Fred56

Comment on NP_completeness, etc: do we 'know' that there are theories or postulates that we will never 'prove' (know if they have a solution)? If, so, does this mean we believe that we know there are unknowable things in our experience (i.e. the world)? Or is there the usual scientific/semantic problem with using the verb 'believe'? We expect instead, or we test the assumption --which we don't call a belief of any kind (or even say it's a belief that we are able to make the assumption, or test it)? Comment on science and scientific method (as defined by Sayonara³): Translation: "Science is not scientists, scientific method is not scientists. Scientists (people) are only coincidental to science. Because people believe things, and science isn't belief, people (especially scientists) must not invoke the notion of belief if they wish to investigate anything. However, because they do (darn it), it is necessary to point out that the method is in fact the science, not the results it delivers. The results are coincidental. The beliefs and theories that "accumulate" can be collated, collected, studied, amended, improved, disproved, etc but they aren't a part of science, because we have to define it narrowly, or exactly, or precisely, so it can only be said to be a method. Selecting a pair of apparently identical blue socks illustrates this method, but opening a drawer where I expect to find such items is not part of any belief, it's the testing of a method, or an expectation. But I can't believe this either, scientists beliefs simply don't come in to it. This is why I constantly forget where my socks are. Calling the accumulation of knowledge, observation, or any result 'belief' or a part of some 'belief system' is equivocation." Uh huh...

Right, this person who walked in front of a bus: was it deliberate or accidental? If accidental, my implication stands up (we don't choose to do something like that), if deliberate, then there was something 'wrong' with the usual preservation 'mechanism', or the apparent choice made is explained (usually) by some aberrant mental state... As for the point: I see a parallel between some of the writing in the SF title as germane to the human condition -drifting through a hostile universe with some alien Captain in control... (but what you want to interpret from all this is of course, your prerogative, you might decide it's complete rubbish; but as we all know, there's really no such thing) The last paragraphs in my OP rabbit on about what we (lifeforms) might be, and reflects my thinking on how Life exploits the flow of energy via 'structure' and internal organisation, like something riding on a surface, or 'held up' by the tension on that surface, or riding a wave until it 'collapses' (on some metaphorical beach). I have described it (in this forum) as a player on its own stage, for example; which didn't seem to haul in any objections (or any responses, but never mind). P.S. I deliberately tried to make it as obscure as I could, without going off the wall altogether. P.P.S. In which case I s'pose I should admit to at least a subconscious ploy to see if anyone else could 'see' anything...

'crassendo' is from the same Latin root for the English word 'crass' or 'crassness', btw. Used the once in this thread... Surely not all of the threads I've started, or posts I've made have perplexed everyone? (ignore this, I don't really give it much thought myself -this could be part of the 'problem', though)

Quantum information processing is waiting in the wings: "QM plays a significant role in the operation of the laser, the FET, and classical SFQ logic, but none of these are coherent quantum devices. [T]hey do not preserve and exploit quantum mechanical phase information. Accordingly, they cannot provide the parallelism which leads to exponential speedup in a quantum computer." --Uncle Scrooge "As a generalization ...think about ANY AQC operating on a hard (ie exponentially small gap) problem. Is there any physical system whose temperature is smaller than the gap at an anti-crossing of a hard problem? At an anticrossing, the temperature is ALWAYS going to be orders of magnitude larger than the gap. That's why inclusion of a thermal environment is ...[needed] in order to analyze how to operate an AQC (although note that at the anticrossings it's not really adiabatic anymore). Qualitatively, the effect of the large temperature is to thermalize the two energy levels involved in the anticrossing, reducing the probability of success by 1/2, which is of course completely acceptable. The qubits are compound [Josephson] junction RF squids. The tunneling matrix elements for each qubit can be controlled by varying the flux applied through the CJJs for each qubit. This approach is well-known and is centrally featured in the superconducting AQC papers I've linked to here. As I mentioned earlier the Hamiltonian is of the X+Z+ZZ type. Notice the X? ...From the theory perspective, adding environments qualitatively changes the behavior of the system. I don't believe that even this simple point is widely understood. There are lots of things like this where computation and physics are related in non-trivial ways, and where cross-overs between classical and quantum behavior may affect computational scaling in a way that isn't just either/or. Also the system we're building is [not] going to exponentially speed up anything. The objective is the quadratic speed up for unstructured search. ... The way we operate our AQCs is like this: [math](X_i[/math] and [math]Z_i[/math] are the pauli X and Z matrices for qubit i): (1) Turn up the tunneling term in the Hamiltonian to its maximum value [math](H=\sum_i \Delta_i X_i)[/math] (2) Slowly turn the qubit biases and coupler strengths up to their target values (these define the particular problem instance); after this process the Hamiltonian is [math]H=\sum_i (\Delta_i X_i + h_i Z_i) +\sum_{ij} J_ij Z_i Z_j[/math] (3) Slowly turn the tunneling terms off; after this the Hamiltonian is [math]H=\sum_i h_i Z_i +\sum_{ij} J_ij Z_i Z_j[/math] (4) Read out the (binary digital) values of the qubits OK so the point of this is that the qubits are only read out when they are in classical bit states by design. The readout devices are sensitive magnetometers called DC-squids which sense the direction of the magnetic field threading the qubit and hence its bit state. The computational model is explicitly set up so that superposition states are used only during the annealing stage; the readouts never fire during this step. Answers are encoded in bit strings. Each bit string corresponds to a particular solution. If the computation succeeds, the bit string returned [math]({s_i})[/math] will minimize the energy [math] E=\sum_i h_i s_i +\sum_{ij} J_ij s_i s_j[/math]." --Geordie --superconducting.blogspot.com Jan 2007

Can you be a tad more specific, do you not understand any of it, or just bits of it, or none of it at all? Have you read any SF, or do you understand Quantum Darwinism? How about the concept of a ship with a captain who thinks humans are their slaves, and therefore expendable, which is drifting through the void (no bells ringing at all?)... Does the title make any sense, maybe? un extrait montage plus par le livre 'The Lifeship': "Human," she said at last, "we permit you to travel aboard our holy ships because you have no ships of your own worth the counting, and because it is a step upon the Way to assist others, even though they will never know the meaning of Perfection. You are only that which we carry of our own choice. You will not speak to me of destinations. Nor are you aboard this lifeship in such mode as I would prefer," she said. "The number is not optimum." Giles stared at her. "I don't understand." he said. "The number," repeated the Captain "is not optimum for Perfection. It would be more optimal if you were one less. Perhaps you will reduce your number by one individual." She pointed to the converter in the back of the lifeship. "The converter could use the additional raw material." Giles stiffened. "You mean murder an arbite, just to suit your idea of Perfection?" he snapped. "Why not?" The dark, round eyes stared unblinkingly at him. "You use them as slaves, but here in this small ship you have no need for so many slaves. What is one of them compared to the good will of myselves, who hold survival of all of you in my hands? Why concern yourself for any of them?" ... "Put me in the converter, if you think you can, Rayumung. but lay one finger on any of these and I swear to you that this lifeship will reach no destination at all, and you will die in dishonor, if I have to take the hull apart with my bare hands!" The Captain loomed over him. A rare tone of emotion crept into her voice. "Do you really think you could match yourself against me, human?" (yup, the Captain's a she, une femme alors!; actuellement les 'femmes et hommes')

Look into the early history of the solar system. Or try Wikipedia for starters. Google something like "life mars early solar system planetary formation", and keep adding words until you get it down to <5k results, say.

The slight cooling trend you're talking about should actually be the start of a new glaciation period (which is due to Milankovich cycles). We seem to have 'seen off' or at least postponed this, perhaps indefinitely -some are saying this 'change' in the expected onset started when humans began developing large-scale agriculture.Also the solar cycle (the 11-yr sunspot cycle) is beginning its next upturn. So solar output will increase gradually (or at least, this is what is expected), and there is evidence that past solar cycles have added an extra 2 deg. C to upper atmosphere warming. So it should get warmer, not cooler, over the next 8 or so yrs.

Intelligence is both a general kind of concept and a specific measure of an individual's (not just humans) ability to resolve any situation -to "deal with" the world. In humans, and presumably in other kinds of lifeforms, there is a distribution, a bell curve, or probability that any individual intelligence falls within. The larger mass of 'average' intelligence, than of lower or upper 'quartiles' could explain why leaders (people who are presumed to be better at making decisions) appear in the human spectrum. But we appear to also be willing to cede all authority, and to abrogate our own decision-making. This might be a mistake, but then being intelligent doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. I guess if you have intelligence, you're aware of this 'flaw' with it. Or you could say something like: a 'wise' man understands that he can be 'stupid', or do 'stupid' or 'irrational' things. Or that their wisdom doesn't guarantee they will do only wise things.

My 2c worth would be that Luminal appears to be saying that developed countries have gene pools that tend to phenotypes that aren't as well adapted to survival (because there's a McDonalds up the road, or a supermarket next to it). In less-developed or 'poor' countries, its harder to survive, and people (phenotypes) tend to come up against more 'natural' selective pressures. Also there's the issue that yourdad mentions about how genotypes that are 'inferior' or have genetic 'flaws' survive (and how this doesn't quite gel with how evolution "really" works, as we understand it -it's the accumulation of genetic changes, or drift in the gene pool), and how none of us would have much chance of surviving in the wild, as our predecessors did. These days special training and conditioning is needed to have 'survival skills', and face the 'wild' with nothing but your bare hands, or just a pocket knife, so to speak.

I have not 'said' any such thing. Say or think what you like, but don't lie, OK? YOU are saying, and repeatedly, that "energy is not photons, the speed of light is not the speed of energy"... When did I 'say' this? And why did you first post this particular claim, (once again): When are you going to tell us all? Perhaps you need to look at the question again (I'll add a little qualifier): Time to ante up, dude. Please explain why you are claiming photons have no mass equivalent, and why photons "are not energy". Looks like there's a poster to this forum with his 'R's totally about phase on this one.

There are some tutorial language sites; Wikipedia is a ok place to start -check out the different dictionaries. Or google 'german dictionaries', which should yield a few links to teaching sites -you might have to register, which is free for some sites.

An answer to that question is still being researched by many different teams of palaeontologists, phylogenists and comparative evolutionists, or whatever. You could see what google or Copernic web searches turn up (if you're happy to trawl through gazillions of refs)...

Life is purposeful. Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living (and evolving). Efficiency and its improvement is a goal (that will never be 'reached'), n'est ce pas?

A: I need proof to believe something. B: OK, but you're lying. What you really mean is you need proof to believe what I'm saying now, or what I just said. But you believe what an authority figure tells you without asking for any proof. This is the ultimate case of selective reasoning. A: But that isn't true either, I question what authority has to tell me, I accept it only in the sense that it's from an authority. B: How do you know that the leaders of this world are not aliens? A: I don't, but I don't know that they are aliens either. B: How come that's funny? That's not funny, or even slightly humorous... Ho hum.

You started laughing, though, because the guy was telling you a joke. I think I get the joke he is telling, too...

In the sense that all information we acquire is then something that we are? Or that we expend some part of "ourselves" (in thermodynamic terms) in order to acquire? Evolution does follow this sense of accumulation, and "improvement" or "direction", i.e. purpose. Life and evolution are purposeful, then.

However, you seem to think it's important to keep telling everyone that there is one... What sort of worldview does any person (including yourself) have then? Is this worldview (belief system) divorced completely from the purpose of Science; and doesn't associate with scientific method either? That last conclusion is not supported in the least by anything I have 'said', sorry. What I have said is that Science is necessarily a collection of ideas (beliefs) which form a system (of reference). Terminology and its differing semantics appears to be an issue here. Wrap more chains of logic around them, by all means. And to define something must involve belief (in meaning and its definition, possibly). And the existence of this thread might be totally meaningless, or it might change or commute with someone's ideas about what knowledge actually is (or not). Some seem to think we should tread more carefully, but I'm just getting into my stride here, I feel.

"The latest incarnation of Oedipus, the continued romance of Beauty and the Beast, stands this afternoon on the corner of 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, waiting for the lights to change." --Joseph Campbell

This is a question that the quantum darwinists think they can answer. They call it 'eigenselection'. Check out the wiki.

"The lives of the slaves", said the Captain, "are of no value." "They are not slaves." "As I count, they are slaves, and worthless." "As I count, they are men and women, and must survive..." "That is a lie you tell me. A foolish lie. You are helpless here in space..." (1) Ain' no thang We think it's easy, and we think it's hard. But it isn't isn't and it isn't is. It doesn't matter what we believe or if we believe the wrong thing. We don't have to believe anything. Because we are compelled. Authority is a channel that allows the messages to arrive from the potentiality. You know, the infinite one. The quantum superposition of harmonic function, a resonance, or sounding of a note. Reality. Because the world turns, we turn with it. We step and plod, leap and stumble, bound by our own chains of logic. Are we some kind of chaotic attractor or singularity in the complex plane? A pole or zero in the transfer function? What is whizzing around the accelerator ring of power? Where is the complex surface? What is its topology? Is the universe just around the next corner? (1) The Lifeship --Harry Harrison and Gordon R. Dickson

The 'Great Atomic-Psyko hairstyle' is back in guys

The other thread I started with this topic in mind appears to have totally perplexed some others in this forum. I got back an immediate negative sort of "what the hell are you talking about -this looks totally illogical" response. Can't really figure, but what the hey, I gave a bit back, and accused at least one of being 'stoopid', now I've been accused of 'ad hominem" rather than 'ad crassendo' attack. I don't tolerate thick people too well, I'm afraid, especially when they seem to be just prevaricating or pretending not to understand my question. But, as if it matters a toss... I would say that part of the reason an individual is, or group of individuals from among a group are selected as 'leaders' is due to the group perception that the subset is better at observing and making decisions, possibly. Leadership appears to be something related to the desire to abrogate responsibility, and therefore accept or surrender your individual observational and decisive ability.

This is a rather restricted definition, what about the authority we attribute to the observations of a group? What do you do if you see something strange or 'out of place'? I would say the first thing is: think about asking another observer if they see it too... this might be because you give more status to the observation of a group? This is the meaning I am using for the word authority (as well as the one you define -which derives from the same concept, I think). You seem to be stuck on the concept of leadership by a single individual or group. Leadership derives from authority, authority is the status assigned to observational ability, which a group has more of (but this isn't carved in stone, exactly)... "Hello pot?" Hi, well I spose I could be kind of stoopid for assuming I can post something I think is obvious and expect a rational or logical debate instead of perplexity and grabbing at conclusions...

How does it not relate to my claim that life and purpose are related (intertwined irrevocably, if you like).None of these behaviours described in the wiki (which are specific) can be said to be purposeful of course? And my comment on the last sentence in your post will start with the following query: Why are you stating (for the third or fourth time) that I am trying to define or illustrate some mysterious purpose that life has? Question two: how do you decide that something is alive, that is, what does your brain do to tell you the difference between a rock, and something that crawls over it, or flies down and gobbles up the thing that's crawling -surely there can't be any discrimination of purpose? This must be absolutely impossible, or extremely difficult to do (invoke the notion or observation of purpose -purposeful action or "behaviour"). So what do you observe, and what notions do you invoke, assuming life is not purposeful?

Isn't there a theory (more an idea I s'pose) that the Judaeo-Christian creation mythology represents what actually happened (ignoring the time problem or what is meant by a 'day') more closely than most others. Bearing in mind that the J-C mythology was adopted from Eastern (Persian, Hindu, etc) creation etc myths? Please don't respond with "how can you say the Bible is accurate" stuff, for crying out loud....