Careful now. Evolution doesn't make any prediction of the (subjective) complexity of biology as time progresses. It's quite possible that something may evolve towards something more "simple" if there is a naturally selectable advantage in doing so (e.g. conserving resources, or improving camouflage).
Point is, it's not impossible, within the theory, to find a simpler descendant. But it's not as likely, since the natural environment seems to have a habit of encouraging biological complexity.
"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."
That was an interesting bit of extra info I hadn't read before. Thank you. I shall thus amend my statement: The anthropic principle applies to conditions that were arrived at in the past, before we observed them. You seem to be attempting to apply it to events that may happen at some point in the future evolution of the universe, where it doesn't belong.
The anthropic principle is a statement about the bias inherent in the condition of the observer within this universe (and, note, not the other way around). It can't say anything about the future state of the observer beyond the physical laws and initial conditions already governing that observer. John Titor might be able to say something regarding the anthropic principle and the future, but we can't.
I suppose your statement
"The only kind of universe we can occupy is one where the Earth wasn't destroyed by high-energy physics experiments. If Earth were destroyed, no human would occupy that universe."
is true. However, this statement is in no way predictive; it can say nothing about what we may observe in the future! The way that you use this to arrive at your conclusion that high-energy physics experiments are dangerous is bogus. And not to forget the second part of my previous reply.
I'm (semi-seriously) proposing a similar statement, "the only kind of universe we can occupy is one where the Earth wasn't destroyed by high-energy physics experiments. If Earth were destroyed, no human would occupy that universe."
The anthorpic principle applies to conditions that were in place from the beginning of the universe. Your version applies to events that may happen at some point during the evolution of the universe, and thus doesn't apply.
So, every time an event prevents high-energy physics experiments from occurring, it is additional evidence that those experiments are dangerous.
That's a classic case of begging the question. You first assume that the experiment is dangerous in order to claim that it destroys alternate worlds. There is no independent evidence to support this assumption.
Standard film is typically 24fps (slow and jerky and part of why I don't much care for cinema these days, but I digress). When played on PAL TV it's simply sped up slightly to make it fit the 25fps PAL standard (audio also increases in pitch a little; for those with perfect pitch the music changes noticeably). For NTSC, I believe they use a scheme (3:2 pulldown IIRC) that displays film frames for alternating durations. I would imagine that would make things look unnaturally jerky, but I've never seen it in practice. Of course, they might do something a bit better for conversion to HD.
What are you blabbering about? The failure of the LHC proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the many-worlds interpretation, and you're trying to apply the anthropic principle (misinterpreted) to an unsuitable situation.
You are right, technically, although I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss any link between the two. I'm sure the mainstream media conglomerates have vested interests in seeing such a filter implemented.
Standard feline conventions entail 9 lives and thus 9 causes of death. At number 10, that rover has already surpassed, much to the chagrin of the world's cat population.
Modded funny, but there is something to be said about being able to not just hear music but feel it. Headphones are not natural in this way, because they can produce significant amounts of audible noise, without any of the haptic (?) noise that would normally accompany it.
Personally, I like my music to kick me in the guts a bit, you know?
"People do this" "People do that". I hate that phrase and all its kin. By using it the author implies that every individual person is responsible for all of the actions listed. Maybe, just maybe, the sets don't overlap that much?
The thing is, the exact same can be said about hot coffee:
- Yes hot coffee is hot (!) and requires care when handling
- Yes handling with care takes more effort than not
- Yes if you are clumsy or not paying attention or just plain dumb you might burn a hole in yourself
The question is why is one form of natural-selection-in-action generating lawsuits and the other not?
Also, considering the abysmal takeup of the free home filtering software the last government offered, I'd say the vast majority of the population does not want this.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful now. Evolution doesn't make any prediction of the (subjective) complexity of biology as time progresses. It's quite possible that something may evolve towards something more "simple" if there is a naturally selectable advantage in doing so (e.g. conserving resources, or improving camouflage).
Point is, it's not impossible, within the theory, to find a simpler descendant. But it's not as likely, since the natural environment seems to have a habit of encouraging biological complexity.
I'm curious if that had more to do with them being Taiwanese or them being monks.
Mod me off-topic, but I have never understood why that phrase was ever supposed to be funny. Even in this country (Aus).
A google and some link digging gave me this, which is probably what you're thinking of: http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/labor-warned-on-porn-filters/2008/01/02/1198949855875.html
"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."
That was an interesting bit of extra info I hadn't read before. Thank you. I shall thus amend my statement: The anthropic principle applies to conditions that were arrived at in the past, before we observed them. You seem to be attempting to apply it to events that may happen at some point in the future evolution of the universe, where it doesn't belong.
The anthropic principle is a statement about the bias inherent in the condition of the observer within this universe (and, note, not the other way around). It can't say anything about the future state of the observer beyond the physical laws and initial conditions already governing that observer. John Titor might be able to say something regarding the anthropic principle and the future, but we can't.
I suppose your statement
is true. However, this statement is in no way predictive; it can say nothing about what we may observe in the future! The way that you use this to arrive at your conclusion that high-energy physics experiments are dangerous is bogus. And not to forget the second part of my previous reply.
The anthorpic principle applies to conditions that were in place from the beginning of the universe. Your version applies to events that may happen at some point during the evolution of the universe, and thus doesn't apply.
That's a classic case of begging the question. You first assume that the experiment is dangerous in order to claim that it destroys alternate worlds. There is no independent evidence to support this assumption.
You do that.
An amount which every reasonable young scientist can expect to achieve.
Standard film is typically 24fps (slow and jerky and part of why I don't much care for cinema these days, but I digress). When played on PAL TV it's simply sped up slightly to make it fit the 25fps PAL standard (audio also increases in pitch a little; for those with perfect pitch the music changes noticeably). For NTSC, I believe they use a scheme (3:2 pulldown IIRC) that displays film frames for alternating durations. I would imagine that would make things look unnaturally jerky, but I've never seen it in practice. Of course, they might do something a bit better for conversion to HD.
Damn it, how am I supposed to know I'm meant to laugh if it isn't modded +5 Funny? Do you job, mods!!
What are you blabbering about? The failure of the LHC proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the many-worlds interpretation, and you're trying to apply the anthropic principle (misinterpreted) to an unsuitable situation.
That implies the lawyer knows for sure...
Ah, depends which version. I'm pretty sure in the TV series the line is simply "Ask a glass of water".
You are right, technically, although I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss any link between the two. I'm sure the mainstream media conglomerates have vested interests in seeing such a filter implemented.
Computers aren't even consistent about it. RAM capacity? 2^10s. HD capacity? 10^3s. Network bandwidth? 10^3s. ... 1.44 "MB" floppy? Lord only knows...
Standard feline conventions entail 9 lives and thus 9 causes of death. At number 10, that rover has already surpassed, much to the chagrin of the world's cat population.
Maybe. See this.
Modded funny, but there is something to be said about being able to not just hear music but feel it. Headphones are not natural in this way, because they can produce significant amounts of audible noise, without any of the haptic (?) noise that would normally accompany it.
Personally, I like my music to kick me in the guts a bit, you know?
To be fair, there was Kyoto, and that "Sorry" thing. But it has been pretty much "Okay, now what?" since then.
You mention reading, but then talk about positive aspects of physical activity. Is the advantage of books then that they don't "get kids hyped up"?
"People do this" "People do that". I hate that phrase and all its kin. By using it the author implies that every individual person is responsible for all of the actions listed. Maybe, just maybe, the sets don't overlap that much?
The thing is, the exact same can be said about hot coffee:
- Yes hot coffee is hot (!) and requires care when handling
- Yes handling with care takes more effort than not
- Yes if you are clumsy or not paying attention or just plain dumb you might burn a hole in yourself
The question is why is one form of natural-selection-in-action generating lawsuits and the other not?
Uhh.. Irrational thinking, e. Imaginary thinking, -2i.
Hmmmm.
Also, considering the abysmal takeup of the free home filtering software the last government offered, I'd say the vast majority of the population does not want this.
Will do!
In my experience the more standard form would be |did> + |didn't>, with suitable normalisation implied or otherwise.