+- The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums (https://www.orionsarm.com/forum)
+-- Forum: The Landing Site (https://www.orionsarm.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: The Arrivals Lounge (https://www.orionsarm.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=28)
+--- Thread: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. (/showthread.php?tid=6074)
Pages:
1
2
Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
Hello! Long time reader, first time commenter.
I have my own Hard Sci Fi setting(no FTL, time travel, Quantum Entanglement comms, inertialess drives, conservation of energy violation, etc.) with branching timelines to follow different theories of physics, including timelines where wormholes exist or where Compactified Extra Dimensions String Theory holds and Hyperspace in the Xeelee sense exists.
One of the best inspirations OA has given me, is the singularities. I have my own system that I hope is useful to the admins, and some philosophy and questions at the end.
SI0: Very first Bracchiates(Vertebrates and boneless fishes), Apoids(Bees and wasps), Cephalopods, and Decapods(Crabs, Lobsters, and macroscale shrimp). They have been since outcompeted by Nonsophonts, which require much less energy for very minimal strategy disadvantage, and by SI1 beings, which require minimal extra energy for significant strategy advantage. SI0s have only the most basic reasoning skills.
SI1: Majority of Bracchiates, Apoids, Cephalopods, and Decapods on Earth. Capable of language and arithemtic. Can be taught to use technoogy by humans, but will not invent it themselves and cannot understand the inner workings.
SI2: First tool-users. Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Corvids, Parrots, Elephants, Dolphins, Asian Honeybees, Archerfish, Octopi, etc.
SI3: Beings capable of science, that is, systemized study and conceptualization. Homo erectus and all of its descendants, but not Homo habilis. Nanotech in my setting is impossible for SI3 beings outside of Forge Vats and nanomedicine, but their best microtechnology is godlike.
SI4: Essentially a synthesis of OA's SI1 and SI2, seeing as their technological capabilities are like comparing industrial age humans to information age humans. Technology still progresses between singularities.
SI5: Creators of Picotech made from quantum wells, wires, and dots.
SI6: Creators of Femtotech, which can not reproduce outside of neutron stars, is near impossible to get to function outside of neutron stars, and can only communicate with macroscale tech when arranged into massive communication arrays. Cannot meaningfully interact with macroscale matter physically. It is basically just denser computation, not god goo. Femtotech minimizes energy consumption by utilizing the quantum vortices and other defects, as the nucleus of an atom is superfluid, so they are based on the same principles as hildemar's knots, just less material. This singularity is when wormholes are available if they exist.
SI7: Quantum Gravity Era. Technology is very much dependent on the different timelines.
SI8: Mastery of the universe with the ToE and Quantum Gravity computers that use the Cauchy boundary.
Philosophy:
More intelligent beings are more emotionally intelligent(Wow! who would have thought). This means that they are more moral than less intelligent beings, unless there is a proportionately strong programmed subconscious impulse placed in their substrate. In my setting, morals are defined by three laws:
1. Fulfill the second law to the fullest extent before
2. Disallow as much death from coming to happen as possible. In reference to conscious beings.
3. Instill as much happiness in conscious beings as possible.
It isn't until the SI8 that beings truly know whether ethics are just an impulse ingrained into all conscious beings' natures regardless of substrate or it ethics truly exist as something unnatural but real like euclidean geometry.
I know all this peace and love and technorapture does not fit into OA with all the ahumans and space opera, but I thought it would spark interest.
Questions for Admins:
A. What is Z-theory? I saw it on the Physics EG article, and get that it is a ToE, but has it been fleshed out?
B. Can I have a link to ArcBuilders? Wayback doesn't seem to have it.
C. What quantum gravity theory holds in OA? I see the bulk and superstrings so I can make an assumption, but....
Questions for Physicists:
A. How long would it realistically take with SI1 or SI2 nanobots to construct a GUT level particle accelerator?
B. How long would it realistically take with SI1 or SI2 nanobots to construct a planck energy partciel accelerator?
C. How long would it realistically take with SI3 or SI4 technology to construct a planck energy particle accelerator?
D. What are the specific magnetic and electrostatic mechanisms in plasmadynamic computing and virtual energy systems?
E. What are alllll the possible mechanisms you can think of in nanotech involving quantum mechanics?
F. What technology would we need to understand the results of a planck energy particle collision seeing as all light would be sucked in?
G. What technoloy would be needed to manipulate topological defects?
H. What technology would be needed to manipulate supersymmetric particles?
I. Can the electroweak force's suspension of the Higgs Mechanism be used for energy like in the Xeelee Sequence? Not thinking of the GUT drive, I'm talking about the tech from Transcendent that Poole is playing with in the 2040s.
J. How long big would an industrial monopole factory particle accelerator need to be?
I know I am asking a lot, but hope to return with more ideas for OA!
Thank you all so much, and any replies are enough for me to be satisified(that being said...)
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
I almost forgot.
These philosophers are not my influences, but I found them while looking for people who think a matter akin to my own.
Jeremy Bentham, Donna J. Haraway
Some more who are very similar, but do not quite capture my beliefs.
Peter Singer, MLK(He's gone spiritual I guess), Vardhamana Mahavira, Leonardo da Vinci
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - Worldtree - 11-17-2023
Welcome
before we answer most of those questions , would you mind sharing why you are asking the questions for physicists? it helps us.
also, in the future, it is helpful to also post the links to the relevant articles you are talking about
A. Z-theory:
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412021
Quote:We present the evidence for the existence of the topological string analogue of M-theory, which we call Z-theory. The corners of Z-theory moduli space correspond to the Donaldson-Thomas theory, Kodaira-Spencer theory, Gromov-Witten theory, and Donaldson-Witten theory. We discuss the relations of Z-theory with Hitchin's gravities in six and seven dimensions, and make our own proposal, involving spinor generalization of Chern-Simons theory of three-forms. Based on the talk at Strings'04 in Paris.
this is my guess. it's good you pointed that out because that is one of the many, many unexplained references in the EG from 20 years ago
B. Arcbuilders
(where did you find the reference to it on the website?)
here's the only other mention of it i can find.
https://www.orionsarm.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5327
C. someone else might answer this
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
I am not asking on the behalf of physicists, I just know that there are those with some expertise in physics who might have answers for my questions.
As for the ArcBuilders, it was a project worked on by a member of OA before they joined.
https://www.orionsarm.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5327
Thank you for all the helpful notes, I am sorry to be such a pain in the a***(British spelling).
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
Those with physics expertise who supply information to this project, that is.
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
Thanks for the speedy responses by the way, and the answer about Z-Theory!
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - Worldtree - 11-17-2023
just checking-you have tried searching elsewhere on the internet, right, other than the wayback machine/internet archive ?
this is what i found with a 5 min google search. maybe i've got the algorithms trained to me too much or something?
https://celwp.miraheze.org/wiki/Projects
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/fic_arcbuilder.html
https://celestia.mobi/resources/category?category=E6E0C8D7-8F9E-EE24-1C54-D6F57B0EEF6F
https://twitter.com/RambleScribe?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
https://twitter.com/TheArcBuilders
is that the one you mean? the one by John M Dollan, former contributor to OA?
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
They mentioned a John, yes thank you!
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - ShanguiFriendlyGhost - 11-17-2023
I must really seem incompetent from your point of view. Not a slight at your person.
RE: Some ideas for philosophy and science. Part 1. - Worldtree - 11-17-2023
it's fine
we do really, really appreciate it when you spend a while using search engines to find answers to your questions , or at least to show us that, yes you have tried to find answers, but you couldn't find anything because you didn't know which search terms to use or something