Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
energy beings on the Internet
3 views
Skip to first unread message
David Dalton
Nov 3, 2012, 1:39:51 AM11/3/12
to
Do you think there is any chance yet that energy beings
have evolved on or are visiting the Internet, or
that the Internet itself might become conscious?
In the books of William Gibson I think humans plugged
in to the net but were there also non-human energy
beings that evolved on or visited the net, in his
books? It has been a while since I read one.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
have evolved on or are visiting the Internet, or
that the Internet itself might become conscious?
In the books of William Gibson I think humans plugged
in to the net but were there also non-human energy
beings that evolved on or visited the net, in his
books? It has been a while since I read one.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
Jos Bergervoet
Nov 3, 2012, 6:11:22 AM11/3/12
to
On 11/3/2012 6:39 AM, David Dalton wrote:
>
> Do you think there is any chance yet that energy beings
> have evolved on or are visiting the Internet,
Apparently you mean that we (the normal stardust
>
> Do you think there is any chance yet that energy beings
> have evolved on or are visiting the Internet,
beings) do not qualify? Then what should they be
made of?
No baryonic matter allowed, I presume. It seems
reasonable then, to also exclude dark matter beings.
Of course there's more dark matter than baryonic
matter, so they surely might be visiting internet,
but if *we* can't be called energy beings, then
they don't deserve the title either!
If we just look at the possibilities:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/DarkMatterPie.jpg
clearly your most likely candidates are "dark energy
beings!" Because 3 quarters of our universe consists
of dark energy, and also because we can infer the
presence of dark energy from interactions between
other beings on the internet.
--
Jos
Stephen Allcroft
Nov 22, 2012, 10:11:07 AM11/22/12
to
Remember Wittgenstein's lion paradox...
Jos Bergervoet
Nov 22, 2012, 1:51:52 PM11/22/12
to
On 11/22/2012 4:11 PM, Stephen Allcroft wrote:
...
you can't deny that for the internet there's
ample proof of this!)
> Remember Wittgenstein's lion paradox...
That was before it all started..
--
Jos
...
>> reasonable then, to also exclude dark matter beings.
>> Of course there's more dark matter than baryonic
>> matter, so they surely might be visiting internet,
>> but if *we* can't be called energy beings, then
>> they don't deserve the title either!
>>
>> If we just look at the possibilities:
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/DarkMatterPie.jpg
>> clearly your most likely candidates are "dark energy
>> beings!" Because 3 quarters of our universe consists
>> of dark energy, and also because we can infer the
>> presence of dark energy from interactions between
>> other beings on the internet.
>
>> Of course there's more dark matter than baryonic
>> matter, so they surely might be visiting internet,
>> but if *we* can't be called energy beings, then
>> they don't deserve the title either!
>>
>> If we just look at the possibilities:
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/DarkMatterPie.jpg
>> clearly your most likely candidates are "dark energy
>> beings!" Because 3 quarters of our universe consists
>> of dark energy, and also because we can infer the
>> presence of dark energy from interactions between
>> other beings on the internet.
>
> How would we be able to tell?
accelerated expansion is a sure sign. (And
you can't deny that for the internet there's
ample proof of this!)
> Remember Wittgenstein's lion paradox...
--
Jos
Stephen Allcroft
Dec 11, 2012, 10:27:30 AM12/11/12
to
multiplying causes: bad in logic
>
> > Remember Wittgenstein's lion paradox...
>
> That was before it all started..
>
> --
> Jos
0 new messages