Best posts

Although I have ome high-quality posts they are very long. I´d rather reccomend you watch this video (that I´ve made):

It´s well worth your time, even if it´s precious!

3 Responses to Best posts

  1. […] Jeg blogger nå på bloggen How is earth?, som jeg anbefaler dere sterkt å ta en titt […]

  2. Apologies if you receive several copies of this. The Post Comment button is not giving me any confirmation that it is working.

    Your video is certainly an insightful analysis of the facts and it is great to hear such optimism amongst all the pessimism. Your conclusions at the end are, however, rather different to mine. To get a more complete picture I think another 2 graphs are required; the advance of the power of weapons of war and the advance of the ethics of humanity. If our ethics do not stay ahead of technological abilities we will inevitably destroy ourselves. One prove of this hypothesis comes from considering the Fermi paradox. The cosmos is huge and old so the chance of us being the first civilization advanced enough to consider space travel is impossibly small. Where are they? They either destroyed themselves or they are waiting for us (all humanity) to invite them back to Earth. The important message is therefore not so much a need for more technology. If we survive that will happen anyway. The critical message we need to get across is that we all need to work hard on advancing our ethical standards.

    • Tor says:

      Thank you for your interesting comment regarding my video on the future.

      I think the ethics of humanity are getting better and better. Just look at for example Steven Pinkers talk “A Brief History Of Violence” on Youtube. I have written more extensivly myself about how the world is getting more peaceful, but in Norwegian, and I haven´t translated yet. The conclusion is that the statistics show a very clear decline in violence and deaths from war both in a long perspective and a more recent perspective – although these graphs are nowhere near as smooth as exponential growth curves of information technology. Of course I am not guarantying world peace in the future, I don´t have a crystal ball, but I don´t think that things are looking bad. That being said, if you have proposals for how to efficiently contribute to a more peaceful and safe future, I´m listening eagerly!🙂

      Although the Fermi paradox is interesting it presumes that we guess about the probabilities of whether or not the different stages needed to get to the point where one can be visible for other intelligent species on planets far away. I don´t know what the chances of some of the earliest necessary stages in out evolution occurring are really low. If that is the case then I don´t see how the Fermi paradox would be much of a paradox. If the chances are really low then they might still not be low for the universe as a whole, but they might be such that it isn´t likely for planets with life to reach other planets, even if sending out signals that are carried at the speed of light. Planets that don´t give rise to life don´t “create” beings that can ponder the probability of their origins.

      I took a look at your website, and saw your article “Evolution and creation”. While you seem intelligent, I think you are misguided. As you are interested in these issues I highly recommend this talk, which deals exactly with the issues you write about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak&feature=relmfu. It´s called climbing mount improbable, and deals exactly why it´s plausible for advanced “machines” as ourselves can have been “created” by evolution. It deals specifically and elegantly with both your monkey at a typewriter example, and the example of the whirlwind in the scrap yard producing a fully working passenger jet, so please take the time to see the whole thing – regardless of whether or not you like the presenter!😛

      I feel like giving you a lot more links like this one, but I will constrain myself😛

      You might remember me mentioning the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics in my video. If not I´ll refresh your memory a bit (from a text I´ve written earlier):

      “In quantum physics you´re not certain what´s going to happen. You don´t know when a radioactive atom is going to decay. You don´t know exactly where an electron is going to be placed in a specific moment in time. Instead of dealing with certainties we deal with probabilities.

      There are several interpretations of what this could mean. One of these is the many worlds interpretation. It states that all of the different outcomes that could occur, do occur, but in different universes that our current universe splits into. At every instance of time a new universe is created for each possible combination of quantum outcomes for all of the particles in the whole universe.

      I´m not an expert, but I like this theory because it assumes that the universe could be symmetric after all when seeing all of it at once, and suggests (at least to me) simpler underlying structures/laws than if there is only one future following this one that is made out of random outcomes. The many-worlds interpretation is not the most popular interpretation, but up there, and it´s pretty mainstream.

      Anyway, here comes the point: If this interpretation is true it suggests an INSANELY ENORMOUS number of universes springing out from this one at every instance of time.

      Just 300 happenings with two possible outcomes each will lead to 10^10 as many different possible combinations of possible outcomes as there are atoms in the observable universe (give or take a lot). And as more different outcomes and different objects are taken into account the amount of possible combinations of outcomes increases so exponentially that Kurzweils graphs look dull by comparison.

      There are to put it mildly many more than two possible places an electron can be placed during an instance of time, and if I remember correctly there are more instances of time in a second then there has been seconds since the big bang. And if the entire world population were to count the number of atoms in one gram of carbon, one atom a second day and night, it would take more than 270 000 years. And so on… ”

      An interesting question one can ask oneself is: If this theory is true, then is it possible that a storm in a junk yard produces an airplane in some universe? I don´t know if the answer is yes or no. But although I have no reason to think that this theory is needed in order to think it probable that intelligent life came about on its own, it shows that there might be answers to those kinds of “paradoxes” that don´t involve a God. Universes that don´t give rise to life don´t “create” beings that can ponder the probability of their origins.

      By the way, I read that you make a living in science and engineering, which is really cool! Good luck in your future endeavors!🙂

      Best regards,
      Tor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: