Evolution is truth. However we don't evolve in our bodies anymore. Other animals still do of course but post-humanity won't differ dramatically in physical makeup (unless we go deeply into body shaping or human-machine integration, but that's just an outgrowth of the main point here).
We evolve in our minds. Our bodies are rapidly becoming immaterial except as a support substrate for our minds. Our evolution now molds the social constructs we create for ourselves to live within; our evolution grows with and empowers our ability to find accurate meaning large data sets; our ideas are what spur our future growth and drive our advancement as a species. Vast wealth and power have sprung from the well of innovation but that innovation did not spring from our DNA. It sprang from the brains the DNA created and even more it sprang from the combined effects of social interaction of many or those brains well rehearsed in the workings of the vast computing devices that were envisioned and built by the brains that came before them.
Historical evolution enacted its course through the buildup of physiological and organizational changes that drove competitive advantage. Future evolution will enact its course through the buildup of changes in society, psychology, and mental prowess (either unaided or reinforced by artificial mechanism) that drive the human species into a successful future. Our bodies, if they evolve at all, will largely evolve only to support more powerful or adaptive minds. So if our bodies decay or are poorly adapted to our environment, or happen to exist in a difficult environment the next evolutionary step is to adjust society to better support those bodies. Building up every body leads to more and better functioning brains which further drives evolution forward. Evolution demands comprehensive and effective welfare. Because the mind of every child is our evolutionary future, regardless of that child's family history or the present outlook of its future. Every child's future is malleable regardless of the capacity of their body. If they get sick, they should be made well. Because it can be done, because evolution no longer relies on our bodies, because that child's contribution should not be unnecessarily undercut by physical malady. Every human in need should be lifted up because every brain has the capacity, given the opportunity, to contribute something to society regardless of the circumstances of the life of the body.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
What happens...
What happens to time to make it a large dimension?
What are branes? What happens if we consider them as aggregates of strings? How does that interact with the 0-brane?
If we consider time and space, in other words dimensionality in general, as constructed of strings then what is the 'background' or backdrop in which they exist? That's much like asking what a quark is without a String Theory to describe it. We haven't pushed back that far yet. Take the description of dimensionality, spacetime, and use that to probe deeper. Imagining that branes, dimensionality beyond the single dimensional string, are composed of strings is much more satisfying than accepting them as some additional elementary constituent that arises from nothing and nowhere.
On holography... if the holographic universe is a valid theory, and the pair of 3branes bound by a single dimension is a valid theory of creation then the universe as we know it, regular matter, is a tiny almond within a giant shell. And still it would seem to be that the brane is unreachable to us, exiting in a different mode than we do.
Enough half-informed physical ponderings. I've work to get ready for.
What are branes? What happens if we consider them as aggregates of strings? How does that interact with the 0-brane?
If we consider time and space, in other words dimensionality in general, as constructed of strings then what is the 'background' or backdrop in which they exist? That's much like asking what a quark is without a String Theory to describe it. We haven't pushed back that far yet. Take the description of dimensionality, spacetime, and use that to probe deeper. Imagining that branes, dimensionality beyond the single dimensional string, are composed of strings is much more satisfying than accepting them as some additional elementary constituent that arises from nothing and nowhere.
On holography... if the holographic universe is a valid theory, and the pair of 3branes bound by a single dimension is a valid theory of creation then the universe as we know it, regular matter, is a tiny almond within a giant shell. And still it would seem to be that the brane is unreachable to us, exiting in a different mode than we do.
Enough half-informed physical ponderings. I've work to get ready for.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Dissonance
So I read this
The uncomfortable tension caused by these two opposing ideas — wanting to smoke but also wanting to be healthy and fit — is known as dissonance. As humans, we look to get rid of this uncomfortable feeling. (This is known as dissonance reduction.)
The only way to get rid of this uncomfortable feeling is by a) quitting smoking b) denying that people actually get sick from smoking or c) justifying and rationalizing.
In some comments and it strikes me that I didn't resolve my own cognitive dissonance around smoking but redirected it. Instead of focusing on the dissonance between the damage and pleasure of smoking I shifted to focusing on the dissonance between the pain of quitting and the cost of continuing. The short term pain of quitting smoking is dissonant with the desire to quit but in rolling down the stress curve towards reducing the cost of the habit I think I unconsciously made it significantly easier to quit. I stopped mitigating the smoking dissonance and worked towards mitigating the quitting dissonance. And the only real solution to that dissonance was taking direct action.
Granted that the procedural option I used (stepping back consumption on a week to week basis with no nicotine crutches) probably helped but I suspect the psychology described above played a part in at least making the commitment against the pain of quitting. In other words it pulled down one side of the wall I was trapped behind and allowed me to commit to climbing out.
Then again maybe I'm just an amateur deluding himself.
Monday, October 21, 2013
An open letter to Congress
Yeah. A bit presumptuous of me to write an open letter. But anyway.
Take a hint. No more bogus deadlines. No bullshit 'balanced budget or we do a sequester' acts. Instead of playing chicken with our economy and government any deadline failures, including setting a budget outline for the year and the decade, should immediately and irrevocably result in a ban from holding public office.
Yes, that's right. You screw up or play games or simply make a boo-boo you get kicked out. Forever. Amen. You are Congress. Your job is the money. Dumbasses. Do it right or you can't be trusted for so much as taking notes in a local city council meeting.
I don't care about you, personally or ideologically, and I'm tired of you playing games. Do your job or shut up and get out. The United States of America would be better served by kicking out, permanently, every single member of Congress (yes, both houses; yes, even with all the inevitable upheaval that entails) seated between now and the time the budget is passed.
It's quite simple. If you can't do your job well enough to care for the single most important responsibility you're given then you can't do anything. You're useless and I want to be rid of you.
Do your job or get out. Take a hint.
Take a hint. No more bogus deadlines. No bullshit 'balanced budget or we do a sequester' acts. Instead of playing chicken with our economy and government any deadline failures, including setting a budget outline for the year and the decade, should immediately and irrevocably result in a ban from holding public office.
Yes, that's right. You screw up or play games or simply make a boo-boo you get kicked out. Forever. Amen. You are Congress. Your job is the money. Dumbasses. Do it right or you can't be trusted for so much as taking notes in a local city council meeting.
I don't care about you, personally or ideologically, and I'm tired of you playing games. Do your job or shut up and get out. The United States of America would be better served by kicking out, permanently, every single member of Congress (yes, both houses; yes, even with all the inevitable upheaval that entails) seated between now and the time the budget is passed.
It's quite simple. If you can't do your job well enough to care for the single most important responsibility you're given then you can't do anything. You're useless and I want to be rid of you.
Do your job or get out. Take a hint.
An Experiment in communicating with the past
Edit note: Okay, this has been draft for a couple days and I'm done caring about making it pretty. Just a quick edit through for logical cohesion and grammar then done.
Just listened to the description of the dual slit delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. It occurs to me that this is a fascinating effect. Consider this: Take the down converters as described in in the book and send the idle photons down a loop or path long enough to delay their arrival at the subsequent series of detectors by a day or just a couple of seconds but spatially separated such that the two parts of the experiment cannot observe each other to make the experiment more technically feasible.
Rig three idle photon detectors. One for each path and one to accumulate both (I think this minor alteration of the experiment as described would still work since you wouldn't be able to glean path information from the accumulated photons though clearly this wrinkle can be ironed out to exactly match the delayed choice experiment)(a tangential question is would the accumulative detector display an interference pattern)
Set up a splitter on each incoming stream such that you can control the path of both streams to simultaneously either be detected with path information or detected indeterminately.
Now send you photons down the experiment in sets. However many photons are required to conclusively display an interference pattern or lack of one, send them in sets of that many with enough rest time between to easily differentiate the sets when analyzing the data. Presumably there doesn't need to be much separation between individual photons as we aren't concerned with confirming that they act like waves individually. We just want to see if they're acting like waves or like particles for any given set of events.
Analyze each set for a series of binary information based on the presence or absence of an interference pattern (wave or particle interactions).
The next day, or however long your delay loop is, or in the next room depending on the technical level of your experiment your associate who has not been compromised with the data acquired previously comes in and using the splitter control coerces the idle photons to create the binary data you received yesterday.
Would that really work? Can I send myself the lotto numbers? And, would that be illegal? >.>
This also all depends on my understanding that these experiments do not require vacuum. Which is to say that the probability wave doesn't collapse until a human observer looks at it (if any particle interaction counts as an observation then the whole quantum eraser experiment ceases to make sense to me since both the 'eraser' and the initial polarizing are clearly interactions with the particles).
This is also an interesting consideration when remembering that light, due to its speed through space, is not moving through time. Technically the photons that reach each experimenter are the same age and so trying to decide if we would actually send information into the past makes my head hurt.
Just listened to the description of the dual slit delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. It occurs to me that this is a fascinating effect. Consider this: Take the down converters as described in in the book and send the idle photons down a loop or path long enough to delay their arrival at the subsequent series of detectors by a day or just a couple of seconds but spatially separated such that the two parts of the experiment cannot observe each other to make the experiment more technically feasible.
Rig three idle photon detectors. One for each path and one to accumulate both (I think this minor alteration of the experiment as described would still work since you wouldn't be able to glean path information from the accumulated photons though clearly this wrinkle can be ironed out to exactly match the delayed choice experiment)(a tangential question is would the accumulative detector display an interference pattern)
Set up a splitter on each incoming stream such that you can control the path of both streams to simultaneously either be detected with path information or detected indeterminately.
Now send you photons down the experiment in sets. However many photons are required to conclusively display an interference pattern or lack of one, send them in sets of that many with enough rest time between to easily differentiate the sets when analyzing the data. Presumably there doesn't need to be much separation between individual photons as we aren't concerned with confirming that they act like waves individually. We just want to see if they're acting like waves or like particles for any given set of events.
Analyze each set for a series of binary information based on the presence or absence of an interference pattern (wave or particle interactions).
The next day, or however long your delay loop is, or in the next room depending on the technical level of your experiment your associate who has not been compromised with the data acquired previously comes in and using the splitter control coerces the idle photons to create the binary data you received yesterday.
Would that really work? Can I send myself the lotto numbers? And, would that be illegal? >.>
This also all depends on my understanding that these experiments do not require vacuum. Which is to say that the probability wave doesn't collapse until a human observer looks at it (if any particle interaction counts as an observation then the whole quantum eraser experiment ceases to make sense to me since both the 'eraser' and the initial polarizing are clearly interactions with the particles).
This is also an interesting consideration when remembering that light, due to its speed through space, is not moving through time. Technically the photons that reach each experimenter are the same age and so trying to decide if we would actually send information into the past makes my head hurt.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Continuing problems with Time
Further confused rumination about time and quantum probability waves. I don't understand how it's possible to have a universe-wide probability wave for a particle with mass. Not in the sense of instantly collapsing the wave to a point, as described in the book, but in the sense that it's supposed to be impossible for a particle to travel faster than light. Which means that a particle's probability wave must be bounded by the speed of light. It's not enough to say that the probability approaches 0 at a radius in space-time defined by how far light can travel, it should be 0. Otherwise we've broken Relativity, or something.
If I understand it all correctly to say that a particle has a 2^-500 chance of appearing some number of light years away from here in the next few seconds is tantamount to saying that it has that much chance of traveling backwards in time. Which might be a miniscule probability but the universe has a disgustingly large number of particles. So many that even tiny probabilities must occur some number of times. I'm not a mathematician and I'm not going to try and figure out hard numbers. Unless the notion of quantum probability has been described incorrectly in the book it just doesn't mesh with Relativity. Then again... I think that's sort of the point to current theoretical physics isn't it? >.>
(Note: This post is slightly out out of order, it sat as a draft for a week or more)
If I understand it all correctly to say that a particle has a 2^-500 chance of appearing some number of light years away from here in the next few seconds is tantamount to saying that it has that much chance of traveling backwards in time. Which might be a miniscule probability but the universe has a disgustingly large number of particles. So many that even tiny probabilities must occur some number of times. I'm not a mathematician and I'm not going to try and figure out hard numbers. Unless the notion of quantum probability has been described incorrectly in the book it just doesn't mesh with Relativity. Then again... I think that's sort of the point to current theoretical physics isn't it? >.>
(Note: This post is slightly out out of order, it sat as a draft for a week or more)
Quantum bizzarness
The quantum eraser experiment is friggin' weird.
Up until those results it was possible to take 'observation' to be any interaction between particles. Thus most of the weirdness of quantum mechanics is actually not terribly weird. Everything is a probability wave until it interacts with something else's probability wave (where the two waves peak together, presumably), at which point both waves collapse into particles (or fields, or whatever), do their interacting business, and depart again as waves.
The quantum eraser makes mincemeat of the notion. Using the traditional dual slit experiment but polarizing the light differently for each slit eliminates the interference pattern if the detecting medium can detect the polarization. That's in line with the above in that the probability wave is collapsed by the interaction with the polarizing element. But if you subsequently polarize both streams of light in the same way, thus making the streams indistinguishable again, the interference pattern returns. Which would seem to disagree with the idea above.
I'm curious if the interference pattern is identical to the pattern formed when the light goes through the entire process unpolarized and I'm also curious what occurs if the detecting medium is unable to detect the polarization. If the assumption is that the probability only collapses when a human detects a particle then a medium which can't detect polarity should always display an interference pattern in the above experiment since no matter what you do to the polarity the streams would be indistinguishable. It's just entirely bizarre that the capacity of 'observation' should be reserved for humans (or more likely thinking beings, which leads you down the rabbit hole of what qualifies as thinking). It's intuitively reasonable, to me at least, to describe 'observation' that collapses a probability wave as any interaction between particles but it makes no sense to ascribe that capability only to conscious thought. Here's to hoping this is considered more thoroughly later in the book.
Up until those results it was possible to take 'observation' to be any interaction between particles. Thus most of the weirdness of quantum mechanics is actually not terribly weird. Everything is a probability wave until it interacts with something else's probability wave (where the two waves peak together, presumably), at which point both waves collapse into particles (or fields, or whatever), do their interacting business, and depart again as waves.
The quantum eraser makes mincemeat of the notion. Using the traditional dual slit experiment but polarizing the light differently for each slit eliminates the interference pattern if the detecting medium can detect the polarization. That's in line with the above in that the probability wave is collapsed by the interaction with the polarizing element. But if you subsequently polarize both streams of light in the same way, thus making the streams indistinguishable again, the interference pattern returns. Which would seem to disagree with the idea above.
I'm curious if the interference pattern is identical to the pattern formed when the light goes through the entire process unpolarized and I'm also curious what occurs if the detecting medium is unable to detect the polarization. If the assumption is that the probability only collapses when a human detects a particle then a medium which can't detect polarity should always display an interference pattern in the above experiment since no matter what you do to the polarity the streams would be indistinguishable. It's just entirely bizarre that the capacity of 'observation' should be reserved for humans (or more likely thinking beings, which leads you down the rabbit hole of what qualifies as thinking). It's intuitively reasonable, to me at least, to describe 'observation' that collapses a probability wave as any interaction between particles but it makes no sense to ascribe that capability only to conscious thought. Here's to hoping this is considered more thoroughly later in the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)