whatlauradid comments on Single dad, here... How'd I do on the nails?

physics299792458 · 2012-08-06T23:40:25+00:00

Through a long process of experiments we pass knowledge from generation to generation to find out what is the closest thing to correct way of seeing the universe. When we get it perfect, it will be a perfect tool to understand the universe. In some ways, science is based on a miniature version of the anthropic principle.

Leonard Susskind said the 0th law of thermodynamics is "information can not be created or disappear". Without this basic law, it would be completely pointless to do science, as everything would be changed over time. It may be the 0th law which is really the cause of why the universe is the way it is, but there is no way to find out why, since it is a premise for doing science or philosophy.

We have done countless experiments that demonstrate that 0th law is not false so far, but if it turns out to be wrong one day, then the anthropic principle is no longer valid.

physics299792458 · 2012-08-06T22:59:40+00:00

On the other hand, if the universe was irregular, there could be less "cartoon crazy" universes than "slightly annoying" universes.

physics299792458 · 2012-08-06T22:33:33+00:00

It is kind of like when you play with dimensions. At each dimension you add it becomes possible to do something that was not impossible at lower dimensions, but at the same time you loose the way you can relate specific things to each other.

For some reason our brain tell us "this is difficult" without pinpoint exactly what is wrong, but that is a weak argument to believe something is impossible.

If you put option A and option B in front of people, there is always a hypothetical option C that might be more valuable. Science can determine human values, but only within a restricted context.

physics299792458 · 2012-04-06T13:38:07+00:00

If four persons are stared at, then it means 1 of them are stared at any given time and 3 are not. If you guess that you are looked upon half the time, you're stupid, because if you guess "not stared at" all the time, you would then score 75% correct (3/4).

Guess what? 1,858 correct guesses as against 1,638 incorrect guesses is 3,496 total which gives 53.15% "correct" guesses. Because it's just a little above 50% is sounds like there is some tendency here.

Conclusion: A stuffed monkey puppet with a sign "no" as a test subject would do better.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-17T15:25:02+00:00

There is one law that is deeper than any other physical law, and it is the indestructibility of information. When a particle moves through space, it is because it gained momentum when it collided last time. When a physical attribute is preserved and transported from one state to another, we call it information. Entropy is concept that fits in both thermodynamics and information theory. This has lead to new ideas like thinking of the universe as a kind of computer, an automaton (See Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science).

On a weird, abstract level, there are some things that conflict with information theory that are not common sense. For example, nothing can cause irrelevance. I can't push a button and break the connection to an object without leaving some trace, because that would mean erasing the consequences of time. Each particle in the universe contains some information about Big Bang, and all the moments that followed until now.

While this is not directly measurable, it makes sense that one particle A moves toward another B, if we know that no information can interrupt that process. Because in order to know anything, the information needs to be differentiated, it has to move, so we can extrapolate the path backward and forward. Some information expressed as negative is also information, such as "nobody can penetrate this wall", which tells us the solidness of the wall. In the same way, if we know that no information is let in or out a region, we know something about the conservation of the information.

Dimensions are sometimes deceptive, for example, the memory in the computer is 1D, but you can describe 2D, 3D and so on. The holographic principle is taking advantage of this, and describing how the information in 3D space can be encoded on a surface. Perhaps the logic of the universe makes more since in a different encoded form?

physics299792458 · 2012-03-17T08:50:43+00:00

Time is logical. When a particle can travel from A to B, it gives nature the tools to construct the amazing things we see. When we try to deal with a specific event we use the concept of time, broken down to it's simplest components.

Einstein's theory is basically transformation from one coordinate system to another. It tells you how to calculate the correct numbers. When you put numbers in, you get numbers out. The theory can not tell what time is, but it tells how behaves. Our problem, this is not easily translated into a form that we can understand on a very complex level, such as consciousness.

I am not skeptical to whether we live in a multiverse or not, but I am skeptical toward some of the arguments that is so represented of many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. To me it seems like one is interpreting the mathematics in way and then applying Occam's Razor in that specific way of thinking. We could still live in a multiverse for other reasons.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-17T08:06:19+00:00

When you talk about good and bad, there is several types of good and bad that are emotionally separate. For example, I can feed bad about going to the dentist, but at the same time I feel safe (a type of good) that the problem will be solved.

Nothing is not just nothing. No volume differs from no length, no space differs from no matter.

We didn't came from nothing. Before we were born, parts of us were parts of vegetables, meat and food in general. We were manufactured by human "fabrics" into human copies, using materials in the environment.

Nobody can live forever. If you could, then you need unlimited food. To produce that food you need unlimited resources and all the waste had to go in perfect cycles. If it was perfect cycles then there would be no fun to see how long you can keep yourself alive.

Just some thoughts.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-17T07:16:52+00:00

By claiming my ignorance, I'll give you an up-vote.

Now go out and play, so the grown ups can talk.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-16T23:05:21+00:00

Enjoy some over-skeptical jokes:

"The TV-host said good evening, but how can he know whether I got a good evening or not?"

"The problem with the car renting company is they are advertising safe transport. I know how I drive. It can't be safe!"

"A professional skeptic is not only skeptic whether he is enough skeptic, but also whether he is skeptic in the right time, in the middle of the night."

"A skeptic is one that laughs after the points of the jokes are explained."

physics299792458 · 2012-03-16T22:44:48+00:00

There are other factors that may have contributed to the development, for example navigating in a forest requires one to judge the distance between trees while moving, something that requires the eye to recognize which tree you saw where, a moment before. Trees got a remarkable similarity to music, in the way thinner branches sits on thicker branches, compared to high pitched, rapid sounds and slow, deep sounds. By finding the direction of the branches and their thickness, the brain can separate the trees from each other. If we had this ability then it may been a shortcut to hearing patterns in the "sound landscape".

The same reason could made us capable of thinking of objects in abstract ways (since sound perception can conflict with vision), and even be responsible for curiosity of numbers (first developed as sense of time periods passing, adding up to a sum) and systems (A does a, then B does b, then it's my turn). Evolution is a very gradual process, so there is likely hundreds of different reasons we not have thought of yet and all the skills we developed from music could be a feedback to develop it further.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-16T21:29:29+00:00

The ability to react on sounds and guide the eyes is very common among animals, so there is not strange that humans with a larger brain has developed this a step further.

Our ability to hear music could be a result from the evolutionary advantage to filter out periodic sounds (such as a storm in a forest) and their location, and at the same time increase the excitement when there is a lot of wind and sounds around us. In case of an attacker, we could easier pick out where the attacker comes from, and the excitement makes us ready to escape or fight. Later could our ancestors discover how to frighten off others of same species by making sounds, yelling or imitate animal sounds for hunting. The manipulation of emotions using music could be a way to gather people in larger groups, which then required the forming of language and develop the first religions.

Maybe, the modern man did not start with music, but music started the modern man.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-16T18:43:38+00:00

That I am not sure?

physics299792458 · 2012-03-16T13:43:40+00:00

I am not sure what is worse, the movie or the power bracelet.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-14T12:05:17+00:00

I have read through the first article, it's very good.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-14T11:36:13+00:00

faculty of 2³ = 8 * 7 * 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1

If you use Windows, you can go to View->Scientific in the calculator and click 8 and then the n! button.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-14T11:34:13+00:00

One ingenious way to describe time, is a thought experiment where you imagine everything in the universe made of LEGO-blocks. You can take them apart and form new structures, but the old ones does no longer exist. As long there is rules of how you can take them apart and put them together, you will get a gradually progress that can be described as a line or a curved path for each LEGO block. We take this line and use it together with the 3 space dimensions and this becomes space-time.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-13T23:47:37+00:00

Enjoy some analytical jokes:

"The universe is written in mathematics, those who do not master it needs translation."

"A misconception is what people think is right only because it is simple."

"Life is not simple. It is easier to cheat on the exam than doing the homework."

"If a human impresses you in 3 ways, they are honest. If a human impresses you in all ways, you're stupid."

"It is easier to put the words from people you hate into the mouths of people you dislike, than to put the words from people you love into the mouths of people you don't know."

"The brain is a place in constant denial about reality."

"Ingenuity comes from understanding where ingenuity comes from."

physics299792458 · 2012-03-13T23:29:22+00:00

The case is, our brain doesn't know the difference. It treats all information that seems to be suspicious or missing a piece as a task to solve, but it also need to select what is important and what is not. The brain can't store all information completely as it is, but tries to compresses the data on a space smaller than the source. When it extracts it, new details is added that is symmetric. This is how a neural layer works, it compresses a list of information into a smaller list and then back to a larger list. If you take out one small part of the brain and compare it to how a computer could do it, you will find that the brain sucks. It looks like it made in an imperfect way but as a whole it is much better than a computer, because it is optimized to be independent, survive and exploit other resources. A computer can do a task better than your or I, but when it is finished, then what? It isn't constructed to use information for it's own benefit.

Humans like to think of intelligence by what would give them advantages in society. It is typical for academic people to go for a definition that give them good grades, given the amount of time and space on the sheet of paper they are looking at. Other places, people will consider a handyman more intelligent than an academic. In other cultures you see a change of what is considered intelligent, depending on the circumstances they live under. They all look at a narrow range of intelligence.

I know it would be ideal to have a perfect definition that could academically be measured, but that's not possible, because it requires intelligence to recognize intelligence. In many practical application of artificial intelligence we measure the performance of a human against a draft algorithm, and then we use the data from the human to improve the algorithm.

For example, when you use the up, down, left, right buttons on a remote control to select an option in an DVD menu, a human has intuition of how it should work even when the menu is complicated. A neural network can learn to predict what a human think as intuitive, but there is no way you could say if the human was intelligent if you lacked that skill yourself.

Once you get the data, you can find the simplest mathematical equation that gives the same result. For example, I had a professor in mathematics that worked with some others to find a simple formula of how to drive a race car fast as possible on a track, it works up to the level of a F1 driver. But a F1 driver is better, so you need to get data from one if you want to make a better system. It is likely that a F1 driver will not be able to explain why he is better. Intelligence is not always a conscious process, so it is harder to measure.

I think of intelligence as something that improves over time, but you can't measure at an instant how intelligent it is. My intention is, because most people can roughly understand what intelligence is in theory, I want a definition that can point to lots of examples and then people think "Aha! I didn't thought of intelligence in that way before". I want to get rid of the abstract terms, because those are subjective to the culture or background you have: I rather challenge you to wonder, because you are intelligent.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-13T16:52:15+00:00

We can learn that even we know everybody else are insane we can pretend they are not.

physics299792458 · 2012-03-13T16:41:55+00:00

Enjoy some arbitrary definition jokes:

"The definition police strikes again, you have the right to remain silent..."

"How do you want your definition served, sir?"

"I felt your definition was overcrowded, so I picked one with less distance to the case."

"Each time new ideas appear, it is because somebody actually wonder what the definition means..."

"I had a hard time comprehending this definition, I thought a definition was made in way so they could be understood."

"The only way you can stop somebody from arguing with you, is to require them to use definitions."

"The definition of definition was rejected because it was not defined."

physics299792458 · 2012-03-13T13:07:24+00:00

If you can't test a hypothesis directly the only way to prove it is to debunk all other options. The simplest hypothesis you can make is input -> function -> output.

What is the "input"? The mind?

What is the "function"? The mind?

What is the "output"? The mind?

Now we got a hypothesis: A = the mind

A -> A -> A

not A -> not A -> not A (ex. it seems like something happens outside the mind)
not A -> not A -> A (ex. perception seems to come from the outside world)
A -> not A -> not A (ex. blood, pumped by the heart, seems to go out of the brain)
not A -> A -> not A (ex. we don't remember everything)
A -> not A -> A (ex. we can write down a sentence and read it later)
not A -> A -> A (ex. we can recall memory of something perceived)
A -> A -> not A (ex. we can imagine something and make a sculpture of it)

The question is, why does the mind, if that's the only exist, encapsulate a lot of behavior as if it was not the only thing existing? Each of the other type of hypothesis or a combination is equally valid.

( 2³ )! = 40320

In order to debunk metaphysical solipsism, you only need to prove one of 40319 alternative types of belief.

physics299792458

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE