Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: She's right (Score 1) 91

Oh deniers love that lie. Claiming that warm periods which were so regional they didn't even *change* the global average were somehow spikes hotter than the climate change now so we don't have to worry. It's a peculiar form of eurocentrism to pretend that somethign which only happened in Europe happened to the world.

Comment Re:So we're already committed (Score 1) 91

Your maths are a bit off. You forgot that the O2 in CO2 came from the atmosphere in the first place. It's not exactly accurate since oxygen atoms don't have the same mass as carbon atoms but we can for a quick near-enough guess say that 2/3rds of the CO2 mass was there before the CO2 was there, only it used to be O2. Only the 1/3rd that is C was added by industrialization - having previously been sequestered since the carboniferous age.

So while your maths is cool - you need to adjust how you're doing the maths to factor in the mass of hte O2 that was there BEFORE it was part of the CO2.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 2) 91

The site's tagline is: "The national daily championing freedom, smaller government and human dignity."

Now while I'm sure there are genuine good people who just happen to believe government should be small - unfortunately their voices are drowned out by the insane bastards who want government to be powerless so there isn't anybody to stop them from throwing poison in your drinking water and making your air unbreathable. Climate change denial is a forte of theirs and claiming models aren't accurate (mostly by either lying about what models predicted or lying about what the actual temperature is right now) is a key part of how they deny things. The whole "we don't know and we can't know" schpiel from people claiming to be champions of science (which is the thing we use to know things with) is ridiculous. But that tagline says it all. That's not an article about maths, statistics, science or probability though it claims to be all of the above. It's an article about politics - which is being disguised because they don't want you to know it's about politics. It's an attempt to achieve a political goal - regardless of scientific fact.

When you get to the point where you will deny science and reality for the sake of your poiltical beliefs - no matter how nobel those beliefs may otherwise be - they've become evil. At the point where you want government to be too small to keep the water drinkable, the air breathable and the CO2 levels survivable - small government libertarians are no longer just people with whom I have a difference of opinion - they become an actual and legitimate threat to my personal security and the national security of all nations. Killing them becomes justified on the basis of self defence. *
You generally want to stop following the line of any ideology before the point where it becomes justifiable for other people to kill you in self defence over what you do in the name of that ideology.

*Note that I am speaking of what would be justified - not what I would actually do. I'm a pacifist and consider force the very last resort. I don't think we are *quite* at the last resort level in general yet. In a few specific cases yes, but not in general. If you live in a town where somebody is dumping poison in your drinking water though - and you kill the CEO of the company who did it and every idiot who tried to stop the government from preventing it, you are not a murderer though, that's self defence and even the most devoted pacifist will not begrudge you that.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 618

>Tyson, as I've pointed out, obviously doesn't realize the obvious implications of his silly ramblings. He's also (very obviously) not one of the greatest minds alive. Remember my entire point?

Because those implications only exist in your mind, not in the actual science. And I'd say the head of the IAU and one of the most influential and celebrated researchers in his field, not to mention one of the extremely rare few in that field who *also* have a talent for speaking to the public in an entertaining manner and educating - is most definitely one of the greatest minds alive. Your failure to recognize that is as spurious as your reading of implications into a theory that are not in that theory. Not to mention that those implications depend on assuming his layman's description is actually the science - which does not *even* include a reliance on another species, merely says it's possible.

>Now, you are an idiot if you really think you can't be both a creationist and an atheist.
Since two sentences later you prove you don't actually even know what creationism IS, it makes sense how you can believe such a ridiculous thing. These two belief systems flat-out contradict each other. And not subtly, the one consists of almost nothing BUT a contradiction of the other ! It's not possible to hold both without severe multiple personality disorder.

>Creationism does not imply anything supernatural
Yes it does, it's literally a part of the definition and anything that doesn't is not and has nothing in common with creationism. Like I said, all you've proven is that you don't know what creationism *is*. The supernatural parts of the belief is what makes creationism *not* science. That's the ONLY part which isn't otherwise a scientifically valid hypotheses. Even Genesis meets the other criteria. It explains observations and makes testable predictions. The only trouble is that all the tests have failed to confirm it. It's a falsified theory - but had it been proposed in the age of science it would have been a legitimate theory before it was falsified... all the bits except god, calls to anything supernatural, untestable or inexplicable is automatically NOT science.

>If we were living in a simulation, we'd have absolutely no reason to believe anything about the universe which houses our simulation nor the creators who produced the simulation.
You're making rather a lot of assumptions. You're assuming that the simulation is changeable and actively being maintained. Neither of those assumptions are remotely likely. A simulation on this scale is likely too massive to ever dare change a single line of code anywhere as the slightest change could destroy the entire thing - and there is absolutely no reason to suspect those who run the intervention are doing anything more than completely passive observation - indeed, it makes almost no sense to create it for anything else. Any species capable of creating such a simulation must have developed science - and science demands you do not interfere in the running of an experiment.

>We'd, very obviously, have no basis to form such beliefs
Sure we would. Why can't you study a simulation from the inside ? If it is a simulation it was created to BE studied. Why would that only be possible from the outside ? We should set out to learn all we can about it.
You also forget that this is a falsifiable hypotheses and there are active experiments running to test it. This is a real scientific hypotheses, not just philosophical mumbling - it makes predictions and sets out to test those predictions. It could be a while yet before *our* technology gives us a conclusive answer - current experiments test to the level we can and if they prove it wrong it's conclusive but failing to do so is not yet conclusive since there are other tests one would need to do and those are not yet doable - but that time will come. The mere fact that the scientists who propose this also propose it can be tested and verified, and are actively doing so, proves that your idea of it being an unknowable entity does not enter anywhere in their thinking.
This is experimental physics - not theoretical.

Your problem is that you're assuming a simulation cannot also be reality - and you have no basis for assuming that.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 618

I didn't say Tyson wrote a paper. There is, however, a great body of scientific papers exploring this topic. Tyson was commenting on them - in a lay forum. And there was some news coverage of what he said - which you read (probably only the ./ summary which, by the way, was atrocious) and now you think you understand the science.
The problem is - I'm trying to talk on your level. I'm dumbing down like never before... and then you respond to the dumbed down things by finding tiny nitpicks and claiming I'm lying.

Of course I'm fucking lying - simplifying to the point where you MAY understand what I am saying requires me to simplify to the point of a lie. I may have overshot a bit there - but not by much.
Since you didn't even understand the layman's version Tyson said in that debate - how could I expect you to begin to understand the real science ?

If you seriously think the simulated universe hypotheses is a form of creationism then you are guilty of the worst case of wishful thinking I've ever seen.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 618

I'm being called an idiot by somebody who sincerely believes that some of the greatest minds alive are both creationists and atheists at the same time... somehow, I'm just not giving much weight to your opinion of me.

Just in the billion to one chance you may understand. Tyson, like myself, is a Spinozan. It's a brand of atheism that sees the divine in the majesty of the cosmos. It's spirtuality without spirits. Divinity without a god. Holiness without obedience. Wonderousness and mystery and the soul - all without anything supernatural.

And that is the point you don't get. Even with your interpretation of what Tyson says it still has nothing in common with creationism because there is absolutely nothing supernatural or inexplicable there. No call to any god. No claim of divine intervention. The thing about it is - if indeed this universe was a simulation created by another species - then they are a species just like us. The only difference is slightly more advanced technology.

What he is really telling you is that, in a relatively short space of time, we will be able to create simulated universes which could evolve inhabitants as intelligent as us. If the runners of such a supposed simulation are gods - then, in the very near future, we ourselves, will be gods too. But we aren't and we won't be and neither are the beings supposedly running the simulation. They are no more gods than the Europeans who brought death and destruction to the Americas. Cortez was not a god by any means - he just had access to some slightly more advanced technology. He had guns and steel (and smallpox immunity). With that he wiped out 95% of the population of two continents in under a decade.
He may have been as brutal as the god of the old testament - but that's where the similarity ends.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 618

PS scientists comparing it to what we think of as a computer simulation, to an MMO etc. - are using layman's terms when speaking to the public, that's the super-simplified version so idiots can think they understand it.
It has as much to do with the actual science as the phrase 'survival of the fittest' has to do with origin of species: which is to say nothing at all. That phrase never occurs anywhere in that book, or any of Darwin's other books or any of his papers. He never uttered it at all.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 618

>That's my point. The idea is absurd, yet its endorsed by idiotic science evangelists. It's no different that the creationist nonsense idiots here are complaining about. The only difference is that they give the version that sounds like science a pass. Scientists can be idiots too. Just look at Neil Tyson. He's promoting his own "scientific" brand of creationism, while simultaneously bashing the minority religious version. The problem, as I've stated, isn't with religion. It's with people. People are irrational.

You clearly didn't understand what I said. NO scientists believe in what you think they believe in - including Neil Tyson.

>The simulation hypothesis described by Neil Tyson, as I mentioned, presupposes a civilization which produces a simulation
No it doesn't. It merely considers it as a possibility. But as you failed to understand - EVEN if you presuppose a civilization - which he does not, that is NOT creationism, as it explicitely states that that civilization could, themselves, be a simulation. On the contrary - it's simulations all the way down. Like an NPC in WoW that writes his own MMO.

>As to your terrarium nonsense, again,
It's YOUR creationist interpretation that sounds like a terarium. As I said - even if we assume that a civilization is involved AND that said civilization is real - we are almost certainly not the purpose of the experiment. Those running the civilization probably haven't even noticed earth. Earth, and indeed life itself, is more likely a bug than a purpose of the simulation. If you build a simulation as big as this universe - your'e doing it to study universes, not the contents of one tiny little planet that happened to form in some tiny and otherwise quite insignificant little star somewhere. In fact other science backs that up - the more we look the more exoplanets we discover and the better we get at looking the more we find that are very much earthlike. The most recent one, named after Keppler, is probably almost completely earthlike. If it is earthlike - that alone proves it has life, because earth wasn't earthlike BEFORE it had life and couldn't have become earthlike without life - life is what MADE earth be like earth. Life is probably extremely abundant in the universe - and if they care about it at all, it's about it's abundance over-all, not about any particular planet and the short brief moment when a few members of one species on it figured out how to wonder if they live in a simulation.
It's the opposite of creationism - because it says that, even if there were creators, they don't give a flying fuck about us. They probably haven't even noticed us.

>This isn't complicated. Why are you struggling so much with this?
Because I actually understand the REAL theory and you're arguing about a strawman version of it that only ever existed in your own fevered imagination.

Comment Re: Dishonest Arguments not Politics (Score 1) 618

>There is no way to disprove that the stars travel around the earth, because you can build an entirely consistent mathematical system around just this assumption
It's extremely easy to disprove - it's called "use a telescope" hell - we've been to space rather often by now and have been studying distant galaxies for quite some time.

Besides which - you remain wrong about even what science or the scientific method is. Hint Ptolomy never used the scientific method because it didn't exist yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Between infinite and short there is a big difference. -- G.H. Gonnet