Baby Astronaut

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all Last year the Foundational Questions Institute's third essay contest posed the following question to physicists and philosophers: “Is Reality Digital or Analog?” The organizers expected entrants to come down on the side of digital. After all, the word “quantum” in quantum physics connotes “discrete” —hence, “digital”. Many of the best essays held, however, that the world is analog. Among them was the entry by David Tong, who shared the second-place prize. I'd say both. You?

*bumper*

Swansont and CaptainPanic, Excellent points. A few of them should be incorporated into the template answer we can give to people. The main problem I'm addressing is that the question asker (but just as -- or even more importantly -- the lurker who's viewing) is given an opportunity from the very beginning to see all the variables at play. A standard format answer to their misunderstanding of science, a crisp, elegant reply that leaves no room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. So that if the question asker then responds unreasonably, any reasonable onlooker is going to intuitively recognize 100% why the asker's further retorts get unceremoniously dismissed. But also, keep in mind (also imatfaal) that I didn't request the we set up experiments for any question asked. I only brought up math. Perhaps in the template answer, we can use an example with math to show how difficult it's for scientists to resolve a seeming conflict with a part of the Standard Model, and how there's other proper channels for inquiring about untested claims, maybe even with links and a concise etiquette guide. And if you're feeling generous, perhaps use some math to help them understand flaws in one of their basic assumptions or premises. This kind of standard answer, if it became a habit for the scientific community to point others to, could be a tremendous opportunity for advancing science in the eyes of others. . (edit: in addition to math, I also brought up reviewing the observations)

I had a similar paradox, but learned that a voluntary smile can bring an involuntary smile to another person, because it's a nonverbal connection making them feel good. Realizing the connection is key. Ever since then I can more often bring on a genuine voluntary smile. The anticipation of a return smile and the bubbly feeling you know to have stirred in them is catalyst enough!

There's an inherent flaw to asking why scientists are reluctant to accept new ideas. First of all, the question is poorly reasoned, as many scientists are excited about new possibilities. An obvious example of this is the search for life on Mars and of exploring the unknown. Also, there is a difference between someone just accepting a new claim blindly and someone willing to explore the validity of a testable claim. So might a better question to ask be, why scientists are reluctant to explore untested claims? Not really. That still makes an assumption that is contradicted by the passion in scientific exploration; but it's also closer to being on track. Scientists are reluctant to explore untestable claims scientifically (as that's impossible), but many are willing to explore it philosophically (a method of examination that doesn't need absolutely consistent replicable experiments). But there's an inherent flaw as well to proposing that the only alternative to being reluctant of accepting untested claims without evidence is to instead eagerly accept such claims. Isn't that going from one extreme to another, skipping over a middle ground? Pure reluctance doesn't advance knowledge. It might keep science pure, but it alienates the person seeking knowledge, of which science is only an important part but not equal to it. Science is under attack by certain entrenched interests, and though science has been adequately defended by other significant interests, those who know science have a duty to not feed the damage of the anti-science interests. We need a standard answer we can give to people who bring untested claims or ask why scientists are reluctant to explore new ideas. A template we can download or link to, addressing the points raised here. Compare the approach of Mythbusters to debatable or unverified claims, to the other approach of some people who debate in the name of science. While the Mythbusters show's tests aren't peer-reviewable or even scientific, the viewers likely perceive that if the hosts were presented with an untested claim, they'd answer with: ok let's test it. On the other hand, what answer do you expect if the typical forum veteran here, who's representing science in the eyes of a visiting layman, were to be presented such an untested claim? Would it be "Prove it"? or "Science can't accept that into the body of thoroughly replicated experiments it has amassed over centuries as evidence, but let's have a closer look by reviewing the observations and testing the math to learn if there's any scientific evidence to that, as opposed to philosophical value."

I'm reposting this from a post made long ago in a thread not far away: One philosophical thought I'd like to contribute, which I suspect many in this community might already privately harbor, is that mathematics which detail existence is reducible far beyond its usual framework into very simple components. One reference I can point to is E=mc2. I believe all mathematics can achieve this simplicity or better. However, if even one variable were off, an increase of complication ripples through the framework until it nears its current state. The variable I mentioned has many faces. Conclusive evidence is one -- and what if it turns out to be incorrect? When Einstein proved that energy and matter were one and the same, I would imagine it had a ripple effect that simplified other formulas. Consequently, a lot of divergent theories may have been collapsed into a simpler framework. The leap of insight with electromagnetism most probably accomplished a similar thing. I've noticed in researching mathematical origins that the authors of certain formulations had used personalized notations. The implications of this leads me to hope a few will realize that our mathematical architecture in its formal state might need a complete overhaul and redesign, in order to accommodate new explanations for reality which might be lurking just beyond its range yet within the grasp of a less complicated system of notation. One day, computers will be able to rearrange the math system by tinkering around with many variables in novel ways, until it hits an approach that collapses a lot of formula notations down to unforeseen sizes. The Lounge is a good place for this to discuss, as I want mathematical laymen to join in the conversation, as that's what I am! And a couple of links for discussion that could be relevant to this idea: Mathematicians Want to Say Goodbye to Pi and

Not just on the surface, but down to its core. Let's say eons ago there happened to be a great deal of water in one area of a star system, water that via gravity collected and eventually formed into a planet. Along with gases for atmosphere. There would be enough dissolved minerals for life to develop into living bodies, complex functions, and interconnected ecosystems. Any solid formations would be life-based -- such as coral lattices or floating star trees (named for its wooded shape) -- or disintegrated meteors from the occasional cosmic impact. There may even be flying creatures above water, using large patchworks of star trees as a rest stop. It's a planet with no real land, or even a rocky core. Any scientific problems with this? Can such a planet exist? What happens physically to water at the core, under such pressures? To ward off cosmic radiation, let's assume that a pair of metallic moons orbits it, each at geo-opposite positions and a magnetic field that envelops the planet as the fields merge or overlap.

Do you have to create a mathematical base for it separately? Or is that handled by machine code? And is machine code a type of "pre-language" that enables a computer to interact with ("understand") a higher level language? In other words, does each new language have to teach a computer about general math and how to perform every type of basic calculation, or does the language assume the computer is outfitted with such capabilities, and the language only specifies in what order to perform calculations and how to react when text or any other kinds of input occur? Also, is there a variety of machine code languages, the way there is a huge variety of higher level languages? And finally, if there's only a single or very few number of machine code languages, is it optimal, can it be improved or revamped to be more efficient?

Does that mean you'd have to personally ask a browser vendor to facilitate the action (of those parameters) on behalf of your media file type, or does it mean that ANY company simply just has to write specific parameters into an embedded object to pop up the download link? For example, can I just duplicate their embed code, replacing all their links and software references with my own? I'm not sure what you mean by looking at their documentation. On the website of Adobe, or at the website that launched the plug-in notification?

Does a way exist for writing a line that instructs the program to ....just find all the references to an object? ....test or model what behaviors shall occur if you'd free all references to a set of chained objects, but without really freeing them?

Oh great computer science boards, grant me an answer!

Basically, how do you make a website report that a visitor's browser needs a specified plug-in to display its contents properly, along with a link on that message to download the plug-in?

For example, will a tooltip for an image or a website link display on touchscreens? What happens on a touchscreen to the mouse effects that drop a menu when you roll over a navigation link, or to the mouse effect that displays a thumbnail preview image at different sections of a video's progress bar? Or are touchscreens missing a way to display these useful info accessories?

Ah, I see. Well they have a bunch of web tools I can use, like Joomla, Wordpress, etc. I'll have to start using them to find out

I don't have a server, just the web hosting company from who I got the domain name.

For example, without .html. Or, www.scienceforums.net/index rather than www.scienceforums.net/index.php I've even seen it where they just keep adding deeper pages, each separated by a slash. Like so www.scienceforums.net/index/how-do-I-make-a-url-without-a-second-extension/the-answer My webpages are set up as a normal file structure. I put all .htm pages in the home folder, and images, .css, etc., in a deeper folder. Is this as simple as not giving the file an extension? For example, naming it example rather than example.htm (it just occured to me ) If so, I still don't understand how to make one file a deeper part of the other (in the file hierarchy and resulting URL)

Anyone?

Why doesn't her breath show in weather cold enough to instantly turn airborne boiling water into snowy dust?

I think the guy meant "working on" an analog computer that is at least equivalent to or better than modern digital computers. Researchers at HP Labs have built the first working prototypes of an important new electronic component that may lead to instant-on PCs as well as analog computers that process information the way the human brain does. The new component is called a memristor, or memory resistor. Up until today, the circuit element had only been described in a series of mathematical equations written by Leon Chua, who in 1971 was an engineering student studying non-linear circuits. Chua knew the circuit element should exist — he even accurately outlined its properties and how it would work. Unfortunately, neither he nor the rest of the engineering community could come up with a physical manifestation that matched his mathematical expression. Thirty-seven years later, a group of scientists from HP Labs has finally built real working memristors, thus adding a fourth basic circuit element to electrical circuit theory, one that will join the three better-known ones: the capacitor, resistor and the inductor.

In the original post we discussed computers being able to use more than just 1s and 0s. The length of computer instructions needed for any digital task would shrink considerably. Now it might be at that point. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/04/scientists-prov "Building an analog computer in which you don’t use 1s and 0s and instead use essentially all shades of gray in between is one of the things we’re already working on," says Williams. These computers could do the types of things that digital computers aren’t very good at –- like making decisions, determining that one thing is larger than another, or even learning.

How close technologically are we to the point where computers are fast enough that vector will be the default and most natural choice for all image formats of a typical size (2048 × 1536), including photographs and 3-D?

Isn't the pressure solely from gravity itself? Now it makes sense though. At a certain distance from the Earth's crust, you have 90% of the planet's matter pulling on that specific zone towards the center (not all directly towards it but a lot in that general direction) and past it. Lower still, the pull becomes 80%, but now 20% (from above) is pulling it outward, but that 20% itself is also being pulled inward by the 80% adding further inward pressure onto the zone. Then 70% and 30% with 70% pulling on the 30, then 60% and 40% with 60% pulling on the 40, then 50% (dead center) with the opposite 50% pulling on this 50% and that 50% being pulled onto the same area by this 50%. Or something like that. And yes I realize that both sides are pulling each other inward no matter what the percentage ratio is. But is that analysis very far off conceptually? (I know the math's horribly inaccurate and basically nonexistent)

If you skip to the 6:00 mark on Why Gravity Gets So Strong Near Dense Objects at Khan Academy, it shows how gravity pulls the interior of something outward from surrounding mass in all directions. Wouldn't this form a hollow region in the center of stars and planets? Isn't the gravity in that part the weakest compared to the rest of its body?

Thank you both very much for replying! I like to know what's possible and even though I'm not technically skilled, I ponder if there are simpler preventatives/remedies that could be achieved via standards and methods. For example, with boot sectors, I wonder if they can make it possible to add separate information to it but never be able to erase the original. Then, any system that encounters individual or different boot sector info would ask if you want to run the original boot sector info or the new/updated one. Maybe it could tell the difference between what's new and original because it would attempt to move them around on the sector, and the original could be made read-only, completely unmovable. When you search Google, the area to the right of searches has an arrow you can mouse over. If you do, a preview of the website pops up. There are browser addons that give similar previews for any link you mouse over. I wonder how safe that is especially if you would never click on the link.