>it's a bold assumption to assume humanity will exist significantly into the future whereby we exist long enough to be there at the end

Even if it's a low probability that humans exist that long (which I don't believe it is), planning for it seems rational because:

1. If the wager is correct, you've successful prepared yourself (or future humans) for a better experience of the future. That's a good thing
2. If wager is wrong, you wasted a little bit of time that could have been spent maximizing your present utility, which seems like a small, marginal reward that I'm happy forfeiting.

If we start funding all grant money towards escaping heat death, then that's silly.

But if we're just talking about whether it's worth pondering or considering, that could be a motivator towards solving present problems (as the OP has suggested).

If you can't answer that question yourself, then you shouldn't be using it like that.

It's definitely wrong though. The thruster claims to produce 52mN of thrust using a watt. So even if you assume that this efficiency scales linearly to 1000W (which it certainly doesn't), that equates to 52N of force for a 100kg object, or an acceleration of 0.52m/s^2. Accelerating a 100kg object with an initial velocity of 8km/s at 0.52m/s^2 for two days give a total distance travelled of ~ 9.1 million km. The average distanfe between Earth and Mars is 225 million kilometers, or over 20 times that distance travelled.

But even more importantly, chatGPT failed to capture the complexity of otbital dynamics. You can't just fly straight to Mars, you have to complete complex orbital maneuvers that require precise timing sometimes on the order of days, weeks, or even months. See the Hoffman Transfer Orbit for example.

So please, be careful in the future. ChatGPT shouldn't replace critical thinking.

If there's life on other planets, you don't think they'd be doing the same thing?

If a different species on earth were the ones who got intelligence (let's say, pandas), they would have handled the evolution of civilization differently?

It's not unreasonable (or "illogical") to ask whether this type of long-term awareness would be valuable.

You ask, "Why would anyone ever care about such a thing?", here's two reasons:

1. If it serves as a cultural motivator / unified goal (like the OP is suggesting), then it's valuable even if you don't give a shit about what happens 10 trillion years from now
2. Many of us already feel a built-in sense of obligation to future generations of humans. Why not just extrapolate that as far as it can go? (as long as it doesn't disrupt our ability to focus on present problems, and as long as we appropriately weight the needs of humans today)

Based on current realities, I'd argue human expansion would be a net negative for life, assuming there is other life in the universe. Our species behaves like a cancer, growing exponentially until there is no more material to be consumed, at which point it must find new resources.

I don't think you understand.

When there is a human observer, the machine records the photons hitting the same point over and over again.

When there is no human observer, the machine records the photons hitting multiple points and they ultimately form a scatter plot, which is a visualization of the quantum wave function of probability.

The experiment shows that reality is simultaneously tangible and probabilistic and consciousness is inextricable from physical reality. When you remove conscious observation from physical reality, physical reality collapses into a quantum wave function of probability.

You're right, there is no discussion. you either understand the physics, or you don't.

The role of life is to spread genes. There is no purpose. It is a random occurrence.

Your reasoning is completely devoid of logic. We solve problems today so we are alive tomorrow, or 10 years from now. Not 10 trillion years from now lolol. Why would anyone ever care about such a thing?

You missed the point.

if we don't fix our problems now we won't be able of changing the inevitable (or even knowing if it can be changed/ is inevitable) because we will be extinct

First there wouldn't be any life

And second the same

Biologically the purpose of life is to spread genes

Metaphysically there is no clear and cut reasoning, but that also helps make this point. The reason for life is making life the best it can be and to perpetuate It, that is a philosophical point and so Is my thesis

And that is beautiful isn't it? That's the whole point, to never let this die

Through random chance we got here and it makes It all the more amazing

There is no discussion.

Humans are seeing what the machines capture

The act of capturing the electrons data changed their behavior.

If it was the intent of the conscience that was changing the electrons behavior staring really hard at it and fully believing it would change anything would produce different results, which it doesn't

We have immediate threats to human extinction right now, literally today. The heat death of the universe is either billions or trillions of years in the future, and no species or planet or star or even photon has ever existed that long.

That's nonsense lol. It's stating that the purpose of life is to live, which is like saying the purpose of consuming water is to obtain liquid. It's different words saying the exact same thing, a fully circular statement.

To prove the point, what would then be the purpose of life after the universe does die/disappear?

There is no purpose for anything and nobody is required to do anything. Everything is random chance. Sentient creatures determine their own meaning.

I don't think that will happen.

All the biggest companies are investing some way in AI, it is truly the biggest potential investment in the world right now.

I'm just hoping that after a period of unrest we will create new systems that are fair and equal. I guess it's just wishful thinking.

> So wait, what you said CAN mean one person? What? No way! So the way I read it is completely legit? Why are you correcting me? Is it because I'm not reading what you mean?

Party CAN mean one person, or multiple people. You are wrong to fixate on it as ONLY meaning one person. Human is an adjective in my sentence. There is NO valid (English) interpretation of my statement as referring to a human as a noun, which WOULD imply singularity. The way you "read" it (took it out of context) is completely illegit. You removed the noun "party" intentionally, and pretended that (human) was the noun, not an adjective.

>It's almost like the person who reads what is written can interpret a sentence differently than the person who wrote the sentence intended.

Only sometimes. Only in legitimate English ways. If you don't say aliens, then aliens are not implied by "third party". That's not clarification. That's a complete change in meaning.

>I'm trying to show you an example of me doing to you what you are doing to me.

But you're failing. You're NOT quoting me with full context. I quoted you with full context. Your OP in no way even implies aliens. That's not me interpreting what you wrote differently. That's not me interpreting what you wrote in an illegitimate interpretation (not allowed by rules of English). You chopped off "party", which was the noun in my statement, which isn't singular, and you fixated on the POSSIBILITY of a party being singular as if it was a CERTAINTY. That's the difference.

>When I originally read your comment, my brain automatically interpreted it as a single person because it is a legitimate way to read the sentence.

Yes. It's possible for a third (human) party to be a single person. But you fixated on that possibility as if it were impossible for a third party to be any more than a single person. That's the problem. It's foolish for a single person to judge all of humanity's ethics at once. What would that even mean?

>I finally went back and reread what you wrote and realized that I made a mistake in my interpretation of what you said.

Thank you.

>I easily could rewrite everything I said previous to now in reference to a group and it would still be just the same.

No. It goes from completely impractical to quite practical, if you use groups of people as third parties instead of an individual.

>Even the idea of taking someone and separating them from humanity so that they could be uninterested could be considered unethical.

Makes no sense, and is entirely based on your errant interpretation. We both agree that this idea is unethical. But, it's not what I said, and it's not even implied by what I said.

>My point is that, to judge the entire human civilization as a whole, you must find someone 100% disinterested.

Is wrong. You don't have to find anyone 100% disinterested. Just someone mostly disinterested, enough disinterest to be useful as a mediator between the first (human) parties.

>And even if you have this person a job, for life let's say, what's to stop them from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick this person?

Also makes no sense if rewritten from individual to group. There is no person or group that needs to have this job for life. You get the cheapest, disinterested-enough people, least likely to be corrupted to serve for the appropriate ethical judgements. We already do this with jury selection. What's to stop juries from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick these people? The answers are already existent. We should use disinterested (obv not 100%, because that doesn't exist) people to monitor human ethics, just like we already do, more of the time, for more decisions, because it makes the decisions better, which makes the world better.

>you could have used slightly different wording or punctuation in an attempt to avoid what turned out to be my mistake.

No. I used (human) to explicitly rule out, and prevent you from mistaking my statement as allowing for third parties to be any AI or inhuman BI. It's not possible for anyone who speaks English to interpret (human) as the noun. Party is the noun (or third party). It's entirely your mistake. You misinterpreted my statement in an illegitimate (by English rules) way. Human can't be the noun there.

>You disagree with me on certain foundational concepts of ethics and the definition of disinterested.

Not sure what those are. Pretty sure we agree about disinterested, and both have explicitly stated that there's no such thing as a perfectly, 100% disinterested person for judging ethics of other people. But that doesn't matter. Because a very disinterested person is still useful for judging ethics of other people.

>I have stalwartly focused on trying to clarify

No. You tried to change, not clarify, the meaning of your statement.

>human ethics should be monitored by an uninterested third party

is true, and I agree with it.

>I[...] desire to have aliens come judge us as a species.

is NOT a clarification of

>human ethics should be monitored by an uninterested third party

It's a completely different statement. Quit your bullshit.

>you have shown no signs of wanting to end this peacefully.

There is no violence happening here. WTF are you talking about? Discussing things with words is peaceful. Violence is un-peaceful. Don't threaten to block me because you don't like having your failings pointed out to you. That's weak.

by then, our experience of consciousness won't require a body to experience itself.

I don't agree. The experiment proved photons produce a scatter plot when there's no observer, aka a wave pattern, and when there is an observer, the photon strikes the same point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyP80vLos60 this video has commentary by Dr. James Gates, one of the most brilliant physicists who's ever lived because he discovered computer code created by Claude Shannon that's used in today's internet browsers in his string theory equations.

I know the double slit experiment. The results would be the same if there was no observer at the end of the machine that measured the electrons. It's not the conscience that changed the result but the act of measuring the activity of the electrons

I hope we wake up soon and crush this technology before it’s too late

The evidence has existed for a long time, google the “double slit” physics experiment that proves consciousness is inextricable from physical reality.

Nothing can physically exist without the presence of an observer, and in the absence of an observer physical reality collapses into its quantum wave function.

That is an extraordinary claim which therefore requires extraordinary evidence

100% agree. Appreciate the good discourse, it's hard to find on here.