"I am am become death, destroyer of worlds." Ring any bells?!
I was just wondering... isn't part of being human having a moral system?
What's funny to me is the classic egghead response that goes into the moral relativism quagmire. I used to be like that. Then I grew up. Being wise means you have learned from things you should have done; or better yet, NOT done.
The simple replies with Nazi examples and atomic bombs etc were perfect. There really is no need to take things to the "Ivory Tower." I mean, seriously, just try to live a complete moral-relativist lifestyle and see how far you go. Most eggheads are not all too physical if you know what I mean? Thus, chances of surviving this "because-I-can" world greatly diminish if you did not have a moral system that trumps the "because-I-can" instinct of the physically and biologically superior human to just walk up and smash you weaker ones and remove you from the gene pool.
Be thankful that we can act according to some ethical and moral standards. And be worried that many people dont!
In cosmology, there are all kinds of weird and interesting solutions. For people asking about geometry questions and considering general relativity it is essential to remember that these are CLASSICAL FIELD theories! LQG (loop quantum gravity) is a proposed quantum theory of gravity. There is no "geometry" in a quantum theory. Although this idea is debated to some extent i.e. NCG (non-commutative geometry) etc.
For esoteric and philosophical reasons, it always sits well to consider a cyclic universe for much the same reason that people such as Einstein himself wanted to have the static solutions to the universe; that is, having cyclic or static behavior somehow circumvents pesky questions such as "What came before?!" and other semi-religious insights. (Actually... I digress... but my main problem with string theorists is that I dont see any difference between their dogma and the dogma followed by religious people. And string theorists get so smug about everything that I really want to demonstrate some fundamental physics of momentum transfer to the face.)
Anyhow... what is practically problematic with cyclic solutions, in my opinion and the majority of other less theoretical physicists (even though I am a theorist, I can say that I'm heavily partial to experiment), is that having an infinite class of solutions doesnt really give much meaning. It's like the saying, "Where any answer is possible, all answers are meaningless." Furthermore, in the case of a cyclic universe, it doesnt do ANYBODY any good since we are causally cut-off from the previous or next cycle. So then it's kind of superflous i.e. "Great. But so what? Hinduism and Buddhism say the same crap. Just less math involved."
Fundamentally, one just needs to consider the various "fluids" i.e. omega matter, omega radiation etc etc that exist in the Universe. It is the densities of these fluids that determine the overall geometry and thus fate of the Universe i.e. open, flat(which is a trivial open case) or closed.
Current observations place the total content at 26% radiation, 4% matter, and 70% dark energy. With this amount of dark energy, recall that dark nrg is a sort of "anti-gravity" fluid in that it actually drives expansion. So we currently fit into the flat universe model. This is one of the reasons why the dark nrg problem is such a huge deal! Getting a handle on it tells us ultimately where we are going and how. And also... where we came from. Take "we" as "Universe." Also... remember that if we do find that the total amount of dark energy density fluid exceeds 1, there was no possibility mathematically that a Big Bang occurred!!! (Refer to famous Type-Ia Supernovae Team survey paper)
Remember that there is also "stochastic inflationary cosmology" (which I like just as much as any other cosmology). In this paradigm, one can just say that our universe is one peak of a very large i.e. infinite number of "peaks" in some background fluctuations and that there are multiple inflations that occurred as a result of some stochastic processes acting over some primitive manifold. This is amenable to quantum theory due to the probabilistic interpretations.
Personally, I dig Turok (and the game of course). LQG is better for me than string theory as well. But again... what really matters is EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENT!!! OBSERVATIONS!!! Not just mathematically jacking-off!
Very insightful. Excellent quantitative reasoning...
In regards to your assertions:
a) there is a theoretical limit for bits to the universe. Check out Seth Lloyd and his numerous papers; specifically, "The Computational Capacity of the Universe."
b) the universe is NOT infinite. Last I heard it's approximately 14.3 billion light-years wide/old. So a finite state exists for "infinite processing." It seems that the universe is able to carry out such computations. Which leads us to c),
c) In serial, simulation would probably be intractable in the least. In parallel, completely possible.
IMHO, the problem with simulation-based theories are the underlying philosophies; namely, when taken at face-value they really dont do much. Kind of like solipsism as a philosophy. Yeah great... but ok... then what?
NOTE: I am in no way saying that theories are only worth something if they have practical benefits. I am merely stating that in regards to physical reality, Occam's Razor and the utility of theory are essential. If said simulations provide insights that lead somewhere else, great. Then we continue to build and refine. But if this stuff is superflous e.g. phlogiston, ether etc then yes, it's crap.;- P
In short: Precision and thought are much better than mud-slinging. Conclusion: I agree with you.
I admire Schneier for his work over all these years. I think everyone should... it's required reading for some of us;-P
I think what I most agree with is Schneier's contention that security is really about people or services. And therefore, the consequences of having poorly trained and educated people is in kind; regardless of how sophisticated or brilliant the math is. (SIDE: I cant stand the mathematicians. I am a physicist. We score more e.g. Schrodinger, Einstein, Feynman... were all pimps. Newton died a virgin. Turing was gay. Godel was emaciated and his wife just had to be cheating on him.)
What bothers me most about a security craze is the trade-offs one has to accept. Kind of like laws in physics i.e. momentum and position or energy and time. In my opinion, it looks like functionality and security are the two factors we need to juggle. But with the service-side being pushed, it's apparent how much functionality is really strained with more than just security but also competence. You all know this anytime you try to get support.
Anyhow, just putting in my two cents. Cheap as it is. I understand that the mark of our civilization as commonly encountered is all this technology, but I am starting to get the feeling that maybe all the technological progress is so short-sighted because we just are not capable of being civilized. Therefore... we get these half-measures, "band-aids" and "patches."
Expanded moments i.e. dipole, quadrapole etc approximated into tensor. Reason: Tensor is matrix. Matrix is amenable to computer.
That should help with boundaries and EM etc.
As for the fact that finite difference "not working too well." Weird. It's pretty standard when it comes to Laplacian.
You can use the vast amount of numerical work regarding spherical harmonics, Bessel and Legendre etc. Just about everything in EM for N-dimensions breaks down to expansions in these special functions which happen to also correlate to... yep... you guessed it... multipole expansion!
This is pretty novel. But I can't stand how people like to separate Assyrians, Babylonians etc. In our culture we laugh at all that. It's the result of several thousand British and German PhD's over the centuries justifying to themselves that there is some vast difference in Near-East civilizations.
This is like future archaeologists finding the ruins of L.A. and some others finding the ruins of San Francisco and claiming that the people were distinct empires and cultures etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"I am am become death, destroyer of worlds." Ring any bells?!
I was just wondering... isn't part of being human having a moral system?
What's funny to me is the classic egghead response that goes into the moral relativism quagmire. I used to be like that. Then I grew up. Being wise means you have learned from things you should have done; or better yet, NOT done.
The simple replies with Nazi examples and atomic bombs etc were perfect. There really is no need to take things to the "Ivory Tower." I mean, seriously, just try to live a complete moral-relativist lifestyle and see how far you go. Most eggheads are not all too physical if you know what I mean? Thus, chances of surviving this "because-I-can" world greatly diminish if you did not have a moral system that trumps the "because-I-can" instinct of the physically and biologically superior human to just walk up and smash you weaker ones and remove you from the gene pool.
Be thankful that we can act according to some ethical and moral standards. And be worried that many people dont!
In cosmology, there are all kinds of weird and interesting solutions. For people asking about geometry questions and considering general relativity it is essential to remember that these are CLASSICAL FIELD theories! LQG (loop quantum gravity) is a proposed quantum theory of gravity. There is no "geometry" in a quantum theory. Although this idea is debated to some extent i.e. NCG (non-commutative geometry) etc.
For esoteric and philosophical reasons, it always sits well to consider a cyclic universe for much the same reason that people such as Einstein himself wanted to have the static solutions to the universe; that is, having cyclic or static behavior somehow circumvents pesky questions such as "What came before?!" and other semi-religious insights. (Actually... I digress... but my main problem with string theorists is that I dont see any difference between their dogma and the dogma followed by religious people. And string theorists get so smug about everything that I really want to demonstrate some fundamental physics of momentum transfer to the face.)
Anyhow... what is practically problematic with cyclic solutions, in my opinion and the majority of other less theoretical physicists (even though I am a theorist, I can say that I'm heavily partial to experiment), is that having an infinite class of solutions doesnt really give much meaning. It's like the saying, "Where any answer is possible, all answers are meaningless." Furthermore, in the case of a cyclic universe, it doesnt do ANYBODY any good since we are causally cut-off from the previous or next cycle. So then it's kind of superflous i.e. "Great. But so what? Hinduism and Buddhism say the same crap. Just less math involved."
Fundamentally, one just needs to consider the various "fluids" i.e. omega matter, omega radiation etc etc that exist in the Universe. It is the densities of these fluids that determine the overall geometry and thus fate of the Universe i.e. open, flat(which is a trivial open case) or closed.
Current observations place the total content at 26% radiation, 4% matter, and 70% dark energy. With this amount of dark energy, recall that dark nrg is a sort of "anti-gravity" fluid in that it actually drives expansion. So we currently fit into the flat universe model. This is one of the reasons why the dark nrg problem is such a huge deal! Getting a handle on it tells us ultimately where we are going and how. And also... where we came from. Take "we" as "Universe." Also... remember that if we do find that the total amount of dark energy density fluid exceeds 1, there was no possibility mathematically that a Big Bang occurred!!! (Refer to famous Type-Ia Supernovae Team survey paper)
Remember that there is also "stochastic inflationary cosmology" (which I like just as much as any other cosmology). In this paradigm, one can just say that our universe is one peak of a very large i.e. infinite number of "peaks" in some background fluctuations and that there are multiple inflations that occurred as a result of some stochastic processes acting over some primitive manifold. This is amenable to quantum theory due to the probabilistic interpretations.
Personally, I dig Turok (and the game of course). LQG is better for me than string theory as well. But again... what really matters is EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENT!!! OBSERVATIONS!!! Not just mathematically jacking-off!
"This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature, allowing new kinds of genetic engineering."
Assuming that Nature here on Earth has not allowed such a code to exist.
In other words, SETI and the field of astrobiology may have to modify its methods.
This has profound implications obviously.
I will keep it simple.
Do people really need balloons?
I mean... seriously...?
Ok.
;- P
But remember, the "difficult words" are not mine per se, they belong to all of us.
Also... I'm skeptical about the latter, shall we say, "Unified Slashdot Theory." But ok
Very insightful. Excellent quantitative reasoning...
;- P
In regards to your assertions:
a) there is a theoretical limit for bits to the universe. Check out Seth Lloyd and his numerous papers; specifically, "The Computational Capacity of the Universe."
b) the universe is NOT infinite. Last I heard it's approximately 14.3 billion light-years wide/old. So a finite state exists for "infinite processing." It seems that the universe is able to carry out such computations. Which leads us to c),
c) In serial, simulation would probably be intractable in the least. In parallel, completely possible.
IMHO, the problem with simulation-based theories are the underlying philosophies; namely, when taken at face-value they really dont do much. Kind of like solipsism as a philosophy. Yeah great... but ok... then what?
NOTE: I am in no way saying that theories are only worth something if they have practical benefits. I am merely stating that in regards to physical reality, Occam's Razor and the utility of theory are essential. If said simulations provide insights that lead somewhere else, great. Then we continue to build and refine. But if this stuff is superflous e.g. phlogiston, ether etc then yes, it's crap.
In short: Precision and thought are much better than mud-slinging.
Conclusion: I agree with you.
I know we seldom demonstrate civility; and engineers... they are the real barbarians ;)
I admire Schneier for his work over all these years. I think everyone should... it's required reading for some of us ;-P
I think what I most agree with is Schneier's contention that security is really about people or services. And therefore, the consequences of having poorly trained and educated people is in kind; regardless of how sophisticated or brilliant the math is. (SIDE: I cant stand the mathematicians. I am a physicist. We score more e.g. Schrodinger, Einstein, Feynman... were all pimps. Newton died a virgin. Turing was gay. Godel was emaciated and his wife just had to be cheating on him.)
What bothers me most about a security craze is the trade-offs one has to accept. Kind of like laws in physics i.e. momentum and position or energy and time. In my opinion, it looks like functionality and security are the two factors we need to juggle. But with the service-side being pushed, it's apparent how much functionality is really strained with more than just security but also competence. You all know this anytime you try to get support.
Anyhow, just putting in my two cents. Cheap as it is. I understand that the mark of our civilization as commonly encountered is all this technology, but I am starting to get the feeling that maybe all the technological progress is so short-sighted because we just are not capable of being civilized. Therefore... we get these half-measures, "band-aids" and "patches."
Expanded moments i.e. dipole, quadrapole etc approximated into tensor. Reason: Tensor is matrix. Matrix is amenable to computer.
That should help with boundaries and EM etc.
As for the fact that finite difference "not working too well." Weird. It's pretty standard when it comes to Laplacian.
You can use the vast amount of numerical work regarding spherical harmonics, Bessel and Legendre etc. Just about everything in EM for N-dimensions breaks down to expansions in these special functions which happen to also correlate to... yep... you guessed it... multipole expansion!
Anyone else Assyrian?
This is pretty novel. But I can't stand how people like to separate Assyrians, Babylonians etc. In our culture we laugh at all that. It's the result of several thousand British and German PhD's over the centuries justifying to themselves that there is some vast difference in Near-East civilizations.
This is like future archaeologists finding the ruins of L.A. and some others finding the ruins of San Francisco and claiming that the people were distinct empires and cultures etc.
We still speak Syriac!
Khool ishkati! Translate that.
I don't know if anyone out there is aware but a paper was put out quite some time ago by Seth Lloyd on the "computational capacity of the universe."