Comment Re:Damn!!! (Score 1) 226
There goes my alternates chance with Kate Upton.
worse, you've been rejected 482,360,237,103 times.
Fippy Darkpaw!!! How ya been, man?
Comment Re:As Usual (Score 1) 226
Even if an infinite number of universes exist, that does not imply that any of them are remotely similar to ours. For that implication to hold you must also assume that our universe is finite, or at least a drastically lower order of infinite such that the total number of possible states that our universe could be in is substantially less than the total number of universes that exist with the same geometry and physical laws.
Of course meaningfully comparing different orders of infinity isn't something you can do with high-school arithmetic, but it's a pretty common thing to do in advanced mathematics.
Tegmark is pretty much the most cited guy about this stuff and explains it better than anyone else:
Comment Re:Parallel (Score 1) 226
Strange, I always thought parallel universe meant it is another universe that is parallel to our own on a three dimensional plane. Or in other words, if our universe could be represented by a piece of paper, then another piece of paper laying on top of it is a parallel piece of paper, and where they physically converge with one another manifests as a sphere (like a black hole) similar to how if you were to poke a hole in a piece of paper, then a two dimensional being living in that paper would see a big empty circle.
Read Tegmark''s papers on the multiverse concept(s).
There's many different varieties, 4 within his specific theory:
Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 226
There is no self.
That's an assumption coming from an interpretation of a spiritual tradition that may not be valid from the perspective of other traditions. Mindfulness and concentrative practices disrupt parts of the brain responsible for self and so support the interpretation "there is no self." TM enhances those same areas and eventually leads to a situation where "self" is always present, even during deep sleep. And so there is always self.
Comment Re:Define parallel universe (Score 1) 226
If by that you mean "String Theory", then that isn't actually a physical theory, since it doesn't make predictions that can be tested by observation. Some people would argue it's not even an hypothesis at this time. Feynman in particular wasn't happy with this; if it's not testable, then it's no (physical) science, but pure math or philosophy.
String theories make plenty of predictions and many are testable: all the ones tested for the Standard Model.
You're talking about 'excess explanatory power' -that is, new predictions beyond those of the theory it was meant to replace
Comment Re:Except inflation (Score 1) 226
In Tegmark's Multiverse theory, there are 4 levels of multi-verse.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
Your discussion is of only one of them. The OP's is sorta a discussion of another.
Comment Re:Much closer then the rest of them. (Score 1) 226
Depends on your definition of consciousness.
The Vedic definition is: any system with an observer, process of observing, and object of observation.
This is paralleled by Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (all versions).
So, yes, a conscious observer (as defined above) IS required to cause a wave function collapse, but the question then becomes: "how complex does that consciousness have to be?"
And THAT is still a non-resolved problem, as far as I know. You can have an interacting 2+ particle system and still not have a wave function collapse associated with that system until some interaction with a more complicated system. So where is the complexity-demarcation for wave-function collapse? How complicated must the "observer system" be in order to precipitate a collapse?
Comment Re:I believe solar thermal does benefit from scale (Score 1) 409
PV (photovoltaic) won't benefit much from scale, but some of the solar thermal options that use mirrors for heat that's then used for steam generation certainly do.
Solar thermal is dead. There are some existing plants, but no new plants are being built anywhere in the world. The cost of solar PV has fallen, and solar thermal is no longer competitive. While the cost of solar PV is expected to continue to fall, the cost of solar thermal is not. It is basically just a bunch of pipes and mirrors, so there really isn't much to improve.
Solar thermal has the advantage that the hot molten salt can be stored, and used to generate steam at night, thus providing round-the-clock baseload power. But this is not a practical benefit, since the price of electricity almost everywhere is highest during the day when the sun is shining.
Comment Re:I believe solar thermal does benefit from scale (Score 1) 409
You're familiar with _Power for the People_, which showed that using 1970 technology, all US power could economically be created using thermal solar? And yes, they proposed heat storage systems and showed that with 1970 technology, it was economic.
Slashdot Top Deals
If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.
