Sultan Shishani

@PhysInHistory The heat equilibrium.

What’s the scariest thing in the universe? ✍️

@PhysInHistory Check what Henri Bergson had to say about time.

The concept of Time is intriguing. ✍️

@PhysInHistory Look who had to say about having fun, after he had killed the "broad imagination fun" in science, in his following students' hearts.

"If you're not having fun, you're not learning. There's a pleasure in finding things out." - Richard Feynman

@PhysInHistory To be honest, i'd rather ask Grok.

What would you ask Albert Einstein if he were alive today? ✍️

@PhysInHistory Dirac, still thinking himself as a rare supernatural human being.

What do you think? ✍️

@PhysInHistory The universe is in harmony with my belief.

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. - Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

@ShiningScience In my opinion, this is impossible.

Anthropic is calling for a coordinated global pause on AI development prevent humans from losing control of the technology. In a newly released proposal, Anthropic warned that rapid advances in artificial intelligence could soon enable 'recursive self-improvement'—a threshold where AI models autonomously design and upgrade their own successors faster than society can implement safety guardrails. To mitigate this risk, the creator of the Claude chatbot is urging major AI labs to establish a coordinated, verifiable pause. This mechanism would allow researchers to align AI capabilities with human values while ensuring that bad actors cannot exploit the slowdown to surreptitiously leap ahead. This proposal highlights Anthropic's long-standing safety focus, which recently led to its blacklisting by the U.S. government after the startup refused to let the military use its models for domestic surveillance. The call for a temporary halt has reignited an intense debate across the tech industry regarding who should dictate the pace of innovation. Rival OpenAI countered that democratic governments, rather than private corporations, must establish safety rules and accountability. This industry friction comes amid mounting security anxieties; researchers at the University of Toronto recently demonstrated how existing AI tools can be used to engineer adaptive cyberworms capable of autonomously hijacking computer networks. With federal regulations lagging and a recent executive order relying primarily on voluntary testing, the pressure is mounting on tech giants to address the existential risks of self-building AI before the technology outpaces human oversight. source: Associated Press & Reuters. (2026, June 5). Anthropic urges AI labs to pause, warns humans risk losing control.

For some people, by adding mysterious concepts into a certain case and exaggerating on how it is unknown how those concepts perform, attracts all kinds of audience. When you, Professor, put the solution you have found and you are pretty sure about it, then you will only attract the audience who are genuinely interested.

Thanks Anil I again read your paper which is well written and comprehensive except in a few key areas. Biological naturalism requires an understanding of life which I believe has a basis in quantum mechanics, e’.g. for unitary oneness and cognitive binding. Quantum biology has been contentious but emerging as fact with more and more examples. The basis for quantum mechanisms in a ‘warm, wet and noisy’ environment was really discovered by our group, based on anesthesia selectively blocking consciousness in nonpolar, water excluding regions of organic aromatic rings inside biomolecules, especially microtubules (MTs) which organize cellular interiors, process information and store memory. Because MTs pervade living cells their nonpolar interiors form a ‘quantum underground nsuworks.nova.edu/cps_facbooks/6… Decoherence solved, thanks to an understanding of how anesthesia selectively blocks consciousness. You’re welcome. You mention membranes, mitochondria and xenobots as biological candidates for consciousness but omit microtubules despite Roger Penrose and I proposing them for 30 years. MTs are made of tubulin the brain’s most abundant protein. The brain is ‘made of microtubules’. Surely you must have heard of them. You do cite our 2014 paper but don’t seem to have read it. You discuss agency and noncomputability but not Penrose Objective Reduction which provides both agency and noncomputability which implies selections which are neither random nor algorithmic, and may include Platonic influences according to Penrose. These may include qualia to solve the hard problem I like predictive processing which appears to occur in networks of mixed polarity MTs in neuronal dendrites and soma. ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PhyD..… In summary your article covers much ground but stalls out when approaching biological naturalism. You’re missing Orch OR which can solve the issues you lack. Here’s the article you’ve been promising to read for 4 years pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35782391/ Here’s a more recent one ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jc… Your friend and mine Alex Gomez Marin @behaviOrganisms implored us to work together but I said you’d first need to acknowledge the existence and basics of Orch OR which you haven’t yet done, and thus continue to elegantly flail.

@PhysInHistory If they knew GOD the Great, the one and only, our public transportation today could have been via teleportation.

Werner Heisenberg on the famous 'Bohr-Einstein debate' 💭 Einstein was not prepared to let us do what, to him, amounted to pulling the ground from under his feet. Later in life, also, when quantum theory had long since become an integral part of modern physics, Einstein was unable to change his attitude—at best, he was prepared to accept the existence of quantum theory as a temporary expedient. "God does not throw dice" was his unshakable principle, one that he would not allow anybody to challenge. To which Bohr could only counter with: "Nor is it our business to prescribe to God how He should run the world." -- as mentioned in Ch. 6, Physics and Beyond (1969)

In my opinion, never. Because AI is the reflection of the human being. AI does not take personal observations, it only operates through the uploaded data by the human being. If one programmer has fully good intentions his AI will be good. If the programmer has some of the bad intentions, then the AI will be manufacturing a lot of T1000s. If the AI at some point reaches the fully autonomous mode where there is not a single effect from any creature in this life, then it will definitely be a good AI.

In what ways do you think AI will never surpass human intelligence? ✍️

@PhysInHistory He argued Einestein about relativity but Einestein confidently stood still on his theory of relativity.

“I go to Upanishads to ask questions.” — Niels Bohr, as mentioned in ‘God Is Not One (2010) by Stephen Prothero

@Zenith_Wave @PhysInHistory That sounds like wheeler -Dewitt 's zero.

@SultanShishani @PhysInHistory Not really if you understand the concept of relative Time .No motion or practically zero. Motion is energy in action.Where did the energy come from at point zero and where was it. The limitation is our understanding. Space has no measure and defines everything thus. Infinity.

Carl Sagan on Big Bang ✍️ Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened-the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery. That it happened is reasonably clear. All the matter in the universe was concentrated at extremely high density-a kind of cosmic egg, reminiscent of the creation myths of many cultures-perhaps into a mathematical point with no dimensions at all.

@PhysInHistory Why the generalizing?! Be specific. A human being can't make or create anything without a cause.

Can something truly begin without a cause-or is causality just a human construct? ✍️

@pjungar @PhysInHistory Writing down the probabilities law for the sheep in Scotland through those three gentlemen's spoken observations.

@SultanShishani @PhysInHistory Too engrossed working in his notebook to notice.

Professor Richard Feynman explained about physics and mathematics in his lecture.

Unfortunately, poor Hawking was betting on an incomplete law of gravity. Based on his lame vision, we should have witnessed a new creation appearing every decade or every century or whatsoever, within the quantum scale, human scale and the galactic scale which can be seen and can be interacted with. But i bet he could have made up a new story to continue this series of Hawking illusions, and the potential scientists must buy it, to get to be known worldwide.

Stephen Hawking speaks against creationism ✍️ Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

@pjungar @PhysInHistory I wonder what a mathematician would have said.

@SultanShishani @PhysInHistory Here is three of them x.com/pjungar/status…

@PhysInHistory Are you sure?

Carl Sagan ✍️

@PhilosophyOfPhy Sounds like entanglment theory.

The Banach-Tarski Paradox is one of the most mind-bending results in mathematics. If you take an ordinary orange, you can mathematically chop it into 5 specific pieces, move them around, and put them back together to get two identical oranges. No extra matter added. Pure geometry breaks the laws of physics.