Bio robots are cheaper to procure, maintain and repurpose, and easier to replace when damaged than actual robots in most cases, making them preferable for menial and dangerous grunt work.
Also there aren't enough "higher level, fulfilling, mental work" jobs to go around, and there will be even fewer once those begin to be automated as well.
Plus, if Amazon unleashed a fleet of robots, every accident would be scrutinized by press and possibly by authorities. With bio robots they can literally cause carnage and no one cares.
Does that mean ancient Hindus had some actual, credible insight into quantum mechanics, relativity and parallel universes? No... the myth of a cyclical universe is a metaphor drawn from the observations of cycles of death and rebirth found in nature, particularly in the seasons, and plenty of religions draw from it.
It's easy to take these mythological concepts and restate them in a way that seems to imply hidden scientific knowledge or awareness - Christians have done that with the Bible often enough:I know some who quite literally believe the locusts mentioned in the book of Revelations are Apache helicopters, for instance.
But any resemblance between the flights of fantasy in religion and scientific truth are at best coincidental when the science was arrived at through experimentation which depended on generations of knowledge about the physical world the ancients didn't have. Simply sounding kind of correct in hindsight doesn't count for anything.
No, not really. Entropy only goes in one direction. The universe began in a state of complexity and diversity, and it's history since then has been the story of flattening, cooling, mixing, evening out into boring eternal sameness.
That only counts for closed systems. Does that pertain to our universe? We don't know; We can not see a limit, to say the least, and we have absolutely no agreeable model for any kind of edge. The idea that U closes in on itself, like the surface of a baloon, without any borders, is indeed reminiscent of hindu's Darma idea. It is rather descriptive of our mode of thought: cyclic and self centered; focused on origin and phobic of ...
The universe is by definition a closed system. The universe is all that exists, if there is something that could have an effect on it, it would be part of the universe.
The universe is expanding, distances are getting bigger, and there is no reason to think that it'll suddenly decide to stop and get small again.
Balloon theory was blown up by the discovery of an increasing cosmological constant (aka dark energy).
Once a fire has burned to ash, you can't turn it back into wood again. Cyclical time is wishful thinking, contradicted by all evidence.
You are making the mistaking of supposing you conclusion as hypothesis, don't you. Because:
> The universe is by definition a closed system.
There is no de-finit-ion, that's my hole point (excuse the pun, it fits better than any other time)
> The universe is all that exists, if there is something that could have an effect on it, it would be part of the universe.
Yes sure, but what if it's endless? That's not closed in the sense of thermodynamics I don't think.
To conclude from your statement, that the universe is a closed system, kind of requires to presume universal entropy increase, in case of infinity. I can't do the maths though, so I might be wrong. It's just a hunch.
> The universe is expanding, distances are getting bigger,
The visible ...
background radiation may invite inference, but really you get interference.
> and there is no reason to think that it'll suddenly decide to stop and get small again.
In a e.g. 10^50 years would not exactly be suddenly
> Once a fire has burned to ash, you can't turn it back into wood again. Cyclical time is wishful thinking, contradicted by all evidence.
