Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
nfq wrote:
You are wrong about falsifiability
Ok, but why doesn't everyone on this forum and the universe agree with you? Are they objectively wrong?
Science is not a democracy.
(And although there is lively discussion among us, I don't see p4wn3r and Warp actively disagreeing with me. We're having a subtle discussion on the practicality of falsifying evolution. I don't think any of us disagree that most of your claims are not falsifiable.)
nfq wrote:
There is no wave-particle duality
Exactly, just as there is no you and me duality, we are all one mind in multiple bodies and nothing exists in reality. That was my point about the duality: that it's illusionary.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
SoulCal wrote:
1. What should the name of the device be for my booth? I like "Droid64" because it catches people's attention. If anyone else has a proposed better name for me to advertise it as, then please post a reply.
I'd modify that just slightly to something like "Droid64: A Nintendo 64-playing robot". Even though "robot" isn't a fair description of what it really does, it will grab people's attention and give them an idea of what the booth is about. You can quickly explain that there's a fixed input and the game's code is deterministic, so you can beat games faster than a human would normally be able to.
SoulCal wrote:
2. I need a description of the device itself to submit in my application. I want to incorporate the fact this was designed for the site and for speedrunning purposes. I can't put my thoughts down well on text so if ya'll could create a good description that incorporates these aspects then please do so.
See my previous comment for a very brief description. I think you can pad that out a bit. Actually, I just wanted to highlight your use of the word "y'all". You really are from Texas...
SoulCal wrote:
3. If anyone lives in the Lubbock, Texas area and want to help with the setup, then I could use the extra help with my booth. Also, if you have any games that you want to lend me then I'd like to try them out.
I'm in San Antonio now, so it would be one heck of a drive, but not out of the question. I'd be lying if I said I'm not tempted. Do you get a small compensation for having a booth at the Maker Faire? If so, paying for my gas money might sweeten the deal...
Anyway, I've seen clips from the Bay Area Maker Faire and it looks like an absolute blast, but I've never had the privilege of going. I'd love to take part if it's the right opportunity!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
nfq wrote:
Thanks for the ad hominem...
You may not like me calling your theories loony, but that's exactly what they are. You are wrong about falsifiability and I will not sugar-coat that point. An ad hominem would be calling you loony, and while I'm far from perfect, I've been through enough debates to not venture down that road.
Warp wrote:
A hypothesis might be falsifiable in theory but not in practice because of the impossibility of testing, observing and/or measuring (even if indirectly) said hypothesis. If a hypothesis cannot be corroborated by testing and observation, it's not a very useful hypothesis.
Your example hypothesis is not falsifiable by any practical measure. We will never have full-sky coverage of the observable universe. You might write a science fiction story in which paradigms are broken and new technology is invented, but in today's world, it's just that-- fiction.
I consider a better example a particle that is predicted to be created in a 30 TeV collision (the LHC can produce a maximum of about 3 TeV collisions). Today it isn't falsifiable, but it's certainly plausible that it might be falsifiable ten or twenty years down the line. I would argue that if the measurement is at least on the technological horizon, the theory is falsifiable and is therefore scientific. Another example that I'm more familiar with is magnetic reconnection, which is heavily theorized to occur in nature but has never been directly observed. The Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission will send four satellites into space to obtain the direct observations that would potentially validate (or more importantly, refute) the theory. One should be careful, however, about what the experiment shows. Magnetic reconnection is a popular explanation for comet tail disconnection events and validation of the theory by the MMS mission does not give credence to magnetic reconnection specifically over other theories for disconnection events. (I wrote a term paper on this stuff and I think it shows.)
My main point, however, is that where the rubber meets the road, it's often quite easy to differentiate the non-falsifiable theories from the falsifiable ones. Most of nfq's claims are not falsifiable.
p4wn3r wrote:
I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. For example, there's an ongoing debate discussing whether evolution is falsifiable, one person brings up something that would kill evolution, and another one argues that it can still be fixed by something else, we could really go all day discussing this.
You've brought up one of my favorite examples and it's one that I like to share with my classes. I begin my lecture on falsifiability by putting two theories on the board. The first theory is, "Evolution is a natural phenomenon." The second theory is, "At 3:00 PM tomorrow gravity will reverse itself." I then ask my students which of these two theories is scientific. Most of them mutter that the first one is. I explain to them that the first theory is ill-stated and not falsifiable while the second theory (ridiculous as it may be) can be shown to be false and is therefore the scientific theory. I've never had my students complain to me, but I nevertheless worry that they will be offended by my (simplified) statement that evolution is not scientific, so I reassure them that the theory can be saved if it is posed more carefully. I then put up on the board a new theory, "Humans and apes share a common ancestor," and explain that fossil records could diverge between the two (or they could remain "parallel") but that isn't what we observe, so this new theory is falsifiable.
To address evolution as a whole, I would say that one should study genetic drift (this is well outside my field of research, so someone in the know should chime in) and attempt to make crude but quantitative predictions about how much evolution will "inevitably" (statistically) occur. This argument gives rise to the idea that a Precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution. In this context, there are all sorts of fossils we could see "out of order" but don't and so evolution is fairly strongly falsifiable. The tricky part is accurately modeling genetic drift, but I'm sure much smarter minds than my own have tackled the problem.
I'll look into the demarcation problem when I get a chance.
nfq wrote:
For an accurate worldview, and to understand dualities like the wave-particle duality and the creation-evolution duality, it's necessary to use both sciences.
This sentence caught my eye just as I was getting ready to post my reply. There is no wave-particle duality in the sense that you are using the term. In fact, disciplined physicists hate the term "wave-particle duality" because it implies that light is somehow inconsistent. Horseshit. To the contrary, light is the one thing that physicists know best (I even brag to my students that as far as I'm aware, physicists know everything there is to know about light, as long as it doesn't interact with anything). Light follows one, consistent equation and that is all. The so-called duality only arises because of our preconceived notions of what a particle is and what a wave is. If you slightly expand your definition of a particle, you will come up with a complete theory of light that is entirely particle-based. (I have heard of other physicists preferring wave-based theories, but I am quite confident that any such theories are equivalent and this is just a difference in terminology.) Your claim that, "it's necessary to use both sciences," is wrong. There is one science of light and it is perhaps physicists' most successful theory.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
nfq wrote:
p4wn3r wrote:
His point was that using the term "science" to give more credit to spiritual knowledge implicitly implies that scientific knowledge is superior.
I know, and I like I said, I agree that scientific knowledge is superior to any "other knowledge", and I'm not sure knowledge is possible without science because science is a way of gaining knowledge, and I don't know any other way of gaining knowledge except by doing science. So, for example, if the people who created the ideas postulated in religions didn't do science to arrive at their conclusions, it's not knowledge, it's just speculation. But I believe they did do science, although it was mostly a science based on mind rather than matter. You might disagree that it's science, but they used the scientific method, so I think it's appropriate to call it science.
Because this is one of your less loony posts in this topic, I'm going to interject to say that a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition for a theory to be scientific is that it is falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science. This will keep you from making spurious claims like, "They used the scientific method, but you might disagree that it's science."
Some credit goes to Warp for bringing up falsifiability earlier, but I would make it my main point of attack on non-scientific theories.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Twelvepack wrote:
Can anyone explain what entropy is in a thermodynamic context? I believe that I understand entropy as the term is used in information theory, but articles like the one on wikipedia are greek to me.
Is it that the concept in information theory is so different from what it means in thermodynamics that the association is just confusing me, or is there some relationship that I just don't see?
There are a few different (almost equivalent) definitions of entropy. The grade school definition is the amount of disorder in a system. This has fallen out of favor among physicists for being qualitative, subjective, and in some cases, flat out wrong.
The second definition (which I'm most comfortable with) is the log of the number of microstates of a system corresponding to a given macrostate. We might look at a gas in a box and count how many ways it can exhibit the pressure and temperature we see. If you take the log of this number and multiply it by the Boltzmann constant, you get the entropy of the system. A classic, simpler example is the magnetization of a paramagnet in an external magnetic field. We first observe the macrostate (the net magnetization) and then count how many microstates (individually flipped dipoles) correspond to that macrostate. Take the log, then multiply by the Boltzmann constant and you have the entropy. (Interestingly, if you go down that road with the paramagnet example, you'll find it can lead to negative temperature.)
That's probably what you read on Wikipedia, and I acknowledge I haven't done a very good job of explaining it.
The last definition-- which is possibly my favorite-- is that the entropy is whatever it needs to be such that the First Law of Thermodynamics is satisfied. The first law is:
dU = T*dS - P*dV + mu*dN
We add a little bit of energy to a system and after accounting for the changes in the volume and number of particles (if applicable), all other changes in energy must be in the T*dS term. Presumably, the energy added was small enough to leave T essentially unchanged so you're really measuring dS. It turns out that these last two definitions are compatible with each other. (I find the last definition to be a little more general, however. If you believe in conservation of energy, you believe in entropy.)
Admittedly, statistical mechanics has never been my strongest subject. Marzojr will probably come by to school me...
Also, I know pitifully little about information entropy. Could you give me a quick definition?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
I'm giving this topic a mini-bump because no one has responded to my previous post and I have a new question.
Could we emulate the Wii Virtual Console version of the game?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
This is mostly a nitpick, but at two points in the run (0:50 and 2:07 in the YouTube video, I believe) you press against a wall as it disappears. If you can put some distance between you and the wall, it would be faster to build up your velocity before running through it. I don't think that's nearly enough to reject this run, but keep it in mind if you want to improve it or don't want someone else to obsolete this movie.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Hey TheAxeMan. I'm (re)watching your run right now. I normally wouldn't go out of my way to ask questions like this, but as long as you're available...
Why do you take strange, circuitous paths in some areas? (Right out of Coneria is a prime example, but I also noticed you took a strange path to Melmond.) Also, why do you usually dock your ship immediately rather than getting it as far into the port as possible?
I realize there are probably answers to those questions posted somewhere and I trust the quality of your runs. I'm just curious.
Edit: It also looks like you have 6000 extra gold for buying the bottle. I wasn't keeping track, but I thought I saw you open a treasure chest worth less than 6000 GP. I'm probably mistaken, though. (Edit 2: As you go on a HOUSE and CABIN buying spree shortly thereafter, I withdraw my complaint.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Warp wrote:
Which would mean that stars would be moving way faster than c, and kept in their orbits around the Earth by an unknown force.
Oops. Looks like I missed an obvious one. I cede my physicist privileges for the day.
(Though you sometimes have to be careful about optical effects in special relativity. Objects can appear to move faster than light if they are moving directly toward the observer. I'm not familiar with any such effect when the object moves perpendicular to the observer, however.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Leela: So after I specifically asked you not to touch anything, you drank a bottle of strange blue liquid? It could have been poisonous acid!
Fry: It could have been. But chances were equally good it was an Emperor.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Nach wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
Are you seriously advocating a geocentric view of the universe?
I advocate not jumping to any conclusions just because it is popular to do so. The mathematics show either method is a possibility, and quite frankly, I don't really care which is the absolute truth of the matter.
I could not have constructed a more self-indicting phrase for you if I had tried.
Are you saying that you do care, and that it actually matters to you?
See the 3rd paragraph here.
As a physicist, I'd unhesitantly say hell yes, it does matter to me and I do care. I'd be a shitty physicist if I had responded with, "LOL, I guess evidence is inconclusive."
Link to video
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Nach wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
Are you seriously advocating a geocentric view of the universe?
I advocate not jumping to any conclusions just because it is popular to do so. The mathematics show either method is a possibility, and quite frankly, I don't really care which is the absolute truth of the matter.
I could not have constructed a more self-indicting phrase for you if I had tried.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Nach wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
sudgy wrote:
There is a basis for the assumption that things are written how the writers think. Joshua 10:13 says "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." The thing is, the Earth actually stopped spinning, for that is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set. The writers didn't know this fact, however, so they said what they thought happened. God still inspired it. If it had said, "So the Earth stopped rotating" people in that time would have not gotten it. So yes, there is a basis in the assertion.
Where do you come off telling us that the world rotates as a fact and that the book of Joshua is wrong?
Maybe the entire universe spins around the earth in the opposite direction?
Edit: See the question here and the best answer.
Yes... and you should know that if the entire universe is rotating around the Earth, distant stars would be moving very fast and their light would therefore be Doppler shifted by a certain amount which we don't observe. They also would undergo a massive acceleration, likely compressing them into neutron stars or black holes. Finally, you need to explain what force is holding these stars in.
Are you seriously advocating a geocentric view of the universe? You fail Occam's razor. You fail it forever.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Nach wrote:
sudgy wrote:
There is a basis for the assumption that things are written how the writers think. Joshua 10:13 says "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." The thing is, the Earth actually stopped spinning, for that is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set. The writers didn't know this fact, however, so they said what they thought happened. God still inspired it. If it had said, "So the Earth stopped rotating" people in that time would have not gotten it. So yes, there is a basis in the assertion.
Where do you come off telling us that the world rotates as a fact and that the book of Joshua is wrong?
Maybe the entire universe spins around the earth in the opposite direction?
Edit: See the question here and the best answer.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
So as I understand it, the big barrier to making a Pokemon Snap run is that the Pokemon Signs (or whatever they're called) don't register properly. Would it be possible to get around this with Lua scripting (writing directly to the RAM)? I realize that would technically be against the site rules, but I think they can be bent just this once, plus it would be well worth it. Since the pokemon signs don't add to your score, it wouldn't appreciably affect gameplay.
Just a thought.
Edit: This is in response to BrainStormer's post below, but I'd rather not derail the thread, so I think it's more appropriate here:
http://bash.org/?835030
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
I'm of the opinion that a 96 exit or 100% run should show the game more completely than a shorter, more glitched run would. As such, I'd like to see as much of the game as reasonably possible. If there is an exit, the player should physically reach it, not just glitch the game into "thinking" that it's been reached.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
There's a very short "warp" at around 5:54 in this LP:
Link to video
You should see if you can reproduce it and find out whether there are any other uses for it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Feeling Pinkie Keen is a pretty good summary of the series as a whole: some good, some bad, obviously for kids through and through. Had some truly great slapstick humor that's been lackluster in cartoons lately, animation was really good, but good criminey were the writing and voice acting terrible!
I'm not so sure about the voice acting. Whenever I hear people complain about voice acting, I always imagine the script in my mind and ask myself if any voice actor could deliver the line well. "You have to take a leap of faith!" is pretty ham-handed would sound terrible coming from anyone. As a video game example, we all are probably familiar with Castlevania: Symphony of the Night's opening sequence. Contrary to popular opinion, I think the voice actors did practically all they could with a terrible script. Do you have any other particular examples of bad voice acting within the episode?
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Likewise, Suited for Success is pretty fantastic, but Dragonshy was really underwhelming and hammy.
I totally disagree with you on Dragonshy. The first seventeen minutes or so of the episode featured Fluttershy at her best and the montage of the ponies gearing up has some of my favorite poses of the series.
I agree on Suited for Success, however. It baffles me that the seemingly weakest character so consistently has the best episodes written about her. That was a solid episode from start to finish and includes what is probably my favorite song of the show.
