geordief

Is this idea that bodies in movement naturally choose the path of the least passage of time in spacetime equivalent to the idea that they will choose the path that requires the least energy? They have a "budget" of energy that only allows them one path ? " i always assumed that tme dilation is the result of gravity not its cause " Have we read too much of a cause/effect into this? Are the two phenomena interdependent without it being possible to separate chicken from egg (except mathematically as part of a model)?

I think we cross posted . That is what I was wondering about in my Edit ,I think (the Feynman lecture http://yima.csl.illi...Chapter2-19.pdf).

That quote is from the video,isn't it? It is Kip Thorne who says those words. I think Kip Thorne is attributing that assertion to Einstein(I have no idea where Einstein may have said it:perhaps others do) and the claim seems to be that that the need for an object to minimize its passage of time somehow causes the phenomenon we experience as gravity. (any connection with the principle of least action? ) http://yima.csl.illinois.edu/psfile/ECE553/FeynmanLecturesOnPhysicsChapter2-19.pdf I think Bird11dog did indeed bring up a very similar idea in the thread he mentions. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83655-time-gravity/ From my limited understanding I think that it may not be possible to disentangle time dilation from spatial contraction.

Is America going to lose its competitive position in the low carbon economy that we are headed for like it or not? Or will American industry be in a position to thrive (in that economy) even if its home market is damaged ? Will the public be in a position to boycott goods(or buy "foreign" product) produced by private companies that do not engage in making products for the low carbon future ? What is the engine of the coming low carbon economy? The public? Big business? Government?

I came across this idea on a BBC documentary last night -already put out on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ESo5IPpBs at I hour 25 mins and 15 seconds onwards Although the idea does resonate with me , I am unable to discuss this intelligently and am hoping someone on this forum can see if the idea has merit. To me it seems to be putting (or seeing) gravity in a back to front way in regards to its relationship with the workings of time but I do not have a good grip on the processes involved. Here is the passage in the book that Khalili was clearly reading from ("The Science of Interstellar" by Kip Thorne) "Everything likes to live where it'll age the most slowly & gravity pulls it there." https://books.google.ie/books?id=PbWYBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=%22everything+likes+to+live+where%22&source=bl&ots=h7L5wczpdS&sig=NUYtfOqzJltUpVUbc89WZ6FZI3U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHiquzxvvSAhVPFMAKHSZGBfwQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22everything%20likes%20to%20live%20where%22&f=false

It is surprising that a link to nocturia was not made before ( unless it was;but I don't think it was) Low sodium diets are also indicated for high blood pressure -which can apparently make strokes more likely amongst other things.

Thanks.So it would be a "body wide" effect and not especially connected to any particular organs in the body such as perhaps the kidneys?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39382339 Night-time loo trips 'linked to salt in diet' I am wondering what might be the mechanism(s) involved. Salt and water seem so closely linked that (as always in hindsight) it was not already obvious there might be some connection with urination and nocturia.

He is a blot on the landscape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_and_Alexander

This archived footage has just been uploaded. Cuddly ,aren't they? Keeping us all safe.

And if you are wrong and it is a risk ** he is prepared to take we have no way to make amends for allowing this to come to pass. I feel complacency allied to statistical likelihood and the passage of time may lead us down the cul de sac. Inter governmental organizations need to be reaffirmed and given resources and authority -not a cynical undermining.We sink or swim together here ,as in the Climate Change question. ** even the dumbest and most malevolent of leaders are unlikely to choose nuclear armageddon as their first choice but may still see it as a fall back option. As DT said "why can't we use them?"

With new actors does that not increase the risk and muddy the predictability? Does not the election of a president of the US like what we now have also factor in as an increased likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons **? Both he and Putin have seen fit to let everyone know that their deployment is not anathema. There are also non state actors to consider (=non state terrorism). True, Climate Change is less "sexy" and perhaps a greater risk (certainty?) but it does little to alleviate the problems associated with the (yes,needed) possession of nuclear weapons(and the danger of AI being in the chain of command) . **I accept there are other more "useful" weapons in the arsenal of the military which would be used first but even a tactical nuclear attack from whichever side would surely concentrate minds very quickly -unless the attacker was inspired by an irrational ideology like IS and happy to hasten the hour of their "martydom" There are also non state actors to consider (=non state terrorism).

I wouldn't call that "resistance" though. Presumably Quisling was a sitting duck after the war( he was apparently arrested along with his ministers one day after the German surrender) and just tried (presumably) for treason. All the resistance (and suffering) was during the war. The way I read your post was that there was military activity after the war had ended. There was no military campaign in Norway after Germany had capitulated ,was there?

I can't find this . What happened? What are you referring to?

One of the dangers is indeed that elites think they may be able to survive the outcome. Is there a way to convince them otherwise? By the way ,we cannot destroy our own planet or all of its inhabitants - only ourselves and our civilization. The planet can cope without us. Viewing ourselves as viruses does not seem to me to be helpful. The best argument is what shits we show ourselves to be by not leaving a future for our children .

That rings true ....and yet if we postulate that we have this intelligence then how are we different from an "artificial" intelligence of whatever level of sophistication ?Yes ,how does "intelligence " differ from any informational transformation (in the simple ways you describe)? We can point to all the marvelous attributes of what we see as intelligence but how can we say that we are not simply being self referential and looking down our noses at less sophisticated manifestations of what is fundamentally the same phenomenon? If so ,when these manifestations do evolve (?) into something more sophisticated what is there to say that it is somehow lacking in "true" intelligence ? Maybe it will be "better" in some ways and if ,as it evolves the notion of defense takes shape ,then so does the notion of "adversary". But these programs cannot "think for themselves",I hear. Is that the real Turing test? If the programmers have created programs that are too convoluted to keep track of (or even understand in the round) then who or what is doing the thinking? Perhaps one way to test the practicality of a strong AI would be to develop a robot with an artificial mind capable of adaptation to changing environments and set it the task of competing with a primitive organism in the niche it is "set loose in" If it succeeds and kicks out its rivals then it may be a safe bet it can do the same with us eventually I realise we have gone off topic as my OP was really concerned with the potential for using AI in the formulation of new mathematical (and perhaps -if they exist - other sorts of ) models

Is it perhaps a bit dogmatic to say "no intelligence"? Maybe better to think of it as nothing we would think of as intelligence. In a metaphorical way might we think of dice having been thrown at the "beginning" of our universe and the consequences played out (in a non deterministic way) ever since? Could those "dice" ( are they being rolled continuously?) -or the way they were rolled be considered intelligent? Does intelligence itself have a random (volatile?) nature?

Would not a hypothetical "sound clock" rely for its functioning on the em connections between processes? So a "sound clock" would be a derivative of an "em clock" and not a "sound clock" at all. I have though long and hard(if feebly and ineffectively probably) on this in the past and came to that conclusion eventually.

Interesting. All the senses have an energy supply. This would seem to be rather different. It would have to tap into resources somewhere presumably.

We may never learn why humans are self aware. It may be a problem that retreats ,mirage like as we approach it. It may be that self awareness is embedded into the universe and that our sense of self is a useful mental construct indistinguishable from a figment of our imagination.* Suppose "we" were to create AI program with the express purpose of passing the Turing test and these programs developed their own algorithms in response to outside input?The Turing test does not seem to me to be insurmountable -else why do they keep trying to pass it? *of course we are individually and dynamically separate from other processes and so a sense of self is grounded in reality.

A model in full detail would become the thing it was modelling so obviously not that. <breathless>Can AI become independent of the creators of its software (create its own path) ? If its workings are too complex for the human mind to follow does that not show it can? Can AI's internal processes become self referential even ? Can it operate a need to improve its own working? (going off at a bit of a tangent but what limits are there to what AI could achieve? Are there any? Where can the line be drawn? Can AI "cut the cord" ?) </ breathless> Sure these may not be immediate ,or even potential concerns -but they do concern me now.

It would be nice if the models were able to be simple enough to be understood by the likes of you and me but this seems unlikely as the be all and end all would be whether or not they actually work. Lean and mean models might seem inherently preferable to cumbersome models but beggars may not be able to choose... As Delta implied, these models may have a life of their own quite independently of the original software creators.

He certainly has a name that would adorn a crackpot Here this seems to have a lot on that (and other) subjects http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/899.htm

That is quite a minefield for me. I thought (without entitlement or authority) that electro-magnetic theory was more or less "done and dusted" . Yes ,it does seem slightly farcical that the motion of two wedges can be modeled with mathematics that are identical (?) to that employed in Maxwell's equations . I am surprised though that there is hardly any online discussion as to this interpretation. This must be in part that it has no practical consequence. I am sorry that I cannot join that discussion as all I am able to do is appreciate the outline I hope I have drawn fairly correctly . My calculus is fairly rusty and I am taking on trust (I am 100% confident they are right mind you) those wedge equations and their "mirroring" of the Maxwell equations . Still, thank you for posting that. It was entertaining and a little mind opening. EDIT: Catt's position on invariance of c seems to me to be that it is not integral to Maxwell's equations. But he does describe M's equations as "hogwash" outside of the E/M proportionality and the actual value of c

Thanks,that would be good of you. My learning technique ,such as it is is to identify my mistaken preconceptions and reorient myself from there forwards. Hopefully I do not overly contaminate the threads with my initial misconceptions and can learn to a degree from those of you who who have put in the work down the years and are able to speak with some authority in particular areas.