The law of gravity as in Newtons Law is still pretty good, as long as you don't require lots of precision.
The laws of gravity were refined a lot, but Newtons law still would help you find solutions to problems, and that is what science is good for, even if some of them are only intellectual problems.
I would not be surprised if the Apollo moon missions had been working with formulas based on Newton, you don't need Einstein to land on the moon AFAIK.
This makes the game more fast-paced, but is a bit troublesome when results depend on who moves first, or when you get a double move in because turn ends. The game still takes longer than for example a game of Age of Empires would, about 4 times longer.
There have been lots of adjustments for multiplayer playing, since one point of recreating an old game is to be able to add "new" features like multiplayer.
Battle Isle 1 had an interesting turn-based two-player mode: On player would move, the other fire.
The probability to live in a universe that allows intelligent human life to exist under the condition that human life exists in the universe is exactly 1.
This completely ignores nearby probabilities. In other words, the statement is true but utterly useless.
There are no nearby probabilities when the probability is exactly 1. As long as there are morons who try to refute a statement by saying that because the statement is always true it is "useless"(implying that it might as well be untrue), then that statement is not useless.
Maybe you mean by "ignoring nearby probabilities" that one should take a point of view outside of the universe; but that is not possible when you are talking about this very universe. You would have a point if we were talking about alternate universes.
The weak anthropic principle can be expressed in mathematical terms:
The probability to live in a universe that allows intelligent human life to exist under the condition that human life exists in the universe is exactly 1.
So you don't have a point. You would spent your time better at debunking the SAP(strong anthropic principle) and the FAP(final anthropic principle) both of which are either bullshit or logical trickery.
By the way, the last time I visited wikipedia to look up the definition, the WAP was formulated the wrong way around, and the SAP was formulated correctly - now it seems to me the SAP has no value different from the WAP(except that is has a diffent motivation), and the WAP by Carter is formulated in accordance with the mathematical definition above. Moreover, the german version of WAP/SAP differ.
The FAP is logical trickery, because if intelligent beings would ever die out completely, nobody in the universe would have the required intelligence to notice that the statement is wrong - so the statement cannot be refuted, it has a boolean value of "true" as long as philosopers exist, but it can be considered harmful insofar as it inspires the confidence that life and human life could never die out, even if the entire intelligent life-forms in the universe decided to commit universal seppukko just to put the theory to a test(of course, if they did that, maybe they would never have been intelligent at all, SCNR).
Likewise, intelligent design is logical trickery, because it cannnot be refuted without complete knowledge of the history of our universe; So, let me add the bon-mot: "Only an omniscent God can refute intelligent design, and I am sure he'll do that, if he exists." The inherent danger in the ID ideas is that ID proponents somehow believe that because one their claims cannot be ultimately refuted (except by God), they somehow have the authority to declare the rest of science "bullshit". There is no logic in that unless you are on crack.
Mathematics and logic are universal - I can still have views about a Mandelbrot fractal, although I have never lived in one.
Or maybe we should all just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the guidance of his noodly appendage, since these beliefs are sufficient to provide guidance to us, since all we need is Ramen anyway;-)
I have to disagree with this because you are referring to a hidden state like it was the value of a single variable.
I believe this has been proven wrong, at least under the common models of what is a particle and when its a wave.
I believe you are right in the basics of what you saying, but that the hidden state of two variables is not just the cross-product, but includes all interactions between these variables, so that the hidden state is a wave distribution. When the "wave collapses", the actual hidden values are resolved such as if they had always been assigned.
One might think the above paragraph is bullshit, but I believe that is not my fault, but is due to the fact that physics is taking shortcuts because it can never work with the hidden variables anyway:
This is often the point were Heisenberg is cited in the discussion. However, Heisenberg just means that there are always hidden variables, and that is the beauty of it.
Well, it is not very helpful to have a discussion with someone who is insisting nothing can be ever measured. I do not feel it was an argument in reply to my arguments.
Well, I am aware that speculating about something not in the universe is pointless to an extent, but if the matrix type ideas give a neat and working model of the universe, why not have them?
I am stating that having a working quantum theory with hidden variables would result in a neat philosophical idea, the analogy to "fog of war", which is a concept more easily(and correctly) understood by the populace. Neat ideas often work, much like placing the sun in the center of the solar system got rid of extra corrections for "backwards" movement of the planets.
Sure, but why should I bother discussing with someone who brings an argument out of his textbooks that is not actually related to the discussion(maybe YOU would attempt to follow it too?), merely because I used a trigger word "state"? (dog)
It all comes down to whether you believe to some extent in hidden variables. Hidden variables are very neat, and I got my own argument to authorithy available, that is, Wolframs stating the issue is unresolved - which I find is quite legit to bring into the discussion since I was referred to Wolfram myself in a reply.
Now, for a factual argument, Bells equations rely on axioms on what people believe are sensible assumptions of locality. Why these assumptions should not be flawed or varying under some circumstances is up to discussion, isn't it?
I can only find the army of downvoters amusing that seems to be chasing my parent post.
Because there is no such thing as an exact single state, at least of more than one variable. You can't have an exact state of position and momentum at the same time, for example.
Yea, fuck you too. If you have measured the spin of a particle, you know exactly what the spin state is or at least was.
Well, there can be different points of view, can't they?
I am basically arguing that "fog of war" equals "quantum physics" in some respect; you sure will agree that an observer of a strategy game who is not impaired by "fog of war" will build a different model of the game as a player who is inside the game and as such has to make guesses as to the location of enemy units.
You are right that the Bell equations seem to contradict me; but Wolfram states they are unconfirmed, and I don't quite see why if a quantum state represents an overlay of several states it cannot even represent an exact single state when requested to do so.
Unfortunately, I don't know Bells assumptions(of locality) by heart; but if this "spooky action at a distance" is true, then assumptions of locality can easily be wrong.
Particles without quantum physics would basically react like billard, basically relying on the pauli principle and exchange of values that maintain the sums. I can see what your reply will be: That billard physics has been disproved in favor of quantum physics.
I am not disputing that, I am stating that there might exist a point of view outside our universe from which our universe can be considered a simulation. This is more of a thought experiment in respect to physics inside our universe than actual physics (although it might shed some light on which models for our physics are "neat").
How would infinitesimal points react(in the POV from that hypothetical meta-"real" universe)? Well, it would look much like a fractal state engine(like these flowers), similar to how you would store the interactions of particles in a collider.
However, at present there are no "clean" experiments unambiguously verifying the inequalities.
In addition to that, I am not stating that the program does have hidden variables, but that the program uses quantum logic to treat unknown states. Of course these would collapse somewhere, but not necessarily at the time of the measurement from our human POV; That is, if it is not necessary for a measurement to know a hidden variable it will not be determined.
This matches in some respect the strong anthroposophic principle, or would be called lazy evaluation in a programming language.
As in: The granularity (bits) of the computer would be the Planck scale, and the top speed of the computer's operations would be the speed of light.
Well yes and no. That is a completely different angle. The "real" universe I was talking about might have quantums and planck squales as well.
But I can add something to your point of view:
gravity might equal clustering of processors with similar tasks
a black hole would be a cluster that was so busy that it would be almost unable to communicate with the rest of the world with the exception of FTL quantum transfer.
Strange that you bring up that entangled atoms allow faster than light communication.
The known problem with this is that no information actually is transferred as far as we know; it is is only acquired at both ends at the same time (that is, you can't decide what you read).
Entangled atoms allow safe FTL cryptography though, because uncovering and reading the state of the atom creates a bit of a key that is shared at both ends.
I believe the existance of a working quantum theory means that the universe can be considered as a simulation insofar as there might exist a universe without quantum physics and just particle physics.
Now assume someone with insufficient knowledge about such a universe who tries to model a simulation to get predictions, much like having for of war in a strategy game - when a unit disappears into fog of war (since x turns ago), it would be essentially in all places that in could reach in x turns at once.
An interesting question then might be, is then human knowledge and usage of quantum theory a desired property of the simulation, or an artifact that invalidates the simulation results?
Dear passengers, the space station is now entering Iranian outer space.
Would the ladies please cover their face and the men pray. We will be leaving Iranian outer space in 6 minutes and will enter the Turkish outer space, where you will receive instructions and the proper customs forms.
No one owns the word "Bluetooth". Trademarks are not copyrights.
Maybe I should have made myself more clear what I meant by "tag".
It would infringe for any product listed that named itself "Bluetooth something". Then there would be some grey area for products that had to do with bluetooth, but were somewhat remote from the actual device, in this case it would be fair use to call it e.g. "protocol adapter for bluetooth".
IMHO, this is not a situation were intellectual property is claimed too unfairly, since it offers some protection to the customer who can be sure that his bluetooth device will work with other bluetooth devices. The costly testing procedure creates a barrier to entry that is somewhat unfair, but as I said you could work around that by not using the bluetooth tag too directly, it is like "firewire" vs "IEEE 1394".
I agree with you that it should be possible to publish a list, especially since a look shows that none of the devices listed in the document that is still up is carrying the "bluetooth"-tag. I am also somewhat befuddled how a bluetooth-certified product can not be bluetooth-certified anymore when Linux is involved, as long as the product is a separate device from the linux system. When I wrote my comment, I assumed the list would contain software that was know to run on Linux and communicate with Bluetooth, not a list of devices that could be connected to Linux as well. The former would need to be certified, the latter not.
There is an interesting angle to this regarding such products: if SIG insists that a product may not be listed as "bluetooth" unless it works with Linux(certified), then this effectively would be an endorsement of Linux, and any SIG member could ask for cancellation of the right to bear the "bluetooth"-tag of any offending bluetooth device.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Google could find my left sock for me too? I lost it somewhere in my aparment it must be easy for google, and I'd pay a few dollars too.
"Google, the search company"
and while we are at it, make it:
"Google, the search and destroy company"
Now, I cannot tell the reason why this has score zero, but on the face of it is an interesting story.
;-)
Maybe the shops could sue for loss of customers because the billboards overload the people passing by so that they don't see the shops
Didn't people in Newtons time think his law of gravity was a theory not just an observation?
I have some trouble with the calling of all the currently new observations by the name theory.
The law of gravity as in Newtons Law is still pretty good, as long as you don't require lots of precision.
The laws of gravity were refined a lot, but Newtons law still would help you find solutions to problems, and that is what science is good for, even if some of them are only intellectual problems.
I would not be surprised if the Apollo moon missions had been working with formulas based on Newton, you don't need Einstein to land on the moon AFAIK.
I'd say they spent a lot on verifying that it works, if it doesn't they'd receive more bad press than other companies.
Then they will want to provide interfaces and documentation to allow others to work with it, it is not just for a single of their own games.
Then of course they will have plentiful programmers and architects who will invent more features, which ill become requirements soon.
In http://www.freeciv.org/'s multiplayer mode, players move simultaneously.
This makes the game more fast-paced, but is a bit troublesome when results depend on who moves first, or when you get a double move in because turn ends. The game still takes longer than for example a game of Age of Empires would, about 4 times longer.
There have been lots of adjustments for multiplayer playing, since one point of recreating an old game is to be able to add "new" features like multiplayer.
Battle Isle 1 had an interesting turn-based two-player mode: On player would move, the other fire.
Maybe you mean by "ignoring nearby probabilities" that one should take a point of view outside of the universe; but that is not possible when you are talking about this very universe. You would have a point if we were talking about alternate universes.
- sell your signature space on slashdot for advertisments
:-)
Any takers?
The weak anthropic principle can be expressed in mathematical terms:
The probability to live in a universe that allows intelligent human life to exist under the condition that human life exists in the universe is exactly 1.
So you don't have a point. You would spent your time better at debunking the SAP(strong anthropic principle) and the FAP(final anthropic principle) both of which are either bullshit or logical trickery.
By the way, the last time I visited wikipedia to look up the definition, the WAP was formulated the wrong way around, and the SAP was formulated correctly - now it seems to me the SAP has no value different from the WAP(except that is has a diffent motivation), and the WAP by Carter is formulated in accordance with the mathematical definition above. Moreover, the german version of WAP/SAP differ.
The FAP is logical trickery, because if intelligent beings would ever die out completely, nobody in the universe would have the required intelligence to notice that the statement is wrong - so the statement cannot be refuted, it has a boolean value of "true" as long as philosopers exist, but it can be considered harmful insofar as it inspires the confidence that life and human life could never die out, even if the entire intelligent life-forms in the universe decided to commit universal seppukko just to put the theory to a test(of course, if they did that, maybe they would never have been intelligent at all, SCNR).
Likewise, intelligent design is logical trickery, because it cannnot be refuted without complete knowledge of the history of our universe; So, let me add the bon-mot: "Only an omniscent God can refute intelligent design, and I am sure he'll do that, if he exists." The inherent danger in the ID ideas is that ID proponents somehow believe that because one their claims cannot be ultimately refuted (except by God), they somehow have the authority to declare the rest of science "bullshit". There is no logic in that unless you are on crack.
Is that from NannyMUD ?
Mathematics and logic are universal - I can still have views about a Mandelbrot fractal, although I have never lived in one.
;-)
Or maybe we should all just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the guidance of his noodly appendage, since these beliefs are sufficient to provide guidance to us, since all we need is Ramen anyway
I thank you for the discussion
I have to disagree with this because you are referring to a hidden state like it was the value of a single variable.
I believe this has been proven wrong, at least under the common models of what is a particle and when its a wave.
I believe you are right in the basics of what you saying, but that the hidden state of two variables is not just the cross-product, but includes all interactions between these variables, so that the hidden state is a wave distribution. When the "wave collapses", the actual hidden values are resolved such as if they had always been assigned.
One might think the above paragraph is bullshit, but I believe that is not my fault, but is due to the fact that physics is taking shortcuts because it can never work with the hidden variables anyway:
This is often the point were Heisenberg is cited in the discussion. However, Heisenberg just means that there are always hidden variables, and that is the beauty of it.
Well, it is not very helpful to have a discussion with someone who is insisting nothing can be ever measured. I do not feel it was an argument in reply to my arguments.
Well, I am aware that speculating about something not in the universe is pointless to an extent, but if the matrix type ideas give a neat and working model of the universe, why not have them?
I am stating that having a working quantum theory with hidden variables would result in a neat philosophical idea, the analogy to "fog of war", which is a concept more easily(and correctly) understood by the populace. Neat ideas often work, much like placing the sun in the center of the solar system got rid of extra corrections for "backwards" movement of the planets.
Sure, but why should I bother discussing with someone who brings an argument out of his textbooks that is not actually related to the discussion(maybe YOU would attempt to follow it too?), merely because I used a trigger word "state"? (dog)
It all comes down to whether you believe to some extent in hidden variables. Hidden variables are very neat, and I got my own argument to authorithy available, that is, Wolframs stating the issue is unresolved - which I find is quite legit to bring into the discussion since I was referred to Wolfram myself in a reply.
Now, for a factual argument, Bells equations rely on axioms on what people believe are sensible assumptions of locality. Why these assumptions should not be flawed or varying under some circumstances is up to discussion, isn't it?
I can only find the army of downvoters amusing that seems to be chasing my parent post.
Because there is no such thing as an exact single state, at least of more than one variable. You can't have an exact state of position and momentum at the same time, for example.
Yea, fuck you too. If you have measured the spin of a particle, you know exactly what the spin state is or at least was.
Well, there can be different points of view, can't they?
I am basically arguing that "fog of war" equals "quantum physics" in some respect; you sure will agree that an observer of a strategy game who is not impaired by "fog of war" will build a different model of the game as a player who is inside the game and as such has to make guesses as to the location of enemy units.
You are right that the Bell equations seem to contradict me; but Wolfram states they are unconfirmed, and I don't quite see why if a quantum state represents an overlay of several states it cannot even represent an exact single state when requested to do so.
Unfortunately, I don't know Bells assumptions(of locality) by heart; but if this "spooky action at a distance" is true, then assumptions of locality can easily be wrong.
Particles without quantum physics would basically react like billard, basically relying on the pauli principle and exchange of values that maintain the sums. I can see what your reply will be: That billard physics has been disproved in favor of quantum physics.
I am not disputing that, I am stating that there might exist a point of view outside our universe from which our universe can be considered a simulation. This is more of a thought experiment in respect to physics inside our universe than actual physics (although it might shed some light on which models for our physics are "neat").
How would infinitesimal points react(in the POV from that hypothetical meta-"real" universe)? Well, it would look much like a fractal state engine(like these flowers), similar to how you would store the interactions of particles in a collider.
However, at present there are no "clean" experiments unambiguously verifying the inequalities.
In addition to that, I am not stating that the program does have hidden variables, but that the program uses quantum logic to treat unknown states. Of course these would collapse somewhere, but not necessarily at the time of the measurement from our human POV; That is, if it is not necessary for a measurement to know a hidden variable it will not be determined.This matches in some respect the strong anthroposophic principle, or would be called lazy evaluation in a programming language.
As in: The granularity (bits) of the computer would be the Planck scale, and the top speed of the computer's operations would be the speed of light.
Well yes and no. That is a completely different angle. The "real" universe I was talking about might have quantums and planck squales as well.But I can add something to your point of view:
Strange that you bring up that entangled atoms allow faster than light communication.
The known problem with this is that no information actually is transferred as far as we know; it is is only acquired at both ends at the same time (that is, you can't decide what you read).
Entangled atoms allow safe FTL cryptography though, because uncovering and reading the state of the atom creates a bit of a key that is shared at both ends.
I believe the existance of a working quantum theory means that the universe can be considered as a simulation insofar as there might exist a universe without quantum physics and just particle physics.
Now assume someone with insufficient knowledge about such a universe who tries to model a simulation to get predictions, much like having for of war in a strategy game - when a unit disappears into fog of war (since x turns ago), it would be essentially in all places that in could reach in x turns at once.
An interesting question then might be, is then human knowledge and usage of quantum theory a desired property of the simulation, or an artifact that invalidates the simulation results?
HP had the bright idea to implement their scanning software with IE. I had to manually fix it to get it to work with my installation of IE.
A weird hack.
Dear passengers, the space station is now entering Iranian outer space.
Would the ladies please cover their face and the men pray. We will be leaving Iranian outer space in 6 minutes and will enter the Turkish outer space, where you will receive instructions and the proper customs forms.
No one owns the word "Bluetooth". Trademarks are not copyrights.
Maybe I should have made myself more clear what I meant by "tag".
It would infringe for any product listed that named itself "Bluetooth something". Then there would be some grey area for products that had to do with bluetooth, but were somewhat remote from the actual device, in this case it would be fair use to call it e.g. "protocol adapter for bluetooth".
IMHO, this is not a situation were intellectual property is claimed too unfairly, since it offers some protection to the customer who can be sure that his bluetooth device will work with other bluetooth devices. The costly testing procedure creates a barrier to entry that is somewhat unfair, but as I said you could work around that by not using the bluetooth tag too directly, it is like "firewire" vs "IEEE 1394".
I agree with you that it should be possible to publish a list, especially since a look shows that none of the devices listed in the document that is still up is carrying the "bluetooth"-tag. I am also somewhat befuddled how a bluetooth-certified product can not be bluetooth-certified anymore when Linux is involved, as long as the product is a separate device from the linux system. When I wrote my comment, I assumed the list would contain software that was know to run on Linux and communicate with Bluetooth, not a list of devices that could be connected to Linux as well. The former would need to be certified, the latter not.
There is an interesting angle to this regarding such products: if SIG insists that a product may not be listed as "bluetooth" unless it works with Linux(certified), then this effectively would be an endorsement of Linux, and any SIG member could ask for cancellation of the right to bear the "bluetooth"-tag of any offending bluetooth device.