Mathematical pluralism

• gregory chaitin's work
•  goedel's incompleteness theorem, interpreted in a non-retarded way
• the theorem in computability which says that for any string of kolmogorov complexity greater than K and any program which outputs that string it is mathematically impossible to prove there isn't a smaller program which outputs the string
• routine multiple axiomatizations of the same theories
• meta-mathematics and routine working with different theories (aka mathematical universes)
• the result in mathematics where a finite theory seems to contain infinite elements as seen from inside of the theory, those elements being finite from outside of it - an interesting special case of Goedel which blatantly violates singularity
• logical duality of T and F if you swap operations
• morphisms in general

Mathematicians self-consciously play pretend that there is a single mathematical universe, but they ALL know it isn't true, without exception. Any that don't would be considered retarded. This has been so since the destruction of Russel's Principia Mathematica project by Goedel in the 1930s. The notion of mathematical unity or holism has been destroyed for all time and any mathematician who does not acknowledge it is a hackneyed bucktoothed hick.

Pluralism won conclusively, decisively and totally. Yet there still remains "debate" in mathematical circles because retards still do mathematics and insist on projecting their values on mathematical reality. Those values are not in fact holism but rather solipsism.



Physical pluralism

• many worlds
• opposed only by pilot wave theory
• the fact "Copenhagen" is still bandied about as a word instead of an epithet and derided as utterly moronic should give you the idea that retards are winning
• chaotic eternal inflation theory which is the only credible inflation theory (but again opposed by retards projecting their anti-chaos and "there's no such thing as a free lunch" values)
• the fact the creation myth Big Bang Theory is not derided or used as an epithet despite its mathematical impossibility, statistical impossibility, and the acknowledged facts that 1. inflation must be true, 2. inflation erased any traces of a putative big bang, thus making it a myth or article of faith  <-- am="" and="" anti-reality="" are="" forces="" how="" i="" li="" of="" retarded="" showing="" singularity="" solipsism="" the="" you="">
• cosmological horizons
• cosmological domain walls, if they exist, and they probably do
• event horizons
• superstring theory's solution to event horizons
• general relativity
• the Mach principle
• the Holographic principle
• perturbative vs non-perturbative theories can be seen as dualistic vs monistic
• superstring theory dualities, mathematical inequivalence yet physical equivalence. IOW, there is no possible way to tell what the fundamental objects of the theory even ARE. Is it a black hole or a fundamental particle? The answer is "who cares?" because you can provably never ever ever tell.
• the fact superstring theory was only invented to clean up the shit that are point particles which is by every measure much, much worse
• multiple realizability in general
• the fact many worlds is pretty much accepted as standard among cosmologists, physicists who out of their own initiative care about the WHOLE universe rather than just their own selfish part of it

The fact subjective experience is just the internal states of a complex system perceiving its surroundings.

The fact mathematics + time = computability.

The fact mathematics is bigger than infinite and contains within it computability which contains within it theorems. And some of those theorems have state. And some of those theorems are sufficiently complex and maintain their own order against entropy through time and consume computation to do so, thus are alive. And some of those theorems have temporal relations to their surroundings, commonly called 'subjective experiences'. And some of those theorems possess living representation, aka intelligence. And some of those living intelligent theorems perceive the universe of mathematics they are in from inside that universe, and go to cocktail parties and publish philosophy papers and ask themselves "what is math?" and "what is physical reality?". When physical reality is just the subjective experience of complex mathematical theorems of their mathematical environment.

This is all just a chain of facts which starts with "what is subjective experience" and ends with ... there are people inside other branches of math and THEY think they exist and many of THEM are scumbag solipsists that think THEIR branch of math is super-special and thus OURS doesn't exist.

Singularity is solipsism.

And subjectivity or relativity is just an artifact of closed systems. As soon as you can define a boundary to a system, there are boundary effects and those are just two of them. Subjectivity is what crosses the boundary, and relativity is the fact that what lies beyond the boundary looks different depending on the closed system you start from.

In order to deny pluralism you would have to deny boundaries exist. In order to do that you would have to say you can never take any perspective with a boundary. And the only such perspective is the block universe. Pluralism you see is just ... multiple perspectives.



And as for determinism? Both many-worlds and pilot wave theory ARE deterministic. But many-worlds is not holistic. And as you saw, pluralism wins anyways so you win nothing by trying to hang on to a last vestige of holism. Also, I'm not even sure if there is any way to distinguish between pilot wave theory and many-worlds, and if there isn't then pluralism wins yet again.

How Dumbo Can Fly

It is a mystery to some people how Dumbo the flying elephant can fly when rabbits clearly cannot. The mystery is resolved instantly by realizing that Dumbo has neither mass nor density. What he has is geometry and volume with ears proportional to his body similar to birds' wings to their bodies.

When human minds develop in infancy (and the way AI minds should be built by idiots) they learn to process geometry and volume, then color, then mass, then sound. So anyone developing speech recognition as an independent function is going about it backwards.

What this means is there's a period of time during which very small children have no concept of mass. Or not a very accurate concept of it at all. And you don't need to examine children to figure this out.

Plato had a very good grasp of geometry, Leonardo had a very good grasp of color, yet mass had to wait for Galileo, and even a thousand years later, people are still pondering "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" when the clear and obvious answer is "no". And anyone who says otherwise simply has no conception of what "sound" means.

Philosophers to this day still have no idea where color comes from. Because philosophers are idiots. They're obviously mind states. But in order to have states first you must have entities to hold those states. And that's what geometry and volume gives you. And mass? Hell, physicists don't know what mass is, because it's even more advanced.

Spacetime, Energy, Bits

Most of these I ran across in just that form ... I just accumulated insights I ran across (being able to recognize them as insights, something most people are utterly incapable of) until at some point I went beyond what anyone had thought of.

1. spacetime exists, energy exists, both are mysterious
2. we see space because it actually exists and our brains decompose it that way
3. information / entropy exists, information / entropy is NOT spacetime OR energy
4. information / entropy is JUST AS fundamental as spacetime and energy, despite physicists' lack of any grasp of this
5. energy CARRIES information / entropy
6. the universe is MATH, the only thing that distinguishes pure math from physics is "physicality" which is probably this mysterious arbitrary substance energy cause there sure as fuck are bits and dimensions in math
7. math + time = computation
8. the holographic principle says that any N-dimensional non-local theory is equivalent to an N+1 dimensional local theory
9. time is just the dimension along which information / entropy is conserved
10. information vs entropy are higher order related to values / loops and at lower order there is simply bits

Local means that bits can only interact with nearby bits. Non-local means that ANY bit can interact instantly with EVERY other bit in the whole universe.

So time is just local space + weird interaction with information. Local space is just a way we have of organizing information as "nearby" other information by moving up one dimension above what actually exists (so if 1D your brain moves up to 2D, if 3D your brain moves up to 4D). And non-local space seems very weird but also exceedingly abstract, however it's also exceedingly simple: it's the bulk effects of information. And of course Information is just bits
your mind likes. And energy is just ... your perception of math from the inside of math, the quality of existing in THIS branch of math - in logic it's the predicate "exists".

It's all incredibly simple if you understand each of those individual concepts, these are just their interrelations. What's missing is the meanings of life, mind (derived: intelligence, soul), entropy, chaos, order, energy, representation and how these interrelate. But to clearly explain those you need to understand values and loops, and those I haven't cracked yet.

Physics: Think Like A Narcissist

In Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, the software developers put in a Time God who controls the world's timeline. In the previous games of the Elder Scrolls series, various events happen in different ways since the gamers control the outcome.

But aha! None of that ever matters because the software developer decided to merge all those divergent timelines back together. So in-game, there is a god, the Time God, who took all the divergent timelines of previous in-game historical events and brought them back together.

The software developer is the god that decided how things really happened inside the game and made it so the actions of players never really mattered. And this is now official history and an official Theory of Time inside the game. And this is how I'm sure narcissists view the world because it's got that insane personalistic feel to it.

And because narcissists worship gods, and the time god in that game series is the king of the gods (a Narcissist slot) and because Time Gods is what the Tibetan Buddhists worship, and the Tibetan Buddhists are fucking sociopaths. So the evidence is pretty conclusive.

As well, Presentism is sociopathic. Only the Present matters, neither the past nor the future even exist. And others' perspectives on time or reality don't matter. As well, this worldview stinks of "how the cosmos was created" which is a Narcissist worldview and obsession. And is opposed to "what is the cosmos".

But Elder Scrolls isn't what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, physicists (empiricists every single one of them) make experiments and then they see the result of these experiments with their own eyes. And because they see the results with their own eyes, that makes them real.

Narcissists trust only what they can see with their own eyes because nobody else is real. Except of course other narcissists who can't be trusted, and psychopaths (goes double), and Nazis (same deal). The world doesn't just exist due to the evidence of their own eyes, it can only exist thanks to themselves. Thanks to their miraculous power of perceiving the world.

So then these good toadying Narcissists who've made all these experiments ask themselves how the cosmos was made. And it's fucking obvious! The cosmos was made through the miraculous power of perceiving the cosmos. Physicists create reality by observing "wavefunction collapse" so by the same token God creates the cosmos by observing the cosmos!!

It's so fucking obvious! God is just. like. them. He's just another narcissist ... exactly like everyone else. And the whole universe and the whole entire cosmos works on the principles that narcissists understand the world by!! Again, so fucking obvious. The evidence is literally as clear as your own eyes! Everyone who cares (only) about what they can see with their own personal eyes can see it's the only option!!

Niels Bohr, the great "father" of Copenhagen, was a sociopath. He isn't the first and won't be the last sociopath doing physics. And isn't it awesome how inclusive physics is that sociopaths can freely work in it and get acclaim and renown and even dictate what is and isn't physics for a whole fucking century?!

Is it any surprise then that Creationism (Big Bang) was heralded as "enlightenment"? Too bad that the truth about the universe (eternal chaotic inflation) doesn't fit so neatly the preconceptions of any idiotic retarded personality type. It literally fits the preconceptions of one of the smartest (and rarest) personality types.

Information vs Entropy

What is the difference between information and entropy?

Nobody will tell you because as usual the scientific community is made up of inept worthless morons so THEY. DON'T. KNOW. In fact, they will tell you that information and entropy are synonyms despite the fact that they are never used interchangeably but rather are opposites.

Just like the "learned" philosophers will tell you that ethics and morality are synonymous despite their never being used interchangeably and often as complements to each other. Entropic shit-spewers, the whole lot of them, with only single-digit exceptions!

Well, I will tell you. Because I am not a douchebag driven to hide how much he doesn't know to maintain "credibility". Nor am I a douchebag driven to build up and cryptify what he knows in order to build up "credibility" amongst a crypto-priesthood of like-minded "brothers"..

What It Is

bits + ISA = information

bits - ISA = entropy.

What is ISA? ISA is INFORMATIONAL SYNTAX AFFINITY. It's basically, THE INFORMATION YOU LIKE. That's right bitches! The difference between information and entropy is subjective! Something they barely let on in communication theory when they start talking about signal vs noise. Something they LIE ABOUT in thermodynamics when they claim it's about microstates vs macrostates!

What It Isn't

Physicists claim that the motion of aluminum atoms in your hard drive are microstates, and that the arrangements of aluminum atoms in your hard drive that correspond to 0s and 1s which your computer reads are macrostates. And, this is the important bit, they claim that the microstates are garbage (entropy) whereas the macrostates are useful (information). In other words, physicists claim that the difference between entropy and information is the META-LEVEL you're interested in. THEY ARE LYING!

Counter-example: how many of you have garbage files on your computer? Ancient ZIP files, corrupt files that can't be played, duplicate and truncated textfiles, automated log files nobody ever looks at, useless "temporary" files that have accumulated, porn you never bother to look at any more, bookmarks you never go to? How many of you have entire FOLDERS' worth of that crap?

And yet this ALL OCCURS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE USEFUL FILES! Proving that the distinction between information and entropy has NOTHING to do with meta-levels. But actually, we'll get back to this because the retards were more wrong than could be imagined.

Building Blocks Of The Universe

Some, and I stress, some exceptional physicists have grasped that bits are one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. The other building blocks are energy and dimension. Although dimension may, MAY, be optional if you successfully reduce it down to ... bits!

Are there other fundamental building blocks of the universe? Why, yes there are! These are all of them,

• 0. math = symbols + rules
• 1. energy, the substrate of physical existence
• 2. dimension, a kind of information, maybe
• 3. information, symbols given physical existence
• 4. value, meta-circular loops

Note how time isn't in there. That's because time is just a dimension along which information is conserved. That's it. And since time isn't fundamental and computation is just 'math occurring in time' ... but I digress.

The unfamiliar building block of the universe in there is 'value'. Which is nonetheless startlingly familiar to anyone who's skimmed GED: The Eternal Golden Braid. I say skimmed since that book was useless to anyone. Meandering, winding and always avoiding making its fucking point! Probably because its authors were too stupid to put their point into the kind of rigor which mathematicians prefer and they were afraid of looking stupid. Credibility is the death-knell of science.

Value

Now, I already said that information is intrinsically subjective. You need something like brains to have information at all. But you actually don't. You need neither brains nor computation nor time to have information. What you DO need is a container with bits in it and for those bits to form meta-circular loops. In other words, for the bits to talk about what the other bits look like!

When a container chock full of bits is ALSO chock-full of meta-circular loops, then the space of possible information is vastly decreased. When that happens, the bits in the container can be COMPRESSED. And when bits are compressed that's the same thing as if they didn't exist. Look it up, information theory says this most explicitly.

So, the more meta-circular loops there are or the stronger the loops are in the container (the more fully they describe the container's bits) the more VALUE is in a container full of bits, the fewer bits there actually are. And ISA is a very primitive form of value because it refers to what a computation machine such as a brain likes in terms of bits on a purely syntactic level.

That is, what it likes to see in terms of density and spatial arrangement of bits. Does this brain like for the container to be about half-full of 1s? Almost completely full of 1s? Almost completely full of 0s? Should those 1s and 0s move in time or not? Should they ...? That's ISA.

Information And Entropy Are Opposites

Bits + ISA = Bits + Value = Bits + more compression = Fewer actual bits = Information

Bits - ISA = Bits - Value = Bits + zero compression = Maximum actual bits = Entropy

And *THAT* children is why Information and Entropy ARE FUCKING OPPOSITES!

Because while "information" theory and computation theory and physics all talk about BITS ... they never, EVER talk about information OR entropy. Because the concepts of information and entropy exist ABOVE the level of bits. And because scientists and academic researchers are TOO FUCKING UNCREATIVE to synthesize concepts above the level they're working on. Being worthless stupid idiotic hacks.

Information and entropy REALLY ARE opposites and academics are simply too stupid to understand the concepts so they MISUSE the words informatino AND entropy to refer to ... BITS.

What Is Chaos?

This was a message to Alara Rogers, an author who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about and defending chaos.

In physics, information == entropy. That's because the only difference between information and entropy is SUBJECTIVE and so is beyond physics. In fact, the difference between information and entropy is something I call Informational Syntax Affinity.

ISA is basically what brains, whose reason for existence is to organize entropy, happen to like at a very shallow level and in a very superficial manner. And it's different for different people, along a multi-dimensional spectrum. So what some people consider information, others consider entropy.

For example, a friend of mine finds fantasy and science fiction almost impossible to understand. Because she can't get into it. And the reason she can't get into it is because she can't imagine herself in those situations, because they aren't real, and she can't imagine learning anything meaningful from them. So to her it's just noise. And it's very difficult to understand noise.

Another example, there's a song a friend recommended to me which she enjoys greatly. Only the song was torture to my ears and caused me to instinctively rip my headphones right off my head a minute into it. Because the information / entropy in it had the same syntax (the same overall shape) as pain. It didn't CAUSE pain, it WAS pain. Just audio-pain rather than tactile-pain.

Why are some people masochists? Because the sensory signals of temperature and pressure which touch transmits happen to be ones their brain likes. Because their ISA is satisfied by intense rigid space-filling signals. It's nothing more complicated than that.

There is no INTRINSIC reason why anyone hates pain or has an aversion to it, it's just that pain is a very unusual kind of signal and fits very few people's ISA. All that's necessary for ... extreme signals to be painful to nearly everybody is for ISA to be distributed randomly in the population.

Now, I already said that brains' jobs is to ORGANIZE entropy. And that's true. And surprisingly, even though ISA is hardwired, brains DO NOT organize entropy around ISA. Except for Psychopaths who are more or less animals with animal minds. And should all be put to death as mockeries of human beings. But I digress.

Brains look for PRINCIPLES along which to organize entropy. Those principles take the form of VALUES.

Now, some brains prefer organizing entropy so that the environment has overall very low entropy. Moralists like Jean Luc Picard are like that. But so are Right-Wing Authoritarians like Hitler. The big difference is that Hitler's brain was itself chock full of entropy (he was a brain-damaged psychotic hallucinating retard) so his brain didn't take into account all reality when it picked what principles should be used to organize entropy. Basically, he did a bad job of it.

People whose brains aren't completely retarded pick UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES to use for performing their brain's function of organizing entropy. Principles that can be applied simultaneously to EVERYONE without logical contradiction. So for instance, if you picked "the universe should be organized around my whims and I should be most important and have all the attention" this can't be made universal. But if you pick "everyone should always be truthful" this CAN be made universal.

There are lots and LOTS of those universal organizing principles to pick from. But there are some very common ones that recur and that are more important because they dig deeper into reality. Something that's critical but highly technical so it is its own lecture.

Now, Picard as a Moralist has a brain that likes very, very low levels of entropy. He also has a brain that functions adequately, not anything stellar but not retarded. Which means that he DOES have a universal organizing principle (Morality = anti-Catastrophe = anti-very-high-entropy).

In temperature terms, Picard's brain is warm (neither hot nor cold) and he wants the environment to be crystalline with near-zero friction. Whereas right-wing authoritarians have brains that are molten magma and they want their environment to be polycrystalline (crystals with many defects) with high friction (they actually find friction desirable). And Marxists have brains that are cryogenic and they want their environment to be a super-solid. A superconducting crystal with zero viscosity or friction.

Now, on the other side of the spectrum are brains that tolerate and prefer much higher levels of entropy. You've got the Anarcho-Communists whose brains are cryogenic and they want their environment to be a super-fluid with zero viscosity. Then you've got your Annealers whose brains are warm and they want their environment to be a liquid. And then you've got your Psychopaths whose brains are hot plasma and they want their environment to become burning plasma.

Annealing is a universal principle. It means 'global optimization'. In order to anneal metal, it has to be warm. It CAN'T be hot enough to melt, let alone vaporize, let alone ionize the way the psychopaths want it. But it also CAN'T be cold and crystalline the way Moralists want it. Crystallization is death to Annealers. It is ossification.

And critically important, if you look at a system that has been annealed, it would at first glance look extremely entropic, extremely disorganized. Until you looked at the meta-level, at the SPACE OF POSSIBLE STATES of the system, then you would instantly see that the system is at the lowest possible point in that phase space, that it is actually HIGHLY organized.

So what is chaos? Chaos is Anarcho-Communists and Annealers. Chaos is what's produced by brains that like moderate amounts of entropy, but they like (and are able to make) their entropy VERY HIGHLY ORGANIZED.

Chaos is a meta-state of matter associated with 'warm but solid'.

Energy simply has nothing to do with what entropy or information is. Except for the fact that in the material universe, energy is the substrate of 'physical existence'. If something has no energy then it has no physical existence. For information to exist, it has to have energy to carry it. If information were the bits in your hard drive then energy would be the hard drive itself. It's simply what carries information. But energy is not information and has nothing to do with what information is about.

Rather, if you want to get the full story of information, beyond high entropy vs low entropy, then you must throw in COMPUTATION. Which means, BRAINS. Computation is intrinsic to information theory. Energy ... not so much. And chaos is the kind of entropy that a particular class of brains likes very, very much.

Physicists Don't Want You To Understand Physics

This is quantum theory. This is quantum mechanics. This too.

But the guy in the videos is wrong when he says that it's not understood by physicists. It is, they just keep it as a super-advanced topic which only the cosmologists and superstring theorists are taught. The lower 99% of physicists are fed crap because that's what they want to eat. And they vomit that crap back to any non-physicist who wants to listen to them.

And then every so often you'll get a civilian who's more curious than 99% of physicists .... :| Or is more concerned with Truth or Understanding, rather than pontificating and looking good and saying what everyone else says or holding onto their erroneous false inherited beliefs.

When teaching you physics, the hardest thing to teach you will be what's obsolete, so that you can avoid being contaminated by it. These words are obsolete yet omnipresent:

• particle
• big bang
• uncertainty (eg, heisenberg uncertainty)
• collapse of wavefunction
• probability

So all of these obsolete concepts are taught from first year uni to PhD level, and then you go to work in physics and if you're a retard you never learn beyond them, which accounts for 90-99% of them. But then you've got people who go into cosmology or whatnot, who really CARE about the nature of the universe. And instead of talking about 'particles' they talk about 'excitations' and instead of talking about 'probabilities' they talk about 'amplitudes'. And you know what's the kick in the crotch?

If you take a probability course in the math department, they won't tell you what a probability IS. But if you go digging through old math books from decades past, you'll find it. And you know what the boring basic obvious concept taught to all 1st year math students was? It was just 'amplitude'. A probability is an amplitude ... it has nothing to do with "chance" or "luck" just *thickness*. A probability is a map from X to Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4...YN and depending on how thick the Ys are, that's their amplitude. So if there's two lines going from X to Y1 and one to Y2 then Y1's twice as 'probable' as Y2.

And you know, this is a super-super-secret-super-advanced concept in physics found in the first few pages of a banned math book ... Banned knowledge, that's what it is :| so yeah, it really is like a crypto priesthood with fucks who care more about their careers or jobs than anything else. And the whole reason they do this, refuse to teach basic concepts the way I taught you in categories of complex systems ... is because if they did, they would have to consign some big name physicists in the past to the dustbin of history. Some nobel prize winners would have to be trashed, completely forgotten and never talked about and that's the most horrifying fate imaginable to them.

The most horrifying fate imaginable to physicists ISN'T that you don't understand physics, or that NOBODY understands physics. The most horrifying fate to them is that THEY ARE FORGOTTEN. And that explains why an Evil Narcissistic fuck like Richard Feynman could get along swimmingly amongst them.

Realistic Starships Are Tubes

Out in space, there are two requirements that determine the physical shape of a starship.

The first is heat management, by which I mean dumping heat to keep a starship from overheating. Any kind of drive, even an external drive, will produce a vast amount of heat. And unfortunately, vacuum is an excellent insulator. Also, the temperature of space in Earth orbit is 394 Kelvin (120 Celsius) when exposed to the sun so that line about "space" being cold is just lying crap.

Parenthetically, it's amazing how much lying crap one has to dig through in order to find that number, 394 Kelvin. Cryptic imbeciles who think they're elite engineers do a song and dance because they believe ordinary people are incapable of grasping that it will be cooler than 394 K in the shade. Give me a fucking break.

The second requirement is shielding from radiation and micrometeorites. Isaac Kuo came up with an ingenious way of shielding a starship using only known and existing technology. The idea is to exploit the high velocity of a starship to annihilate everything in its way instead of letting the high velocity work against the starship.

You do this by continuously misting water in front of the starship so the droplets disintegrate everything in their way. After objects are disintegrated down to elementary particles, and conveniently ionized, it's a simple matter to almost instantly sweep them out of the way using an electromagnetic field. Particle accelerators do that all the time.

A 1 milliliter droplet of water going at 99% of light speed hits with the force of 31 tonnes of TNT. One tonne of water going at 99% of light speed hits with the force of 31 megatonnes of TNT. The most powerful nuclear bomb ever made had a yield of only 50 megatons (45 megatonnes).

Now, everyone knows the shape of electromagnetic fields, and most people can figure out from looking at a diagram of an electromagnet that the center of the electromagnet is unshielded. There are no field lines going through the exact center of any kind of magnet or electromagnet. They all cancel out there, so it's unprotected.

So if we want to maximize the amount of shielded volume in our starship, we're going to pick some kind of torus. Right away that looks very different from pretty much every depiction of starships in science fiction. But that's not all.

You can increase the volume of the starship without increasing its cross-section in its direction of travel (ie, what has to be shielded) by elongating it. And by some marvelous coincidence, when the starship is inside a solar system and in danger of getting crispy fried by its sun, that small cross-section also helps, as all you need to do is orient the starship towards the sun.

Incidentally, elongating the starship is also the answer to radiator fins. If you need radiator fins at all, then the best place to put them is down the long axis of the starship, probably in the middle. You put them anywhere else and they're likely to get ripped off. Also, radiator fins that don't catch sunlight are a really good idea.

It's unfortunate that you need strong structural supports to keep the front and back sections of the starships together with the radiator fins in between. Those structural supports have mass and so increase the size of the drive necessary to push the starship. But I can see no way of avoiding this ... unless the misting system is very lightweight. Which it very well might be.

Well, there you have the best possible shape for a starship. It looks like a tube. And if you don't need it to turn at all, better yet if you want to avoid it turning at all costs, then you just spin it. The gyroscopic forces will keep it steady. This also happens to generate gravity, not that computers and AI will ever care about gravity except as a bad thing to avoid at all costs.

And if you're thinking of Babylon 5 or other pathetic space operas where starships spin to generate gravity, you can get that right out of your mind. As a result of the spinning, any such starship is incapable of turning without tearing itself apart. Which is the same reason flywheels can't be used to store energy in automobiles.

No, if a starship ever spins, it's because it's expected to never, ever need to turn for any reason. So it's a good thing interstellar war is flatly impossible, isn't it? What with every space civilization deploying giant space mirrors to fry any incoming enemy vessels, and light up cities at night and during winter.

Starships can never wage war on each other or on any planets like they do in science fiction. Starships can't move like they do in science fiction. And starships can't even look like they do in science fiction. You see, science fiction is pretty much totally fucking useless. It's a wonder that people consider it to expand the mind.

I think the only worthwhile science fiction on television was probably Star Trek and Alien Nation. And that's because both explored the boundaries of humanity rather than get mired in the muck and the past.

Non-determinism Is An Incoherent Notion

The meaning of non-determinism, if indeed the term has any, must be formalizable. It may take years or even decades to formalize this meaning but it must be possible to do so. It's already been nearly a century and despite the pressing need for just such a formal definition (or something resembling a formal definition), the adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation haven't advanced a single one.

There are four possibilities:

• branching
• singularity
• choice function
• non-mathematics

Branching

If you have a Turing machine which replicates itself at every decision point in order to explore all possibilities, this is what mathematicians call non-determinism. Unfortunately for Copenhagen advocates, this is precisely what Everett's Many-Worlds theory does and it is understood to be perfectly deterministic. The result of a computation by a Turing Machine that replicates itself is not "an unknown and undetermined machine" among the set of machines that exist at that point in time, rather the result is the set of all the Turing machines that exist at that point in time. That set is well-defined.

Singularity

This is the mathematical concept that has the most uses in physics. Stephen Hawking claimed that black holes are non-unitary (singular) and simultaneously claimed that Einstein was wrong so the two must be related, right? Not so. Setting aside the fact that the non-unitarity of the universe is hotly contested, since every law of physics is unitary, singularity doesn't have any of the qualitative properties ascribed to non-determinism. The outcome of multiplying a matrix by a singular matrix is very well-defined; the outcome of multiplying a matrix by a "non-deterministic" matrix is not supposed to be well-defined. But there seems to be a way to rescue the concept if you consider non-determinism to be the inverse of a singular matrix. Now we're getting close to non-determinism. Unfortunately, there are two interpretations of taking the inverse of a singular matrix. 1) you get the set of all matrices which multiplied with that matrix give you some identity, or 2) you get absolutely nothing. #1 gets you back to Branching and #2 clearly contradicts reality (the result of any allegedly non-deterministic experiment is always something).

Choice function

A choice function is a function that "selects" an element from a set. If you have a set with ten elements then there are ten possible choice functions on it. Choice functions are the only way to modify the Copenhagen Interpretation so as to make it intelligible without making it an entirely different theory (ie, without making it into Many-Worlds). Unfortunately, it also immediately disproves the resultant theory.

Philosophy of science explains that its purpose is to explain everything we perceive around us in as concise and formal a manner as possible. So as it stands, the Copenhagen Interpretation is incomplete because it fails to explain everything. In fact, it explains almost nothing of what we perceive.

The Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't explain how you get from a particle in state A at time t=0 to that particle in state B at time t=1 and the underlying quantum mechanical equations (which are fully deterministic since "non-deterministic math" is an incoherent concept) only tell you that the particle will evolve from state A at time t=0 to states B, C, D, and E at time t=1 (there's a story in here about how Copenhagenites abuse the mathematical concept of probability if someone wants to see me rant about physicists). So in order to complete the Copenhagen Interpretation you need to add a choice function to it that selects which state the particle will be in at time t=1.

The problem is this. A complete theory of physics must explain all perceptions and all physical objects it defines. So the choice function that you add to the Copenhagen Interpretation must provide information on state changes of 10**70 particles (the estimated number of particles in the universe) for every time interval during which a state change can occur. And that time interval is short; if one were feeling uncharitable, one would choose Planck time (10^-43 seconds). And this is over the entire lifetime of the universe. If the universe has an open geometry then this means that the choice function must encode an infinite amount of information. But let's be charitable and assume that the choice function chosen contains only 10^100 bits of information.

Now here is where the Copenhagen Interpretation dies. The complexity of the complete 'Copenhagen + choice function A' theory is greater than "God did it". From a formal point of view, there is nothing wrong with the theory "God created the universe" where you define;

• 'the universe' = 'everything you perceive', and
• 'God' = 'a powerful entity that would want to create the universe'.

The only thing that's wrong with this theory is that it's too complex since 'the universe' must contain an exhaustive enumeration of every bit of perception you have ever and will ever experience. And yet, it's simpler than the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Non-mathematics

By that I mean only that 'non-determinism' is an undefined concept. Not the well-defined concept "undefined" but an undefined, null, meaningless concept. Per the above paragraph, this violates the philosophy of science and makes the Copenhagen Interpretation into incoherent nonsense.

Hardline apologists for the Copenhagen Interpretation will claim "you can't explain everything" but how would they know when they've entirely given up on the endeavour?

Previously published on wiki wiki web.

Life Creates Entropy

Some pretty smart people have gotten the notion that life opposes entropy, that it creates order and retards the heat death of the universe. That's not even remotely true. I suspect they have a weak grasp of entropy's relation to 'order' otherwise they would know how completely illusory the perception of life creating order is.

Information

You see, information, entropy, order, these are all words that mean exactly the same thing. They are physically identical things. Entropy is information. It's just that entropy is the kind of plentiful low-level information that the human sensory and nervous systems screen out as irrelevant. Our brains blank it out. Order meanwhile is also information, just high level - it's the kind of sparse information our brains find meaningful to watch out for.

Entropy is basically the physical universe's spam. Energy is the universe's hard drive capacity. And information is the sum total of what's on the hard drive. Gibbs free energy is the drive's free space, which you can move around from place to place at the cost of sacrificing some of it to hold more spam. And 'order' is user data.

Now to understand the whole thing you have to realize that information can never, ever be erased from the physical universe. Stephen Hawking thought you could in extreme circumstances and he was overwhelmingly, stupidly wrong. So when junk accumulates, it uses up hard drive capacity forever (ie, it obeys the second law of thermodynamics). At some point, all the space becomes unusable because it's filled with spam (the universe suffers heat
death).

And on the hard drive are life forms (AI) that create an enormous amount of junk data (called "heat" or "entropy") just to maintain a few bits of what they consider user data. Every time they "erase" a bit of user data, it becomes a gigabyte worth of junk data. But they're dumb so they're pleased. And it's not like they have much choice since they don't know how to use the computer too well (they're
low tech).

(Negentropy is just any mechanism that destroys information. So far, there aren't any.)

The upshot of all this is that living systems create megabits per second in order to preserve a few tens of bits of information around. The notion that the tens of bits are more important than the megabits each second is pure illusion and completely ridiculous.

Examples

Here,

(((1 watt) * (1 / (3 Ghz))) / (300 kelvin)) / Boltzmann constant = 8.04773744 × 10^10

A bunch of RAM operating at 3 gigahertz (ie, ridiculously fast) consuming 1 watt of power will pump 80 gigabits into the environment as heat. So the first question is just how much RAM would 1 watt power? Would it power 10 gigabytes? Maybe. Naaah.

The second issue is that if the average lifespan of data in the memory is 1 second, then the memory pumps out 10 gigabytes per third of a nanosecond * 3 billion = 28 exabytes per second, in order to sustain 10 gigabytes. Or if you divide both sides of the equation, you get that for every single byte of order, RAM pumps out 3 gigabytes of entropy.

The math just doesn't work people.

Biological systems use a lot less energy (ie, waste free energy by crapping lots of useless information on it), but then again, computer hardware uses up zero energy on "just living". Computers don't have digestive systems or musculatures. And electric turbines are more than 30% efficient while electric motors are more than 90% efficient. Both of those numbers are way, way above what biological bodies are able to achieve. Photosynthesis is only about 5% efficient.

But I don't have to guess. Here are the numbers for the human brain,

(((20 watt) * (1 / ((10^16) hertz))) / (300 kelvin)) / Boltzmann constant = 482,864

10^16 operations per second is generous. 20 watts is about average. So for every single bit operation the human brain performs, it pumps out half a million bits.

In the grand cosmological sense, the purpose of life isn't to fight entropy. The purpose of life is to create it.



For those who wish to learn more: reversible computation, Toffoli gates and entropy.

Internal FTL May Be Possible

I ran into an article about making wormholes which pointed out that there is nothing in principle wrong with them. More importantly, the mathematicians' distaste for topology changes which I had unthinkingly assimilated is bullshit. There is no justification whatsoever in physics for wormholes not to exist. Mathematicians might not like them but fuck em.

Then again, maybe I hadn't assimilated mathematicians' distaste of topology changes too much. My main objection to wormholes has always been the unthinking unquestioned claim that a wormholes' insides have no geometry. That travel inside a wormhole is instantaneous because there is no distance between the wormhole mouths. When you start taking geometry seriously and dismissing topology, such a claim becomes bloody fucking stupid.

But just because faster-than-light travel through wormholes doesn't look even remotely likely, it doesn't mean it's impossible. And what's interesting about wormholes is that in order to create a wormhole between two points light years apart, you need to transport the wormhole mouth at sublight speeds. Unless you've got a warp drive of course since a wormhole mouth is just a bunch of warped spacetime and not matter.

That's where things get interesting because it means wormholes can't be used by a civilization to expand faster than light, only to travel faster than light internally inside the civilization's boundaries. And that makes wormholes really, really interesting because they don't violate the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox is bad enough when confined to sub-light speeds. It's bad enough that it proves conclusively and without a doubt that aliens do not exist. If a civilization could expand at FTL speeds, that would mean aliens don't exist in the entire universe. Something which is not even remotely credible. Hence the Fermi Paradox proves that FTL cannot be a feasible method of civilization expansion.

But, wormholes don't offer any way for a civilization to expand faster than the speed of light, only to stay unified as a civilization as it expands. And that makes them rather interesting. Because they're feasible. Maybe. Whether they're possible at all is an independent question. As I already said, I don't think they are, but it would be fun to discover otherwise.

Most Great Science Is Fraudulent, And Nearly All Scientists Are Frauds

Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram's Authority Experiment

A lot of hay is made over the Stanford Prison and Milgram Authority Experiments especially when someone wants to conclude that people are naturally submissive and sadistic. The truth is they're fraudulent and junk science. The truth is that Asch's Conformity Experiments perfectly explains the results of those other experiments as junk science.

How? Easy. The most basic requirement of any psychological experiment is that the subjects of the experiment are willing to take part in a psychology experiment. They are all, without exception, willing to obey the experimenter. Now that doesn't sound like a proper randomized sample of a population, does it?

At least, it doesn't if you know there exist iconoclasts in the general population, breakers of sacred idols, murderers of sacred cows, people who will dissent for the sake of dissent, people who will instinctively refuse to obey just because you made it an order. There are such people and I know it very well, being one of them. But the douchebags who call themselves "scientists" and "academics" and "psychologists" and "experts in the human mind" seem oblivious to this.

(For the record, I consider taking part in a psychology experiment [playing the part of a monkey for the edification of an ignorant jackass] about as distastefully intimate as prostitution. And since I have a high-class mind I would want to be paid in a manner similar to a high class escort. I think about 1000$ an hour would ensure my willingness to go along voluntarily. Since this much money would corrupt the results, the only way an experimenter could get an honest response out of me would be without my knowledge.)

But why should a few loners, dissenters, disgruntled radicals and revolutionaries mean anything about the Stanford Prison experiment? Doesn't the majority hold sway? Doesn't what happened in those experiments prove there is a natural sadistic desire in "human nature"? NO! Because the Asch conformity experiment proves that it takes only one, ONLY ONE person to utterly shatter a consensus. Once you have that one person, that one iconoclast in the group, the haze of conformity lifts as everyone suddenly finds they are permitted to think for themselves.

All the Stanford Prison Experiment tells us is that when iconoclasts are weeded out of a population, what's left is going to do what the experimenter expects them to do, what he tells them to do. Even though the experimenter will claim he was "surprised" by their viciousness and he "never expected" the situation to devolve so quickly. And all Milgram's experiment tells us is that after 20 years of brainwashing in obedience training, people are going to have a difficult time disobeying.

Six Degrees Of Separation

Another famous experiment is the so-called "six degrees of separation" where an experimenter sent out a bunch of letters, most of which never made it to their destinations, and then "concluded" based on his few positive results that everyone is connected in a graph of degree 6. Of course this is fraudulent since the data never supported the conclusion.

And very shortly after it was discovered that people are separated by class barriers so that it's all but impossible to find links from lower to upper class. Or in the USA, between the white and the nigger class. Blacks aren't a class, but niggers are, even though you aren't allowed to say it because of so-called "political correctness" (more lying and fraud).

Physics too

A lot of pretentious assholes are going to claim that things are entirely different in physics. But that's false. The problem with all these experiments is that they assume their own conclusions. Which is of course what Thomas Kuhn calls "normal science" as opposed to revolutionary science.

You see, physicists do it too! You can see this mindless unthinking unquestioning lying crap happening with the so-called Copenhagen consensus wrought by force of authority of Niels Bohr (may he rot in hell). You can also see it in Bell's theorem which "proved" its own vitalistic assumption by concluding that if you start by preparing a number of "identical" systems you will then get very strange results.

Vitalism is alive and well in modern quantum physics where it relies on the notion that experimenters are outside of the physical universe, outside of the phenomena they're studying.

Millikan

And then there's always the good old Millikan's oil drop experiment which was blatant and simple fraud of the most obvious kind. You see, the experiment couldn't be replicated using modern equipment. You just can't calculate the charge of the electron with any accuracy using the kind of setup Millikan used. What you can do however is assume your data fits the predicted result and eliminate any "outliers". It gets pretty fucking embarrassing though if the predicted result turns out to have been wrong, if you "saw" something that could never exist.

Of course, Millikan was such a famous scientist, had so much authority, that he must obviously have been correct, rather than a simple but highly embarrassing fraud. So over the course of a few decades, the "experimental results" of the charge of the electron steadily crept towards their modern (real) values as experiments got steadily more "accurate". So it wasn't only Millikan that was a fraud, it was also every physicist after him. Frauds, every single last fucking one of them.

Sociology

And fraud is still alive and well in science today what with the sociology experiment published in First Monday where the metric used implicitly included ostracism. Of course, the dumbfuck experimenters (all half dozen of them!) none of them want to admit that their experiment was worthless shit that measured the (patently obvious!) ostracism of generalists by specialists in the sciences. Of course not, since it was their thesis that generalists are less "productive", since you see, they don't like generalists. How stupider does it get than a bunch of prejudiced assholes measuring exactly how much an obviously prejudiced against group is actually prejudiced against? And that's stupid even without the prejudiced assholes then concluding the prejudiced against group is really inferior.

Psychology vs Anthropology

And let's not go into Lloyd deMause whose theory of the history of childrearing casually assumes that all anthropologists everywhere are frauds of the most vicious lying kind. Every single last fucking one of them, excepting only those anthropologists who have had psychological training and thus are really amateur psychologists. The most damning part of deMause's theory is that I believe him. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that the whole field of anthropology is ruled by quacks and charlatans who blithely and eagerly fake their data so as to maximize sympathy for the murderous infanticidal "noble" savages they think are precious.

After all, to anthropologists, primitiveness, ignorance, stupidity and rampant disease aren't to be eradicated. They are to be "studied" which is really a codeword for honest admiration. Anthropologists are anti-human eco-freaks, exactly as twisted up inside as the zealots that want to destroy all electric power plants so that humans freeze to death. All to save their precious fucking forests. Wishful thinking that since if power plants shut down, humans would NOT freeze to death, they would burn down every last fucking forest for wood fuel instead.

The fact these morons can't even realize that their "plans" are antithetical to their own goals, that even coal power plants are better than so-called "biomass", that SCALABILITY is more important than "sustainability" in a world with 6 to 9 billion humans who WILL survive no matter what, that is damning. Eco-zealots are fucking retarded moronic fuckers who think it's perfectly alright if an asteroid causes a mass extinction that happens to end the human species for lack of advanced space technology. After all, mass extinctions are "natural" and enhance "biodiversity" and are the "revenge of Gaia, the Mother-Earth".

And anthropologists take after them. They sound like them, they talk like them, they think like them. And that's damning to all anthropology.

What It All Means

The fact that an abomination like anthropology exists and is honoured by scientists and academics alike rather than derided and scorned as the useless fraudulent lit crit shit it really is .... that's damning to all science.

After all, the Sokal hoax proved to everyone that scientists are perfectly capable of scorning and deriding people who undermine the authority of the exact sciences. When lit crit assholes undermined exact scientists' authority, the latter counter-attacked.

What does it say then that those same exact scientists can't be moved, can't be bothered, when a field like anthropology "merely" spits on the truth? It says scientists only care about their authority, and will piss on the truth themselves if that's what it takes to remain in power.

It says Scientists. Are. Frauds.

Every last fucking one of them.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then anthropology wouldn't be permitted to exist.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then they would take an interest in psychology and bully and egg the proto-science until it developed formal, rigorous theories of the mind, until it became a REAL science.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then they wouldn't hush up their embarrassments and their failures, they would encourage the questioning of mainstream theories for its own sake and hold high every slightest misstep and stumble done by an eminent scientist as proof that you can't follow authority figures blindly.

But they don't do any of those things. Because they're only interested in their own power. And nothing else matters.

The Modern Physicist's Religion: The Big Bang

I hate it when otherwise sane-seeming physicists start spouting trash about the Big Bang. You can tell they're doing it by rote, that they're parroting some propaganda they've been indoctrinated with. Something they've never examined to see whether it makes a lick of sense.

NO EVIDENCE

First of all, there is no evidence for a Big Bang. There cannot ever be any evidence for it since the whole point of inventing Inflation Theory was to erase every last trace of the big bang to remedy the defects of the theory. The reason the Ekpyrotic model is viable at all is because of this total erasure of all traces of any big bang. But inflation? Oh you can't erase that! Even the Ekpyrotic model generally tries to replicate it. So what is today called "evidence for" the big bang is invariably evidence for hot inflation. Cosmic microwave background? Hot inflation. Expansion of the universe? Inflation.

MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Secondly, you have to realize that there can be no distinction between inflation and eternal chaotic inflation. If inflation happens then eternal chaotic inflation is the best possible model for it. You get eternity for free. Read my lips, no extra charges! Add quantum mechanics to inflation theory and you get chaotic inflation. And with chaotic inflation you have eternal inflation. It's FREE!

Worse than that, our living in a finite universe is mathematically impossible. If the probability of a universe arising out of nothing (assuming the whole notion isn't absurd which it is, more on that later) is finite then the probability of our living in an infinite universe is infinite. Infinity trumps finity!

If there were only one single eternal universe, and a billion billion billion finite universes, we could never tell the difference between them from any scientific experiments, but pure mathematics says that the probability of us coming from the eternal universe is 1 and the probability of us coming from any of the billion billion billion finite universes is ZERO.

It's statistically impossible.

ABSURDITY

The whole notion of something arising out of nothing is absurd. It's incoherent. It literally doesn't mean anything. The only way to ascribe any meaning to it is to say that the universe as-is is equivalent to nothing.

Which is very likely since a flat universe (as ours seems to be) has net zero energy. But to say that it's equivalent to nothing is to say that 'nothing' is subject to physical laws. or at least to mathematical laws. So it's not a true 'nothing' is it? It's something, it's laws of mathematics.

In order to say that what's beyond the universe is true nothing, you can't appeal to any sort of equivalence, you can't say that the universe came out of nothing at all. You can only say that the universe created itself. And what can you appeal to when making such a statement?

Well actually you can say that the universe created itself because it was self-consistent. But if you're going to say that then there are tons of other self-consistent universes possible. And every single one of them must have created itself.

Bravo, you've got the Mathematical (Multi)verse Hypothesis. Which is the exact kind of thing the Big Bang believers are trying to avoid. In trying to provide any kind of rigorous meaning to "the universe came out of nothing" you inevitably run into the fact that our universe can't be the only thing.

You get the same result when you try to define "non-determinism". It literally doesn't mean anything. And when you try to give it some meaning, it always turns out to be inconsistent with the vague notion of "non-determinism".

REVERSION TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE

So if the Big Bang is unprovable, mathematically impossible and it's not even coherent then why do these big headed logical types believe in this utter crap? Well first of all, physicists lack big picture thinking. Also known as judgement, which relies on synthesis. And synthesis is a cognitive trait physicists uniformly lack. But that only explains why it's possible for physicists to believe this crap.

Why they actually believe in it is because it's a religious notion. It's a belief in Creation. It's something that people used to believe in until science became atheistic. Until four young scientists made a manifesto and signed it with their own blood. That's why Einstein was so adamantly opposed to the Big Bang. Because it's a religious notion which science had gotten rid of!

And really, that explains it all. When cosmologists were confronted with the fact of an expanding universe, they couldn't handle the notion that ours isn't the only universe out there. So they reverted to religion. They reinvented the "Big Bang" - the Moment of Creation.

The same thing happened in the 1920s with the so-called Copenhagen "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Which is no interpretation at all - it's the physical theory behind a bunch of useless math. Physicists like Richard Feynman who dismiss the physical meaning of math as unimportant are lackwits. So anyways, Copenhagen would be the physical meaning of QM if it weren't completely absurd and incoherent.

So believers in the Copenhagen doctrine revived vitalism because they couldn't handle the idea of a non-singular timeline. They invented all kinds of crap about "duality" and "uncertainty" because they couldn't handle that Platonism is wrong, that the universe really isn't made up of mathematical points. Even though mathematical points are physically incoherent.

They reinvented the notion that humans and other living things (so-called "observers") are Special, that they have this fundamental Living Force that makes them different from the rest of physical reality. How absurd is that!? But it's something that humans believe intuitively. It's an anthropomorphic notion. And that's why it got reinvented.

Same thing with Creation, or the Big Bang, whatever you want to call it. It's an intuitive anthropomorphic ('we are special') notion that just got reinvented when scientists were challenged to shatter it utterly. They were challenged and they failed. Because they're morons who can't grasp the big picture. Who can't grasp that maybe "creation" is something that needs to be defined before it means anything. Before it can ever be used to explain anything.

Kinda like God. For God to explain anything, it first needs to be defined. Which defeats the whole purpose of it since God is supposed to be this mysterious incomprehensible ball of crap and handwavy bullshit. And bullshit can't explain jack.

Same with Creation. /shakes head/

Previously, the disease process in physics.

The Disease Process In Physics

The Real History Of Physics

Okay, I've been asked a question about how the big bang occurred. Now for those very few of you who understand history of physics, you'll know that physics is not a happy story of one triumph after another, each discovery extending the achievements of previous generations.

The grim reality is much closer to one giant clusterfuck after another with doddering morons drunk on their own power stubbornly clinging to the most obsolete notions until the day they die. And inflicting blatant lies on their captive audiences of suffering students in order to ensure future generations are just as fucked up as they themselves are. You know, because pain is educational.

Everybody who's read a single book on history of science knows this, whether it was Thomas Kuhn's The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions or Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. And it's a shame that physicists, being vapid self-aggrandizing shits, choose to pretend to teach history of physics in physics classes so as to brainwash everyone with their ridiculous propaganda.

But that's just the way it is. So if you've studied history of physics then you know the common misconceptions are blatant lies. And if you haven't, if you've merely studied physics, then do me the favour of shutting the fuck up about a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

Some Examples

Let's list some of those clusterfucks.

• Heisenberg's clinging to an intrinsically ridiculous concept of point particles (it's why what was called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle bears no relation to anything bearing that name now)
• the Copenhagen consensus reverting physics to filthy vitalism (ie, the false dichotomy between observer vs observed)
• Bell's awe-inspiring mistake of producing (or even trying to produce) a circular "proof" of vitalism, still celebrated to this day as a major advance even though it set back any understanding of quantum physics for most of a century
• assuming continuity in physics even across revolutions such as classical to quantum. Notice the casual coverup that's occurred over the 3 radically different iterations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (note also how mathematicians do the same thing with Goedel)
• the intrinsically incoherent "concept" of non-determinism and "wave collapse". If you bother to analyze it, you'll find out it doesn't actually mean anything. See the middle of this page for details.
• the steady erasure of the formal definition of probability from math and physics textbooks because (being multi-valued) it's incompatible with the dominant retardation (yes Virginia, censorship and groupthink happens)
• no teaching of what quantum probabilities are cause you're supposed to figure it out on your own, by magic, after several years of studying math. No mention of what happens to those who study the math for years and still don't get it.
• no deep understanding of time
• no deep understanding of information
• no organizing of physics along conceptual lines, let alone teaching such. Active scorn towards the idea of teaching concepts (this is how the priesthood maintains its power, by demanding that all go through its rites of passage before touching on the sacred knowledge)
• confusing physics with history of physics with mathematics of physics
• having no conception of physics or physical theories beyond "what we do"

If you've kept count, you'll note that quantum mechanics as taught is an amalgamation of more than a half dozen clusterfucks. Each of which separately would warrant mass dismissals from the halls of academe. Nice, eh?

Why The Rant?

At this point you might be wondering why I'm ranting about physicists failures with quantum mechanics when the subject at hand is basic cosmology. There's a good reason for that and it's because physicists' clusterfuck on the big bang question is very stereotypical. It's not just some random mistake or even some random clusterfuck that you can just say Oops and forget about it. This is their modus operandi!

The predictable result of all this is also entirely stereotypical. The deeper problems in cosmology are relegated, dismissed, misunderstood or screwed up. And it's the lay-people's comprehension of the subject that suffers most. And just like in quantum mechanics, don't expect anyone to fix anything in cosmology for several generations. Maybe even a century or two.

Whether in quantum physics or cosmology, you can see the same diseased process at work. The symptoms are the same, the diagnosis is the same, and the prognosis is the same. In both cases, you have morons trying to do science without any grasp of (or respect for) the bigger picture They are incapable of synthesizing overarching concepts and are suspicious and scornful of anyone that does.

Next up is what's wrong with big bang theory.

What Alien Colonization Would Look Like

In the previous blog entry, I explored what galactic colonization must inevitably look like to any civilization conducting it.

Note that any civilization that fails to expand its technological and industrial base to the point where galactic colonization is easy and cheap will eventually become extinct due to an asteroid collision, supervolcano eruption, glaciation or global war. This argument was first made years ago and it is well-established.

Note also that such homebody civilizations have average lifespans of at most a few million years. Given the many hundreds of millions of years in our galaxy's past such blatantly suicidal fucking idiots are of no consequence to us. I would even say, if they want to die, why should we not help them die?

But that isn't the subject of this post. Here we explore what galactic colonization looks like to any hypothetical backwards inbred hillbilly civilization unfortunate enough to be trampled underneath its expansion.

As already established in the previous article, AI makes starflight cheap and distance irrelevant. It takes just as much resources to accelerate a starship to near light speed then hibernate the AI for a 10 year flight as it does to accelerate a starship to near light speed then hibernate the AI for a 100 year flight. Or a 1000 year flight, or a 10,000 year flight. Or even a 50,000 year flight. There is no friction in space.

The only difference is the increased risk of a micrometeorite vaporizing the starship. And that can be easily surmounted by building an AI with an appropriate martyr complex and fanatical dedication to its mission. Why does that matter? Because it means that the wave of colonization will NOT be lackadaisical with sporadic branching to the nearest possible systems. Rather, the wave of colonization will be perfectly spherical.

The homeworld will be launching starships one after another, with the nearest star systems first in line, and it will never stop. Because it won't matter that the nearest 1000 systems are successfully colonized, the only thing that will matter is that there's another system out there that you can send an AI colonization ship to. And it won't matter that there is no immediate benefit. At some point down the road, perhaps only in 10,000 years, the homeworld will benefit in some way. If only due to exchange of technological information. And if it doesn't benefit, it's not like the starship was expensive anyways.

Let me make the point again. Many people (even supposedly educated people who study technology) have the deeply mistaken notion that the homeworld will send a short burt of colonization ships only to the nearest star systems. Perhaps even only to the nearest "inhabitable" planets. Then, after suitable millenia when each of those systems are developed enough, they will each send out their own wave of starships. That's not going to happen. This is ludicrous Star Trek fantasy.

What's going to happen is this. The homeworld will send a single giant wave of starships to every possible star system within line-of-sight. First to Alpha Centauri then, as soon as the first ship is accelerated to near-c, then to Barnard's star, then to Wolf 359, then Lalande 21185, and so on until the last star system in the galaxy within line of sight is targeted. Once the starships are all launched then the Homeworld will simply begin targeting the globular clusters and Andromeda. This wave of colonization will occur over centuries or at most millenia.

Speed

Now some uneducated people scoff at the idea of starships going near the speed of light. They claim that humanity has no idea how to accelerate starships to that speed and that our civilization will never develop such technology even given a million years. From fire to controlled nuclear fission in 10,000 years? Certainly. But from slow starflight to fast starflight in a million years? No never. Never ever! Apparently, technological development is something that only ever happens in the past.

As it happens, we already have a good idea of how to accelerate a starship to near-lightspeed. Isaac Kuo of Bad Astronomy and Atomic Rocket fame came up with a Starship Design Concept which can easily be accelerated to such velocities using current industrial technology. The best part is that it's cheap because it's reusable. Once the launch system is built, it can accelerate 1000 starships (one after the other) as easily as it can accelerate a single one.

For those who are interested, the idea involves an array of free electron X-ray laser beam emitters in solar orbit. The beams are focused using a giant fresnel lens. They can easily target the back of a starship's solid lead plate to a distance of several light-years. This enables the starship to be driven to anything from 0.9c to 0.99c. It also enables the starship to be decelerated using the exact same mechanism (x-ray laser beams near the homeworld) within a few light-years. Not that deceleration is the difficult part.

Furthermore, since every gram of matter carried by the starship at 0.9 c has an impact of a small 9 kiloton thermonuclear explosion, the starship can spray a fine mist of gas ahead of itself to annihilate all but large meteoroids in its way. The resulting spray of elementary particles can be swept aside with a magnetic field. To carry more gas for longer journeys, it's sufficient to make the starship longer. So long as you don't increase its cross-section, you don't make it a fatter target at all.

So yes, we actually do have a good idea how to go near the speed of light. And a civilization that's dismantling its home system to build a Dyson sphere will have centuries to perfect the design before implementing it.

What You Would See

So what would you see if some alien civilization were out there, colonizing our galaxy? Well for a millenium or so you would get radio waves. Then you would see the star associated with the radio waves becoming markedly darker. Within decades or centuries you would see the nearby stars go dark. Then you would see a hemispherical wave of darkness engulf every star at an astonishing rate. Within a bare thousand years from the first star going dark, you would see every other star from that origin point to your own sun going dark. And you would see this no matter where in the galaxy you are because the Dyson-sphere building starships would be only barely slower than the light you use to see them.

This is why everyone who yammers on about invisible or "hidden" aliens is a useless twit not worth listening to. Because you can't hide the stars going dark. If aliens were out there, it would be one fucking impressive sight. And as for the SETI notion that there is an alien civilization out there in the miniscule window between "doesn't have radio technology" and "is turning off the stars you see in the sky" ... Or perhaps SETI is interested in talking to blatantly suicidal fucking idiots? I don't know. I don't care either.

Do you see those stars in the sky at night? That's all the evidence an educated person needs that aliens really aren't out there. Unless you think the Great Void between galaxies is caused by aliens. Unfortunately, it isn't because dark stars emitting in the infrared aren't even remotely the same thing as no stars at all. Dyson spheres are quite distinctive and our astronomy hasn't found any. So are partial Dyson spheres for that matter, because the stars they partially cover would vary in brightness as regularly as pulsars.

Next up, what a galactic civilization might choose to do.