...you can easily spot the little green men running around.
Seriously, is this significant?
So one day in the future I'll be coming back from a martian vacation and when I get back home I'll be able to hook up to hubble and check out where I dropped my tuna sandwich.
Whilst people have never known everything about everything, the attention to information ratio has never been lower.
An obvious result is that we will most likely see more monopolies cropping up, even if their product sucks, and regardless of the fact that a better product exists.
As long as the amount of information grows faster than human population the problem will get worse.
What the article does not mention, are what I see as the two possible solutions to this:
1) Most likely a new kind of culture will develop where people will no longer flock to well known companies but actually look at the fine print, and no longer be bought with sexy advertising etc etc (For example: people will refrain from seeing the all too obvious blockbusters that have all to obvious bad acting.)
2) A more exotic outcome, although not very likely, is if P=NP, in which case there exists a polynomial algorithm for finding what you want from a mess of information... (for those who know what the hell I'm babbling about;) )
"what kind of action would depend on the reliability of my source"
And how does one judge reliability?
In science isn't this the model's ability to predict events correctly?
Death on the other hand is a one time thing, which makes the whole issue more complicated - the experiment cannot be repeated, and thus the reliability not checked.
Generally, models whose reliablity cannot be checked (unfalsifiable) are of no value.
The problem with the whole Fire Dragon argument is that you don't add new particles to a theory unless they have some explanitory value. Which in turn necessitates that they have a measurable effect. So whilst a hypothetical being cannot be disproven to exist its existence is of no concequence to science, and while people may claim that he sets garages on fire, it us up to them to provide the evidence for such.
All this of course has little to do with the Big Bang and such, as you say, the laws that govern the universe today were not necessarily in operation in the past. The problem with this is that it is quite far fetched and there is little reason to suppose that the laws of physics change. (Or if they do change, that they change in some ungoverned manner.)
Nonetheless, interesting post.
Reminds me of when the Time Faith BB was up. I wonder, anyone here from there? Probably not.
The puzzle was posted on Saturday June 30, @12:02PM EDT (#21)
You can't even wait three hours.
Why don't you try giving a not obvious solution to the problem.
Let me rephrase it: Supposing that the universe was hyperbolic (ore spherical for that matter) is the sum of the angles of a triangle drawn on paper 180?
No, you forget that we are talking about the universe, you won't find any removable or essential singularities.
Let's take a look, the only candidate for a singularity is the centre of a black hole.
Since the amount of gravity is monotonically increasing as you approach the singularity, the point must be a pole.
So saying it is a pole was in fact quite accurate.
...of the universe starting as anything other than a singularity is equivalent to that it will end in a state that which is not a singularity, which could mean at any moment in the near future. Clearly such ideas do not belong in the realm of science, no matter how plausible they seem.
So? I thought this was supposed to be like a geeky place, you know, where one might go to such lengths as take into account the curvature of the earth in order to improve one's driving.
But seriously, to a mathematician it is fundamentally important to know if a number is exactly zero, or just close. No matter how close.
"I think you are confused about what is a singularity."
Not at all, I study math, and am pretty good at it, a singularity is a point which does not belong to the space. (I say the because here I am refering to any space.)
If we think of space as being bent by gravity then we can think of space (or bending thereof) as a continuous function and singularities would naturally be the poles (points where the value of the function is infinite - in other words, the point does not belong to the range, ie space)
"So we don't really know what happens at the infinitisimal small scales of a singularity."
"I say your an idiot. Its pretty obvious that you know nothing about what your talking about here, and pretending to really makes you look like an idiot to those of us who do understand what this means."
1) Erm, flaming?
2) Now you see the obvious problem of being AC, I don't know if it's you or some other AC that's flaming.
3) What the hell do you know about what I know???
""Always" implies for all time. Time did not exist prior to the Universe, thus you'd be correct. "
I'd give you a 5-insightful if I knew where I put my marbles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mod points.
I'll have to think about this for a while.
I'd like to say that that was not what I meant, and that you're twisting what I said around, but maybe it's not you doing the twisting, but space-time itself.
"It's a trick question if one assumes that you intentionally meant >180 instead of 180 in an attempt to trick people. Otherwise, stop trying to be cute and say what you mean"
I'm not trying to trick anyone, I saw an opportunity to give a neat puzzle, take it if you like them, and don't assume the worst of people, you're having a bad day with it. (Put down the toy. Down. Good.;) )
I'm tempted to put down my answer, but naah, it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
"Like I said, that's not true. There's no logical reason why the universe couldn't have come into existence at a finite size or density."
Let's not get into Russell type arguments and stick with simple math if you don't mind. Continuous functions do not contain discontinuities, simple as that.
"I did assume that you didn't understand what you were objecting to.."
And why is that? Because I see it differently? Can you infer that I lack understand merely from the fact that I prefer to stress certain points that I feel are more interesting than what you may feel? But I digress...
Supposing that space is continuous the universe could not have a beginning if not from a singularity.
As I said, I'm more interested in the existence of actual singulariries, but since the term black hole is more readily understood I used that as (perhaps not the best chosen) replacement.
It might do you well not to assume that a person is an idiot before the conversation gets underway.
Speaking of triangles, here's a riddle:
Suppose that the universe were hyperbolic, does that mean that the triangles we draw on paper have angles that add up to more than 180 degrees?
PS When I said "prove" I did not mean it in the strict mathematical sense of the word. Let's not get into such arguments, interesting as they are.
We can take it as a give that "prove" means "provide convincing evidence to a model for which no evidence to the contrary has been found".
1) I missed your post since you're an "Anonymous Coward". You should log on.
2) Re: At some point.
In time, of course.
3) Of course the universe was hot and dense at some point (in time), but what interests me is the existence of a singularity. If the universe didn't come out of a singularity then it always existed (as I believe is the case).
As far as predicting experimental results and so forth, it is enough to say the less than 10^-34 is not really significant, but when trying to answer a fundamental question like, was the universe created at the time of the Big Bang, or was this merely another event in the history of the universe?
As for Black Holes: well, yes, I guess if all you want is an event horizon then I have no objections, but as I said, what really interests me is the singularity.
4) Re: I don't think you understand what you're objecting to.
That's a pretty quick judgement.
Your logic doesn't really work. All you have shown is that the argument of "undo" does not apply.
That said, I do believe that CG can be a medium for art, but as in all mediums, the ratio of art to attempts converges to zero as the number of attempts increases.
On another note, if AI can truly be achieved there is no reason why we would not classify computer generated art as art.
Yes, but with this solution comes a variety of unexpected problems, for instance widespread insomnia, drowsiness, a preoccupation with one's "on" button etc. I'm beginning to think that...aah, my ass is on fire. oh, phew.
I see no problem with the using RSA and other current methods.
Since the computation required to get at the key when it is passed is the same as when any other message is passed, so it really doesn't matter how you send the key if you're still sending messages in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, is this significant?
So one day in the future I'll be coming back from a martian vacation and when I get back home I'll be able to hook up to hubble and check out where I dropped my tuna sandwich.
An obvious result is that we will most likely see more monopolies cropping up, even if their product sucks, and regardless of the fact that a better product exists.
As long as the amount of information grows faster than human population the problem will get worse.
What the article does not mention, are what I see as the two possible solutions to this:
1) Most likely a new kind of culture will develop where people will no longer flock to well known companies but actually look at the fine print, and no longer be bought with sexy advertising etc etc (For example: people will refrain from seeing the all too obvious blockbusters that have all to obvious bad acting.)
2) A more exotic outcome, although not very likely, is if P=NP, in which case there exists a polynomial algorithm for finding what you want from a mess of information... (for those who know what the hell I'm babbling about ;) )
And how does one judge reliability?
In science isn't this the model's ability to predict events correctly?
Death on the other hand is a one time thing, which makes the whole issue more complicated - the experiment cannot be repeated, and thus the reliability not checked.
Generally, models whose reliablity cannot be checked (unfalsifiable) are of no value.
All this of course has little to do with the Big Bang and such, as you say, the laws that govern the universe today were not necessarily in operation in the past. The problem with this is that it is quite far fetched and there is little reason to suppose that the laws of physics change. (Or if they do change, that they change in some ungoverned manner.)
Nonetheless, interesting post.
Reminds me of when the Time Faith BB was up. I wonder, anyone here from there? Probably not.
You can't even wait three hours.
Why don't you try giving a not obvious solution to the problem.
Let me rephrase it: Supposing that the universe was hyperbolic (ore spherical for that matter) is the sum of the angles of a triangle drawn on paper 180?
Let's take a look, the only candidate for a singularity is the centre of a black hole.
Since the amount of gravity is monotonically increasing as you approach the singularity, the point must be a pole.
So saying it is a pole was in fact quite accurate.
...of the universe starting as anything other than a singularity is equivalent to that it will end in a state that which is not a singularity, which could mean at any moment in the near future. Clearly such ideas do not belong in the realm of science, no matter how plausible they seem.
BTW You completely ignored my Russell comment and just continue on your safe and narrow path of assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Oops, domain of course (not range) - got caught between thoughts.
So? I thought this was supposed to be like a geeky place, you know, where one might go to such lengths as take into account the curvature of the earth in order to improve one's driving.
But seriously, to a mathematician it is fundamentally important to know if a number is exactly zero, or just close. No matter how close.
Not at all, I study math, and am pretty good at it, a singularity is a point which does not belong to the space. (I say the because here I am refering to any space.)
If we think of space as being bent by gravity then we can think of space (or bending thereof) as a continuous function and singularities would naturally be the poles (points where the value of the function is infinite - in other words, the point does not belong to the range, ie space)
"So we don't really know what happens at the infinitisimal small scales of a singularity."
This is exactly my point.
1) Erm, flaming?
2) Now you see the obvious problem of being AC, I don't know if it's you or some other AC that's flaming.
3) What the hell do you know about what I know???
I'd give you a 5-insightful if I knew where I put my marbles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mod points.
I'll have to think about this for a while.
I'd like to say that that was not what I meant, and that you're twisting what I said around, but maybe it's not you doing the twisting, but space-time itself.
A tad too deep for a witty comeback.
I'm not trying to trick anyone, I saw an opportunity to give a neat puzzle, take it if you like them, and don't assume the worst of people, you're having a bad day with it. (Put down the toy. Down. Good. ;) )
I'm tempted to put down my answer, but naah, it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
Let's not get into Russell type arguments and stick with simple math if you don't mind. Continuous functions do not contain discontinuities, simple as that.
"I did assume that you didn't understand what you were objecting to.."
And why is that? Because I see it differently? Can you infer that I lack understand merely from the fact that I prefer to stress certain points that I feel are more interesting than what you may feel? But I digress...
It [paper triangle > 180?] is a trick question... I'll let it sit there for a while.
As I said, I'm more interested in the existence of actual singulariries, but since the term black hole is more readily understood I used that as (perhaps not the best chosen) replacement.
It might do you well not to assume that a person is an idiot before the conversation gets underway.
Have a nice day.
Suppose that the universe were hyperbolic, does that mean that the triangles we draw on paper have angles that add up to more than 180 degrees?
Don't answer too quickly.
PS When I said "prove" I did not mean it in the strict mathematical sense of the word. Let's not get into such arguments, interesting as they are.
We can take it as a give that "prove" means "provide convincing evidence to a model for which no evidence to the contrary has been found".
2) Re: At some point.
In time, of course.
3) Of course the universe was hot and dense at some point (in time), but what interests me is the existence of a singularity. If the universe didn't come out of a singularity then it always existed (as I believe is the case).
As far as predicting experimental results and so forth, it is enough to say the less than 10^-34 is not really significant, but when trying to answer a fundamental question like, was the universe created at the time of the Big Bang, or was this merely another event in the history of the universe?
As for Black Holes: well, yes, I guess if all you want is an event horizon then I have no objections, but as I said, what really interests me is the singularity.
4) Re: I don't think you understand what you're objecting to.
That's a pretty quick judgement.
That said, I do believe that CG can be a medium for art, but as in all mediums, the ratio of art to attempts converges to zero as the number of attempts increases.
On another note, if AI can truly be achieved there is no reason why we would not classify computer generated art as art.
The real problem is what is art?
...and the bonus is that if you're going to drag around your keyboard, you might aswell stick your passwords to the bottom.
Yes, but with this solution comes a variety of unexpected problems, for instance widespread insomnia, drowsiness, a preoccupation with one's "on" button etc. I'm beginning to think that...aah, my ass is on fire. oh, phew.
I see no problem with the using RSA and other current methods.
Since the computation required to get at the key when it is passed is the same as when any other message is passed, so it really doesn't matter how you send the key if you're still sending messages in the same way.