Warning: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 824 Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 831

There is no need for you to refute, those two sentences are self-contradictory. The “Universal Civilization Axioms” mentioned by Three Body 2 are: 1. Survival is the first need of civilization. 2. Civilization continues to grow and expand, but the total amount of matter in the universe remains unchanged. The author Liu Cixin did not stick to “These are the truths.” In terms of the law of the dark forest, Three Body 3 tells the readers straightforwardly: the dark forest is only shallow and partial. The reality itself does not support the “universal civilization axioms”, and there are internal contradictions between these two axioms: First, survival is not the first need of civilization. The purpose of living beings is to live forever, and civilization is not a living thing, it is a movement pattern of living things. Civilization may have the first need beyond this, or there may be no need. In fact, the second clause of the above-mentioned “axiom” is either contrary to survival or contradictory: if the reach of civilization is limited, the result of continuous growth and expansion is rapid death, just like bacteria in a petri dish That way; if the reach of civilization is infinite, there is no “total amount of matter in the universe remains the same.” This is a reasoning that can be carried out without a conclusion, nor does it prevent you from exploring space or destroying other creatures, but if you want a long-term existence, while destroying other creatures, should you consider controlling population and dismantling? Stars, adjust the angular momentum of the galaxy, save all the resources that can be saved, and try to develop the first type of perpetual motion machine instead of spending it in “growth”. So these two “axes” cannot coexist in any case. If survival is really the first need, civilizations that do not have the ability to create energy from nothing or reach infinite realms should stop the total growth and expansion as much as possible, and find improvements without increasing total energy consumption. Technology or physical ability methods. In reality, some of the sulfur bacteria we found in the depths of the ground split once every thousands of years, repairing their bodies extremely well, which can be used as a reference. 2. Civilization may not continue to grow and expand, and the total amount of matter in the universe is not constant. “Civilization continues to grow and expand” has many counterexamples on the earth. To what age have the civilizations of Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome developed? How much has the total power of ants and termites increased in the past 120 million years? The observational facts have proved that dark energy is growing endlessly. The expansion of the universe is accelerating. If this growth trend accelerates further without transforming dark energy into energy or creating mass to counteract it, then time and space will crush all baryonic matter. Whether in reality or in the three-body series, the reason why a life thinks that resources are limited is that it is limited by its own ability to use resources. For example, we don’t know how to use dark energy or how to effectively use zero point energy. The non-technical part of the earth’s biosphere is even more obvious: the sun’s current input of light energy to the earth is 4,325 times the total photosynthetic power of the earth’s biosphere. As the output of the sun is gradually rising, the growth of light energy in the next billion years will not only exceed what the earth’s biosphere can consume, but will also exceed what the earth’s carbon-based life can tolerate. The long-term result of “resources growing faster than life can consume” is that life will be temporarily extinct, waiting for the next occurrence [1]. The existence of a universe around us, or at least the existence of “I”, rather than absolute nothingness, means that the universe can either be created from nothing, or it has existed for eternal time and will never be destroyed. Both of these mean that the total amount of time, space, matter, energy, and information in the multiverse can be as much as anything. The “Law of the Dark Forest” is also untenable in reality. In the sky, we have observed many obviously abnormal cosmic structures, which seem to be the products of civilization [2]. On the ground, different groups of marching ants rarely attack each other. Many species of marching ants and red fire ants have mastered each other to bypass each other. The marching ants that first encountered the RIFA will soon know how to bypass each other. The option of “destroying the other party” is not necessary even for small bugs whose thinking ability is so primitive that they cannot discover the contradictions of these two “axes”, and their offensive capabilities are very developed.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 months ago

“With the evolution of civilization, people like them will gradually increase,” said the risk eliminator, pointing to scientists under the altar of truth. “Finally, when the problem of survival is completely resolved, when love disappears due to individual alienation and fusion. When art eventually dies due to excessive refinement and obscurity, the pursuit of the ultimate beauty of the universe becomes the only sustenance of civilization, and their behavior is in line with the basic values ​​of the entire world.” The low-temperature artist’s voice from Bingyuan Deep The vibration of the ice surface made Yan Dong’s feet itchy: “Survival, aggressive, it’s just a diaper for a civilized infancy. From now on, it’s as easy as breathing, so that we forgot to have that. An era requires energy to survive.” “What about social life and politics?” “The existence of an individual is also a trouble for infant civilization. In the future, the individual will be integrated into the subject, and there will be no society and politics.” “The science , There is always science? Does civilization need to know the universe?” “That is also a course for infant civilization. When the exploration reaches a certain level, everything will be uncovered. You will find that the universe is so simple and science is unnecessary. “ ”Only art is left?” “Only art is left, and art is the only reason for civilization.”

6 months ago

The locusts are a race that will eat to death. That’s because, one day, a locust proposed the dark locust theory. What is the dark locust theory? That is, you don’t have to eat as hard as you can to eat. If other locusts eat like this, you won’t have to eat it! You can hardly say that the dark locust theory is wrong, because locusts are like this. But you are alone, why do you want to refute the dark locust theory? He said that he was the descendant of the hero who wanted to plant the red flag all over the world with a bright future for everyone, but finally he believed in the evil of the dark forest, ha ha.

6 months ago

If it is from a human perspective, it is difficult to refute it. It is originally written by humans for humans to see. This is our cognition. It is a society whose imagination is enlarged to the scale of the universe. A prototype can be found in the real society. But what you have to say is the emperor’s golden hoe theory. The bigger one is that ants use their simple thinking to measure gods. It is possible that our social model is nothing but petty chaos. Higher civilizations are not the same thing at all. Even life forms may be different. Maybe they don’t have the pressure of living space and resources at all, for them to survive and expand. It is not necessary. These two axioms also lost their meaning. But this is something beyond our cognition, and it cannot be verified at present. It is the fire-breathing dragon in the garage, which only exists in imagination. If you just want to refute the content of science fiction, there is nothing wrong with your imagination. You can put forward an advanced civilization model that does not follow these two axioms, such as the one I mentioned above. It is difficult to find a prototype from reality. After all, the mission of genes is to keep copying!

6 months ago

My idea is that there is no problem with the axioms of cosmological sociology. The problem lies in the conclusion of the dark forest. After all, the dark forest theory is only the truth among bugs. A bee philosopher would think that there are only a limited number of flowers on the grassland, but the number of bee colonies is increasing, so if they want to survive, they can only attack other bee colonies, and the bee philosopher would not think of destroying grassland resources. The bigger one is actually Pleasant Goat, and Pleasant Goat doesn’t care about the feelings of the swarm, because he has to face Big Big Wolf. For the bee colony, it is enough to gather honey every day to meet their survival needs. If the Pleasant Goat likes to eat honey, then the bee colony can be kept in captivity. There is no need to eliminate the bee colony, which can also improve the flock’s survival. quality of life. Also for advanced civilizations, civilizations like the trisolaran civilization of the earth are all insects. It is better to raise them in captivity than to eliminate them. The energy consumed by insects is far less than the benefits they bring. Dinosaur civilization does not raise human insects. Yet? They are all advanced civilizations. Who still runs all day for three meals a day, “My life is boundless, and knowing is boundless”, so there is a civilization like risk eliminators who pursue knowledge, as well as performers and cryogenic artists. The pursuit of artistic civilization, as for “Li Bai”, he is still a layman.

6 months ago

Two basic axioms: First, survival is the first need of civilization. 2. Civilization continues to grow and expand, but the total amount of matter in the universe remains unchanged. If survival is really the first need of civilization, what civilization should do is to conserve resources and develop soundly. And sincerely cooperate with all civilizations to jointly develop the first type of perpetual motion machine or use dark matter. Otherwise, the first article will not be completed at all, and if you want to complete the second article, you have to proceed on the basis of the first article. Otherwise, wouldn’t it be because of digging one’s own grave, which also caused the two axioms to contradict themselves. If the same axiom remains unchanged, in fact, completely different conclusions can be drawn. Novels are novels after all, and how the content develops depends on how the author writes. Sometimes the arguments that seem completely irrefutable in the book are actually settings created by the author himself.

6 months ago

It is necessary to understand the “pre-axioms” or “pre-conditions” in science fiction novels. The so-called science fiction is not to predict how the future technology will be realized, but if certain technologies are realized-that is, the “pre-conditions” are determined for people, What will be the impact on society? If you deny these “preconditions”, science fiction literature has no meaning to go on. When the preconditions of literary works are true and undeniable, such works are realist literature, not science fiction literature.

6 months ago

Two basic axioms are as follows: 1. Survival is the first need of civilization. 2. Civilization continues to grow and expand, but the total amount of matter in the universe remains unchanged. Just take the content of the book. Judging from the axioms and the theorems introduced by the axioms-the law of the dark forest-the second axiom is problematic. The second axiom says that civilizations continue to grow and expand. The law of the dark forest says that civilizations are in a state of hostility between them. In this state, it is impossible for civilization to grow and expand. That is to say, the axiom and the theorem derived from it are contradictory. In this case, one party must have a problem, no doubt. In real life or in literary works, this kind of “self-contradiction” is harmless (because of dialectics, negation of negation), but in a formal axiom system, this kind of situation is not allowed. If you do not want to change the law of the dark forest, then Axiom 2 has to be expressed in a different way, such as “Civilization has a trend of continuous growth and expansion, but the total amount of matter in the universe remains unchanged”, or split Axiom 2 into two parts. Such as “Axiom 2: The total amount of matter in the universe remains unchanged. Axiom 3: Civilization has a trend of continuous growth and expansion.” At this point, the problem is already obvious. The sentence “Civilization has a tendency to grow and expand” has no axiom effect (an axiom must be a deterministic expression) and can only be counted as a hypothesis. However, once this is taken as a hypothesis, the persuasiveness of the Dark Forest Law is greatly reduced. This is one of them. Second, will “civilization…trends” contradict axioms? In other words, will there be a conflict between survival and expansion? At least in my opinion, this is very possible. The above are some of my thoughts. Please refute it with justification and evidence. Kung is your win.

6 months ago

There is no need to refute. The sociology of the universe is only based on the understanding of “the universe in the three-body world” by “the humans in the “Three-Body” novel”. If survival is the first priority of civilization, then maintaining the stability of the current civilization and not contacting other civilizations is the smartest choice. It’s like if you just want to eat, you don’t need to change jobs, it’s the safest to stay in the company honestly. The behavior of “expansion” under the pretext of “survival” is the essence of the Trisolaran.

6 months ago

There is nothing wrong with the first article. Civilization will naturally be wiped out if it does not survive. The second one is ridiculous, just like measuring the thoughts of human beings with the thoughts of apes. Since everyone does not want to die, why continue to expand the demand for resources, even at the expense of triggering a war? Constantly expanding, finally occupying the entire universe, exhausting the resources of the universe, and dying faster as a result. Isn’t this a contradiction? First, just as China can rely on family planning to limit its population, it is unnecessary to continuously increase the amount of resources. The second axiom lacks logical inevitability. Isn’t it enough for China to have only one big cock? Is there a need for external expansion? Some people say that according to the law of entropy increase, resources are always getting less and less. This is intuitively absurd. Should we have nothing to eat after this meal and can only grab someone else’s food? Many resources such as food are renewable. By the way, heat death was originally a fallacy. The thermodynamics teacher told us that, firstly, the gravitational system is a negative heat capacity system for heating, cooling, and heat dissipation. Traditional thermodynamics is not applicable at all. Second, as the universe expands, the maximum value of entropy continues to increase, and the rate of increase is greater than that of entropy. So heat death is absurd. And with the development of science and technology, more and more resources are available. People used to worry about what to do if fuels such as oil and coal are burnt out. Now we have new energy sources such as nuclear power and solar power. Constantly obtaining new energy is the high-level development, and blindly increasing the resources is the low-level development. Advanced development is the constant use of new laws, so that the original resources have no meaning at all. Will any developed country still plunder coal? Some people say that with the development of technology, demand will of course grow so rapidly that it must be expanded to meet demand. Blindly increasing production capacity is ape-like thinking, and capitalism has produced too many surplus goods. When we consume Coke, we don’t really need Coke itself, but we are consuming the reputation of Coke, the brand of Coke, and the bright smile in consumer advertisements. The needs of human beings are forced to establish by capital, so that human beings are alienated into parts of social machines, constantly producing meaningless commodities and meaningless people. The heat death is wrong. There are renewable resources. After removing the excess demand, the resources are of course sufficient. Regarding the way of thinking of new humans, I thought about it in detail in “A Theory of Reason.” Others say that plundering resources is the most effective way to enhance national defense capabilities and protect one’s own security. This is the ape thinking, because the best way is not to plunder, but to merge. Once multiple civilizations merge into one civilization, it must be stronger than a civilization that grows by plunder. For apes, meaningless racial discrimination hinders the integration of civilizations. High-level civilization certainly needs to abandon this inferior attribute. For advanced civilizations, the “personal interests” of apes that hinder integration are meaningless. In terms of national defense capabilities, rational civilization is much stronger than ape civilization. You have 100 resources, and a civilization has 10 resources. A war consumes a lot of resources, including the most important resource, which is thought, and eventually you get 106 resources. Fusion can get 110 resources, and it can also generate new sparks through rational fusion. You have an apple, I have an apple, you grab it, only two apples. You have a thought, I have a thought, we exchange it, we have two thoughts separately, and we can also generate new thoughts by this. In short, the military capabilities of apes are certainly not comparable to rational civilization. For details, please refer to “Rationality”, I have carried out in-depth thinking. Some people say that rational civilizations can merge with each other, but what should I do if I encounter ape civilizations? Is fusion mandatory? That becomes aggression. If you encounter apes, please refer to human attitudes towards cherishing and protecting animals. Of course, rational civilization cannot be integrated with apes, but it will not plunder. After all, such a low-level creature has nothing worth plundering. On the contrary, the creature itself has become an irreplaceable resource. If civilization develops to a certain level but they are still apes, then rational civilization can guide them and let them give up meaningless apes thinking and become rational civilization. Of course, this behavior requires non-compulsory means. It is not difficult to prove that ape-like thinking is worthless to highly developed rationality. The degree of technological development is directly proportional to the degree of rational development, and inversely proportional to the difficulty of persuasion. It is also said that the distance between civilizations is too long, and it takes several years to send a signal, so that communication and integration cannot be achieved. According to this logic, the expandable scope of civilization is only a few light years, and it is even more comical to talk about wars between civilizations. Since management within civilizations is possible, and exchanges between natural civilizations are also possible, advanced civilizations can send an exchange group to complete the task of civilization integration. The high-level civilization had already predicted all possible situations before the exchange group set off, so that the exchange group had the ability to complete the task independently, rather than the low-level civilization, they had to ask their superiors if they encountered problems. The advanced civilization has already thought about various management systems after integration. In short, if you want to think about the universe, you must let go of ape thinking.

6 months ago

Refute those who say that these two axioms are contradictory. Do not discuss whether there are contradictions in logic according to the axiomatic system. There are these two axioms because they are two instincts, which are derived from biological evolution, rather than derived from theory. 1. Survival instinct: Any creature that can evolve into a higher civilization…not to mention higher civilization, even a bacterium and even a paramecium have the instinct for survival. Creatures without survival instincts will be eliminated early. 2. Civilization expansion: In fact, there is no need to “expand”, as long as civilization continues to exist, resources will inevitably be continuously consumed. Even if you “family planning”, even if you “save resources”, but the total number of resources is fixed, it will be exhausted sooner or later. So it doesn’t even need to be expanded, it just needs to exist. Any number greater than zero is integrated over infinite time, and the result is infinity. Not to mention, expansion is also an instinct engraved in genes. It depends on how long the earth has called for resource conservation and family planning, not for survival. Then in the future era of the universe, do you think those who want to live and want to “pass on the family” really can bear it? In particular, when a species does not have a highly developed brain, natural selection determines that they must live in excess, far exceeding the actual number of survivors, in order to ensure the continuation of the species under that kind of mortality. After entering a civilized society, under this “multiple birth” instinct, super birth is almost inevitable. As for “can the instinct of an individual be extended to the instinct of the entire civilization”: individuals constitute a group. Individuals have the instinctive need to pass on from generation to generation, and civilization has the need to continue. As for the first type of perpetual motion machine, the respondent is afraid that it is not a civilian? Also, “dark energy” is not a kind of “energy”, but an effect conceived to solve the principle of the universe’s constant acceleration of expansion. It has nothing to do with “energy”, nor can it be used as “energy”: Finally, the contradiction between the two “axes” is okay, because these two are the result of biological evolution, not in the sense of a real axiomatic system. This kind of “axiom”, so there is no need to be self-consistent. Moreover, since the “contradiction”, the result is very simple: all life will eventually die from this contradiction-expansion under the need of survival instinct, expansion instinct, and competition, and then accelerate death. This is precisely the destination of all civilizations in the era of the universe. From a large-scale time perspective, all civilizations either died of collapse (although this is unlikely at the moment) or died of heat death. All developments are just accelerating toward the end of heat death. Nothing wrong. And attacking others only slows down one’s own death, and cannot avoid death. It’s just that you always want to live longer after all, don’t you? The one who always wants to die early is someone else, isn’t it? Then the dark forest is here.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x