Skip to content
  • Election 2024

    Politics
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    2 Views
    C
    Looking like 2016 all over again, to me. Coming in hot here. What I see is a contradiction, people on both sides say that democracy is on the line, or that that this election could end the republic. I simply disagree with that in principle. I think both candidates are competent leaders, and that the choose represents deeper explanations about power and authority in society. I think there is a large population of well educated, competent people who think that everyone else makes decisions based on how educated and competent that decision makes them look. Those people watch the recent debate (September 10th) liking Harris, they were going to vote for Harris, and they think that Harris won the debate and that winning the debate has brought her closer to securing victory. Then, if you ask those people what she said, and you don't give them access to the internet to check, they won't remember a single talking point (I am not saying you, the reader, I'm sure you know all the talking points). Instead, all they will remember is her laughing at Trump saying that immigrants in Springfield are eating dogs and cats. And people will turn that Trump quote into songs, memes. And all anyone will remember from the debate are the ridiculous things that Trump said, that, while factually dubious, have a hyperbolic thread to reality. There are indeed new immigrants in Springfield, and that represents an influx of ideas, and that causes tension in society. And then to the surprise of the well-educated liberal establishment, Trump will have won the electoral college come November. Just like with Hillary in 2016. She is laughing while a less-perfect conversation between non-intellectuals about a real problem for societies (immigration) is going on. People want a seat at the table. So here's the kicker, I think if he wins in November, he earned it. He'll do an excellent job as president. And, I think he'll leave office, peacefully this time, in 4 years. And further, when people make a decisions, they're choosing an explanation. And I think the explanation that people are choosing with Trump is difficult for Harris supporters to understand because they (not you!) tend to think they're better than less intelligent people. They tend to be pompous, self-righteous, easily outraged and triggered and their scorecard for life is their IQ score. That IQ score, ends up being a justification for force, which can be codified through law and selectively enforced in various ways. In all socialist countries where terrible atrocities have occurred, it was not only legal, but mandated! “The essential notion of a capitalist society... is voluntary cooperation, voluntary exchange. The essential notion of a socialist society is force.” — Milton Friedman
  • Death💀

    Reality
    10
    0 Votes
    10 Posts
    1 Views
    J
    Suffering is bad. Unfortunately, suffering and death are far more closely associated than we'd like. If you could entirely separate the two, such that death is only ever painless and voluntary, it's easier to understand why death is good. So, I entirely agree that terminal diseases, homicide and any other forms of death that involve physical or psychological suffering are bad...with 2 caveats. Suffering is not always entirely bad because it often alleviates future suffering. A lot of the psychological suffering surrounding death is due to a lack of agreement on when a given individual 'should' die and how much suffering that should involve or impart and acceptance of death having come sooner or involving more suffering than one 'would' accept. I guess people usually argue that the death of individuals is what evolution depends on and that continuing to be able to solve problems depends on evolution. It did until humans evolved the capacity for medical care. Now we've decoded the genome among many other technological achievements that have allowed us to evolve beyond basic evolution by 'natural selection' for solving problems. This evolution of evolution has also given us the capacity to perceive and address problems like asteroids and solar events that stifle the ability of natural selection to go even further. These larger problems reach far beyond the scope of an individual not bieing ideally suited to its environment. So, why do individuals that are ideally suited to their environments still die before their environment becomes unsuitable for them? The reason isn't obvious. When the reason for something isn't obvious, people often assume that it must not be a very good reason. They take a guess that it's just a problem that needs solving. Nothing wrong with that. In this case, the guess is simply wrong. But it's not that there are problems with living forever. It's that living forever IS the problem; Death is the solution. We couldn't have evolved the capacity for such big ideas if it weren't for natural selection. Now that (we think) we have a good enough idea about how that works and why it was necessary, we assume it's no longer necessary. Our ideas will take it from here. Ideas evolve in just the same way but inside human minds. And ideas about how humans could evolve further are likely to supplant natural selection entirely. Why should humans themselves have to die? Why does a species that doesn't need 'natural selection' to make progress still require the death of individuals? It's precicely because of the need for ideas to evolve beyond the capacity of the minds that conceive them. We think of species adapting to their environment but this is too simple a description. The environment and all other species in that environment adapt too. Likewise, although we understand that ideas evolve as they are communicated from one human mind to the next, the environment itself - in this case the human mind - also evolves as a suitable environment for new ideas. Earth - as great as it is - is not necessarily a suitable environment for any species that could evolve and any given mind - no matter how great - is not necessarily a suitable environment for all the ideas that could evolve. Elon Musk warns that the problem with not dying is, "societies would ossify and the people in power would always remain in power." I think - more importantly - ideas, consciousness, our capacity to solve problems would ossify. What about AGI and universal computing? I don't know. Theories about that have yet to be refuted or realized. If they are ever realized, it doesn't help argue the case for the longevity of individual humans. The case for that is mostly that we just want to live. We have our reasons. Many feel they have something to fear beyond their incarnation. Many believe they have something to look forward to should they live a good life. Some just enjoy being a conscious part of whatever life is. It has it's problems (like suffering) but we find enjoyment in finding solutions. If our solutions have problems, our lives have purpose. The problem with death is the suffering. Even if death itself were only ever entirely painless and voluntary, it would still cause suffering because there would be no 'life expectency' to give those around you a sense that your time has come, that you had a good run, that it's okay to let go. No, "Your time" never comes. You could always run farther. It's not okay to let go because you're choosing to let me go. You're making the choice to make me let go of you. Because a person's dying or not dying invariably affects the suffering of others - positive and/or negative - each person retains the prerogative to determine how much suffering they attempt to cause (or alleviate). As fallible beings, even a person (or any number of people) with the best intentions could effectively cause endless suffering for others. So, the only path for error correction to alleviate the potentially endless suffering that endless life creates is murder...which is bad. Natural death is a solution. There are problems with it because problems are inevitable. Suffering is one of the problems but we can't solve the problem by throwing out our underlying solution.
  • Fidel Scratching His Head

    Reality
    60
    0 Votes
    60 Posts
    0 Views
    S
    _Quote from Cody: “All observations are theory laden.” _ _I don’t believe this to be the case. Observations are nothing more than the input being received by senses or measuring instruments. There are no theories in the observation process at all. Theories are hypotheses that withstand the rigor of falsification, and are built on the data FROM the observation(s). _ _Quote from Cody: “In this case, having a poster of a periodic table doesn't mean that the periodic table couldn't be infinitely better. It could be 99% true. But there is an infinite amount of progress between 99 and 100.” _ _I also don’t believe it could be “infinitely” better. Maybe it could be more complete (missing elements?). Maybe it could be more accurate and refined (measurements of behavioral properties?), which are terms that are clearer than the term “true”. Science doesn’t make claims of “truth”. Science seeks to filter out what’s false, which is where the scientific process “falsification” comes from. _ _Quote from Cody: “But we don't have to believe anything.” _ _You’re right. We don’t. But as a matter of getting through the day, week, years, your life, there are plenty of things you can believe out of practicality because consistency, risk and necessity are involved. The red light at the intersection might not be red. But in the moment, it’s probably best to just believe that it’s red and slow your car to a stop, rather than running through the intersection as if it were green. We don’t have to believe anything but there are some things we should. _ _Quote from Cody: “He uses it to try to talk about knowledge (explicit knowledge). Where does it come from? How is it created? Where is it created? And so on.” _ _Knowledge doesn’t come from a “where”. Knowledge isn’t “created”. Consider propositional knowledge (Knowledge of facts, expressed in declarative sentences, such as "The Earth orbits the Sun.") This came not from a “where” and it wasn’t created. It originated from human deduction after all available variables and observations had been accounted for with the available tools, mathematics and technology, and now comes from communication (books, papers, classroom lectures, etc.). _ _Quote from Cody: “...people think ChatGPT has "knowledge," while I don't think it does at all. It can't "explain" anything in the sense that DD means, it just regurgitates. Though colloquially we might say so, it has no mind like us.” _ _I agree. ChatGPT doesn’t “have” knowledge, but it does have access to a wealth of knowledge, whether accurate or not. I do think that it colloquially explains shit quite efficiently and clearly (again, even if not accurately), but that’s a function of its purpose as a LLM (large language model). But it does not have the capability to explain what humankind has yet to discover, and thus archive. _ _Quote from Cody: “But, as I've mentioned before, but I'll phrase it in a different way. If we lived in nearly any other age things like slavery and murder for disloyalty and so on, those things could have been improved without evidence that would be immoral to create...We have the evidence now, though, unfortunately. And people still deny it! Why? Because they are appealing to authority in their beliefs, rather than understanding explanations.” _ _This went over my head. Not sure what an example of “evidence that would be immoral to create” would be. _ _Quote from Cody: “Popper says don't focus on definitions, and meaning is found in the solving of problems—and focusing on definitions takes you out of it, it's an inductive thing to do.” _ _Hogwash!! LOL. If a presentation intended by the speaker to convince his audience of a proposition ends up in a confused quagmire, totally focused on definitions because the speaker is taking liberties with words as synonymous with others that his audience doesn’t accept, whose fault is that? _
  • Fidel's Predictions

    General Discussion
    13
    0 Votes
    13 Posts
    2 Views
    S
    Mostly this is just a thread for me to keep track of my predictions for boxing matchups. I've been right about my picks for several big fights which have gone against the conventional wisdom of experts and media pundits... Fury beat Wilder (their 3rd fight) Usyk beat Joshua Kambosos Jr beat Teofimo Lopez and just this last weekend I picked Bivol to beat Canelo Alvarez But I'm not going to count those four on this thread. I'm starting fresh and this thread will serve as my record keeping and proof that I made my pick before the fight took place.
  • Taking Children Seriously

    General Discussion
    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    3 Views
    C
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSb7myd6J90 Taking Children Seriously something I've been taking very seriously for the last 2-3 years since I discovered it. Not that long ago, and in some places today, it was perfectly normal, even logical, to discriminate on sex or the marital status of women. Not that long ago interracial marriages were not only frowned upon, but illegal. Not that long ago slavery was legal. Even after it was made illegal, discrimination persisted for a long time. But, whereas most people treat adults as sovereign individuals regardless of gender or race, almost no one treats children with the same respect. We will look back on the way most of Western society treats children today like we do bloodletting by leeches at barber shops until the late 1800s. In practice it's actually very difficult to "take children seriously." There are social and cultural norms that are adhered to and when you suddenly don't abide by the rules that can really, literally, scare people around you. Not only that, but there are laws in place that prevent children from being taken seriously in some contexts (namely education, e.g. Truancy). In my personal life I struggle to get people to take Isamu seriously daily, I find these adult->child domination/power behaviors very hard to avoid. But, I hope that there will be some cultural event in the near future where most people come together to try and incrementally change the way we treat children as a society. There's a lot of content here at the two links at the top, the video and the landing page by Sarah Fitz-Claridge, but I think it boils down to this: How is it any less immoral to control children that it was to control women? To control black people? To control any group we now treat as deserving equal respect? And this point in particular from the bullet list on Fallible Ideas: Ignorance isn’t stupidity. Ignorance (/intelligence) refers to what is known. Stupid (/smartness) refers to what could be known. There is an infinite amount of things that can be known in the universe, so relying on a measure of what IS known (say an IQ test) instead of what an individual is capable of knowing is irrational. We are all equally smart (what we are capable of knowing), and infinitely ignorant (what we know will always be a small part of what is capable of being known). I try to keep that in mind with every frustrating interaction with adults AND with children, particularly the one that I am responsible for. As Popper says, "I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth." ---------------------------------------------- So, that's the primary post. But I also wanted to start a subthread here about the example 'Truancy' that I have listed about. I think it is irrational to force children to go to school. BUT, it does solve a problem of me wanting to help people at my job and not being able to. At least that's how I describe it. When I have to go to work and Isamu doesn't want me to, and a part of me also doesn't want to, I explain it like this: I want to stay here too, BUT I have made a commitment/promise to help Jiji and the others at the office. I help people, and then I get money and we can use that money to cause our lives to be more comfortable. But it's also about problem solving creatively. Trying to come up with new options that solve both our problems (A. he wants to be with me, or B. he doesn't want to go to school). I have taken Isamu to work on quite a few occasions, letting him take the school day off, and working together with Junko to not force distress upon him against his will. He has learned that he doesn't like the office, and is frankly a little scared of Junko's dad, lol. So, that has gone a long way towards letting other take care of him while Junko and I get things done quickly. (Subtext being that it's hard to get things done quickly with Isamu figuring things out that we've already figured out) When I take him to school now, he seems more open to it. But there is also the issue of: he did not choose his school, we did. There were no options provided to us, and "markets" designed for children are actually designed for adults permitting children to do things. So, especially in Japan, the market for "shopping around" for schools is really only for the super rich. I'm trying to teach him about money and value give him more power over his life. If we're already spending money on him, perhaps we should just figure out how much money we're spending on him in various ways and let him have that money to make mistakes and discoveries on his own. Another personal anecdote: In the video there is a guy who's like "Yeah, I do TCS, we let our daughter watch as much YouTube as she wants." And Sarah, comes back with something like, "Hmmm, well you say 'let' which means you still have a sense of power in the situation." I try to not think of myself as an authority ALLOWing Isamu to do anything, but instead GUIDING him, like a friend, through decisions. And, obviously, I have boundaries. So, that means if he hurts me, what do I do? Force him to not hurt me? So, what's the moral there: the person who has the most power to enforce is the one who defines morals? That's a slippery slope, to say the least. So, instead I will simply leave, like if one of you guys hit me I would just leave, or ask you to leave. This is far more distressing to Isamu than physical punishment (like solitary confinement, eg 'time out', which I have never and will never do). But, also, like brushing his teeth. I have shown him Junko's mouth, he knows what mouth pain is and what it will look like--but he has to make the rational decision for himself to brush his teeth. I will not hold him down and scrub, or whatever. Bribing, is something Junko has gone to, and I've been really reluctant to get on-board with, like, intuitively--but I don't have a good internal explanation for why that's totally bad in all situation right now. Need to think on it some more. Anyway, there is SO much going against him in terms of personal free will. Especially in Japan. Almost every aspect of life here is driven by behavior, memes, and not explanations. It's, from ancient times through to today, a culture of loyalty, protocol, discipline, obedience and respect for authority. What are your guys' thoughts on this?
  • Matthew Piepenburg: Debt and War - The Signs of a Dying Empire

    Money
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    0 Views
    C
    Matthew Piepenburg: Debt and War - The Signs of a Dying Empire "The slow end to the American dollar as the currency for the world." First thought: I've heard similar stuff from Bitcoiners for the last 5 years. (Check out any episode of “What Bitcoin Did” with Lyn Alden, for example) I don’t agree with all of it, obviously, as we’ve chatted about a lot of this stuff before. BUT, I agree with some of the arguments about financial censorship and international markets, for sure. So, let me posit a question: Second thought, I haven’t listened every second of the podcast, so correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like this is a gold bug podcast. If so, this reminds me of Peter Schiff, another gold bug/gold ETF pusher. He makes his paycheck by promoting gold ETFs to retail markets. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it’s worth knowing when considering investment. What sort of solutions to the problems described are offered by the podcast? What sorts of solutions aren't offered or suggested? Is it possible, or even desirable, to save the USD from its predicted impending doom? Why or why not? RE: USD hegemony-> If commodities (eg oil producers) are looking to sell contracts outside of the petrodollar system, why is the USD in demand more than ever around the whole world (even in markets like China)? Why is the dollar so strong right now? Is it irrational? Likewise, today Powell announced a 50bps rate hike, the biggest in two decades. And the stock market is pumping. Is that, then, irrational (an inefficient market) by Piepenburg’s argument? What would have been a better decision if it is seen as irrational? Going off the answers for the above, if you had to put your money where your mouth is, where would you put it? My thesis is that money is not predictive, it's causal--so where would you put your money to cause change? The JPY? Gold? Bitcoin? Stocks? ETFs? Index Funds? Bonds? Physically delivered board game futures contracts?
  • The Life and Death of Planet Earth

    Reality
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    1 Views
    J
    All quotes are from the book By Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee Earth is Over the Hill Biologically, Earth has already peaked - perhaps as long as 300 million years ago - and we are already living in a relatively impoverished world. We know that our planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old [...] we can predict that the last animals on this planet will die out as early as 500 million years from now, and possibly much earlier if another great mass extinction, similar to those of the past, once more decimates the planet. If scientists are correct that species diversity and fecundity were actually higher in the past than now, we live not in our planet’s youth but in its middle to old age. Our planet is already in decline. ...biological productivity - the total amount of living plant and animal tissue on Earth - appears to have been higher 200 million to 300 million years ago, when the planet was warmer and richer in atmospheric carbon dioxide than it is today. Most evidence suggests that life has already existed on Earth longer than it will persist into the future. ...planets, like organisms, have life spans. Astrobiology has evolved with much new information, leading to the inescapable conclusion that habitable worlds can end through a natural evolution akin to aging. Planets have “habitability systems” that are roughly analogous to the organs of a living creature and that eventually fail like those organs. Earth has a lot of good years left but quality of life becomes a concern before end of life. The end of Civilization Earth’s magnetic poles will eventually switch places. This has happened hundreds of times since life emerged on Earth and life has continued. This has not, however, happened since a civilization has emerged to put in place an enormous and enormously complex electromagnetic infrastructure on which their way of life depends. Poles being on opposite sides of Earth may not present much of a problem (technically they already are on opposite sides) but, in the process of switching, Earth’s magnetic field is weakening and will remain weak for hundreds or even thousands of years leaving us largely unprotected from solar flares and coronal mass ejections as well as other cosmic radiation. Life may be able to carry on without a magnetic field but not our way of life. Not only does our way of life depend on our electromagnetic infrastructure, so does any ability to monitor or hope of responding to other threats to life on Earth such as geological events, near-Earth objects or subsequent solar events. Another Mass Extinction It is an unambiguous fact that very early on our species learned to manipulate the forces of evolution to suit its own purposes, creating varieties of animals and plants that would never have appeared onEarth in the absence of our will. Large-scale bioengineering was under way well before the invention of written language. We call this process “domestication, but it was nothing less than efficient and ruthless bioengineering of food stocks - and the elimination of those species posing a threat to the food stock. In agriculture, humans have moved from ensuring the survival of certain species that we value over others, to increasing their value through controlled breeding and now directly modifying species on a genetic level to increase their value. The same is being done in species that we value as pets rather than products. We’ve learned that, just as genetic modification can ensure the survival of those species that we value, the same principles can be applied to ensure the demise of those species that we do not. Gene hacking has already been used to eradicate certain populations of mosquitoes and rats. In the case of mosquitoes, it’s their ability to spread disease among humans that has made them a target. We don’t yet know what overall effect the mosquitoes’ absence will have on the ecosystem that they were a part of. In the case of the rats, it’s the humans that have done the ‘spreading’. Rats stowed away on ships have made their way to New Zealand where they have no natural predators. Some native species of birds now face extinction. We don’t yet know what overall effect the rats’ presence will have on the ecosystem that they didn’t naturally evolve as a part of. Nor do we know what the overall effect of eradicating them will be. The point is that human influence on species and ecosystems has manifested in many different ways throughout human history. The more we become aware of this influence, the more empowered we feel to take advantage or the more obligated we feel to take corrective measures (depending on whether or not we view our influence as positive or negative). The  Next  Current Ice Age If you were asked to imagine an ice age, you’d probably imagine sheer cliffs of ice, snow covered mountains and cold blowing winds. That would be an accurate image of a glaciation. To get an accurate image of an ice age doesn’t require much imagination. Look around you anywhere on Earth at any time in the past 2.5 million years. The most recent ice age started in the Paleolithic period and we’re still experiencing it. We’re just between glaciations. A 400,000-year temperature record derived from measurements on a deep ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in Antarctica shows four 100,000-year glacial cycles delineated by 5 sharp spikes in temperature. We are currently standing atop one of those spikes and the unusual width of our particular spike has enabled the rise of civilization. Overall, Earth has remained cold but, like clockwork, brief interglacial warm periods have occurred roughly at hundred-thousand-year intervals. Ominously, the severity and size of the glaciers produced during each cycle has been increasing through time. We have about 2000 years before the next one begins the very slow process of knocking over every brick laid in human history. That’s not long in geological terms. The current best explanation for these long-term changes in Earth’s climate are 3 variations in Earth’s orbit and rotation known as the Milankovitch cycles. The first variation is that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun changes from circular to a pronounced ellipse over a period of about ninety-five thousand years… The second variation is that while the Moon keeps the tilt of the Earth’s axis relatively stable compared to planets such as Mars, it still varies between 21.8 and 24.4 degrees over a period of forty-one thousand years… The third variation is that the Earth also wobbles around its axis over a period of twenty-two thousand years: an oscillation like that of a spinning top that scientists call precession. This changes the season when the Earth is closest to the Sun. Today, the Northern Hemisphere has summer and the Southern Hemisphere has winter when our planet is farthest from the Sun. About eleven thousand years from now, the situation will be reversed. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/ It’s important to note that these cycles do not explain the current warming of Earth’s climate. This warming is the result of humans burning fossil fuel. The burning of fossil fuel, of course, is the wildcard in calculating future climate. Will our own folly actually save us from the coming ice? […] a new computer model developed by scientists from the University of East Anglia in England has factored in man-made global warming and predicted that this could delay the next ice advance by perhaps as much as fifty thousand years. However, when the ice does return, it will be an even more extreme glaciation that otherwise might have occurred, according to their calculations. 50,000 years might give us enough time to figure out what to do with ourselves during the next glaciation but we’d still need to survive the melting of Earth’s current glaciers. The possible catastrophic effects of this have been described in several scenarios. Here’s one that seems a bit of a paradox. Agriculture on the European subcontinent is able to support twice the population of North America on a much smaller landmass because its warmth comes from the Gulf Stream. Fresh water from melting glaciers could cause the Gulf Stream to stop short of the European subcontinent. The entire world would experience a sudden change in climate and Europe would go into a deep freeze. Its ability to feed itself would disappear. And unlike the end of the last glaciation, when there may have been at most 2 million to 3 million humans scattered around the globe and needing to feed themselves, today there are more than 6 billion. [as of 2002] Incidentally, this is an amazing story. https://www.outsideonline.com/2152131/freezing-death/ Beyond the Next Glaciation There’s more of course: The return of a single supercontinent and, with it, a stagnant anoxic ocean is the forecast for a quarter billion years in the future. In half a billion years, plate tectonics - the force most crucial to the emergence of complex life - will cease as the geothermal energy that drives plate tectonics fades. In a billion years, the heat from a swelling Sun will make further life on Earth impossible. After the Sun’s giant phase, it rapidly settles down to become a white dwarf. Its brightness declines thousands of times and it shrinks to only 1 percent of its present diameter…As viewed from Mars, now the closest surviving planet to the sun, it will glow with the brightness of the full Moon. It will be a silvery but cold glow, with no life-supporting heat [...] This is the normal fate of solar systems, as inevitable as our own individual deaths. The galaxy contains billions of white dwarfs, many of them just tombstones for worlds like our own. Planet B? A person looking at scale depictions of Earth and Mars might see Mars as about half the size of Earth. This is true of the diameter but, on a sphere, the outer half of that diameter has far more volume than the inner half. So the mass of Mars is only about 15% that of Earth! The surface pressure is similar to the air on Earth at 30 kilometers, or more than three times the height of Mt. Everest. There is no oxygen. There is no food. There is no surface water, and it never gets warm. Deadly ultraviolet light from the Sun bakes the land. We have difficulty sustaining the environment of our home planet, let alone successfully manipulating that of another. Would anyone really want to relocate to a planet with half our gravity and a Sun half as bright? Even on our own crowded planet, vast reaches of the Arctic and Sahara remain almost uninhabited. Will humans persist in the hundreds or thousands of years it would take to terraform Mars? Going to Mars is much more difficult and dangerous than going to the Moon. You can get to the Moon in three days, but it takes months to reach Mars. Round-trip mission times are on the order of a year or more. Astronauts are exposed to potentially lethal cosmic rays from the Sun and have to survive long periods of low gravity in an environment that produces irreversible loss of bone mass. The degradation of the human body in space has been feverishly worked on for more than forty years, and yet there is still no clear solution to the problem of long-term survival of humans in space. Even with the greatest of care and a budget of billions of dollars, Hubble was put into space with a misshaped mirror, solar panels that flapped every time they passed in and out of the sunlight, and gyroscopes that failed at a much higher rate than expected. Hubble became a huge success only because it was so close to the ground that the space shuttle could carry up heroic astronaut crews on repeated repair and refurbish missions. In deep space, repair missions are not practical […] Since 1959, thirty-five missions have been sent to Mars. Over half have failed. As technology has continued to advance, the success rate has not improved. Can we ever make traveling to Mars as safe as traveling on a plane or even flying in the space shuttle? Probably not. To do it Properly… Maybe we have an idea about how to engineer an atmosphere and liquid water on Mars. But, if we can’t engineer a magnetic field, they’ll just (continue to) be lost to space. And, if we can’t engineer plate tectonics, the martian landscape will be weathered to oblivion with no way to sustain the land masses and topography necessary to facilitate temperature regulation and weather patterns that will allow complex ecosystems to thrive. And humans can’t thrive without complex ecosystems. What we really need to engineer on Mars is a liquid metal core. One thing that seems to have worked in the past is to clobber one planet with another one. Our current best model of how Earth was formed involves Earth being struck by another Mars-sized planet that developed in the same orbit. Because Mars is so much less massive than the Earth, even if we set out to terraform it in the same way as Earth (ie. by clobbering it with a Mars-sized celestial body), we would need to do that 5 times over. But there aren’t 6 of Mars out there. Even if we threw every object in the asteroid belt and every moon of Jupiter at it, we’d only get to about 17% of Earth’s mass. Other famous places that might possibly support life also seem to be unlikely sites for future human colonization. Titan, Ganymede, Callisto, and Triton are all quite different bodies from Earth. It is more likely that humans will transform into some strange kind of superbeings that could thrive in hostile environments than it is that these distant moons could be made at all Earth-like. If that’s the case, we might as well just continue to inhabit Earth as it becomes an increasingly hostile environment. Can we take it with us? There’s another idea worth mentioning here if only for eyebrow elevation. It’s the idea of coordinating numerous gravity assists from a 100-km wide comet to nudge the Earth ever outward as the Sun increases in intensity. One fly-by of the comet would occur once every 6,000 years and it would take a million of them to get Earth into the same orbit as Mars. If we get it wrong even once, the impact of a 100-km wide comet would sterilize life on Earth down to the microbial level. Even if we get it right every time, we’ll likely throw our moon out of orbit which would also be catastrophic for life on earth. We needn’t concern ourselves about what to do with the planet currently occupying Mars’ orbit. By the time we reach it in 6 billion years, the intensity of the Sun will make life on any planet at that distance impossible. Conclusion I rushed a bit through the list of longer-term challenges Earth will face because, before Earth runs out of challenges to deal with, it will run out of beings with any ability or sense of responsibility for dealing with them. Ultimately, the mortality of Earth - like our own individual mortality - is something we will have to  accept  embrace. Of course we should do everything we can to survive as long as we can. And we should do everything we can to ensure that survival doesn’t just amount to prolonged suffering. We may be able and willing survive long enough to develop now unthinkable ways to address issues like the waning magnetic field, an imminent glaciation or even the swelling of the Sun. But, only if we’re able to address the more immediate challenges that we face. It’s somewhat fortunate that the most pressing challenge, global warming, also seems to be the only one that humans currently have any capacity to deal with. And we’d better get focused because there really doesn’t seem to be a ‘Planet B’ within our reach. Even if there were, it would amount to a very expensive camping trip to a very hostile environment. Camping can be fun - even camping in a hostile environment - but you don’t start loading up your camping gear when you hear the fire alarm going off in the kitchen, you grab a fire extinguisher.
  • Random Cool Stuff

    General Discussion
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    1 Views
    C
    This is a thread for one-off random cool stuff we may come across. [image: Slow_dance_9_1512x.gif?v=1623300000] Slowdance This is a device vibrates the objects placed within the frame at one frequency and strobes light on the objects at a slightly offset frequency. The difference between the frequencies called the beat frequency creates an optical illusion ghosting affect. [image: wcw7hxwym7gfrd0wl4htiwnkao5h.mp4]The creator of "BCrypt", a common library for cryptography for web apps (in fact, the password you use for this site is secured with bcrypt), "Yan" made one for a weekend project and posted about it on TwitterーWhich is how I found out about it. But, you can hack an IKEA frame to do it yourself using this Instructable.
  • The Spinning Magnet

    Reality
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    4 Views
    J
    THE SPINNING MAGNET: The Force that Created the Modern World - and Could Destroy It By Alanna Mitchell: Notes by Josh Nishikawa The first half of the book is more of a history of the study of magnetism, the Earth’s magnetic field and how magnetism relates to electricity. It is mixed with the author’s own memoirs on researching that history. Mitchell puts early scientific research about the nature of Earth in the context of a world dominated by geocentrism/creationism. The research happening in electromagnetism is also juxtaposed with specific notable things happening in the world at the same time; For example, that William Gilbert started his groundbreaking research on magnetism around the time that Shakespeare was starting his career as a playwright. Or that Robert FitzRoy, the captain of the ship that carried Charles Darwin to the Galapagos, was also making his own contributions to the ‘Magnetic Crusade’. The book follows the author’s research of important researchers and the research that they followed. As such, it’s not exactly in chronological order. I had to skim through the first half of the book again to put them in chronological order (for my own sake). **The abridged history… ** 780,000 years ago - The most recent reversal of Earth’s magnetic poles happens. 40,000 years ago - The earth’s magnetic field is in disarray causing a near-reversal. 1088 - Shen Kuo describes declination in the “Dream Pool Letters “. 1269 - Pierre Pèlerin de Maricourt (AKA Petrus Peregrinus) makes some of the first scientific observations ever recorded when he writes his treatise on magnetism. It features the first description of a compass consisting of a lodestone in a floating bowl that always returned north/south. This was a time when printed books didn’t exist. “Science was philosophy, not observation.” 1581 - Robert Norman publishes “The New Attractive” describing inclination. 1600 - William Gilbert publishes “De Magnete” to show that the whole earth carried the fundamental power of magnetism and that power was inextricably bound to the earth’s core. He also compares magnetism to static electricity if only to (wrongly) dismiss any similarity. 1633 - Galileo’s approval of Gilbert’s work is used against him in the inquisition. 1634 - Henry Gellibrand shows that declination changes over time for a given spot on the Earth. 1653~1669 - Declination in London is later shown to have gone from positive to negative. 1700 - Edmund Halley publishes the first world map of declination. It points to the earth’s core as the cause of declination. 1831 - James Clark Ross first pinpoints Earth’s magnetic north pole. 1832 - Carl Friedrich Gauss publishes the formula for calculating absolute magnetic intensity. He also invented the magnetometer. 1834 - Macedonio Melloni discovers that lava retains the magnetic coordinates of where on earth it cooled. The Magnetic Crusade to set up a network of observatories begins. It is the first global scientific collaboration and “the greatest scientific undertaking the world has ever seen” since its time. 1838 - Gauss mathematically proves Gilbert’s experimentation from 200 years earlier to have been correct. 1840s - Sir John Franklin vanishes with 128 crew on 2 ships attempting to complete the Northwest Passage and set up a state-of-the-art magnetic observatory. The survivors abandoned ship and took to the frozen island […] in a bid to walk to safety with the Earth’s magnetic field as their trusted guide. Some resorted to cannibalism. All died. 1850 - The massive magnetic crusade winds down with no comprehensive explanation of how the world works. 1861 - James Clerk Maxwell publishes a paper describing electricity and magnetism as facets of the same “electromagnetic” force along with equations that would later describe the standard model of physics. 1895 - Pierre Curie discovers what will come to be known as the “Curie Point” the temperature at which a solid will lose its magnetic properties. 1899 - Giuseppe Folgheraiter applies Melloni’s work on cooled lava to terracotta clay pots from ancient Greek, Roman and Etruscan civilizations. 1905 - Albert Einstein publishes his special theory of relativity. 1906 - J.J. Thompson wins the Nobel Prize for discovering the first subatomic particle (coincidentally, the electron). Bernard Brunhes discovers that the Earth’s poles had once switched. He found a place in France where, 5 million years earlier, lava had heated a layer of terracotta past it’s Curie point allowing it to record the orientation of the earth’s magnetic field. What we understand… “[The] atomic construction of the iron and nickel in the core makes them excellent conductors of electrical charge…What that added up to, in this early Earth, were the magic twin elements needed to produce a dynamo - a generator of electricity that can sustain itself for billions of years: heat energy carried by liquid, plus an electrical conductor…The field that the dynamo began to produce billions of years ago cocoons us still.” “[Earth’s magnetic field] guards our planet from the ravages of radiation. It may even be the reason life exists on Earth.” “[The] Earth’s need to shed heat from its inner domains makes the electrical currents that produce the magnetic field. Its spin helps to organize that field into the simple two-pole structure that allows us to use it for navigation.” Earth’s magnetic poles are always on the move. They have even reversed several times and, one day, will again. The one we call north will move to the south. South will be north. When that happens, the magnetic swaddling that protects our planet will waste away to only about a tenth of its usual vigor. In turn, that will affect each of us and the very fabric of our civilization. Mitchell also notes that, For the entire time Homo Sapiens has been trying to unravel the mysteries of magnetism, those magnetic poles have been on opposite sides of the Earth from what we imagined. So, for the first time in human history, north will actually be north and south will be south. **What we don’t understand… ** Sailors were using Earth’s magnetic field to navigate at a time when that field was still believed to be fixed. The blame for losing one’s way at sea would fall to shoddy instruments, choppy water during readings, slapdash steersmen or even garlic on a crewman’s breath. The world sailed on for decades like this as, unbeknownst to anyone, the magnetic field was also ebbing and flowing like the sea itself. No one expected that, for all the work that was put into mapping declination, that map would already be obsolete long before it was finished. Currently, the map is updated every 5 years. Geophysicists can only predict the movement of the field lines at the surface for as much as five years. Not more. Anything past that is soothsaying. So, every five years, geophysicists gather as a community to work out their mathematical forecast for the next half decade and publish it, making it freely available to all. Called the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, each version is out of date by the time the new one is made. The book has an excellent description of Daniel Lathrop’s (UMD) “Three-meter Experiment”. This video has him giving a decent description of how our terrestrial dynamo works. Spinning Sphere of Molten Sodium He briefly mentions that, “The Earth’s magnetic field has weather.” The book elaborates on this analogy pointing out that the complexity of flow patterns in a given mass of fluid can be described by its “Reynolds number”. Water through a straw has a low Reynolds number; you generally know where it’s going… Clouds have a high Reynolds number and therefore their flow is nonlinear, sometimes resulting in storms or hurricanes. But the flow in the Earth’s core is almost incomprehensibly nonlinear because the core is so large. We’re able to see what’s happening in the atmosphere and make decent predictions about what will happen in the coming weeks. However, there’s no way to predict specific weather events that will unfold next year. The Earth’s core and mantle are not only vastly larger than the atmosphere but also impossible to see. Any predictions we might make about changes in field patterns could take thousands of years to verify. What we need to understand… “The poles will be thrust from their current positions. Other poles from the non-dipole fields will gain strength. The Earth will have perhaps four or eight magnetic poles during that time of transition.” “The last one was 780,000 years ago and reversals have been happening about three times every million years for the past 90 mllion years. Therefore, some say, it’s time.” A huge number of animal species use the magnetic field to find food, mates, breeding spots and wintering areas. Without the ability to navigate, many species face extinction, especially those that are already endangered. All seven species of migratory sea turtle, for example, are at risk of extinction in the wild […] Many species of whale, which migrate for food and birthing spots, are endangered, One in eight birds is at risk of extinction [...] Bees are in trouble all over the world. And then there’s the radiation… “...the field is decaying so fast that a reversal may be irreversibly underway, but the poles themselves won’t reverse for at least 500 years. But since the risks  of a reversal lie not in the actual shift of the poles but in the strength of the magnetic shield to protect the Earth from dangerous radiation, this finding implies that the next 500 years or more could be the ones to watch.” “Our protective shield will wither to only one-tenth of its normal strength during the time the poles are traveling. That process could take thousands of years - meaning, here on Earth, we could be exposed to more radiation for those same thousands of years.” A weakened magnetic field will leave the entire planet vulnerable to radiation from solar wind and flares, coronal mass ejections, galactic cosmic rays and radioactive isotopes currently trapped in the Van Allen belts. The effects of radiation on living tissue are well documented (particularly since humans have been splitting atoms). Now imagine radiation poisoning, rampant genetic mutation and even an increase in neurological disease on a global scale. Solar radiation has already proven that it can shut down our power grids. On March 13th and 14th, 1989, the entire province of Quebec was without power for half a day. Between Oct. 28th and 31st, 2003, a series of solar flares and coronal mass ejections left 50,000 people in Sweden without power, knocked out GPS satellites and triggered the first ever radiation alert to aircraft from the FAA. The ADIOS ADEOS II, a $640 million-dollar satellite carrying a $154 million-dollar NASA instrument was lost to space. There was a much larger solar ‘superstorm’ that happened on July 23rd, 2012. Luckily for us, the side of the sun that it happened on was facing away from Earth at the time. Had it occurred a week earlier, its full force would have been focused on this planet, its inhabitants, and our infrastructure…the effects on the Earth’s electrical infrastructure would have been catastrophic, sending civilization back to a pre-electricity Victorian era, NASA said. People would not have been able to use anything that plugs into the socket of a wall, for starters. But neither would they have been able to fill cars with gas, use banks, or even flush the toilet, because all those functions, including municipal septic systems, ultimately depend on electricity. One such superstorm has hit Earth in recorded history. The Carrington Event began on August 29th, 1859 and disrupted Earth’s magnetic field for 11 days. It hit when the only electrical infrastructure in place was the telegraph. Telegraph lines all over the world went down. Batteries connected to them sprayed streams of sparks starting fires. Now imagine the electromagnetic infrastructure that has been put in place since the time of the telegraph, how many people depend on it (6 billion more than there were in 1859), how heavily every aspect of our lives depends on it and how much we take it for granted. The weakening of Earth’s magnetic field constitutes a catastrophic geological event. But unlike other catastrophic geological events like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, this will affect the entire Earth for centuries. To return to the weather analogy, it’s sobering to think that, although atmospheric climate change may be a more pressing problem, it’s not, strictly speaking, our biggest problem. [image: du2vztq70216kfijzm4i6q6048ne.jpg] [image: 7sggmrc1hlwsw3l96f52x79u456i.jpg]
  • Podcasts

    General Discussion
    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    0 Views
    S
    I listen to a lot of podcasts, thought we could share any we like, dislike, would recommend. Any takers?
  • Investing

    Money
    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    1 Views
    S
    I'm interested in investing in stocks, ostensibly to try it and find out what it's all about. Anybody have any views, advice, must dos or must not dos?
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    0 Views
    J
    Oops! I thought I could delete a thread. I guess not. Um....................................
  • The Cake Cutter Principle

    General Discussion
    11
    0 Votes
    11 Posts
    0 Views
    S
    Statement: While there is probably no way to completely eliminate corruption and other issues that plague a democratic system of government, the cake cutter principle could serve as a useful foundation from which laws are created and how taxpayers' money is used. Is anyone willing to mediate?
  • New Music

    Music
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    1 Views
    C
    Anyone have good recommendations for new music. Stumbled upon the Bruno Mars/Anderson .paak team up "Sonic Silk," and have been digging that. Youtube Link. Anyone have anything that's been caressing their cochlea?
  • A Proposal to Define a New Thread Format

    Development
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    0 Views
    J
    Ideas here should be presented as clearly as the person presenting them is capable of and the person presenting them should welcome any opportunities to make their ideas clearer. Comments here should contribute something useful to the original post. Avoid inadvertently slipping into opposition where a simple request for clarification or a suggested reading would be more productive. Threads in this category are handled as follows. A statement is made in the form of a post consisting of a short Title and a Body of any length. This post should be thoughtfully written, thoroughly proofread (and clearly referenced if appropriate). Someone must offer to mediate the thread. This should not be someone who would be more interested in challenging the statement or idea(s) therein but it should be someone who is interested to learn more. A new thread of this format should not be allowed if another is still awaiting a mediator. Once a mediator has volunteered, the thread is considered open to comments. Anyone that the thread is open to may comment (including the mediator). You are only allowed to have one unresolved comment at a time. You may ask for clarification of any number of points, request references or make any other queries. You may also include any number of statements, quotes, references etc. that give weight to your question(s). However, comments should always seek to improve the original post. The thread should not be considered a platform for debate (that's a different format). The objective here is not to arrive at something that everyone agrees with but simply to arrive at the clearest presentation of the original poster's idea. You're welcome to expand upon one part of a post or disagree entirely, but do so in a separate thread that references this one in whole or in part. When a question is raised, the original poster should edit their original post as best they can to address the question. The original post should be considered something that is being submitted for peer-review. Although the ideas in the original post may be well founded, the presentation of those ideas (the post itself) should not be considered static. Edits should reference the #id of the comment that they are in response to. The mediator is to mark questions as 'Resolved' when they believe they have been adequately addressed. This does not imply that the mediator agrees or disagrees with the statement(s) of either party, only that they believe the original poster has addressed the question adequately or provided a useful source for further understanding. It is also up to the mediator to determine what is a 'useful source' and what is not. (optional) If there are no open comments (questions), the mediator may approve the thread. The thread will be closed to further comments until the original poster decides to reopen the thread or close it entirely. The original poster closes the thread. Although there may be numerous unanswered questions and ways to expand upon parts of the post, the original poster may close the thread at any time. Ideally, this is only done when the original poster believes they have done all they can to support and clarify their original statement. As stated in step 3, anyone is welcome to respond in a new thread provided it is thoughtfully written, thoroughly proofread (and clearly referenced if appropriate).
  • Enjoying the Dangerous View from the Frontier

    Reality
    52
    0 Votes
    52 Posts
    16 Views
    C
    Or, How I started reading Thomas Hutchinson's 1776 criticism of the Declaration of Independence titled: "Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence" Sometime last year I found out about Urbit. It's an unusual open source software project. When I first started trying to see what this really intriguing little project was, I checked the wikipedia article and read about controversy with its founder Curtis Yarvin. He wrote some fucked up stuff on a blog called Unqualified Reservations, a lot of it is summed up on this wikipedia article about his Dark Enlightenment. It seems he's been more or less booted from the project (as much as is possible anyway, there are several anonymous contributors still). Needless to say, this put me off. I never downloaded the software to try it out, and promptly put it out of my mind. Back in July I had an interaction with someone I follow on Twitter regarding the infamous (at least in the Bitcoin community) Bitcoin sign guy being a fan of Urbit. Fast forward to today, a "like" from someone from an account that posts Urbit "sygils" (it's hard to explain) popped up. The Urbit mind-worm was boring into my head. Out of pure curiosity I looked up the project again--a lot has changed. Following the white rabbit, I found myself looking through the source code for Urbit, which then took me to the contributors page where I found this guy who goes by the moniker "pcmonk". Taking a step back for a second...this is the internet I remember from when I was a kid. Maybe 10 or so. It's dangerous and exciting and new and there's lots of information . Do average people still do this anymore? Do you guys do this? It's fun and exciting, and IMO it's anti-thetical to even something like Breitbart, which is mainstream for 'not being mainstream'. It's also the best part of physical exploration, the uncontrolled serendipitous encounters with people, ideas, and other information which can lead to adventures (in ones mind or otherwise). Back to "Pcmonk," I came to a great read from his blog titled, "How to Find Frontiers." The blog posts gets to how he started working on Urbit, but I really enjoyed this bit about reading things for fun that aren't on many reading lists because they are, I guess, "obviously" wrong. (Obvious in scare quotes because I'm not sure anything is really obvious, it only seems so after being sufficiently distributed or memefied or whatever). There’s one large red circle around most Islamic countries, where it’s difficult for westerners to understand what they believe and why, because we don’t know what their ancestor blue dots believed. There are also red circles around isolated tribes, like those in Brazil and New Guinea. Their way of life looks incredibly foreign to us, because they descend from a very long line of blue dots. If you want to understand other paths that western civilization could have gone, study these blue dots. Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber and Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond are not bad places to start. The linguistic version of this traces the influences very distinctly. If you want to learn about the nature of language, make sure to study dead and dying languages at least as much as you study Indo-European, Sinitic, and Arabic languages. In politics, there are plenty of eloquent writings arguing for political opinions that are unthinkable now, but give you a much broader picture of the space of political theories. Want to read a 1680 argument for how the natural authority of fathers in a family means kings should have absolute authority? Try Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha. An argument against the US Declaration of Independence? Thomas Hutchinson’s “Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence” is quite readable. A more recent example that borders on red-circle ideas because the author is still alive is the Unabomber Manifesto. I agree with none of these works, but I’m glad to have read them. Here's the image from the article for context: [image: 64tkdgi6uxdgknze0evbuiflzlgh.png]From a Popperian fallibalist perspective, this makes a lot of sense. It's impossible to predict where the criticism that leads to new frontiers, new discoveries, will come from. We don't know what we shouldn't be 'allowed' to critisize. And usually, the ideas that some of the biggest discoveries come from are laughable at the time. So, sometimes looking back at some old text, like "Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence," can clarify and bring out some limitations to whatever "common sense" or rules of thumb we may be taking for granted. Democracy, though I don't agree with Yarvin's ideas at all, does seem to be one of those things that's kind of unnecessarily "common sense." I like the quote: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” But, we're living in a weird time where lots of new types of governments ARE being tried. And, something tells me, one of those experiments is going to actually work, but we won't know it worked until it seems like common sense--at which point the people who are trying to find something better than that, will also be being laughed at. Perhaps, as some anonymous commenter on the post noted we should just "simply be content with enjoying the view from the frontier." Since the frontier is full of discontent, though--I'd say that's easier said than done, though.
  • An Amazing Movie Script

    General Discussion
    13
    0 Votes
    13 Posts
    1 Views
    S
    Richard, I thought it best to start a thread here to discuss with you a potential "can't miss" movie script I want to write and sell and I wanted to get your input since you've already dabbled in a script of your own. Of course the other Dutchmen are MORE than welcome to chime in and throw out opinions and whatnot.
  • Bitcoin, Inflation, Deflation, Stablecoins and Fiat.

    Money
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    1 Views
    C
    Just saw the release of a report on stablecoins today. Days worth of reading of comments on Hacker News, top comment is about bank runs on stablecoins. This may be a good opportunity to start a thread on money. Thoughts: The quantified growth of the wealth of a nation (or some other group) is a measure their collective growth of knowledge. When one says the "GDP went up", that isn't strictly about what gets consumed, it's about what can be consumed. Which is to say, if the value of wealth grows, then the amount of things one can do with the same resources grows. Thus, while consumption and knowledge growth are correlated, growth is not strictly attached to resource consumption. For example, we always had the materials to make an iPhone, encode some valuable text (like this post) [digitally], make a plow, or whatever, but we didn't have the _means–_we didn't have the knowledge to do it. So as knowledge grows, so does wealth, and wealth is a better measurement of our collective repertoire than it's physical instantiation. What does this say about creativity, the meme of the underdog or survivor (in business or otherwise), where progress comes from, and how new knowledge should be distributed? I think this is where the link to central banks and governance comes in. The goal of inflation is to make the measurement of this "wealth" stay stable in terms of purchasing power of the users of that instrument. Arguments about deflation, inflation rates, quantitative easing, austerity measures, helicopter money, interest rates, repo rates, treasury rates, bond rates, etc etc, represent discussion about how to us money to aide knowledge growth, through distribution control. Hence, all fiat is in principle, ideally, a stablecoin. Nation states are ruled by elected officials who face removal by their constituents who demand security, stability, and progress simultaneously. If the currency they have agreed to use doesn't protect their constituents from volatility during inevitable fluctuations of knowledge distribution, what is it doing? Stablecoin and fiat are synonymous. Where does Bitcoin fit into this? Interestingly, The FED is independent of the US government. The US government has full power to lessen reliance on the FED. The FED is a tool that politicians, bureaucrats and other government officials use to solve problems for their constituents. There's a lot to say about perverse incentives here. I think those incentives to get more stable points (dollars) change with Bitcoin. Creating more problems, and solving others. But the most important thing it that Bitcoin returns the power of using some monetary tools to the individual. It makes inflation, and deflation, optional. Futher, this desire to control the use of stablecoins by individuals is anti-thetical to the some of the values America represents ideologically. A quote I heard that really cuts to the core of the conversation: "No inflation without representation" To me Bitcoin is really at the heart of why America was founded in the first place and what "progress" means in "The West". It provides contemporary context for why the founding fathers argued so much about the treasury and central banking during the federalist era (I'm no expert on this, though I have only read bits and pieces of source material here and there). There's much more to talk about in regards to coming off of the gold standard, the move to the Petrodollar, the relationship between measuring value and energy, and how currencies work and are secured. But I feel like this is a good start, with lots to argue about. Thoughts?
  • The Beginning of Infinity

    Reality
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    2 Views
    C
    Almost exactly a year ago, well, later October, it all started with an article about a possible solarpunk future. I posted the above link with, I'm digging this! To which Richard replied with the same link and this message, Sorry, wrong button! Yes, this is very interesting and doable. And this present climate is a great opportunity to do it. If these ideas were carried through it would be unnecessary to rail against the institutions because they would be proved obsolete and ineffective and would die of their own accord. After a week or so I finally came back to this idea about a "solarpunk future," having read a chapter in The Beginning of Infinity that covered what Deutsch summarized in this lecture titled "Chemical scum that dreams of distant quasars,") and replied, Late reply is usual, but definitely what I was thinking! Institutions sminstituitions is what I say. Also RE: that book I was going on about, still really into this David Deutsch philosophy: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-infinite-optimism-of-physicist-david-deutsch/ cc: @Fidel Montoya Time passed. There was talk of Yen Princes, Fear in Jazz, and CBDCs.  November 29th, 9:72PM: https://youtu.be/vKO8YRwVVu8 Podcast released a few hours ago covering basically everything I was trying to say without getting hung up on the words “infinity” and “explanation,” though he uses those concepts frequently in the talk. Worth a listen! Before this post there has been a game day where Daniel Dennett's deepities, was brought up (if I remember correctly), and there was a name that we were at a loss for, This guy Deepak Chopra was the guy whose name I was at a loss for. I understand your enthusiasm for philosophy and truth. I just hope you don't turn into Deepak...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU6TkfCGlX8 This put me on the defensive, Deepak Chopra is a author and alternative-medicine advocate (aka. is a grifter and a charlatan). David Deutsch is a Professor of physics at the Centre for Quantum Computation, the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University and an Honorary Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. (copied from his website). Fidel and I had our first written exchange about infinity and explanations. Personally, I don't have a whole lot of interest in philosophy because it's utility seems subjective and all too often it's advocates attempt to hijack scientific discoveries, insert woo in the gaps of scientific knowledge or outright tresspass on the domain of science without consent of the consensus of scientists in a given field. Myself, He’s a physicist, but I definitely hear where you’re coming from regarding philosophy. Fidel, I guess, to me, I was kind of feeling like the discussion of "Infinite number of explanations" was going down Woo BLVD. TLOL. To be clear on my part, the time to give consideration to anything that is being put forth as "an explanation" of/for anything or any given question, is when the preponderance of evidence has given us no choice but to give it that consideration. Thus, I simply do not see how more than a handful can be recognized as explanations, much less an "infinite" number of them. Time passed again, I posted about Electrical blueprints for Life. And subsequently linked to the books that I just can't seem to help but proselytize. The Fabric of Reality, and the Beginning of Infinity. Also a book about a novel way of studying the physics of quantum information that is less focused on particular particles and their trajectories: Constructor Theory. Time passed, board games were played, digitally and analogically. We had a conversation about GPT-3, AI, and AGI mentioning Deutsch's ideas again, set to this music Richard shared. Yup, I've seen what GPT-3 already capable of doing, but you still need to be able to audit code if you want to check if it's usable (eg. it created a React form submission button--but you still need to know what a buttons looks like, if it's targeting the write form, http request types and parameters, and what javascript actions are getting triggered). But yeah, there's a lot of talk about the mistakes in the phrase "99 percent perspiration" (or something like that) in the Beginning of Infinity. Here's a bit: [image: kug7zfhqnhioc0zujl67gkyv2ddi.png.png] If we make an AI capable of being creative (making discoveries), then it's the same as a person. Deutsch says it's possible, but it can only happen one of two ways (see: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/two-guesses-about-creativity either no automation can be creative and we need a new mode of computation (the goal of constructor theory), OR there is a kind of automation under the prevailing conception that produces emergent phenomena that constitute creativity (consciousness is an emergent phenomena). [image: kug7zfhqnhioc0zujl67gkyv2ddi]Somehow, we have arrived back at the start of this month, October 2021. After our most recent board game session, in which there was another heated discussion about science and people's place in the universe, I posted yet ANOTHER link to a Deutsch TED talk titled, After billions of years of monotony, the universe is waking up. At that begun our more lengthy discussions.
  • '71 Cubs: Championship or Bust

    General Discussion
    21
    0 Votes
    21 Posts
    0 Views
    S
    [image: ltx8deumwo9taqne1ljupe3hhdx5.jpg]