Using a series of long life beta emitter radio isotopes and detectors in separate vessels to generate truly random binary numbers. At any given moment, a detector will detect a particle emission (1) or will not (0), and this detector can be sampled hundreds or thousands of times per second. If there are 10 vessels with 10 samples and detectors, then every time the detectors are queried one will receive a truly random number. If the detector can be interrogated 1000 times per second that would allow for a binary string 10,000 factors long per second (slice up any way that a consumer would require).
So ... turns out that a lot of other people have had this idea and are doing something about it.
RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service uses atmospheric noise to obtain truly random numbers.
Even more interesting is Hotbits: Genuine Random Numbers - Fourmilab which uses radioactive decay to obtain a random number sequence
Both of these services are available via the web, and a person or company can subscribe to them and obtain random numbers. Of course, for encryption, cryptography, gaming, gambling, and certain other activities where random number generation is mission critical, it would seem obtaining them from a 3rd party might introduce some uncertainty.
I'm envisioning motherboards and discrete systems with on-board true random number generation.
Imagine for example a tiny sample of Tritium gas, which is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen, very safe, a beta particle emmitter, with a 12 year half life. A sample in a phial the size of a grain of rice, with a detector on each end, could obtain a continuous stream of random 1's and 0's for well over 12 years, which is far beyond the life of any computer system. Something like this would easily fit on the circuit board of even a mobile phone.
One note on the issue of half life and radioactive decay. Over time the sample will become less radioactive, and if 'no-particle-detected' = zero, then over time the average ratio of 1 (particle detected) to zero will deviate from 50/50 to some ratio where it is statistically more likely for a zero to come up than a 1. BUT - a detection even, while happening many times per second, is still not exactly an instantaneous event. The detector is 'detecting' for a very narrow window of time. So - a very small ROM and a small amount of DRAM storage should allow the randomness to be maintained for more than the life of the circuit board in the following manner. The DRAM would be used to store the detector's output from the last - few million detection events, and the ROM would have an algorithm that calculated a running average of '0' events, and a clock circuit that controlled the time span of the detector window. As the 1/0 ratio trends towards 0 being more frequent than 1, the system would expand the detection time span window duration so that the rolling average of 1's and 0's remains 50/50. At all times the actual result of any one detection event would be 50/50 to all significant digits, but over time as the sample decayed the amount of time that the system would leave the detector on would need to increase to allow for the fact that older samples emit particles less frequently.
Editorial on why I was thinking about this....
Well, I like to play a lot of games, and when I'm on the go, a game I like to play is the iPad version of RISK, which involves lots of computer generated dice roles. And I play so much that I can usually tell very early on if the random number 'seed' the game is using is favorable towards the attacker or the defender and I can modify my gameplay style to account for that. And that is sad because the dice rolls should be completely random.
This got me thinking of a circuit board sized random number generator for the iPad/tablet computers.
I also happen to be a futurist, and I think about the direction technology will unfold and how that will affect human life/culture/civilization (now don't get too excited I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances for long term survival - we could, there's no technical reason we shouldn't, but people are very myopically selfish, and poorly educated and very bad decision makers so all our actions over the last 50 years especially have all been doing nothing more than accelerating our civilization's collapse) - BUT... say we didn't all die off, say on the off chance for example, we actually bothered to stop destroying our planet, and each other. Well, while it's probably unlikely, if we did decide to stop the madness, then humanity would have a great potential to spread out to the rest of the solar system and beyond, and we could easily eliminate poverty, homelessness, famine, and improve health care enough so that death would be something much less likely than it is today. If we did so there'd be a lot of people around, since right now we do such a great job of killing each other and our population is still growing. So - I think about what to do with all those beings, the sentient minds.
There's every reason to believe that brains can be kept alive and connected to a 'matrix' like virtual reality simulator for quite some time, allowing people to live on long after their bodies give out but ultimately, even a brain will decay and stop functioning. Over a long enough timeline, if humanity is going to prosper, humans must evolve away from these organic meat-sacks and into a more robust architecture, in other words, must become sentient inorganic systems (some of you might call them machines or robots). Its easy to see several developmental paths to such an architecture, but all of them require truly random number generation. A human brain is the most complex configuration of matter in the known universe and it will take some time to model it, though the good folks at IBM are making great strides already in the nascent first steps. Once these systems start to improve themselves, there should be a pretty rapid increase in their capabilities, but if the systems are always based on pseudo-random numbers they will never make the leap to a truly dynamic, unpredictable system of sentient self aware processes.
So - while a circuit board based truly random number generator would be great for people who like to game-on-the-go, it is also a critical component of the architecture humans will one day rely upon within their own inorganic bodies.
[I know that some people of our current generation would not call an inorganic sentient being a human, but I would warrant that if Australopithecus met a modern human and had the capacity to do so, she would not call us human either. While likely a topic for another post, if humans don't succeed in committing mass global suicide, the most probably path of evolution will be a blending of organic and inorganic components, possibly powered by systems such as these, with more and more of the functions performed by our organic brains migrated over to inorganic processing subsystems until finally there is no need for any of the organic components at all. Over this whole transition, society will always call the beings in question, (at least in english) "human".]
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, August 30, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Passcode Lock Circumvention for iOS suggestion
Unlike most of my rants this is just a sketch I want to write so I can tweet it to Apple.
Currently mobile security and BYOD are huge catchphrases that many companies are pouring tons of money and effort into.
Part of these initiatives is requiring encryption/passcode locks on mobile devices like phones and tablets.
In iOS, it's possible to access the camera without unlocking the phone but everything else is behind that iron curtain.
My proposal is thus - create a special container that sits in a DMZ - outside of the passcode lock/encryption. Any apps dropped into that DMZ container would then be accessible via a swipe from the lock screen.
A user could put "words with friends", "angry birds", or any app - including calendar, phone, email, SMS, whatever, into that container and have quick access to it.
If said user were to sign up for their corporate BYOD program, then the MDM could send a policy to the iOS device tagging certain apps as disallowed from being in the DMZ container. (the api would need to be extended to support this functionality).
If these enhancements to iOS were made, then a person would be able to drop aps they use frequently - maps, imdb, sms-messaging, etc - into this DMZ container and be able to use them without traversing the passcode lock.
In slightly related fashion, as a further enhancement - for SMS messaging - incorporate the type of functionality already available in Android to allow a user to reply to an SMS message without switching out of the application they are currently using.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Currently mobile security and BYOD are huge catchphrases that many companies are pouring tons of money and effort into.
Part of these initiatives is requiring encryption/passcode locks on mobile devices like phones and tablets.
In iOS, it's possible to access the camera without unlocking the phone but everything else is behind that iron curtain.
My proposal is thus - create a special container that sits in a DMZ - outside of the passcode lock/encryption. Any apps dropped into that DMZ container would then be accessible via a swipe from the lock screen.
A user could put "words with friends", "angry birds", or any app - including calendar, phone, email, SMS, whatever, into that container and have quick access to it.
If said user were to sign up for their corporate BYOD program, then the MDM could send a policy to the iOS device tagging certain apps as disallowed from being in the DMZ container. (the api would need to be extended to support this functionality).
If these enhancements to iOS were made, then a person would be able to drop aps they use frequently - maps, imdb, sms-messaging, etc - into this DMZ container and be able to use them without traversing the passcode lock.
In slightly related fashion, as a further enhancement - for SMS messaging - incorporate the type of functionality already available in Android to allow a user to reply to an SMS message without switching out of the application they are currently using.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, August 2, 2013
3 Ideas to power internal Cybernetic Implants
I was thinking about all the great cybernetic enhancements that we will soon be able to have installed in our bodies, and while I'm strongly in favor of any cybernetic enhancements, I have often thought that the electrical power requirements are really going to be the primary limiting factor for this type of technology application.
I can imagine a day when implants along the path of the optic nerve or a sheet of stimulators laid against the back of the brain where the visual cortex is located could be used to create augmented reality visuals without having to wear Google Glasses. I can imagine similar applications of stimulators along the auditory nerves so that one could listen to music or participate in a phone conversation without there being any actual physical noise created that others could hear, or eaves drop. There are a wide range of physical and mental enhancements that are probably on the horizon, but I know that it would be pretty annoying if I had to plug a power cord into my navel every night so my implanted cybernetic enhancements would operate.
There are many possible ways to address this short coming.. here are a few ideas that I'd like to see pursued.
1) Nuclear Battery - this is a natural and logical choice. Polonium and Plutonium both have 100 year half lives and give off quite a bit of energy for a very low volume of material. It would be feasible to take a few grams of either material, encase in a heat/radiation sink, wrap in a thermocouple and create a small RTG that would produce power for a century. This could be coupled with super-capacitor batteries so that the continuous power from the nuclear battery could charge the capacitors and the capacitors could then provide high/variable output power to the various cybernetic devices within one's body. There are some downsides to this solution though. Even though it is the only one that's been effectively proven to work subcutaneously, it is hampered by political obstacles and the public's irrational fears of nuclear technologies (irrational fears based on ignorance and capitalized upon by fear mongers, IMHO, but I'm not bitter. ;) ) But - I should also note a legitimate concern with this type of power source, namely the issue of heat dissipation. For any volumes of material that would produce sufficient amounts of power to operate high drain mechanical cybernetics, such as artificial limbs and organs, the amount of waste heat generated would be substantial, requiring an active heat dissipation system. Should there be a failure of that active cooling system, the battery might get hot enough to cause thermal tissue damage.. and since the device is located INSIDE a body, that could be cause for alarm. Therefore, a nuclear battery would be best suited for low power consumption self contained devices, like emergency locator beacons.
2) 'Blood Fuel Cell power source' - while the nuclear battery concept is already a proven reality on both the large and small scale and would need only modest changes in materials to make a viable subcutaneous long life high power version (there have been low power subcutaneous nuclear batteries used for pace makers in the past, but those have very low output), the blood battery is something I have never heard of from anyone else. I don't want to say its an original idea, I can only say I haven't heard of it from anyone else. My idea for the blood battery is pretty simple - blood has chemical energy in the form of ATP that is released using free electrons in Oxygen to handle the electron transport. Cells use this energy to drive their processes. It should be possible to create something like a fuel cell, that can extract energy from the ATP found in the blood. That energy is electrical - the oxygenation process of the body converts hydrocarbons and oxygen into electrical motive energy to drive cellular processes. Each organic cell is already a mini-fuel cell. If we create a slightly larger version and hook it to a traditional battery, then one's own blood can charge the battery, and that battery can then supply current to the various cybernetic implants in the body. This is probably my favorite approach to electrical power for implanted cybernetics. As long as you're alive and eating, you have power. So it truly becomes a part of you.
3) Mechanical Motion Capture power source - Everyone should be familiar with self-winding watches from the past, and their newer offspring the self winding electrical watch. Self winding watches today capture the motion of the movement of one's limbs, convert it to electrical energy and store it in a battery. This could be used to power internal electronics as well - bind the mechanical motion energy capture mechanisms to bones in the forearms and calves. (Radius / Ulna in the forearms, and Tibia in the lower legs), route wires from those locations to a battery pack located in the main body cavity, such that movement of the limbs is converted into electrical current that is routed to the battery pack to charge. That power pack can then supply power to any implanted tech. An upside to this type of power source is that it would encourage people to exercise more.. if only to keep their augmented reality systems powered up.
Any of these would be great options but I think I would prefer a combination of option 2 and 3... a primary power source from capturing some of the mechanical energy of moving one's limbs, but with a secondary source - pulling chemical energy directly from the blood. I think that this would be an ideal configuration for military personnel - who would be more likely to have high energy drain devices, possibly implants with defensive or offensive capabilities. Civilian applications would most likely be in social communications, and interactive info-tainment (augmented reality, gaming) so their power consumption requirements would be lower.
Of course, there are also the health/medical applications - powering artificial inorganic limbs and organs (though I expect 3d printed or vat grown organic tissue organs and limbs will be the dominant treatment protocol of the future). Where I see this tech really shining is in situations where a person's heart stops and an AED could automatically kick start it without any user intervention.
Another area of application would be in performance enhancement - using electrical energy generated in the above manner to stimulate muscle groups more powerfully - allowing individuals to exhibit profound increases in strength and stamina.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I can imagine a day when implants along the path of the optic nerve or a sheet of stimulators laid against the back of the brain where the visual cortex is located could be used to create augmented reality visuals without having to wear Google Glasses. I can imagine similar applications of stimulators along the auditory nerves so that one could listen to music or participate in a phone conversation without there being any actual physical noise created that others could hear, or eaves drop. There are a wide range of physical and mental enhancements that are probably on the horizon, but I know that it would be pretty annoying if I had to plug a power cord into my navel every night so my implanted cybernetic enhancements would operate.
There are many possible ways to address this short coming.. here are a few ideas that I'd like to see pursued.
1) Nuclear Battery - this is a natural and logical choice. Polonium and Plutonium both have 100 year half lives and give off quite a bit of energy for a very low volume of material. It would be feasible to take a few grams of either material, encase in a heat/radiation sink, wrap in a thermocouple and create a small RTG that would produce power for a century. This could be coupled with super-capacitor batteries so that the continuous power from the nuclear battery could charge the capacitors and the capacitors could then provide high/variable output power to the various cybernetic devices within one's body. There are some downsides to this solution though. Even though it is the only one that's been effectively proven to work subcutaneously, it is hampered by political obstacles and the public's irrational fears of nuclear technologies (irrational fears based on ignorance and capitalized upon by fear mongers, IMHO, but I'm not bitter. ;) ) But - I should also note a legitimate concern with this type of power source, namely the issue of heat dissipation. For any volumes of material that would produce sufficient amounts of power to operate high drain mechanical cybernetics, such as artificial limbs and organs, the amount of waste heat generated would be substantial, requiring an active heat dissipation system. Should there be a failure of that active cooling system, the battery might get hot enough to cause thermal tissue damage.. and since the device is located INSIDE a body, that could be cause for alarm. Therefore, a nuclear battery would be best suited for low power consumption self contained devices, like emergency locator beacons.
2) 'Blood Fuel Cell power source' - while the nuclear battery concept is already a proven reality on both the large and small scale and would need only modest changes in materials to make a viable subcutaneous long life high power version (there have been low power subcutaneous nuclear batteries used for pace makers in the past, but those have very low output), the blood battery is something I have never heard of from anyone else. I don't want to say its an original idea, I can only say I haven't heard of it from anyone else. My idea for the blood battery is pretty simple - blood has chemical energy in the form of ATP that is released using free electrons in Oxygen to handle the electron transport. Cells use this energy to drive their processes. It should be possible to create something like a fuel cell, that can extract energy from the ATP found in the blood. That energy is electrical - the oxygenation process of the body converts hydrocarbons and oxygen into electrical motive energy to drive cellular processes. Each organic cell is already a mini-fuel cell. If we create a slightly larger version and hook it to a traditional battery, then one's own blood can charge the battery, and that battery can then supply current to the various cybernetic implants in the body. This is probably my favorite approach to electrical power for implanted cybernetics. As long as you're alive and eating, you have power. So it truly becomes a part of you.
3) Mechanical Motion Capture power source - Everyone should be familiar with self-winding watches from the past, and their newer offspring the self winding electrical watch. Self winding watches today capture the motion of the movement of one's limbs, convert it to electrical energy and store it in a battery. This could be used to power internal electronics as well - bind the mechanical motion energy capture mechanisms to bones in the forearms and calves. (Radius / Ulna in the forearms, and Tibia in the lower legs), route wires from those locations to a battery pack located in the main body cavity, such that movement of the limbs is converted into electrical current that is routed to the battery pack to charge. That power pack can then supply power to any implanted tech. An upside to this type of power source is that it would encourage people to exercise more.. if only to keep their augmented reality systems powered up.
Any of these would be great options but I think I would prefer a combination of option 2 and 3... a primary power source from capturing some of the mechanical energy of moving one's limbs, but with a secondary source - pulling chemical energy directly from the blood. I think that this would be an ideal configuration for military personnel - who would be more likely to have high energy drain devices, possibly implants with defensive or offensive capabilities. Civilian applications would most likely be in social communications, and interactive info-tainment (augmented reality, gaming) so their power consumption requirements would be lower.
Of course, there are also the health/medical applications - powering artificial inorganic limbs and organs (though I expect 3d printed or vat grown organic tissue organs and limbs will be the dominant treatment protocol of the future). Where I see this tech really shining is in situations where a person's heart stops and an AED could automatically kick start it without any user intervention.
Another area of application would be in performance enhancement - using electrical energy generated in the above manner to stimulate muscle groups more powerfully - allowing individuals to exhibit profound increases in strength and stamina.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, July 12, 2013
Nature's Beauty more profound when not marred by religious delusion
I recently took this picture in a park located in the middle of urban downtown Manhattan.
Sitting there I contemplated the following, as I often find myself doing... I thought how there is not a day that goes by that I'm not filled with speechless awe at the sublimely beautiful complexity of the universe and staggered by the knowledge that it is all comprised of around 12 unique sub atomic particles and 3 distinct forces mediated by another 4 particles (the Standard Model).
I'm amazed at how delightful complexity can arise from the bleakness of the universe's movement towards entropic stagnation.
But its not just fantastic complexity from a small number of players and rules at that level only. There are nested levels of complexity to consider as well! Each level is made up of a few simple, easy to conceptualize rules or factors, and yet, each one, with enough time - especially thanks to the random nature of the universe - leads to a seemingly limitless wonder of diversity.
At one level you have the physical particles of the standard model, and their interactions that lead to this scene. This entire tableau due to interactions played out by a dozen particles and 3 forces (and billions of years of time). A few levels up in the scale, on a biological level, evolutionairily, genetically speaking, you have about a billion years of life evolving from what is likely just a single (or small number of temporally concomitant) event(s) leading to the first metabolically active molecular confluence ('life'), and from there to all the myriad varieties of life present in this picture. All of us, all the mammals, avians, piceans, even the insects, bacteria, all us fauna, and all the flora - all of us related to one another (lets not forget fungi and the other biota either!), sharing that common origin, that first random spark of life, yet all this diversity itself, also a result of a simple rule - just one basic function, that thanks to the very same entropic chaos, events that can occur are random and over time, those random events will result in changes, and those changes over time will be shown to be more or less competitive for whatever local enviornment the changess occur within, and that from this simple pressure - which we call evolution - all life's diversity comes into existence.
I know I'll die all too soon, but while I am a sentient self aware creature - the awe I feel that time, random chance, 3 phsyical forces, and a dozen particles - can result in all of this is immeasurable.
It is sad to think that there are many people who think this is all fabricated by some perfect invisible ghostly being, not a natural wonder that is governed by simple to understand rules yet resulting in such wild and wondrous diversity, but just a mundane construct assembled by a being (or beings) with infinite knowledge, infinite energy/power, and infinite resources. Theists claim to be in awe of the universe as well (calling it 'all of creation') but while I can be in awe of a human made wonder like the Hoover dam, still that pales in comparison to the evolution of this beautiful universe thanks to simple rules and particles. Given the time, money, people and resources - I could build the Hoover dam.. and given infinite power, energy, resources, and knowledge, just about any modern human could build a better running, more efficient universe. But - that this universe, flawed as it is, yet utterly beautiful and breathtakingly magnificent developed in a way we humans can understand, made up of such a limited number of simple rules - that it just more profound than any blog post of words could possibly capture.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sitting there I contemplated the following, as I often find myself doing... I thought how there is not a day that goes by that I'm not filled with speechless awe at the sublimely beautiful complexity of the universe and staggered by the knowledge that it is all comprised of around 12 unique sub atomic particles and 3 distinct forces mediated by another 4 particles (the Standard Model).
I'm amazed at how delightful complexity can arise from the bleakness of the universe's movement towards entropic stagnation.
But its not just fantastic complexity from a small number of players and rules at that level only. There are nested levels of complexity to consider as well! Each level is made up of a few simple, easy to conceptualize rules or factors, and yet, each one, with enough time - especially thanks to the random nature of the universe - leads to a seemingly limitless wonder of diversity.
At one level you have the physical particles of the standard model, and their interactions that lead to this scene. This entire tableau due to interactions played out by a dozen particles and 3 forces (and billions of years of time). A few levels up in the scale, on a biological level, evolutionairily, genetically speaking, you have about a billion years of life evolving from what is likely just a single (or small number of temporally concomitant) event(s) leading to the first metabolically active molecular confluence ('life'), and from there to all the myriad varieties of life present in this picture. All of us, all the mammals, avians, piceans, even the insects, bacteria, all us fauna, and all the flora - all of us related to one another (lets not forget fungi and the other biota either!), sharing that common origin, that first random spark of life, yet all this diversity itself, also a result of a simple rule - just one basic function, that thanks to the very same entropic chaos, events that can occur are random and over time, those random events will result in changes, and those changes over time will be shown to be more or less competitive for whatever local enviornment the changess occur within, and that from this simple pressure - which we call evolution - all life's diversity comes into existence.
I know I'll die all too soon, but while I am a sentient self aware creature - the awe I feel that time, random chance, 3 phsyical forces, and a dozen particles - can result in all of this is immeasurable.
It is sad to think that there are many people who think this is all fabricated by some perfect invisible ghostly being, not a natural wonder that is governed by simple to understand rules yet resulting in such wild and wondrous diversity, but just a mundane construct assembled by a being (or beings) with infinite knowledge, infinite energy/power, and infinite resources. Theists claim to be in awe of the universe as well (calling it 'all of creation') but while I can be in awe of a human made wonder like the Hoover dam, still that pales in comparison to the evolution of this beautiful universe thanks to simple rules and particles. Given the time, money, people and resources - I could build the Hoover dam.. and given infinite power, energy, resources, and knowledge, just about any modern human could build a better running, more efficient universe. But - that this universe, flawed as it is, yet utterly beautiful and breathtakingly magnificent developed in a way we humans can understand, made up of such a limited number of simple rules - that it just more profound than any blog post of words could possibly capture.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, May 31, 2013
Time and Probabilistic Fields in Quantum Mechanics, an Inquiry
I was thinking (after attending a lecture given by Brian Greene, at the 2013 World Science Festival), of the nature of time and how it might affect some aspects of quantum theory, specifically related to probabilistic fields.
I am not skilled in the advanced mathematics necessary to formally describe my thoughts, nor even skilled enough to find out if there is math or theory that can clarify and either dismiss or substantiate this thinking. As I can't describe it mathematically I will do so metaphorically. The below is basically an open question to the world, I'm sure I'm just missing some nuance that is only revealed by the deeper math but if someone can point it out to me I'd love to know where/how this breaks down (preferably with a response that is non-mathematically presented)
One of the conundrums of Quantum Physics, according to Greene, is related to probabilistic fields and the many world's solution to the idea of uncertainty. The posit being that maybe every possible particle position/value actually does exist in an alternate universe and every time a particle can have multiple states, a universe comes to exist where that particle has that state value. Clearly it can be seen that this leads to an infinite number of mirror universes, each one as validly 'the universe' as the singular one we think we exist in. That's not the issue with the probabilistic field though - the issue is that if there is a many worlds solution to the idea of a probabilistic field then why does it appear that some position/states are more likely than others? If every possible state happens somewhere, what would it even mean that a particle has a 60% chance of being observed as X and a 40% change of being observed as Y?
So here's some thoughts on why we might have multiple universes, but still be able to observe a probabilistic field that shows different probabilities for a particle's position/state at any observational point.
My first thought is - what if time isn't what we think it is. It is my understanding that time is not required to move from the past to the future in the math that describes particles and quantum reactions.. and that we only observe time as moving from the past to the future with causal outcomes resulting from initial actions because of the nature of the instantiation of our universe- the Big Bang was highly ordered and of extremely high energy so the resulting decay thru entropy of the universe from order to complete chaos (total heat equilibrium) leads to events that are perceived by our brains as a present made of events occurring in such a manner that it appears we are moving from the past to the future. What if this is not precisely correct? I recall reading about particle and anti-particle annihilation that described an anti-particle as a regular particle traveling thru time from the future to the past. For example, we as observers might observe the following phenomenon - a proton and an anti proton traveling on a trajectory that brings the two together where they annihilate and and release energy. So the two particles are traveling thru space and time from the past to the future and at a particular time value they interact and cease to exist. But according to the article I read, the math is equally valid if we consider a single particle, a proton, traveling thru time along with us from the past to the future, then at some particular inflection point in time, the particle reverses its direction and starts traveling on a different trajectory thru time from the future to the past. Creating a loop. If this is equally valid, then here is my first question regarding a probabilistic field.
What if time isn't what we think it is and the particle we observe as having a probable position/state that creates a wave form is really that particle existing in all those positions along a different temporal axis. i.e. that the time value is actually a spectrum rather than just a linear vector from the past to the present. If Quantum Mechanics is agnostic to time, then maybe the formulae are describing the particle position/states as they exist in a volume of time - a volume of time that expands in vectors perpendicular (or at least not parallel) to the time that we think we are traversing from the past to the future. And maybe when we observe the particle and the probabilistic field collapses, that is really just us applying a particular temporal lens to the observation - maybe that is the effect of the observer on the universe - maybe our brains which perceive time as a vector from the past to the future - allow us to perceive the results of the particle's position as a definite point in space is because of our perception of time as this sequential series of 'ticks'.
Another thought was on the very nature of these infinite universes for every possible particle state. Greene stated that the multiverse conundrum was that if there was a universe for every possible state, what could we even mean by there being a higher probability of a particle in any one state than another. If we can accept the notion that every time a particle can have more than one state a whole new universe for that particle state is spawned we can still preserve the notion of a probabilistic field for the particle in question. Imagine this multiverse where every time any particle could have more than one set of values for it's state, that a new universe was spawned. Eventually this many branched universe would spawn universe leafs at different branch coordinates that were identical to each other, even though the two branches were distinct and separate, and for each universe branch, at no previous point in time were those 2 universes identical in every way. At that time, when the 2 universes in the multiverse both contained an identical set of particles with identical values down to the quantum level, wouldn't they cease to be two separate universes and collapse into a single version? So - the multiverse would have two opposing forces at play - a force that lead to more and more universes (infinity times infinity right? LOL) but a moderating factor of universes collapsing as they fell back into synchronicity (infinity minus infinity = infinity). Either way, it's still an infinity of universes but some entire branches would simple collapse as they became identical to other distinct branches.
If that is the case, maybe the probabilistic field is simply higher where there is less likelihood of universal branches collapsing into a single branch, and the probability field is low where, for whatever reasons, that particular universal configuration is more likely to lead to a branch (or branches) collapsing into a single universe again.
I am sure that if I throw this out there with enough tags, someone somewhere will be able to dispute this and point me to someone who's shown this to simply be a total lack of understanding of the deeper nature of the problem on my part. I have found this and it appears to discuss some of the elements I raise above but either I don't understand it well enough to see how it clarifies my above inquiry or I still see room for alternative interpretation - for example - the idea of different worlds collapsing when they become identical at a quantum event level - this article says is too unlikely to happen, but there are infinite universes, and in infinity, even something virtually impossible will happen regularly. And if anyone can I would ask they tweet me @galvorniii or email me
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I am not skilled in the advanced mathematics necessary to formally describe my thoughts, nor even skilled enough to find out if there is math or theory that can clarify and either dismiss or substantiate this thinking. As I can't describe it mathematically I will do so metaphorically. The below is basically an open question to the world, I'm sure I'm just missing some nuance that is only revealed by the deeper math but if someone can point it out to me I'd love to know where/how this breaks down (preferably with a response that is non-mathematically presented)
One of the conundrums of Quantum Physics, according to Greene, is related to probabilistic fields and the many world's solution to the idea of uncertainty. The posit being that maybe every possible particle position/value actually does exist in an alternate universe and every time a particle can have multiple states, a universe comes to exist where that particle has that state value. Clearly it can be seen that this leads to an infinite number of mirror universes, each one as validly 'the universe' as the singular one we think we exist in. That's not the issue with the probabilistic field though - the issue is that if there is a many worlds solution to the idea of a probabilistic field then why does it appear that some position/states are more likely than others? If every possible state happens somewhere, what would it even mean that a particle has a 60% chance of being observed as X and a 40% change of being observed as Y?
So here's some thoughts on why we might have multiple universes, but still be able to observe a probabilistic field that shows different probabilities for a particle's position/state at any observational point.
My first thought is - what if time isn't what we think it is. It is my understanding that time is not required to move from the past to the future in the math that describes particles and quantum reactions.. and that we only observe time as moving from the past to the future with causal outcomes resulting from initial actions because of the nature of the instantiation of our universe- the Big Bang was highly ordered and of extremely high energy so the resulting decay thru entropy of the universe from order to complete chaos (total heat equilibrium) leads to events that are perceived by our brains as a present made of events occurring in such a manner that it appears we are moving from the past to the future. What if this is not precisely correct? I recall reading about particle and anti-particle annihilation that described an anti-particle as a regular particle traveling thru time from the future to the past. For example, we as observers might observe the following phenomenon - a proton and an anti proton traveling on a trajectory that brings the two together where they annihilate and and release energy. So the two particles are traveling thru space and time from the past to the future and at a particular time value they interact and cease to exist. But according to the article I read, the math is equally valid if we consider a single particle, a proton, traveling thru time along with us from the past to the future, then at some particular inflection point in time, the particle reverses its direction and starts traveling on a different trajectory thru time from the future to the past. Creating a loop. If this is equally valid, then here is my first question regarding a probabilistic field.
What if time isn't what we think it is and the particle we observe as having a probable position/state that creates a wave form is really that particle existing in all those positions along a different temporal axis. i.e. that the time value is actually a spectrum rather than just a linear vector from the past to the present. If Quantum Mechanics is agnostic to time, then maybe the formulae are describing the particle position/states as they exist in a volume of time - a volume of time that expands in vectors perpendicular (or at least not parallel) to the time that we think we are traversing from the past to the future. And maybe when we observe the particle and the probabilistic field collapses, that is really just us applying a particular temporal lens to the observation - maybe that is the effect of the observer on the universe - maybe our brains which perceive time as a vector from the past to the future - allow us to perceive the results of the particle's position as a definite point in space is because of our perception of time as this sequential series of 'ticks'.
Another thought was on the very nature of these infinite universes for every possible particle state. Greene stated that the multiverse conundrum was that if there was a universe for every possible state, what could we even mean by there being a higher probability of a particle in any one state than another. If we can accept the notion that every time a particle can have more than one state a whole new universe for that particle state is spawned we can still preserve the notion of a probabilistic field for the particle in question. Imagine this multiverse where every time any particle could have more than one set of values for it's state, that a new universe was spawned. Eventually this many branched universe would spawn universe leafs at different branch coordinates that were identical to each other, even though the two branches were distinct and separate, and for each universe branch, at no previous point in time were those 2 universes identical in every way. At that time, when the 2 universes in the multiverse both contained an identical set of particles with identical values down to the quantum level, wouldn't they cease to be two separate universes and collapse into a single version? So - the multiverse would have two opposing forces at play - a force that lead to more and more universes (infinity times infinity right? LOL) but a moderating factor of universes collapsing as they fell back into synchronicity (infinity minus infinity = infinity). Either way, it's still an infinity of universes but some entire branches would simple collapse as they became identical to other distinct branches.
If that is the case, maybe the probabilistic field is simply higher where there is less likelihood of universal branches collapsing into a single branch, and the probability field is low where, for whatever reasons, that particular universal configuration is more likely to lead to a branch (or branches) collapsing into a single universe again.
I am sure that if I throw this out there with enough tags, someone somewhere will be able to dispute this and point me to someone who's shown this to simply be a total lack of understanding of the deeper nature of the problem on my part. I have found this and it appears to discuss some of the elements I raise above but either I don't understand it well enough to see how it clarifies my above inquiry or I still see room for alternative interpretation - for example - the idea of different worlds collapsing when they become identical at a quantum event level - this article says is too unlikely to happen, but there are infinite universes, and in infinity, even something virtually impossible will happen regularly. And if anyone can I would ask they tweet me @galvorniii or email me
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, April 22, 2013
Magical/supernatural/religious thinking is an affliction.
I saw a bunch of posts going back and forth on Facebook. The topic was regarding so-called verbal insults of atheists against religious people. And the argument was that there are lots of religious moderates and while lots of terrible things have been done by religious people, some (or even most) religious people are not dangerous and evil and don't deserve to be insulted.
I do agree that one should NOT insult the people (in general) who harbor delusional religious thinking. I don't condone turning any criticism of thought/reason into Ad Hominim attacks on either side.
Insults of the people suffering from religion aside - religious belief (and all magical thinking, all supernatural thinking, all credulity in things for which there is no evidence) is a mental defect, a delusion (i.e. a persistent belief in things for which there is no evidence, or for which there is evidence against). It is not generally recognized as a mental defect because it is so wide-spread. But - if everyone on the planet were addicted to alcohol (alcoholism) that would not make it any less of a disease. Everyone on the planet is mortal and therefore dying of at least 'old-age'. While it took centuries, 'old-age', (senescence) is now recognized as a disease, a cascade failure of systems which might be curable. In the same way, the disease of delusional credulity in things for which there is no evidence is a mental disorder.
I would not endorse personal attacks on theists, not on them as people, but it is fair to label them ignorant, because clearly they are ignorant of at least the fact that they are suffering from a delusion. Everyone is deluded about something, it's part of having an organic super computer like a mammalian brain - 90% of one's experience is generated internally. Our theory of mind, our sense of self, the ephemeral thing we think of as 'I', or being conscious - it's an emergent property of an organ designed to keep this mechanism functional and to propagate it's genome.
Having a working brain doesn't guarantee accurate perception of reality, it only helps inform the behavior of the animal far enough to achieve those goals of propagating one's genome.
But our brains are so complex now that we can expand our theory of mind and we can observe the mechanism that is doing the observing and we understand it's strengths and weaknesses.
(or... I should say we ARE BEGINNING to understand its strengths and weaknesses.)
We can KNOW when and where our brain's inherent weaknesses manifest and we can build mental tools (and physical tools) to keep us from succumbing to those impulses and urges which are now dangerous due to our scope and breath of destructive capacity. In other words, knowing how prone to delusion we are, the armor against it is to refute/refuse any claims which are NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. The corollary is that humanity must not tolerate delusional, magical, supernatural thinking in any form. It is like giving everyone a nuclear bomb. It's just too dangerous to allow.
There is only one way to cure this disease and that is to give it no quarter, to constantly throw reason and logic and rational thought at it. To REFUSE to tolerate it.
And it is important to fight this because magical thinking - credulity in things that cannot be proved - open up too too far too many dangers.
Imagine for a moment if it was A FACT that if you performed a certain function or act, that you would DEFINITELY receive an immeasurable reward? Imagine for a moment that it was a FACT - and undisputed FACT that one human was worth something but another human was not? There is no evidence that killing infidels will get you to paradise. There is no evidence that christians are going to heaven and jews are not. Yet - if someone is afflicted with the disease of magical supernatural thinking - it is possible for them to be UNABLE to realize that it is NOT A FACT.
If it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was GOOD and if it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was the key into PARADISE then it is perfectly rational to kill infidels.
ALL religions, all magical thinking, all credulity, all moderation and tolerance of this disease opens up the possibility of an infected person believing things for which there are no evidence, i.e. thinking things for which there is no evidence is a fact.
Even simple, so-called moderately afflicted people are dangerous. Think of all the people who Pray instead of taking action? Think of all the people who tacitly accept ludicrous actions because of tradition? Who turn a blind eye to discrimination or to ostricization due to some superstition. Think of the Psychological Damage done to children who are terrified by delusions of hell and ghosts and other mumbo-jumbo. Think of all the DEATH And SUFFERING due to religious opposition to scientific research deemed 'against god's will' which includes a lot of vaccination research of the past.
This disease must be confronted and should not be tolerated any more than one should tolerate Cancer or Heroin addiction. Certainly those that are afflicted should not be abused or attacked ad hominim. But - the beliefs themselves deserve NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER and in fact DESERVE TO BE CONTINUALLY put under the scathing scrutiny of reason. The important thing is to not turn disrespect of the belief into disrespect in the person harboring the belief because that person is suffering from an affliction.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I do agree that one should NOT insult the people (in general) who harbor delusional religious thinking. I don't condone turning any criticism of thought/reason into Ad Hominim attacks on either side.
Not to say that there's anything wrong with insulting someone that one generally doesn't like - i.e. Its not Ad Hominim for me to say that Mitch McConnell is a stupid, dangerous, possibly evil, ignorant fool who not only doesn't deserve to be a Senator, he doesn't deserve to pick out his own underpants. He's a complete idiot and on top of that, I can easily and dispassionately deconstruct every one of his ridiculous positions on any topic. The two correlate but I don't say his arguments are silly because he's an idiot. I say he's an idiot because his positions are so ridiculous and his provably ridiculous positions and the danger he represents in spewing them as a Senator make me despise him.
Insults of the people suffering from religion aside - religious belief (and all magical thinking, all supernatural thinking, all credulity in things for which there is no evidence) is a mental defect, a delusion (i.e. a persistent belief in things for which there is no evidence, or for which there is evidence against). It is not generally recognized as a mental defect because it is so wide-spread. But - if everyone on the planet were addicted to alcohol (alcoholism) that would not make it any less of a disease. Everyone on the planet is mortal and therefore dying of at least 'old-age'. While it took centuries, 'old-age', (senescence) is now recognized as a disease, a cascade failure of systems which might be curable. In the same way, the disease of delusional credulity in things for which there is no evidence is a mental disorder.
I would not endorse personal attacks on theists, not on them as people, but it is fair to label them ignorant, because clearly they are ignorant of at least the fact that they are suffering from a delusion. Everyone is deluded about something, it's part of having an organic super computer like a mammalian brain - 90% of one's experience is generated internally. Our theory of mind, our sense of self, the ephemeral thing we think of as 'I', or being conscious - it's an emergent property of an organ designed to keep this mechanism functional and to propagate it's genome.
Having a working brain doesn't guarantee accurate perception of reality, it only helps inform the behavior of the animal far enough to achieve those goals of propagating one's genome.
But our brains are so complex now that we can expand our theory of mind and we can observe the mechanism that is doing the observing and we understand it's strengths and weaknesses.
(or... I should say we ARE BEGINNING to understand its strengths and weaknesses.)
We can KNOW when and where our brain's inherent weaknesses manifest and we can build mental tools (and physical tools) to keep us from succumbing to those impulses and urges which are now dangerous due to our scope and breath of destructive capacity. In other words, knowing how prone to delusion we are, the armor against it is to refute/refuse any claims which are NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. The corollary is that humanity must not tolerate delusional, magical, supernatural thinking in any form. It is like giving everyone a nuclear bomb. It's just too dangerous to allow.
There is only one way to cure this disease and that is to give it no quarter, to constantly throw reason and logic and rational thought at it. To REFUSE to tolerate it.
And it is important to fight this because magical thinking - credulity in things that cannot be proved - open up too too far too many dangers.
Imagine for a moment if it was A FACT that if you performed a certain function or act, that you would DEFINITELY receive an immeasurable reward? Imagine for a moment that it was a FACT - and undisputed FACT that one human was worth something but another human was not? There is no evidence that killing infidels will get you to paradise. There is no evidence that christians are going to heaven and jews are not. Yet - if someone is afflicted with the disease of magical supernatural thinking - it is possible for them to be UNABLE to realize that it is NOT A FACT.
If it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was GOOD and if it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was the key into PARADISE then it is perfectly rational to kill infidels.
ALL religions, all magical thinking, all credulity, all moderation and tolerance of this disease opens up the possibility of an infected person believing things for which there are no evidence, i.e. thinking things for which there is no evidence is a fact.
Even simple, so-called moderately afflicted people are dangerous. Think of all the people who Pray instead of taking action? Think of all the people who tacitly accept ludicrous actions because of tradition? Who turn a blind eye to discrimination or to ostricization due to some superstition. Think of the Psychological Damage done to children who are terrified by delusions of hell and ghosts and other mumbo-jumbo. Think of all the DEATH And SUFFERING due to religious opposition to scientific research deemed 'against god's will' which includes a lot of vaccination research of the past.
This disease must be confronted and should not be tolerated any more than one should tolerate Cancer or Heroin addiction. Certainly those that are afflicted should not be abused or attacked ad hominim. But - the beliefs themselves deserve NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER and in fact DESERVE TO BE CONTINUALLY put under the scathing scrutiny of reason. The important thing is to not turn disrespect of the belief into disrespect in the person harboring the belief because that person is suffering from an affliction.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Non Human Animal Intelligence
This is a comment to the excellent Blog Post "News About Animal Cognition – Are They Too Smart for Honey Boo Boo?", written by Aline Kaplan in the Blog, "The Next Phase", the post itself a blog entry commenting on the NY Times Article " ", written by Frans De Waal and published on March 22, 2013
Great post.
I'm shocked that this is still news, I have seen research that hinted at much greater intelligence levels in non-human animals for decades. And there's been many developments over the years pointing to the depth and range of non-human animal emotional intelligence (which is perhaps even more important). Shocking to me is that human animals have emotionally bonded with non-human animals for centuries but have failed to consider that their non-human friends genuinely reciprocated.
Personally I blame religion/magical thinking - even Descartes postulated this soulless automaton ridiculousness based on a flawed delusional belief that human animals were somehow not only superior to others because of their position as apex predator but because a magic book written by Stone Age mental patients who heard voices and had hallucinations said their sky-daddy told them that humans are special and get to go to a wonderful place when they die but everything else just ceases to exist.
I recently recovered from Carnism myself so I know how insidious the psychosis can be, how it can affect a human and cause delusions. Having been raised to eat other sentient creatures, even though I was presented with the evidence of their cognitive abilities, and having been exposed to their emotional range, I failed to make the connection and even dismissed it when it was directly pointed out to me. I stopped eating animals because it became obvious that to eat animal meat, and consume the products of animals like their milk, is unhealthy for humans. I also realized that the amount of pollution and waste associated with consuming other animals was 7 to 10 times worse than eating plant based foods. It was only after a few years of not being a party to this terrible cycle that I was able to realize how deluded I was, to realize how I overlooked all the evidence that I was eating beings who could feel and think in ways that were similar to me.
Turns out there is a lot documented (not in rigorous lab setting perhaps but well recorded and documented nonetheless) data out there of non-human animals doing things that clearly show emotional intelligence and capacity to feel similar to human animals. Selfless acts of sacrifice for loved ones, depression, anxiety, fear, generosity, abstract planning, concepts of time, strategic planning, etc. Almost every rescue story you learn of in an non-human animal sanctuary illustrates a story of a brave and intelligent non-human animal doing everything it can to save its offspring, or to escape its torturous existence. They hide escape implements or loved ones from their captors, they capitalize upon spontaneous opportunity to flee, they can recognize a human willing to help from a human out to harm them.
For some reason (I blame this arrogance of superiority that religious thinking encouraged) humans feel they are special and they act as if they have the right to cause suffering and perpetuate torture that makes the concentration camps of the Nazi's look like vacation spots.
That's what gets me. We blanche at the notion of 6 million people tortured over the course of a few years, and we do this because we think this is morally reprehensible, because we empathize, because we can imagine the fear, pain, suffering of those victims. Yet 10 BILLION (yes, with a B) non-human animals are subjected to conditions as bad or worse than a Nazi camp every year in the USA alone. And all the evidence indicates they can suffer, they can feel pain, anxiety, depression, fear, empathy for their family suffering similarly, trepidation for the future, terror, etc... just like the humans in the Nazi camps.
Having been a part of that cycle for more years than I have not been, I'm as guilty as everyone else. I think this research is important but with the very real effects of the psychosis Carnism affecting most humans, plus the terrible influence of religion fostering not only Carnism but arrogant superiority and hubris, I don't know if facts alone will have much impact. Certainly in the USA it is clear that facts are not important to the average US Citizen.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Great post.
I'm shocked that this is still news, I have seen research that hinted at much greater intelligence levels in non-human animals for decades. And there's been many developments over the years pointing to the depth and range of non-human animal emotional intelligence (which is perhaps even more important). Shocking to me is that human animals have emotionally bonded with non-human animals for centuries but have failed to consider that their non-human friends genuinely reciprocated.
Personally I blame religion/magical thinking - even Descartes postulated this soulless automaton ridiculousness based on a flawed delusional belief that human animals were somehow not only superior to others because of their position as apex predator but because a magic book written by Stone Age mental patients who heard voices and had hallucinations said their sky-daddy told them that humans are special and get to go to a wonderful place when they die but everything else just ceases to exist.
I recently recovered from Carnism myself so I know how insidious the psychosis can be, how it can affect a human and cause delusions. Having been raised to eat other sentient creatures, even though I was presented with the evidence of their cognitive abilities, and having been exposed to their emotional range, I failed to make the connection and even dismissed it when it was directly pointed out to me. I stopped eating animals because it became obvious that to eat animal meat, and consume the products of animals like their milk, is unhealthy for humans. I also realized that the amount of pollution and waste associated with consuming other animals was 7 to 10 times worse than eating plant based foods. It was only after a few years of not being a party to this terrible cycle that I was able to realize how deluded I was, to realize how I overlooked all the evidence that I was eating beings who could feel and think in ways that were similar to me.
Turns out there is a lot documented (not in rigorous lab setting perhaps but well recorded and documented nonetheless) data out there of non-human animals doing things that clearly show emotional intelligence and capacity to feel similar to human animals. Selfless acts of sacrifice for loved ones, depression, anxiety, fear, generosity, abstract planning, concepts of time, strategic planning, etc. Almost every rescue story you learn of in an non-human animal sanctuary illustrates a story of a brave and intelligent non-human animal doing everything it can to save its offspring, or to escape its torturous existence. They hide escape implements or loved ones from their captors, they capitalize upon spontaneous opportunity to flee, they can recognize a human willing to help from a human out to harm them.
For some reason (I blame this arrogance of superiority that religious thinking encouraged) humans feel they are special and they act as if they have the right to cause suffering and perpetuate torture that makes the concentration camps of the Nazi's look like vacation spots.
That's what gets me. We blanche at the notion of 6 million people tortured over the course of a few years, and we do this because we think this is morally reprehensible, because we empathize, because we can imagine the fear, pain, suffering of those victims. Yet 10 BILLION (yes, with a B) non-human animals are subjected to conditions as bad or worse than a Nazi camp every year in the USA alone. And all the evidence indicates they can suffer, they can feel pain, anxiety, depression, fear, empathy for their family suffering similarly, trepidation for the future, terror, etc... just like the humans in the Nazi camps.
Having been a part of that cycle for more years than I have not been, I'm as guilty as everyone else. I think this research is important but with the very real effects of the psychosis Carnism affecting most humans, plus the terrible influence of religion fostering not only Carnism but arrogant superiority and hubris, I don't know if facts alone will have much impact. Certainly in the USA it is clear that facts are not important to the average US Citizen.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)