Science allows scientists to practice theory. Theory is when you know something, but it doesn’t work. Practice is when something works, but you don’t know why. Therefore, through programming, Computer Science allows computer scientists to combine theory and practice; nothing works and no one knows why. Therefore, let us not forget as stated quite sharply in Taligent’s Guide to Designing Programs, there is no code faster than no code.
This category, Unending Curiosity, is essentially for questions I can’t expect to answer but feel compelled to ask anyway. These questions seem like they’d go on for ever if you did try to answer them, and certainly just the asking could take a while.
So, one of these more interesting ideas is of course Technology, and I mean as a whole. However, it seems we rarely look at Technology from more than one, rather simple dimension. For most people, this dimension allows them to see a simple progression of tools or a linear release of innovations. But, technology has an interesting substance which I feel allows it to be better described as the evolution of human usage.
This, because without need there is no use, and vice versa. Moreover, there is little that can be innovated upon. Lacking these fundamental concerns, the idea of Technology slowly collapses , or at least, so does its underlying value.
What, and how we use it, is our Technology. And, Technology changes how existence, either in how skills or our uses are employed, improved and connected with each other and our existence, or through providing a platform for more innovative construction. Technology is an extension of our existence in this way.
None of this complexity dismisses the truth discovered though, in our single dimension view of things: as time changes, one might throw away tools for new one,s or replace tools with refined human skills.
This idea itself, specifically, is what I’m hung up on; this idea of the continuous refinement of human skills.
My question (read as Unending Curiosity) is: How does the mind integrate replacements for deprecated human skills and behaviors (as those mental tools are themselves Human Technologies)? Also, how, if at all, is the knowledge or wisdom accredited to obsolete or deprecated uses/behaviors/technologies retained or passed along (so as to ensure technologists are not working on the exactly same problem continuously, only being re-represented)?
When I opened this site, I vowed that if I was to link to another site permanently, it would only be because I read the content there faithfully. While that may mean any number of things; things like I may or may not like the idea or the people involved, personally; or, that I may agree or disagree with the idea, or people involved, on any number of other issues; it certainly does means one very important thing: I take being associated with people very seriously. And, I’ll tell you, thats because I’m a tactician…
Reading this article made me absolutely sick to my stomach. Sure, there are some alarmist positions taken here, but, thats not exactly a bad position to take as every bit is also true. Apparently, we’re ingesting a lot of very, very toxic chemicals, and rather frequently. Worse though than what we’re doing to ourselves, is what we’re doing to the planet. Now, we’ve discovered how natural processes can aggregate all these waste materials. The really depressing thing: I can’t seem to make a change in my own life as far as not using plastic… its EVERYWHERE — the keys on this keyboard, the mouse, parts of this chair, the case of the PC and the monitor, the cup next to me, its lid, etc, etc.
If you haven’t noticed, you should. And to do so, you should really take some time out and have a look at Chris Jordan’s website. His art is our destruction, and it speaks very powerful messages. His pictures help expose these types of unseen, natural disasters. Chris Jordan’s site is right here, and has been linked on the blogroll for a while. Since looking at it, I’ve been researching more, and more cases along this line. I hope to find a way to change how I live my own life for the better, and maybe it could help inspire you to do that too.
Man’s peerage has always been founded upon his study of the truth, and the elegant constructs which have been discovered as a result. In that aristocracy of the mind, many stand out: Tesla, Bohr, Einstein, Rosen, Hawking, or even Poe, Dostoevsky, and/or Asimov. Yet, of those elite minds, there should always be room for at least one more very interesting gentleman, named John Bell, to find his mention.
Early on Bell introduced thought experiments which hoped to address human curiosity about the nature of reality itself. This may not have been his intent, but, it was the resultant product. His notions led to a wildfire of other derived works as well. Just recently howsoever, the revolutionary ideas Bell put forth, those which have inspired generations, have been challenged.
Should Bell’s theorem prove to be mistaken, it would bring back a dark age, full of philosophical challenges to what seems somehow, a less mature science. We can only hope those people invalidating Bell’s work are capable of forging greater constructs. And, by that, we do not mean, just a place for themselves in that aristocracy of the mind.
The Scary Science in this article, should leave you staring blindly, and then into a puddle of drool, collecting slowly at your feet, as you read deeper and deeper. Its at the very least “a little heady.” But, hey, if you think String Theory has been burrowing much from the patience, and complication piles, and aren’t interested in all that complex geometry they’ve made with strings, then, let enter: The Spinorial Theory!
The Spinorial Theory seems a much more simple ship to put to sea, in my opinion. While String Theory can tote a much broader adoption amongst scientists, the theory is amazingly complex and requires a great deal of training to understand, which may indicate its over-architecture. And, String Theory actually fails to make very many accurate predictions. With complexity in overdrive, and the subject of study being the nature of the universe, science is likely to pull a metaphorical muscle just trying to test String Theory’s predictions, as they stand now. Meantime, they could have been wrong at the inset.
The Spinorial Theory offers a fairly simple alternative to using Strings in a specially constructed 11 dimensional space, the controversial and rather complicated geometric explanation of the nature of the universe as provided in String Theory. The alternative presented in Spinorial Theory, is that perhaps these other dimensions (for which our senses do not account) belonging within Einstein’s space-time, aren’t “folded-up” spacial dimensions, but instead, are “invisible” temporal (time-like) dimensions.
The simplicity resonates with me, while some predictions made here seem just as difficult to prove as those made in String Theory.
Sitting here on our radiant little planet, filled with all these wonderful pieces of technology that remind me how lazy we are, and blinded by the light of all the human races blisteringly bright byproducts — or perhaps thats the huge fusion reaction that powers our solar system, reflecting off those byproducts — I find I’m really curious about the following things regarding global warming, given all the hype, and pointless chatter:
0) Wouldn’t the sun always be the cause? No matter what other thing the sun interacted with?
*shrug* Simple enough for me.
I’ve been watching Apophis for at least a couple of years now, and so has NASA, yet only just now is “The World” — in the form of the U.N. — becoming aware or suggesting we need to take action. CNNs brought this guy up a couple times, I’m sure… heres the latest. 2004MN4 also called Apophis, is one of the objects NASA has had flagged on its Impact Risk website as having a significant chance of potential impact with our planet, and for quite a while. I’ve been watching it, you should have a look for yourself at
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
Without trying to sound like an alarmist, the math seems to indicate that this guy not only comes close to us in 2036, but that its orbit brings it continually closer to Earth as time goes on.
In reading this article several things hop out at me that scream “spin”. Admittedly many of the articles I have read that contend an opposite view also do so with spin-tactics — thats just persuasive writing for you. However, within two paragraphs of this article, Global Warming is called a religion. If this is the case, its one with no church the world is aware of. Moreover, I don’t think an issue like this (existent or fictional) is served very well by sarcastic and rather dramatic claims made by either side.
Also, points of contention like “Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don’t seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming” are ridiculous in virtue, as well as inaccurate. There are theories related to Global Warming that directly connect our local star’s energy output with changes in our planets climate. Just dig a little deeper, and you will find these theories and many others. I suggest everyone make it their duty as members of our species to learn as much as they can about all this.
Being a skeptic means not taking a side… its about asking questions, and seeking truths.