In this context, the meaning of violating causality is this. Let events A and B be such that motion at greater than c is necessary to get from one to the other. Then there exist frames in which A occurs before B, and also frames in which B occurs before A.
I think I understand the thought experiment, but with huge disclaimers:)
What I'm saying is that regardless of the thought example ("going faster than c") there will be no breaking of causality because causality is the description (->) of A->B of events A and B. I'm looking at it from Hume's POV, which presents the following analysis: Causality is a learned conceiving of events and nothing of objective existence. Thus, if billiard ball moves (B) _before_ the cue hits it (A), then something else caused it; e.g. (C) A follows B when >c. This means that our habit naturally is adapted to speeds c, C will always happen. This is because causality is the way we order events, not the way events are ordered (according to Hume).
There is another way to look at it. The existence of causality is taken as a given in most thought experiments. If causality is real, call it causality proper, then we are talking about a certain chain of events in the totality of events. If we accelerate to >c, then the totality of events will yield no other possibility then that A follows B, whereas at speeds c is still causality because the totality of events include a rule that 'in speeds greater than c order is reversed' or some such thing.
Summing up the two. Hume's view is similar to saying causality is a human habit of ordering events. In the event (pun not intended) that events are reversed human may still develop the habit to include special circumstances for speeds greater than c, and indeed, expect the cause of an outcome. With regards to causality proper, a totality of events (the universe as is) will remain the same. When these events for a local situation include speeds >c things may baffle us but still be properly caused. I can't see that causality is broken in either case..?
Also, you write that there are frames in which A occurs before B and frames in which B occurs before A. As long as they don't appear together (q and not q) we're still inside the realm of causality, no? It might cause visual abnormalities, but they are abnormalities because we're naturally atuned to speeds c.
I'm @ work, so not thinking straight... Please elucidate and educate me!:)
at least not yet. They follow algorithms. A game is way more than algorithms.
It's emotions and conventions like fear and excitement, having a poker face, intimidating chitchat, joking, awareness of losing or of losing face, anger or disappointment for failing strategy; also bodily functions (distractions) like sweating, being cold, nausea, annoyed at a small draft aso.
A grand master's move is not just the what but the how and the why. Computers still just do the first. They are not artists because they have no self-identity, pride, integrity etc. No "soul" if you like.
Yes, a computer may cook a meal but is not a chef. At least not yet.
I'm not sure it is possible to violate causality. Causality is just a sequential description of what we already know happened or suspect will happen.
So, let's say stuff happens. If you "violated causality" stuff would still happen, but our regular description would not apply (our physical constitution might not even allow it being perceived).
If what you like is the hype then so be it (these laptops are advertised as the pink laptop).
Heck, I bought white LCD and peripherals for the kitchen computer myself!
Just saying she's wants a new computer but risk getting one below or equal to her current specs because she's paying the pink premium. She's buying the hype.
Apple users accept. If Apple said it, it must be good and true.
I support Apple products, and even when it is clear the user is screwed, s/he accepts it with a baffling air of gratitude. This has never happened with PC users so far.
The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product.
Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity. Both for the customer and the producer.
What you call the lack of opportunity others call a right. If you buy something brand new, you have rights. Rights ensure that responsibility on both sides is clear and followed. You don't get that without law because law goes beyond whatever excuses a company may give you to claim warranty void. (Sure, laws must be improved but it doesn't change the fact that you will at some time need a third-party to solve the conflict.)
If you want it cheaper without any rights buy it secondhand.
Perhaps something more constructive, like a progress bar, would make more people care.
People tend to ignore warnings of bad stuff because we're psychologically wired to do so. With a to-do list and a progress bar they could perhaps be more inclined to act?
Currently my GF is browsing for a pink laptop because it is pink. *sigh * it comes at a premium because it is pink, and is slower than her present laptop (that I bought used from work and put an SSD into).
My point being (?) that she's shopping the hype. Also, any way to spray paint a grey DELL?
Evolution depends on random mutations and natural selection. People emphasize death but really it is all about survival, viz. life. The process itself has no subject (or it has God).
Human technology is more about copying and being in the face of the customer at all time. Our selection is not based on critical thinking but is still a choice, and has little to do whatsoever with survival (unless for the base of Maslow's pyramid). This process always has a subject.
HOWEVER. The reason we should stop using the term evolution in technology is because 1. technology or rather, tool use is not humanity. Humanity uses tools; and 2. technological breakthrough is accidental yet intentional. Evolution will always take care of life, technological developments will always take care of (some powerful) humans, whose interests may be opposite to life. Calling it evolution is sort of equating it with a natural force equal for everyone and not a force of an arbitrary market with non-equal players.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it is possible to violate causality.
In this context, the meaning of violating causality is this. Let events A and B be such that motion at greater than c is necessary to get from one to the other. Then there exist frames in which A occurs before B, and also frames in which B occurs before A.
I think I understand the thought experiment, but with huge disclaimers:)
What I'm saying is that regardless of the thought example ("going faster than c") there will be no breaking of causality because causality is the description (->) of A->B of events A and B. I'm looking at it from Hume's POV, which presents the following analysis: Causality is a learned conceiving of events and nothing of objective existence. Thus, if billiard ball moves (B) _before_ the cue hits it (A), then something else caused it; e.g. (C) A follows B when >c. This means that our habit naturally is adapted to speeds c, C will always happen. This is because causality is the way we order events, not the way events are ordered (according to Hume).
There is another way to look at it. The existence of causality is taken as a given in most thought experiments. If causality is real, call it causality proper, then we are talking about a certain chain of events in the totality of events. If we accelerate to >c, then the totality of events will yield no other possibility then that A follows B, whereas at speeds c is still causality because the totality of events include a rule that 'in speeds greater than c order is reversed' or some such thing.
Summing up the two. Hume's view is similar to saying causality is a human habit of ordering events. In the event (pun not intended) that events are reversed human may still develop the habit to include special circumstances for speeds greater than c, and indeed, expect the cause of an outcome.
With regards to causality proper, a totality of events (the universe as is) will remain the same. When these events for a local situation include speeds >c things may baffle us but still be properly caused. I can't see that causality is broken in either case..?
Also, you write that there are frames in which A occurs before B and frames in which B occurs before A. As long as they don't appear together (q and not q) we're still inside the realm of causality, no? It might cause visual abnormalities, but they are abnormalities because we're naturally atuned to speeds c.
I'm @ work, so not thinking straight... Please elucidate and educate me! :)
Not.
Gonna.
Happen.
Don't
Understand.
Device.
I
For one
Welcome.
Silly-sentenced
Overlords.
Well. It's _not_ lupus, that's for sure.
Or is it?
at least not yet. They follow algorithms. A game is way more than algorithms.
It's emotions and conventions like fear and excitement, having a poker face, intimidating chitchat, joking, awareness of losing or of losing face, anger or disappointment for failing strategy; also bodily functions (distractions) like sweating, being cold, nausea, annoyed at a small draft aso.
A grand master's move is not just the what but the how and the why. Computers still just do the first. They are not artists because they have no self-identity, pride, integrity etc. No "soul" if you like.
Yes, a computer may cook a meal but is not a chef. At least not yet.
It's actually looking for Sarah Connor.....after this game. Just one more!
What is TLC?
Without limitations nothing would be possible.
Also, doing generation ships and developing rather self-sustained robots will probably yield other beneficial consequences.
I love the idea of generation ships, and I imagine some people would be permanent space travellers. The ships just have to be big enough.
Yes, Captain. But it's our only chance!
I'm not sure it is possible to violate causality. Causality is just a sequential description of what we already know happened or suspect will happen.
So, let's say stuff happens. If you "violated causality" stuff would still happen, but our regular description would not apply (our physical constitution might not even allow it being perceived).
This guy is so shrewd and heartless that he should make great management material!
???
Profit!
Like my math teacher in high school said to a student: Open your mouth less. Open your eyes more.
(This student argued about everything.)
Thank you, that is good advice.
Chicks dig that kind of thing:)
If what you like is the hype then so be it (these laptops are advertised as the pink laptop).
Heck, I bought white LCD and peripherals for the kitchen computer myself!
Just saying she's wants a new computer but risk getting one below or equal to her current specs because she's paying the pink premium. She's buying the hype.
I thought about it. It's like buying a car for its colour. Some people do it.
However, if you're responsible for say 100 people you will not care about colour but the above specifications. So I'd say she's shopping the hype.
I'm not saying colour doesn't matter, but it's in relation to a whole list of other pros and cons.
I'm probably confusing it with something else. (Which was the one Palin was part of?)
Apple users accept. If Apple said it, it must be good and true.
I support Apple products, and even when it is clear the user is screwed, s/he accepts it with a baffling air of gratitude. This has never happened with PC users so far.
Must be PR.
The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product.
Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity. Both for the customer and the producer.
What you call the lack of opportunity others call a right. If you buy something brand new, you have rights. Rights ensure that responsibility on both sides is clear and followed. You don't get that without law because law goes beyond whatever excuses a company may give you to claim warranty void. (Sure, laws must be improved but it doesn't change the fact that you will at some time need a third-party to solve the conflict.)
If you want it cheaper without any rights buy it secondhand.
Javascript has NOTHING to do with java.
Well, historically they share a past. JavaScript was named JavaScript because of Java. Before that it was called Livescript.
I read it on /. :)
So a simcity-type FPS?
???
Profit!!
I just felt it was a way to make everyone afraid.
Perhaps something more constructive, like a progress bar, would make more people care.
People tend to ignore warnings of bad stuff because we're psychologically wired to do so. With a to-do list and a progress bar they could perhaps be more inclined to act?
They should use an alarm clock instead. It always evokes a sense of doom for me.
The tea party seems, across the pond, to be a popular speaker with little to say.
They grow in Europe as well; rich people leading the ignorant. Feudal society much?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Get what you like, not the hype.
Currently my GF is browsing for a pink laptop because it is pink. *sigh * it comes at a premium because it is pink, and is slower than her present laptop (that I bought used from work and put an SSD into).
My point being (?) that she's shopping the hype. Also, any way to spray paint a grey DELL?
And if you don't like my reasons, I have others ;)
Evolution depends on random mutations and natural selection. People emphasize death but really it is all about survival, viz. life. The process itself has no subject (or it has God).
Human technology is more about copying and being in the face of the customer at all time. Our selection is not based on critical thinking but is still a choice, and has little to do whatsoever with survival (unless for the base of Maslow's pyramid). This process always has a subject.
HOWEVER. The reason we should stop using the term evolution in technology is because 1. technology or rather, tool use is not humanity. Humanity uses tools; and 2. technological breakthrough is accidental yet intentional. Evolution will always take care of life, technological developments will always take care of (some powerful) humans, whose interests may be opposite to life. Calling it evolution is sort of equating it with a natural force equal for everyone and not a force of an arbitrary market with non-equal players.