No, spintronics is the use of a particle properties to improve what we already have. I.e. faster more efficient transistors. Quantum computing is the use of particle properties to produce a powerful third state so instead of 1 and 0 you get 1, 0 and both.
Though they do both require physics at the quantum level it would be confusing to lump it all under the same name when they are very different technologies. (There is a lot of confusion with regard to quantum processors already.)
'This discussion is fruitless because you think you know what you don't.'
No this discussion is fruitless because you don't appear to be able to read. Your interpretation of the bible is irrelevant as are the interpretations of anyone who denies the six day thing. Im not arguing over things I do not know im arguing over two simple well known points.
This whole thread, for the umptenth time of trying to get it through to you, is based on the incongruent facts that from the same belief system people have interpreted 6 days for creation and billions of years for creation.
You can attempt to argue the depth of theology with me but it really doesnt matter because a) you cant even begin to back any part of it with fact, you are not more or less right than someone who believes the 6 day story based on the bible alone. and b) even if you were it does not stop those millions of young Earthers.
You want to argue how correct you are about the history of the Earth then argue using science not a book of fables that no one on Earth can determine how much of you should even be listening to or in what way. That is the whole problem with the religion you just don't seem to be able to grasp that you can interpret the damn thing in any way you want from genocide to hippy love and no one is more right than anyone else.
No doubt you will just come back with some kind of attempt to suggest that _you_ are more right or some set of theologians are more right and guess what every single seperate group of people with a different view throughout the history of man are thinking exactly the same thing.
and so the prediction of my last paragraph comes true...
Let me summarise things for you. First post pointed out the flaws in a belief system that has various members who believe the Earth is billions of years younger than it is, and members who are arguing that events billions of years ago mean life had to have a divine creator. A little contradictory anyone with a brain might think. Someone posts 'Where'd the 6000 figure come from.' as if the figure came from nowhere. You respond with some nonsense about double standards as if evolutionists or at least the supporters of evolution pulled this 6000 year figure out of there arse, sorry 'thin air'. When in actual fact it was the religious who did that, some of whom are the very theologians you proclaim know more about this than we do. Which, in short, made you completely wrong.
You have yet to make a coherant post that disputes this (Not only to me but the numerous other people responding, oh and the moderators who modded you troll.) beyond just saying what is essentially. 'Nahhh your wrong... and stupid.'
So here we are. Now any time you want to make a post that is actually a part of the debate and not just a snide remark on how wrong I am id love to hear it. Otherwise ill go right ahead and assume your both wrong _and_ a pompous ass.
No, you see, because evolution is a theory with documentation and experimentation. I can specify precisely why irreducible complexity is flawed in the cases it is utilised and can also point out how it does little to destroy the monumental amount of evolutionary evidence even if there are other cases that we do not yet have answers for.
On the other hand biblical theology is an attempt to interpret a book of contradictory stories in anyway possible that will allow it to fit together with its own invented history. A bit like reading the amazing spiderman and ultimate spiderman then trying to mix them together in a coherant way. Only Spiderman is more likely to actually exist... Anyhow, 6 days the bible says and so millions believe, that was the entire point of the original post, and of my post. It is no more or less valid a belief than any other in connection to that book. It did not come from thin air it came from the religion itself. 'I promise' all of the theology in the world wont change those facts and consequently won't ever make us wrong.
So take your pick, either you have millions of people seeing 'Gods infallible word' in completely different ways rendering it useless (Which pretty much is theology but quite a lot of theologians haven't realised that there very job destroys any firm meaning the religion they are studying holds...) or you agree with the millions and the Earth was made in 6 days and you are an idiot. Doesn't matter we are still right!
Though you're correct on one point, there is no 'pwnage' for me. Regardless of what I say, no one stupid enough to consider the bible anything other than a particularly nasty fairytale gone horrifically wrong is ever going to take what I say on board.
'making stuff out of thin air (or, in this case, grabbing some random Charismatic's pet "theory" on how old the earth is) to poke holes in Christian theology.'
Yeah, only that random theory is supported by countless Christians who were the ones to produce it out of thin air in the first place! There is a museum about this nonsense, do you think that was made up by people like the GP?
But hey you want to look to the bible, fine. The bible tells us the apparently undeniable fact that the Earth was created in 6 days. Thats some several billion years less time than science tells us. So perhaps 6000 years is just an approximate guess whatever the figure, it will be billions of years less than what it actually is. (Ohhhh but I forget there are a bunch of clowns trying to bend the apparently infallible word of God to mean 6 'time periods' or that there is some kind of time vortex or blah blah blah interpretations so vague as to make the books meaning whatever the hell you want.) Its almost like its a book of fables but maybe thats just because we dont 'know jack about the Bible'.
There is no double standard here just the unending ignorance of religious fanatics.
Rube Goldberg machines are not inherantly art. When the man drew pictures of his fantastical machines those drawings were art but the idea isn't. The disctincion is clearer when looking at your other examples. A fractal is a mathematical construct that is what it is and that is not art, never will be. The pictures you see utilise that mathematical construct to form a piece of art but the fractal itself is still just a fractal. A sunset is just the Earth spinning unless you have something by which to appreciate it by.
Spirographs have to be the most perfect example. A spirograph equates to a game very well (It kind of is one.) The spirograph and using the spirograph are not art, few people would argue that they were. What they produce on the other hand may be, it may also be a pile of rubbish depending on the choices made with your pens and your spiraling.
This is both what Ebert was refering to and one of the reasons people get caught up with the blurry line between game and art. You can have an artistic experience with a game if you happen to play in such a way that will produce one. That experience is not the game as a whole though, and the game can not be judged by it. In a sense what Ebert was saying, and what I agree with, is that a game is like paint and brush. It isnt really complete as a piece of art until it has been played and because the experience will vary greatly you can't possibly identify specifc artistic merit within it. (The next time through, or the next player may never encounter what you are talking about.) Any attempt to pin the game down in to a particular artistic experience brings the game closer to one of the previous forms of art. Which leads on to your next paragraph.
A level can be a piece of art in itself, take the last level of Painkiller where everything is frozen in time in the midst of war but the level is not the game. It is for all intents and purposes a sculpture, an already defined art form. As mentioned in both the previous posts for a game to really be appreciated as art in its own right it needs artistic idiosyncratic elements. However, there simply are none.
You are right about a well presented hypercube, and games can have artistic elements to them. However, that is no different to playing chess with beautifully carved pieces on a pristine decorative board. While the pieces and the board may be art they are inconsequential to the game at its core. The same kind of thinking can be applied to all games.
The original poster talked about Portal and it is a good example thanks to its game commentry. The levels were originally going to be far more cluttered, they were going to have entirely different aspects to them even the weighted companion cube we all love so much was put in purely to get players attention so they would not leave it behind. All the art gave way to the core game, it was all compromised to make the beta testers happy and im quite sure if they had the ability to collect and sum up all the changes todays players suggest and redo the whole thing with unlimited resources the entire game would be altered once again. Just this fact alone, to me, casts huge doubt on this debate. I would posit that anything that improves through the collective input of as many people as possible simply can not be art.
Its just more reasons why something requires a specific identified art form unto itself to be considered art. All computer games have as far as this fact is concerned is thousands of lines of computer code. (Or the rule book for non-computer games.) Art as far as one of its definitions goes perhaps, but as a comparison to books, music, film, etc. It just isn't the same thing.
(Note this is in no way an insult to games. Indeed I actually consider games to be superior than art. That doesn't mean I think they are, or even can be placed, in the same category as each other.)
'Portals defy reality and show us in real-time an impossible world with impossible gameplay.'
An interesting game mechanic is not art. Blinx had impressive levels of time manipulation which is just as, if not more, mind bending than Portals. Teleporters are all over the place in games that much is also currently impossible. Heck portals are essentially just teleporters with a camera attached. (Well and a bit of cross teleporter physics.)
There are many things in games that are impossible in the real world it doesn't become art because of that, nor does it become art because it makes you think about how it all functions even as a part of the puzzles presented in the game. (Though it may become physics.) It would be like calling a hypercube art because you have to wrestle with one too many dimesions to even visualise it.
The only difference between portals and every other game system is the maths and physics involved. Neither of those are art, nor for that matter are any of the idiosyncratic traits of any game.
You are comparing a hacked PSP to a DS instead of a hacked PSP to a hacked DS. DS homebrew is great my DS can play movies, have books in it, have all PDA functionality, play music, play SCUMM, have a whole host of homebrew games and a hell of a lot of other stuff.
When it comes down to it the DS beats the PSP in its own right and when you hack them both you have all the same stuff _and_ the DS beats the PSP in its own right.
I would advise you get on ebay buy a cheap DS and an M3 card and enjoy all the endless homebrew apps _or_ play its, largely considered to be far superior, set of games.
'if every letter has an address of the sender and the receiver' but they don't
It was only an analogy. For a simulation to be acurate the people within it would have no idea of those who were running it. Or as far as the analogy goes, no one has any idea where the letters came from.
Even if you did know for a fact you were in a simulation, (1) two letters with the same sender is just the equivalent of two people in the same simulation, that gives you very little. They can discuss who the original sender was, who created the simulation but you don't know how far down the line you are the original sender could have had letters sent to them. (2) is completely wrong, first of all to have two different senders you would have to communicate with someone in a different simulation. A different universe. Assuming you pass that boundary all that tells you is that there are two senders on the next level. Or on your level its the equivalent of you passing on 100 more letters and someone else passing on 100 more letters. Neither of you are the first so im not sure how you have come to the conclusion that one on the previous generation are the first. (Thats even assuming the uniervse you contact is even on the same level as your simulator...)
Perhaps my chain letter analogy was a little poor it seems to just be adding more confusion. Though its difficult to come up with a succinct explanation, the idea is more complicated than it first appears. I am not even fond of the paper itself im sure there is a less long winded, theasaurus word riddled, way of expressing the ideas.
I dont think you are grasping the philosophy. One of two things is true we will simulate humans or we will not.
The issues with not running a simulation run in to a lot of speculation (1) is a given, extinction is a possibility. However, his (2) is far, far too simplistic for my liking as it is attempting to guess the mind set of a vastly advanced human. Its tantamount to assuming how an entirely alien race would be thinking. Though its conclusion is still valid, at some point there is a shift that means that for some reason we do not wish to run such simulations.
The interesting part of the paper though is (3) should we gain the ability and still poses the inclination to run a simulation then it is impossible to avoid the idea that we are not the first generation to be doing so.
Assuming that much means that we are exceptionally likely to be simulations ourself. He is not giving an answer to how the universe began he is simply stating the logical follow through to our civilisation gaining the technology to begin it all again.
Or to put it another way, Someone has a magic chain letter that anyone who recieves it _has_ to follow. (This is just the part demonstrating the assumption that we will eventually simulate ourselves.) Upon the chain letter he writes "This is the first copy. Copy this 100 times and send each one to a person who has never recieved a copy." (This is the logical assumption that the simulations will present far more humans than currently exist.)
As long as you have no problem with things up till now, pick a chain letter at random even after a single generation. Remember only the original chain letter equates to a real human. What are the chances you hit the original? 1 in 101. All 100 other letters are fakes (Though not even the person holding it knows that fact, after all it said "This is the first copy.")
Or in short, if we eventually have the power to simulate the universe it is obvious that someone may have had the power to simulate us. There is some interesting pondering you can do on just that simple idea.
(As with a lot of philosophy it is a rather pointless conclusion it speculates about every possibility and doesnt even consider our simulation the most likely outcome. Even if we were simulated it wouldn't really change our overall situation.)
'Fun cannot be realized through more processor power, better looking faces or AI.' Yeah but they really really help.
When you can mimick real life perfectly you can bend it in to whatever you want.
The real life part is simply the benchmark. Few people with the ability to simulate it will then go no further and start producing some crazy effects. The human torch being a great example, the fire is a part of reality but when perfected and applied to a whole human body, bam you have the superhero come to life. (Shame the films didnt come to life as well...)
and as for the importance of graphics overall ive always found it irritating that many like to claim the graphics dont matter as long as there is good gameplay. Fact is a lot of the time graphics are responsible for getting good gameplay, games like Splinter Cell, Rez, virtually any survival horror game they rely on the atmosphere and graphics to immerse a player in the experience and as a result are often great games. (One, people will probably be able to guess, I believe to be the greatest.) This isnt to say that text games like Zork are worse but immersion in to Zork is harder and takes longer. (Though it may be more rewarding) Ultimately I see it as a good thing that modern games like Bioshock drop you immediately in to an atmospheric environment and can also reward you. I dont believe this would have been possible without all the graphics and AI we have today even if you could make a game that was just as fun without that experience.
1. Vast amount of games that are either old enough that they require constant fidling, too new to run smoothly and otherwise require installation and usually some kind of graphics setup others and myself really can not be bothered with.
2. Option to have endlessly faulty hardware with one thing breaking another and serious difficulty ever tracking down or even knowing if something somewhere is going to go down.
3. Superior but minimal increase in graphics most of the time even when you spend more than a PS3s worth on a graphics card. The usual driver difficulties when you do have the most up to date technology.
4. No need for HD really full stop.
5. Limited to/. readers is no victory for anything, many others dont have a computer that can be easily upgraded and buying new systems or even a first system is a huge expense.
6. Dunno what games youve been playing but that is highly debateable there are just as many load times in PC games as in console games and often due to games being optimised to run entirely off disk on console the reverse of what you say is true.
7. On often dodgy servers without any support for who you are playing against and whether you are going to effortlessly win or lose horrifically. Most online play is via the pay subscription games like WoW.
8. Not if you buy from the bargain bins or the rereleases like the platinum series.
9. Largely irrelevant to the gaming experience except as a vehicle for making you wait several hours for your many gig of textures and such to install.
10. and mostly crap.
Dont get me wrong I like the PC, I like it because I can track down the few mods that are great, I like to play RTSs that have never been equalled on consoles and I love twitch FPS that suffer hugely on controllers.
That isnt going to win any wars though, the PC is just too complicated, too difficult and too hard to get right to be a winner in the gaming world. Just look at who is winning by miles, the Wii and why? because its far more simplistic than even the other consoles. Going the other way isnt going to help and the numbers back this up. As far as gaming goes the PC is dwarfed by the console world.
PC gaming is a nice addition to a platform that can already do a lot but leave the big gaming to the consoles its what they are built for.
'perhaps the entangled particles have merely been set to complimentary states by the process of entanglement'
Say you measure down an axis p, the other side measures down a perpendicular axis q. At p you get 100% of getting heads at the other end. At q you have 50% of getting heads at the other end. This we know for a fact.
In between you should have a value from 50 to 100%. The inbetween angles get the range from 50 to 100% odds of getting heads. (I.e. the closer you get to p the more influence it has.) For the purposes of this we can pick 45 degrees a good half point that should be spot on between 50 and 100%, or 75% of hitting a heads.
It isnt though, its actually much much higher. Its as if the results lightyears away are more influenced by p than they should be. Yet p was just an arbitrarily selected axis. It could have been any axis at all so the only way p could be giving off more influence is if that measurement had affected the other entangled particle.
Oh, and remember because the initial measurement gives a random heads or tails result you can only find all of these results out by more conventional below light speed means, thus causality is preserved.
'I guess I just lose the thread at the point when you can't examine the blue ball to know if it has shifted position or not, without also destroying the entanglement.'
Well thats where there is a bit of a loop hole. Though it should be impossible to know two axis of a particle, because they can be measured at either end you actually get more information than should be possible. You also get information you can compare.
'if the Bs gave any clue as to which A was measured - that would be forming a useful communication channel - which is supposed to be "against the rules."'
One of the important things to remember is that you can only take a measurement on a pair of particles once at either end (Infact even that is more than should be allowed.) and whoever goes first will get spin up or down 50% of the time.
So for forty particles lets say the first person gets. (Where u is up d is down.) u d d d u u d u u u u d d d d u d u d u d u u d u u d u u u u d d d d d d u d u
The second person then gets. d u u u d d u d d d d u u d u d u d u d u d d u d d u d d d d u u u d u u d u d
From either end it appears to be a random sequence of u and d. (Or in this case as random as my u and d typing can be.) There is no way of knowing about any corrolation or similarities between the patterns. Yet when we bring them together and flip all the results so we have an easy comparison.
First person results flipped to u. Second person results flipped in any case the first persons ones were.
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u d d d d d d d d d d d d d u d d u d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d u d d d d d
When the two sets are together a match occurs way above what should have happened,* but it was impossible to see until you have both halves of the information. The only way you could send a message would be if you could set the first particles spin each time. Which is unfortunately impossible.
*Remember the second ones were recorded at an angle and as such shouldnt match up as much as this. Also remember that this has been repeated countless times making it astronomically unlikely it is mere chance especially when the odds match the quantum mechanical predictions perfectly.
To be honest I have no idea if anyone has actually tried the double slit experiment with entangled particles, infact im not even sure if the experiment would be capable of telling you anything about entanglement specifically. However, quantum mechanics makes some predictions about the behaviour of an entangled pair of particles that can be measured.
An odd thing occurs when you measure the spin of a particle down one axis then move to aperpendicular axis, the information from the first measurement becomes useless. (Its all down to the superposition status the particle is in when not observed.) The odds of it being the same as the first is 50/50 due to the usual two spin states the particles we are interested in occupy. If, however, you keep a little of that first axis intact and don't move all the way round then you get to keep a bit of the information and there will be a marked corrolation. I.e. there will be a greater chance it retains the original axis spin.
If you assume the particle has all of its information from the point it is entangled and no effect comes in to play you can calculate the odds of this. The problem is the odds are confounded in every single study. Conveniently they match the quantum mechanic predictions, this also shows a fairly definitive link between the two particles.
Its the only way to explain why no matter which axis of the original particle you measure, if you measure the other particle with that axis plus a few degrees the correlation will be much greater than it should be.
Its kind of like taking your red and blue balls putting them through your magnet setup opening up the box and finding a red in one box blue in the other, just as you said. Only then purely because you looked at the red box from a different angle the blue ball instantaneously shifts position even if the two boxes are lightyears apart.
There is a lot more too this. I'm sure there are better ways of explaining it than what I have just typed, but hopefully the gist of things is here.
We have experimental evidence that it is not 'hogwash'. (As the double slit experiment demonstrates.)
The behaviour of these quantum effects is quite well tested and proved. It is certainly not currently viable to think of it as being simply 'the observer just doesn't know it yet'.
To summarise the evidence, the multiple states of a given particle actually interfere with each other thus fairly definitively proving they exist. Infact these kind of effects have to be considered in modern CPUs and are the foundation for quantum computing. The only real question is why it doesn't occur on a macro level but that is another story.
Im not entirely sure what this is refering to in my post. Could you explain.
It sounds like you are doubting that the balls (or the particles) are in a superposition, however superpositions have been infered in many experiments and it is not really postulating on the unknown to say that the ball is effectively both blue and red.
You can't actually discover if the particle is entangled without information about both particles and as such you can not measure the entanglement faster than light.
'Is it not possible that most of the particles in the universe are entangled with most of the other particles of the universe?' There are mechanisms for how particles become entangled. Im sure you could work out where, how often and consequently how many entangled particles there are on average. The exact description of how these types of things occur are complicated and a little beyond me.
'is it possible to construct three particles A, AB, and B where AB is entangled with both A and B?' Multiple particle entanglement is also possible but again gets complicated. Entanglement is more than just A and B, its properties and functions thare are entangled.
'It just bugs me that the typical account of this effect rarely gets past the word spooky before exposition ceases' Because it gets very complicated fast and the further you go the more questions get raised. These kinds of effects lie very close to some pretty abstract, philisophical physics and when you get there you can get in to a lot of trouble.
When you said 'That would involve the experiment (and experimenters) having become entangled in the experiment.' you sound like you are very close to schrodinger's famous cat thought experiment. I know of cults based on nonsense interpretations of this kind of thing and a lot of arm chair physicists tying themselves in knots because they missed something or are trying to grasp too much that we simply don't know yet.
How entanglement works though is that you have two billiard balls that are not red or blue but both simultaneously. That is unless you measure it.
So you take your boxes too each side of the world and look in one that sets that ball to say red, the other turns blue instantly, and when you say instantly you really mean it, it is faster than light, faster than what should be the infinite speed, it is instant.
That is weird.
However, your example is accurate in describing why quantum entanglement doesn't break causality. You see you can't predict what colour the ball is going to be so you can't go to one end with eight boxes and say 'right ill make this byte the number 172.' then set your balls to 10101100 leading to the other boxes instanteously being set as well.
All you can do is measure the 8 boxes find out which are red and blue at either end confirm that they are entangled, thats it. No information transfer no causality breaking.
This is also why the initial posts idea falls down. You might know which particle is entangled with which but you can't measure its status without breaking the entanglement. So you could say tell the person 'measure it in 10 minutes and see if its broken down.' and yes you confirm that the entanglement breaks down instantaneously but you rather defeat the point by already giving the information. Either that or the person can guess when it breaks down but measuring it causes it to break down and bam you defeat the point again.
Entanglement has some kind of instant effect but it can not be used to send information and thus causality is preserved.
You are simultaneously saying that purpose is delusional bullshit while describing the mechanism by which we gain purpose.
Our purpose is defined by a biological imperative to survive and to continue our species survival that much we know, can test and can prove. It is not a delusion it is a tangible part of what we are. So we do have purpose, and it is within the bounds of science.
On a smaller scale you can have purpose all over the place. I decide to climb a mountain to test my physical limits, bam there is some purpose. Entirely made up yet entirely without faith or religion so the original poster was correct, you can make it up and no it isnt the same as believing in God.
Whether all that purpose actually goes anywhere is a slightly different question. Once again this does not have to fall in to faith or religion. Though it does fall in to the category of 'We don't actually know.', but that isn't all bad because it just moves the goal posts.
Reminds me of Disneys Hercules, how do you kill an immortal man? You make him mortal first. How do you deal with not having any meaning? You find out if there is one.
The fact that we lack a final goal is what gives us our meaning in the first place, to find that final goal. (Or confirm there isn't one.)
No religion required, no blind faith just a bit of logic. Infact religion and faith are entirely counter to the only real meaning we can logically define. By inventing a God and having no reason to prove it (Religion backed by faith.) you completely eliminate any reason to search for that ultimate goal because you just invented one that lacks any evidence, any scientific proof.
Science really is the only way forward, and before people start harping on about that being faith or science being a religion I have to stress that science by its very definition is merely the study of the world and universe around us in order to derive facts. It is not a religion because the actual methodology is open to constant change and refinement, unlike religion which relies on a fundamental set of beliefs. There is no concrete way of going about things in science to put any faith in to in the first place. (Or at least there shouldn't be.)
Ultimately, saying we have no purpose or meaning is no different to saying we have purpose and meaning you have no grounds for stating either as fact. All we can do is try to accertain which is correct and reasses once we are done.
'just what the thing is being deluded if the self doesn't exist...' Thus proving the self must exist to be deluded. I think, therefore I am, as Descartes said.*
*In case people dont know, he went about achieving the ultimate level of doubt by assuming that everything, absolutely everything may not even exist. Could all be complete fabrication. Though that leaves the being that is doubting. Even if something was trying to trick or 'delude' that being in to believing it exists it just confirms its existance as something to be tricked in the first place. Ergo self is the first thing you can ever really be sure of.
From the religions that have:
brutally executed innocent people
subjugated all women
condoned rape and peadophilia
considered other humans no better than animals
tortured innocent people to death
attempted genocide
depending on how they interpret their archaic books at the time.
Anyone who believes the religious are more moral or have more of a moral absolute than the atheists and agnostics needs one hell of a history lesson.* Incidentally your world of 'meaning and purpose' to many millions of religious people involves suicide, (with or without bombs) the spread of lethal diseases, (because apparently the end of the world is coming soon...) and the uncompromising spread of their belief to everyone else at any cost to our freedoms and progress, from the stifling of science and education to all out war. Morals, meaning and purpose lie much deeper in us than mere religion. If anything religion, like money or power, (Both of which most organised religions covets) just corrupts.
Just putting your somewhat biased post in to perspective.
*and just in case, no im not saying that atheists and agnostics are immune from doing these things but they sure as hell arnt more likely.
Your suggesting that one games poor control system is comparable to the upgrade to dual analogue. Thats just daft.
For one its nothing to do with the technology of the pad as other games using the technology have pulled it off nicely. Its everything to do with how they set up the control system and the vast vast majority hate it.
Secondly, who exactly is this 'Everybody' because as far as I can remember no one complained about dual analogue apart from a) the people who continue to believe the pad is too complex for a wider audience to this day. (and no doubt support the Wii controller.) and b) people who think the Sony pad has relatively awkward positioning of the anologue sticks, also to this day.*
Sonys pad technology is nothing new and certainly no where near dual anologue. Microsoft had virtually identical pad technology a long time ago and though it was neat then and neat now it just isnt a ground breaking change. I very much doubt anyone else in the console war will be clamoring to upgrade there pads like this.
*I infact am one of them, I like using anologue but play for hours with Playstation sticks then play for hours with X-Box, gamecube, dreamcast sticks and you will feel the difference. Or to put it another way hold your hands out like you are holding a pad and look at where your thumbs are, most will have to bend them down a good few degrees to be in Playstation position.
'I'd argue that you don't.' Its not a question of do or do not. Its the fact that you should and that is what you fight for and support.
'Really, the whole "it's my body" argument that women have when defining abortion rights or even the notion of "reproductive rights" is utterly laughable.' I find that an 'utterly laughable' thing to say. It is the womans body and as long as there is no other life, as defined by science, involved she _should_ have every right to do with it as she wishes.
'It is only our comperitive wealth that allows us to ignore this' No it is our moral responsibility that compels us to reject this.
'arguing absolutes about freedom in an ephemeral context will only doom us overall' Well its a good thing that we dont have absolutes with regard to these situations. Thats why we have systems in place to alter the laws of our country depending on the times. If your suggesting we attempt more permanent laws with regads to this then id respond. Arguing absolutes about freedom in a permanent context will only doom us overall.
The 'tribe' can change everything, they can insist you do things, alter your rights and such but that doesn't make those changes right, it doesn't mean those changes should happen and it certainly doesn't make the idea that your body should be your own 'laughable' or wrong.
I am aware that there are situations where what you eat must be controlled (during the world wars rationing was required.) what you drink needs to be limited (water shortages in England just recently infact.) and I can even see where abortion should be outlawed or government controlled (massive overpopulation or massive underpopulation)
These situations require very different laws to govern them and you can not use them as an example of how to govern when you are living as you currently are, in a relatively well off balanced society. Those controls are and should always be a stop gap or aid to get you to your original freedoms. Rationing was there to ensure people survive until they can afford and have access to enough food etc.
This RFID business has no such problem to solve it is simply an unnecessary requirement of companies that could easily afford one of numerous alternatives that are just as, if not, even more secure and efficient.
Or to sum it up, a) You should have an inviolate right to your own body. b) We are currently in a position to give an inviolate right to each persons own body.
Given a and b its fairly logical what you need to do next.
Slashdot Mirror
No, spintronics is the use of a particle properties to improve what we already have. I.e. faster more efficient transistors.
Quantum computing is the use of particle properties to produce a powerful third state so instead of 1 and 0 you get 1, 0 and both.
Though they do both require physics at the quantum level it would be confusing to lump it all under the same name when they are very different technologies. (There is a lot of confusion with regard to quantum processors already.)
'This discussion is fruitless because you think you know what you don't.'
No this discussion is fruitless because you don't appear to be able to read. Your interpretation of the bible is irrelevant as are the interpretations of anyone who denies the six day thing. Im not arguing over things I do not know im arguing over two simple well known points.
This whole thread, for the umptenth time of trying to get it through to you, is based on the incongruent facts that from the same belief system people have interpreted 6 days for creation and billions of years for creation.
You can attempt to argue the depth of theology with me but it really doesnt matter because a) you cant even begin to back any part of it with fact, you are not more or less right than someone who believes the 6 day story based on the bible alone. and b) even if you were it does not stop those millions of young Earthers.
You want to argue how correct you are about the history of the Earth then argue using science not a book of fables that no one on Earth can determine how much of you should even be listening to or in what way. That is the whole problem with the religion you just don't seem to be able to grasp that you can interpret the damn thing in any way you want from genocide to hippy love and no one is more right than anyone else.
No doubt you will just come back with some kind of attempt to suggest that _you_ are more right or some set of theologians are more right and guess what every single seperate group of people with a different view throughout the history of man are thinking exactly the same thing.
and so the prediction of my last paragraph comes true...
Let me summarise things for you.
First post pointed out the flaws in a belief system that has various members who believe the Earth is billions of years younger than it is, and members who are arguing that events billions of years ago mean life had to have a divine creator. A little contradictory anyone with a brain might think.
Someone posts 'Where'd the 6000 figure come from.' as if the figure came from nowhere.
You respond with some nonsense about double standards as if evolutionists or at least the supporters of evolution pulled this 6000 year figure out of there arse, sorry 'thin air'. When in actual fact it was the religious who did that, some of whom are the very theologians you proclaim know more about this than we do. Which, in short, made you completely wrong.
You have yet to make a coherant post that disputes this (Not only to me but the numerous other people responding, oh and the moderators who modded you troll.) beyond just saying what is essentially. 'Nahhh your wrong... and stupid.'
So here we are. Now any time you want to make a post that is actually a part of the debate and not just a snide remark on how wrong I am id love to hear it. Otherwise ill go right ahead and assume your both wrong _and_ a pompous ass.
No, you see, because evolution is a theory with documentation and experimentation. I can specify precisely why irreducible complexity is flawed in the cases it is utilised and can also point out how it does little to destroy the monumental amount of evolutionary evidence even if there are other cases that we do not yet have answers for.
On the other hand biblical theology is an attempt to interpret a book of contradictory stories in anyway possible that will allow it to fit together with its own invented history. A bit like reading the amazing spiderman and ultimate spiderman then trying to mix them together in a coherant way. Only Spiderman is more likely to actually exist... Anyhow, 6 days the bible says and so millions believe, that was the entire point of the original post, and of my post. It is no more or less valid a belief than any other in connection to that book. It did not come from thin air it came from the religion itself. 'I promise' all of the theology in the world wont change those facts and consequently won't ever make us wrong.
So take your pick, either you have millions of people seeing 'Gods infallible word' in completely different ways rendering it useless (Which pretty much is theology but quite a lot of theologians haven't realised that there very job destroys any firm meaning the religion they are studying holds...) or you agree with the millions and the Earth was made in 6 days and you are an idiot. Doesn't matter we are still right!
Though you're correct on one point, there is no 'pwnage' for me. Regardless of what I say, no one stupid enough to consider the bible anything other than a particularly nasty fairytale gone horrifically wrong is ever going to take what I say on board.
'making stuff out of thin air (or, in this case, grabbing some random Charismatic's pet "theory" on how old the earth is) to poke holes in Christian theology.'
Yeah, only that random theory is supported by countless Christians who were the ones to produce it out of thin air in the first place! There is a museum about this nonsense, do you think that was made up by people like the GP?
But hey you want to look to the bible, fine. The bible tells us the apparently undeniable fact that the Earth was created in 6 days. Thats some several billion years less time than science tells us. So perhaps 6000 years is just an approximate guess whatever the figure, it will be billions of years less than what it actually is. (Ohhhh but I forget there are a bunch of clowns trying to bend the apparently infallible word of God to mean 6 'time periods' or that there is some kind of time vortex or blah blah blah interpretations so vague as to make the books meaning
whatever the hell you want.) Its almost like its a book of fables but maybe thats just because we dont 'know jack about the Bible'.
There is no double standard here just the unending ignorance of religious fanatics.
Rube Goldberg machines are not inherantly art. When the man drew pictures of his fantastical machines those drawings were art but the idea isn't. The disctincion is clearer when looking at your other examples. A fractal is a mathematical construct that is what it is and that is not art, never will be. The pictures you see utilise that mathematical construct to form a piece of art but the fractal itself is still just a fractal. A sunset is just the Earth spinning unless you have something by which to appreciate it by.
Spirographs have to be the most perfect example. A spirograph equates to a game very well (It kind of is one.) The spirograph and using the spirograph are not art, few people would argue that they were. What they produce on the other hand may be, it may also be a pile of rubbish depending on the choices made with your pens and your spiraling.
This is both what Ebert was refering to and one of the reasons people get caught up with the blurry line between game and art. You can have an artistic experience with a game if you happen to play in such a way that will produce one. That experience is not the game as a whole though, and the game can not be judged by it. In a sense what Ebert was saying, and what I agree with, is that a game is like paint and brush. It isnt really complete as a piece of art until it has been played and because the experience will vary greatly you can't possibly identify specifc artistic merit within it. (The next time through, or the next player may never encounter what you are talking about.) Any attempt to pin the game down in to a particular artistic experience brings the game closer to one of the previous forms of art. Which leads on to your next paragraph.
A level can be a piece of art in itself, take the last level of Painkiller where everything is frozen in time in the midst of war but the level is not the game. It is for all intents and purposes a sculpture, an already defined art form. As mentioned in both the previous posts for a game to really be appreciated as art in its own right it needs artistic idiosyncratic elements. However, there simply are none.
You are right about a well presented hypercube, and games can have artistic elements to them. However, that is no different to playing chess with beautifully carved pieces on a pristine decorative board. While the pieces and the board may be art they are inconsequential to the game at its core. The same kind of thinking can be applied to all games.
The original poster talked about Portal and it is a good example thanks to its game commentry. The levels were originally going to be far more cluttered, they were going to have entirely different aspects to them even the weighted companion cube we all love so much was put in purely to get players attention so they would not leave it behind. All the art gave way to the core game, it was all compromised to make the beta testers happy and im quite sure if they had the ability to collect and sum up all the changes todays players suggest and redo the whole thing with unlimited resources the entire game would be altered once again. Just this fact alone, to me, casts huge doubt on this debate. I would posit that anything that improves through the collective input of as many people as possible simply can not be art.
Its just more reasons why something requires a specific identified art form unto itself to be considered art. All computer games have as far as this fact is concerned is thousands of lines of computer code. (Or the rule book for non-computer games.) Art as far as one of its definitions goes perhaps, but as a comparison to books, music, film, etc. It just isn't the same thing.
(Note this is in no way an insult to games. Indeed I actually consider games to be superior than art. That doesn't mean I think they are, or even can be placed, in the same category as each other.)
'Portals defy reality and show us in real-time an impossible world with impossible gameplay.'
An interesting game mechanic is not art. Blinx had impressive levels of time manipulation which is just as, if not more, mind bending than Portals. Teleporters are all over the place in games that much is also currently impossible. Heck portals are essentially just teleporters with a camera attached. (Well and a bit of cross teleporter physics.)
There are many things in games that are impossible in the real world it doesn't become art because of that, nor does it become art because it makes you think about how it all functions even as a part of the puzzles presented in the game. (Though it may become physics.) It would be like calling a hypercube art because you have to wrestle with one too many dimesions to even visualise it.
The only difference between portals and every other game system is the maths and physics involved. Neither of those are art, nor for that matter are any of the idiosyncratic traits of any game.
Thats an unfair comparison.
You are comparing a hacked PSP to a DS instead of a hacked PSP to a hacked DS. DS homebrew is great my DS can play movies, have books in it, have all PDA functionality, play music, play SCUMM, have a whole host of homebrew games and a hell of a lot of other stuff.
When it comes down to it the DS beats the PSP in its own right and when you hack them both you have all the same stuff _and_ the DS beats the PSP in its own right.
I would advise you get on ebay buy a cheap DS and an M3 card and enjoy all the endless homebrew apps _or_ play its, largely considered to be far superior, set of games.
'if every letter has an address of the sender and the receiver'
but they don't
It was only an analogy. For a simulation to be acurate the people within it would have no idea of those who were running it. Or as far as the analogy goes, no one has any idea where the letters came from.
Even if you did know for a fact you were in a simulation,
(1) two letters with the same sender is just the equivalent of two people in the same simulation, that gives you very little. They can discuss who the original sender was, who created the simulation but you don't know how far down the line you are the original sender could have had letters sent to them.
(2) is completely wrong, first of all to have two different senders you would have to communicate with someone in a different simulation. A different universe. Assuming you pass that boundary all that tells you is that there are two senders on the next level. Or on your level its the equivalent of you passing on 100 more letters and someone else passing on 100 more letters. Neither of you are the first so im not sure how you have come to the conclusion that one on the previous generation are the first. (Thats even assuming the uniervse you contact is even on the same level as your simulator...)
Perhaps my chain letter analogy was a little poor it seems to just be adding more confusion. Though its difficult to come up with a succinct explanation, the idea is more complicated than it first appears. I am not even fond of the paper itself im sure there is a less long winded, theasaurus word riddled, way of expressing the ideas.
I dont think you are grasping the philosophy. One of two things is true we will simulate humans or we will not.
The issues with not running a simulation run in to a lot of speculation (1) is a given, extinction is a possibility. However, his (2) is far, far too simplistic for my liking as it is attempting to guess the mind set of a vastly advanced human. Its tantamount to assuming how an entirely alien race would be thinking. Though its conclusion is still valid, at some point there is a shift that means that for some reason we do not wish to run such simulations.
The interesting part of the paper though is (3) should we gain the ability and still poses the inclination to run a simulation then it is impossible to avoid the idea that we are not the first generation to be doing so.
Assuming that much means that we are exceptionally likely to be simulations ourself. He is not giving an answer to how the universe began he is simply stating the logical follow through to our civilisation gaining the technology to begin it all again.
Or to put it another way,
Someone has a magic chain letter that anyone who recieves it _has_ to follow. (This is just the part demonstrating the assumption that we will eventually simulate ourselves.)
Upon the chain letter he writes "This is the first copy. Copy this 100 times and send each one to a person who has never recieved a copy." (This is the logical assumption that the simulations will present far more humans than currently exist.)
As long as you have no problem with things up till now, pick a chain letter at random even after a single generation. Remember only the original chain letter equates to a real human. What are the chances you hit the original? 1 in 101. All 100 other letters are fakes (Though not even the person holding it knows that fact, after all it said "This is the first copy.")
Or in short, if we eventually have the power to simulate the universe it is obvious that someone may have had the power to simulate us. There is some interesting pondering you can do on just that simple idea.
(As with a lot of philosophy it is a rather pointless conclusion it speculates about every possibility and doesnt even consider our simulation the most likely outcome. Even if we were simulated it wouldn't really change our overall situation.)
'Fun cannot be realized through more processor power, better looking faces or AI.'
Yeah but they really really help.
When you can mimick real life perfectly you can bend it in to whatever you want.
The real life part is simply the benchmark. Few people with the ability to simulate it will then go no further and start producing some crazy effects. The human torch being a great example, the fire is a part of reality but when perfected and applied to a whole human body, bam you have the superhero come to life. (Shame the films didnt come to life as well...)
and as for the importance of graphics overall ive always found it irritating that many like to claim the graphics dont matter as long as there is good gameplay. Fact is a lot of the time graphics are responsible for getting good gameplay, games like Splinter Cell, Rez, virtually any survival horror game they rely on the atmosphere and graphics to immerse a player in the experience and as a result are often great games. (One, people will probably be able to guess, I believe to be the greatest.) This isnt to say that text games like Zork are worse but immersion in to Zork is harder and takes longer. (Though it may be more rewarding) Ultimately I see it as a good thing that modern games like Bioshock drop you immediately in to an atmospheric environment and can also reward you. I dont believe this would have been possible without all the graphics and AI we have today even if you could make a game that was just as fun without that experience.
1. Vast amount of games that are either old enough that they require constant fidling, too new to run smoothly and otherwise require installation and usually some kind of graphics setup others and myself really can not be bothered with.
/. readers is no victory for anything, many others dont have a computer that can be easily upgraded and buying new systems or even a first system is a huge expense.
2. Option to have endlessly faulty hardware with one thing breaking another and serious difficulty ever tracking down or even knowing if something somewhere is going to go down.
3. Superior but minimal increase in graphics most of the time even when you spend more than a PS3s worth on a graphics card. The usual driver difficulties when you do have the most up to date technology.
4. No need for HD really full stop.
5. Limited to
6. Dunno what games youve been playing but that is highly debateable there are just as many load times in PC games as in console games and often due to games being optimised to run entirely off disk on console the reverse of what you say is true.
7. On often dodgy servers without any support for who you are playing against and whether you are going to effortlessly win or lose horrifically. Most online play is via the pay subscription games like WoW.
8. Not if you buy from the bargain bins or the rereleases like the platinum series.
9. Largely irrelevant to the gaming experience except as a vehicle for making you wait several hours for your many gig of textures and such to install.
10. and mostly crap.
Dont get me wrong I like the PC, I like it because I can track down the few mods that are great, I like to play RTSs that have never been equalled on consoles and I love twitch FPS that suffer hugely on controllers.
That isnt going to win any wars though, the PC is just too complicated, too difficult and too hard to get right to be a winner in the gaming world. Just look at who is winning by miles, the Wii and why? because its far more simplistic than even the other consoles. Going the other way isnt going to help and the numbers back this up. As far as gaming goes the PC is dwarfed by the console world.
PC gaming is a nice addition to a platform that can already do a lot but leave the big gaming to the consoles its what they are built for.
'perhaps the entangled particles have merely been set to complimentary states by the process of entanglement'
Say you measure down an axis p, the other side measures down a perpendicular axis q. At p you get 100% of getting heads at the other end. At q you have 50% of getting heads at the other end. This we know for a fact.
In between you should have a value from 50 to 100%. The inbetween angles get the range from 50 to 100% odds of getting heads. (I.e. the closer you get to p the more influence it has.) For the purposes of this we can pick 45 degrees a good half point that should be spot on between 50 and 100%, or 75% of hitting a heads.
It isnt though, its actually much much higher. Its as if the results lightyears away are more influenced by p than they should be. Yet p was just an arbitrarily selected axis. It could have been any axis at all so the only way p could be giving off more influence is if that measurement had affected the other entangled particle.
Oh, and remember because the initial measurement gives a random heads or tails result you can only find all of these results out by more conventional below light speed means, thus causality is preserved.
'I guess I just lose the thread at the point when you can't examine the blue ball to know if it has shifted position or not, without also destroying the entanglement.'
Well thats where there is a bit of a loop hole. Though it should be impossible to know two axis of a particle, because they can be measured at either end you actually get more information than should be possible. You also get information you can compare.
'if the Bs gave any clue as to which A was measured - that would be forming a useful communication channel - which is supposed to be "against the rules."'
One of the important things to remember is that you can only take a measurement on a pair of particles once at either end (Infact even that is more than should be allowed.) and whoever goes first will get spin up or down 50% of the time.
So for forty particles lets say the first person gets. (Where u is up d is down.)
u d d d u u d u u u u d d d d u d u d u d u u d u u d u u u u d d d d d d u d u
The second person then gets.
d u u u d d u d d d d u u d u d u d u d u d d u d d u d d d d u u u d u u d u d
From either end it appears to be a random sequence of u and d. (Or in this case as random as my u and d typing can be.) There is no way of knowing about any corrolation or similarities between the patterns. Yet when we bring them together and flip all the results so we have an easy comparison.
First person results flipped to u. Second person results flipped in any case the first persons ones were.
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
d d d d d d d d d d d d d u d d u d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d u d d d d d
When the two sets are together a match occurs way above what should have happened,* but it was impossible to see until you have both halves of the information. The only way you could send a message would be if you could set the first particles spin each time. Which is unfortunately impossible.
*Remember the second ones were recorded at an angle and as such shouldnt match up as much as this. Also remember that this has been repeated countless times making it astronomically unlikely it is mere chance especially when the odds match the quantum mechanical predictions perfectly.
To be honest I have no idea if anyone has actually tried the double slit experiment with entangled particles, infact im not even sure if the experiment would be capable of telling you anything about entanglement specifically. However, quantum mechanics makes some predictions about the behaviour of an entangled pair of particles that can be measured.
An odd thing occurs when you measure the spin of a particle down one axis then move to aperpendicular axis, the information from the first measurement becomes useless. (Its all down to the superposition status the particle is in when not observed.) The odds of it being the same as the first is 50/50 due to the usual two spin states the particles we are interested in occupy. If, however, you keep a little of that first axis intact and don't move all the way round then you get to keep a bit of the information and there will be a marked corrolation. I.e. there will be a greater chance it retains the original axis spin.
If you assume the particle has all of its information from the point it is entangled and no effect comes in to play you can calculate the odds of this. The problem is the odds are confounded in every single study. Conveniently they match the quantum mechanic predictions, this also shows a fairly definitive link between the two particles.
Its the only way to explain why no matter which axis of the original particle you measure, if you measure the other particle with that axis plus a few degrees the correlation will be much greater than it should be.
Its kind of like taking your red and blue balls putting them through your magnet setup opening up the box and finding a red in one box blue in the other, just as you said. Only then purely because you looked at the red box from a different angle the blue ball instantaneously shifts position even if the two boxes are lightyears apart.
There is a lot more too this. I'm sure there are better ways of explaining it than what I have just typed, but hopefully the gist of things is here.
We have experimental evidence that it is not 'hogwash'. (As the double slit experiment demonstrates.)
The behaviour of these quantum effects is quite well tested and proved. It is certainly not currently viable to think of it as being simply 'the observer just doesn't know it yet'.
To summarise the evidence, the multiple states of a given particle actually interfere with each other thus fairly definitively proving they exist. Infact these kind of effects have to be considered in modern CPUs and are the foundation for quantum computing. The only real question is why it doesn't occur on a macro level but that is another story.
Actually im not really talking about any of the interpretations.
This is based on experimental evidence. I am not getting in to the deeper issues with superpositions and why they do not appear in the macro universe.
Im not entirely sure what this is refering to in my post. Could you explain.
It sounds like you are doubting that the balls (or the particles) are in a superposition, however superpositions have been infered in many experiments and it is not really postulating on the unknown to say that the ball is effectively both blue and red.
You can't actually discover if the particle is entangled without information about both particles and as such you can not measure the entanglement faster than light.
'Is it not possible that most of the particles in the universe are entangled with most of the other particles of the universe?'
There are mechanisms for how particles become entangled. Im sure you could work out where, how often and consequently how many entangled particles there are on average. The exact description of how these types of things occur are complicated and a little beyond me.
'is it possible to construct three particles A, AB, and B where AB is entangled with both A and B?'
Multiple particle entanglement is also possible but again gets complicated. Entanglement is more than just A and B, its properties and functions thare are entangled.
'It just bugs me that the typical account of this effect rarely gets past the word spooky before exposition ceases'
Because it gets very complicated fast and the further you go the more questions get raised. These kinds of effects lie very close to some pretty abstract, philisophical physics and when you get there you can get in to a lot of trouble.
When you said 'That would involve the experiment (and experimenters) having become entangled in the experiment.' you sound like you are very close to schrodinger's famous cat thought experiment. I know of cults based on nonsense interpretations of this kind of thing and a lot of arm chair physicists tying themselves in knots because they missed something or are trying to grasp too much that we simply don't know yet.
How entanglement works though is that you have two billiard balls that are not red or blue but both simultaneously. That is unless you measure it.
So you take your boxes too each side of the world and look in one that sets that ball to say red, the other turns blue instantly, and when you say instantly you really mean it, it is faster than light, faster than what should be the infinite speed, it is instant.
That is weird.
However, your example is accurate in describing why quantum entanglement doesn't break causality. You see you can't predict what colour the ball is going to be so you can't go to one end with eight boxes and say 'right ill make this byte the number 172.' then set your balls to 10101100 leading to the other boxes instanteously being set as well.
All you can do is measure the 8 boxes find out which are red and blue at either end confirm that they are entangled, thats it. No information transfer no causality breaking.
This is also why the initial posts idea falls down. You might know which particle is entangled with which but you can't measure its status without breaking the entanglement. So you could say tell the person 'measure it in 10 minutes and see if its broken down.' and yes you confirm that the entanglement breaks down instantaneously but you rather defeat the point by already giving the information. Either that or the person can guess when it breaks down but measuring it causes it to break down and bam you defeat the point again.
Entanglement has some kind of instant effect but it can not be used to send information and thus causality is preserved.
Your post is self contradictory.
You are simultaneously saying that purpose is delusional bullshit while describing the mechanism by which we gain purpose.
Our purpose is defined by a biological imperative to survive and to continue our species survival that much we know, can test and can prove. It is not a delusion it is a tangible part of what we are. So we do have purpose, and it is within the bounds of science.
On a smaller scale you can have purpose all over the place. I decide to climb a mountain to test my physical limits, bam there is some purpose. Entirely made up yet entirely without faith or religion so the original poster was correct, you can make it up and no it isnt the same as believing in God.
Whether all that purpose actually goes anywhere is a slightly different question. Once again this does not have to fall in to faith or religion. Though it does fall in to the category of 'We don't actually know.', but that isn't all bad because it just moves the goal posts.
Reminds me of Disneys Hercules, how do you kill an immortal man? You make him mortal first.
How do you deal with not having any meaning? You find out if there is one.
The fact that we lack a final goal is what gives us our meaning in the first place, to find that final goal. (Or confirm there isn't one.)
No religion required, no blind faith just a bit of logic. Infact religion and faith are entirely counter to the only real meaning we can logically define. By inventing a God and having no reason to prove it (Religion backed by faith.) you completely eliminate any reason to search for that ultimate goal because you just invented one that lacks any evidence, any scientific proof.
Science really is the only way forward, and before people start harping on about that being faith or science being a religion I have to stress that science by its very definition is merely the study of the world and universe around us in order to derive facts. It is not a religion because the actual methodology is open to constant change and refinement, unlike religion which relies on a fundamental set of beliefs. There is no concrete way of going about things in science to put any faith in to in the first place. (Or at least there shouldn't be.)
Ultimately, saying we have no purpose or meaning is no different to saying we have purpose and meaning you have no grounds for stating either as fact. All we can do is try to accertain which is correct and reasses once we are done.
'just what the thing is being deluded if the self doesn't exist...'
Thus proving the self must exist to be deluded. I think, therefore I am, as Descartes said.*
*In case people dont know, he went about achieving the ultimate level of doubt by assuming that everything, absolutely everything may not even exist. Could all be complete fabrication. Though that leaves the being that is doubting. Even if something was trying to trick or 'delude' that being in to believing it exists it just confirms its existance as something to be tricked in the first place. Ergo self is the first thing you can ever really be sure of.
'a moral absolute'
From the religions that have:
brutally executed innocent people
subjugated all women
condoned rape and peadophilia
considered other humans no better than animals
tortured innocent people to death
attempted genocide
depending on how they interpret their archaic books at the time.
Anyone who believes the religious are more moral or have more of a moral absolute than the atheists and agnostics needs one hell of a history lesson.* Incidentally your world of 'meaning and purpose' to many millions of religious people involves suicide, (with or without bombs) the spread of lethal diseases, (because apparently the end of the world is coming soon...) and the uncompromising spread of their belief to everyone else at any cost to our freedoms and progress, from the stifling of science and education to all out war. Morals, meaning and purpose lie much deeper in us than mere religion. If anything religion, like money or power, (Both of which most organised religions covets) just corrupts.
Just putting your somewhat biased post in to perspective.
*and just in case, no im not saying that atheists and agnostics are immune from doing these things but they sure as hell arnt more likely.
Your suggesting that one games poor control system is comparable to the upgrade to dual analogue. Thats just daft.
For one its nothing to do with the technology of the pad as other games using the technology have pulled it off nicely. Its everything to do with how they set up the control system and the vast vast majority hate it.
Secondly, who exactly is this 'Everybody' because as far as I can remember no one complained about dual analogue apart from a) the people who continue to believe the pad is too complex for a wider audience to this day. (and no doubt support the Wii controller.) and b) people who think the Sony pad has relatively awkward positioning of the anologue sticks, also to this day.*
Sonys pad technology is nothing new and certainly no where near dual anologue. Microsoft had virtually identical pad technology a long time ago and though it was neat then and neat now it just isnt a ground breaking change. I very much doubt anyone else in the console war will be clamoring to upgrade there pads like this.
*I infact am one of them, I like using anologue but play for hours with Playstation sticks then play for hours with X-Box, gamecube, dreamcast sticks and you will feel the difference. Or to put it another way hold your hands out like you are holding a pad and look at where your thumbs are, most will have to bend them down a good few degrees to be in Playstation position.
'I'd argue that you don't.'
Its not a question of do or do not. Its the fact that you should and that is what you fight for and support.
'Really, the whole "it's my body" argument that women have when defining abortion rights or even the notion of "reproductive rights" is utterly laughable.'
I find that an 'utterly laughable' thing to say. It is the womans body and as long as there is no other life, as defined by science, involved she _should_ have every right to do with it as she wishes.
'It is only our comperitive wealth that allows us to ignore this'
No it is our moral responsibility that compels us to reject this.
'arguing absolutes about freedom in an ephemeral context will only doom us overall'
Well its a good thing that we dont have absolutes with regard to these situations. Thats why we have systems in place to alter the laws of our country depending on the times. If your suggesting we attempt more permanent laws with regads to this then id respond. Arguing absolutes about freedom in a permanent context will only doom us overall.
The 'tribe' can change everything, they can insist you do things, alter your rights and such but that doesn't make those changes right, it doesn't mean those changes should happen and it certainly doesn't make the idea that your body should be your own 'laughable' or wrong.
I am aware that there are situations where what you eat must be controlled (during the world wars rationing was required.) what you drink needs to be limited (water shortages in England just recently infact.) and I can even see where abortion should be outlawed or government controlled (massive overpopulation or massive underpopulation)
These situations require very different laws to govern them and you can not use them as an example of how to govern when you are living as you currently are, in a relatively well off balanced society. Those controls are and should always be a stop gap or aid to get you to your original freedoms. Rationing was there to ensure people survive until they can afford and have access to enough food etc.
This RFID business has no such problem to solve it is simply an unnecessary requirement of companies that could easily afford one of numerous alternatives that are just as, if not, even more secure and efficient.
Or to sum it up,
a) You should have an inviolate right to your own body.
b) We are currently in a position to give an inviolate right to each persons own body.
Given a and b its fairly logical what you need to do next.