Some thoughts about making it possible for individual humans to access Wikipedia, robustly to calamities that are within the sphere of human agency.
Seems like you would want it to be stored digitally. Ideally, people would have the ability to access it remotely, in case their local copy is somehow corrupted. For that, you would need a physical network by which the data can be transmitted. Economies of scale would seem to suggest that there would be one or a few entities that would “serve” the content to individuals who request it. Of course, you would want those individuals to be able to access this information without having detailed technical knowledge and ability. I guess they would have pre-packaged software “browsers” they could use to access the network.
In order to maintain this arrangement, you would want enough political stability to allow for the physical upkeep of this infrastructure, including human infrastructure (feeding the engineers who make it all possible). In order to make it worthwhile, you would need people who want to access the information too. I suspect political stability, a sufficient abundance of the necessities for human life, and the political will to make sure that everyone’s needs are met so that they can safely be curious about the world would help here too.
All of this requires sources of power. I suspect that a combination of nuclear power, solar/batteries, and geothermal energy would be sufficient and would avoid the problem of running out of fossil fuels at some point in the future. The nice side-effect here of reducing the impact of calamities exacerbated by the greenhouse effect.
For the information to continue being relevant, you would have to update it with new knowledge, and correct inaccuracies. How best to accomplish this? Well, I guess you would need a systematic way to interrogate the causes behind the various effects we observe in the world. I would propose a system where people create hypotheses, and perform experiments that exclude the influence of as many factors as possible external to the phenomenon being studied. People would then share their findings, and I guess would critique each other’s arguments in a sort of “peer review” to try to come to a consensus. You would have to feed and provide for these people at a certain basic level to make sure they are comfortable and safe enough to continue doing this work. I guess you would want to encourage the value systems compatible with this method of interrogating the world.
I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams).
At a more profound level, I really appreciated point 18 under "Relationality": 'human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.'
I was raised Protestant, but taught to be fundamentally skeptical of the political and historical baggage of any religious institution. Though I recognize that writings like this are a result of deeply held faith, it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? That probably sounds basic, but it is my reaction. What draws me back in is the emphasis on our relationships with other human beings. Those relationships are the things that are actually in front of us, and can make a meaningful difference in our day-to-day lives. Something very useful to keep in mind when developing AI (or ABNECUI).
> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know?
Perhaps we were told it:
> "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Yes, I recognize that these are articles of deeply-held faith. I am open to the idea of God, I am open to the idea that God is fundamentally mysterious and beyond our mortal understanding. I simply feel that I always have to exercise skepticism regarding the words of religious institutions, though, because it seems to me that power-hungry individuals could use legitimate teachings as a camouflage for their immoral selfish impulses. Though maybe some institutions can effectively guard themselves against this, selecting people truly committed to God for leadership (I find myself likely to believe, for instance, that Pope Francis in particular is truly committed to God via the humans around him).
I guess all of the doubts are a reminder for me to focus on other humans with love. That is the part of the Bible's teachings (or the teachings of other religions) that are accessible to my experience.
I too am wary of "power-hungry individuals" who could use legitimate teachings for illegitimate ends.
I think the types of people you speak of are all too real. But I have recently decided I will not let a fear of them keep me from those legitimate teachings or from anything else good in this world. At least I will not anymore. I did for a long time.
As someone (I forget who), "God is not something you believe in. God is something you experience". In my view, any given religion is just the accumulated ways in which a specific group of people found to handle the aftermath of that experience.
Of course, the problem is that you get indoctrinated into a religion before you have a chance to experience It in the first place and end up mistaking the aftermath of the experience
If established religion actually stuck to the spiritual side of things and stopped fighting for the control of the population, it would definitely be able to do more good.
Proceeding to link to Wikipedia while claiming the Vatican took their opinions from the Torah especially since their references are an actual bibliography is very reductive.
Of course the Vatican took many of their opinions from the Torah! The Pentateuch is holy to Christians as well as Jews. (Although the comment you replied to says they took this opinion via Jesus, and was quoting a book of the New Testament often called Matthew.)
One of the principles of Christianity, is understanding things. That requires context. Most preachers and priests will attempt to teach the underlying frameworks that they use (hermaneutics), and this absolutely fits with that. The Vatican has published many, many, many treatises on the idea that a quote should never stand on its own, but be seen through the context of the culture and time where it was produced.
> The problem of interpretation is fundamental to mankind from the beginning. As men, we try to understand the world and ourselves. Now, when faced with the question of truth and reality, we never begin at an absolute beginning, a zero point. The real in question meets us in preexisting interpretations, in the system of symbols of a given culture, and, most of all, in language.
> Human understanding then is always in symbiosis with human community. Therefore, interpretation must make its own of, and understand, the witness of tradition already existing.
It is Jesus' statement, which the Vatican, as followers of Jesus, would be interested in.
But Jesus himself is quoting the Torah:
> “Hear, O Israel: [a]The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Mathew 16:13-19) and through the Bishops the successors of the Apostles (Acts 1:12-26)(Acts 15)
Granting it's been 30 years since I've considered myself Catholic, so speaking entirely from the perspective of a non-believer at this point, but to me, the central dilemma is say I buy that we and our universe have a thinking, feeling creator that watches events, possibly intervenes, and actually cares how we behave in a way we can translate into human language and moral directives, given all the thousands upon thousands of conflicting historical text claiming to be that, why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?
Other commenters trying to compare to science seem to misunderstand the analogy. You don't have to accept the conclusions of Francis Bacon himself because he sort of formalized the scientific method as we know it today. Nor do we read the texts of Newton and consider that eternal canon. Science involves empirical investigation and all claims can be corroborated or contradicted by further investigation. They're probabilistic claims based on statistical analysis of the currently available known evidence and always subject to change.
If you don't think this works, then explain how AI is able to exist in the first place, because adjusting probability estimates based on statistical modeling of incoming evidence conditioned on past evidence is exactly what machine learning does.
I love Catholicism for all the reasons given elsewhere. It has produced a grand tradition of clear writers and erudite thinkers. The basic morality and orientation of man's purpose with respect to other men rings "true" to me even if it lies outside of empiricism. But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it. If God himself ever spoke to me directly, I'd have no choice but to consider that (but would also have to consider that I might be insane). No priest and no prophet, however, is ever going to convince me that they speak with the mandate of God just because they believe it very strongly themselves.
> But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it.
My understanding of Catholicism comes from outside of it, but this isn't how I understand Catholic epistemology—this sounds more like Sola Scriptura, which is a Protestant doctrine and emphatically not a Catholic one.
Since I'm not a Catholic, I'm going to link out to an explanation from people who are [0]:
> The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings; she judges them more than she is judged by them.
So the epistemological problem to resolve is not why these particular documents, it's why this particular organization? Not why do I trust what's written here but not there—the answer to that is because the Church says so—but why do I trust this Church?
Not being a Catholic, I can't really answer that question, but I do think it's important to approach the Catholic question on its own terms rather than Protestant terms.
> why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?
Well, firstly the canon doesn't just come from the decisions of Europeans and bringing race into it is a non-sequitur. The canon of Scripture comes from the Sacred Tradition, preserved by the Church and lead by the Pope and the Bishops (who FWIW weren't and aren't just white guys), and then sealed by the authority given by Christ to the Pope and the Bishops on issues of faith and morals. The Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Pope and Bishops comes from Christ, so why should you trust the canon of Scripture? Because Jesus Christ is God and you should believe in Him and be apart of His Church because the canon comes from the Church which comes from Christ. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ or that He was God then worrying about the canon of Scripture and trying to criticize medieval ecumenical council decisions is just foolishness.
> But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology
This is closer to Protestant dogma which tends to assert that the Church and all our beliefs come from Scripture. To slightly rephrase and expand on what I already said above, Catholic dogma is that the canon of Scripture comes from the Church not the other way around, that is to say Christ gave us the Sacred Tradition and the Apostles and their successors are what determined the canon of Scripture.
So now I've distilled a vague distrust you have in medieval and ancient sources down to a historical and empirical question. Did Jesus Christ die and rise again, and did He found a Church that has kept his Tradition alive through the centuries and alive fundamentally unchanged. These questions have been ignored and then ridiculed by empiricists but I've noticed more and more people starting to take them seriously, I suggest you do too.
That's a lot of talking around the actual question
>that has kept his Tradition alive through the centuries and alive fundamentally unchanged
the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place.
The fundamental conundrum is whether or not you believe god is operating through people who are clearly behaving in self-serving ways, as many Catholic officials have in the past. There's nothing empirical about such a question and no use becoming indignant over some taking the perfectly sentimental (if not also reasonable, though that's beside the point) stance that they simply don't trust those dudes. The appeal to being the Church which is Jesus who is God, and therefore you can't question anything a church official says, is, like... the whole point of tension.
> the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place.
Early Church scholarship makes it impossible to maintain the Protestant contention that the teachings have changed in their essence, obviously vocabulary has changed. Some recommended reading on the topic that is a mix of popular and scholarly works:
* The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin
* Upon This Rock by Steve Ray
* Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett
* The Faith of the Early Fathers Volumes 1 to 3 by William Jurgens
* The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue
The medium is the message, as it were. Changing vocabulary changes the essence, since the minds and souls that would provide consistency across shifting intonation aren't still here to speak/bare them, respectively.
I think you overestimate my interest in soil-testing when I'm removed enough from the scene to see the mountain for myself. I suppose it could be a mirage; that's the best you can hope for.
Is it a no? Many archeological finds since the reformation have shown that the early church was indeed very much alike to what the Catholic Church later claimed.
What differences in doctrine or practice do you know of?
OP is giving the correct answer for the Catholic worldview.
You and the Catholic Church are operating under completely different axioms, so there's no point in responding to someone's explanation of Catholic axioms by just repeating your own axioms more forcefully.
I think it's a more interesting approach to disregard the metaphysical claims, which are inherently unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant to life in this universe, and look at religious texts as constitutions governing human behavior and morality. The metaphysical bits are just a side note to help sell that social contract and give it a theoretical enforcement mechanism.
In other words, the relevant question isn't how some pastor "knows" that God says to do XYZ. Obviously they don't. The relevant question is whether and to what extent there's value to be extracted from the collective wisdom of generations of members of an institution whose history stretches back thousands of years.
Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans. If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone. I think it makes more sense to just accept a religion and its culture and teachings for what they are, and try to be the best person you can be without worrying about how the guy controlling the simulation we live in may choose to mete out rewards and punishments.
> Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans.
This is only true from the Protestant Sola Scriptura perspective. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions hold that God still directs the Church through the Holy Spirit, which makes the documents that you identify only some elements of that direction—an output of the authority granted to the Church—not its final form. So, no, it's not accurate to say that we are far removed from any claims of direct involvement from Deity—several branches of Christianity hold that He is still actively involved.
> If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone.
Again, it's not a long game of telephone if God is actually still directing the Church today. If you accept that He guides leadership right now through the Pope and the Bishops, which is the stance articulated by OP, you're at most a few steps removed from His regular guidance.
Which gets back to my original point, which is that this really all comes down to which axioms you want to accept. All religion is unfalsifiable, as you observe, but falsifiability cuts both ways and you can't logic your way out of that to logically conclude the absence or irrelevance of a God. What you can do is decide which axioms you're going to start from and work from there.
That's fair. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that the Pope and every previous Pope is and was a true agent of God (despite how historical issues around papal succession and legitimacy may complicate that story), and there's no way to logic your way into an answer on that one way or another.
Nevertheless, whether or not someone's particular doctrine agrees with the "long game of telephone" stance, I would suggest that a mindset which finds meaning in the teachings and institutions of one's religion independent of their divinity is a more straightforward path to prosocial behavior and inner peace. The idea that anyone should ever suffer genuine anguish or question their personal morals based on doubts of their assumptions about the metaphysical nature of the universe just seems alien and like a non sequitur to me, but from what I understand it's a very real struggle for some people.
This is also true from a Catholic point of view (I am).
At the very least, that’s debatable or less absolute than that.
Because evidence (schisms, actual errors from the Church institution throughout time, not the least sex scandals we are not done with yet) shows that if God was actively directing the Church in the past and today, oh boy… not sure you would be sane to want to follow such a “peculiar” guidance.
> Because evidence (schisms, actual errors from the Church institution throughout time, not the least sex scandals we are not done with yet) shows that if God was actively directing the Church in the past and today, oh boy…
Except all the scandals and anti-Popes are empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Despite all that the teachings of the Church are fundamentally unchanged. I can read St Justin Martyr and recognize the teaching of the Eucharist from the second century that itself is in continuity with John 6. Go through all Catholic teachings and you’ll find continuity from the beginning despite all the forces that wanted to change it for thousands of years.
The religion founded by the man betrayed by His own Apostle and then disowned or abandoned by the rest, executed brutally and sadistically by the Romans, that religion went on to conquer the Roman world within a few centuries and then make its way through the whole world for thousands of years. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead and against His Church the gates of hell won’t prevail.
I don’t buy this so much as this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern, wherever it is (“yeah it’s bad, but there’s a Plan behind all this” - very similar to how Qanon tried to operate).
You see continuity and consistence while others see that it’s not only the religion that conquered the Roman world, but the Roman Empire that also conquered the religion to secure its existence.
So much of the Church extension starting from the XIth century, comes, shouts even, more from its Roman heritage than from its Christian’s (one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct).
But “we” take it for some divine inspiration and spiritual guidance while it’s merely equivalent to humans laws: contextual, biased and open to critique and upgrades down the line.
What’s remarkable is the totally opposed, considerations we can have on the Church (and it seems, the concepts of hell & heaven), while having the same fidelity to the Christ’s teaching (which, in the end, matters most), and both seeing how the institution both sabotages and helps its mission.
> one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct
That's really, really, not something Christianity gained from Rome. Judaism is, and always has been, a religion of the practical world. It prescripts how to live, from the very beginning. The Torah is very concerned with the answering of how to live, as well as the why to live that way.
Good point, yes, Christianity came with its own judaic heritage.
But without the centralised, territorial organization, administrative structures, cultural tools (especially Latin) and normative legal framework from Rome, the Church wouldn't have had the means to influence consistently so much the society of its time and the ability to support and control a spread that extensive through Europe and further.
By choosing Christianity, Constantin found a way for the Empire to survive into something different. And Christianity gained a tremendous powerhouse to use and adapt for its own growth.
And my point is that this hybrid huge "thing" is more driven today by its institutional heritage than spiritual's (otherwise, it would act vehemently more about its power abuses, sexual abuses, and terrible understanding of marital life, if only for pastoral care). And that's because it's much more a man-made (and male-made) organisation rather than one guided by God.
> this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern
Historical facts, like the Church and her teaching being invincible to the attacks against her over the millennia, has no relation to what ought to happen. Facts are facts not excuses and attempting to bring in that into the issue is a non-sequitur.
1/ I don't see how the Church's teachings have been "invincible" over millennia. It evolved, if only by synods, that debated and settled dogmas (and what was true at one point, became not at some later one... so go figure). And outside of its sphere of influence, it's been shown (not always, but enough to question its whole authority) to be wrong or irrelevant - sexual and power abuse scandals are the most prominent and recent fruits of evil I can quote.
2/ claiming that God's is behind you, without any relevant and factual proof of it (and any verifiable claim from God saying that you indeed are acting in His Name), is the perfect excuse to do whatever you want, as no one would think of critiquing you. "Tradition" is of no help either here. That's the Achille's heel of hierarchical religions.
I think this is a bad direction to argue from. Science is humans all the way down and we want to have confidence in the scientific process. That is, it is fundamental to our understanding of science that we can trust the collective output of numerous humans working together to uncover "Truth".
You wouldn't accept the counter argument: "Science is wrong because it is the work of humans; religion is right because it is the word of God".
We have to assume, no matter what side of the argument we take, that humans are at least in principle capable of discerning "Truth". We should focus on how humans discern truth rather than on whether or not they can.
A major problem it seems is that people get caught up and forget that philosophy can exist without religion can just get trapped in the arguments religious philosophy presents.
AI term if fine, no need to muddy the waters even more. There is the first word - Artificial in past and current world means subpar, fake, imitation that often breaks apart when you get closer and you should never expect to match original in quality nor experience.
Artificial plants, artificial meat, artificial light, and so on. Nothing great there, just cheaper, tolerable, often low quality, don't expect that much etc.
I'm not Catholic, and I share your distrust of religious institutions. So with that disclaimer, I think my answer would be that God chooses, at times, to teach us things in a "small enough" way that we can understand them.
For example, consider when the Bible gives concrete statements about what God wants us to do or not to, or when Jesus uses analogies and parables. Do we necessarily get the full picture? No, and there's a lot about the Christian life that one only learns through experience. One of those things IMO is that some questions have unknowable answers. E.g. "why did this particular tragedy occur?", or perhaps more fundamentally, "how could a holy and perfect God ever show mercy to us imperfect humans?". Or maybe even more directly to the thrust of your comment, "how could we ever hope to understand anything about God?".
Something else that comes to mind is that God became human Himself, and I imagine that—at least in part—this would be to allow us to understand Him better. Through Jesus' life, we got to see what it would look like for God to live a human life. (Admittedly, the question then becomes, how does God become man in the first place, which I have to categorize under "questions with unknowable answers".)
Finally, the Bible often talks about the Holy Spirit helping Christians to understand "spiritual" things. That is to say, it's not quite a matter of us trying to reach logical conclusions on our own, since—as you say—that wouldn't be possible for a God that's beyond our limits of comprehension. Rather, we get some supernatural help in the matter.
Maybe the tl;dr is that, just because we can't understand everything (or maybe even most things) about a God that is fundamentally greater than us in every way, doesn't imply that we can't understand anything.
I once read that the collapse of the Roman empire set back technological progress a few centuries. Maybe it was a good thing. Could you imagine having atomic bombs with a XV century mentality? I'm not saying that the 500 years ago the mentality was worse, but maybe we weren't prepared yet.
Did you reply to the wrong comment, perhaps? (If not, and I'm just failing to understand your comment, then my apologies, and I'd appreciate clarification :-) )
>leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know?
It is a fundamental requirement of the Catholic faith since at least 1870 that the Pope speaks god's will on matters of the church, and indeed is infallible when doing so.
I have a lot of complaints about post-catholic Christianities and how much they have fucked the US with things like biblical innerrancy and predestination and all the "Great awakenings" and the MILLIONS in literal cults to this very day because of that, but I CANNOT fault them for not liking this system and the clear and obvious BULLSHIT it participated in for centuries.
Papal infallibility is not invoked that often. Here’s an example, in section 4 (wherefore…) [0]
In particular papal infallibility was not involved in the Protestants’ complaints, and the response to their complaints (Trent) was a council and again has nothing to do with papal infallibility.
The pope was also an absolute monarch at the time, but protestants didn’t care about that aspect.
I must confess that my knowledge of christian history from 300AD to 1800AD is what you can get from a few paragraphs in middle school social studies.
I was trying to allude to the indulgences with my "bullshit" but I failed.
I tend to focus more on the great awakenings and all the horrible things they led to in how they influenced America.
I thought Protestants were also at some point very against the way the Catholic faith focused on "here's what god meant" rather than letting people interpret the bible themselves? Papal infallibility is just a part of that.
I interpreted that causality as AI leading to deployment of carbon-neutral energy, then when the AI bubble bursts, we’ve pushed carbon-neutral electricity sources off the learning curve cliff and it is available for cheap without the original consumers needing it. From that perspective, it could be any carbon neutral electricity (fusion, fission, enhanced geothermal, super-deep geothermal etc.). I could be misinterpreting the parent comment.
Can the E-cache and KV-cache be supplied to the model to produce the natural language output that would have been fed into the next model of the chain, if it were not for DroidSpeak? If so, doesn’t seem to materially change the explainability of the system.
Probably not at all. My understanding is that forensics uses either fragment analysis of pcr products, which depends on synthetic oligos, not plasmids. Those tests might be moving to NGS or long read sequencing, which also would not depend on plasmids. The reliability of forensic tests, good or bad, is another topic entirely.
I am honestly very glad for people who took omega-3s and who experienced a benefit. For me, though, next time I’m a mouse and I want to drink more sugar water and stay in the middle of an open box vs. the edges (all that was demonstrated in the article, as far as I can tell), I’ll be sure to take some omega 3s. Until then, I’ll keep taking the prescription antidepressants that actually allowed me to get through a PhD program and hold down a job afterwards.
People respond differently to different medications. Mental health medications are particularly varied between people. Often, it can take several antidepressants for people to find one that jives with them.
I see that my comment came across as snarky. I guess the point I was trying to make was that the results of clinical trials treating humans with antidepressants make me more confident of their impact on depression and anxiety than studies on mouse models using behavioral readouts that may or may not map perfectly on the subjective human experience of anxiety and depression. Again, I don’t doubt anyone who takes omega 3s and experiences an improvement in anxiety and depression! That seems great!
I guess a further refinement here would be that depression and anxiety are clinical terms for what are likely a range of conditions, some of which can be addressed using omega 3 supplements and some of which can’t (like mine).
Seems like you would want it to be stored digitally. Ideally, people would have the ability to access it remotely, in case their local copy is somehow corrupted. For that, you would need a physical network by which the data can be transmitted. Economies of scale would seem to suggest that there would be one or a few entities that would “serve” the content to individuals who request it. Of course, you would want those individuals to be able to access this information without having detailed technical knowledge and ability. I guess they would have pre-packaged software “browsers” they could use to access the network.
In order to maintain this arrangement, you would want enough political stability to allow for the physical upkeep of this infrastructure, including human infrastructure (feeding the engineers who make it all possible). In order to make it worthwhile, you would need people who want to access the information too. I suspect political stability, a sufficient abundance of the necessities for human life, and the political will to make sure that everyone’s needs are met so that they can safely be curious about the world would help here too.
All of this requires sources of power. I suspect that a combination of nuclear power, solar/batteries, and geothermal energy would be sufficient and would avoid the problem of running out of fossil fuels at some point in the future. The nice side-effect here of reducing the impact of calamities exacerbated by the greenhouse effect.
For the information to continue being relevant, you would have to update it with new knowledge, and correct inaccuracies. How best to accomplish this? Well, I guess you would need a systematic way to interrogate the causes behind the various effects we observe in the world. I would propose a system where people create hypotheses, and perform experiments that exclude the influence of as many factors as possible external to the phenomenon being studied. People would then share their findings, and I guess would critique each other’s arguments in a sort of “peer review” to try to come to a consensus. You would have to feed and provide for these people at a certain basic level to make sure they are comfortable and safe enough to continue doing this work. I guess you would want to encourage the value systems compatible with this method of interrogating the world.
Just my 2 cents.
reply