I always felt the fantastic element in fantasy came from the natural occurrence of the spectacular elements. Merlin calls upon the forces of nature, Belgarath calls upon the power of the gods and unicorns, dragons and elves are all natural beasts. In science fiction, the fantastic, no matter how fantastic, is a form of technology that someone built. Some find that to be a fine distinction, but I think it an important one.
It is not my theory, just my understanding of it. I thought multiverse theory was that if you had enough universes, you would have a statistical chance of having one that would support intelligent life. That makes our universe special in the multiverse, but our planet un-special in our universe. If I am wrong, please let me know. What I am saying is if we are special in the multiverse, than other special things can happen, depending upon the cardinality of the multiverse required to bring about our level of "specialness." You could define specialness as the inverse of the probability of an event happening. The theory bruit forces events with a low probability to occur by the sheer number of universes, no fine-tuning require.
...it seems odd to conclude that a transcendent deity exists because the multiverse is mostly inhospitable to human life.
To be clear, if there are a sufficient number of universes in existence to allow one universe to support intelligent life, are there enough universes in existence to allow a universe to support God? Most of the multiverse being inhospitable to intelligent life is just a byproduct of the (assumed) low probability of intelligent life occurring and, therefore, high number of universes required. I do not think that statement is odd. Good luck proving it one way or another. We are ants trying to model the universe.
How we respond to technology
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Card's primary purpose is to analyze and consider the human condition as opposed to exploring technological possibilities or theories. Almost everything that is highly advanced is the result of alien technology and is never explained or understood. Much of it functions on an almost mystical or magical level.
I always thought this was the point. In science fiction, the high technology is a plot device and how our interaction with said device describes aspects of human behavior is the story. I do not need to know how a technological fountain of youth works. I just need to know it makes people young again and requires something of a high cost personal cost, say the ability to feel love. How society treats the creator of this device, whether people who refuse to use it are ostracized by society, do people who use the machine experience regret? The dilithium crystal configuration of the device is irrelevant compared to those aspects of the story.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
Which is why I find these arguments ironic. With billions of planets and a billion billions of random chemical processes, life should randomly come into being on some N% of planets. Intelligent life should then occur on some (N/M)% of planets. This is a safe though experiment if you wish to dispel the notion of God.
So why not scale it to universes? Say only a small percentage of billions of universes can support intelligent life. Intelligent life is the outlier. Compared to all other matter in the multi-verse, intelligent life matter is magical in comparison. We are not 6 sigma, we are 6 million sigma. Tell me how this dispels the theory of God. If you need billions of permutations of universes to bring about one hospitable to intelligent life, tell me how that proves one of those universes is not inhabited by one omnipotent, all powerful being? Is one any more special than the other in this multi-verse model?
When was it decided it was okay to add an arbitrary number of dimensions to a problems solution space to make all your equations work?
I would think Texas to be prime real estate to start a grass roots Libertarian movement. The biggest barrier? The words "Libertarian" and "Liberal" sound way to similar.
...the motor is designed to run optimally within a range of RPM. Whatever gear it runs in, I try to keep the rpm low as possible...
You have discovered the common sense in hypermiling. It is not about the speedometer, it is about the tachometer. If you drive a modern automatic with overdrive, the lowest speed you can reach the overdrive gear in is 45-50 MPH. My Chevrolet Impala (I got a larger car instead of an SUV) will turn up about 2000 RPM right before the OD shift. Once in OD, It will turn about 1500 RPM. Stop and go in-town driving patterns will cause a loss in car mileage. The constant speed and RPM of highway driving is what gives people better mileage on the highway. If my car (2005) is any indication, newer cars are still more efficient at lower speeds. I can get a 10-15% improvement in mileage driving 45 MPH instead of 40 MPH. It is similar to driving everywhere in 4th gear vs 3rd gear. I would prefer 45 MPH roads, since that is where I hit my car's sweet spot.
The elegance of a hybrid is its design takes advantage of stop and go driving. If you can use regenerative breaking to charge a battery, accelerate to OD speed on the battery and then engage the internal combustion engine (when necessary) at a constant speed and RPM, you are driving at peak efficiency for the system.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
What does Occam's Razor slice through first, that we live at the exact center of a matter void or the existence of dark matter scattered throughout the universe? According to the article they are mutually exclusive to the point that observations are better explained by one than the other. Although, I am certain if we just add one more dimension to M-theory, everything will work out fine.
Will you form a non-partisan cabinet? Will you cabinet have members not only from the Republican and Democratic parties, but also from the Green, Independent or Libertarian parties?
From wikipedia, "In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." Not that Wikipedia is even close to the HGTTG, but that is a very concise and accurate definition of a theory.
First and foremost, a theory is a testable model. Models are approximations of nature.
1) Start with theory 1 and state a hypothesis (Theory 1 is bullocks)
2) Write a procedure that can be run by any nitwit grad student (drop a ball from x feet, observe N star formations)
3) Examine results (ow, my foot! ow, my eyes!)
4) Make a conclusion (my data does not allow me to conclude Theory1 is bullocks.)
A well designed experiment provides scientific benefit whether your conclusion matches the original hypothesis or not. You either provide evidence for or against a theory, a model.
Yes, you should not accept Big Bang blindly, nor dismiss it out of hand, but I am still waiting for the test procedure that verifies the Big Bang theory. Aha, but the above definition states you can verify a theory via empirical observation. Sure, but if your empirical observations of the universe is what gave birth to a theory, more of those same observations cannot be used to verify the theory. That is incestuous. Lots of evidence points to a Big Bang occurring, but nothing explains why. A model of a system needs to explain why.
Just because everybody agrees with it does not make it true; science it not a democracy. String/M-theory are very popular right now, but it does not mean they are correct.
So if other voters in other democracies do not let expert matters determine their votes, we will call those "issues," what do they use?
Unlike US voters, who follow the words of talking heads, we will call that "oral diarrhea," they must have some discriminator. I guess they could listen to experts talk on TV about their areas of expertise and go with that. So do they use oral diarrhea from issue experts? But how do you judge the sweetness of the oral diarrhea? You have to know enough of an issue expert to determine whether oral diarrhea A is full of excrement versus oral diarrhea B.
But that would be letting issues determine voting preference, a premise proffered as false in this little thought experiment. Further, if the expert spurting oral excrement is loud enough, they are no different than the talking heads of US TV.
You know what, I am just going to go watch the Olympics.
You are assuming 100% of US citizens vote. If you look at the 2004 general election, total voter turnout, including absentees and overseas voters, is 60.93%. So 30% is darn near half of that, which is what the final tally was.
Actually, according to a Mr. Moore documentary that I saw not too long ago, it's the U.S. government that's limiting our access to know how good life is in Cuba.
What was Mr. Moore's explanation for the number of refugees willing to paddle all the way to Miami on a rubber tire? I have not watched the documentary, I really would like to know.
Love them or hate them, moderators and meta-moderators are part of the system. If all you are concerned about is karma, then you will have to weigh you desire to post against your fear of loosing karma points. My suggestion is to say what you want intelligently and damn whether it is popular. Popular speech is boring.
As to your post above:
...it's a site developer's responsibility to make their web site work in all browsers in common usage, not just the ones they feel like.
I must disagree. If it exists, it is a developer's responsibility to code to a set of standards. It is a site and browser developer's responsibility to code to a set of standards.
If I remember correctly, it displays fairly wonky in IE as well. I am certain this bit of advice may sound repugnant to you considering you signature, but it works out very well for me. Stop using IE.
What would be much more interesting is to take a random sampling of people, regardless of political affiliation, and survey for a Presidential candidate with no weight towards the present nominees. Disqualify those who are ineligible (already served 2 terms, convicted felons, the Pope) and see what shakes out.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1031965&cid=25800705
I always felt the fantastic element in fantasy came from the natural occurrence of the spectacular elements. Merlin calls upon the forces of nature, Belgarath calls upon the power of the gods and unicorns, dragons and elves are all natural beasts. In science fiction, the fantastic, no matter how fantastic, is a form of technology that someone built. Some find that to be a fine distinction, but I think it an important one.
Wow...another IDL user? No way! Column major, FTW!
It is not my theory, just my understanding of it. I thought multiverse theory was that if you had enough universes, you would have a statistical chance of having one that would support intelligent life. That makes our universe special in the multiverse, but our planet un-special in our universe. If I am wrong, please let me know. What I am saying is if we are special in the multiverse, than other special things can happen, depending upon the cardinality of the multiverse required to bring about our level of "specialness." You could define specialness as the inverse of the probability of an event happening. The theory bruit forces events with a low probability to occur by the sheer number of universes, no fine-tuning require.
...it seems odd to conclude that a transcendent deity exists because the multiverse is mostly inhospitable to human life.
To be clear, if there are a sufficient number of universes in existence to allow one universe to support intelligent life, are there enough universes in existence to allow a universe to support God? Most of the multiverse being inhospitable to intelligent life is just a byproduct of the (assumed) low probability of intelligent life occurring and, therefore, high number of universes required. I do not think that statement is odd. Good luck proving it one way or another. We are ants trying to model the universe.
Card's primary purpose is to analyze and consider the human condition as opposed to exploring technological possibilities or theories. Almost everything that is highly advanced is the result of alien technology and is never explained or understood. Much of it functions on an almost mystical or magical level.
I always thought this was the point. In science fiction, the high technology is a plot device and how our interaction with said device describes aspects of human behavior is the story. I do not need to know how a technological fountain of youth works. I just need to know it makes people young again and requires something of a high cost personal cost, say the ability to feel love. How society treats the creator of this device, whether people who refuse to use it are ostracized by society, do people who use the machine experience regret? The dilithium crystal configuration of the device is irrelevant compared to those aspects of the story.
Just my two cents.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
Which is why I find these arguments ironic. With billions of planets and a billion billions of random chemical processes, life should randomly come into being on some N% of planets. Intelligent life should then occur on some (N/M)% of planets. This is a safe though experiment if you wish to dispel the notion of God.
So why not scale it to universes? Say only a small percentage of billions of universes can support intelligent life. Intelligent life is the outlier. Compared to all other matter in the multi-verse, intelligent life matter is magical in comparison. We are not 6 sigma, we are 6 million sigma. Tell me how this dispels the theory of God. If you need billions of permutations of universes to bring about one hospitable to intelligent life, tell me how that proves one of those universes is not inhabited by one omnipotent, all powerful being? Is one any more special than the other in this multi-verse model?
When was it decided it was okay to add an arbitrary number of dimensions to a problems solution space to make all your equations work?
I could have sworn it was November...
I would think Texas to be prime real estate to start a grass roots Libertarian movement. The biggest barrier? The words "Libertarian" and "Liberal" sound way to similar.
Did I just sleep for 6 months?
Your arrow should most definitely not be pointing to the right.
I assume the +5 Insightful is for the "...I'm lazy!" and "Even if I'm a lazy bum." comments.
EVE Online through a touchscreen interface, FTW!
Oh my God! Its everywhere! Everywhere! My eyes, oh my eyes!
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/sol_10_13/sol07.jpg
...the motor is designed to run optimally within a range of RPM.
Whatever gear it runs in, I try to keep the rpm low as possible...
You have discovered the common sense in hypermiling. It is not about the speedometer, it is about the tachometer. If you drive a modern automatic with overdrive, the lowest speed you can reach the overdrive gear in is 45-50 MPH. My Chevrolet Impala (I got a larger car instead of an SUV) will turn up about 2000 RPM right before the OD shift. Once in OD, It will turn about 1500 RPM. Stop and go in-town driving patterns will cause a loss in car mileage. The constant speed and RPM of highway driving is what gives people better mileage on the highway. If my car (2005) is any indication, newer cars are still more efficient at lower speeds. I can get a 10-15% improvement in mileage driving 45 MPH instead of 40 MPH. It is similar to driving everywhere in 4th gear vs 3rd gear. I would prefer 45 MPH roads, since that is where I hit my car's sweet spot.
The elegance of a hybrid is its design takes advantage of stop and go driving. If you can use regenerative breaking to charge a battery, accelerate to OD speed on the battery and then engage the internal combustion engine (when necessary) at a constant speed and RPM, you are driving at peak efficiency for the system.
Well, no more a hack than adding an arbitrary number of dimensions to the universe until all your equations work out. Oh, wait...
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
What does Occam's Razor slice through first, that we live at the exact center of a matter void or the existence of dark matter scattered throughout the universe? According to the article they are mutually exclusive to the point that observations are better explained by one than the other. Although, I am certain if we just add one more dimension to M-theory, everything will work out fine.
Will you form a non-partisan cabinet? Will you cabinet have members not only from the Republican and Democratic parties, but also from the Green, Independent or Libertarian parties?
I like that you cited a web comic as a source. I actually trust Randall more than wikipedia.
I say, make them emit a periodic airy tone that increases in frequency linearly with speed. Just like the Jetsons. That will sell.
From wikipedia, "In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." Not that Wikipedia is even close to the HGTTG, but that is a very concise and accurate definition of a theory.
First and foremost, a theory is a testable model. Models are approximations of nature.
1) Start with theory 1 and state a hypothesis (Theory 1 is bullocks)
2) Write a procedure that can be run by any nitwit grad student (drop a ball from x feet, observe N star formations)
3) Examine results (ow, my foot! ow, my eyes!)
4) Make a conclusion (my data does not allow me to conclude Theory1 is bullocks.)
A well designed experiment provides scientific benefit whether your conclusion matches the original hypothesis or not. You either provide evidence for or against a theory, a model.
Yes, you should not accept Big Bang blindly, nor dismiss it out of hand, but I am still waiting for the test procedure that verifies the Big Bang theory. Aha, but the above definition states you can verify a theory via empirical observation. Sure, but if your empirical observations of the universe is what gave birth to a theory, more of those same observations cannot be used to verify the theory. That is incestuous. Lots of evidence points to a Big Bang occurring, but nothing explains why. A model of a system needs to explain why.
Just because everybody agrees with it does not make it true; science it not a democracy. String/M-theory are very popular right now, but it does not mean they are correct.
So if other voters in other democracies do not let expert matters determine their votes, we will call those "issues," what do they use?
Unlike US voters, who follow the words of talking heads, we will call that "oral diarrhea," they must have some discriminator. I guess they could listen to experts talk on TV about their areas of expertise and go with that. So do they use oral diarrhea from issue experts? But how do you judge the sweetness of the oral diarrhea? You have to know enough of an issue expert to determine whether oral diarrhea A is full of excrement versus oral diarrhea B.
But that would be letting issues determine voting preference, a premise proffered as false in this little thought experiment. Further, if the expert spurting oral excrement is loud enough, they are no different than the talking heads of US TV.
You know what, I am just going to go watch the Olympics.
You are assuming 100% of US citizens vote. If you look at the 2004 general election, total voter turnout, including absentees and overseas voters, is 60.93%. So 30% is darn near half of that, which is what the final tally was.
Actually, according to a Mr. Moore documentary that I saw not too long ago, it's the U.S. government that's limiting our access to know how good life is in Cuba.
What was Mr. Moore's explanation for the number of refugees willing to paddle all the way to Miami on a rubber tire? I have not watched the documentary, I really would like to know.
At the risk of losing karma:
...it's a site developer's responsibility to make their web site work in all browsers in common usage, not just the ones they feel like.
My sig is more hate toward the moderators...
Love them or hate them, moderators and meta-moderators are part of the system. If all you are concerned about is karma, then you will have to weigh you desire to post against your fear of loosing karma points. My suggestion is to say what you want intelligently and damn whether it is popular. Popular speech is boring.
As to your post above:
I must disagree. If it exists, it is a developer's responsibility to code to a set of standards. It is a site and browser developer's responsibility to code to a set of standards.
If I remember correctly, it displays fairly wonky in IE as well.
I am certain this bit of advice may sound repugnant to you considering you signature, but it works out very well for me. Stop using IE.
What would be much more interesting is to take a random sampling of people, regardless of political affiliation, and survey for a Presidential candidate with no weight towards the present nominees. Disqualify those who are ineligible (already served 2 terms, convicted felons, the Pope) and see what shakes out.