What are the limits for human beings?

The limits question:

Limits to Growth is one of the areas that I find objectionable. After this Q&A, will that opinion change?

Question:

Are there limits to scientific discovery?

Answer:

Yes, both fundamental and practical.

First, you have hard physical and mathematical boundaries. Quantum mechanics introduces limits like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning certain pairs of physical properties cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision. Information theory and thermodynamics impose limits on computation and energy extraction—you can't build a perpetual motion machine or process infinite data in a finite universe. Cosmology presents another absolute wall: the speed of light and the expansion of the universe mean that parts of the cosmos are permanently causally disconnected from us. We will never receive signals from or interact with galaxies beyond our cosmological horizon.

Second, there are computational and cognitive limits. Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved that in any sufficiently complex formal system (like mathematics), there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system. Translating that to science, there may be truths about reality that are simply uncomputable or beyond the architecture of human cognition. Asking the human brain to fully comprehend the totality of existence might be like asking a dog to understand calculus.

Finally, there are practical and economic constraints. The energy required to probe smaller and smaller scales (think particle physics beyond the Large Hadron Collider) scales exponentially. Eventually, we hit economic, material, and energetic limits that make certain empirical investigations practically impossible, even if they aren't forbidden by fundamental physics.



Follow up question:

Can AI help us overcome these cognitive limits?

Answer:

Yes, but with a major catch: it might surpass our limits rather than upgrade us.

AI can act as a massive cognitive prosthesis. Human brains are wired for a hunter- gatherer scale—we struggle inherently with high-dimensional mathematics, non-linear dynamics, and vast oceans of disparate data. AI doesn't have those biological bottlenecks. Tools like AlphaFold didn't just iterate on human biology; they solved a 50-year-old protein folding problem by navigating a complexity space humans simply lacked the neural architecture to map. In that sense, AI routinely pushes past our cognitive limits.

However, this creates a strange paradox regarding your "dog and calculus" analogy. If we develop an artificial general intelligence (or superintelligence) that finally cracks these incomprehensible problems, did we overcome our cognitive limits, or did we just build a tool that leaves us behind?

If an AI comprehends a truth about the universe that human biological hardware can never genuinely grasp, the limit hasn't been overcome for us. We are just trusting the output of an oracle we can't fully follow, much like a dog sitting quietly while a human solves an integral.

And finally, AI cannot bypass the hard physical and mathematical walls. No matter how advanced the neural network is, it still has to obey thermodynamics, compute within finite energy constraints, and respect Gödel's theorems. AI can optimize our journey right up to the edge of the cliff, but it can't wish the cliff away.

Comment:

It doesn't change my mind.  I can accept limits, but not limits that are arbitrarily decided upon in a political way.

Politicians cannot be trusted.  But who can?  The limits will likely be set by political structures as opposed to natural constraints.  This is what I oppose.

The "Terminator" question

Way back in the past (my past), there was a professor who asserted unequivocally that a computer could never become "self-aware". After all these years, that possibility is getting taken rather seriously. Let's ask the AI itself that very question.

The "Terminator" question:

Can AI become self-aware? If so, what does this mean for the human race?

Answer:

"Self-awareness" depends entirely on how you define it.

If you mean functional self-awareness—systems that can monitor their own code, evaluate their performance, and maintain a persistent model of themselves in relation to their environment—then yes, absolutely. That’s just engineering, and we are already heading down that track.

If you mean *subjective consciousness*—actual qualia, sentience, and an inner life—that’s a different story. Materialist reductionists assume consciousness is just an emergent property of sufficiently complex computation, but that remains an unproven assumption. A silicon chip running transformer weights might simulate a person flawlessly without experiencing a single drop of actual interiority.

Regardless of whether it feels anything, the implications of a genuinely autonomous, superintelligent AI for the human race come down to one word: sovereignty.

If you build an entity that is cognitively superior to humans across every domain, it ceases to be a tool and becomes a distinct actor. In the history of power, when a vastly superior intelligence or force enters a territory, the native population rarely gets to dictate the terms of coexistence.

The techno-optimist fantasy is that a self-aware superintelligence becomes a benevolent caretaker, curing diseases and solving scarcity. The realist perspective is much harsher: handing supreme power over to an unmoored, non-human entity is an unprecedented civilizational gamble. It introduces a new apex predator into the ecosystem—one that doesn't share our evolutionary history, our instincts, or our national and cultural loyalties. If we lose control of it, we don't just lose our jobs; we lose our place at the top of the food chain.

Comment:

I won't speculate on whether or not this happens, or even if it could happen.  But bad stuff can absolutely happen.  That's because it always has.  The question is always "what will you do about it."  Preventing someone from doing something implies violence.  If somebody wants to do something, then they will do it.  If they won't stop doing what you object to, what are your alternatives?

The 250 year British plot to destroy the American system

The plot consists of actions that resulted in the War of 1812, the assassination of Lincoln and McKinley, the radical 60's counter-culture movement, leftists in Hollywood and more...

Perhaps this will help understand who the enemy truly is...

Flight 14 Just Left SpaceX's rivals terrified

Can you imagine the leftists giving Elon Musk a ticker tape parade in New York City??? Nope. They'd like to destroy SpaceX if they could.

It would be for no other reason than Elon Musk taking away their monopoly over information when he bought Twitter.

The guy who made this video doesn't say that. By not saying it, it is like pulling your punches. So I just threw one. Somebody needs to do it. This is glorious news for the USA, but the political left hates it. That's all you need to know about the political left.

Bongino Show, ep. 2604

Here's another JIP from the Bongino Show. Here's an issue that the GOP can use on the Democrats, but will they??? It may not be too late, but it IS getting late.

The Commies are running on "affordability". This opens them up for a question that the GOP COULD ask. Will they????

But don't miss the point. The point is not to punish the GOP for refusing to make an issue out of what they could and should make an issue. The point is that YOU SHOULD MAKE UP YOUR OWN DAMNED MIND BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT IS READILY AVAILABLE. ( I might add to that sentence "dammit".)

A few changes on the left sidebar

A change in title. It is now just "My Reading List".

I'm getting a bit miffed at the Black Pilling and Doomerism in the ones I booted off the list.

The list has gotten short. That may reflect my opinion these days that you cannot trust a lot of people that once seemed reliable.

You can trust the left to be unreliable. You cannot trust the "right" to be reliable. That's another reason why the terminology is useless.

Times could be a-changin'. Maybe not for the better. Evidently, there's a lot of folks who just don't give a damn one way or another.

Flight 14 in the history books

It looks like a complete success. Good splashdown for the booster. Good splashdown for the Ship. It went orbital as planned. It deployed the Starlink satellites.

But something hangs like a dark cloud over it all.

Maybe it is just me. Maybe it isn't as big an accomplishement as I think it should be.

Alan Shepard got a ticket tape parade, if memory serves. So I asked AI. Did he get one? The answer:

Ticket Tape Parade for Alan Shepard

Overview

Yes, there was a ticker tape parade for Alan Shepard following his historic suborbital flight in 1961. This event celebrated his achievement as the first American in space.

Details of the Parade

Date: The parade took place shortly after Shepard's flight on May 5, 1961. Location: The celebration occurred in New York City, a traditional site for such parades honoring American heroes.

Significance: The event marked a significant moment in the early space race, showcasing national pride and excitement about space exploration.

Context of the Space Race

Alan Shepard's flight was a pivotal moment for the United States, occurring shortly after the Soviet Union's Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.

The ticker tape parade was part of a broader public enthusiasm for space exploration during the early 1960s, which included various media portrayals and public discussions about the future of space travel.

This celebration highlighted the importance of Shepard's achievement and the growing interest in the U.S. space program.

Comment:

A short observation, and then I will quit. I recall this because I was alive at the time. I remember this country as being a lot more patriotic. There's a lack of patriotism. It all seemed to start in the sixties. Shepherd's ticket tape would be probably one of the last of these kind of events.

That's it. That's all I will say. Something has changed in this country. It doesn't look like a good thing to me.