I bet it's the wedge shape of many cars nowadays. When you hit a pedestrian, it just clips their legs out from under them and they flip harmlessly over the roof of the car.
So what is it precisely about 'science competency' that you think seems to be difficult for computer scientists to pick up? I may be personally biased because I hold degrees in computer science, but I look at the subject as the culmination [and future] of all the other sciences.
Do you mean those cities produce more waste per capita? Or those cities are the least efficient at using the resources they do consume? [I think of the latter when I hear 'wasteful'].
Oh, sure, but those error messages are certainly surmountable. After long enough, you learn what to tweak to gain enough different perspectives to figure the problem out; and, after enough of that, to not even make the mistake in the first place!
But, yea, template error messages could definitely be improved. Too bad that constraints didn't make their way into C++0x.
Also, it's not only non-sense statements in that region. It's non-sense *within* the current system but perfectly sensible in a meta-system. The end result is that you have to introduce an infinite number of meta-systems (each layer to 'understand' the previous).
And, even if the universe is truly 'mathematical' as you say, mathematics itself has this problem (the incompleteness problem), so by extension, the universe would have the same problem.
I think Lucas' argument is that parts of the universe are in that region of possibilities. How about the Halting Problem? We know that even with infinite time and space, such classes problems are undecidable. These [artificial] problems are as much a part of the universe as the matter we see and feel. [If you want analogues to such intellectual/theoretical exercises in the material world, I'm sure that they can be found].
Also, why is mathematics so fragmented into the various different theories often with equivalent theorems/predictions and sometimes not? Each of the theories have analogues in the real world, yet they do not mesh if one attempts to build a single axiomatic system from the various disciplines. Therefore, I find it highly likely that the real world doesn't mesh either. [And, Godel perfectly predicts the fragmentation and difficulties we currently experience with the standard model and quantum mechanics].
I believe you need to read up on Godel again. It isn't the completeness or consistency of the universe which is at stake here but rather systems of formal logic of sufficient complexity to code arithmetic (which is basically any system worth looking at--such as the one inside our minds, computers, and which science is based on). Whether the universe is consistent or not, we will not be able to detect it fully; i.e., reality outruns knowledge.
If I could do that, I'd probably quit my day job and pursue personal interests. But, the elusiveness of the materialization/solidification of elegant theories seems to be directly proportional to the explanatory and illuminating powers thereof.
How do we know that the 'looping' doesn't happen in some extravagant pattern that is difficult to detect? I'm not so sure I'd rule out a theory like that so quickly...
Yes, but the interconnectedness of time and space doesn't help the situation much (if at all). If anything it makes it worse.
And, if Einstein is the end-all-be-all explanation of all things physical, why do we need quantum mechanics? This disconnect seems to imply to me that things are *way* weirder than anyone can ever perceive. And, when you bring Godel's Incompleteness into it, this makes sense. There is a fundamental disconnect between what we can know and what is. Whether that manifests at the relationship between the edge and age of the known universe or at the relationship between space and time is irrelevant. All we know for sure is that some set of localized [and incomplete/incompatible] theories is all we can ever hope to gain from methodological naturalism.
You should tell that to extremist atheists like Mr Dawkins et al who like to try to use their very philosophical assumptions (and circular reasoning) to 'prove' the non-existence of such things. I think it is more accurate that 'a large majority of scientists' assume that all we can see is all there is given the prevalence and popularity of such opinions as those of Dawkins.
Also, of course, this reasoning assumes that we can see the same distance in every direction (which may actually not be the case). I think it's a safe assumption however.
Yea, precisely. It's all a matter of probability though. Chances are great that we've only observed a radius (at most) and not the diameter. But, of course, the known [i.e., observed] size of the universe could be anywhere between 1 x 10^infinity and 0.5 times the actual size of the universe. My point was simply that the number 13.7 is very quickly becoming obsolete.
I don't assume that at all. It was precisely my point that materialists (methodological naturalists if you prefer) can only assume that, by definition. And, this is why the 'edge' is such a problem and why estimates of 'age' require continual adjustment for those with such philosophical assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
But, information wants to be free!
Natural selection only applies once you have a working system. One non-functional blob of goo is as good as any other.
What all this adds up to I think is that time travel is still forbidden but observational time travel-- gathering information-- is not forbidden.
No. I take from it: compounding entropy is the product of time travel. The ship's going down, and fast! Only terrorists have time travel!
I bet it's the wedge shape of many cars nowadays. When you hit a pedestrian, it just clips their legs out from under them and they flip harmlessly over the roof of the car.
So what is it precisely about 'science competency' that you think seems to be difficult for computer scientists to pick up? I may be personally biased because I hold degrees in computer science, but I look at the subject as the culmination [and future] of all the other sciences.
Do you mean those cities produce more waste per capita? Or those cities are the least efficient at using the resources they do consume? [I think of the latter when I hear 'wasteful'].
Agreed.
Oh, sure, but those error messages are certainly surmountable. After long enough, you learn what to tweak to gain enough different perspectives to figure the problem out; and, after enough of that, to not even make the mistake in the first place!
But, yea, template error messages could definitely be improved. Too bad that constraints didn't make their way into C++0x.
What do you have against templates? You're missing out on a lot if you throw them out of C++ so easily.
You must be new here.
Ever heard of a 'foot race'? Foot ball is like a foot race but with a ball.
Got your Text To Speech system turned up too loud again?
You mean a stack?
Have more faith in modern science. We may find a way to reverse aging soon.
Also, it's not only non-sense statements in that region. It's non-sense *within* the current system but perfectly sensible in a meta-system. The end result is that you have to introduce an infinite number of meta-systems (each layer to 'understand' the previous).
And, even if the universe is truly 'mathematical' as you say, mathematics itself has this problem (the incompleteness problem), so by extension, the universe would have the same problem.
I think Lucas' argument is that parts of the universe are in that region of possibilities. How about the Halting Problem? We know that even with infinite time and space, such classes problems are undecidable. These [artificial] problems are as much a part of the universe as the matter we see and feel. [If you want analogues to such intellectual/theoretical exercises in the material world, I'm sure that they can be found].
Also, why is mathematics so fragmented into the various different theories often with equivalent theorems/predictions and sometimes not? Each of the theories have analogues in the real world, yet they do not mesh if one attempts to build a single axiomatic system from the various disciplines. Therefore, I find it highly likely that the real world doesn't mesh either. [And, Godel perfectly predicts the fragmentation and difficulties we currently experience with the standard model and quantum mechanics].
I believe you need to read up on Godel again. It isn't the completeness or consistency of the universe which is at stake here but rather systems of formal logic of sufficient complexity to code arithmetic (which is basically any system worth looking at--such as the one inside our minds, computers, and which science is based on). Whether the universe is consistent or not, we will not be able to detect it fully; i.e., reality outruns knowledge.
For further reading on the philosophical implications of Godel's theorems, I recommend JR Lucas: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/implic.html
If I could do that, I'd probably quit my day job and pursue personal interests. But, the elusiveness of the materialization/solidification of elegant theories seems to be directly proportional to the explanatory and illuminating powers thereof.
How do we know that the 'looping' doesn't happen in some extravagant pattern that is difficult to detect? I'm not so sure I'd rule out a theory like that so quickly...
Yes, but the interconnectedness of time and space doesn't help the situation much (if at all). If anything it makes it worse. And, if Einstein is the end-all-be-all explanation of all things physical, why do we need quantum mechanics? This disconnect seems to imply to me that things are *way* weirder than anyone can ever perceive. And, when you bring Godel's Incompleteness into it, this makes sense. There is a fundamental disconnect between what we can know and what is. Whether that manifests at the relationship between the edge and age of the known universe or at the relationship between space and time is irrelevant. All we know for sure is that some set of localized [and incomplete/incompatible] theories is all we can ever hope to gain from methodological naturalism.
You should tell that to extremist atheists like Mr Dawkins et al who like to try to use their very philosophical assumptions (and circular reasoning) to 'prove' the non-existence of such things. I think it is more accurate that 'a large majority of scientists' assume that all we can see is all there is given the prevalence and popularity of such opinions as those of Dawkins.
Also, of course, this reasoning assumes that we can see the same distance in every direction (which may actually not be the case). I think it's a safe assumption however.
Oops, 1 x 10^-infinity; i.e., approaching zero.
Yea, precisely. It's all a matter of probability though. Chances are great that we've only observed a radius (at most) and not the diameter. But, of course, the known [i.e., observed] size of the universe could be anywhere between 1 x 10^infinity and 0.5 times the actual size of the universe. My point was simply that the number 13.7 is very quickly becoming obsolete.
I don't assume that at all. It was precisely my point that materialists (methodological naturalists if you prefer) can only assume that, by definition. And, this is why the 'edge' is such a problem and why estimates of 'age' require continual adjustment for those with such philosophical assumptions.