Wednesday, June 26, 2024

The Missing Law of Physics?

Excerpts from video above:
...We could be wrong. We could be spectacularly wrong. But it's also possible that science is missing a profound truth about the cosmos. We have these 10 or so laws of nature, only one of which currently has an arrow of time. That's the second law of thermodynamics, the increase in entropy-it's disorder; it's decay. We all grow old. We all die. But the second law doesn't explain why things evolve; why life emerges from non-life. You look around, and you see flowers bloom and trees blossom and birds sing. It seems like all of those things are counter to the idea of disorder. In fact, it's a kind of ordering of nature.

So let me tell you what we think: We think there's a missing law, a second arrow of time that describes this increase in order, and we think has to do with an increase in information.

So there's two possibilities. We could just be wrong. We could be terribly wrong, dramatically wrong. But I think, if we're wrong, we're wrong in a very interesting way. And I think, if we're right, it's profoundly important.

I'm Bob Hazen. I'm a Staff Scientist at the Earth and Planets Laboratory of Carnegie Science in Washington, D.C. I do mineralogy, astrobiology. I love science.

We think that, for some reason, there's been missing a second arrow of time. And that arrow has to do with an increase of information, an increase in order, an increase of patterning that goes side by side with the arrow of increasing disorder and increasing chaos, entropy.

The core of everything we've been thinking about, in terms of the missing law, is evolution. When I say the word "evolution," you immediately think of Darwin, but this idea of selection goes much, much beyond Darwin and life. It applies to the evolution of atoms. It applies to the evolution of minerals. It applies to the evolution of planets and atmospheres and oceans. Evolution, which we see as being an increase in diversity, of patterning, in complexity of systems through time.
 
And so the question is, "Well, what is evolution?" Evolution is simply "selection for function." And this applies to every kind of system.

Now, in life, you select for organisms that can survive long enough that they can reproduce and have offspring that will pass on their characteristics. That's what Darwin said, and that's one very important example of selection for function.

But, in the mineral world, you select for organizations, of assemblies, of structures of atoms that persist, that can last billions of years even in new environments. They don't break down. They don't dissolve. They don't weather away. It's very analogous to biological evolution, but it's different in detail. We think there's a missing law- it's a law of evolution.

And, if there is a law, it has to be quantitative. It has to have a metric. You have to be able to measure something. And what we've zeroed in on is a fascinating concept about information, but not just information in general, something called 'functional information.'

Let me see if I can explain this to you 'cause it took me a while to figure it out myself. Imagine a system, an evolving system that has the potential to form vast numbers of different configurations. Let's say they're atoms to make minerals, and you have dozens of different mineral-forming elements, and they can arrange themselves in all different ways. And 99.99999999- I can keep going- percent of those configurations won't work. They will fall apart. They'll never form. A tiny, tiny fraction makes a stable mineral, and you end up with a few stable minerals and lots of rejects.

Now, all you need to do is think about that fraction. If it's one in a hundred trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion possibilities that's stable, then you can represent that fraction as information. And because it's such a tiny, tiny fraction, you need a lot of bits of information to do that- that's functional information.

Evolution is simply an increase in functional information because, as you select for better and better outcomes, you select for minerals that are more and more stable. You select for living things that can swim. They can fly. They can see. You need more information, and each step of the evolutionary ladder leads you to increasing functional information.

So, our law, our missing law, the second arrow of time is called the 'Law of increasing functional information.' And that's the parallel arrow of time that we think is out there that we want to understand.
---

...So think about this: We're saying that the coffee cup has value as a coffee cup. It has some value as a paperweight, but it has no value as a screwdriver- that's contextual.

So this is why the second arrow of time is difficult for science because it's saying there's something in the natural world that is not absolute. It's contextual. It depends on what your purpose is. It depends on what your function is.

If it's true, what we're saying is there's something in the Universe that is increasing order, it's increasing complexity, and it isn't doing this in a random way. It's selecting for function.

And if it is, if you're selecting for function, it means that there almost seems to be, can I use the word "purpose?"

Do minerals have a purpose? Do atmospheres have a purpose? Does life have a purpose?

To me, there's something real there, and the old way of thinking of a single arrow of time no longer rings true to me.

Sounds like "hindsight" relative to an observer to me, just as Entropy is a "foresight".  Epimetheus/ Prometheus, all "Science" narratives and myths (like wave-particle duality in the slit experiment) involving "time" are relative to an "observer" and his sensory "instruments". 

210 comments:

  1. BS.

    In my school textbook it was explained -- how thermodynamics works.

    If you'll turn upside down basket with ping-pong balls -- they'll scatter all around (or... open can of worms ;-P).

    And you'd need a lot of time and effort -- to collect em all back.

    And... you'd never be able to do it EXACTLY same way as they was before, in that basket.

    Yawn.



    As to "increase of complexity" -- that is an illusion.

    That exist solely because of thermodynamics laws being NON-LINEAR.

    Go look into


    Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction
    Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › B...
    A Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, or BZ reaction, is one of a class of reactions that serve as a classical example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, ...
    ‎Briggs–Rauscher reaction · ‎Boris Belousov (chemist) · ‎Non-equilibrium




    PS Well... that is relatively new information (though exist for several decades)... so, there is no surprise that you not know it.

    But... that is EXACTLY the case of "Ancient Wisdoms grow imprecise and even OUTDATED... with time".



    ReplyDelete
  2. You cannot step into the same river twice, but that doesn't mean that the river has no "form" determined by its "context" (the land forms around it). It serves no "function" but to channel the rainwater that falls, and continue the gravitational potential energy diminishment process by allowing it to seek its' lowest energy state (equillibrium) in an ocean or lake. Its' aggregational form (river) is purely local and contextual.

    ReplyDelete
  3. \\You cannot step into the same river twice, but that doesn't mean that the river has no "form" determined by its "context" (the land forms around it).

    Is there a reason to talk/think about it even? Yawn.

    We -- cannot control that context (until... NEW tech? ;-))




    \\ It serves no "function" but to channel the rainwater that falls, and continue the gravitational potential energy diminishment process by allowing it to seek its' lowest energy state (equillibrium) in an ocean or lake.

    Yap.

    You perfectly capable to perceive and attest the river...

    but still far away from seeing and understanding... cloud. ;-)

    But...

    cloud do fill that river. With a raindrops.

    It collected in itself... when was formed far-far-away.

    In an eternal(?) NON-LINEAR process. ;-)




    \\Its' aggregational form (river) is purely local and contextual.

    That is just a map... not territory. ;-)

    Just a pale shadow on a cave's wall.

    Not THING itself.

    Just a bones of late dead corps... not a living flesh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://essaygpt.hix.ai/essay-topics/greek-mythology

    And. ;-P

    https://essaygpt.hix.ai/essay-topics/philosophical-theories

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cosmic rays didn't seed Aristophanes "Clouds". The were more akin to the "crowds" in the Athenian agora. ;P

    ReplyDelete
  6. \\Cosmic rays didn't seed Aristophanes "Clouds".

    And how'd you know? ;-P

    Cosmic rays from galaxy Far-Far-Away did hit microtubes in brains of that Ancient Greeks... and made em do what they did. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I guess we need your "tech" to investigate and find out, then...

    ReplyDelete
  8. As for me, I don't need an object (commodity) fetish to serve as a stand-in for the pursuit of social relations. I offer my "right opinions" on social matters, gratis, the "meta-modern' internet psycho-politics sales way

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...for the agora and face-to-face marketing has all but disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...I guess it beats prancing amongst the stoa with the stoics, Peripatetically. Perhaps nothing beats a Kantian stroll or Rousseauian reverie like sitting my fat ass on a couch and typing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe the psychogeography of a de'rive can inspire the nobler sort of thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A journey beyond the torii, beyond the mundane and into the sacred to observe and contemplate the shintai (not your tech).

    ReplyDelete
  13. \\I guess we need your "tech" to investigate and find out, then...

    B-)



    \\...for the agora and face-to-face marketing has all but disappeared.

    Yeah... guerilla marketing do not exist... ;-P

    you better believe that, for it to work flawlessly.



    \\A journey beyond the torii, beyond the mundane and into the sacred to observe and contemplate the shintai (not your tech).

    They have shit kami. ;-P

    So, be advised. ;-)



    ReplyDelete
  14. Do you think I shitting you? ;-P


    KAWAYA-NO-KAMI
    Shinto Toilet Deities

    Also known as Kawaya-Kami, Mawaya-No-Kami
    Extremely hygenic toilet deities

    These are very busy Kami who deal with toilets and the associated bodily functions. If you are having trouble with your plumbing, give them a call.

    According to legend, the Kawaya-no-Kami were born from the bodily wastes of creator gods Izanagi and Izanami, which fell down to Earth with a cosmic splat. You’d better believe that deities poop — and their holy excrement can produce miracles.

    The Kawaya-no-Kami also look after gynecological diseases, optical care and dentistry. We just hope they scrub up first.

    https://www.godchecker.com/japanese-mythology/KAWAYA-NO-KAMI/

    ReplyDelete
  15. \\PS - the Beckett post has Russian subtitles. ;P

    ???

    ReplyDelete
  16. Early Romans were an agrarian civilization and, functionally, most of their original pantheon of gods — as against the later ones they adapted to Greek stereotypes — were of a rural nature with figures such as Pomona, Ceres, Flora, Dea Dia; so it was apt to have a god supervising the basics of organic fertilization. Sterquilinus essentially taught the use of manure in agricultural processes. He was not the sole deity of feces on its own; as in, sewage.

    Modern writers later elaborated upon and exaggerated the significance of Sterquilinus/Sterculius and other "earthy" deities of antiquity, sometimes with moralistic disapproval. One editor of An Encyclopædia of Plants, published in 1836, related that

    Sterculius was the god of the privy, from stercus, excrement. It has been well observed by a French author, that the Romans, in the madness of paganism, finished by deifying the most immodest objects and the most disgusting actions. They had the gods Sterculius, Crepitus, Priapus; and the goddesses Caca, Pertunda, &c, &c.[4]


    Closed Captioned for the English impaired. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...&c, &c.[4]

    I... will use it. :-)



    Well... that is stories of ancient times... and what I mentiuoned -- actual thing. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, but the actual thing, the objet petit 'a, has the habit of constantly metamorphosising. :(

    ReplyDelete
  19. petit'a??? Pile of shit? %^))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  20. Object cause of desire... but from stomach, smell, excessive heat, which "cause"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. For a scarab? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  22. Aristophanes "dung beetle" from "Peace"?

    Peace, comedy by Aristophanes, performed at the Great Dionysia in 421 bce. The plot concerns the flight to heaven on a monstrous dung beetle by a war-weary farmer, Trygaeus (“Vintager”), who searches for the lost goddess Peace only to discover that the God of War has buried her in a pit.

    Yep, sounds about right.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Still... only related to shit... not shit itself.

    Well, Japanese used it as fertilizer, instead of manure.

    Means, what you depend on -- looks more sacred. (and DEMNs looks like depend on Bi-den)

    ReplyDelete
  24. The soil and plants slowly absorb manure because it's insoluble in water. Fertilizers dissolve quickly in water and boost plants almost instantly.

    You can only use what you have... in the water-filled rice paddies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well... dRump's do not look any more yummy. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  26. BTW... Russians talk about USA with a glee... and compare it with times of demise of USSR...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well... talks like about inflation and responsibility for it of any POTUS -- is BS by itself.

    Technically, ANY POTUS can down it to 0% or even below. ;-P

    But... same time all economy will go... South(that is the saying).

    So... it always are trade-offs: between rate of inflation, soundness of economy and people's perceptions of well-being... damn nightmarish equation in itself.

    Especially, as many parts of it -- even not formalized, not formalizable.

    And there is big extent of all kinds of "surprises" (like COVID or RFia's war).

    That's why that all babbling about Climate Change and how it all scientifical --- is utter buffony.

    But... there is No One who'd made step forward and admit "We Totally and Utterly DUNNO what we are doing". :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    So... it all endlless "Emperor's New Clothes"... not exactly feiry-like tale. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  28. \\It's EXACTLY like the fall of the USSR.

    Naaah. :-))))))))))))))))))))

    That's their wet dreams. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  29. So you're right, Trump is not something "more yummy". He's a hammer to be used to smash the current political idols.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ...until "alchemy" in politics is banished. And a rule OF law, not a rule BY law, returns.

    ReplyDelete
  31. “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
    ― Tacitus, "The Annals of Imperial Rome"

    Tacitus: Origin:Latin. Other Origin(s):Roman. Meaning:Silent, mute. Tacitus is a boy's name. Name of a famous Roman historian (100 AD)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ever watch or play the game "Jeopardy". The correct "questions" always derive from their double-clued answer. The contestant must guess the question, from the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  33. \\ He's a hammer to be used to smash the current political idols.

    If you are sure that limp dick is perfect tool for a virgin penetration.

    Yawn.



    \\...to be smashed again, in turn.

    There... could be problems...




    \\...until "alchemy" in politics is banished. And a rule OF law, not a rule BY law, returns.

    Those who like sosages and honor laws...

    There is an old saying attributed to Prince Bismarck that “to retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.” The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations has the epigram listed in the Misquotations section because of its flawed association with Bismarck [ODQB]:Jul 8, 2010

    Laws are Like Sausages. Better Not to See Them Being Made
    Quote Investigator
    https://quoteinvestigator.com › 2010/07/08 › laws-sausages




    \\...laws being Kantian "categorical imperatives".

    %-)))

    But there are good sci-fi story on it.

    About Three Laws of Robotechnics.

    That some dumb dude decided that Just Three is not enough -- so he started teaching his robots new and new ones... until that robot killed him.

    And when investigating detective came and started questioning him/it: "but what about robotic law Do Not Kill Humans???", that answered "ah??? was there such law? which number of em? 1001th??? 10.068th?" ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  34. ...only because the guarantor of any Law is always its' exception.

    ReplyDelete
  35. That's just because calling human's laws -- laws, is misnomer. ;-p

    ReplyDelete
  36. You'd prefer "coercions"? The point of calling it a "law" is to make it something you WANT to obey, not be reminded of the force that will be applied if you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Is it?

    What can make WANT to pay taxes?

    Or WANT to go to jail?

    ReplyDelete
  38. People either understand Reality... or, they do not.

    And then, it need some fixes applied.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete

  39. The Gods Must Be Crazy - A comedy movie - video Dailymotion
    Dailymotion
    https://www.dailymotion.com › video
    1:49:05
    The God Must Be Crazy 2. Funny Scene of Ostrich in daily motion. HBT MOVIES SHORT · 1:48 ...
    Dailymotion · Share Everything · Oct 11, 2023


    Exemplified that case in its entirety. IMHO.

    But... only in a movie that can be highlighted as such a lighthearted and funny INDIVIDUAL case...

    while our life CONSIST of it, entierly.

    Sigh.

    To the level becoming patches over patches.

    Until becoming "Teseus ship".

    Yawn.

    Like in that experiment with monkeys...

    ReplyDelete
  40. And for what you need empathy?

    It all depend on your goal.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Psychopaths make great soldiers... cuz who wants to show empathy for schmucks trapped in a tank when the magazine is breached and all the stored rounds start cooking off? Reminds me of the Vietnam days before they stopped using tanks altogether cuz it was nasty work washing out the burnt human remains with firehoses. Bad for morale, anyways of the still possessing "empathy" and therefore susceptible to future PTSD.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Naaaah. That's just wrong motivation.

    Yawn.

    See, like Derpy -- he have RIGHT motivation.

    And see No Prob in "bad" people punished/murdered.

    That's just losy propaganda/brainwashing.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "
    These ideas evoke comparisons to Orwell, and to the British novelist’s famous depiction of Stalinism in 1984 (1949). But in his letters to Kandel, Lem claimed that Orwell had gotten Stalinism wrong. Whereas Orwell described his dystopian regime as “a boot stamping on a human face — forever,” Lem argued that communist oppression was not a sadistic evil pursued for its own sake but a natural result of turning state ideology into dogma. Similarly, Lem critiqued Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism, writing that “she made out these systems to be fruit of strictly intentional evil.” Rather, he writes, “Stalin’s times concocted a myth, never concretely or cogently expressed, of the state as a machine that was not only perfect, but also omniscient and omnipotent.” For Lem, the tragic consequences weren’t the result of premeditated cruelty, but the logical outcome of turning politics into faith.
    "

    Well... he was inherently a city dweller... and did not understand -- that that is just a traditional society behavioral quirks. "Our shaman TOLD us... that mean we need obey... without thinking". Well... that "without thinking" is my/late addition -- traditional society DUNNO what thinking is (that's why your tries with Derpy is useless -- it's not possible to find thinking there where it none -- ubi nihil nihil -- "where is nothing, there is nothing") ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  44. Do you rednecks or hillbillies have a PTSD from cutting neck of a rooster? ;-P

    Beheading turkey for a Thanks-Giving? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's why peasants become good soldiers. ;-P

    Proved in all wars... since primordial times.

    ReplyDelete
  46. That's the reason of abundance of PTSD in USA army -- to many city dwellers. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  47. I don't disagree with your diagnosis. I'm was an avid hunter/ fisherman in my youth. The first few "guttings" made me queesy. The first few game "sightings" gave me "buck fever". I eventually got over them. But city people? They NEVER get over them. It's the urban-rural divide. Urban centralization vs rural self-reliance.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In the USA the cities all vote "democrat" and the counties all vote "republican". The problem with our democracy today is that there are more people in the cities now.

    ReplyDelete
  49. In Plato's "Laws", the Athenian Stanger divides the lands of the Republic of Magnesia into non-transferable (except to descendants) plots that give every citizen both a "city" lot, and a "country" lot, and the citizens must live between the two (where population is 'fixed' and must not grow).

    ReplyDelete
  50. \\The problem with our democracy today is that there are more people in the cities now.

    Naaah. That is sole reason USA have democracy.

    Two more-less equal, but differ social bodies.

    That's my own thought on what democracy is... feel free to criticize. Or dismiss. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  51. In respect to (such?) democracy? No.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Every system of "authority" and/or "government" requires a "noble lie" to sustain it. In every "Republic" of Plato, you must "discover" the noble lie upon which it built. In the Republic it was "luxury" and the lie was that there were people who would could be brainwashed into not wanting it (the Guardians... Philosopher Kings). But the brainwashing breaks down. So you separate "powers" which works until the "powers" get un-separated.

    So I admire the "middle"... the period of a Republic's "peacetime"... when it is no longer at war with itself. Unfortunately I live in America's end times, where the cycle must be renewed.

    ReplyDelete
  53. \\Again, you know my position. Meden agan.

    It is... meaningless. Dynamic Equilibrium.(tm)

    Middle-ground Fallacy.

    Imagine yourself in NewYork. Their street full of cars going here and there. Crowdy pedastrain paths. And skyscreppers on the sides of it.

    Your "Meden Agan" -- where it is in such setup???

    In the middle of that street??? In-between cars going here and there???

    That is not only unstable, unsafe and unwise... that is bona fide CRIMINAL, to stay there... for too long. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  54. \\ Every system of "authority" and/or "government" requires a "noble lie" to sustain it.

    White Lies???

    We EXIST because we are proficient in it.

    Telling em to others. Telling it to ourself.

    Yawn.

    Like that telling to our children -- that there is Santa.




    \\In every "Republic" of Plato, you must "discover" the noble lie upon which it built. In the Republic it was "luxury" and the lie was that there were people who would could be brainwashed into not wanting it (the Guardians... Philosopher Kings).

    "Those who like sausages and honor laws... better not look into how made this and that" (c) ;-P



    \\But the brainwashing breaks down. So you separate "powers" which works until the "powers" get un-separated.

    Generational problem.

    Yawn.

    Have you a quarrel(or two) with your son? ;-)

    Well... yeah, you not. You are too DEMN civilized. ;-P



    \\So I admire the "middle"... the period of a Republic's "peacetime"... when it is no longer at war with itself. Unfortunately I live in America's end times, where the cycle must be renewed.

    Yep.

    With NEW tech. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  55. You know too well -- I am not equipped to discern such a feeble fuzzy subtle poetic differences.

    Sorry...

    ReplyDelete
  56. ???

    Language... it's common denominator, which allow to transmit only common sense things...

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, but the fun lies in the qui pro quo... the esoteric "misunderstandings". ;)

    ReplyDelete
  58. I like feeling of epiphany from understanding.

    And not understanding... can serve as good spicing out, as when something you fought hard to understand, suddenly became open and clear.

    But...

    ReplyDelete
  59. Or the difference between a "high culture" epiphany (Homer's "Odysse"y)... and a "low culture" one (like Joyce's "Dubliners").

    Your mind, momentarily distracted snaps into focus. "Eureka!" yelled the Syracusan!

    ReplyDelete
  60. ...out of the boredom/ tedium of concentrated study. Puts 2 and 2 together... and together again:

    courage:temperance::wisdom:justice

    ReplyDelete
  61. creating a line of flight between two concepts hidden in the information rhyzome.

    ReplyDelete
  62. \\Your mind, momentarily distracted snaps into focus. "Eureka!" yelled the Syracusan!

    So, what was the question, again? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Medes were "Persians", weren't they? They were in the Cyropaedia of Xenophon, anyways. In Syracuse? Who knows what an arch-medes is?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Got any more Rorschach tests I can free-associate on?

    ReplyDelete
  65. OK, Google "meme 42 is the answer" ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  66. As well as pretty much EVERY good piece of sci-fi. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Definitely worth the wait...

    As for me, I would have likely pulled the plug, and restarted.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To not know THE QUESTION? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  69. Cuz like HAS no meaning, but that of which you make of it in HINDSIGHT. ;p

    ReplyDelete
  70. ...Epimetheus blurted out.

    Prometheus, bound to the rocks by Kratos and Bia, patiently awaited the eagle to arrive, and daily eat out his liver...

    ReplyDelete
  71. \\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

    \\ To ask the right one.


    OK, Google. "meme 42 explained"

    Well... there you can read lots of non-answers. ;-P

    Merely. It is a gnoseological paradox -- centered on what "understanding" is.

    Do you really understand thing(s)... if you know The Answer??? Ready-made. Provided to you free of charge. Without your mind involved.

    Or... better if that is result of your OWN researches and thoughts about.

    Another word -- are you Pythagoras... or you just a schoolboy? ;-)





    ReplyDelete
  72. \\...are you my Eagle, Q?

    I am?

    I am Deamon AKA Demonstrator of Dementions ;-P

    PS If I remember correctly, it explained in the beginning of the first book... or that was second? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  73. Nietzsche was a philologist before becoming a philosopher. :)

    A philologist is someone who studies the history of languages, especially by looking closely at literature. If you're fascinated with the way English has changed over time, from Beowulf to Beloved, you might want to become a philologist. Linguistics is the study of language, and a philologist is a type of linguist.

    So I guess I'm just a schoolboy. :)

    ReplyDelete
  74. If you DO NOT like to build up knowledge...

    it seems -- you are.

    ReplyDelete
  75. At least I didn't come to "buy and sell". I came to watch the Info Games, not Compete. :P

    ReplyDelete
  76. All I bring to the games is a twisted sense of humour. :)

    ReplyDelete
  77. ...garnered and honed as one who has sailed on a ship of fools for far too long.

    ReplyDelete
  78. \\All I bring to the games is a twisted sense of humour. :)

    Well... I would like to see it... that humor, applyed to a (computer) game. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  79. ""
    Theexampleisgivenoftwoidenticalpenswhichinthemacro-worldonecandistinguishbyvirtueoftheirdifferentspatiallocations.Iftheywerebothputinaboxwhichisthenclosedandshakenabout,itwillthennolongerbepossibletore-identifywhichpeniswhich.
    ""

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  80. ""
    Bohracceptedthatthereweresomefundamentallimitsonourknowledgeofthequantumworld,(suchasthequantumofaction)whichasamatterofprincipleweareunabletoovercome.Einsteinneveracceptedthoselimits,butwasneverabletoshowhowtogetaroundthem.
    ""

    ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  81. Well... I would like to see it... that humor, applyed to a (computer) game. ;-P

    That's what my son does at Zenimax. He develops the NPC monster encounter dialogues.

    ReplyDelete
  82. ...and talking "past" one another, as with Einstein and Bohr, is unfortunately how we preserve our ego's, and don't "fade away into the ether".

    ReplyDelete
  83. \\That's what my son does at Zenimax. He develops the NPC monster encounter dialogues.

    Naaaah.

    As I was saying, I'm strategy-guy. Sigh.

    There is lots of flavors: RPG, RTS, shooters and runners... bleh, farming games. ;-P




    \\...and talking "past" one another, as with Einstein and Bohr, is unfortunately how we preserve our ego's, and don't "fade away into the ether".

    Naaah... we just have not enough brain-power... or just a skill/method.

    To do as in "There is nothing simpler then time".

    Ehhm.


    Time Is the Simplest Thing (Collier Nucleus Fantasy & ...
    Amazon.com
    https://www.amazon.com › Simplest-Collier-Nucleus-Fan...
    Without setting foot on another planet, people like Shep Blaine were reaching out to the stars with their minds, telepathically contacting strange beings on ...

    Just to say "I eXchange my brain with you". ;-P

    See... sci-fi it's a shop fool of marvels. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  84. ...and meden agan doesn't mean "in the middle". It means "nothing too much". No "polemic ends". A glass of water is a needed refreshing drink. An OCEAN of water will make you drown. Meden agan. Nothing too much!

    ReplyDelete
  85. The Last Man fallacy:

    A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end for a pleasant death
    - Nietzsche, "Zarathustra"

    What does not kill me makes me stronger! 'Fk your "pleasantries".

    ReplyDelete
  86. \\ ...and meden agan doesn't mean "in the middle". It means "nothing too much".

    Whatever.

    Dynamic Equilibrium -- it is brawl of two opposing... forces?



    \\ An OCEAN of water will make you drown. Meden agan. Nothing too much!

    But... without that Ocean... there'd be NO clouds. And no rain. And therefore NO source to pour that glass with water from.

    Holistic View! ;-)




    \\Democracy? Meden agan! Dictatorship? Meden agan!

    What exist -- that exist.

    And.

    Ubi Nihil Nihil.

    And they -- do not intertwine. ;-P




    \\The Last Man fallacy:

    Ehhm???


    The last man argument was devised by Richard Sylvan (before 1983 Richard Routley) and was first published in Routley (1973). It is a thought experiment designed to show that the prevailing principles of the dominant Western ethical tradition are unable to provide a satisfactory basis for an environmental ethic.

    Last Man - HTML publications - William Grey - Weebly
    Weebly
    http://wgreyjournals.weebly.com › last-man



    Well... this World. Here and now.

    Works on Black Queen Wisdom: "Here we need to run, just to stay in place. To go somewhere, we need to run TWICE as fast".

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Zarathustra was published in 1883, 9-10 decades before your "lexicographers".

    ReplyDelete
  88. Here -- https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/who-tends-to-captain-picards-bromeliads-2/

    ""
    It is a natural inclination to view technology as an unfettered good, something that improves our lives. Of course, given a moment’s reflection, we all realize that is not the case. Technology is a tool, one that we use to fashion our environment in ways that suit us, ways that do not occur naturally. As a system in equilibrium, our environment becomes destabilized whenever we alter it for our own purposes. This may or may not be a good thing, but it does produce a simple choice: We can allow the system to reach a new equilibrium, or we can continue altering it to stay “ahead of the curve.” The former choice defeats the purpose of utilizing technology, while the latter tends to create a never-ending cycle of expending effort to control the disequilibrium.

    Empiricism, a cornerstone of liberal humanism, also seeks to manipulate the environment in order to divine knowledge. At its simplest level, empiricism requires the explorer to observe how outcomes are affected when independent variables are changed. Disequilibrium is a precondition for discovery. An advanced civilization that employs technology to better the lives of its members will never achieve stability, save perhaps the stability of always recovering from destabilizing forces. These forces may be as innocuous as growth, providing benefits until there are no longer resources available to feed the system. However, they can also be destructive, as with the case of climate change or nuclear proliferation. Medical advances can lead to secondary problems like geriatric ailments, or something more sinister like biowarfare. At some level, our technological society is in a constant state of flux.
    ""

    Directly about point where our views clashing.

    But... though author talks in MY vocabulary, while sharing YOUR views.

    He... making mistake -- we, Humans, dunno how to reduce it to equilibrium.

    We... just don't get it. And hardly have power for that.

    Well... my idea, my tech... CAN give us such power, though...

    ReplyDelete
  89. :P

    Your tech is able to determine the meden agan of every circumstance? Amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  90. ...and it does so without "dying" in the process? No more "Game Over", man!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    I think we both know where our "love" lies.

    ReplyDelete
  92. \\Your tech is able to determine the meden agan of every circumstance? Amazing!

    Naaah. It gives tools to test equilibrium per-requisites... as well as tools to preserve it...

    What to do next -- is up to people.



    \\...and it does so without "dying" in the process? No more "Game Over", man!

    Well... here you got me.

    World Without Death... that is what my tech hardly capable.

    But, Wait... Universe itself hardly capable to do that (you know, thermodynamic death of Universe)

    ReplyDelete
  93. \\Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    \\I think we both know where our "love" lies.

    Whatever.

    You can love unexisting thing. As much as you like.

    Truth is -- our World is OUT of equilibrium -- Koyaisquatsi, remember...

    So... UNTIL it'll settle on its own (with post-nucealr appo?),

    you'd have your LOVE only in your dreams.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  94. You can trust in the fact that man will kill himself, and then the planet will restore the lost equilibrium, or find another.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Or... you can try to HELP it... to settle into some equilibrium.

    And... to best of my (miserly, yeah) abilities... you (or anybody else) could have ability -- with my tech (only?).

    ReplyDelete
  96. \\You can trust in the fact that man will kill himself, and then the planet will restore the lost equilibrium, or find another.

    All 8 billions???

    Yawn.

    I have NO doubt in human idiocy.

    But... very doubt... having abilities to accomplish that... (because that same idiocy?).

    Destruction -- need proficiency and creativity TOO... maybe, even more then Creation.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Just look at RFia stumbling in Ukraine...

    Or... USA... in all previous conflicts.

    Naaaah... inapt.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  98. A bi-polar or multi-polar equilibrium is much more stable over the long run than a unipolar one...

    ReplyDelete
  99. \\A bi-polar or multi-polar equilibrium is much more stable over the long run than a unipolar one...

    WUT??? %^)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    ReplyDelete
  100. Every equilibrium it's a clash of TWO opposing similar in power forces.

    Any other setup... is borderline of chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Chaos isn't stable in its' fractalized state?

    Yes, two variables are easier to "calculate" than three.

    But I'm not concerned with calcualability.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Do dynamic equilibrium "stable"?

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  103. The Universe is unstable? When, 16 billion years ago @ the moment of the Big Bang?

    ReplyDelete
  104. It looks stable (except for Beteulguise) now. That Supernova will take about 700 years to reach us.

    ReplyDelete
  105. \\The Universe is unstable? When, 16 billion years ago @ the moment of the Big Bang?

    Quantum foam.

    Yawn.

    If you call that "stability". I'm... speechless.




    \\It looks stable (except for Beteulguise) now.

    Microbe on a speck of dust in the middle of a vortex... think its stable too.

    Yawn.

    We just too small and too insignificant... that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The "forms" seem stable. Stars. Planets. Galaxies. Clusters. Moons.

    ...but they move... often in eliptical patters.

    *tsk-tsk*

    ReplyDelete
  107. A stable vortex? Like a tornado? Remember "vorticism"? I do.

    ReplyDelete
  108. \\The "forms" seem stable. Stars. Planets. Galaxies. Clusters. Moons.

    Yeah... because "We just too small and too insignificant".

    There is bacteria... in our mouth for example.

    When we chew -- isn't it a mess.

    But, from their perspective -- nothing can be more stable and cosy, isn't it? ;-P



    ReplyDelete
  109. Indeed! :)

    Wyndham Lewis is my Joe Conservative avatar. Vorticist exceptionale...

    ReplyDelete
  110. Ha-ha... yet one time someone telling to DiBi that it NOT even nearly that smart as it likes to be sleezed to be by sycophants. :-))))))))))))))))))0

    Will reaction be pre-dick-table? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  111. Ha-ha... it is know a time to place bets on how soon ban is? ;-P


    Blogger Lena said...

    The harem hypothesis is neither the only nor the most well-supported explanation for the Y-Chromosome bottleneck.

    I take it you won't even bother to read if it doesn't confirm your belief?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Oh...

    \\So the May numbers were off by ~25%, and the April numbers were off by ~53%...

    You thought that blind to facts morons would react to that????

    And when only you'd understand -- it's not possible to sway magical thinkers... with facts. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  113. \\Blogger Joe Conservative said...

    \\ Wisdom and compassion does lead to fearlessness.

    Same old problem with that "wisdoms of past... they tend to grow inacurate and even outdated... with time".

    Like here -- it DO NOT provide any good additional in-depth view of it.

    Like that, that compassion -- need PREVIOUS experience of similar hardships... to work.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Compassion is simply the reaction of the mirror neurons. And you're right, it doesn't work if you never "saw" it. It's why censors censor.

    /The harem hypothesis is neither the only nor the most well-supported explanation for the Y-Chromosome bottleneck.
    I take it you won't even bother to read if it doesn't confirm your belief?


    How does this conflict with my beliefs? Man is a horde animal, not a herd animal. It explains everything. Why are women "hypergamous"? Why do lions form prides? Hippos a "beachmaster"?

    Read it (blogger Lena) where?

    ReplyDelete
  115. \\Compassion is simply the reaction of the mirror neurons.

    YAP!

    But for them two react (even to my miserly knowledge of neuroscience) there for at least TWO pre-requisites:

    1) they need to "know" PATTERN to react too... (like, know how it -- to be hungry, to empathise with those who starwing)

    2) have good potential among OTHER neurons... for that urge to find some real world manifestation, and not just to be thwarted.




    \\How does this conflict with my beliefs? Man is a horde animal, not a herd animal. It explains everything. Why are women "hypergamous"? Why do lions form prides? Hippos a "beachmaster"?

    \\Read it (blogger Lena) where?

    Eeehm??? In DiBi's last blog?

    davidbrin.blogspot.com


    Well. That is all so dumb... it all in regard to Y-chromosome (because ALL other shared EQUALLY between males and females).

    And harems -- they are benefitial for FEMALES exactly -- their progeny to have better chances and better standing.

    While for "male prosperity and proliferation" DiBi's style -- total promiscuity is much better.

    Wandering alpha-cheater -- who like Don Juan would found sympathy of every woman he have met -- would allow him to spread his (miserly Y chromosome) as wide as possible.

    While eliminating concurrents.


    And. Bare math -- Y chromosome (well, same as all other chromosomes) -- self-eliminates.

    As... let's assume there is NO wars, diseases and other calamities...

    all males have their respective females. And couple of kids.

    Exactly 25% of times -- there'd be two dauthers -- which would eliminate their father male bloodline. ;-P

    Repeat it 100? 1000? generation and what you'd have??? Y-chromosome "bottleneck"? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  116. Crap!

    What it disliked this time???

    ReplyDelete
  117. 2 children is a recent phenomenon. Ask Thomas Malthus

    See? Old knowledge can be quite useful.

    So why did 2 kids become 'normalized'? Hypergamy ascendant. Women didn't choose men to gain an environment favorable for raising children. They did it to gain an environment favorable to gaining luxury and status for THEMSELVES.

    ReplyDelete
  118. ps - I don't go to DiBi's blog. I have no interest in anything he has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  119. btw - Monogamy is a "tech" to overcome the "bottleneck" problem. Islam is a "tech" to overcome the population in war "alliance" problem. They're only "exogamous" in wartime. Ever read Eripides "Andromache"? It's the argument for Western monogamy.

    ReplyDelete
  120. It's a "capstone" to the "Iliad", Helen of troy exogamy example.

    ReplyDelete
  121. \\2 children is a recent phenomenon. Ask Thomas Malthus

    \\See? Old knowledge can be quite useful.

    Whatever.

    I just simplified it for brevety.



    \\Women didn't choose men to gain an environment favorable for raising children. They did it to gain an environment favorable to gaining luxury and status for THEMSELVES.

    As ever. Go Google "sex in exchange for food".





    \\ps - I don't go to DiBi's blog. I have no interest in anything he has to say.

    Still... interesting social dynamics there... and sometime, people which ACTUALLY able to say something smart.

    In all my wandering... rare thing.



    But you like other types of rarety? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  122. Aeschylus, "The Suppliant Maidens". Great contrast between endogamy and exogamy. East vs West.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Hah... so, how'd you OVERtroll THIS troll? ;-P

    ""
    And you still haven't even opened the book. Almost every day I hear science deniers claim that all scientists do is make up stories, cherry pick evidence, and ignore anything that doesn't support their narrative. Sure, some are that bad, but they usually get weeded out by the peer review process. What they are describing is how politicians work, and more often than not, they're projecting.

    Are you willing to look at a whole lot of facts that show that your narrative is overly simplistic, or are you going to do exactly what the science deniers say you will do?

    Paul SB
    ""


    ReplyDelete
  124. ""
    Then logic is pretty simplistic. If rich people are rich because they are superior, then poor people are poor because they are inferior. Therefore it is unfair and unnatural to tax rich people to support poor people. You hear this as a mantra from conservatives. Poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. No matter how much money or education you give them, they won't do anything good with it. They'll just spend the money on drugs and booze and prostitutes.
    ""

    Conservatism? YOUR conservatism? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  125. Heh... what's NOW???


    Then logic is pretty simplistic. If rich people are rich because they are superior, then poor people are poor because they are inferior. Therefore it is unfair and unnatural to tax rich people to support poor people. You hear this as a mantra from conservatives. Poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. No matter how much money or education you give them, they won't do anything good with it. They'll just spend the money on dr_u_gs and b_o_oze and pro_s_titutes.

    ReplyDelete
  126. /Hah... so, how'd you OVERtroll THIS troll? ;-P
    ""
    And you still haven't even opened the book. Almost every day I hear science deniers claim that all scientists do is make up stories, cherry pick evidence, and ignore anything that doesn't support their narrative. Sure, some are that bad, but they usually get weeded out by the peer review process. What they are describing is how politicians work, and more often than not, they're projecting.
    Are you willing to look at a whole lot of facts that show that your narrative is overly simplistic, or are you going to do exactly what the science deniers say you will do?
    Paul SB
    ""


    Easy... call him names. Measure dicks. 30 years at NASA building climate satellites, et al, is a pretty big dick. There's a lot of politics built into the science.


    /""
    Then logic is pretty simplistic. If rich people are rich because they are superior, then poor people are poor because they are inferior. Therefore it is unfair and unnatural to tax rich people to support poor people. You hear this as a mantra from conservatives. Poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. No matter how much money or education you give them, they won't do anything good with it. They'll just spend the money on drugs and booze and prostitutes.
    ""
    /Conservatism? YOUR conservatism? ;-P


    Nope, I mostly blame the system for people being poor (like the residents of Sand Town in Baltimore), unless they are totally worthless f*cks (drug addicts). I do believe that there are "deserving" and "non-deserving" poor. People are increasing falling into the deserving category.

    /Heh... what's NOW???

    Still trying to figure out that dumb spam-bot? Don't worry, I'll eventually did it out of the spam folder. I check it more often now.

    ReplyDelete
  127. \\Easy... call him names. Measure dicks. 30 years at NASA building climate satellites, et al, is a pretty big dick. There's a lot of politics built into the science.

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    troll grin




    \\Still trying to figure out that dumb spam-bot?

    Well... I figured it already. Yawn.

    DEMN-approach -- to elimiminate problem through censuring out words (with "_"s)

    ReplyDelete
  128. Yeah, I saw your word mods. It's what Government employees do to evade FOIA enquiries. Turn OFF the spell-checkers so matches won't be found when SEARCHed.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Oh... I only GOT it. :-)

    Zootropolis.

    THAT is your Conservative Paradise? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  130. The book depicts a dystopian United States in which publicly traded companies suffer under increasingly burdensome laws and regulations. Railroad executive Dagny Taggart and her lover, steel magnate Hank Rearden, struggle against "looters" who want to exploit their productivity. They discover that a mysterious figure called John Galt is persuading other business leaders to abandon their companies and disappear as a strike of productive individuals against the looters. The novel ends with the strikers planning to build a new capitalist society based on Galt's philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Oh... please.

    That is not sci-fi even.

    Moronic Marty-Sue Graphomania. :-))))))))))))))))))))

    About
    Graphomania, also known as scribomania, is an obsessive impulse to write. When used in a specific psychiatric context, it labels a morbid mental condition which results in writing rambling and confused statements, often degenerating into a meaningless succession of words or even nonsense then called graphorrhea. Wikipedia

    ReplyDelete
  132. \\The book depicts a dystopian United States

    Oh... please.

    You REALLY think that I THAT stupid/non-informed? ;-P

    While all your so-called American Philosophy... pretty much was built around it.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  133. \\The novel ends with the strikers planning to build a new capitalist society based on Galt's philosophy.

    Well... and that's EXACTLY what I propose.

    You can call me Galt... see, I can in graphomania too. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  134. Here.

    Through Bing it still somehow possible (Google seems like DELIBERATELY blocked search through own services -- to artifically obsolete me)


    site:blogger.com/profile/ AI

    ReplyDelete
  135. BTW https://flatearthsgaming.blogspot.com/2024/06/games-that-model-reality.html

    ReplyDelete
  136. Ayn Rand came from the USSR. She was a dysinformatzia plant?

    ReplyDelete
  137. I usually argue against Rand-oids. But then again, most of them (objectivists) are idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Does everything need to be "secret plot"? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  139. You prefer Sci-Fi metaphors

    America... Foundation (Republicans/Tech)

    America... 2nd Foundation (Democrats/Psych)

    Who do you think ends up in control?

    ReplyDelete
  140. \\You prefer Sci-Fi metaphors

    *I*??? Where???? :-))))

    Well... I do not see that piece of Azimov as that much sci-fi.

    Maybe some... widespread today, but of not much fame -- social sci-fi.

    It's mean quite little, or even unexistant sci-fi core ideas... merely ordinary package "starships and robots"...

    and tries to play/depict a human(non-human but with totally human psyche) society.

    La-a-a-ame.

    Yawn.


    PS Well... reason why I stopped reading sci-fi... oh, god... so long ago. :-(((

    ReplyDelete
  141. \\Who do you think ends up in control?

    Evolution... hold all threads in own hand...

    But... like it care... yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Like this BS you gave ref to me -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodies_(2023_TV_series)

    ReplyDelete
  143. Time travel paradoxes aren't Sci-Fi?

    But yeah, when a show rips off the Terminator version so that only naked people can time travel... I guess you've probably just descended into Porn...

    ReplyDelete
  144. \\Time travel paradoxes aren't Sci-Fi?

    Yap.

    Same as falling in coma and/or losing memories -- aren't medicine any more. ;-P





    \\But yeah, when a show rips off

    That is... what called "budget limitations becoming plot device". ;-P

    Very first movie -- have had NO budget for "weapon from Future". And... wanted to show Mister Universe muscles. ;-P

    Movie makers... they all cheap tricks scrudges. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  145. Yep, and they all donate to Democrats. See a pattern?

    ReplyDelete
  146. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    "Most important types of art for us -- is cinema... (and circus)" ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  147. Indeed. Asymmetric Info Wars... by Barnum & Bailey

    ReplyDelete
  148. Yeah... your eggheads produce some unintelligible BS.

    Then aborigines pick it up like some real thing.

    And trying to use against you.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Know something about Ukraine? Tell me. ;-P

    ReplyDelete