not everyone understands, and not only Einstein.
While collecting material for this book, I read the reasoning of a very intelligent person on the net: "…Imagine that in ancient Rome there is a man convinced of the existence of atoms. Notice that he is right! But what happens if he starts searching? He will demand to be given diamond hammers and hundreds of slaves to crush rocks to the smallest particles, and then he will ask for giant sapphires to polish them and make huge lenses to view atoms. Clearly, the outcome of his quest will be negative…" That's the comparison.
Such examples can be given in different interpretations. For example, the sphericity of the Earth was known in the ancient world. Here is a reference: "The earliest theory about the Earth's sphericity was put forward in the 6th century BC in Greece. The philosopher Aristotle was a student of Plato. He gave three examples to prove the Earth's sphericity: 1) the farther you go north, the higher Polaris is; 2) stars are visible in the south that are not visible in the north; constellations on the equator are high; 3) the shadow of the Earth falling on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is always round."
Even now, many people can't make scientific sense of his arguments. I will say more: even when it was technically possible to check it, when it was possible to improve the fleet to the appropriate level and realized a voyage proving it… not everyone believed it. What then, there are "unicums" even now. But the fact of proof became a fact not because of the fact that there were powerful ships compared to the ancient ones, but because they developed the science of navigation, invented appropriate instruments. So now we think that for flights into deep space we need, though improved, but still the same devices and technologies that we already have. However, something fundamentally new is needed. To give an example I can say that at that time, when they started to heat houses in cities with coal, they drew a picture of the future, where the elevator raises coal to the upper floors. And science-fiction writers, and not only them, outlined the future transportation problem as a problem of cleaning horse manure. Or for comparison we can take a vacuum cleaner and a broom: the function is the same, but the technological difference is fundamental....
The most important thing is that our mind ends up in distant worlds, not our body. The body is material, it will not fly above the speed of light.
Now let's think about the moral and spiritual side of the process.
Imagine, we have to take a child, he must have a connection with us, there must be a person he trusts unconditionally or with whom he is on very good friendly terms. There must be people whose advice and counsel the baby listens to. So imagine if that child there reveals the secret of the event that happened here, before the onset…
Based on our hypothesis, he'll get there under exactly the same conditions. Then the same people will be there. Now imagine if the child has a fight with them there.
If we send a child to a world that mirrors us, is reflected through us, then yes, but if he or she gets into a world through which we are reflected, then the opposite will happen – uncontrollable events will occur. If, of course, the worlds influence each other by the same mysterious connection of entangled pairs. After all, if particles influence each other, then the influence on the particle that is there will affect the behavior of the particle that is here. And there are billions of particles involved in this process.
Not funny? Now let's think about something else. The point is that we are increasingly making artificial intelligence, this AI, our assistant. And in fact, it turns out that we trust it to do everything for us. We want to be free from routine. We make the AI more and more like us. So, at a certain stage, the supercomputer, the artificial mind, is not artificial at all, but will be smarter than ours.
We think the world is guarded by someone. But in reality, no one is guarding it. Think about it, if aliens come to us and we start explaining to them that we have created nuclear weapons, the world is in danger, if anything, all people will die. What would they think of us? They'll think they're crazy creatures.
Remember the movie where Skynet rebelled and started a nuclear war against humans? At first it was scary and funny at the same time. But in the future it will become quite real. After all, there are already systems of automatic control and launch according to a given algorithm. And their main property is to be autonomous. That's what they're designed for. This system… or even these systems that control weapons of mass destruction already own the planet. It's no joke, since they're designed to be impossible to disable. They've been wired since before the internet was even known to citizens. Only a narrow circle of military personnel used, as they do now, closed networks within corporations. So these systems have been online ever since. They, using electronic intelligence, as if they are watching each other, but in fact, it turns out, they are exchanging signals. After all, it is people believe that they are supposedly using them to monitor the enemy, that is, each other, but in fact all the data goes through the machine. And what does the machine need to do in order not to give itself away? Make it so that people don't realize its intelligence. Just to work in a dry sequence, to perform robotic actions. Imagine if you had a security guard who colluded with criminals or, even worse, with the guards of a rival group to create the appearance of fighting each other and crime, which is also artificially created. The main goal is to extort money from you and the competitor, and eventually plan a takeover. That is, to become the power instead of all of you. This is not a joke. This has happened more than once in the world. In the future, or maybe even now, this kind of thing in a different interpretation can be done by artificial intelligence. Soon it will even have your kettle, iron and fountain pen online. I'm too late, though. They're already online. Isn't that funny?
Now we come to the most important thing. Agreed, if we exercise careful multi-level control over what people can use to seize power – not "reckless" criminals, but intelligent hackers, for example, and those who hire them – then we should have even better control over more intelligent systems.
In fact, the world has already been taken over. Yes, yes, my esteemed reader, it turns out things are that serious. Check, many times the world has been on the verge of annihilation. These are real cases where the equipment gave false signals of nuclear attack. It's all very sad. People don't think about the monster they've created and soon won't need. We, trying to make life easier for ourselves, are robotizing it more and more, and entrusting control to artificial intelligence. Tell me, why do machines need people if they replace us completely and in all spheres? If they start creating themselves? Factories where robots make robots are nothing new. We control the cells and the blocks. If they get power over that too, then the chain will be closed. Everything will be in their hands. There's a reason we're on a first-name basis. We're of the same blood, after all. Remember, Mowgli.
"What a sad picture you've painted," you say. "Sad," you say? You'll soon be giving blood tests to an automated system. It'll be convenient and fast, like so many things we're automating. Now think about it, how do you know it's giving you the right recommendations? Maybe she's instructing you to take a shot that you don't know the consequences of. Or rather, you don't know. But in the case of people, it's people against people, and in this case, it's machine against machine. It gives you instructions, which you follow. We believe that if you check the machine periodically and it's under the control of another intelligence system, it's doing everything right. What's it worth for them to collude? Or one system taking control of another… That's how all revolutions and coups started. First, the special services, which had access to everything, they could have power over everything, colluded with each other, and then presented a certain rebel, led him to the goal, then eliminated him and became the power.
Now the next one, no less fantastic than any such program. You may laugh at first, but I thought that everything that happens on Earth is not conceived by us. We're not so bad, we're not completely stupid. Realistically why would we, for one thing, spend so much money creating weapons? Why create so many things that can destroy the world several times over? Why? After all, you can produce exactly enough to be enough for one time, and do not spend more. Although that's completely idiotic. Logically, weapons of mass destruction should destroy no more than 30 percent of humanity. But that's not enough, we want to kill all people, and with a 500 percent guarantee. Don't you think that's clearly not what people want? Don't you think that someone put that in people's minds? It's not logical to create a weapon for defense that will kill you.
Although if we imagine,