Modern Science vs The Children of the Future

a reply to: Navarro

Is a universe populated by 27% dark matter more likely, or is it more likely that our unproven theory about the origin of the universe is wrong? Which conclusion requires the least amount of assumptions?

The existence of dark matter doesn't really have much to do with the origin of the Universe. It's more about the large structures which have formed since.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navarro

I wonder whether or not we'll survive Singularity itself.

Already there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I already posted a reply in that thread. The article in the original post is purposefully misleading. As far as the relation to Singularity, I don't expect that we'll figure out how to product Strong AI anytime soon. I don't expect to encounter any robots capable of original thought and reasoning independent of programming in my lifetime. However, a robot programmed with Weak AI programmed to provide anonymous terrorism is another story. Both RC and Weak AI "Terror Drones" are already a possibility today. I'm personally surprised we haven't seen something of that sort. Anonymous murder must be appealing to someone.

Imagine a cute social robot interacting with a crowd at a 4th of July fair. People gather around it in awe and joy, when suddenly it turns mean. If you wanted to demoralize and strike fear into a technological enemy, droves of people being slaughtered by a cute robot would be a good way to go about that. Alternately, you could commit anonymous robbery - "give me your money, or my robot will shoot you." Intimidating, anonymous, effective. Seems to me that future crime has the potential to be very interesting.

a reply to: Navarro

Yeah, well. Drones have been killing people for a while now.
Letting them decide who to kill? More problematic.

a reply to: Navarro

There will be life Jim, but not as we know it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navarro

Is a universe populated by 27% dark matter more likely, or is it more likely that our unproven theory about the origin of the universe is wrong? Which conclusion requires the least amount of assumptions?

The existence of dark matter doesn't really have much to do with the origin of the Universe. It's more about the large structures which have formed since.

Dark matter has everything to do with the formation of the universe. Without it, Big Bang doesn't work. The density of the universe won't suffice to produce the inflation field, which in turn would result in a dynamic CMB, in contrast to the (relatively) smooth CMB we observe. Without dark matter Big Bang couldn't even support its nucleosynthesis submodel, which would mean a universe without light. If Big Bang is accurate, then dark matter is absolutely a key component to the formation of the universe, and development of the universe as we observe it. There can be no Big Bang without Dark Matter.

Be it a product of dark energy or not, the apparent structure of the universe is absolutely intriguing. Here you observe a map of the local universe, with color-coding to represent degrees of redshift. Clear patterns and structures emerge. Incredible and puzzling.

I wasn't able to successfully upload this image, but it displays a sampling of light distribution within the universe. Structure is even more apparent here. It's the greatest mystery of the universe, but I'm not necessarily convinced that we require dark energy to explain it.

Staying true to the spirit of the thread, speculating as to the direction of future perceptions and discoveries, I think we may find that the mechanics driving Space Roar plays a revealing role in this. The universe is inundated with pattern. Consider the surface of our Sun:


Alternately, compare biology to physics, through comparing synaptic structure to "dark matter" structure:


Strikingly similar, are they not? I'm not sure that we require dark energy to explain the structure of the synapse, and so I'm also unsure about requiring dark energy to explain the structure of galaxies, clusters or the universe as a whole. I'm not saying that dark matter isn't a reality, but on the other hand I'm clearly not saying that it is either. This is one of those things which wouldn't shock me terribly if the future attributes these structures to something else entirely. Random inflationary artifacts, perhaps, or an inferior physics failing to account for effects of an extradimensional nature, for instance.

originally posted by: Navarro
What do we believe today that those children will instantly understand to be comically wrong?

I assume that given enough time, everything we currently know will be proven to either be wrong or incomplete. Even things we consider iron clad like 2.5+2.5=5 could one day be wrong. Egypt survived without decimals, we invented decimals, what if that's not the "proper" way to do math though?

As much as I would love to live forever, I have to admit that the concept of freezing myself for 10,000 years would be really intimidating, everything I know now would be out dated and wrong. I would be starting over all over again from the very beginning.

a reply to: Navarro

Dark matter has everything to do with the formation of the universe. Without it, Big Bang doesn't work.

Are you confusing dark matter with dark energy? You seem to use the two terms interchangeably.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navarro

Dark matter has everything to do with the formation of the universe. Without it, Big Bang doesn't work.

Are you confusing dark matter with dark energy? You seem to use the two terms interchangeably.

Could be. As far the validity of the statement you quoted, Dark Matter is in fact necessary to produce the universe outlined in the Big Bang Theory, as is Dark Energy. Beyond that, even the scientific community are unsure of just how "interchangeable" the two concepts may be.

Are dark matter and dark energy related? No one knows. ... Dark energy may have its own particle, although there is little evidence of one.
HETDEX.org

...astronomers at the University of St Andrews are attempting to “simplify the dark side of the universe”. They say the two most mysterious constituents in the universe are actually the same thing.
Daily Galaxy

Am I confusing the two concepts? I'm not sure they're not the same thing, or at least that their observed effects haven't a common catalyst. Unless I'm unwittingly speaking in ignorance here, we may observe unique effects of a single Dark Phenomenon. If you disagree with this position, I'm certainly interested to read your rebuttal. It means nothing to be "right" when in truth you were wrong all along.