if there is structure of the kind described above, it is of no interest for us. Hence, arguing that an entity such as god belongs to the transcend is only to argue that god is of no interest to us. Further, if it is claimed that god interact, or has done so in the past, with our reality, the god structure falls within the category of reality above.

On the limits of our knowledge, again.

By the way, I have to write another on. The talk I just discussed on limits of science. I have another interesting idea about the limits. There seems we are trapped within the big and the small. At large scales we are ultimately captured by the speed of light. On the small scale we are ultimately captured by quantum resolution. Now this to me looks like some tough limits on what we can know. Does it also indicate that someone trapped us...?

On scientific knowledge

I was watching this very interesting debate between some great thinkers of our time. And of course I was thinking: "no, that have to be wrong"!
The question at hand is: is all knowledge empirical? Kruass is strongly advocating thing line. Dennet and Pigliucci is a bit more vague, but at the end seem to lean to the same conclusion. I would claim that this is wrong. There is knowledge (if we even can define the term!) that is not empirical. My example of this is basically mathematical knowledge. Krauss is claiming also mathematical knowledge is empirical since the basis (the axioms) is empirical to their nature is not correct. There can be many axioms not at all connected to any empirical facts - in fact ZF is an excellent example of this. Even the designers of the damn thing did not like it since it was counter intuitive with all these axioms. Nevertheless we would all agree that "the integral of 1/x is ln(x)" is knowledge. Or an even better example, the properties of the monster group constitute knowledge.

I think I would rather go further actually and say that all knowledge is of non-empirical nature. Empirical stuff is what can be observed. However observations can never be trusted. Never. However, deductions (which might be based on observations) can be trusted and render knowledge. But all that knowledge is of the for "if a the b". If a is observed, that b can be deduced. Thus, the knowledge does not depend on the empirical fact, but is only claims something about logical consequences given the empirical fact.