Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wild Ideas

hanson.gmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–166 of 166 posts

Re: Wild Ideas

#161

Post by 6ren »

jmmcd wrote: post #125
6ren wrote: post #4

Try this: we don't get alien visitors because space travel is prohibitively expensive. But communication is cheap. So you'd expect the sky to be filled with messages, maximally compressed and/or encrypted, and so indistinguishable from noise: background radiation.

I like it, but: I guess you're talking about civilizations deliberately communicating with each other. If they don't already know each other, then maximal compression or encryption would prevent them recognising each other's signals, by your argument. If they do, then how did that happen?

Nice point! I guess we could posit some trainer-signals amid the mash. A civilisation's technology just has to be advanced enough to work them out...

Re: Wild Ideas

#162

Post by derleth »

Houshalter wrote: post #160
derleth wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, boycotts are a use of force. Everyone ganging up on someone to boycott them (shunning, as it used to be called, or making them an outlaw) is one of the oldest, cruelest forms of punishment, and we're well shut of it now. Putting someone in prison is one thing; kicking them out of society entirely is another. > The point is, that if the way government does something is truly superior, then people would still do…

>First, boycotts are a use of force. Everyone ganging up on someone to boycott them (shunning, as it used to be called, or making them an outlaw) is one of the oldest, cruelest forms of punishment, and we're well shut of it now. Putting someone in prison is one thing; kicking them out of society entirely is another. In order for that to work you would need nearly 99% of the population or more to agree to that punishm…

> In order for that to work you would need nearly 99% of the population or more to agree to that punishment and to actively participate. Which is a lot more than required in a democracy or pretty much any system.

But it has happened in the past. Never underestimate the power of groupthink to do horrible things to minorities.

> Somalia is a collapsed society, not really a good example of anything.

No better place, then. Nothing for the anarchist utopia to compete with.

> Libertarianism is counter-intuitive for most people

No, it isn't. Not from what I've seen both online and off.

> People would defend their own property or pay into some private legal system that promised to do so.

We've tried this and it didn't work.

Re: Wild Ideas

#163

Post by sergiosgc »

sytelus wrote: post #120
sergiosgc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please go read Kurzweil. Scientific advancement is dead on track on an exponential curve. Moore's law is still accurate. Will it keep this rate as Kurzweil postulates? I have no idea. Until now, though, he's correct. Comparing tech today with sci-fi of the past is wrong. Predictions fail both ways: there's lots of tech we do have that is missing in sci-fi.

Kurzweil has been getting it right because his near-term predictions are pretty safe bets, many of them true in some form even in 2000. For examples, * Research has been initiated on reverse engineering the brain through both destructive and non-invasive scans. * Autonomous nanoengineered machines have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls. * People can talk to their computer to give commands…

I didn't mean the futuristic almanac style predictions. Kurzweil's main point is that mankind's evolution and abilities are exponential, or that Moore's law is not a special case but rather the norm in scientific evolution. His charts on stuff not related to transistor count do hold up for the near future.

More important than that, in this context, Kurzweil shows that scientific evolution has not stagnated or decelerated, in the last few decades, as the parent comment was proposing. Much to the contrary, the current pace is faster than in the past.

Re: Wild Ideas

#164

Post by jmmcd »

6ren wrote: post #161
jmmcd wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it, but: I guess you're talking about civilizations deliberately communicating with each other. If they don't already know each other, then maximal compression or encryption would prevent them recognising each other's signals, by your argument. If they do, then how did that happen?

Nice point! I guess we could posit some trainer-signals amid the mash. A civilisation's technology just has to be advanced enough to work them out...

Our technology (ie, information theory) is already advanced enough to test whether the background radiation is noise or not.

Re: Wild Ideas

#165

Post by bumbledraven »

Xcelerate wrote: post #149
bumbledraven wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum mechanics provides a very clear set of postulates that allow the prediction of various phenomena through mathematical equations -- that's as far as I read into it. Science is about explaining the world/universe, not merely making predictions.

Could you give an example of a case where science explains something without making a testable prediction?

No, I can't. Scientific theories should be testable, but they should also be explanations, not merely predictions.

This came up at Galileo's trial. The Church was happy to accept his theories as mere predictions of astronomical observations. What they wouldn't accept was that the earth actually DID move around the sun. But Galileo was adamant on explaining what as actually out there. "According to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious phrase And yet it moves." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves‎)

Re: Wild Ideas

#166

Post by bumbledraven »

icebraining wrote: post #45
bumbledraven wrote: post #19

1. Many times each day, your mind permanently splits into different versions that live in different worlds. True. 2. If medicine were taxed so much that people only bought half as much, they would be just as healthy. False. The "extra" spending in medicine drives innovations so we have better drugs & procedures etc. than we would otherwise. 3. If we keep writing down common sense datums until 2100, we can make comput…

There's a five percent chance I live in a "future" computer simulation as I write this. False - to run simulate sentient beings with so much suffering would be cruel. So you mean the chance is much higher?

I mean that as time goes on and we get better at making technology, we also get better at making moral decisions. For instance, most people in the world today think slavery is wrong. Even 200 years ago, this wasn't the case.
Post reply on HN