• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

NP Wednesday August 23, 2017

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes, in fact I would say EGS very clearly states that immortals have mental capacity big enough ... and also shows that nevertheless, they can still be surprised.

Considering how often we humans overlook the obvious, it would take some intellect - if that's even the right word - to be incapable of overlooking the non-obvious.

And of course some things are just random, according to every theory that doesn't make absolutely everything (down to when each unstable atomic nucleus or subatomic particle will degrade and in exactly what fashion) deterministic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Considering how often we humans overlook the obvious, it would take some intellect - if that's even the right word - to be incapable of overlooking the non-obvious.

Sometimes the obvious things are easier to overlook than the non-obvious. Nevertheless, to be incapable of overlooking something would likely require INFINITE intellect.

53 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

And of course some things are just random, according to every theory that doesn't make absolutely everything (down to when each unstable atomic nucleus or subatomic particle will degrade and in exactly what fashion) deterministic.

Quantum physics provide extremely hard randomness: for example, if you have particle with spin 1 in direction up and you measure it in left-right direction, it's supposed to be totally random 50% if you get left or right. It's little harder to magnify difference like this to macroscopic level, but chaotic systems should be able to manage that.

And, because of related problem of what happens with entangled particles, I'm sure this is experimentally proven as reliably as is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hkmaly said:
9 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Considering how often we humans overlook the obvious, it would take some intellect - if that's even the right word - to be incapable of overlooking the non-obvious.

Sometimes the obvious things are easier to overlook than the non-obvious. Nevertheless, to be incapable of overlooking something would likely require INFINITE intellect.

I think it's Perception you want, although I guess some Intellect might be needed to know that something is obvious or not, but Perception would be the primary stat you'd want to put points in.

 

...

I dunno if that's a very good RPG analogy, I just woke up and my Charisma has a debuff on it until I have coffee...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scotty said:

I think it's Perception you want, although I guess some Intellect might be needed to know that something is obvious or not, but Perception would be the primary stat you'd want to put points in.

Perception is if you don't want to overlook something literally. In the metaphorical cases, I don't think it's still relevant.

For example, you need perception to notice there are 10 numbers on walls of the room, but I don't think it will help you notice that all of them except one are prime numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:54 PM, Don Edwards said:

And of course some things are just random, according to every theory that doesn't make absolutely everything (down to when each unstable atomic nucleus or subatomic particle will degrade and in exactly what fashion) deterministic.

True, but stuff that is truly random is down at the quantum level. Macroscopic physics are deterministic. (The disconnect between the very small and the very large is a point of frustration for many physicist.) If you can account for every variable and your model is sound, you can accurately predict how a given macroscopic system will play out. Chaotic systems are difficult to predict due to the large number of variables and high degree of complexity. Small errors in calculation get compounded upon, causing the system to veer widely from the predicted path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaotic systems can also typically compound the effects of quantum uncertainty until they reach macroscopic levels; it just takes a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Drasvin said:

If you can account for every variable and your model is sound, you can accurately predict how a given macroscopic system will play out.

Unless your analytics solution converge so slowly you need to rely on numerical integration to get results before you die.

13 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Chaotic systems are difficult to predict due to the large number of variables and high degree of complexity.

It's true that finite-dimensional linear systems are never chaotic, however with nonlinear system, you can get chaotic system with only three variables.

13 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Small errors in calculation get compounded upon, causing the system to veer widely from the predicted path.

Not only calculation. Any error in initial value, no matter how small, can cause any difference in result, no matter how big - just wait.

12 hours ago, Haylo said:

Chaotic systems can also typically compound the effects of quantum uncertainty until they reach macroscopic levels; it just takes a bit longer.

Even if you can completely predict future based on position and speed of all particles, there is this little problem: quantum physics says you literally CANT know both position and speed (momentum) of particle exactly.

Soooo ... you don't get your input data.

13 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Macroscopic physics are deterministic.

The NAND flash memory uses tunnel injection for writing and tunnel release for erasing. The same tunnel as in quantum tunnelling or Fowler–Nordheim tunneling. If macroscopic physic would be deterministic, you wouldn't be able to write anything on your SSD. Also, the second world war would take longer to finish, because nuclear bomb only works based on radioactive decay, which can ONLY be described in terms of probability - totally nondeterministic. Macroscopic enough? If not, look at Sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mlooney said:
18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If not, look at Sun.

Please use proper glasses to do this however.

As proven by Trump, you don't need glasses for quick glance. Also, with the exception of single moment in eclipse, your natural reflexes should warn you fast enough. The danger of eclipse is 1) that moment when sun starts shining behind moon, which is sharp raise in brightness 2) you are more likely to overcame your reflexes due to curiosity.

That said, using glasses is certainly safer. Especially if you want to really experience the size of Sun and are therefore looking from Mercury (in which case you should also remember space suit and cooling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That said, using glasses is certainly safer. Especially if you want to really experience the size of Sun and are therefore looking from Mercury (in which case you should also remember space suit and cooling).

Maybe. But how often does Luna interpose itself between Mercury and the Sun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Maybe. But how often does Luna interpose itself between Mercury and the Sun?

Never. Also, I'm not sure if there is any stable orbit around Mercury where would Luna be able to cover Sun ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Never. Also, I'm not sure if there is any stable orbit around Mercury where would Luna be able to cover Sun ...

If Mercury had a companion body large enough to do that, Mercury would orbit the companion body.

Actually, any orbiting body and its primary orbit each other. However, in most known cases within our solar system, the center of mass around which they both orbit is inside the primary. Pluto and Charon are a notable exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Never. Also, I'm not sure if there is any stable orbit around Mercury where would Luna be able to cover Sun ...

If Mercury had a companion body large enough to do that, Mercury would orbit the companion body.

The premise is our Luna would be doing that - and she weights less. The question is how close to Mercury would she need to orbit to have enough angular size and if that orbit would be stable. Luckily, Mercury doesn't have any atmosphere to speak about which would complicate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now