SamBridge

I was reading an opinion piece on de-extinction¹ and it started me thinking about the ethics of wildlife conservation and, in particular, the de-extinction of species.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorists, but "wildlife" is essentially scam. There's barely a forest on this Earth that hasn't been touched by humans over hundreds or even thousands of years, and you can tell this by soil composition changes that corresponds to tribal locations in soil samples as well as changes in the species composition in differen areas based on different cultures own records of types of trees they planted and their practices of preserving their environment while still modifying it. When you see black-and white videos of "wildlife," there's hundreds of natives just on the other side of the camera.

So, it shows inducing a larger change isn't more or less ethical than really any other change that we're use to seeing, so bringing back a few species won't be the end of the world. The environment will go on, life will adapt to whatever with or without us. What is "good" or "bad" for the environment depends entirely on the arbitrary assertion of which species one deems worth ensuring the survival of, because there will always be some species that survive.

I'm still not seeing that difference I was asking for, it's not enough detail, to general. Anyway, you'd be right to say classical computers cannot truly be random, but we just aren't dealing with classical computers so it cannot be perfectly accurate model, we're dealing with something more complicated and variable, something that might not even have entirely tangible components.

yep...

 

here is a website that may spark your interest. yes, this topic has come up time and time again.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=166694

have fun...

I can't have fun because I already have the answer. Nothingness has no dimensional, directional or scalar quantity and therefore cannot physically exist. If an apple has no size, no probability of being anywhere, no force, then it doesn't actually exist and I find that I'm actually holding my hand around a region of air and the apple was all in my imagination.

 

yet i cannot shake the feeling that quantum mechanics is our best bet at answering the PARADOX.

It's not a paradox and QM doesn't address it. I think your nose might have grown a bit.

 

this is a lingual problem.

No it's a physical problem where we can physically confirm we have not measured the existence of nothingness. Even if nothingness somehow exists there's no way to measure it.

If so, how did this begin and why do they hate communism (or communists)?

It comes from many places. European colonists were generally the first to make such assertions on a government level, viewing other less powerful cultures as primitive (despite the fact that Europe's power came directly from these "primitive cultures"), and since many of these cultures were community based, the Europeans associated communism with primitive lifestyle and thus viewed communism as primitive, and this was 100-500 years ago. Rationally speaking though, this was not true as there have been many successful regions of the world where people share resources in community based societies to survive and economically complex communal systems that pre-date Europe's rise to power, and when capitalism was imposed upon their lifestyles, ecosystems and economies became damaged and caused famine and environmental degradation on large scales.

Eventually, community based societies got tired of being pushed around and became strong enough to kick out the influence of European colonizers which was around the early to mid 20th century all over the world. The European capitalist societies had treated them very badly, and as a result, there were some (but not all) new nation-states that became polarized towards extreme communism once they won their independence. The US being capitalist and more similar to Europe viewed new nation-states governments as a threat and propaganda was started against communism by the US and Europe to gain the support of the public as the two sides became more polarized. Occasionally the US got involved in wars with communism parties such as with Korea and Vietnam and was sometime asked by Europe with help with keeping colonies under control which the colonies were not fond of. There was also the Cold War during the mid-late 20th century which was against the Soviet Union and the United States, and the USSR (soviet union) was also very communist which fueled even more polarization. Now, there's more of a threat from China economically to the US, and China use to be communist but actually isn't that communist anymore.

The reason for the vote is philosophical. By denying the individual the fruits of his/her labour you are denying incentive.

But there's just as many people who have passion about something and could use the government's help with it as they would otherwise lack resources. Like for instance, there's plenty of content scientists and artists in both capitalist and communist nations, showing that the desire to peruse a passion is irregardless of what power is in place. Both types of systems can be taken advantage of or be successful as they have both had problems with corruption yet both rose to great heights. There's really no reason to attack any consensual form of government, people should be governed however they want to be, and it's this type of irresponsible and arrogant labeling of people's lives and their preferences as good or bad that led to the tragedies of the colonial period and of the environment.

 

when it all boils down, it is proof that our perceptions are a result of insanity.

I can't think of any credible psychologist that would agree with such a thing.

The commonly recognized three spatial "dimensions" are imaginary constructs convenient for a particular geometry (the geometry of three planes intersecting at equal angles). One can form consistent geometries with 4, 5, 6, and 7 spatial "dimensions" as well. The term "dimension" in some models may not refer exclusively to spatial constructs. Qualities of objects may be called dimensions. For example, the color of one's hair (especially if it is green or hot pink) may be an expression of identity.

Yeah, but, I bet you can't name a single accredited model in physics that uses someone's hair as a dimension.

It's ironic that humanity's impact on the Earth is being debated when British colonial geographers in the early 20th century in Southern Asia already measured changes in the region's climate due solely to human-induced deforestation. The Dutch and French measured these changes as well and that's why conservation laws were adopted. Not the mention the fact that pristine forests that haven't been touched by humans don't even exist anymore, just about every forest on the face of the Earth has undergone drastic changes in species and soil composition due to humans chopping down and planting trees and other flora and moving animals around in those regions over thousands of years, and even the large expanses of Savannahs in Africa were created by nomadic portraitists practicing swidden agriculture to create grazing fields for their domesticated cattle. The reduction of Mangroves induces more flooding and polluting, and the damning of rivers that fed the Aral sea caused the entire lake to disappear which has made temperatures in the region vary by more extreme amounts and left huge salt deposits. If you look at history, it's really obvious humanity can affect the Earth.

As far as I know, the expansion of the universe only has a correlation to distance. If something 13 billion years away is receding at 80% the speed of light, the "Big Rip" implies that the hubble volume would shrink and after a million years, something that's only 13 billion years away would then recede at 90% the speed of light instead, whereas normal space expansion would say that it doesn't matter how much time passes, something 13 billion light years away is always going to appear to be receding at 80% the speed of light. So why wouldn't the expansion have a constant acceleration in proportion to distance and simply lead to a big chill? Why does anyone think there's a big rip?

So to my understanding there's a model out there that says the arrow of time is somehow related to the universe's expansion which can coincide with the ever increase in entropy which apparently has its own arrow of time. Furthermore, it is stated on wikipedia that if the universe were to contract, it would be indicative of traveling backwards in time. So there's a few things.

What's the exact name of this model?

If I could take a cubic meter of space and somehow stop expansion inside of it, and I dropped a ball inside it, would the ball just "freeze" inside the cube because it can't experience the passing of time and thus not change position over time from velocity?

At the event horizon of black holes, time mathematically appears to stop from our limit calculations, so is space not expanding near the event horizon of a black hole?

The universe may cause me to want something, but the real question is who am I?.

Apparently as people seem to measure themselves having the capacity to do so, that's for you to decide.

and you'd have to be pretty genius to make me think otherwise.

At this point I'm surprised to say I'd have to be more like a fanatic than a genius of anything.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Knowledge and length are essential, free will is just a fantasy.

I don't get why people are holding on to the belief in freedom so dearly, especially if they claim to be scientists. I thought this issue was settled back in 2009.

Because it doesn't make sense to say you don't have any type of free will when you have the choice to decide if you have free-will or not. CMT is based on everything being observable in terms of deterministic electrical patterns, and aside from the problems I already pointed out, something like a dimension that is supposedly "used" to measure things isn't a physical object you can touch, and neither are equations themselves. Even in a deterministic universe, one could have "the potential to desire" something outside of what is happening, but have no control over outcomes that are observed by other frames. Nothing about one of the most complex aspects of our fundamental existence is "settled." Every generation likes to look back at history and say they're ahead and have everything figure out, but if anyone was ever really ahead, we wouldn't have so many fundamental changes.

When I first started working on AI, I only put the first unit to emerge in the output as opposed to adding all of the units with equal likelihood. The reason I did that is because it was way more grammatical that way. Length is absolutely essential because you need to stop the recognition of patterns when the length of the point of interest + the next point of interest is equal to 0. Time is just a label for a particular object, and that object is best suited as a tuple. A tuple contains all possible objects within it, and by making time a tuple, the program is WAY more efficient than using a dictionary, or even worse, a string.

 

You need to take dispositions into account as well so the program can specialize it's output so it's not only context sensitive, but it has an attitude as well. That's the main reason for my logic that time is a tuple. I'm not working on the output aspect of AI yet though, and I think that it won't be necessary for the purposes of this business. I do a lot of machine learning though.

 

Yeah length is essential, but the dimensions that we use to define it aren't tangible. Couldn't a similar phenomena happen with the mind even if there wasn't the physical availability of something like free-will? Couldn't it just be an inherent property that physical matter emulates the patterns of as matter appears to with other mathematically defined movements?

I don't see any way that it could exist in a physical sense though.

Well, hard determinism doesn't exist in a physical sense either And as per one of the forum's own staff, "a dimension isn't an object" that you can pick up or measure directly, but that doesn't mean time and length don't exist? The same type of property could be true with components of mind, so it's probably in the middle such that a mind can have some type of choice but will always have something affecting it.

Actually I'm pretty sure general and special relativity are some of the most accurately tested theories to date. Muons always last longer by the amount predicted by time dilation, it predicts the accurate locations of orbits around heavily distorted regions of space and how long it takes near-light objects to reach different destinations, how clocks slow down in different gravitational fields, ect.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

 

There was research saying you can go faster than Light.

 

If this is true that would break the rule that "Nothing can go past the speed of light".

And that's why I like to say you can't trust a .com site, they always exaggerate stories for the purposes of commercial gain to increased traffic and there's just about no regulation of their speculation. At the very least you should be using wikipedia.org.

And what if by coincidence we found with some model that choice physically exist?

 

Time doesn't have to be a physical thing (actor or reactor) in order to be a real phenomenon.

Well, that depends on how you define "physical." We can't observe a dimension itself, but it still has physical relevance as existing the universe and it can be affected by physically measurable forces like gravity and rotation. If it didn't physically exist, how would you define its existence?

 

I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience time.

Um, clocks?

But how do you actually apply your algorithm to synaptic patterns to prove the result is always the semantic symbol "hello"?

I am sorry if I didn't follow exactly your route.

I was interested in your link about hyperbolic rotation. (bottom line of your post #6.) Hyperbolic rotation redirects to squeeze mapping in Wikipedia.

 

I didn't understand the relation between hyperbolic rotation and Lorentz transform.

hence my question in post @20.

 

My guess is that you are actually dealing with the "Lorentz Boost" which is a linear transformation that doesn't involve a rotation. The difference is that a rotation involves all dimensions in spacetime and the boost only deals with the effects in one direction of motion, it's essentially a restricted transformation.