This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - hamdani yusuf
The difference is in intentional design versus the survival of random variants with no purpose. Evolution of living things is unbelievably wasteful compared with the design of nonliving things.Design is an information optimization process done in virtual environments, such as human brains, beaver brains, computer memory. Design may contain trial and errors, but since they are done in virtual environments, they can be done more efficiently, i.e. use less energy, less time. Selecting components and tuning the parameters in designing reusable rockets or competitive electric cars involve a lot of trial and error process.
If I want 36, I can write down 36 - purposive design. Or I can throw 6 dice 50,000 times and write down the answer each time - evolution.
On the other hand, biological evolution is an information optimization process done in physical environments. There are a lot of restrictions in this process, which makes it take longer to get the desired results. It's not a purely random process, hence rolling dice analogy is not representative for this.
Genetic algorithm is a similar process to biological evolution, but done in a virtual environment. It is widely used in design process involving many parameters which form complex interplay.
The original golden rule already tests an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver. It works well where all conscious agents engage self preservation. In most cases they do.This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.
Any organism willingly self destruct for no reason can't survive for long, hence it's not an evolutionary stable strategy.
Altruism through kin selection is an evolutionary stable strategy, although it seems to defy self preservation. Nonetheless they survive because they preserve the backup copy of the altruists.
That's when original version of golden rule is no longer adequate to guide morality. Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin. Naive golden rule allows them to sacrifice others to save their kin.
« on: 28/01/2021 21:35:25 »
Some of us might be interested in what Martian men would be like. They'd have evolved in a low-gravity environment. Which allowed them to grow appendages of extraordinary dimensions, by terrestrial standards.They also have to live in a dry environment with low pressure, low oxygen and high concentration of CO2 atmosphere. If we find Martian lifeforms, they are most likely microscopic.
Isn't that a fascinating subject for speculation?
« on: 28/01/2021 04:06:13 »
Youtube also has videos about it.Quote from:People have made bikes with contrarotating wheels to cancel that out, and they are still rideable.People investigating bike stability have also made bikes with vertical forks (or even tilted-back forks) and they are still rideable - but it takes more practice, more effort and failures are more frequent.
I imagine that a bike with reversed steering (or wearing glasses that reversed left and right) would also be rideable - but you would have to unlearn a lot of childhood experiences before you could learn to ride it.
The following users thanked this post: evan_au
« on: 17/01/2021 06:15:50 »
But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.
« on: 05/01/2021 21:57:01 »
New species will replace the ones lost. The planet is not in need of being saved.Unless when entire earth is no longer habitable, such as when it merge into the sun. Unconscious beings need nothing. It's just some conscious agents happen to live there want to survive, and are trying to figure out how. It's something we can learn from the movie Thor Ragnarok.
« on: 05/01/2021 15:45:33 »
Life is the cradle of the life as we know it, but no one should live in the cradle forever. Or more precisely, no one should die in the cradle without ever going anywhere else.
I've uploaded a new video investigating further into the behavior of microwave when interacting with a redirecting grid. Additional conductors to the grid change the behavior depending on their positions on the grid.
The following users thanked this post: novicepug
« on: 05/01/2021 02:44:53 »
Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.As far as I know, currently Mars is lacking of native conscious beings. The only known form of consciousness there are artificial and came from earth. So I think it doesn't need anything, including humans.
(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.
(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.
(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.
Making Mars a habitable planet takes a lot of time. There are many things need to study with a lot of unknowns and uncertainties. If we wait for earth to become intolerable before we start exploring there, we wouldn't have enough time to do that and face the risk for human extinction. Maybe that's acceptable for you, but certainly not for many others.
« on: 03/01/2021 22:00:19 »
Perhaps the colonisation of Mars might offer one advantage:Mars colonizers would disagree.
We could fight our wars on Mars.
For example, armies of Americans, Russians and Chinese, could conduct military campaigns on Mars. For the possession of the Syrtis Major, or Olympus Mons, or the Vastitia Borealis, or the Martian icecaps, or any other suitably prestigious objectives.
Such long-distance "Martian Wars" would provide an outlet for pent-up human aggression. Without incurring disastrous damage to our home planet Earth. Nuclear weapons could be freely and abundantly used on Mars.
There'd be no fear of them turning Mars into a lifeless desert, since it already is to start with.
I wonder whether this possible military benefit of Martian colonisation has been considered?
Why would they fight the war in the first place? Reminding them that they have common international goals and showing them objective reality should be a more efficient method to prevent wars.
« on: 30/12/2020 10:28:33 »
Does humanity actually need Mars colonization? Elon Musk and Space X invest a lot of resources in Starship and Mars colonization. But as most people know the journey to this planet is not a piece of cake and it is rather dangerous for the crew of the spacecraft. Also, they did not figure out how to solve the fuel issue to get to the red planet and bring the crew back. ( Not even mentioning the harsh environment of the red planet. To prepare the crew for it will be very costly to invent special suits or capsules )Elon Musk's speeches available on Youtube have answered most of your questions. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species in order to pass the "great filter". It's a prerequisite to form type 2 civilization in Kardashev scale.
The starships are designed and built using methane as fuel for that very reason. Methane can be produced on Mars using materials available there, i.e. CO2, H2O, and sunlight.
Petrochemicals suggested a 2 steps experiment, but talanum1 had done the first step only.And...?I get no shock from the wooden door. Also not from a metal spoon in a mug.To check whether the wood provides a sufficient insulation medium to your charge, just for us, touch the wood first then the handle second.
The following users thanked this post: Petrochemicals