MSC

Genuinely not offended, in fact I was saying you'd have to study more about what you are saying in order for me to be offended by your judgement since you honestly don't know the difference between virtue signalling and people honestly discussing ethics in a relevant discussion. I didn't go out of my way to talk about this issue, it's the thread. You are pissing me off a bit however over basically telling us not to have the discussion because the issue is outside our locus of control. When discussion itself, isn't. Why do you care what we talk about when we are all outside your locus of control? Follow your own advice or continue being a hypocrite. I'm past caring about your input at this point. Covert trolls get under my radar but when I realize that's what's going on I'll stop feeding them.

.... Im not even mad. That point is so good that Vlad the impaler wants to stick a rebllious peasant on it. I wonder if the Egyptians ever had the saying "Thats just the tip of the obelisk! I can almost picture the conversation now. Egyptian 1: Man obelisks are so hard to build. I wish it could be simpler. Doing the top is so dangerous. Egyptian 2: Oh my Ra! What if we built an obelisk, that is all top?! Egyptian 1: Let me get by chisel!

Sometimes when you answer jokes as if they are serious; you just end up appearing like a fool. I know exactly why someone negged you anyway and I have a funny feeling I know who. Basically put you got negged because you admitted you have little skin in the game and don't care either way. So it rendered all your previous arguments to the position of bad faith. When you can explain virtue theory in detail then you can start trying to figure out who is doing it, not before. After Virtue by Alasdair McIntyre is a good place to read for a contemporary catch up.

Thank you! Yeah I'm going for something similar. It'll be an alien invasion story but with some key differences as intergalatic law and beaurocracy play a key rule in the MO of our would be invaders and the human protagonists have to figure out a way to save ourselves via multiple fronts and with a few choices of ways. Submitting to intergalactic law we never had a say in the creation of and fight an underdog war where both sides are destructively limited and have to wade a fine line between acts that would bring victory but break intergalactic law(drawing worse consequences) is option 1. Technologically overcoming the tech limits forced (Also breaks laws) to get our edge back with our modern weapons as option 2. Learning this new set of laws and try to find precedent that would force a court to order our invaders to stand down so we don't lose our planet is option 3. That's basically the gist of it.

Will probably post questions in this thread in relation to a science fiction novel I want to get to writing more. While it is science fiction I would like to get input from the community about how an effective technology I want the antagonist to have might work on some grounds in line with what we actually know about physics, science and engineering etc So my first question; How would a technogically advanced race render all human projectile weapons beyond bows, nuclear weapons etc inert and unusable? So far all I've got is computer viruses, EMP and nanobot swarms. But is there some kind of process gunpowder could undergo to be denatured enough to be useless, from a distance? Quickly and on mass? Planetary wide? Trying to build a world that has as much scientific accuracy as it's possible for science fiction to have while still being awe inspiring.

Genuinely not me this time. Will make it -2 now by way of proving the first isn't me. Just buy bees Dim. Be a bee keeper. Don't buy weapons grade nuclear material.

Anytime. Solidarity within groups of reasonable people feels more urgently needed now more than ever. Without being too OT and alarmist, when dictatorships are at your door, eliticide is shortly behind them. I think black holes could just be matter in a transient state constantly in motion toward a convergence in spacetime from our perspective. There has to be an original core made up of the remnant star somewhere but the matter on it's way crosses the event horizon and reaches that core at vastly different rates relative to observer positions located outside of black holes. What pours into the event horizon trickles down to the core along stretching geodesics (did I use that term correctly?) I'm speculating from ignorance but who knows Jack O'Neill effect might give one of y'all an inspiration pump.

Lets diverge a thread into why putting weed killer on dandelions and not keeping bees yourself is a moral blindspot off most peoples radar. Famines incoming. Buy bees, keep bees, do everything in your power to support bees, even if you're vegan because they pollinate your diet. There, I'm OT now lol happy now Dim? I've gone into a topic where individual action would have an impact.

Dyou think he sees the irony in the fact that while poo pooing philosophy, his approach to language use and advocacy of precision based language is very relevant to philosophy of language and that he often waxes classicly philosophical in both speaking engagements, interviews, unscripted and scripted via his documentary work. I think that kind of tees me off a little bit because I'd say he definitely falls into the category of people smart enough to know better. Philosophy is in everything we do. There are so many current idioms and turn of phrase that have common everyday usage but are actually linguistic snapshots of the works of individual philosophers or people engaged in philosophy. I mean the existence of science owes itself to natural philosophy. @Eise Is this a situation where you can apply the non-identity argument? That Neils assaults on philosophy and his field and academic position and ability to make those assaults are made possible by philosophies very existence? Similarly to how you would apply it to arguments against antinatalism? Sorry for the tangents. You should really show up more on the ethics and politics boards. Your input would be invaluable truly. Like frat boys.

Wow! I didn't realise Tyson and Pigliucci had beef. Definitely diminishes my respect for Tyson a little bit, but I'm a also little biased because I've spoken to Massimo personally on a number of occasions... I should really send him an apology, kind of chewed him out last we spoke and was marginally unfair. Crazy story though; I had beef with a philosophy community, Massimo vouched for me because he felt somewhat responsible for what happened there, was this whole AMA event he'd been invited to and I'd been invited to ask him questions out of a handful of people on that particular forum, then found myself uninvited because I added to the question after they'd greenlighted my first draft and instead of changing it back, I cited the forums rules about how moderators aren't allowed to edit user content and also cited some stoic works about integrity; while negotiating with one mod, another banned me altogether permanently. So I contacted Massimo myself and he tried to get me back in and was pissed they were losing their heads, breaking their own rules just because he had agreed to come onto the forum. They didn't listen, the ban stood and I lost about 3 good friends who I've never been able to get back in touch with and access to a lot of good conversations about philosophy etc that were in my messages on that forum. Man I was pissed! This was like a year before I came here. @MigLShould I try and chew out Tyson next or am I bit much? Lol

Mordreds better at explaining his math in plain English than you are at refuting it in plain English. If he's made errors then for the sake of the people that understand the math, provide corrections. Also chill with the personal attacks. Nobody gets graded for anything said here and cutting the attacks out of sincere debate is entirely within your capabilities. That's pretty much how I go about debating philosophical and ethical topics. Where I often stand corrected because it's not a precision science like particle physics is but these are pretty uniform academic standards that you don't even have to attend university to infer from just observing debates in different venues. I appreciate you taking the time on this topic. Maybe one day I'll understand the math!

You really don't need to waste your time with them. I don't understand your equations at all but same principles of logical debate apply. It's bad faith to say they are incorrect or full of errors without providing corrections and then saying they aren't going to read the rest. Leave them to their delusion. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.

When put like that; yes. Slack given. Well put. Not complete disregard though. 90 seconds to midnight spurs things for me. It wouldn't surprise me if the next recalculation puts us at 1 minute to midnight or closer what with the war in Ukraine still raging and Iran and Israel rattling nuclear sabers more now too.

How do you know it was me who negged it? Neg one of mine, I don't really care about that. It's in the top ten long-term threats. Short term yeah sure, not a big threat. I'm talking about this issue because that's what this thread is about. I can go just as long debating other issues where they are relavent and threats to mortality as they are brought up. Just don't expect the same level of substantive answers in this discussion to show up in a discussion about cutting hot dogs laterally into long strips instead of small perfectly air pip sized cylinders to avoid choking hazards for young children. It's not the same. If I just randomly spout up about other threats to my loved ones unrelated to warfare or nuckear equatable disasters, then I'm off topic breaking the rules. Why does this need repeatedly explained Dim? If you don't want to take part in the discussion or think it is pointless, then why chime in at all? This is a forum, whining about people talking about what is brought up, where it is brought up, in line with rules about being on topic, that's the real conversation not worth having that is a waste of your time and mine.

Oh no doubt! Updoots all round. How complex is it possible for dark matter objects to get under this premise I wonder? While on this note how much of the light spectrum can we actually technologically perceive? All? Most? A little? I sometimes get the feeling that Dark matter is a dog whistle like phenomenon in space beyond our ability to perceive it both organically or technogically. Either that or evidence of a localised dome cloak like technology hiding all the cool alien stuff from us.

See I don't really know how to think about spacetime. Do I perceive to be some kind of material since physicists talk about it in material sounding terms. It has geometry/shape so it's like a sheet and black holes are like bowling balls dragging down the sheet making little pockets in spacetime? I've also heard of something called dark star theory which positted something along the lines that some black holes could through some unknown physical processes convert baryonic matter into dark matter. Not sure what to make of that myself. It's interesting watching and listening to you all discuss this stuff!

So lets say a stellar mass black hole about 10 times the mass of our sun. Like Gaia-BH1. 3 clocks. One in a safe stable orbit around the black hole, one fixed just before the event horizon, one in freefall. Thank you for those videos btw! They were wild. The first one especially. It looks like falling into a water balloon. Will rewatch those more than a few times! That does make it sound like it would be exponentially increasing time dilation between clocks. If I drop multiple clocks in free fall, an hour after the other, would the clocks seem to catch up to the first dropped clock, relative to the external stable orbit clock?

What about Quark stars or Strange Stars? Thanks everyone for your comments. I'm trying to understand as best I can. There may be more stupid questions to come. How do you go about even creating theories that don't end in infinites or end of time stuff? I much prefer the term blackhole core because to me the occams razor suggestion says that it's just simpler for the event horizon to be cloaking some kind of exotic star where the matter density at any single point in the core is finite but unlike matter we have or can observe under other extreme conditions due to the nature of the EH. Also is the effect of time dilation upon entering the blackhole exponential? Is there a point where time is experienced at one layer of the core faster than an outer layer and at what point would an observer who can theoretically survive being pulled into a black hole etc, be able to turn, look outward and see the sped up universe and the edges of the very black hole the observer is being pulled into evaporating due to hawking radiation? Hmmm I think I can kind of understand what someone said about a vacuum core state at least to an external observer, as in the lifetime of an average human built observer, if you could peel back that EH and peer inside, Time Dilation would not allow you to witness any matter you've seen falling in, to ever reach the internal core. It would eventually be moving so slow relative to the external observer that there would never be enough time for said observer the witness the full event; from matter or light, you can watch it from the moment it is getting caught in the gravity well. To the external observer, nothing can reach the inner core. Everything is just stuck on its way there. Like our own galaxy being pulled toward a supercluster cosmic expansion will never let ot reach. Ngl out of everyone alive on the planet, a group of people like y'all are where I'd lay my bets on finding a theory that unifies or improves upon GR + QM. We should make it a focussed group project lol y'all do the math I'll stay outside the box. This isn't me displaying hubris, it's me asking you guys to have more, because why not? - That Mitchell and Webb look

And do I discount what someone else said about gravitons? I'm still confused as to where the mass goes as a blackhole evaporates. Is it better to think of it as losing energy? Couldn't the EH be classified as a perfect black body at some point in the black holes lifetime? Not trying to make any particular point with these questions. Just what's coming up into my mind as I research.

I thought gravitons were hypothetical and that gravity doesn't need a particle to carry force as it's an effect of mass on space-time. Also how does the vast majority of mass radiate away if only massless particles are formed just before the event horizon? Is Hawking radiation not made up of any particles with mass? Also I just don't see how an object or class of objects that vary greatly in size and mass, the mass of which is reducing slowly over time, will be able to keep a strong enough gravitational pull to keep all the matter crushed down below it's Schwarzchild radius if the reaction at the core is so energetic, why wouldn't it be able to break free of the blackholes gravity once it ceases to be one?

Wittgenstein. That's my response. Haha wait until you read my science fiction book! Nor can you discount the fact that virus cell composition can mutate randomly. Something doesn't have to be smallpox to evolve into something like smallpox. We are kind of getting OTT but since we've now talked about medicine, Nuclear medicine and nuclear energy are things I'd like to keep around. Nuclear weapons have been built but ethical recycling to reduce the amount of active warheads I think is a reasonable goal. I think the most pragmatic goal of Global Zero is reduction. I think we'd all agree that it would be preferable if cumulatively world governments never have enough nukes to really fuck things up for the entire planet that would be a little bit easier to tolerate than a status quo which has many governments having a big enough stockpile to blow the absolute crap out of the planet. I also feel like there have to be some kind of limits on where militaries are allowed to target in nuclear defense policies and plans. Some parts of the planet are much more fragile than others. A nuke in yellowstone or along the San Andreas fault being places that come to mind. It puts a bad taste in my mouth to have to argue for anything less than total denuclearization but baby steps. Total denuclearization is beyond my lifetime if ever. I'm a parent so my drive is doing what I can to reduce the amount of ways my daughter could be dead before she is old and grey. Probably not even a drive I can fight because it's my job to follow that drive. Responsibility, duty and all that jazz. The biological categorical imperative! And hey, if the best I can do is arm my daughter with all the best arguments as to why you shouldnt nuke her or anyone else, then that's the best I can do. If I am part of a colletive movement that sees at least one active nuclear warhead taken out of the count, that's even better. At the very least I'll cover my ass because if y'all mfs make anymore nuclear weapons it had nothing to do with me! Got it? Wasn't here. Didn't see it. Said no. Walked away. Also this detterent thing better pay off in the longrun or I will be doing the biggest I told you so of all time. If I live. I hope to be wrong.

Firstly; game theory is applicable anywhere you find language being used. Obsolescence is actually the main reason humans will give up a technology... in fact that seems to be the only reason. I have researched and researched and have not found any historical example of a technology we are both reasonably certain existed, didn't just lose the blueprints of etc, and actively gave up. One potential exception is flexible Roman glass, the inventor of which was apparently executed so as not to devalue the gold and silver industries. Don't know how true that story is. However, humans have in the past given up something that in some ways only gave them power while giving some very obvious national security issues and issues of morality. Slavery. We also gave it up at the cost of an entire industry that in today's money would be worth billions. In terms of there being a massive harm and the risk of national self harm involved; Slavery and using nuclear weapons could be compared to some extent. Dammit. There was me hoping to avoid Hegels Master and slave dialectic. Rounding back to what I said earlier about obsolescence. I feel that a direction public opinion could steer militaries to go; is the obsolescence of nuclear weapons through the technological advancement of precision in war over destructive power. Lets give the military eggheads a very small pat on the back for the whole scientific achievement of maximising destructive capabilities. Knocked that one out of the park, next challenge. Can you make a small bomb that can fly up a generals nose? Maybe the global zero initiative should open up two fronts instead of just one. Make it a forced military standard to reach as close to global zero civilian/non combatant deaths in war as is possible.

I was sure what I said earlier or at least what I meant is that the sentiment behind how you chose to phrase some things, betrayed your spoken views on the matter, by which I meant that although you are arguing for a view I find morally questionable (that on some level using nuclear weapons as a last resort is permissable to you, which is your view and I respect it) emotionally you do understand that whether I agree with it or not, you don't feel you'd be capable of giving the order to use nukes and would rather opt to be able to sleep at night. So to be clear; I do not think you are an immoral or an unethical person, far from it(I mean we all have moral blindspots but who's to say what mine and yours are?). I know that although we disagree on the permissability of Nuclear weapons, you are still someone who believes they are a last resort which I think is the middle ground we are all forced to share anyway. If it was down to you, I believe you'd have tried other options at least longer than Truman did which is good enough for me. I got pissy too and I apologise. Really this thread could have gone in either the ethics or politics thread but honestly ethics, law and politics have near seamless interdisciplinary overlap and are always going to inflame tempers eventually. Despite the differences, I think we have all done pretty well keeping as cool a head as it is possible to have when you discuss this stuff as long as we've been at this one. I'm sorry for not being clearer before MigL, hurting your feelings or suggesting you lacked morality was not my intent at all. I appreciated your engagement with my blackhole thread also. Oh and you made a mistake when you said we can all agree killing is immoral. No we can't lol I don't with that but that's another thread and tbh you'd probably just end up calling it a question of semantics once I explain. Well lives were saved and his intentions and motivations were many. Did he save them in the best way? I doubt it. It was one large set of lives for another large set of lives but you are right, the American Presidents job is to favour his citizens lives over others. There is one thing however, in terms of deterrent to use nuclear weapons. Besides mutually assured destruction, there is one other deterrent that I feel is a powerful factor we need to consider. Public moral condemnation. Should we consider the decision makers who decide to use nuclear weapons war heroes? Or are they failures opting for a pyyhric victory? Is their future condemnation as murderers, not a key part of how the public deters it's leaders from taking actions it finds barbaric by using nuclear weapons or even building them or blackmailing with them?

Are there things we can say about it with any degree of certainty aside from the obvious? For example the actual physical state of the matter; Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, some kind of condensate or super dense solid? If an evaporating black hole will eventually lose it's event horizon and explode as MigL said; would that lead to the potential for more star formation? If a neutron star could go supernova; what sort of elements or particles would it scatter from what was formed in the core? I suppose I'm just trying to understand black holes in relation to the Hawking information paradox. If I understand it correctly, if information cannot be destroyed or preserved indefinitely inside a black hole, then a future state change of the black hole seems the most likely soultion. For every half of a particle pair that forms just beyond the event horizon and escapes, the partner particle that falls into the black hole should theoretically be contained within until this hypothetical state change takes place within the aging black hole, allowing the information stored within it to be released. I won't take it personally if I'm way off base. Just trying to understand.

What about those regions where the CMB isn't evenly distributed? Could Dying black holes exist earlier in these places? In what state will the leftover matter contained within the black hole be after this Black Nova? Will this event kickstart the creation of a new generation of stars? Yeah I've always had a problem with the singularity explanation just not enough mathematical ability to ever be able to explain why, just feels wrong based on what I I've been taught of physics. I'd imagine there are a number of different theories and hyopotheses around the core state of a black hole beyond the event horizon. Maybe they are just really big neutron stars cloaked in the event horizon.