Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 13-11-2017, 03:44 PM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
That brings back memories, Gary. I was working for Apollo when the DN10000 was released.
Hi Rick,

Great stuff! It's a small world.

At the risk of running off topic on the thread for a moment and I
hope Alex does not mind whilst we make a brief excursion into this
blast from the past ...

I'm am trying to think back of the names of the Apollo sales reps that
were here in Sydney .. Carlo or Carlos??

We use to use a lot of Apollo computers in previous working life times -
DN3000's, DN4000's, DN4500's DN-425T's - for both software
and hardware/ASIC development. The hardware platforms ran
Mentor Graphics licenses.

Apollo made some great computers and it took a long time
before personal computers had any of the salient hardware features that
were in any way comparable.

Operating system and network-wise I am still waiting for PC's and Macs
to catch up with what Apollo were already doing back in the early 80's.

I still have some Apollo computers here as a historical collection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
* everybody except my wife
That was funny!

Again apologies to Alex for going off-topic whilst I reminisce.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 13-11-2017, 03:49 PM
AndrewJ
Watch me post!

AndrewJ is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,905
Gday Alex
Quote:
if we could measure and input all the data
Yep, but now you introduce many new variables, not the least being the "observer effect", ie the phenomenon where the act of measuring affects the measurement???
Do we now model the model??????
Andrew ( nearly beer oclock )
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:06 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Hi Julian,

You just want to make us all try and get our heads around the
Gödel numbering proof again and make all our heads hurt!

Einstein was quoted by a colleague as wanting to work at the
Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton in order "to have the privilege
of walking home with Gödel".

I wonder if Einstein ever said during one of those walks, "OK ... no, damn,
I wish I was smarter ... Kurt, could you please explain it to me again
one more time ..."
Yes got me reading again...

I am surprised you did not point out the unlikly hood of knowing for example what is going on right now at some party of possibly inteligent creatures on a planet billions and billions of light years away.

So that is one thing that we can never know.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:11 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Hi Rick,

Great stuff! It's a small world.

At the risk of running off topic on the thread for a moment and I
hope Alex does not mind whilst we make a brief excursion into this
blast from the past ...

I'm am trying to think back of the names of the Apollo sales reps that
were here in Sydney .. Carlo or Carlos??

We use to use a lot of Apollo computers in previous working life times -
DN3000's, DN4000's, DN4500's DN-425T's - for both software
and hardware/ASIC development. The hardware platforms ran
Mentor Graphics licenses.

Apollo made some great computers and it took a long time
before personal computers had any of the salient hardware features that
were in any way comparable.

Operating system and network-wise I am still waiting for PC's and Macs
to catch up with what Apollo were already doing back in the early 80's.

I still have some Apollo computers here as a historical collection.



That was funny!

Again apologies to Alex for going off-topic whilst I reminisce.
There is no need to appologise but personally I see nothing wrong with off topic as they say conversation.

After all my op was somewhat an attempt to give folk a platform to say something...

and often interesting things, as they have, pop out on an off topic detour.
all good.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:16 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJ View Post
Gday Alex

Yep, but now you introduce many new variables, not the least being the "observer effect", ie the phenomenon where the act of measuring affects the measurement???
Do we now model the model??????
Andrew ( nearly beer oclock )
At some level I feel the universe should reduce to the passing of information... and although we can and do model mostly by giving identity and characterists to the particle we still need to understand this information exchange better than I percieve we currently do... I think I know what it is that we dont know but dont know how to explain what I think I know.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:24 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
I'm am trying to think back of the names of the Apollo sales reps that
were here in Sydney .. Carlo or Carlos??

We use to use a lot of Apollo computers in previous working life times -
DN3000's, DN4000's, DN4500's DN-425T's - for both software
and hardware/ASIC development. The hardware platforms ran
Mentor Graphics licenses.

Apollo made some great computers and it took a long time
before personal computers had any of the salient hardware features that
were in any way comparable.

Operating system and network-wise I am still waiting for PC's and Macs
to catch up with what Apollo were already doing back in the early 80's.

I still have some Apollo computers here as a historical collection.
There was a Sydney sales guy called Carmelo San Gil, IIRC.

The integration of the network into the AEGIS O/S was very well done and I liked the software development tools. The token ring networking worked very well too. Unfortunately, the market moved on and Apollo's move to Unix was late and half-hearted.

Those were fun days. My kids were pretty impressed when I brought home a 19" CRT and let them play wire-frame graphics computer games

Cheers,
Rick.

Last edited by RickS; 13-11-2017 at 05:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:27 PM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,928
Is there a limitation on what the human brain can grasp

Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
You could think that any attempt to confine what we could know could not be right.
Alex
Hi Alex,

Then if we put aside the possibility of a Gödel-like paradox getting in the
way of being able to prove all physical laws of nature, might
we ever still run into some physical limitation like we just aren't
smart enough to get our brains around it all?

Take chimpanzees. I've heard it said that when they look at themselves in
a mirror that experiments have shown that they don't appear to grasp that
it is themselves that they are looking at.

In the whole scheme of things, the human brain is not much bigger
than a chimps but most of us get who it is looking back at them
when we comb our hair. Some human brains are clever enough to
attempt brain surgery but still maybe know one knows how consciousness
or the human brain really works.

Take that one question. How does the brain work?

Understand it to the point where you could design and build a device with
comparable functionality.

Most of us would agree that the question of "how does the brain work"
to be a tough one.

Or is it that we are just like the chimps. If we were just that little bit cleverer,
problems like that may be as transparent to us as recognizing our own
reflection.

Are the people most of us would label a true genius - such
as Newton and Einstein - many, many times smarter than the majority
of us by some quantitative metric (it feels like they are) or are they
just that little bit smarter and are a bit like the one or two chimps
that understands it is them in the mirror?

We have writing and books and computers and can share information.
The majority of us aren't geniuses so books and the like give us the
luxury of time to try and grasp what the ideas in them mean (the luxury
of time except when we are cramming for tomorrow's exam )

But what would happen if we had a seemingly complete theory of physics
but no individual brain could hold it in their heads to make sense of it?

We would like to think as a species we could understand everything.
We sense there are no limits. But just like we would see it as futile to try
and teach a goldfish quantum mechanics, would some hypothetical
advanced alien intelligence who had a much bigger grasp of physics
look down on us and say, "Forget it. They won't get it if we explain
it to them. Might as well teach their dogs some new tricks instead"?

I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that one day there would be at least
one human that gets it. Who could hold it all their heads and the ideas
would be like plastic they could mould in their minds.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:36 PM
FlashDrive's Avatar
FlashDrive (Poppy)
Senior Citizen

FlashDrive is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bribie Island
Posts: 5,059
Nirvana
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:54 PM
julianh72 (Julian)
Registered User

julianh72 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
As you observe it has been written into science the uncertainty humans currently have in observing particles..the uncertainty comes not from the mechanism that governs the path of a particle but upon our ability to observe all its "being" simultaneously.
Alex,

I think you're mistaken (or else I misunderstood your meaning):

It is not just a "human" limitation; it is in fact deeply ingrained within the laws of quantum mechanics that it is not possible to know both the position and momentum of any particle.

(Or more precisely, both position and momentum together are simultaneously "unknowable" - but in what would no doubt delight Donald Rumsfeld, the extent of their "unknowability" is known quite precisely, and is defined by Planck's Constant.)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13-11-2017, 04:57 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
One needs to proceed with a positive assumption that we will not be hit with a space rock and cut off from a good run as a species.

I made the observation once that extiction is the rule and evolution the exception to that rule in an attempt to factor in the possibility of a future that could be thought upon. The observation has flaws of logic but serves its point.

It is difficult to think about our possible evolvement but we are evolving and right now a simple thing like face book and even this forum and the many others on all sorts of interests, I see as taking our evolution in a direction that I can only speculate upon... but when one speculats at how this almost instant communication must effect the speciecs it would not seem unreasonable to beleive our inteligience is probably going to grow maybe faster than what we can imagine..but I do try to imagine... I believe that there is enough meat in the brain even now to manage a much more inteligent being...

The thing that is missing is what is the human imperative and is this new world driving a stronger species... we could get too smart for our own good.

But lets be positive and imagine how we may become guided by what we would like to become perhaps..and that is not unreasonable as we seem to have some control on environment.

Could we evolve past a need for mathematics, if that makes any sence...for example..I look at something and figure it all out in my head..can be complex house plans designs costing..I am sure most folk can...to communicate it needs math and text etc... but could we get to a stage where we know the answer the math is almost like inbuilt...like throwing a ball ..you know.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 13-11-2017, 05:05 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72 View Post
Alex,

I think you're mistaken (or else I misunderstood your meaning):

It is not just a "human" limitation; it is in fact deeply ingrained within the laws of quantum mechanics that it is not possible to know both the position and momentum of any particle.

(Or more precisely, both position and momentum together are simultaneously "unknowable" - but in what would no doubt delight Donald Rumsfeld, the extent of their "unknowability" is known quite precisely, and is defined by Planck's Constant.)
My point is it is a human limitation because the rule is indeed a human one..it fits the model but all models are not reality they are attempts to model reality..what is the reality of a particle...notwithstanding what our current model says the paricle knows where it is where its going and at what speed...all those things are known by it as they affect its movement...

at some level we should be able to move past the uncertainty principle...in fact they did didnt they??? I mean measured both thru some new approach..anywyas by the way..not important.

I am trying to have one think out side of what we know now ..what happens when someone finds you can side step the uncertainty priciple..

I must retire and think about all the things that I dont know I dont know.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 13-11-2017, 05:52 PM
el_draco (Rom)
Politically incorrect.

el_draco is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tasmania (South end)
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Gödel, Turing, Chaitin et al have already proven that we* can't know everything.

* everybody except my wife
I had one of those once...

YOU ARE A DEAD MAN!!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 13-11-2017, 05:55 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
I had one of those once...

YOU ARE A DEAD MAN!!
I am protected by SWMBO's complete lack of interest in Astronomy
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 13-11-2017, 05:57 PM
el_draco (Rom)
Politically incorrect.

el_draco is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tasmania (South end)
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
I am trying to have one think out side of what we know now ..what happens when someone finds you can side step the uncertainty priciple..

I must retire and think about all the things that I dont know I dont know.
alex
The fundamental premise here is that you are assuming that there is a limit to the size of the universe and ignoring all else, including multiverse, there can be no limit to the universe for the simple reasoning that if you could get to the "edge" you could then fire an arrow. If then, the universe has no limit, then knowledge can also have no limit... If it did, we'ed die of boredom I suspect.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 13-11-2017, 06:46 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
The fundamental premise here is that you are assuming that there is a limit to the size of the universe and ignoring all else, including multiverse, there can be no limit to the universe for the simple reasoning that if you could get to the "edge" you could then fire an arrow. If then, the universe has no limit, then knowledge can also have no limit... If it did, we'ed die of boredom I suspect.
I see your fundamental premise as yours mine has never been to see a limit on the universe it is my belief it is indeed infinite in fact I like the steady state model, although out of favour and support, certainly shows I like the idea that it is infinite...

But even now with our limitations think of what we can do...we can look around out there..see all the electromagnetic spectrum...thats cool.

Its funny we see such a narrow band...so small of what is there...but if we could see it all I guess it would appear as fog...

alex
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement