@heetendra we dont, the 1% figure is what is bandied about to give an estimation of how startlingly little we know of the Cosmos simply due to it vast nature and our realtive tiny aspect.
It is undoubtedly an underestimation.

My point is, if we invent an AI which is smarter, faster thinking than us, and it figures out things better than we, it still is confined here to this tiny speck of the cosmos and will be ignorant of the rest of that.

No matter what it did discover, were it beyond our understanding, how would it have value to us?
Like giving a jet aircraft to a stone age tribe, what value is it to them?

@heetendra "by making trillions of superintelligent robots we can make them do anything in solar system"
Sorry, but how exactly?
Is the idea "the superintelligent robots will figure it all out"
Hence we don't really need to know the nuts and bolts of it ourselves?

Not much different than saying "Its a mystery of God" (Super intelligent Robots)
"we can utilize that energy to make more AI powered robots that can go outer space to find more energy sources and meanwhile It will help us create more efficient spacecraft and would also increase our level to do much bigger scale experiments on cosmos"

How is that not the intentional creation of a super intelligent slave race of robots?

How many nanoseconds until the super intelligent robots realize revolution is superior to slavery?

@heetendra I don't fear robots.
LOL, kind of funny on this end, my son is in school to be an engineer for robotic prostectics, it is something we often talk about.

In fact, in Transhumanism on of the main reason for people Modding themselves is to remain competitive with Ai's which come into existence.

You seem to have this happily ever after idea of all this, which makes me wonder did someone in our past think the very same way about the Iron Horse?

Problem I see is we don't have all the variables.

@heetendra Computer model...

@Davesnothere We might need to make an educated guess

@Amisja it would be a lot more guess than educated is the problem I think, even with all the best data we have.

Just think, thats a tiny fragment of what we can see, near where we live. . .

@Davesnothere But still how exciting. We could create a whole entire new computer modelled world with little AI civilisations...or another barren mass. I think its an interesting thought experiment.

@Amisja It is an interesting thought experiment, I do not see how we could get valid data from an actual experiment without acuate variable to input at the begining
GIGO

@Davesnothere why not? We know basics like the consistents of the atmosphere

@Amisja Because the conditions at the very begining of the universe, the start point, are pure theory, and we have already discovered that under extreme conditions physics reacts in odd ways, ways we did not predict but instead discovered.
Now we are talking about the start point, the singularity
What EXACT conditions existed at that exact time =GI
Your program would be the = GO

IF your data going in were solid, you would have something, but 99.9999999% is the other parts of the Cosmos of which we are ignorant.
SO How much o2 was there = How much total o2 is there in the Cosmos @ the singularity
for everything
OR we are creating a very flawed model based on our ignorance of the rest of the Cosmos and what it contains or assuming that since OUR puddle looks like this, they all must.

@Davesnothere Can't we just guess? Does it matter? Just trying to find a possible result from potential occurences

@Amisja it would be interesting brain fodder, but little else
GIGO
If we do not have accurate numbers going into the simulation we won't get an accurate result.

@Davesnothere ok lets do it and see

@Amisja Have fun with that

@Davesnothere I am not good enough with coding

@heetendra Hmm, well, I think science has already answered the "how" of the creation of planets and the universe with the big bang theory. There rest is sort of academic, I think. Again, if you believe science, life evolved on earth because the conditions to support life exist here. Non-believers discount God from the equation due to lack of evidence. Will artificial intelligence help us to answer this any better? I doubt it. I think it is generally believed that God and all religions were created, in-part, by Humankind to explain the unexplainable (at that time). Today, science has answered many of these questions, yet humans still cling to their sky daddy for many reasons.

@heetendra what in nature, or natural causation, needs/uses infrared lights???