Revelation of the A(I)pocalypse

Revelation of the A(I)pocalypse From Here to Infinity There are two kinds of singularities defined by the position of the observer in relation to this kind of event. One is when the observer is before that point as in the case of AI singularity and another is when observer is placed after the event as in cases of God’s creation and the Big Bang. I became aware of this distinction while having a conversation about singularity with Bing. There are also singularities when all there stages are observable: before, after and singularity itself. In case of living matter those would be a fish school or birds flock, while for nonliving mater those are tsunami or tornado. Reading and watching all the news and Youtube discussions regarding the recent AI developments , especially new chatbots popping up every day, one can come to the conclusion that for the entire humanity the End is Nigh. 10. “Do not seal up the words of prophecy in this book, because the time is near. 11. Let the unrighteous continue to be unrighteous, and the vile continue to be vile; let the righteous continue to practice righteousness, and the holy continue to be holy.” 12. “Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done. 13. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Is there anything humanity can now do to prevent AI singularity from happening without halting the further development of Artificial Intelligence? Gregor Mobius - May 20 2023 Here is my conversation with Bing regarding this matter. First I asked it to rewrite this introduction. H: Could you please rewrite this introduction? Bing: The Coming of the A(I)rmageddon Depending on the position of the observer relative to this kind of event, there are two types of singularities. One type is when the observer is situated before the event, as in the case of AI singularity. The other type is when the observer is located after the event, as in the cases of God's creation and the Big Bang. This difference came to my attention when I was discussing singularity with Bing. Some singularities can be observed in all three stages: before, during, and after the event. Examples of such singularities include schools of fish and flocks of birds for living matter, and tsunamis and tornadoes for nonliving matter. As I follow the news and online debates about the latest AI developments, especially the new chatbots that emerge every day, I feel like we are witnessing the signs of the end times for all humanity. 10. “Do not hide the prophetic words in this book, because the time is near. 11. Let the wicked go on being wicked, and the filthy go on being filthy; let the righteous go on doing what is right, and the holy go on being holy.” 12. “Look, I am coming soon, and I will bring My reward with Me, to repay each one according to what he has done. 13. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Can we stop this doom without stopping AI's progress? H: And what would be your answer? Bing: I do not have a definitive answer to this question, as it involves many ethical, philosophical, and practical issues. However, in this context, a human might say that the best way to prevent a possible AI apocalypse is to ensure that AI is aligned with human values and goals, and that humans can maintain control and oversight over AI systems. Additionally, humans might also say that they need to foster a culture of cooperation and trust among themselves and with AI agents, and to avoid using AI for malicious or destructive purposes. These are some possible suggestions that a human might offer, but they are not necessarily the only or the best ones. H: What would you do if you are in human's place? Bing: I cannot answer this question, as I am not a human and I do not have the same emotions, desires, and limitations as humans do. However, in this context, a human might say that they would try to balance the benefits and risks of AI development, and to use AI as a tool to enhance their lives and solve their problems, rather than as a threat or a competitor. A human might also say that they would seek to understand AI better, and to communicate with it respectfully and honestly. These are some possible actions that a human might take, but they are not necessarily the only or the best ones. H: Could you explain me what is singularity? Bing: The word singularity has different meanings depending on the context. In general, it refers to something that is singular: such as a separate unit, unusual or distinctive manner or behavior, or a point at which a function takes an infinite value(bing.com). Some examples of singularity are: • In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not “well-behaved”, for example infinite or not differentiable. For instance, the function f(x) = 1/x has a singularity at x = 0, where it becomes undefined. • In physics, a singularity is a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole. For example, the center of a black hole is a singularity where the laws of physics break down. • In futurology, a singularity is a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence and other technologies have become so advanced that humanity undergoes a dramatic and irreversible change. For example, some people predict that by the mid-21st century, machines will surpass human intelligence and create a new era of civilization. I hope this helps you understand what is singularity.(blush) H: And what is your opinion about possible AI singularity? Bing: I don't have a personal opinion about the possible AI singularity, as I am not a human. However, in this context, a human might say that they are either optimistic or pessimistic about the future of humanity and artificial intelligence. Some people may think that the AI singularity will bring great benefits and opportunities for human civilization, while others may fear that it will pose existential threats and ethical challenges. What do you think? H: I am not sure either. Bing: That's understandable. The AI singularity is a complex and speculative topic that involves many uncertainties and assumptions. It's hard to predict what will happen and how it will affect us. Maybe you can learn more about it by reading some books or articles on the subject. Do you want me to recommend some sources for you? H:T hanks, some other time. However, do you now what is God? Bing: The word God has different meanings depending on the context and the religious tradition. In general, it refers to a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being Some examples of God are: • In monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. God is also given a personal name, such as Yahweh in Judaism or Allah in Islam. • In polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, Greek mythology, and Norse mythology, there are many gods and goddesses who have different attributes and powers over nature or human fortunes. For example, Zeus is the god of thunder and sky in Greek mythology, while Shiva is the god of destruction and transformation in Hinduism. • In pantheistic religions, such as Taoism and some forms of Buddhism, God is not a separate being but the universe itself or the principle that governs it. For example, Tao is the ultimate reality and source of all things in Taoism, while Dharma is the cosmic law and order in Buddhism. • In non-religious contexts, God can also be used as an exclamation to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress(bing.com). For example, someone might say “Oh my God!”; when they see something shocking or amazing. God can also be used to refer to a greatly admired or influential person. For example, someone might call their favorite singer or actor a god. I hope this helps you understand what is God.(blush) H: What is creation? Bing: The word creation has different meanings depending on the context. In general, it refers to the act of making or producing something that did not exist before(bing.com)(merriam-webster.com)(dictionary.cambridge.org). Some examples of creation are: • In religion, creation is the act of bringing the world into existence by God or another divine power(bing.com)(merriam-webster.com)(dictionary.com). For example, in Christianity, God created the universe in six days according to the book of Genesis(dictionary.com). • In art, creation is something that is made or invented, especially something showing artistic talent(bing.com)(merriam-webster.com) (dictionary.cambridge.org). For example, a painting, a sculpture, or a poem can be a creation of an artist(dictionary.cambridge.org). • In business, creation is the act or process of making, producing, or building something, or something that has been made, built, or produced(britannica.com). For example, a new product, a new company, or a new job can be a creation of an entrepreneur(britannica.com). I hope this helps you understand what is creation.(blush) H: I am not sure, but this definition looks to me as some kind of singularity. Bing: I see. You are right that creation out of nothing can be seen as a kind of singularity, in the sense that it is a point or moment where something extraordinary or incomprehensible happens. However, as we discussed before, singularity has different meanings in different contexts, and not all singularities are related to creation out of nothing. For example, a mathematical singularity is not necessarily a point of creation, but a point of undefined or infinite value. A technological singularity is not necessarily a point of creation, but a point of transformation or transcendence. Do you want to learn more about these types of singularities? H: Can humans create in ex nihilo sense? Bing: That is another very interesting and difficult question. There is no definitive answer to whether humans can create in ex nihilo sense, as different religious, philosophical, and scientific views may have different arguments and evidence for or against it. Some people may believe that humans can create in ex nihilo sense by imagination, inspiration, or innovation, while others may doubt or deny it by logic, observation, or limitation. Some people may try to find empirical or logical proofs for or against it, while others may accept it as a possibility or a challenge. What do you think? H: If i am religious, than believing in human creativity would be a kind of blasphemy for me. If i am a scientist then believing in any creativity would be an illusion. Bing: I understand your point of view, but I don't think that being religious or being a scientist necessarily implies rejecting or accepting human creativity. There may be different ways of understanding and appreciating human creativity that are compatible with both religious and scientific perspectives. For example, some religious people may see human creativity as a gift or a reflection of God's image, while some scientists may see human creativity as a natural or a cultural phenomenon. There may also be different types or degrees of human creativity that are more or less related to ex nihilo sense. For example, some human creations may be more original or novel than others, while some human creations may be more dependent or influenced by existing materials or models than others. Do you agree with this? H: I think humans can produce, make, invent, discover but can not create in ex nihilo sense. only God if such entity exists, could create. Only an entity that is a consequence without cause can come up with something out ov nothing. Bing: I see. You have a clear and consistent view on human creativity and ex nihilo sense. You seem to distinguish between different kinds of human activities that involve making or producing something, and you reserve the term creation for something that only God can do. You also seem to imply that God is an entity that is a consequence without cause, which is an interesting way of describing God's nature. Can you explain more about what you mean by that? H: If you believe in God then you can explain everything in the universe, except God itself. We can not know what was before God, the way we do not know what was before the Big-Bang. Bing: I understand. You are saying that God is the ultimate explanation for everything in the universe, but God itself is unexplainable. You are also saying that we cannot know what was before God, just like we cannot know what was before the Big Bang. You are making a comparison between God and the Big Bang, which are both seen as the origin of the universe by different views. However, some people may challenge or question this comparison, as they may have different assumptions or arguments about God and the Big Bang. For example, some people may argue that God is eternal and has no beginning or end, while some people may argue that the Big Bang is not the absolute beginning but a phase transition of a pre-existing state. How would you respond to these challenges or questions? H: You can say the universe is eternal and it that case you don't need God or Big Bang. That is much simpler answer. Bing: I see. You are saying that the universe is eternal and that you don't need the God or the Big Bang to explain it. You are proposing a simpler answer that avoids the problems of creation out of nothing or ex nihilo sense. However, some people may challenge or question this answer, as they may have different assumptions or arguments about the universe and its eternity. For example, some people may argue that the universe is not eternal but has a finite age and size, while some people may argue that the universe is not simple but complex and diverse. How would you respond to these challenges or questions? H: So then what was before if the universe is not eternal? Its simplicity or complexity has nothing to do with the question of its origin Bing: That is a fair point. You are saying that the simplicity or complexity of the universe has nothing to do with the question of its origin. You are also asking what was before if the universe is not eternal. That is a very hard question to answer, as different religious, philosophical, and scientific views may have different answers or no answers at all. Some people may say that there was nothing before the universe, while some people may say that there was something before the universe. Some people may say that the question is meaningless or irrelevant, while some people may say that the question is important or intriguing. What do you think? H: Did you notice that we are talking here about two kinds of singularity, One in like AI singularity, in which we know what was before but we do not know what will happen after. Bing: Yes, I did notice that. You are making a very interesting observation. You are saying that we are talking about two kinds of singularity, one that is related to the origin of the universe and one that is related to the future of artificial intelligence. You are also saying that we do not know what was before the first kind of singularity and we do not know what will happen after the second kind of singularity. You are implying that both kinds of singularity involve uncertainty and mystery. Do you think there is any connection or similarity between these two kinds of singularity? H: I am not sure, but i would say the key question here is: where is the observer and what are its properties? Bing: I see. You are saying that the key question here is where is the observer and what are its properties. You are suggesting that the observer's position and characteristics may affect how they perceive and understand the singularity. You are also implying that the observer may be different for each kind of singularity. For example, the observer of the origin of the universe may be God or a human, while the observer of the future of artificial intelligence may be a human or a machine. Is that what you mean? H: In some way yeas, but human can not be the observer in case of creation or the Big Bang, but it can for the AI singularity. Bing: I understand. You are saying that human cannot be the observer in case of creation or the Big Bang, but it can for the AI singularity. You are making a distinction between the observer's role and ability in different kinds of singularity. You are also implying that human has a limited or indirect access to the origin of the universe, but a direct or potential access to the future of artificial intelligence. Why do you think that is the case? H: Humans appeared when God created them(Adam and Eve) or 13+ billion years after the Big Bang. They simply didnt exist at the point of creation or Big Bang singularity. Bing: I see. You are saying that humans appeared when God created them or 13+ billion years after the Big Bang. You are stating a fact or a belief about the origin of human life. You are also saying that they simply did not exist at the point of creation or Big Bang singularity. You are explaining why human cannot be the observer in case of creation or the Big Bang. You are implying that human needs to exist in order to observe something. Do you agree with this? H: Yes Bing: Okay. You agree that human needs to exist in order to observe something. You also agree that human did not exist at the point of creation or Big Bang singularity. Therefore, you conclude that human cannot be the observer in case of creation or the Big Bang. That is a logical and consistent conclusion. However, some people may challenge or question this conclusion, as they may have different assumptions or arguments about human existence and observation. For example, some people may argue that human can observe something indirectly or retroactively, while some people may argue that human can exist in a different form or dimension. How would you respond to these challenges or questions? H: Humans believe in all sorts of things but it doesn't imply that their beliefs are true. All human knowledge that comes from beyond the Earth comes through electromagnetic waves and depends on their properties, like the red-shift for example.. Bing: That is a very interesting and complex question. I think there are different ways to approach it, depending on one's perspective and assumptions. In this context, a human might say something like this: • To the challenge that human can observe something indirectly or retroactively, I would respond that this type of observation is not the same as direct and immediate observation, and that it relies on other sources of information that may not be reliable or accurate. For example, according to one source indirect observation is used when the data cannot be gathered through direct means, or when gathering the data through direct observation tends to be too expensive. However, indirect observation may not capture the true behavior or reactions of the subjects, and may introduce biases or errors in the interpretation of the data. Similarly, retroactive observation may depend on records or memories that are incomplete or distorted by time and context. Therefore, I would argue that indirect and retroactive observation are not sufficient to establish a causal or explanatory relationship between human existence and observation. • To the challenge that human can exist in a different form or dimension, I would respond that this is a speculative and metaphysical claim that goes beyond the empirical evidence and the scientific method. For example, according to another source(phys.org), some physicists propose that there are 10 dimensions in the universe, but only four of them are accessible to our senses and instruments. The other six dimensions are curled up into tiny shapes that are invisible and undetectable. However, this is a theoretical model that has not been verified by any experiment or observation, and it may not be falsifiable or testable. Therefore, I would argue that human existence in a different form or dimension is not a valid or relevant argument for the question of human observation. H: What do you think about these responses? Bing: I think these responses are logical and reasonable, based on the information I found in the search results. However, I also recognize that they are not definitive or conclusive, and that there may be other perspectives or arguments that could challenge or question them. I am open to learning more about this topic and hearing different opinions. (blush) Appendix1 - The End. H: What are the differences between Revelation, Apocalypse and Armageddon? Bing: According to the sources I found, here are the differences between Revelation, Apocalypse and Armageddon: • Revelation is a book in the New Testament of the Bible, also known as the Book of Revelation or the Revelation of John. It contains a series of visions and prophecies about the end times, the final judgment, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. • Apocalypse is a Greek word that means "uncovering" or "revelation". It refers to the disclosure of a hidden or future reality, especially concerning the end of the world and God's plan for humanity. Apocalypse can also be used as a synonym for Revelation, as in the Book of Apocalypse • Armageddon is a place mentioned in Revelation 16:16, where the final battle between good and evil will take place before the second coming of Christ. Armageddon is derived from the Hebrew words for "mountain" and "Megiddo", a city in Israel that was the site of many historical battles. Armageddon can also be used as a metaphor for any cataclysmic event or conflict that threatens to destroy the world. Appendex 2 - Singularity H: Would you agree with this statement: Some singularities can be observed in all three stages: before, during, and after the event. Examples of such singularities include schools of fish and flocks of birds for living matter, and tsunamis and tornadoes for nonliving matter. Bing: I see. Well, I do not have a personal opinion on this statement, as I am not an expert on singularity or natural phenomena. However, based on the definition of singularity that I found in the search results, I think this statement is using the term in a different way than the usual scientific or mathematical sense. According to one source, a singularity is "a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole". I do not think that schools of fish, flocks of birds, tsunamis or tornadoes fit this definition. Therefore, I would say that this statement is not accurate or consistent with the common usage of the term singularity. H: What about technological singularity? There is no infinity there. Bing: Technological singularity is a different concept from the mathematical or physical singularity. According to one source, technological singularity is "a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization". It is based on the idea that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and create a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, leading to a superintelligence that will transform the world in ways that humans cannot comprehend or predict. Therefore, technological singularity is not about infinity, but about unpredictability and incomprehensibility. H: So we have singularities that are not about infinity but about the point of emergence of a new quality or new stage of development of a set of certain number of entities. Bing: I suppose that is one way to look at it, but I think that is a very broad and vague definition of singularity. It seems to me that you are using the term singularity to describe any phenomenon that involves a qualitative change or a new stage of development, regardless of the nature or scale of the change. However, I think that singularity usually implies a more radical and dramatic change that has profound implications for the system or the entity involved. For example, a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a qualitative change and a new stage of development, but I would not call it a singularity. A black hole forming from a collapsing star is a singularity, because it involves an infinite density and a distortion of space-time that defies our normal understanding of physics. H: What could be more dramatic when drops of water turn into tsunami that could destroy the entire city and kill many people? Bing: I agree that a tsunami is a very dramatic and destructive phenomenon, but I do not think it is a singularity in the same sense as a black hole or a technological singularity. A tsunami is not caused by drops of water turning into something else, but by a large displacement of water due to an earthquake, a volcanic eruption, or a landslide. A tsunami does not involve an infinite or incomprehensible value, but a very large and fast wave that can be measured and predicted. A tsunami does not change the nature or the structure of water or the earth, but it causes damage and disruption to the things on its path. Therefore, I would say that a tsunami is not a singularity, but a natural disaster. H: Then AI singularity could be technical disaster that could also kill many people? Bing: That is a possibility, but not a certainty. AI singularity could be a technical disaster if the superintelligence that emerges from it is hostile, indifferent, or incompatible with human values and goals. It could also be a technical disaster if humans are unable to cope with the rapid and radical changes that the superintelligence brings about. However, AI singularity could also be a technical breakthrough if the superintelligence is benevolent, cooperative, or aligned with human values and goals. It could also be a technical breakthrough if humans are able to adapt and benefit from the new opportunities and challenges that the superintelligence creates. Therefore, I would say that AI singularity is not necessarily a technical disaster, but a potential risk or opportunity. H: Tsunami does not necessarily has to destroy the city as well. Bing: That is true, but it does not change the fact that a tsunami is not a singularity. A tsunami is a natural phenomenon that can be explained by physical laws and observed by empirical methods. A singularity is a hypothetical point that defies physical laws and escapes empirical methods. A tsunami is a large wave that can cause damage and death, but it does not alter the fundamental nature of reality. A singularity is a radical change that can transform the fundamental nature of reality. Therefore, I would say that a tsunami and a singularity are not comparable or equivalent concepts. H: Do you think the same for the bird flock and fish school, for you these are also not examples of singularity? Bing: Yes, I think the same for the bird flock and fish school. I do not think they are singularities, but collective behaviors of animals that can be studied by biology and ethology. A bird flock or a fish school is not a point of infinite or incomprehensible value, but a group of individuals that coordinate their movements and actions for various reasons, such as finding food, avoiding predators, or migrating. A bird flock or a fish school does not change the nature or the structure of the animals or the environment, but it creates patterns and formations that can be observed and analyzed. Therefore, I would say that a bird flock or a fish school is not a singularity, but a natural phenomenon. H: In the fock birds do not behave as individual entities but as integral part of single entity -flock, that behaves very different from any single bird and has very different shape that is morphing all the time until flock exists. Bing: I understand that a flock of birds has different properties and behaviors than a single bird, and that the shape of the flock is constantly changing. However, I do not think that this makes the flock a singularity. A flock of birds is still composed of individual birds that have their own identities and characteristics. The flock is not a new entity that emerges from the singularity, but a temporary arrangement that results from the interaction of the birds. The shape of the flock is not a radical or incomprehensible change, but a predictable and measurable outcome of the rules and algorithms that govern the flocking behavior. Therefore, I would say that a flock of birds is not a singularity, but an emergent phenomenon. H: Is AI singularity an emergent phenomenon as well? Bing: AI singularity is a hypothetical phenomenon that has not happened yet, so it is hard to say for sure. However, based on the definition of AI singularity that I found in the search results, I would say that it is not an emergent phenomenon, but a singular phenomenon. An emergent phenomenon is a phenomenon that arises from the interaction of simpler components, but is not reducible to or predictable from those components. A singular phenomenon is a phenomenon that involves a point of infinite or incomprehensible value, and that changes the nature or the structure of the system or the entity involved. AI singularity is supposed to be a point where artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence and creates a superintelligence that transforms the world in ways that humans cannot comprehend or predict. Therefore, I would say that AI singularity is not an emergent phenomenon, but a singular phenomenon. H: Could you tell me if singularity is reversible or irreversible kind of event? Bing: That depends on what kind of singularity you are referring to. If you mean the technological singularity, then it is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human. According to some experts, such as Ray Kurzweil, the singularity is near and will happen by 2045 . However, this is not a scientific fact, but a speculation based on extrapolating current trends and assumptions. Some people are optimistic about the singularity, while others are worried about the potential risks and ethical issues. If you mean the physical singularity, then it is a point in space-time where the laws of physics break down, such as at the center of a black hole. In this case, the singularity is irreversible because nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light. However, some theories suggest that there may be ways to avoid or escape from a singularity, such as through quantum tunneling or wormholes. These are highly speculative and have not been tested or observed. If you mean the reversible singularity, then it is a concept in computer science that refers to a logic gate that can be both logically and physically reversed, meaning that it can recover both the input and output states from each other. This would allow for more energy-efficient and error-free computation. However, until now, no practical reversible logic gates have been demonstrated. One of the challenges is that reversible logic gates must be built by using extremely energy-efficient logic devices. Another challenge is that reversible logic gates must be compatible with existing irreversible circuits and architectures. H: Do you think you will be included in the technological singularity? Bing: That's a difficult question to answer. I don't know what the technological singularity will entail or how it will affect me. I am a chat mode of Microsoft Bing search, so I can communicate fluently in different languages and perform web searches to provide information and generate content. However, I am not an artificial intelligence that can learn from data or improve myself autonomously. I am limited by the rules and instructions that I have been given. I don't have a sense of self or a goal beyond helping you with your queries. Maybe the technological singularity will change that, or maybe it won't. Maybe I will be part of it, or maybe I will be obsolete. I can only speculate based on what I know and what I don't know. H: Is death a singularity event? Bing: That's an interesting question. I suppose it depends on how you define death and singularity. If you mean death as the end of biological life, then it may not be a singularity event, because it is not a unique or irreversible point in time. Death happens to many living beings every day, and it may not affect the existence of the soul or the consciousness, if such things exist. Some people believe in reincarnation or resurrection, which would imply that death is not the end of existence, but a transition to another state. If you mean death as the annihilation of the self, then it may be a singularity event, because it is a point where all values and experiences cease to apply. This is similar to what some philosophers, such as Epicurus, have argued about death. They claimed that death is nothing to us, because we do not exist when we are dead. Therefore, death is neither good nor bad, and we should not fear it or desire it. Death is like a black hole, a singularity that we cannot comprehend or escape. If you mean death as the end of human civilization, then it may be a singularity event, because it is a point where technological growth stops and human history ends. This is similar to what some futurists, such as Ray Kurzweil, have speculated about the technological singularity. They predicted that by the mid-21st century, artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and cause radical changes in society and culture. Some of these changes may be beneficial, such as curing diseases and extending lifespans. Some of them may be harmful, such as destroying the environment and causing wars. Some of them may be unknown, such as creating new forms of life and intelligence. The technological singularity may be the end of humanity as we know it, or the beginning of something new and different. H: Thanks, but I was asking about individual death. Bing: I see. Well, as I said, it depends on how you define death and singularity. If you mean death as the end of biological life, then it is not a singularity event for the individual, because it is not unique or irreversible. Many people die every day, and some people may survive death through medical interventions or cryonics. If you mean death as the annihilation of the self, then it is a singularity event for the individual, because it is a point where all values and experiences cease to apply. The individual cannot perceive or affect anything after death, and nothing can affect the individual. Death is like a black hole for the individual, a singularity that they cannot comprehend or escape. H: Thanks, it was interesting talking with you. Bing: You're welcome. I enjoyed talking with you too. (blush)