bascule

Most of what I know of the Leibniz/Newton debate came from Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos. Thanks for the refresher though. When it comes down to it though, I'm still going to side with the Platonic/Aristotelian view, which I suppose means I side with Smolin here... but yes, in the end all the philosophical pontificating is useless in the wake of empirical fact.

Wow, where have I heard that before...

Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to mischaracterize you. I think your answer was that LQG does not model the universe as a cellular automaton. And yes, you've pointed me at Seth Lloyd before, although I wasn't aware he was interested in cellular automata-based models. I'll try to check out that paper...

So earlier I posted a thread where I asked if any of the theories of quantum gravity presently being devised modeled the universe as a cellular automaton, and Martin's answer was no. (Actually, I think my question was about LQG. I don't think Martin was trying to say that no one had devised a theory which models the universe as a cellular automaton) So, I did a little more digging and found this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907013 Any thoughts? I really, really like this idea... (at least what I can distill from the abstract)

Hi revprez!

http://www.slate.com/id/2142547/ I think everyone can admit that mechanized production of meat, milk, and eggs has resulted in factory farms with deplorable conditions, and we should all at least feel bad for the way in which our food is produced (however it hasn't stopped me from eating eggs, milk, cheese, etc.) Is this the solution? Can we have our meat and eat it too?

Hooray! Welcome back, man

Your grammar is making my head explode. The atomic bomb was invented by the Manhattan Project, which included such names as Oppenheimer, Teller, and Feynman

No, wrong, nonlinearities in the climate system which are not accounted for by the model have an increasing impact on the outcome as time goes on. Mesoscale atmospheric models are substantially more advanced and accurate than global climate models. You obviously know nothing about the state of regional atmospheric modelling. Try working in the field for 5 years (with one of the top climate scientists in the country), then get back to me. Whatever you do, don't try to pass off misinformation as fact.

No, you have it completely backwards. Short term, regional modelling has become highly accurate in recent years. Long term global climate models are inaccurate, because deficiencies in the model are compounded over a longer period of time, and furthermore nonlinearities in the climate system cannot be accounted for in global climate modelling given our present level of scientific understanding.

How is 300,000,000 any less arbitrary than 299,792,458? I mean, 300,000,000 in hex is 0x11E1A300. Looks pretty arbitrary to me.

I tingle during a loud thundercrack. I also tingle when I'm in a weird situation. I don't think EM fields have anything to do with it. One time, I was on top of a 14kft (4.2km) tall mountain during a thunderstorm. Someone I was hiking with pointed out that my hair was standing on end. I hadn't noticed (probably because I was exhausted) Then lightning struck very close by.

Yay, I have the same shirt. Ruel!

Nobody has said Fur Elise yet??

Depends on the nanorobots. What if they're programmed to ensure that what they construct is defect-free, and destroy anything defective (i.e. variadic) that they manufacture? What if they're constructed in such a way that they'd simply be inoperable if they were to "mutate"?

Multi-decadal climate models are still useful as process studies even if their results are not accurate, which is certainly the case at the present time. You may want to check out this blog entry of AASC president (and my former boss) Dr. Roger Pielke on this subject: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=12

Yeah, I'll give the Bush Administration that... Clinton was the worst president in terms of letting business run amok since Coolidge...

As a libertarian (liberaltarian? heh), civil rights offenses from either of our totalitarian-leaning parties piss me off. I'm just as offended by the PC liberal kooks who run the town I'm living in trying to create an intolerance hotline as I am the domestic spying program.

http://www.physorg.com/news67773542.html Yay!

One of my favorites ever has to be Pink Floyd - Fat Old Sun. Also: Neil Young - Don't Let It Bring You Down And I don't have taste in music? Pfffffffft

I'll certainly consider the possibility, however I'm also left to wonder if the ends justify the means.

I think cryonicists look at the situation in one of two ways: 1) I can either freeze myself and hope future medical technology can revive me - or - 2) I can let the worms eat my brain, in which case no medical science will be able to bring me back If nanotechnology takes off, I think they might be right... if I become rich, then you can bet I'm signing up... only $80,000! I must be the most half-assed Immortalist in the world

Here's YET ANOTHER GUY claiming YET ANOTHER METHOD of producing energy via electrolysis. He claims he can "fracture" water molecules and by doing so it takes less energy than electrolysis normally would. His claims are 3 units of energy output for every 1 unit of energy input. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800 Did I mention he's an engineer with no scientific background? And he claims his device harnesses ZERO POINT ENERGY? A friend of his claims that he has a contract with NASA, even though NASA denies all claims that's true. And Arabs are worried that his offer of free energy will bankrupt the world's oil suppliers, so he needs to be really secretive about it!

This isn't the only way. For example, you could use an inertial drive