Help to understand the Big Bang

[hamster_nz]

Science, math, engineering and logic have limits - places where it is not be able to work due to the limitations and constraints.

In math you can't divide by zero.

Mechanical systems have the Double Pendulum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum)

Physicals has the very small (plank scale), the dense, the very fast, and events that can be modeled statistically but not when you have a small sample size.

Mathematical logic has been proven to be incomplete - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Computing is has its own issues - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem, NP Hard problems and so on, people's inability to write secure code in C.

So cosmology there is a time where we have no firm understanding of what might have been, as space-time didn't exist or was just forming, but there is pretty good working model of what happened after that.. 

The big bang isn't a good foundation for arguing the existence of any sort of creator, unless it is one that cares nothing for the affairs of humans. Such an indifferent creator is pretty useless for theology or anything spiritual.

IMO invoking a creator is a far worse way to resolve this than just saying "we don't yet know, but boy are we keen to try to find out if we can!".

[Mr. Scram]

Invoking a creator doesn't solve the problem either. Who created the creator? I won't pretend I'm the first person to ask that question, but the explanations theists come up with bob and weave but ultimately fail to explain why a deity is required. It's either gods all the way down, or there's an eternal god which might just as well be an eternal but evolving universe without a deity.

Science having limitations is a feature and not a bug. Proclaiming you don't know something is both humbling and empowering.

[timelessbeing]

you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.

is your whole point that we sometimes get things wrong?
Because if it is, then you should get the medal for most obvious fact stated.

No, science does not give us all the answers. But it is the best way that we know of to get them. It is robust and really resistant to human failures. It is slow, but it has really stood up to time.

The best part of science is that you don't need to talk to invisible friends to practice it.

[timelessbeing]

In math you can't divide by zero.

Sucks for math, but how often does this actually stymie us in the real world? (yes we discussed the big bang)
Also we have methods for getting around this problem which we learn in first year calculus. One way is to rearrange things and I forget the name of the technique (I can't be bothered to get out my textbooks right now). We also have the idea of the limit and l'Hopital's rule.

Mechanical systems have the Double Pendulum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum)

Chaos theory ,  "the butterfly effect", the three body problem...
Yes these are limits of our current understanding. Maybe we'll solve these in the future.

Physicals has the very small (plank scale),

The plank scale could be the smallest thing that exists. If there's anything smaller, then maybe there must be a way to find it.

Mathematical logic has been proven to be incomplete - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

We are not doomed. There are limitations on this theorem. If logic were incomplete then how can you use logic to prove this theorem. It's paradoxical.
Further,

"A formal system is said to be effectively axiomatized if its set of theorems is a recursively enumerable set. This means that there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the theorems of the system."

"Bob Hale and Crispin Wright argue that it is not a problem for logicism because the incompleteness theorems apply equally to first order logic as they do to arithmetic. They argue that only those who believe that the natural numbers are to be defined in terms of first order logic have this problem"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Discussion_and_implications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_second_problem#Modern_viewpoints_on_the_status_of_the_problem

The theorem also says you can't use procedures or algorithms. We still have geometry and statistical analysis for example.
It also says that no single system can prove all truths. Well what about using two or more?
Same for the halting problem.

[apis]

We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly

You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.

My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious.  We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy.  Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion.  Inflation, or string theory for example.  I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical.  Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.

Hmm, I think I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't call that faith. As social beings we have to trust each other or society would collapse. We trust that the liquid in the milk bottle we bought in the store is indeed milk, etc. When we learn that there are 8 planets in the solar system we are typically expected to believe it without proof (since if all schoolchildren would repeat all the observations necessary it would take too much time and effort). We simply have to trust that the teacher isn't lying, that we are not victims of some grand conspiracy to fool us into believing the earth is a spheroid. If you push it you can't really be certain of anything, except maybe that you exist (cogito, ergo sum), yet we tend to have some degree of trust in our senses. But is that what you would call faith?

When learning physics, or chemistry, the teachers usually try to demonstrate the theory by doing experiments, and often the students are asked to repeat some experiments themselves. Like verifying that everyday objects fall with about 10 m/s² acceleration regardless of mass (if we can disregard air resistance). And in maths, proofs are central, or you aren't really learning maths! You should be able to derive everything from first principles.

The whole point with the scientific method is to remove any element of trust. We never trust the result from a single experiment. Results always have to be confirmed by other independent experiments before they can be assumed to be valid. This was a problem when looking for the Higgs boson for example, since there is currently only one particle accelerator big enough for the experiment. They went to the trouble of building two different detectors, working by different principles, which were manned by two different teams of researchers who weren't allowed to compare notes. Experiments are always repeated many times by independent teams before they are considered proven.

If you doubt something, you should do the experiments yourself. You need no special licence to repeat them. There is no central authority that rubber stamps your findings. There is no science police (although when listening to flat earthers and over unity scammers you sometimes wish there were  ) Science is just lots and lots of people working independently and comparing notes and sharing ideas. Sometimes a consensus emerges regarding certain things, and those things most consider established facts. But you don't have to trust anyone, or have faith in anything. In fact, it's probably most physicists dream to prove that some famous theory is wrong. That would be considered progress!

All this is very different from organised religion. Sadly there are plenty of examples of religious thought police for example.

[Mr. Scram]

Peer review is an essential part of science and could be called the organised doubting or criticising of findings. Criticism is literally built into the process, which is the opposite of trust.

[tomato]

We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly

You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.

My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious.  We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy.  Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion.  Inflation, or string theory for example.  I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical.  Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.

Faith is one of the many words in the English language that has more than one meaning.  When one speaks of a scientist having faith in his/her instruments and methods, faith means confidence or trust.  When one speaks of doing something in good faith, it means doing something with good intentions.  When one talks of religious faith, it refers to a strong belief in a God or religious doctrine.  The argument that both science and religion rely on faith is a non-starter -- the word has different meanings in those two contexts.

[Mechatrommer]

We never claimed any of the origin of the universe stuff was PROVEN.

but Lawrence guy seems to stated otherwise. "we are living in the great time! during the pinnacle of knowledge!" or some sort of crap like that. i've heard that since the time of plato. not sure what the term is, but its kind of fascination to human ability or consider it as the "holy" thing. human ability is limited accept that, we only can think in 3 dimensional space, not many can think in higher level, even that, only through some mathematical formulation, and still not much we can make out of that. this is not the great day, we are stil far far behind, just admit that. to Lawrence not you, i know you are only a believer to him

NOBODY commented the beginnings of life. Nobody.

i was replying to Lawrence video, so you wont get too fascinated by him he's the one who claimed "universe made astronomers". now i dont have problem when he said "this is the great day", part of it is correct in sense that we know "more" than before. but nowhere anything near greatness, we know only very very little. but when he claimed some crap like "universe made astronomers" with no hard proof, its getting on my nerve, not to mention his other hate comments on religious sector.

I'm not a kid anymore.

lets get into some philosophical subject shall we? we consider kids as limited knowledge, sometime we know all too well we just give instruction to them to do (for their safety) we expect them just to obey in order for safety. trying to explain the reason why will just take too long time sometime we dont have time for complete explanation. if they obey, they should be safe, if not, usually something bad will happen in the future, thats from our the bigger guy experienced. correct? we consider us as bigger guy is wiser compared to kids but... there are older people, they have more experiences and usually a wise guy will follow older people advices. the one who followed usually will be in the correct direction. correct? now lets go even further. since older people dye, we have no more wiser people (i'm talking the good kind of people, not the bad guy) because they dye out. we consider them as wiser than us. but lets say there older people that can live longer, they sure will gather more experiences and become wiser and wiser in time than before. so by rationale 1000 years old guy, should be much wiser than 100 years old guy, this is logic. cut short... what i'm trying to say is, we think we are the big guy is wise enough, but wisdom is a relative term, the longer lived one than us by nature should be much wiser and we should follow him if we dont want to do the same mistake again, reinventing the wheel as people says it. now... philosophically... if there is a creator of a system, he knows every bits of the system every laws to the single atom. he is the wisest and have good intention to his creation, he laid out rules for safety to interact with the system... trying to explain all the details of the system is beyond your comprehension and capability anyhow anyway.. give me reason why you should not follow Him?

No you are confused. Religion IS the problem. Everybody interprets it their own way and thinks their faith is the truth. In order for Religion to work you have to indoctrinate as many people as possible. Religion is fundamentally corrupt. People to do good because they think they will be rewarded at the end of their life, not because they want to or should

i bet my bottom dollar this is what you have been brainwashed by hearing from peoples or from your own delusional imagination. i bet you never study religious books. this obviously shows your ignorance. i am a religious person (albeit cynical) like many other citizerns here with different religion belief. and nobody indoctrinated me or us, this is our free will from logical thinking and some simple factual and historical research. i'm the one who read religious text and blended among it... and you are trying to say that i'm the one who are confused and indoctrinated? ironic. go do your homeworks scientists. list me all the bad things asked by religion from the book how many? and then to be fair, list me how many good things asked from it. i'm sure the bad things you will list is just your misinterpretation of the contexts, like many others religious fanatics out there.

FWIW, Lawrence's Krauss has given his presentation "A Universe From Nothing" several times. One of the videos circulating was during his presentation at an atheist convention. That's why this version has more anti-religion statements - to cater to his audience at the event. Having said that, Dr. Krauss is an outspoken atheist and has stated that our current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is incompatible with theistic religion beliefs.

yes its understandable, thats why he is a good "entertainer", but the fact he himself is an atheist like his friend dawkin, and probably he will only choose to talk to the people like him or "on the fence" belief (agnostics) this add insult to injury, and a great disservice/shame to scientific community, who claimed "giving conclusion by proof". be it he tried to give talk to religious scholars (or philosophians), i'm sure he will get more jaw drops like his friend there, let me replay it again, remember this is just simpler scientific question, not some highly philosophical or religious one.... hilarious 

https://youtu.be/-mC2ASSomhk

Lawrence did admit his theory is incorrect, thats a bit of noble thing from him. but guess why? if you go against the stream, the "indisputable text", thats what. like the one who tried to counter fight Einstein's Big Bang theory just because of his unreligious biased flavour. the idea died out, years time of work wasted for good down the drain

[sainbablo]

By sickle cells you are  referring to morphology of RBCs in sickle cell anaemia?

Yes

Ok  here is an applied  science question though not in physics but relevant to junctional zones of Biochemistry, Biology and Biophysics

First of all, you shouldn't hijack people's topics. That's a no-no. Second, does it make any sense to ask biology questions in an electronics forum?

Sickle cell anaemia  is a severe blood disorder owing to alteration of haemoglobin chemical conjugations leading to emergence of cell becoming birefringent and its contained haemoglobin undergoes tactoid changes  resulting  in  appearance of the red blood cell which now assumes  looks of sickle  under microscope. It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited. Mostly the African ancestry, the homozygous sufferers inheriting from both heterozygous parents who carry  the trait but do not suffer from symptoms. (very simply put)


Secondly it seems to me that you have missed the point implicit in my reference to emergence of unicellular organism. If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is  what  the   general spirit behind this discussion implies. But if you a believer of   the  "Deluge" of Noah that is your prerogative.

If you cast a look over threads, peripheral subjects are discussed  upon and not all are electronically orientated. As a matter fact of  you have  introduced a biological entity "sickle cell" as an example of mutation  which is very  refreshing as it adds another  dimension to this  thread. In a topic like this one should expect wide   response and be ready  to  accept it.

So  now, some one may say  some thing about  relevance  of  Big Bang to  emergence of life. After all there is purpose behind the "Scheme of  Things".

[donotdespisethesnake]

It is not a mutation.

Every source on the subject describes it as a mutation. Unfortunately, when people can't agree on simple facts, discussing things as subtle as the Big Bang and the Meaning of Life are quite pointless.

Inevitably, questions like this become an analysis of human psychology, rather than the physics of the Universe. Perhaps that makes sense, because humans are definitely the weirdest entities in the Universe.

[sainbablo]

Isn't there some theory that we "pinched off" from another Universe... parallel to our own but not possible to observe as we are in different dimensions? In that case, things got all started by a "previous" entity. I have trouble understanding time itself, how it can be treated like one of the 3 spacial dimensions (spacetime), and I also have a very naive view of space built up from personal experience. I keep imagining we are just a large MMORPG simulation. 

Read in a SCI FI decades ago something like this:
" Civilizations are running parallel with ours but a fraction of a second earlier or a fraction of a second later. Problems arise if one crosses over
the line of separation".

So now we are not that lonely, may be aliens are already with us.

[timelessbeing]

It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited.

Inherited from where?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441

If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is  what  the   general spirit behind this discussion implies.

No, that is not the implication I gathered.
Physics is still somewhat related to EE. I think bio is somewhere completely different but suit yourself. I won't be joining you.

[timelessbeing]

i bet my bottom dollar this is what you have been brainwashed by hearing from peoples or from your own delusional imagination.

Well folks you heard it. I'm accused of being delusional and brainwashed by a guy who follows a dogma of invisible overlords, in a science forum no less. On that note, I think I'm done here.

[apis]

like the one who tried to counter fight Einstein's Big Bang theory just because of his unreligious biased flavour. the idea died out, years time of work wasted for good down the drain

Einstein's intuition was that the universe was static (something he later considered his biggest blunder). The one who is often credited with the big bang theory is a priest called Georges Lemaître.

[sainbablo]

It is not a mutation.

Every source on the subject describes it as a mutation. Unfortunately, when people can't agree on simple facts, discussing things as subtle as the Big Bang and the Meaning of Life are quite pointless.

Inevitably, questions like this become an analysis of human psychology, rather than the physics of the Universe. Perhaps that makes sense, because humans are definitely the weirdest entities in the Universe.

Perhaps there is some difficulty in appreciating at what point in time a mutation ceases to be a mutation and becomes a trait.
The way I look at it is as follows:

"Elementary forms of life increse their mass and maturity unti, at a critical point they reproduce by simple division of their substance. Each successive organism has the same physico-chemical constitution as  the parent  and part of its structure operate  as information store, that is
 a chemical (genetic)  memory  system  so that an offsprings  grow into identical replica of the   parent. However occasionally spontaneous changes occcur   in the organization of genetic memory store and such  mutations lead to emergence of organisms with altered characteristics. Often such  mutants are less well fitted for survival under environmental stress and they succumb  but sporodically
favourable mutations occur. The transmission of  this to succeeding generations leads to  the establishment  of  species with an enhanced probability of survival and the ability to populate  new environments."

Now what do I understand after reading the aforementioned paragraph?

That the mutation is one time phenomenon the case being the sickle cell,
Some inheritors succumb to environment stress
Further transmission creates  inheritors (succeeding generations) with this trait and they  possess ability to populate new environments like some Negro population mainly in Africa.

My point is that  by refering to sickle cell as mutant one refers to an episode that took place long ago but has  continued occuring as a trait in survivors.

Incidently your assertion of human beings as weird is reciprocated since  its application is  universal?

Personally I believe I am chasing words to get to hard hitting facts.

[sainbablo]

It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited.

Inherited from where?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441

If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is  what  the   general spirit behind this discussion implies.

No, that is not the implication I gathered.
Physics is still somewhat related to EE. I think bio is somewhere completely different but suit yourself. I won't be joining you.

Q. inherited from where?
A. The parents.

[sainbablo]

It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited.

Inherited from where?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441

If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is  what  the   general spirit behind this discussion implies.

No, that is not the implication I gathered.
Physics is still somewhat related to EE. I think bio is somewhere completely different but suit yourself. I won't be joining you.

 

I wish there was a time machine available.

I woud put it in reverse gear along good old Darwin road back to the begining.

[Mr. Scram]

Q. inherited from where?
A. The parents.

It seems I don't understand the question being asked. Evolution is powered by mutations which turn out to be beneficial. You and everything around you are a collection of thousands of positive mutations. What proof is asked for? It's everywhere.

[alank2]

Fact check of where we actually are:

1. We live in a universe we did not make.  This we know for certain.
2. We are obviously not in charge of the universe as we are subject to it and it is not subject to us.  This we know for certain.
3. We are unable to find ways of getting around the limitations placed upon on us:  we age, we get sick, and we eventually die.

How we deceive ourselves:

1. We think we are the highest beings in the universe.
2. If there is something higher than us, it can't be God.  We would be fine thinking it is an alien race that just got a temporary leg up on us in terms of technology, I mean that does fit our narrative!
3. We certainly have the ability and comprehension to figure it all out.
4. And we have it all figured out.
5. Everything resolves around us.
6. It makes perfect sense to us that we randomly developed from dead matter, but yet somehow, even as brilliant as we think we are, we are unable to create life from nothing.  Don't get me wrong, we never tire of butchering life into something different and try to take credit for it.  Even so, we are only somewhat successful at that...

There is a theme that feeds the delusion of list 2 - human arrogance.  An accurate picture of the situation is that gulf of what we think about ourselves vs. reality is much wider than a caveman thinking he is master chess champion playing 50 concurrent chess games.

[Mr. Scram]

Fact check of where we actually are:

1. We live in a universe we did not make.  This we know for certain.
2. We are obviously not in charge of the universe as we are subject to it and it is not subject to us.  This we know for certain.
3. We are unable to find ways of getting around the limitations placed upon on us:  we age, we get sick, and we eventually die.

How we deceive ourselves:

1. We think we are the highest beings in the universe.
2. If there is something higher than us, it can't be God.  We would be fine thinking it is an alien race that just got a temporary leg up on us in terms of technology, I mean that does fit our narrative!
3. We certainly have the ability and comprehension to figure it all out.
4. And we have it all figured out.
5. Everything resolves around us.
6. It makes perfect sense to us that we randomly developed from dead matter, but yet somehow, even as brilliant as we think we are, we are unable to create life from nothing.  Don't get me wrong, we never tire of butchering life into something different and try to take credit for it.  Even so, we are only somewhat successful at that...

There is a theme that feeds the delusion of list 2 - human arrogance.  An accurate picture of the situation is that gulf of what we think about ourselves vs. reality is much wider than a caveman thinking he is master chess champion playing 50 concurrent chess games.

I'm not sure where you got that second list from, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate.

1. We're the most intelligent beings in the universe, that we know of. We readily admit to not knowing most of the universe. We consider ourselves one amongst many species and do not attribute ourselves a special status on account of being created for a purpose.
2. We have have as much evidence of a god as we have for Russel's teapot or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is none. This doesn't mean any of those don't exist, it just means it's best to work under the assumption they don't exist until we have anything to go on.
3. We don't know whether we'll even be able to figure it all out, especially now that quantum physics is throwing us all kinds of curve balls. The final answers may forever evade us due to the nature of the universe. This is hard to grasp for our brains used to a deterministic universe at our own human scale, but we're slowly wrapping our heads around the possibility.
4. We definitely haven't figured out major questions about the nature of time, space and matter. We have a somewhat reasonable grasp of the universe and physics at our own human scale.
5. We've known the universe isn't revolving about us since Copernicus. We readily accept we're insignificant and fleeting primates clinging to a rock floating through an unimaginable emptiness, with more similar stars and systems in existence than any human can count. Our individual or collective existence doesn't have a purpose or use and is essentially completely insignificant. For practical purposes many of us focus on the part of the universe we're living in, as it's as insignificant as us, but significant to us.
6. We're willing to accept we don't understand how life begins. We do have many bits and pieces of evidence which point in a certain direction. We are carefully and methodically working on understanding each step which may or may not be involved. We're learning more about complex organic molecules forming without life and finding them in various places across the universe. We're finding phenomena which fit the concept of complex life slowly emerging from lifeless matter over billions of years, and so far none which forbid it. The fact that the human brain isn't very good at understanding the vast time scales involved complicates matter and confuses many people.

[sainbablo]

This is an extra ordinarily open topic and has attracted  knowledgeable  contributers from varied background. At the same time IMHO, I feel being stymied, may be others too, by aberrations  of lexical as well as logical semanticity which hinders each other to think alike following deciphering visual information ie words, on this board.

But  Mr Scram is  right when he  says we are all mutants. After all world  is full of  homo-sapiens. Cheers

[apis]

There is a theme that feeds the delusion of list 2 - human arrogance.  An accurate picture of the situation is that gulf of what we think about ourselves vs. reality is much wider than a caveman thinking he is master chess champion playing 50 concurrent chess games.

By now, computer programs repeatedly beat the best humans at chess (or at any game really). Many people arrogantly believed this wouldn't be possible because humans were somehow special magical beings that were above all other things and creatures. That clearly isn't the case; we are just a bunch of hairless monkeys that got a bit too clever for our own good.

[Mr. Scram]

By now, computer programs repeatedly beat the best humans at chess (or at any game really). Many people arrogantly believed this wouldn't be possible because humans were somehow special magical beings that were above all other things and creatures. That clearly isn't the case; we are just a bunch of hairless monkeys that got a bit too clever for our own good.

What's impressive is that we're now at the point that we can have computer analyse human matches, and learn the game from them without learning them the rules. Or more recently, learn them the rules and have them work out how to beat humans themselves without looking at a database of human matches. This means that even though computers can't beat us at all games yet, they can now find out how to do so themselves. This is technology at a completely different level than a programmed single purpose chess engine and has all sorts of consequences for science and society, both good and bad.

The beautiful thing is that this is essentially a technological version of natural selection, which is further evidence the mechanism does produce meaningful results from randomness.

[Buriedcode]

Be careful not to equate AI with the human mind.  It is impressive how AI can now analyze past games, and come up with new and interesting tactics, but it doesn't "know" what a game is.  Facial recognition software doesn't "know" what a face is, and many don't even work by shape, and so can be fooled by changing the colour of the rims of glasses ( https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/3/13507542/facial-recognition-glasses-trick-impersonate-fool ).  I'll admit I'm very impressed with voice and facial recognition, and the ability for so-called AI to perform specific tasks, even creating human faces, and "art".

I'm not saying that humans are supreme beings, far from it - as I keep posting, we all too easily fool ourselves, and that can't be eliminated completely, only mitigated.  But I'm noticing more and more, intelligent and reasonable people either commenting on fears of AI, or that it is completely separate from standard computer software, and grossly over stating its capabilities. 

Agreed, often people can believe our species as being somehow sacred, but to compare us to AI both devalues us and our capacity, and overstates AI's capabilities.

[Mr. Scram]

Be careful not to equate AI with the human mind.  It is impressive how AI can now analyze past games, and come up with new and interesting tactics, but it doesn't "know" what a game is.  Facial recognition software doesn't "know" what a face is, and many don't even work by shape, and so can be fooled by changing the colour of the rims of glasses ( https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/3/13507542/facial-recognition-glasses-trick-impersonate-fool ).  I'll admit I'm very impressed with voice and facial recognition, and the ability for so-called AI to perform specific tasks, even creating human faces, and "art".

I'm not saying that humans are supreme beings, far from it - as I keep posting, we all too easily fool ourselves, and that can't be eliminated completely, only mitigated.  But I'm noticing more and more, intelligent and reasonable people either commenting on fears of AI, or that it is completely separate from standard computer software, and grossly over stating its capabilities. 

Agreed, often people can believe our species as being somehow sacred, but to compare us to AI both devalues us and our capacity, and overstates AI's capabilities.

Do we "know" what a face is? Pareidolia tells us we don't. Our brains are full of tricks and shortcuts. Internally we experience profound feelings, but in the end we're just complex machines made up of cells and matter. There's no reason to think man made machines of sufficient complexity are intrinsically different.