See CoinCube, he is never going to understand.

After how many times did I tell him that massive and continuous failure is integral with adaptation and optimal fitness and resilience. And he still doesn't understand (or ignores) that massive failure (maximizing the number of minimum orthogonal probabilities) is necessary to maximize entropy and stay on the universal trend as stated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

He continues to think that faster computation is meaningful in the context of fitness of the macro economy, even though I have explained over and over again that it is chance and maximizing diversity that is salient to optimization of the fitness (i.e. maximizing economy thus by definition success).

(note faster computation is meaningful for solving computable algorithms, but this is not the same as macro fitness. And don't forget Godel's incompleteness theorem which says that no computable set of axioms can be both complete and consistent)

He doesn't comprehend the links I provided upthread on simulated annealing. If you cool ice too quickly it develops cracks, because the localized ordering of the molecules isn't optimal (the cooling was forced top-down too fast for the localized actors to do sufficient trial-and-error, i.e. massive failure is required on the way towards optimal fitness). He doesn't understand that this resistance/friction (mass) to top-down control is necessary otherwise entropy collapses to minimum (past and present become one) and failure of optimization results.

I mean I have tied it all together, but some people will be incapable of understanding, unless perhaps it is developed carefully into a book that is taught step-by-step. The math needs to be detailed and perhaps some further derivations can be achieved with pull it all together holistically with existing science.

So that is why I bowed out and will now bow out.

If he continues to write things that might sound plausible to many readers, yet which continue to fail to comprehend, then I think I will just have to let readers think he is correct so they can join him in failing to understand.

I am sorry, but how can I respond in way that is not condescending and not ending up repeating the same things over and over again for the next 100 posts.

I really don't like being disrespectful and he has been so cordial. I have noticed that other very smart people tend to try to embarrass people who can't get it and that is not my intention here. I guess it is just frustration. I am trying to get him to realize that he is not addressing my points at all, and keeps repeating concepts which ignore my points.

Also the assumption that eliminating DNA and that DNA alone is responsible for human evolution is a non-sequitur or strawman. That is another complex discussion which I don't feel up to addressing here and now.

P.S. Notwithstanding that the above stands on its own without this following point, it is also quite myopic to assume the cost of failure can be less. If the robots are interacting with the the biological life which they must if they are going threaten and dominate humans as feared, then those life forms are going to suffer from failures and take actions accordingly. One of the myriad of potential reactions could be to destroy the robots who are causing failure.