Hummm.. Apparently it has been too long since I did statistics. 96% for four half-lives. You are right about that.
IIRC it took earth about 500 million years, so the half-life, for a highly suitable planet[1], is likely no less than 125 million years, and no more than 3.3 billion[2] So apparently my one exception is more or less correct.
I still hold that we know so little about the conditions for the formation of life, and so little about the conditions on other planets in general that Occam's razor is a very poor tool for estimating life in the universe. But you are right that even our one sample does tell us a fair bit.
[1]I am assuming that the conditions on the early earth are just about a perfect fit for our form of life. This is nothing more than taking the worst case scenario for life being rare. The less suitable the earth's conditions were, the more likely the half life is smaller.
[2]a half life of 3.3 billion years means that about 10% of all planets will have life within 500 million years. A 90% chance that the half life is not larger than 3.3 billion. (assuming my math is right!)
"Out of a statistical distribution, any single randomly selected sample is by definition far more likely to be near the median than many standard deviations out on one of the tails."
This assumes a bell curve distribution. I can't think of any good reason that the formation of life would follow this[1], and several that suggest that it does not.
"Note that we cannot apply the same reasoning to the distribution of planets suitable for life. All living observers will find themselves on a planet suitable for life, whether that is a high or low probability event."
The anthropic principal. Right. However, if we discount our own planet, then it does work - except that we don't really know what 'suitable for life' really means even for our own form of life, and we have no clue really what is suitable for other forms of life. (silicon based?, liquid methane vs water base? etc.) So, we can't really say how suitable any given planet is for the formation of life. Even the most informed opinion as to the average time to form life is an uneducated guess. Occam's razor is useless in this context.
[1]The posssible exception to this would be if the time to form life is highly dependant on how suitable the planet is, and that a highly suitable planet has a very short, and mostly constant average time. (something like 90% of highly suitable planets form life in the same time +-10%) Suitability is likely bell shaped.
We have a sample size of one (Earth) give or take a few (Other eight planets, plus moons, but are they all devoid of life?)
Given the sample size, average doesn't tell us much, if anything at all. Or in other words, we have very little idea what the average time to form life really is.
More on topic, any theory needs to fit the data. There is so little data in this case that trying to use Occam's razor is pointless. Like trying to figure out how many teeth a horse has when you have only seen one, and it hasn't opened it's mouth yet.
To use your analogy, I think this is a case where the boss does not know the difference between a ford escort and a forklift. And he drives an escort. Hint: the boss is doing the buying.
"You can not, from the outside of a person's head, distinguish between "that person does not have the ability to do X" and "that person has the ability to do X and chooses not to".
If he can lift 500 lbs and run marathons, you know he can pick up your spoon and walk out the door. However, you do have a point, There are some cases where it is not possible to distinguish between 'ability to and chooses not', and 'can't'.
"-Following the logic that your last post suggests would result in a constant state of war between all people
Only those people who aren't capable of forsaking the ability to follow through on every opportunity that presents itself, by internalising restrictions on their freedoms."
Mabe I did misunderstand you, but it sounded like you were justifing preemptive actions agianst someone because he has the ability to violate your rights.[1] And that the goal of such action is to take away his ability, not simply defend yourself. To do this you must do him direct harm. (life limb or property) As he has not harmed you, you just declared war on him.
[1]Note, there are (almost?) no people on earth without the ability to violate at least one of your rights.
"Suppose two people agree to give up some of that liberty in exchange for something they both value more."
A little too simplified, but that is the essence of legitimate government.
and your last reply:"Giving up a freedom means, among other things, giving up the ability to pursue an opportunity."
Legitimate government is not formed by people giving up their ability to do anything. It is formed by people agreeing not to use their abilities to do certain things. Most importantly they agree not to do what they otherwise had the right to do. They retain at all times all abilities. If I can physically pick up a spoon and walk with it, I have the ability to pick up your spoon and walk off with it (violate your property rights) The only way for me to give up the ability to steal your spoon is to physically disable myself.
The ten people who agreed to give up some freedoms (I read this as 'some rights') still have the ability to violate each others rights. In general, then each of those ten people is as much a threat to each other as the eleventh one is.
It is not the eleventh person's 'freedom' (again I read this as rights) that are a threat to anyone. It is his abilites that are the threat. In general, the only way to take away (or give away) abilities is through loss of life, limb, or property. Locks, gates, police, etc. can be used to make it harder for someone to violate your rights without harming others, but only minimise the threat, and cannot eliminate it.
Following the logic that your last post suggests would result in a constant state of war between all people (the state of war is a part of the state of nature, I am using Locke's terms here, the state of war always starts when someone violates someone elses rights and refuses to make reparations) And it would result in Hobbes description of life without government, "nasty brutish and short" (asuming I understood you anyway)
I have said it before and will say it again, go read Locke - you obvoiusly don't understand him. A link to his book was in an earlier post of mine.
"Suppose ten people do this, and they decide that an eleventh person's freedom is a threat?"
Then they need to get a brain. Another's freedom is never a threat.
On the other hand, what if they decide that the eleventh person's planned actions will violate their rights?
Then they would be prudent to prepare for their defence. If the terms of their previous agreement allow it, then forcing each other to prepare for this defence is proper. Otherwise, they either need to make an additional agreement, or prepare individually. Looking for allies would also be a good idea.
These issues are treated at length by Locke. Go read it. Even if you think he is cracked in the head, his ideas carried a lot of weight to the US founders. You won't have wasted your time.
Well, swv3752 summed up what Lockes answer would have been pretty well. These rights (including life liberty and property) were given to man from god when he created man. Locke uses the bible as his authority, A common practice for the time, but hardly good enough for today. - so I'll explore this a little.
How did god give these rights to man? By making man the way he is. We have these rights because we are the way we are. Notice however that it doesn't matter presicely how we became what we are. Evolution, ID, ex nihilo, etc, is irrelevant.
I'll start with Liberty, it is the easiest. Liberty is about choices. People can make choices. More importantly, people cannot give away their ability to make choices. If I try to, say, give my choices to you - it doesn't work. You 'chose' for me and tell me what the choice is, but I have to chose to accept each and every decision you make for me. Since no one's inherant right[1] to force others is any greater than anyone elses, (assuming there is any to begin with) this means that each and every human has the right to Liberty. God or no God.
Property. If I eat something, no one else can eat the same thing. While I wear some pants, no one else can wear them. While I am using a hammer, no one else can use. This is just the way things are. This is Property - the natural result of reality and human nature. Since property is essential to life, the right to property hinges on the right to life.
Without the assumption of God, the right to life is more of a social construct than the others, but, since no one has the right to take away my life, I have a defacto right to life. In addition, people are social animals. A right to life is essential for a society to exist. Without a society, well, the very idea of rights becomes meaningless.
I have gone far enough here. Until you have read (or perhaps in this case recently read) Lockes treatise, most of what I say here is redundant - and he usually said it better than I can in a/. post. Most of his arguments are not religious - just a few. The law of nature is accessed by reason - if only humans were better at reason...
PS. my first post had nothing religious in it, it was pure logic - you assumed the religion part.
[1] right != ability here, some people are more capable of forcing others.
" Nations and society have no rights. Only individuals can have rights."
According to Locke, No.
Nations have those rights that were given to them by the consent of those who formed them. One of the rights that men have is "EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE."[1]
When a proper government is formed, this right is ceeded to the government. But only as it applies to members of that government (citizens) and to forigeners inside the jurisdiction of that government. The people retain that right as it pertains to all other people.
Nations do have rights, but these rights do not incluse the right to make war on unjust governments. The people retain that right. And that right only extends to the punnishment of those who do the wrong. - no farther.
[1] Locke put this part in caps, and so I quoted it that way.
This is not pure drivel - or even close. Wrong? Yes, but not blatantly so.
This logic is very similar to John Locke's arguments in his Second Tretise on Government, which in many ways is as much a founding document of the United Stated as the Constitution is. The phrases "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," in the Declaration of Independance are directly inspired by Locke. Go read it, and when you are done, come back and tell me what mistake(s) Ann Ryand made - what makes her wrong.
Pay attention to the first two chapters, and the one on Conquest, just don't skip everything in the middle.
$200B at 15k/ea is around 13M houses. I think that is low. It looks like it would cost more to do the panels than the invasion cost, by roughly twice. And that would still not cover autos, which are IIRC %60 of our oil use.
Not to defend the Iraq invasion... and you have a valid point, R&D spending would be a better use of the money, but you need to check your math.
I see. That is a more valid point than it looked like at first, and I partly agree with you. However, what you don't seem to see is that the current business environment is largely the result of government actions. (US and others) Levvies (more gov. action!) are not the solution.
Is what the AC said possible? (breeding for taste easier with GM tomatoes?) If yes, then the problem is not with GM, it is the corporation Mosanto. Don't bash GM for Mosanto's faults. An evil M$ doesn't make all operating systems bad.
First, the misery and suffering bit. People have been exploiting each other since we stopped being hunter-gatherers (and probably before that) Technonogy has not caused it. It has merely changed the paticulars of this exploitation. I would venture to say that technology has not increased it either.
"...what happens when the corporate owners of this new cash cow demand and succeed in buying laws..."
What happens when the corporate owners of $THING buy laws (at someone elses expence?) Bad ThingsTM This is not a problem with technology, it is a problem with politics and governments. This sort of manipulation of laws has been going on for as long as there have been laws. Banning new technologies will not have any affect on this.
In short, the problems you are talking about are real problems, but they have very little to do with advances in technology. The root cause of your problems have to do with bad governments and human nature, not bad tech. Railing on the tech lets the governments & crooks off the hook.
"The reason that gene transfer is such an issue with antibiotics is due to the brevity of the generational period."
Actually, it is worse than that. When a bacterium finds a piece of DNA, from whatever source, it can do two things. eat it (food) or use it. Many bacteria actually spit out DNA fragments for this purpose. Genes can jump species this way. The short generational period is not enough to develope antibiotical resistance as fast as it has. (they thought of that when the first started using antibiotics, and figured that it wasn't a big enough problem. They did not think of (know about?) the gene swapping thing.)
His example is not a 'possible exception' There are dozens like it. Google for 'ring species' for starters.
As for the difference between unwilling and unable, give it time. Any reasonable estimate as to how long such an event would take runs into hundred(s) of generations. We simply haven't had enough time for one to take place. Now, you can prove that it has taken place, but you have to accept genetic evidence for it. There is tons of genetic evidence for 'speciation' that has resulted in 'unable' but creationists don't seem to be willing to accept such genetic evidence.
"...change from one type of creature to another..."
Define 'type of creature' well enough for me to take any two creatures, and be able to tell without any ambiguity if they are the same type or different types, and I'll listen. I've never seen one. I've looked. Google for 'ring species' to see some exaples of hard cases.
Be aware that this is not a trivial task. The most common one, 'can they reproduce together' doesn't work for any animal which doesn't use sex to reproduce. As TFA said, there are several kinds. To give a concrete example, dandelions, despite having flowers, nectar and pollen, simply create clones of themselves. No dandelion can polinate another dandelion, or even itself.
'Type of Creature' (or species) is a classification scheme made up by humans to help us classify and deal with life. It is very useful, to a point. But in the end it is entirely artificial. Nature simply doesn't bother with such distinctions.
No, the huge advantage is not the self-maintaining, Solar panels don't need much. (they are used on satelites for crying out loud) The huge advantage is it is a lot easier to store grass for a rainy day than the electricity from a solar panel.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC it took earth about 500 million years, so the half-life, for a highly suitable planet[1], is likely no less than 125 million years, and no more than 3.3 billion[2] So apparently my one exception is more or less correct.
I still hold that we know so little about the conditions for the formation of life, and so little about the conditions on other planets in general that Occam's razor is a very poor tool for estimating life in the universe. But you are right that even our one sample does tell us a fair bit.
[1]I am assuming that the conditions on the early earth are just about a perfect fit for our form of life. This is nothing more than taking the worst case scenario for life being rare. The less suitable the earth's conditions were, the more likely the half life is smaller.
[2]a half life of 3.3 billion years means that about 10% of all planets will have life within 500 million years. A 90% chance that the half life is not larger than 3.3 billion. (assuming my math is right!)
This assumes a bell curve distribution. I can't think of any good reason that the formation of life would follow this[1], and several that suggest that it does not.
"Note that we cannot apply the same reasoning to the distribution of planets suitable for life. All living observers will find themselves on a planet suitable for life, whether that is a high or low probability event."
The anthropic principal. Right. However, if we discount our own planet, then it does work - except that we don't really know what 'suitable for life' really means even for our own form of life, and we have no clue really what is suitable for other forms of life. (silicon based?, liquid methane vs water base? etc.) So, we can't really say how suitable any given planet is for the formation of life. Even the most informed opinion as to the average time to form life is an uneducated guess. Occam's razor is useless in this context.
[1]The posssible exception to this would be if the time to form life is highly dependant on how suitable the planet is, and that a highly suitable planet has a very short, and mostly constant average time. (something like 90% of highly suitable planets form life in the same time +-10%) Suitability is likely bell shaped.
Because they do by habit or nature, what you do through bondage-and-discipline. Eat less and/or exercise more.
Oh, and the metabolism thing too.
Given the sample size, average doesn't tell us much, if anything at all. Or in other words, we have very little idea what the average time to form life really is.
More on topic, any theory needs to fit the data. There is so little data in this case that trying to use Occam's razor is pointless. Like trying to figure out how many teeth a horse has when you have only seen one, and it hasn't opened it's mouth yet.
I believe you mispelled 'flame' :)
Or chase them all day. (yes, many native tribes actually did hunt things that way) The apaches were not unique in that ability.
To use your analogy, I think this is a case where the boss does not know the difference between a ford escort and a forklift. And he drives an escort. Hint: the boss is doing the buying.
If he can lift 500 lbs and run marathons, you know he can pick up your spoon and walk out the door. However, you do have a point, There are some cases where it is not possible to distinguish between 'ability to and chooses not', and 'can't'.
"-Following the logic that your last post suggests would result in a constant state of war between all people
Only those people who aren't capable of forsaking the ability to follow through on every opportunity that presents itself, by internalising restrictions on their freedoms."
Mabe I did misunderstand you, but it sounded like you were justifing preemptive actions agianst someone because he has the ability to violate your rights.[1] And that the goal of such action is to take away his ability, not simply defend yourself. To do this you must do him direct harm. (life limb or property) As he has not harmed you, you just declared war on him.
[1]Note, there are (almost?) no people on earth without the ability to violate at least one of your rights.
From an earlier post of mine:
and your last reply:"Giving up a freedom means, among other things, giving up the ability to pursue an opportunity."
Legitimate government is not formed by people giving up their ability to do anything. It is formed by people agreeing not to use their abilities to do certain things. Most importantly they agree not to do what they otherwise had the right to do. They retain at all times all abilities. If I can physically pick up a spoon and walk with it, I have the ability to pick up your spoon and walk off with it (violate your property rights) The only way for me to give up the ability to steal your spoon is to physically disable myself.
The ten people who agreed to give up some freedoms (I read this as 'some rights') still have the ability to violate each others rights. In general, then each of those ten people is as much a threat to each other as the eleventh one is.
It is not the eleventh person's 'freedom' (again I read this as rights) that are a threat to anyone. It is his abilites that are the threat. In general, the only way to take away (or give away) abilities is through loss of life, limb, or property. Locks, gates, police, etc. can be used to make it harder for someone to violate your rights without harming others, but only minimise the threat, and cannot eliminate it.
Following the logic that your last post suggests would result in a constant state of war between all people (the state of war is a part of the state of nature, I am using Locke's terms here, the state of war always starts when someone violates someone elses rights and refuses to make reparations) And it would result in Hobbes description of life without government, "nasty brutish and short" (asuming I understood you anyway)
I have said it before and will say it again, go read Locke - you obvoiusly don't understand him. A link to his book was in an earlier post of mine.
Then they need to get a brain. Another's freedom is never a threat.
On the other hand, what if they decide that the eleventh person's planned actions will violate their rights?
Then they would be prudent to prepare for their defence. If the terms of their previous agreement allow it, then forcing each other to prepare for this defence is proper. Otherwise, they either need to make an additional agreement, or prepare individually. Looking for allies would also be a good idea.
These issues are treated at length by Locke. Go read it. Even if you think he is cracked in the head, his ideas carried a lot of weight to the US founders. You won't have wasted your time.
A little too simplified, but that is the essence of legitimate government.
How did god give these rights to man? By making man the way he is. We have these rights because we are the way we are. Notice however that it doesn't matter presicely how we became what we are. Evolution, ID, ex nihilo, etc, is irrelevant.
I'll start with Liberty, it is the easiest. Liberty is about choices. People can make choices. More importantly, people cannot give away their ability to make choices. If I try to, say, give my choices to you - it doesn't work. You 'chose' for me and tell me what the choice is, but I have to chose to accept each and every decision you make for me. Since no one's inherant right[1] to force others is any greater than anyone elses, (assuming there is any to begin with) this means that each and every human has the right to Liberty. God or no God.
Property. If I eat something, no one else can eat the same thing. While I wear some pants, no one else can wear them. While I am using a hammer, no one else can use. This is just the way things are. This is Property - the natural result of reality and human nature. Since property is essential to life, the right to property hinges on the right to life.
Without the assumption of God, the right to life is more of a social construct than the others, but, since no one has the right to take away my life, I have a defacto right to life. In addition, people are social animals. A right to life is essential for a society to exist. Without a society, well, the very idea of rights becomes meaningless.
I have gone far enough here. Until you have read (or perhaps in this case recently read) Lockes treatise, most of what I say here is redundant - and he usually said it better than I can in a /. post. Most of his arguments are not religious - just a few. The law of nature is accessed by reason - if only humans were better at reason...
PS. my first post had nothing religious in it, it was pure logic - you assumed the religion part.
[1] right != ability here, some people are more capable of forcing others.
According to Locke, No.
Nations have those rights that were given to them by the consent of those who formed them. One of the rights that men have is "EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE."[1]
When a proper government is formed, this right is ceeded to the government. But only as it applies to members of that government (citizens) and to forigeners inside the jurisdiction of that government. The people retain that right as it pertains to all other people.
Nations do have rights, but these rights do not incluse the right to make war on unjust governments. The people retain that right. And that right only extends to the punnishment of those who do the wrong. - no farther.
[1] Locke put this part in caps, and so I quoted it that way.
This logic is very similar to John Locke's arguments in his Second Tretise on Government, which in many ways is as much a founding document of the United Stated as the Constitution is. The phrases "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," in the Declaration of Independance are directly inspired by Locke. Go read it, and when you are done, come back and tell me what mistake(s) Ann Ryand made - what makes her wrong.
Pay attention to the first two chapters, and the one on Conquest, just don't skip everything in the middle.
Not to defend the Iraq invasion... and you have a valid point, R&D spending would be a better use of the money, but you need to check your math.
I see. That is a more valid point than it looked like at first, and I partly agree with you. However, what you don't seem to see is that the current business environment is largely the result of government actions. (US and others) Levvies (more gov. action!) are not the solution.
Is what the AC said possible? (breeding for taste easier with GM tomatoes?) If yes, then the problem is not with GM, it is the corporation Mosanto. Don't bash GM for Mosanto's faults. An evil M$ doesn't make all operating systems bad.
"...what happens when the corporate owners of this new cash cow demand and succeed in buying laws..."
What happens when the corporate owners of $THING buy laws (at someone elses expence?) Bad ThingsTM This is not a problem with technology, it is a problem with politics and governments. This sort of manipulation of laws has been going on for as long as there have been laws. Banning new technologies will not have any affect on this.
In short, the problems you are talking about are real problems, but they have very little to do with advances in technology. The root cause of your problems have to do with bad governments and human nature, not bad tech. Railing on the tech lets the governments & crooks off the hook.
Actually, it is worse than that. When a bacterium finds a piece of DNA, from whatever source, it can do two things. eat it (food) or use it. Many bacteria actually spit out DNA fragments for this purpose. Genes can jump species this way. The short generational period is not enough to develope antibiotical resistance as fast as it has. (they thought of that when the first started using antibiotics, and figured that it wasn't a big enough problem. They did not think of (know about?) the gene swapping thing.)
thanks for the info -
As for the difference between unwilling and unable, give it time. Any reasonable estimate as to how long such an event would take runs into hundred(s) of generations. We simply haven't had enough time for one to take place. Now, you can prove that it has taken place, but you have to accept genetic evidence for it. There is tons of genetic evidence for 'speciation' that has resulted in 'unable' but creationists don't seem to be willing to accept such genetic evidence.
802.11g usb and linux? which card/model?
Agreed.
"...change from one type of creature to another..."
Define 'type of creature' well enough for me to take any two creatures, and be able to tell without any ambiguity if they are the same type or different types, and I'll listen. I've never seen one. I've looked. Google for 'ring species' to see some exaples of hard cases.
Be aware that this is not a trivial task. The most common one, 'can they reproduce together' doesn't work for any animal which doesn't use sex to reproduce. As TFA said, there are several kinds. To give a concrete example, dandelions, despite having flowers, nectar and pollen, simply create clones of themselves. No dandelion can polinate another dandelion, or even itself.
'Type of Creature' (or species) is a classification scheme made up by humans to help us classify and deal with life. It is very useful, to a point. But in the end it is entirely artificial. Nature simply doesn't bother with such distinctions.
No, the huge advantage is not the self-maintaining, Solar panels don't need much. (they are used on satelites for crying out loud) The huge advantage is it is a lot easier to store grass for a rainy day than the electricity from a solar panel.
Making money is bad when (among others times) it comes at the cost of creating wealth.
Note: wealth != money.