tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64953098062219709372024-02-19T12:34:20.273+09:00Universe Think TankAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-45014976764995500362010-11-17T09:31:00.001+09:002010-11-17T09:31:59.883+09:00PW Singer's Wired for War<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtjlHgE_g3f5kMJK9x4kBUYo1gjIIG1xYUE1PE94wWCJ5o2Sjz34u5u5TbQYAgUuvrOtPXMhiRZN8Vym165i_jIsujPuHFUGCe6xr944Q7N1FMKL35rJ67FtQ7RTSR8JYmg9bDeFOqlSE/s1600/WfW+cover.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 263px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtjlHgE_g3f5kMJK9x4kBUYo1gjIIG1xYUE1PE94wWCJ5o2Sjz34u5u5TbQYAgUuvrOtPXMhiRZN8Vym165i_jIsujPuHFUGCe6xr944Q7N1FMKL35rJ67FtQ7RTSR8JYmg9bDeFOqlSE/s400/WfW+cover.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5538969948205274530" /></a><br />Considering how long we've been in the Industrial Revolution and just how long the concepts of robots have existed, it almost is an amazing thing we haven't taken things farther than we have. How many people out there think robots are cool? And yet the ones we make are still relatively simple when you stop to think about it. With the computer and information revolutions we are seeing now however, robotics at last appears ready to make leaps and bounds by taking advantage of recent developments in automation and computerized intelligence. In chosing this as a subject, PW Singer's newest book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Armed Conflict in the 21st Century gives us a broad look at where the future might be taking us. It's a long and meaty discussion on not only how machines themselves are changing now, but also how they might be changing us. While mainly a discourse on machinery, its other major topic is war, and like many technologies developed in the past, this one also seems to be receiving a major push from military interest on how it can help win future struggles. <br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Effects of new technologies on war</strong><br /><br />The book starts out with an explanation of where we currently are with regards to robots and intelligent machines. Several of the most common and advanced ones are introduced and described. There are small and domestic ones like the Roomba which saves you time by automatically scanning the room to determine if the floor is dirty enough to warrant a cleaning, and then vacuums it for you. There are others that are more like advanced remote control toys but have been specialized to do difficult or dangerous jobs e.g. bomb diffusal robots like the Packbot, which is currently being used in Iraq (this robot made an appearance at the beginning of the recent movie "The Hurt Locker"). Then there are ones that more resemble automated or unmanned vehicles than anything else (self driving cars, planes and tanks). Still others can be more malevolent and aggressive. These machines are able to analyse a potential threat and its direction, and are often armed, carrying bombs and guns. One frightening aspect is that sometimes they are also given enough autonomy to fire at will, though generally this final command must be confirmed first by a human making the decision.<br /><br />That a need is created in warfare for a new type of device or resource has often spurred invention to fill such needs. Ancient examples include catapults and seige engines which came about with the advent of castles. More recent ones are rubber boots for walking through mud, and canned food that would keep longer without spoiling for providing armies with nutrition on long campaigns and marches. Wired for War includes a description of some of these advancements while going on to detail how the current conflicts against terrorism and insurgency in places like Iraq and Afganistan have led to new needs that robots have begun to fill. Specifically hidden dangers like bombs and traps, as well as an anxious public back home that wants the military to accomplish its goals with minimal troops and loss of life. It is for this reason that automated or intelligent machines now increasingly do the dangerous jobs such as bomb diffusal and patrolling the neighborhoods and skies in the foreign countries we've come to occupy. <br /><br />It's fascinating some of the information presented early in the book on the difference between human and robotic combatants. We learn that not only is using a robot safer, but in many cases more precise or deadly. Humans holding guns, for example, are prone to many negative factors such as tension, shock, and emotion affecting heartbeat and consequently the stability of grip and aim. A robot with a mounted gun, by contrast, doesn't have to deal with shakiness of aim, or even the stress and fear caused by having someone shoot at you, its aim is much more steady. On the example of unmanned aircraft, we learn that they are not only cheaper than those requiring pilots (think of all the costs cut by not building a cockpit with levers, buttons and other user interface and instead having it all internalized) but also are capable of maneuvers impossible to humans. This last point is a result of increased aerodynamics by removing the cockpit and also the machine not being subject to the human limitations of a pilot who might lose consciousness doing certain extreme types of rolls and drops.<br /><br />In putting together a history of war and its significance, a few other important concepts are introduced and disected. A "Revolution in Military Affairs" (or RMA) is an advent that occasionally comes along which completely changes warfare and causes a lot of the older tactics to become obsolete. Guns and cannons destroying the relevency and practicality of old armor and large castle walls are example of this. A more recent one is the development and proper deployment of tanks ending the trench warfare of World War I. <br /><br />Another major concept given the rundown in this book is Military Doctrine. This is probably best described as the protocal of how a military acts and reacts to given situations, a combination of strategy and guidelines of conduct. Major literary works of the past (both fiction and non-fiction) are mentioned as having had an immense ammount influence on military doctrine and one can't help but wonder if someday this book (and possibly Singer's others as well) will be included on such a list of required reading for soldiers and military leaders with aspirations. The book makes clear that RMA's aren't everything, and that without an according change in doctrine, may not necessarily mean success. To use the book's example, France and England both had tanks before Germany, but it was the Germans who developed the doctrine to use it most effectively with their "blitzkreig" style of warfare, and thus they were the ones most successful during WWII (at least until the US entered the war).<br /><br />Among the interesting ways war has changed with technologic advancement are that more space was continually required per soldier on the field. Knights in armor fought hand to hand and thus the battles were close combat in smaller areas. The development of longbows enlarged the space of the battlefield and guns and canon enlargend it even further. Recent developments have now moved the fighting into cities, yet another major change which throws out the window much of what we once knew. A more recentl observation the book makes is that while modern communication devices are making the exchange of information more efficient for militaries, they're creating new problems at the same time. This occurs by creating a flood of too much information and giving people far removed by the chain of command the ability to simply "jump in" and take control via computer rather than allowing others closer (and perhaps better able to make important judgements) to the situation to handle things. <br /><br />Other factors mentioned deal with the effects of increased robot use on opponents. One positive might be that suicidal insurgents who are willing to risk or even give up their lives to take down a US soldier, might not be so willing to do so merely to destroy a robot used by the US military. Also, while the safety of the soldiers might be increasing through robotics, the psychological effect on opponents may or may not be the desired one. While some designers and generals drool over the concept of creating "shock and awe" by using robots in war, the end result might simply be an increased hatred and a perception of cowardice by hiding behind machines. The idea of a foreign power coming to your country to occupy it, and then sending machines to patrol your neighborhoods does sound like something that would incense ordinary people and not just insurgents. On top of that, "shock and awe" might not be the best way to win the hearts and minds of the those you'll need to leave in control when you leave, and in the end, tanks and airplanes were also once viewed as monsterous and frightning but now are taken for granted, which leads one to believe the same might be just as true of robots. <br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>The Effect of Robots on Us</strong><br /><br />Warfare isn't the only thing that looks to be affected by the increased use of robotics. The book makes it a very emphasized point that this is something which stands to change the everyday lives of people as well. <br /><br />The concept of "The Singularity" is discussed briefly. Being a hypothetical that will supposedly change things in ways we can't understand (and thus has a lot of skeptic attitudes towards it), however, there isn't much to be done here than to give an overview of the idea and examine the various opinions of experts in this area.<br /><br />With remote systems now engaging in the fighting another unique occurence is looked at. What of the "fighters" who control these machines from US soil? They wake up and go to work like the rest of us, but then their work consists of controlling a machine thousands of miles away in another country and at times fighting and killing real people with it. At the end of the day they get right back in their cars and do mundane things like go home or head to PTA meetings. Much has been made in the past about advancements removing soldiers further and further from the actual fighting and the potentially negative effects of feeling detached from carnage and the repurcussions of one's actions. But these people are literally beaming death halfway across the world. What kind of psychological effect does this have on people? For that matter, can we qualify them as "combatants", and if so is an enemy within the ethics of war to attack one of these men on their home soil viewing them as a threat? And if one of them commits a war crime using a machine, what then? We've all seen people get furious and throw tantrums over losing at video games, sometimes reacting by crashing their or killing their in-game avatars on purpose. Is the day coming when someone operating from US soil simply flips out and uses a machine to kill civilians in another country?<br /><br />Ethics are becoming murkier and murkier with the development and spread of this new technology. And on the domestic side of the story another issue mentioned only very briefly is that of using robots for pleasure. Porno, like the military, has strangely enough actually been responsible for many advancements in technology, particularly when it comes to making things more for private use. What's at issue in a nutshell is this: human-looking robots are going to keep becoming more and more life-like, and sooner or later someone's going to make one that looks like a child. Do we allow pleasurebots that look like children to be bought and sold and used? Proponents will likely argue that it's therapeutic and allows them a release by indulging in what isn't permitted by law with real children. Opponents most likely will protest that it encourages an already unhealthy mental state. My own thoughts: if it's made illegal a black market will almost certainly emerge, but if it's made legal expect protesters to surround stores and business and harass those who try to buy or sell one. By making a product which caters to such a despised desire, it might become easier for people to find those they hate.<br /><br />Cultures react differently to robots too. Because I currently live in Japan, one area that I personally was quite interested in is how the Japanese use and design and feel differently about robots than us in the western world. There isn't any one section that focuses completely on this, the examples instead are usually littered throughout the book. I'll try and keep this brief because I think I'd like to explore this one further in a future "Notes on Japan" entry, but the bottom line here is that the Japanese in general do seem much more comfortable with the idea of robots multiplying and playing a larger role in daily life. Americans, by contrast, have something of a fear of them: that they will steal more jobs on the mild end and that they'll take us over completely on the more extreme side of things.<br /><br />This of course leads into one question I'm sure everyone has on their mind when the future of robots is considered seriously. Could they take us over? Will they? Is it inevitable? Or is it all just paranoia? Alas, the book does not have an exact answer although it does certainly recognize and address the question. The discussion unfortunately is rather a brief one being that there are simply too many unknowns to say anything for certain. Several important "prerequisites" for a robot apocalypse are brought up which definitely enlighten the topic though. I don't think there's anyway for me to say it better or sum it up any shorter so I'm just going to go ahead and quote them here:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Essentially, four conditions would have to be met. First, the machines would have to be independent, able to fuel, repair, and reproduce themselves without human help. Second, the machines would have to be more intelligent than humans, but have no positive human qualities (such as empathy or ethics). Third, they would have to have a survival instinct, as well as some sort of interest and will to control their environment. And, fourth, humans would have to have no useful control interface into the machines' decision-making. They would have to have lost any ability to override, intervene, or even shape the machines' decisions and actions."</blockquote><br /><br />While things are advancing quickly, it's "a pretty high bar to cross, at least in the short term" he goes on to add, before chronicling several other important things to consider on this topic. <br /><br /><blockquote>"With so many people spun up about fears of a robot takeover, the idea that no one would remember to build in any fail-safes is a bit of a stretch... Of course eventually a super-intelligent machine would figure out a way around each of these barriers... However, if ever it does happen, humanity will likely not be caught off guard, as in the movies. You don't get machines beyond control until you first go through the step of having machines with little control. So we should have some pretty good warning signs to look out for... But for all the fears of a world where robots rule with an iron fist, we already do live in a would where machines rule humanity in another way... We are dependent on technology that most of us don't even understand. Why would machines ever need to plot a takeover when we can't do anything without them anyway?"</blockquote><br /><br />That such an interesting and important question is brought to an inconclusive end might be a little disappointing, but it's one we just will have to accept. It really is too soon to tell on a lot of things but the future is coming faster than we think. Robots and AI are limited and at the moment not up to our level of intelligence. But things are changing.<br /><br />One example Singer gives is that robots are only better than us at things like chess and math because math is their language. When it comes to other things, however, it's a different story. Ask a robot if what you're holding is an apple or tomato and it might: compare pictures from a database, examine repeatedly from multiple angles, or even do a DNA test whose data would take a long time to analyze, and still in the end the thing wouldn't be able to say for certain and might give you instead a probability of one or the ohter. On the other hand, a human child could tell you in an instant if something were an apple or tomato with little hesitation or doubt. The machines are getting smarter though. The day is coming when a robot intelligent enough to be able to call someone on the phone and use its voice and wits alone to trick them into thinking it's another human, and it's going to upset a lot of people when it does. <br /><br />The book's final chapters contain an appeal to the readers that more thought and especially discussion on the issues raised take place. The future is always uncertain to some degree but it only really becomes a problem when it takes us unaware.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625500175082418593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-18960730681082092302010-10-31T19:57:00.002+09:002010-10-31T20:21:41.495+09:00Existence on a basic levelI'd like to talk about existence and what it might mean on the most basic level. Let's start with something popping into existence from nothing.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">Bam! Something pops into existence. Let's call this lone something, "A". Since A is the only thing in existence, it's shape and size are indefinable. This would make it infinite and we could think of it as our "Jello mold" universe where everything will happen.</span></span><br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">And don't try imagining this lone existing A from an outside view either. If A exists from when there once was nothing, then there is nothing around it. But that's misleading too, because there shouldn't be any "around it" anyway. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; ">This means it should have no boundaries. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; ">A would have to exist in an infinite state of being because it is the only thing in existence. There is no outside, only an inside. Only itself in one state of being.</span></div><div><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">So we now have our Jello mold universe. It is in one unchanging state which can't be defined because it is the only thing in existence. Now here comes "B" popping into existence inside of the A mold, a tight squeeze. Remember, it can't exist outside of the mold because there is nothing outside. The mold is infinite. If B DID pop into existence separately from the mold, then it would be it's own, totally new infinite universe. There would be no way the two could interact with each other.</span></span><br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">OK, so some thing with some shape, B, is inside of our mold. Oh, and also, size has no meaning for B since it's inside of infinity. The only way size can start to have meaning is if there were something else there with B to compare to.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">Alright, now let's talk about location. How could something exist inside something that was infinite and have a actual specific location inside of that infinite space? Location is only something that can be determined through the comparison between something else, but since there is nothing else in the infinite mold, location has no meaning. Location should also be an indeterminable factor inside of the infinite mold. Being in one place inside of the mold would be exactly the same as being in another place. And since the mold only has one state of being, there shouldn't really be any one place something could be since that would imply there are actual places inside of the mold that are different from other places in the mold.<br /><br />So what are the possibilities?<br />Here are a few ideas...<br /><br />1. Since B can't exist with a specific size in comparison to the mold, B fills up the mold and replaces it completely.<br />2. B exists everywhere at the same time.<br /><br />Number two could be a little like the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; "><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe" id="link_1" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; ">One-electron universe</a></a></span>" theory.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">This is me trying to logically imagine some kind of beginning from nothing and what it might mean. Please share any ideas and/or criticism.</span></span></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-65060034783891688762010-06-28T22:20:00.002+09:002010-06-28T22:42:51.891+09:00Speed of light paradoxJust a simple question that probably has an answer I won't understand, but I am going to try and ask it anyway...<div><br /></div><div>If speed is relative, then how is there supposed to be a universal speed limit? For example:</div><div><br /></div><div>Two spaceships leave Earth.</div><div>One accelerates up to a high speed (doesn't matter what it is) relative to Earth.</div><div>The other spaceship is flying beside it matching its speed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, let's say we forgot about Earth (cause it's so far behind us now) and all we have are the two spaceships and no other reference point. Wouldn't we just be back at where we started? The spaceships would have no speed relative to each other.</div><div><br /></div><div>What's the point if speed is relative? Is it just impossible to go the speed of light relative to something and pass that something close by? Or is it just impossible to go the speed of light in relation to anything no matter how far away it is from you?</div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-42771026784601797532010-04-10T04:40:00.001+09:002010-04-10T04:40:02.253+09:00Science Can Answer Moral Questions<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hj9oB4zpHww&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hj9oB4zpHww&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-21892399166141535342010-02-25T09:43:00.001+09:002010-02-25T09:44:32.040+09:00Michael Shermer on strange beliefs | Video on TED.com<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html">Michael Shermer on strange beliefs | Video on TED.com</a><br />
<!--copy and paste--><object height="326" width="334"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param><param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/MichaelShermer_2006-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/MichaelShermer-2006.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=320&vh=240&ap=0&ti=22&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things;year=2006;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=evolution_s_genius;theme=how_the_mind_works;event=TED2006;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="334" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/MichaelShermer_2006-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/MichaelShermer-2006.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=320&vh=240&ap=0&ti=22&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things;year=2006;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=evolution_s_genius;theme=how_the_mind_works;event=TED2006;"></embed></object>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-40670827559632110502010-02-04T15:32:00.000+09:002010-02-03T08:33:51.794+09:00God is an Empty, Quiet Parent UniverseWhen I was little, laying awake, I would think about the origin of God, and fall asleep to my incomprehension. Now, I still can't sleep, but I simply think about from where the universe came.<br /><br /><em>The Arrow of Time</em> is a lecture based on the book <em>From Eternity to Here</em>, by Sean Carrol. <span style="font-size:78%;">(link to lecture: </span><a href="http://adelaidescience.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/sean-carroll-the-arrow-of-time-podcast/"><span style="font-size:78%;">http://adelaidescience.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/sean-carroll-the-arrow-of-time-podcast/</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">). </span>Carrol asks the question, "What came before the big bang?" He discusses time and the multiverse, and the role of entropy's directionality. Ultimately, he would like to construct a theory that results in the multiverse.<br /><br />While not the catalyst for my atheism, such topics as the arrow of time, the multiverse, and entropy are enough to hold my interest in my relationship without a god.<br /><br />Much like human interaction, my relationship with God ended when I stopped feeling attracted to him. I am not going to use this weak metaphor any further, though, because I respect the clarity and depth with which some pursue god. He just wasn't there for me, and for a few years, this is what He remained: an absence. When I took the time to let that settle, I pursued further insight. And it was frightening to let go of that long dormant, yet present comfort. Beyond stating what I am, beliefs are sacred matters, the foundation for our stability in reality, and something we cannot take for granted. There is a burden in the disillusionment of others which, for all my ignorance, I am not willing to accept.<br /><br />I prefer to wonder and to disillusion myself, to be challenged by the existence of the belief in god, and to be engaged enough to fall asleep thinking about it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-21674743614338557972010-02-03T01:45:00.001+09:002010-02-03T01:47:32.645+09:00AtheistMichael Shermer, the founder of Skeptic magazine, still doesn't like to refer to himself as an atheist. Does the word feel that dirty that even people like him, even though they might be one, still don't like to refer to themselves as one? <br /><br />Even I feel dirty. I'm not sure I would refer to myself as that sometimes. I feel like it's not dirty, perhaps. It's just that the position of atheist is negative by default. It is the disbelief in something ...not the belief in in something. This is why some groups like Freethought, Brights, and other similar groups have popped up. It's not the disbelief in a deity that defines them but the belief in science and empirical evidence. I kind of like that. Maybe it is our upbringing in America. Maybe it's not an actual word but it still is negative in the sense that it is the position of not believing something. Freethinkers, Brights, Skeptics, etc. are probably 99% atheist but the focus of the way these people define themselves is changed. <br /><br />Atheists are shown to be one of the least trusted kinds of people but for no reason other than prejudice. I'm not agreeing with this prejudice but I do feel like the position of atheist is almost unnatural. Serious scientists are searching for the God gene because why does every culture have a deity of some sort? Personally, I feel like it's not a gene but has something to do with our psychology. <br /><br />Even atheists are agnostics ultimately. Basically, there's no way to prove there ISN'T a god out there. You cannot prove a negative. However, you cannot prove that Zeus doesn't throw lightning bolts from the 6th dimension or a teapot orbiting a planet in Andromeda either at this point. It leaves the realm of what is possible and enters the realm of what is reasonable. <br /><br />Still, technically, atheists are actually agnostics. <br /><br /><br />I sometimes wish there was an afterlife but then I just can't help but feel that there's no reason to believe in that and I don't want to waste my time. The upside to all of this too is that you really start to think about today and how to live your one and only life. For me, this doesn't mean doing a bunch of heinous shit. It just means that I really need to get in gear for this one chance. And also, the more you think about things in this way, with evolution and the forming of the universe, it's amazing to be here at all. Luck is a loaded word but it comes to mind. Of course, the only reason I can feel amazed is that I was born and I am made of this star stuff but still ...it's pretty good.<br /><br />Death will probably be just like it was before we were born and that is depressing to think about but I hope it doesn't depress me too much because I have to live more for today.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-2346021571506568242009-12-22T19:10:00.002+09:002009-12-22T19:11:52.382+09:00The First Genocide<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(41, 48, 59); font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(27, 4, 49); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size:18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(41, 48, 59); font-size:13px;">Whatever happened to all the Neanderthals? The question is asked again and again by those who study or even have just a passing interest in those who simultaneously preceded and took a different path than the ancestors of modern humans. The ideas that we desecnded from them directly or interbreeded with them are slowly being eroded by newer evidence, both archealogical and genetic, and slowly a grim truth is being accepted as to why their disappearance coincides with a territorial expansion of our ancestors that enveloped land once theirs. I wrote earlier about the recent book, "Before the Dawn" by Nicholas Wade, but some thoughts have been lingering with me regarding a particularly unnerving mid-portion of that book which dealt with some of man's darker behaviors, as well as some thoughts on the final fate of the Neanderthals.</span></h3><div class="post-body entry-content"><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>The Neanderthals</strong></div><br /><div>The Neanderthals were very much like us, but also very different. Based on skeletonal remains that have been found, they were generally between five and five and a half feet tall, slightly shorter than average by today's standards, but a bit taller than the anatomically modern humans (or cro-magnon) living at the time. It is believed they had low, sloping foreheads, no chins -same as chimps today- and a good deal more muscle, weight, and strength than even we do today, despite their stature being lower than our own is now. Dressing an ancient, anatomically modern human in the clothing we have today would allow them to blend into a crowd, but doing so for a Neanderthal wouldn't keep them from drawing stares, or so the saying goes.</div><br /><div>The Neanderthals used stone tools about the same as those of our ancestors up until about 50,000 years ago. These included axes, cleavers, and other cutting implements made of flaked stone, and probably a good deal other tools made of more perishable materials like wood, and animal hides which haven't survived into modern times. On the topic of perishability, they also almost certainly built shelters, but because of this quality, little remains and mostly they have been associated as being "cavemen" due to this type of place being the most common residence their settements have been found intact.</div><br /><div>They were able to control fire, a big technological advantage of the ancient world unique only man and his close cousins. Also, some primitive works of art have been found in their dwellings, though it is open to debate as to whether they themselves were the creators of it or not. Like many tribes living in foraging or limited farming societies today, it is possible that much of what they made would not survive the ravages of time leaving us with limited information in this regard, to say nothing of the immaterial artifacts; their culture, language, and knowledge of the plants and animals on the land they inhabited. All of this we lack true evidence of and can only infer. In a similar way, stone-age tribes living today would not leave much behind to be analyzed.</div><br /><div>In terms of other qualities that we generally associate with humans, they appear to have lived in small groups, stored up food as a safeguard against lean times (though not to the extent of the cro-magnons living at the time), buried their dead, and cared for their injured. The burials are inferred from what seem to be grave sites dug in the earth, in some cases with flowers or even jewelry that appear to have been placed there purposely. Their caring for their injured comes from skeletons showing very bad injuries that would've crippled or likely meant death for their victim had they been alone, but have instead healed over, implying that other, healthy members took care of them while incapacitated.</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the most important unknowns is what type of linguistic ability they had. Much conjecture has been made based on what skeletal remains have been found. Most believe their ability to make sounds would have been greater than that of modern day primates, but not of the same level as our own, though Neanderthal bones for specifically the purpose of creating many sounds have been discovered, and again new genetic tests have shown they possess some of the same genes for language that we do. If they had lacked even the ability to use a language as complex as our own, it most certainly would've been a detriment towards the interbreeding of the two species, being a large obstacle to effective communication between two groups who would've almost certainly already had different languages to begin with.</div><br /><div>Judging from where their remains have been found, they lived mostly in Europe but also in parts of the middle east, Isreal and the like. The middle east sites even suggest Neanderthal populations "moving in" after earlier settlements of cro-magnon, which in turn hints at early conflicts between the two ending with the retreat and displacement of the cro-magnons back into northern Africa by about 100,000 years ago.</div><br /><br /><div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">The Cro-magnons</span><br /><br />Recent genetic testing has led many to believe that by about 50,000 years ago, the early forerunners of modern man, the cro-magnon, appear to have whithered to mere 5,000. From this small number, it seems all humans today emerged. That those alive today are desended from Neanderthals or a hybrid mixing of them and cro-magnon has also been more or less put to rest by genetic tests on Neanderthal DNA extracted from old samples revealing a distinctly different genetic signature. If Neanderthal and cro-magnon mixed at all, it certainly wasn't widespread.<br /><br />Because they were using roughly the same set of tools, techniques, and technologies as the Neanderthals, and because they were smaller in size and strength, it appears they were at the time being boxed in by the Neaderthals, unable to get out of Africa. When they finally escaped Africa, their likely point of exit was the Gate of Grief in the southern part of the Red Sea which would've had a much lower water level at that time, thus allowing them a release from Africa without having to go through territory occupied by the Neanderthals.<br /><br />This wandering of people into unknown land was no expedition out looking for adventure, but rather a slow expansion with people striking further into the unknown only as they managed to safely populate a new area not far away from land they already knew. After crossing the Gate of Grief, they appear to have spread along the southern part of the Arabian penninsula until they reached India, at which point different groups would've split ways, some going into Asia, some south into the areas of modern day Indonesia and Australia which were connected largely by a landbridge at the time, and some going back northwest towards Europe, once more re-igniting the the conflict with the Neanderthals.<br /><br />If there's one thing which can be proven without much doubt, it's that Neanderthals did very little innovating to the set of technologies they had. Progress and improvement were almost non-existent. The cro-magnon, by contrast, began making better tools, including barbed arrowheads, fishhooks (implying advancing fishing techniques), sewing needles, and art that was unequivocally their own. Most of the Neanderthals would have had none of these things.<br /><br />In addition to this, the cro-magnon were better able to adapt and exploit their environments, (as mentioned before) stored more food for lean seasons, and lived together in generally larger groups than did the Neanderthals. The latter of these is of particular importance, because it would now mean that the groups of cro-magnons would outnumber the Neanderthals they encountered.<br /><br /><br /><div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Warfare on a "small and primitive" scale</span><br /><br />In pondering how conflict between the two species went down, it's instructive to look for a second at how the so called "primitive" societies of today do so. Hunter gatherer groups such as the !Kung San of Africa, the Dani of New Guinea, and low-stage gardeners such as the Yanomamo who live in the jungles of South America all practice nearly constant warfare. Though in the past, the concept of the "noble savage" who lives at peace with himself, with nature, and with other tribes similar to his own was generally accepted, a more realistic portrait of such peoples has recently emerged. Tribal peoples can be very brutal, and some very often engage in warfare.<br /><div><br />While what occurred between the cro-magnon and Neanderthals would've been a conflict between two different species, it strikes me that the territorial qualities of different animals tends to come when they have more to fear from their own kind than of others. In addition to the tribal societies that have remained into modern times, there is one other animal that practices a very similar style of warfare to tribal men; the chimpanzee.</div><br /><div></div><div>Like the anthropologists who first observed many of the tribal societies after their first-contacts in the 20th century, those who first observed chimps thought them to be peaceful, unassuming, and non-violent. These preconceptions were shattered by the research of Jane Goodall who witnessed and recorded some chilling altercations between rival bands of chimps.</div><br /><div></div><div>Though they often stick to their own territory, chimps occassionally will band together and move silently into that of opposing camps. Their behavior is described as being strange while they do it, different than normal, tense, nervous, very alert. They spend a lot of time listening for calls from individuals of the rival band, sniff around a lot, and otherwise pay very close attention for anything that might lead them to isolated members of the opposing camp. They generally only attack if they're able to find opponents whom they out-number by about three to one or more (two to hold down the opponent, one to bite, hit, smack, and otherwise beat as closely to death as possible before retreating).</div><br /><div></div><div>Though many animals fight with one another, chimps and humans seem to be the only ones who have decided that it's smarter to annihilate your opponent rather than risk their recovery and retaliation, and consequently adopt this as a strategy. Tribal humans engage in warfare similar to chimps. They engage in raids into enemy territory, though the manner in which they do so certainly involves more organization. They generally do so at night, often times right before dawn perhaps so their opponents will not be able to retaliate while it still is dark. The goal in the end is roughly the same, kill only a few of the enemy and then escape before they can mount a counter attack. While tribal people do occassionally fight in the open at scheduled times, and some have pointed out that fighting can at times seem more like a sport which can get called off due to rain, the overall facts that they fight regularly, and fight specifically to kill, mean that even though the casualties might be low in given encounters, they add up. The end result is devastating. In some tribes, warfare accounts for 30% of all deaths in their population. Imagine putting numbers like that to our own civilizations of millions and billions and just how destructive constant and deadly such warfare is to peoples of such small numbers comes much more clearly into focus.</div><div><br /><br /><b>The First Genocide</b><br /><br />So what exactly was it like when the cro-magnons met the Neanderthal in a conflict that ended with the latter's death? We'll never know for certain, but while it's not impossible that tribes of the time could've rallied others to fight with them against outside aggressors, it also isn't entirely likely either. Like modern day tribes who engage in warfare, it probably often took the form of silent raids conducted in the dark. It was most likely fought between primarily those on the furthest outposts of their respective groups.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition to the violent way some tribal groups resolve problems amongst themselves and rival groups, another common way to do so is to simply get up and leave, taking those along who want to go with you. As larger groups would've had more disputes, and the land and subsequent ability to live on it at the time could only sustain so many, people of given tribes probably had to split off and strike into the unknown whenever a group became too large and unmanageable, and the land no longer able to sustain such a large number. "Pioneers" so to speak, who were living on the fringes may not have been able to retreat back without facing hostility from their own kind. The first Neanderthals to encounter cro-magnon settlers might likely have been living in the same kind of situation.<br /><br />Imagine going into unexplored territory only to discover that a group of Neanderthals is already living there. Afraid to go forward, but unable to go back because behind you, those of your own kind are a more formidable foe. Cro-magnons did in the end have better weapons and higher numbers. All in all, the conflict was probably very one-sided, just as is almost every conflict documented when one group of people which has superior numbers and technology encounters another group whose land they want. One thing it wasn't, was rapid. The process took about 15,000 years with the end result being no more Neanderthals in Europe only by 34,000 years ago. Considering how long it took europeans to completely spread into Australia and North America, 15,000 years is glacial-speed.</div><div><br /></div><div>The size and strength of the Neanderthals served them well against the ancestors of modern man for quite some time, but in the end cro-magnon persisted. In addition to higher intelligence, and better technology, cro-magnon was able to out-live and out-breed the Neanderthal. That cro-magnon could live to the age of 60 years compared to Neanderthal's 40, meant a lot more accumulated knowledge to serve their kind. The Neanderthal's greater size in the end meant it required more food to survive when compared to cro-magnon who could subsist on less.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; ">* * *</div><div><br /></div><div>I remember a friend telling me once that he thought some Neanderthals might've managed to eck it out much longer, that some even made it to the middle ages, and that stories of beast-men and grendels killed by Beowulf weren't just fantastical tales, but might simply have been exaggerated ones of creatures that were real but whom they couldn't understand. While it's interesting, given the dates we know for certain, this doesn't seem too likely, and surviving the onslaught of primitive man only to be killed by the steel of medeval Europe doesn't sound too appetizing either. Another group of hominids representing a different branch from cro-magnon and Neanderthal managed to live safely in the remote isolation of an island called Flores in Indonesia up until about 13,000. Considering that this group only managed to survive so long by being far removed from our ancestors, some of whom were just beginning to domesticate crops and create agriculture at that time, and that Neanderthals in general were unable to even withstand people without this advancement, makes it seem a bit far-fetched to think they made it to the middle ages.</div><div><br />Depending in how human one considers them to be, the fate of the Neanderthals could very well be considered the first genocide, the intentional destruction of an entire species. Humankind destroyed its closest relatives long before we ever existed. In defense of ancient man, he probably did so out of some degree of survival, and perhaps lacked the ability or foresight to empathize with an intelligence such as the Neanderthals, however similar it was to his own. As for the Neanderthals, I'm sometimes left wondering how close to us they actually were. They almost certainly were aware of themselves and their existence, but I wonder if they knew what was happening to them as it did. Did they realize they were dying, and eventually would cease to exist? In another way, what happened to them represents a very grim portent of how human history would play out again and again as societies and civilizations would exterminate each other for future millenia to come.</div></div></span>Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625500175082418593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-34376270757354242762009-11-27T22:03:00.002+09:002009-11-27T22:08:41.954+09:00Some nice pictures<a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091127.html">Astronomy picture of the day.</a><br /><br />Also, check out this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ACERN-cables-p1030764.jpg">picture</a> of regular and superconducting cables for 12,500 amperes used at LEP compared to those used at the Large Hadron Collider.<br /><br />Also be sure to check out pics of the <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/large_hadron_collider_ready_to.html">LHC on The Big Picture</a>.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-68854973967629210622009-11-24T16:43:00.001+09:002009-11-24T16:43:18.511+09:00Carl Sagan ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed) Auto-Tuned<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><p><object height='350' width='425'><param value='http://youtube.com/v/zSgiXGELjbc' name='movie'/><embed height='350' width='425' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://youtube.com/v/zSgiXGELjbc'/></object></p><p>OK, I haven't seen auto-tuning used like this yet but it's a really great idea. I know I just posted another video but I thought this was so good that it deserved a spot here on the Universe Think Tank as well.</p></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-30380749405588526542009-11-24T16:17:00.001+09:002009-11-24T16:17:26.107+09:00The Evidence For The Big Bang In 10 Little Minutes<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><p><object height='350' width='425'><param value='http://youtube.com/v/uyCkADmNdNo' name='movie'/><embed height='350' width='425' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://youtube.com/v/uyCkADmNdNo'/></object></p><p>This is a really good primer, I think.</p></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-52938892585277931132009-11-22T17:44:00.001+09:002009-11-22T17:44:55.561+09:00ScaleIf you took a piece of thin paper, say 0.35mm thick, and folded it in half, it's now about 1mm thick. So without using a calculator, how thick do you think it might be if you fold it 40 times? 10 meters? A mile? Just try to imagine it without doing the math.<br /><br />A) 1 meter<br />B) 10 meters<br />C) 1 Kilometer<br />D) Distance from Earth to Moon<br />E) 1 Light Year<br /><br />What do you think? No cheating!Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-71391487254350141142009-11-21T19:21:00.001+09:002009-11-21T19:23:31.374+09:00Before the DawnA book review I wrote for my own blog.<br /><br />Book Review: Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade<br /><br />While not as all-encompassing as Jared Diamond's Third Chimpanzee or Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene, I must say that this book left a very deep impression on me. As someone who has been interested in the unrecorded prehistory of man for a long time, I found this book to be something of a welcome update of what was started by the two titles I mentioned earlier. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976, The Third Chimpanzee in 1991. Since the mapping of the human genome in 2003, the results of many new studies have been released, shedding light onto what were once murkier areas in the gaps of what we know of the gene's influence on man and man's prehistory respectively. I really recommend this book for anyone interested on the subject.<br /><br />The first couple of chapters consist of an introduction and then quick summarization of what would be a basic anthropology course. A highly accurate visual system was needed to help judge distances between trees properly and safely make leaps, such that nearly all primates view the world more or less exactly as we do. Opposable thumbs for a good, strong grip on branches and boughs of many sizes and shapes. Bipedal movement allowing a farther, more commanding view, the ability to carry things while moving, and also just a more energy efficient way of getting around when compared to the knuckle walk which was the common mode of movement before. <br /><br />It is the following chapters, however, where the book really separates itself from the others, and while it does draw on past disciplines like archeology and paleolinguistics -again Third Chimpanzee but also Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel- for some of its historical conclusions, the recent genetic findings are what really distinguish it. An early example, the approximate dating of when humans first began wearing clothes, demonstrates how we can learn what was never before possible, provided we ask the right questions.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Dating the Development of Several Uniquely Human Charateristics<br /></span><br />The louse, a parasite which cannot survive more than six to eight hours away from the warmth of a human body, was once confined to the tiny island of hair on the human head for a period of time between when man lost his body hair and began wearing clothing. This advent, it seems, gave rise to the body louse which had adapted its claws specifically to grasp clothing. By comparing either the Y chromosomes on males -which are passed unchanged and directly from fathers to sons- or mitochondrial DNA -passed unchanged from mothers to daughters- geneticists can now to come up with an approximate date for when species split into new branches. In this particular case, DNA from the body louse and the regular louse were both analyzed, showing a split of the two branches about 72,000 years ago, thus giving scientists that approximate date for the adoption of wearing clothes.<br /><br />There were several other interesting revelations as well. An obvious next question might be to ask about the loss of body hair. A few possible reasons are given as to why it might have happened -the need to sweat to cool down the body, ridding oneself of parasites, preferences in sexual selection- but one thing that might be a little more certain is that darker skin developed from this advent as protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays which destroy folic acid, an essential nutrient. While our forebears' skin was almost certainly pale originally, as it is in chimps, dark skin would have been necessary to survive in the African sun without body hair to protect oneself. The melanocortin receptor gene which regulates skin pigmentation provides the key. By dating the divergence of this gene towards darker skin, an approximate date of 1.2 million years ago seems to be when humans lost most of their body hair.<br /><br />The original ancestral population of humans who left Africa would've almost certainly had black skin. Paler skin confers an advantage to colder climates because it lets in more sunlight and allows for better synthesis of Vitamin D. It appears to have come about much later, after humans had left Africa and some were living in far colder temperatures to the north which would become even colder during a glacial period 20,000 years ago. The emergence of lighter skin, which occurs in both Asians and Europeans, developed twice, each time independently of the other.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">New Data on the Human Diaspora out of Africa<br /></span><br />Genetics have also allowed scientists to estimate that the approximate size of the original human population in Africa when some finally began their exodus out of the continent was about only 5,000, and that this occured about 50,000 years ago. From that number all people on this planet have emerged. Unlike previously believed, humans appear not to have taken the northern route out of Africa past Egypt and through the Fretile Crescent, but rather to have gone across the lower portion of the Red Sea which would've been about 100 feet lower at the time. The reason for this, probably would've been that the Fertile Crescent was already inhabited by Neanderthals who would've provided fiercesome competition for the early ancestors of man, and consequently had boxed them in, unable to leave Africa until that point. <br /><br />Testing the genetics of modern societies shows that people in general have had a tendancy to live, marry and raise children in about the same area, a trend that has continued to this day but was even more pronounced before 100 years ago and the advent of modern transportation. From this data, early man seems to have crossed the Red Sea, then the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula to India, then continued southward on landbridges existing at that time and primitive boats to Australia, populating on the way what are now some the Pacific Islands, the Phillipines, and New Guinea. The Australian Aborigines, New Guinea Highlanders and jungle dwelling Negritos of the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Adaman Islands appear to be the closest relatives of the Khoisan, who themselves represent one of the longest, most ancient branches of DNA amongst humans who stayed in Africa. <br /><br />The primitive technology of early man was comparable with that of the Neanderthals, and due to that groups larger body size and stronger muscles, they would've made more than a formidable match. But the forebears of modern humans had a capacity for higher intellect, and perhaps coupled with their ability for more advanced language (a subject the book dwells on much more extensively), eventually were able to shape for themselves a more successful package of subsistence, environmental adaptation, weapons, and other artifacts. Thus the long struggle between the two began to turn against the Neanderthals as modern man began to slowly expand his territory, occupying more and more space that once belonged to Neanderthals until their extinction.<br /><br />The question of whether humankind's early ancestors mixed and interbred with the Neanderthals has long vexed those who study them, but now at last seems to be finally getting put to rest. By extracting and examining a small sample of DNA from a Neanderthal specimen, a team from Munich managed to show that extremely little to no interbreeding occurred between the two species. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Some Final Considerations on Man's Evolution<br /></span><br />In light of what new, genetic testing has taught us, the book makes many conclusions along the way to its destination. Of these, the most important is the thought that modern man has continued to evolve on the genetic level even since leaving Africa and all the way up to the present. It has long been generalized that the most important changes occurred before 50,000 years ago, at which point, man became "anatomically modern" and has remained in a state of genetic stasis ever since. This argument proceeded from the idea that man hasn't needed to adapt any further to his environment. But to assume this would be to assume that no other kind of strife plagued mankind up until today, and that no other accustomization was necessary.<br /><br />The book delves further into the idea that mankind didn't just need to be "anatomically modern" to scale the heights of today, but also "behaviorally modern". In examining this, one has to consider that many aspects to the behavior of man had to be adjusted (the ability to trust others and consequently work with them, give up the individual freedom that a state of nature provides, adjust to sedentary life, etc...) One also has to begin considering how and what genes have an influence on these behaviors. Genes don't just determine physical characteristic like strength, height, skin, hair, and eye color, but also things like susceptibility to diseases, level of aggressive behavior, propensity to lie to others or cheat on one's partner, things some of which have traditionally been more associated with psychology than biology.<br /><br />That mankind hasn't ceased to evolve on the genetic level might be most evident in the world of difference between how we lived 50,000 years ago and how we live now. How we shall proceed to evolve into the future might just depend on to what extent we are willing or able to harness genetic manipulation to further achieve our goals.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625500175082418593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-90144404255693638472009-11-17T20:55:00.003+09:002009-11-17T21:53:20.376+09:00Questions from AndrewQuestions from Andrew<br /><br /><blockquote>I feel like the metaphor of a cat dying or not is so fucking dramatic that I lost the point of what it was trying to say. If you say that looking at something makes electrons bounce and changes things I understand that but once you make some metaphor that makes me believe my eyes have magical powers that can kill cats I don't understand it anymore.</blockquote><br />I'm sorry the metaphor was lost on you, but the whole point of making a metaphor is to try to relate the general idea of something hard to grasp (quantum mechanics) to something easy to grasp (a cat in a box). Worrying about the electrons in the cat is totally missing the point that it's a metaphor in the first place.<br /><br /><blockquote>So the very act of measuring something or looking at something changes that things electrons. That's it, right?</blockquote><br />It's more like the very act of measuring something about an electron changes some other property of that electron. But this is getting into too much specifics I don't really know. The only thing you really need to understand, and incidentally, the only thing I can say with any confidence, is that when scientists make measurements or observations on the quantum level, they affect the very thing they are trying to measure in some way.<br /><br /><blockquote>How does this have ANYTHING to do with fate? Or universes branching off or cats being alive or not?</blockquote><br />Because it has to do with unpredictability. The entire universe is made up of tiny particles playing by the rules of quantum mechanics. At any given time a huge number of events (interactions between particles or whatever) are taking place. The outcome of each of these events ultimately leads to the outcome of larger events.. things that we can witness with our own eyes. What you consider a small and meaningless event is just part of a never ending cascade like the butterfly effect.<br /><br /><blockquote>I ask this because what's a few electrons? That's my FIRST impression. So a few electrons bounce around. Not much will change, right? If I dump water outside my door into the grass, not much will change in my fate or anyone else's, right? Maybe that grass will live to see another day but that's about it. So again, the point I don't understand is that how does this quantum level interact with people's fates and cause universes to branch off?<br /></blockquote><br />Again, EVERYTHING is made up of these quantum interactions. See above answer.<br /><br /><blockquote>Also, what does the electrons being bounced around by us looking at it have to do with a cat being both alive and dead before we change its electrons by looking at it?</blockquote><br />The cat is a metaphor, it's electrons don't have anything to do with anything. See first answer above or read on to last answer.<br /><br /><blockquote>Are electrons both one thing and another and our looking at it makes it on thing or another? The quantum level is both what and what? If alive and dead are supposed to be A and B, what are A and B supposed to represent on the quantum level? I asume the alive and dead thing was just some thing used for the metaphor. Also, if A and B can't normally exist at the same time like life and death then how is that so? What makes quantum mechanics so special? Just because it's small?</blockquote><br />Now this is the best question you've asked so far. And unfortunately, I don't really know too much about it. Read about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty">uncertainty principle</a> for more information.<br /><br /><blockquote>Also, how do we know it's both? What's the evidence for that? What reasons do we have to believe in that?</blockquote><br />Again, I don't know the details, but I believe we know about these things from experiments. Maybe I'll look it up sometime, but not today.<br /><br /><blockquote>This cat idea is a terrible fucking metaphor because it's trying to relate to us some idea about electrons but cats are made up of trillions of electrons and changing a few from observation won't do dick, right?</blockquote><br />Thinking about the electrons of the cat is totally missing the metaphor. The cat being alive or dead represents something with two possible states. Until observed, both are true. Of course this isn't actually true for a real cat, but that's because it's a metaphor. Don't worry about electrons.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-50110388952808097122009-11-17T15:32:00.001+09:002009-11-17T15:32:27.160+09:00Cosmologists and EvolutionistsScientists in both fields of Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology are for the most part non-believers, I would wager. However, I think I have noticed a suttle difference in the atheism of these two disciplines. Many of the evolutionary biologists seem to be hard-nosed 7's on Dawkins scale of disbelief. PZ Meyers comes to mind. Hell, Dawkins said he's a 6 in the book but then said he was a 6.9 on Bill Maher. There seems to be much more strife there. A lot more friction.<br /><br />Then you got Hawking and Kaku and Greene that, while not prescribing to Christianity...and probably atheists as well...the way they go about is different, I feel. They're a little bit softer and less strident than their biologist friends.&nbsp;<br /><br />I just wonder if this has anything to do with what they study. Perhaps looking at the different scales of things makes a difference. Look at the grandeur of the universe, the Big Bang, and the uncomprehendable quantum world. ....Then again, maybe the biologists get that same feeling from studying fossils and DNA. I don't know but yes you can definitely take a look at people like Hawking and Einstein and Greene and notice some difference in their attitudes compared with that of PZ Meyers and Dawkins.&nbsp;<br /><br />I like the strident nature. I am strident myself at times but I am simply noting a difference I see.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-77374816204455218722009-11-15T16:16:00.000+09:002009-11-15T16:27:33.482+09:00Both?Also, what does the electrons being bounced around by us looking at it have to do with a cat being both alive and dead before we change its electrons by looking at it? Are electrons both one thing and another and our looking at it makes it on thing or another? The quantum level is both what and what? If alive and dead are supposed to be A and B, what are A and B supposed to represent on the quantum level? I asume the alive and dead thing was just some thing used for the metaphor. Also, if A and B can't normally exist at the same time like life and death then how is that so? What makes quantum mechanics so special? Just because it's small? Also, how do we know it's both? What's the evidence for that? What reasons do we have to believe in that? <br /><br /><br />This cat idea is a terrible fucking metaphor because it's trying to relate to us some idea about electrons but cats are made up of trillions of electrons and changing a few from observation won't do dick, right?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-31484146750255264652009-11-15T13:39:00.001+09:002009-11-15T13:39:19.763+09:00Maybe I Get ItI feel like the metaphor of a cat dying or not is so fucking dramatic that I lost the point of what it was trying to say. If you say that looking at something makes electrons bounce and changes things I understand that but once you make some metaphor that makes me believe my eyes have magical powers that can kill cats I don't understand it anymore.&nbsp;<br /><br />So the very act of measuring something or looking at something changes that things electrons. That's it, right?&nbsp;<br /><br />How does this have ANYTHING to do with fate? Or universes branching off or cats being alive or not?<br /><br />I ask this because what's a few electrons? That's my FIRST impression. So a few electrons bounce around. Not much will change, right? If I dump water outside my door into the grass, not much will change in my fate or anyone else's, right? Maybe that grass will live to see another day but that's about it. So again, the point I don't understand is that how does this quantum level interact with people's fates and cause universes to branch off?<br /><br /><br />OK, maybe I don't get it...Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-70397961383828054462009-11-15T08:26:00.002+09:002009-11-15T08:43:30.042+09:00Quantum Mechanics (again)Andrew: <blockquote>So is the Schroedinger's Cat thing just a way to explain quantum mechanics?</blockquote><br /><br />Me: Yes. Like I said before, it's a metaphor.<br /><br />Andrew: <blockquote>If you consider universes branching off and shit I could see that the coin is both heads and tails when you take that into consideration but in the our universe isn't the coin one or the other?</blockquote><br /><br />No. It's both in just one universe until it is observed.<br /><br />Andrew: <blockquote>Also, yeah, when anyone says that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang they're making a bold claim. It feels like, even if no one knew anything about quantum mechanics, they would still not know shit, I feel. It's just such an assertion without much proof to back it up. It's like an gross extrapolation of good some good science to the point that it's been extrapolated so much no one knows their ass from their elbow anymore.</blockquote><br /><br />I've never actually met anyone who claimed this by the way.<br /><br />Andrew: <blockquote>How does observing it affect it? Why is an observer so important? If a dolphin or ant observed something, would the same thing happen as when a human did? Why would these things on a quantum level "choose" to act differently when being observed? How would they "know" they're being observed?</blockquote><br /><br />This is where the metaphor breaks down. You can't "look at" something on the quantum level with a microscope. Imagine we can't see the cat but we want to figure out if it is alive or dead. There might be some other technique that will give us that information, like if we drop a bird into the cage. If the bird dies the cat is alive, but if it flies away the next time we open the cage, the cat is dead. You can see how this would have an affect on the cat, right? Scientists have to go through indirect observation to "see" things on the quantum level, and no matter what method they use, these observations change things (there is no work around).<br /><br />Andrew: <blockquote>Is it the external fact that our eyes have gazed upon that thing that changed it or is the internal subjective factor that us comprehending whatever we see that makes the cat dead or alive?</blockquote><br /><br />It is the external act of observation (see above).<br /><br />Andrew: <blockquote>Ah, I think I just thought of something. So this is about ...if the cat's quantum level were directly linked to his being alive or not ...and if we're talking about the observer changing the quantum level ...the if we look at the cat, that will determine its fate?</blockquote><br /><br />You're taking the metaphor too far. This doesn't work for a real cat.<br /><br />Andrew: <blockquote>Wouldn't it depend on which universe WE'RE in too? Not just the cat? In one universe the observer observes the cat alive and in one universe the observer observes the cat being dead. I feel like that has nothing to do with with the actual observer but everything to do with what universe the observer is in.</blockquote><br /><br />The universes are the same until the observer makes the observation. Then it creates a branch (supposedly).Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-10720906345927970882009-11-15T02:54:00.001+09:002009-11-15T02:54:36.762+09:00Addendum(In reference to Schroedinger's Cat)<br /><br />Mike:&nbsp;<br />In other words, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until<br />it is observed. Then it becomes one or the other. The act of observing<br />changes the state of the observed thing.<br><br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />Is it the external fact that our eyes have gazed upon that thing that changed it or is the internal subjective factor that us comprehending whatever we see that makes the cat dead or alive?<br /><br />Ah, I think I just thought of something. So this is about ...if the cat's quantum level were directly linked to his being alive or not ...and if we're talking about the observer changing the quantum level ...the if we look at the cat, that will determine its fate?&nbsp;<br /><br /><br />ALSO:<br /><br />Wouldn't it depend on which universe WE'RE in too? Not just the cat? In one universe the observer observes the cat alive and in one universe the observer observes the cat being dead. I feel like that has nothing to do with with the actual observer but everything to do with what universe the observer is in.&nbsp;<br /><br />Am I wrong?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-56021897716602326732009-11-15T02:45:00.001+09:002009-11-15T02:45:38.500+09:00A reply to Mike's replyThanks for the reply, Mike.&nbsp;<br /><br />So is the Schroedinger's Cat thing just a way to explain quantum mechanics? It's just a teaching tool, right? It's not really saying anything about a real cat being alive or dead in a box, right? The same thing with your coin analogy, right? If you consider universes branching off and shit I could see that the coin is both heads and tails when you take that into consideration but in the our universe isn't the coin one or the other?<br /><br /><br />Also, yeah, when anyone says that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang they're making a bold claim. It feels like, even if no one knew anything about quantum mechanics, they would still not know shit, I feel. It's just such an assertion without much proof to back it up. It's like an gross extrapolation of good some good science to the point that it's been extrapolated so much no one knows their ass from their elbow anymore.<br /><br /><br />And my last questions for now:<br /><br />How does observing it affect it? Why is an observer so important? If a dolphin or ant observed something, would the same thing happen as when a human did? Why would these things on a quantum level "choose" to act differently when being observed? How would they "know" they're being observed?<br />&nbsp;Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-89242659691331358042009-11-15T01:05:00.002+09:002009-11-15T01:23:30.505+09:00Free Will and Quantum MechanicsOn the level of the brain, neurons are firing constantly and there is a lot going on. Imagine that you had the universes most sophisticated computer. If you could simulate every particle exactly in a system surrounding a single person, you would in theory be able to predict what would happen to that person and what 'decisions' that person would make. If you believe this is true, you are a determinist. This is what people mean (I think) when they say that free will is an illusion: Everything is determined based on molecular interactions that are part of a long chain of events set in motion since the big bang over which we have no control.<br /><br />This is incorrect, however, because of quantum mechanics. On the quantum level, things are not predetermined. In fact, until they are observed or measured in some way, they aren't determined at all. It is because of this that I think the whole 'free will is an illusion' argument is bullshit.<br /><br />Consider the following as a metaphor for something on the quantum level.<br /><br />Let's say there is an event with two possible outcomes, like a coin toss. You throw the coin in the air and it lands in a bucket. Without looking at the coin, is it heads or tails?<br /><br />The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is saying that it is both (again, its a metaphor. It isn't actually both, but something on the quantum level would be). It is both heads and tails until someone looks into the bucket. The very act of observing the coin has the effect of making it either heads or tails. This is because when we measure things on the quantum level we affect them directly.<br /><br />Some people think that as soon as you look into the metaphorical bucket, there is a branch and two universes are formed. In one universe the coin is heads, and in another, the coin is tails. This theory says that everything that can happen, does happen in some universe.<br /><br />Please let me know if I got something wrong here or if you have any more questions.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-30871317196094847862009-11-14T16:24:00.001+09:002009-11-14T16:24:24.893+09:00Free WillThere's a lot of talk about the nature of free will as it pertains to quantum mechanics, etc.&nbsp;<br /><br />If the universe is causally closed then there is no free will. Determinism reigns.<br /><br />If quantum mechanics randomness is true, then indeterminism rules.&nbsp;<br /><br /><br />The thing is...so ...what is the thought process here? What does this have to do with our brains directly? Let me try to point out the timeline. So there's a bunch of tiny particles coming together either randomly or not and you have to take into account things happening on the quantum level. Then there's the particles that make up our brains. However, what do these particles have to do with our choices in the world? These particles don't have a mind of their own. It's kind of a sum is greater than the parts type of thing, isn't it?&nbsp;<br /><br />What in the living fuck do these random particles coming together in a causally closed world have ANYTHING to do with me deciding to have cheese on my hamburger or not? I really do not get this whole free will discourse in the slightest. Do you think that I just have the illusion of free will? What does "causally closed universe" have anything to do with my personal preferences and tastes? Sure, I'm human and I prefer eating beef to eating coral and perhaps the universe "decided" that preference for me but other than that, what does all this talk of free will and its non-existence have to do with me choosing to do what I want? I often feel like I'm choosing to do what I want. Is the "what I want" part the thing that's "causally closed" ? Someone please explain this to me.&nbsp;<br /><br />If you don't believe in free will but then all of a sudden got it what in the fuck would you do differently from now?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-9638317543478176572009-11-14T15:57:00.001+09:002009-11-14T15:57:37.039+09:00Schroedinger's CatHow do we go from not knowing something to a cat being in a state of quantum superposition?&nbsp;<br /><br /><br />Just because I haven't observed something doesn't make it alive or dead. It just makes me unaware of it. My observance on things isn't in and of itself a kind of god. I don't get this at all.&nbsp;Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-65345976726029749952009-11-09T14:12:00.002+09:002009-11-09T15:20:45.121+09:00My QuestionsSomebody help me out.<br /><br />1.) Why is going faster than light impossible? There's no work-around?<br /><br /><br />2.) How exactly could there be other universes? How does that work?<br /><br />3.) When they explain M-Theory on documentaries, they also show these sheets rippling and these sheets represent different universes. I just want to know what is that space in between the sheets? Is that the intergalactic medium again? Some sort of hyperspace medium void thing? What is that supposed to be?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-1792519334365619672009-11-07T13:53:00.001+09:002009-11-07T13:53:54.779+09:00Martian LandscapesThese are incredible.<br /><br />http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/martian_landscapes.htmlMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.com0