When Ray Kurzweil states that the singularity is near...

The names and the things, of which the names are the names, form a living web in which the "logos mundi" circulates. A thing ("res"), each thing, is an individuated entity that can be signalized by a name that, necessarily, maintains with the thing a relation of "truth". In the cases in which that is not the case, then, the name, that is said of the thing, is not the case that it is.

Singularity is a name for that which is unique and, thus, systemically irrepeatable. A singularity does not make itself announced by someone (not even by a "Sentient Prophet"). A singularity announces itself. A concrete example of a singularity is an event ("eventus") and an event is that which suddenly irrupts in the systems, from a systemic nonlocality that determines the character of irreducibility that the system, in its whole, computes as unique, unconfoundable and irrepeatable.

When Ray Kurzweil states that the singularity is near, of what is he talking about? Has some kaleidoscopic Laplacian "daimon" whispered something in his ear? What does Ray Kurzweil know that we, the populace that sustains and maintains "The World System", do not? Or is it all a matter of market and marketing towards "desiring machines"?

http://vimeo.com/13987091

http://mountainvision.blogspot.com/2010/08/ray-kurzweil-singularity-is-near-pbs.html

...on aleatorial...,

That which introduces a systemic discontinuity is, comfortably, called aleatorial. Aleatorial is that which is not in conformity with the rules of the day-to-day human life big book (a bestseller). An event belongs to the category of the aleatorial.

When our tools fail in capturing the causality behind a complex web, the aleatorial serves well as an excuse to make us feel in control and on top of things, despite the probability being signaling that “there’s something here, you just don’t get it or do not want to”.

All risk is systemic

All risk is systemic. The risk of the others, of all the others, is also our risk, as synthesis of a systemic causality, determined by a reciprocity, of which we cannot exclude ourselves, as irreducible presences and openings to the world of all the things.

To evaluate risk is not a matter of observer/observed, no one is outside the system, not even God(s), if there is one (or many) it is still part of the system, and the risk of the world is also the risk of some God(s), if that(those) God(s) exists… though a God(s) is unnecessary... the enactive systemic autopoiesis is more effective than any God(s), “me thinks”.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1659253