Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under universe...

Nevin says...

That point at the left is now. Each split is a moment. The points on the end are ten moments from now. How many moments did it take you to read this?

Think about it; every moment that passes, half of all "possible" realities are no longer possible. At the same time, every moment more that you look into the future, there are twice as many "possible" realities!

Why am I putting the word "possible" in quotes? Well, do you believe the universe is determinate? If so, there is only one point in each of these moments that is possible; the other ones don't have a chance in hell. And of course if you knew the trick for figuring out which way things would go, (where everything in the universe was and what it was up to and a bunch of laws or something nutty like that) you could PREDICT THE FUTURE.

This doesn't seem to bode well for Urban Planning. I mean, if there is only one way things can go, why try to influence how they go? Well of course the influence of planners has been part of why things have gone how they have, I suppose they just had no choice in the matter of whether to become planners and choose the plans they did.

If you were me, and you hadn't arrived at these thoughts yet, they would be hitting you like a ton of bricks. You would, for the next few minutes or so until you got hungry or horny or something, consume whatever media the person who had just pointed them out (me) suggested. In this case, it's a TED video of Stephen Hawking asking "big questions about the universe." Try not to let the odd voice distract you; these words are really fascinating.

The most interesting point in my opinion was not to do with the universe, but with humans in particular. He points out that humans now hove this massive ability to affect (effect? I will never learn this) their surrounding environment, and yet we are still genetically coded to be the type of aggressive animals that were able to survive in the conditions we evolved in. His solution was to expand into space, to continue to be aggressive. What about trying to change our genes to remove a little greed? We could start by breeding with the Dutch; they seem to be the kind of sharing considerate people I'd want to live with on an Earth with population 14 billion.

Cheers,
Nevin

PS: I think I might make this [now I will refer to someone who has actually done their homework] thing a habit. I can spew my crackpot ideas, then relate them to something better thought out, and the end result seems sorta meaningful.

PPS: Think I'm an idiot or/and a genius? Are you related to me? Do you think I said anything interesting? Do you actually read these posts all the way through?

All of these are reasons to leave a comment. It's great even when someone says "nice post," and I also loved that my grandma told me about her tomatoes. How are they doing? Have you eaten them all yet? Did you get any crazy indeterminates that tasted less tomato-y than the determinate kind?

Filed under: universe

Just stunning!

Filed under: universe

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, Random House, 1994 (copyright © The Estate of Carl Sagan)

Filed under: Universe

 

Filed under: Universe

I was having a discussion with a friend about whether or not a company can be truly open. She feels as information become more and more accessible, openness becomes the best strategic advantage, allowing you to form the most strategic partnership: with the universe. By sharing ideas/thoughts openly, you allow the universe to do the work while you make the decisions.

Filed under: universe

Nevin says...

Warning: to read (and watch) this post will take about an hour and a half. Set aside some time this evening and join me in Nevinland :)

I've been thinking a lot lately about what to do with my life. I have plenty of ideas, but a core question I have to answer is: How do I want to impact the world around me? I usually turn this question into: Is there a problem that I am really passionate about solving or helping solve? And then, I reach: What is the most important problem to solve (as far as I, or maybe all of humanity, is concerned)?

Today I watched a number of TED videos, and found them highly relevant to this last question. I'd like to share the experience with you the way I had it, so I'll post them in the order I watched them, and share my thoughts.

First is a talk by Richard Dawkins, called "The universe is queerer than we can suppose" - (2005)  21:57

This one was great -- I really like how Dawkins explains things; seems like he picks just the right mix of out-there and easy-to-follow to keep me understanding and questioning at the same time (not to mention blowing my mind). Is it really try that not a single atom in my body is the same as when I was a little kid? That is sooooooo cool.

I particularly like this quote: "[the term] 'Really', for a brain, is whatever an animal reeds it to be, to assist its survival." I like this whole section, because it articulates how different our perception of the world is from a reductionist reality [the world is a bunch of tiny particles that have no meaning], and at the same time points out how even though this perception is false in a reductionist sense, it is highly valuable to us as organisms. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I can reconcile my reductionist ways of thinking with the value in life that I also whole-heartedly believe in... my explanations are usually pretty lame, phrases like "well, things just feel interesting and valuable and important, and I like that, so I let myself forget about reductionism most of the time in order to enjoy life." This explanation of his seems to allow those two views to co-exist better, because he focuses on the "value" of a species surviving with these methods.

Second is one by David Deutsch, called "What is our place in the cosmos?" - (2005) 19:00

This one is also mind-blowing... where to start? The whole space/matter/energy/evidence/knowledge part is pretty great, but her really takes it further with his practical application. Do we want to be the exception to the rule that species go extinct? My answer to that question: Yes! Why not?

"It's true that an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure, but that's only if we know what to prevent. If you've been punched on the nose, then the science of medicine does not consist of teaching you how to avoid punches."  -- He applies this theory to global warming; since we already are pretty sure it is too late to prevent some pretty substantial changes, it makes more sense to focus on the cure, instead of trying to prevent it all together. He says that we should be trying to figure out how to reduce the temperature, and how to live at the higher temperature. 

This is pretty earth-shattering for me, since I have ben considering devoting my career to efficient transportation, partially to reduce our impact on global climate change. 

Then third there is this one, by Martin Rees: "Earth in its final century?" - (2005)  17:26 [This one isn't as important to watch in order to follow my thoughts. The key point is that there is a significant probability that something (we) will end the human race within a century, instead of living on into the future.]

Not ground-breaking, but still pretty intense. This guy is referenced again by the last video here.

Fourth is one that is very different from the first three, but will be tied in, by Aubrey de Grey called "Why we age and how we can avoid it" - (2005)  22:46

Ever since I read Jitterbug Perfume, I've wanted to live to 1000. This crazy-looking guy gives me hope. I won't lie, for moments at a time I pause to consider pursuing a career in this field.

And this last guy sorta ties all of this stuff together. Fifth is one by Nick Bostrom called "Humanity's biggest problems aren't what you think they are" -  (2005)

I love this one. His point about what life would be like if we solved all of the conventionally identified problems is awesome... what exactly are we aiming for? His explanation about the ability of a species to appreciate something (like music) is great... I instantly long for inklings of other concepts and activities that are enjoyable to organisms that are wired differently.

Reflection

I think the reason these all hit me so hard today is that I have been thinking about a lot of these things on my own, but don't really know enough about any of them to articulate those thoughts. TED speakers have a habit of doing the Malcolm Gladwell thing, where they describe ideas that seem so obvious after you hear them, and aren't so hard to understand, but most people never would have taken the time to amass the background knowledge to reach them.

There are some things that stick out to me:
  1. Scale - the difference in experience and perception at different scales, and the difficulty of experiencing scales other than your own. The third video showed a spectrum of scales, but do we really know where the end of the spectrum is? Do we even know if there is and end?
  2. Complexity - the fact that what is interesting or valuable isn't the "stuff," but how the "stuff" interacts in complex ways. Also, that the amount of complexity on Earth is arguably accelerating at a big rate, and that we should do something to preserve that process, because complexity is intrinsically cool.
  3. Value - the fact that I can say "intrinsically cool," and you know what I mean.

Even though this stuff is out there, it just may have a profound affect on how I live my life. What about you?

Cheers,
Nevin

Filed under: universe

PrePosterous says...

"Everything that exists is connected by a subtle web of energy. It responds to human emotion.

"Are miracles possible? Watch this interview with Gregg Braden to find out.
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
Dr. Mercola's Comments:"I find it quite exciting that science and spirituality are now coming together.
"It is beginning to look like the ancient humans were right about how the universe works—it just took science a while to catch up.
"What Vladimir Poponin proved in his experiments is that your DNA can and does directly affect your physical world. This is what the Law of Attraction proponents have been saying for more than a century.

"In the above video, Gregg Braden discusses the first of three experiments about the newly “discovered” web of energy that surrounds and occupies us all. The two other experiments he mentioned are even more compelling and should draw the attention of even the most skeptical minds.

“Find something to be happy about every day, and every hour if possible, moment to moment, even if only for a few minutes. This is the easiest and best protection we can have.”--Gregg Braden
"In those words lies the possibility for true miracles."

Reposted from www.mercola.com

Filed under: universe

ab says...

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

- Carl Sagan

Filed under: universe

Nevin says...

This post was prompted by two things. First was a discussion with Shawn, and the second was a post Zac made on the "Just Some Interesting People" Google group. Zac's post was about this article in the New York Times, entitled "The Collider, the Particle and a Theory About Fate" about the possibility that the future is intentionally preventing the Large Hadron Collider from producing the Higgs boson. Zac's post and a follow-up email Shawn sent me are both at the bottom of this post.

From that original article:

"We always assume that the past influences the future. But that is not necessarily true in the physics of Newton or Einstein. According to physicists, all you really need to know, mathematically, to describe what happens to an apple or the 100 billion galaxies of the universe over all time are the laws that describe how things change and a statement of where things start. The latter are the so-called boundary conditions — the apple five feet over your head, or the Big Bang."

The conversation with Shawn was about the question of whether or not our universe is determinate. (I think) A determinate universe would mean that if we knew the location and velocity of every particle everywhere and all laws of physics, we could theoretically model the entire universe and predict the future. There would only be one way for things to happen, and we could map it out.

(I think) an indeterminate universe would either mean there is no way of predicting, even if you knew those things, or, that you can't  know those things. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle basically states that you can't know a particle's location and velocity at the same time [the wikipedia explanation is pretty easy to understand]. But, not only can we not measure the two properties at once... according to the principle and the laws of quantum mechanics, nothing would be mathematically capable of measuring them.

My question is this: What the heck does that mean? Does that mean the universe is fundamentally indeterminate, or just that nothing can "determine" it? Does it mean that particles change velocity for no apparent reason, and that there is no way to know what they will do next, or just that we can't seem to figure out where they are and where they are going? The whole theory is based on the whole description of particles as waves thing, which I always had trouble with. 

I think the universe is determinate, and our knowledge gap is just in understanding how particles behave.

Two questions to anyone who has the time to ponder and respond:
  1. Do you think there is one way things can happen, and that we could model it if we knew all that stuff?
  2. Perhaps more importantly, how does this affect how you live your life? If you think the universe is determinate, you can't really believe in free will, right?

Cheers,
Nevin


On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Zac Rubenson wrote:


http://io9.com/5380647/is-the-large-hadron-collider-being-sabotaged-from-the-future

I'm not going to lie, my knowledge of time travel theory has slightly
more substance from Lost and Back To The Future than it does from my
knowledge of theoretical physics. That said, I find the ideas outlined
in that link somewhat alluring. Just the whole notion that the future
could prevent something catastrophic from happening... que
interesante.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are a few leading theories on time
travel paradoxes:

1) Everything is on an static timeline, and there are no alternate
realities (Biff can't start winning at the horse races). You can't
change the course of history - Fate isn't the right word, but it's the
first that comes to mind. And the reason we don't have time travelers
stopping by for lunch is because we haven't invented time machines
yet.

2) The course of history can be altered, creating tangential realities
(Biff wins at the horse races, bangs Marty's mom).

3) For every possible outcome, there exists an alternate universe.
There are a shit-ton of universes. Also, your cat is dead. But it's
alive too, so don't worry.

So... are all these God Particles sticking to Theory #1 and preventing
something catastrophic?

Also, MORE IMPORTANTLY, you should all go rent/download the movie
Primer. Filmed for like $7k and winner of a shit-ton of film awards,
it's probably the best movie on time travel I've ever seen.


On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:28 AM, Shawn Johnson wrote:

http://www.facebook.com/l/0a70e;en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

This is what we were talking about earlier. I think the question you were asking was, "Does the fact that we can't know both the momentum and position entail that the phenomenon itself is indeterminate, or does it just entail that our knowledge of the phenomenon is indeterminate? The article says that the indeterminacy is a fact about the system itself, not just a claim about what we can know. However, you might doubt this claim, depending on what your views are of the relation between theory and reality. (I don't know a whole lot about these different views.)

What I mostly hear people say about the nature of reality is that "what is true of reality is whatever the complete physical theory of the future says is true." Now, whether or not there ever is a complete future theory is somewhat irrelevant. The main point here is that the models really do match up with the world, and that they really do explain it.

I would say that the most rational view to take on the issue of indeterminacy is to say that because our best physical theories say the universe is indeterminate, we should believe it's indeterminate. Of course, we may one day find out that there is deeper determinacy that actually explains what seems indeterminate right now, but to believe this without any evidence is unjustified.

Filed under: universe

EastsideRJ says...

* Newly discovered ring is so large it would take 1 billion Earths to fill it
* Ring is made up of ice and dust particles that are so far apart it's hard to see
* Ring material may come from comet, meteor collisions with moon Phoebe

(CNN) -- Scientists at NASA have discovered a nearly invisible ring around Saturn -- one so large that it would take 1 billion Earths to fill it.

The ring's orbit is tilted 27 degrees from the planet's main ring plane. The bulk of it starts about 3.7 million miles (6 million km) away from the planet and extends outward another 7.4 million miles (12 million km).

Its diameter is equivalent to 300 Saturns lined up side to side. And its entire volume can hold one billion Earths, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory said late Tuesday.

(I'm starting to think NASA has used it's funding to hire a computer geek that is good at Photoshop.)

Filed under: universe