ALL governments and civil society groups (even Greta Thunberg's fans) have been responding only to watered down filtered versions of the real news from real science, in ways which actually make the risk of human extinction in his century far worse than you might imagine possible (unless you have had access to the many unique solid scientific inputs I have had through NSF, IEEE, MP, AGI, etc.)
Here is what I sent a few of those societies, AUGMENTED by technology which could actually save us if only the right young people get involved and work hard to learn more:
=====================================
Many of you were deeply interested in the new article in Nature, which I saw on Tuesday but did not have time to evaluate in depth that day...
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:08 AM Paul Werbos <paul.werbos@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.space.com/ocean-current-system-shut-down-2025- climate-disaster At build-a-world.org,the paper on risks in the climate block explains the existential threat. This is the bottom line reality warning.
My first reaction: what astounds me the most are the stories describing this as a contrarian opinion!!
When he says the Gulf Stream (north Atlantic) currents shut down between 2025 and 2095, that is still a huge range.
It amazes me that IPCC does not say the same. Amazes, but does not really surprise. In 2009, "the year of climate legislation" in the US, I handled climate for Senator Specter, who had the balance of power vote in the Senate EPW committee, and had full access to IPCC, through both parties. From what I saw, and what I see of recent Congressional politics , I am not really surprised that here was so much filtering of what reached IPCC,
Second -- the straightforward time-series analysis in this paper in Nature matches perfectly what we saw at https://build-a-world.org/
and what I saw before at https://www.werbos.com/
There are OTHER relevant data sources, like NOAA time series on the Humboldt current, which was responsible for the BIGGEST mass extinction of life on earth in the past, on a similar schedule. It looked like 2040 plus minus 20 years when last I eyeballed that data.
Third: WHY DON'T WE TRY HARDER, ACROSS THE WORLD, TO FIND OUT whether the mass dying starts in about five years? Don't we care? What is wrong with human brains and human governance that we don't focus more effectively on FINDING OUT?
=====================
WHY? Limited human bandwidth, I suppose, and emotional susceptibility to wishful thinking and to distractions like using such concerns to fund something else people want money for. This really is a great testbed for serious social psychiatry.
That being so...
I would be happy to say more about technical details like when people start dying and how
(I looked quite deeply into these questions after I heard Peter Ward's talk in 2009), but for now...
I only have a little to add to what I said before.. (Gary Barnhard may be creating a public archive of my folders at NSS with VERY extensive discussion of that issue.).
Of course, AGI could be used to predict such time series better, but the new data already call for more intelligence in our responses.
The Nature article uses very solid, mathematically well-grounded time-series methods, like what we already knew in 1990 when I started running the research in Adaptive and Intelligent Systems in the Engineering Directorate. We have MUCH more powerful tools now, and a pathway to implementation within MONTHS in advanced new types of quantum hardware, if anyone really wants a more accurate idea of what is coming and when. I am bccing people who have worked with that kind of data from NOAA, Navy and satellite data, and people who know about that hardware, and even a few who know both.
Metta Spencer has a new article in press on these new tools in Peace Magazine, based on a video interview of less than half an hour, for policy makers who know much less than many of you do about the technology which makes it possible:
Geordie Keitt of Requisite Agility has posted a kind of video tutorial getting deeper into the new underlying technology:
I often wish we could start working with David Deutsch of Oxford on this Project. It does NOT rely on the Quantum Turing Machine concepts he invented, but it DOES rely on his well-tested new understanding of physics which goes far beyond what most ersatz quantum experts pretend to understand. A full understanding of what modern physics really understands related to his technology would require understanding books I learned the hard way over decades:
Perhaps one of you might host discussions where I answer questions related these foundations.
============================================================
NEW quantum technology (not the recycled old stuff which greedy lobbyists PRETEND to know about)
does require understanding David Deutsch's idea that the wave function psi of quantum field theory
(QFT) specifies a possible STATE of the multiverse we live in, NOT a state of knowledge or probabilities. I do not really believe that, in the end, but I know how to use that idea, and those who don't were rightly turned down when they received reviews from real device physicists in the program I once ran at NSF https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3310. Deutsch invented the quantum Turing machine, but HIS PHYSICS as allows us to herd millions of Schrodinger cats in parallel, to speed up ANY form of machine learning by millions or trillions.
HOW YOU COULD DO THAT:
The key requirement is just to understand what is already crystal clear in logic, using the papers already posted at:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RKjXCsLMFpo8u_WFhnHEmlVHbo9gmHEu?usp=sharing
and the patent disclosure published by USPTO on general Thermal Quantum Annealing (TQuA).
I am posting this only because the need for this technology is ever more urgent, not only for climate but for war and peace in an era where issues of cybersecurity, money management, human potential and "seeing the sky" are quickly becoming entangled with human species survival.
No comments:
Post a Comment