Comments for Wine, Physics, and Song http://winephysicssong.com Howard Barnum's blog on art, music, culture, science, public affairs, philosophy, and life Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:37:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Thoughts on the evolution of technology-using intelligence by David http://winephysicssong.com/2012/01/23/thoughts-on-the-evolution-of-technology-using-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-1682 David Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:37:55 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=1323#comment-1682 I commented on your last entry about this about how I think it came to be that we became the giants of technology and why we have this illusion that only we have the intelligence to make technological advances. Here is my thoughts on whether life on other planets would inevitably (or typically) evolve until advanced intelligence arise. My answer is mixed, first: No, if the environment is simple, there will be very little obstacles to "overcome" and thus there will not be many genes that die out, I guess some sort of equillibrium would arise pretty quickly and I think simplicity would actually be favored. But what happened on Earth? Life took over the entire planet, and that's what caused complexity to arise. I guess there is a crucial point in a inhabited planets life where by sheer coincidence ( a huge volcanic eruption, meteor etc.) changes things drastically over a short time period which forces only the very strongest and best adaptable to survive. These could co-exist fine in a "equillibirum" up until this catastrophy, but now they are the only survivors, and resources become scarce and I guess this is what causes sudden "jumps" in evolution, I guess the harmony has to be broken over and over by such things to make giant leaps until eventually something intelligent exists... And then comes my other part argument: the organism has to posses BOTH intelligence and a body that can utilize it. This is quite a coincidence, if a human brain with an IQ of 100 evolved inside of any other being than a human/great ape it could never have created complex structures because that always requires dexterity. So I actually think that it is a complete coincidence that apes happened to have to evolve advanced arms, legs and balance which later enabled us and our ancestors to manipulate our surroundings. Kea's have the intelligence of a 6 year old child and I think noone would object to the fact that 6 year olds can create simple technology, but birds can't due to being trapped in a body that cannot manipulate their surroundings. I'm sure some of this might be wrong, this is just musings to a glass of wine, but I am pretty sure about the part about humans having advanced technology only being a coincidence due to the fact that we needed our hands as apes in the jungle first. Now I'll head over to the Many Worlds Quantum question that I noticed you had replied to I commented on your last entry about this about how I think it came to be that we became the giants of technology and why we have this illusion that only we have the intelligence to make technological advances.

Here is my thoughts on whether life on other planets would inevitably (or typically) evolve until advanced intelligence arise.
My answer is mixed, first: No, if the environment is simple, there will be very little obstacles to "overcome" and thus there will not be many genes that die out, I guess some sort of equillibrium would arise pretty quickly and I think simplicity would actually be favored.

But what happened on Earth? Life took over the entire planet, and that's what caused complexity to arise.
I guess there is a crucial point in a inhabited planets life where by sheer coincidence ( a huge volcanic eruption, meteor etc.) changes things drastically over a short time period which forces only the very strongest and best adaptable to survive. These could co-exist fine in a "equillibirum" up until this catastrophy, but now they are the only survivors, and resources become scarce and I guess this is what causes sudden "jumps" in evolution, I guess the harmony has to be broken over and over by such things to make giant leaps until eventually something intelligent exists...
And then comes my other part argument: the organism has to posses BOTH intelligence and a body that can utilize it. This is quite a coincidence, if a human brain with an IQ of 100 evolved inside of any other being than a human/great ape it could never have created complex structures because that always requires dexterity.
So I actually think that it is a complete coincidence that apes happened to have to evolve advanced arms, legs and balance which later enabled us and our ancestors to manipulate our surroundings.

Kea's have the intelligence of a 6 year old child and I think noone would object to the fact that 6 year olds can create simple technology, but birds can't due to being trapped in a body that cannot manipulate their surroundings.

I'm sure some of this might be wrong, this is just musings to a glass of wine, but I am pretty sure about the part about humans having advanced technology only being a coincidence due to the fact that we needed our hands as apes in the jungle first.

Now I'll head over to the Many Worlds Quantum question that I noticed you had replied to

]]> Comment on Tim Maudlin on the training of physicists, the evolution of intelligence, and more by David http://winephysicssong.com/2012/01/23/tim-maudlin-on-the-training-of-physicists-the-evolution-of-intelligence-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-1681 David Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:09:32 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=1317#comment-1681 What Maudlin says is in a general sense true, but are we really the only specie to have developed technology? I don't think so. Technology is a loose term. The way birds build nests is what I would consider a technological. They are not hatched with a nest ready, they have to think about how to build it, even if it's instinct... Some birds, like the Kea's in New Zealand can do incredible things and are considered to have the IQ of a human child.. What do they lack? hands... they have an extreme hard time to build ANYTHING, they dont got the strength or the ability to balance something for long enough to actually construct anything, so it is not efficient enough or them to spend much time on, even if it can be proven that they posses the intelligence. Again think of dolphins and other whales, killer whales have been observed to learn spontaneously how to take advantage of the terrain, for instance there was a whale that knew when the tides came, baby seals would be possible to trap in a corner, so she did this for years and her offspring learnt it from her and continue the "tradition". this is unquestionably intelligence that could create at least SOMETHING, but they do not have the bodies for it. So I think the answer lies in how humans first came out of the jungle and onto the fields of Africa. It seems to me that it was kind of coincidential that we had first been apes who are good with their hands AND happened to posses the intelligence we did. To me, a spear is not very impressive, even considering that they were at the dawn of mankind. If you go to youtube you will find a documentary about Kea's, they can use random pieces of metal and manipulate them into hooks and then fish things out of otherwise unreachable spots. How is this technology different from humans doing the same thing? Im summary: I think we are a result of 2 coincidences coincidentially merging. Both having the body that can perform the task of manipulating nature and construct objects energy efficiently AND having the IQ to do so. In nature in genera you usually only have one or the other... What Maudlin says is in a general sense true, but are we really the only specie to have developed technology? I don't think so.

Technology is a loose term. The way birds build nests is what I would consider a technological. They are not hatched with a nest ready, they have to think about how to build it, even if it's instinct...
Some birds, like the Kea's in New Zealand can do incredible things and are considered to have the IQ of a human child..

What do they lack? hands... they have an extreme hard time to build ANYTHING, they dont got the strength or the ability to balance something for long enough to actually construct anything, so it is not efficient enough or them to spend much time on, even if it can be proven that they posses the intelligence.

Again think of dolphins and other whales, killer whales have been observed to learn spontaneously how to take advantage of the terrain, for instance there was a whale that knew when the tides came, baby seals would be possible to trap in a corner, so she did this for years and her offspring learnt it from her and continue the "tradition".
this is unquestionably intelligence that could create at least SOMETHING, but they do not have the bodies for it.

So I think the answer lies in how humans first came out of the jungle and onto the fields of Africa.
It seems to me that it was kind of coincidential that we had first been apes who are good with their hands AND happened to posses the intelligence we did.
To me, a spear is not very impressive, even considering that they were at the dawn of mankind.

If you go to youtube you will find a documentary about Kea's, they can use random pieces of metal and manipulate them into hooks and then fish things out of otherwise unreachable spots. How is this technology different from humans doing the same thing?

Im summary: I think we are a result of 2 coincidences coincidentially merging. Both having the body that can perform the task of manipulating nature and construct objects energy efficiently AND having the IQ to do so. In nature in genera you usually only have one or the other...

]]> Comment on Links for the day: winevaulttv.com, Jancis Robinson on Clos Jordanne, Matt Dees of Jonata, Daniel Gundlach's Counterleben; Cherries and Clay by Florence http://winephysicssong.com/2009/12/06/links-for-the-day-winevaulttvcom-jancis-robinson-on-clos-jordanne-matt-dees-of-jonata-daniel-gundlachs-counterleben-cherriesandclaycom/comment-page-1/#comment-1646 Florence Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:00:42 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=356#comment-1646 I'm surprised you don't have more links to Santa Barbara or Santa Ynez wineries. I've had some of the best wine tasting experiences there and the wine never disappoints. It is the most rewarding place to visit as well, so much natural beauty and it is great to experience with a glass of pinot or sahyra in your hand as well! I love staying at the South Coast Inn (www.goleta-hotel.com). Close to multiple wine orchards in Santa Barbara county and a great buy! I'm surprised you don't have more links to Santa Barbara or Santa Ynez wineries. I've had some of the best wine tasting experiences there and the wine never disappoints. It is the most rewarding place to visit as well, so much natural beauty and it is great to experience with a glass of pinot or sahyra in your hand as well! I love staying at the South Coast Inn (www.goleta-hotel.com). Close to multiple wine orchards in Santa Barbara county and a great buy!

]]> Comment on Foundational Questions in the Azores II: Limiting frequency arguments for the Born rule in Many Worlds by howard http://winephysicssong.com/2009/09/02/foundational-questions-in-the-azores-ii-limiting-frequency-arguments-for-the-born-rule-in-many-worlds/comment-page-1/#comment-1634 howard Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:55:19 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=83#comment-1634 David, I think I'm about as close to a decision on the viability of the MWI now as I was when I wrote that post---I'm strongly inclined to believe it's not viable. The difficulty of using it as a guide to action, because of the difficulty of introducing probabilities, is still my main technical objection. However, and relatedly, I have doubts about the viability of notions like "the wavefunction of the universe". But this is partly because I view the wavefunction, or density matrix, as a description of probabilities of observations, and don't necessarily see room for an observer outside the universe, whose potential observations the wavefunction of the universe would ascribe probabilities to. That's hardly a knockdown independent argument against many-worlders, who won't share its premise. Some of my more general thoughts on this can be found in <a href="http://pirsa.org/09100091/" rel="nofollow">this rather informal lecture</a> from a conference on the quantum state at Perimeter Institute a couple of years back (note that the abstract is misleading, though). I've been meaning for many years to write up my views on the current versions of the David Wallace / David Deutsch type "quantum decision-theoretic" arguments for probability assignment in many worlds, which are the strongest ones, in my view, although I am not convinced by them. But I haven't yet done so. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4555" rel="nofollow">A paper of mine</a> (also rather informal, and not submitted anywhere else) that took off from this lecture, though with even less focus on many worlds, has some more of my thoughts on the nature of the quantum state. David, I think I'm about as close to a decision on the viability of the MWI now as I was when I wrote that post---I'm strongly inclined to believe it's not viable. The difficulty of using it as a guide to action, because of the difficulty of introducing probabilities, is still my main technical objection. However, and relatedly, I have doubts about the viability of notions like "the wavefunction of the universe". But this is partly because I view the wavefunction, or density matrix, as a description of probabilities of observations, and don't necessarily see room for an observer outside the universe, whose potential observations the wavefunction of the universe would ascribe probabilities to. That's hardly a knockdown independent argument against many-worlders, who won't share its premise. Some of my more general thoughts on this can be found in this rather informal lecture from a conference on the quantum state at Perimeter Institute a couple of years back (note that the abstract is misleading, though). I've been meaning for many years to write up my views on the current versions of the David Wallace / David Deutsch type "quantum decision-theoretic" arguments for probability assignment in many worlds, which are the strongest ones, in my view, although I am not convinced by them. But I haven't yet done so. A paper of mine (also rather informal, and not submitted anywhere else) that took off from this lecture, though with even less focus on many worlds, has some more of my thoughts on the nature of the quantum state.

]]> Comment on Foundational Questions in the Azores II: Limiting frequency arguments for the Born rule in Many Worlds by David http://winephysicssong.com/2009/09/02/foundational-questions-in-the-azores-ii-limiting-frequency-arguments-for-the-born-rule-in-many-worlds/comment-page-1/#comment-1601 David Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:28:27 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=83#comment-1601 Hello, A very interesting post! Too bad you haven't written any continuation of this subject. Have you come any closer to a decision on wheter you think MWI is viable or not? Also do you feel that the probability/Born rule issue is the *only* issue of MWI or do you find any of the other aspects technically problematic? Hello,

A very interesting post!
Too bad you haven't written any continuation of this subject.

Have you come any closer to a decision on wheter you think MWI is viable or not?
Also do you feel that the probability/Born rule issue is the *only* issue of MWI or do you find any of the other aspects technically problematic?

]]> Comment on Herbsaint, New Orleans (Restaurant review) by Ken http://winephysicssong.com/2009/10/10/herbsaint-new-orleans-restaurant-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1588 Ken Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:59:51 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=189#comment-1588 Hi Howard, Your first post just appeared on Urbanspoon! Check it out: I encourage you to claim your blog, which allows you to add a picture and change some settings. The blog photo shows up next to your posts wherever they appear on Urbanspoon. Here's how to claim: - Make sure you're logged into Urbanspoon - Go to your blog page on our site: http://www.urbanspoon.com/br/57/6751/New-Orleans/Wine-Physics-and-Song.html - Click "Claim your blog" in the left sidebar After you submit it, we may contact you to verify your claim. Check your spam email folder if your claim hasn't gone through in a day or two. You'll also find some interesting badges and widgets on your Urbanspoon blog page - look in the right sidebar. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ken www.urbanspoon.com Hi Howard,
Your first post just appeared on Urbanspoon! Check it out:
I encourage you to claim your blog, which allows you to add a picture and change some settings. The blog photo shows up next to your posts wherever they appear on Urbanspoon. Here's how to claim:
- Make sure you're logged into Urbanspoon
- Go to your blog page on our site: http://www.urbanspoon.com/br/57/6751/New-Orleans/Wine-Physics-and-Song.html

- Click "Claim your blog" in the left sidebar
After you submit it, we may contact you to verify your claim. Check your spam email folder if your claim hasn't gone through in a day or two. You'll also find some interesting badges and widgets on your Urbanspoon blog page - look in the right sidebar.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Ken
http://www.urbanspoon.com

]]> Comment on Where does the National Bureau of Economic Research get its money? by Howard Barnum http://winephysicssong.com/2010/09/16/where-does-the-national-bureau-of-economic-research-get-its-money/comment-page-1/#comment-1217 Howard Barnum Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:31:26 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=666#comment-1217 Hi again Dave and whoever's out there--- an update: While you can get the summary financials Dave linked to by going to "About Us" on the menu "About" at NBER's homepage (and following a link at the bottom), the full annual report isn't there. They are incorporated in New York, and I wasn't able to find a free database of New York nonprofit annual reports. More effort might well turn up a commercial database with limited free access... If they are getting 32.4 million./yr currently from grants, I suspect this means the 10 million or so sourcewatch cites "from just 4 foundations" over 16 years is not be a rounded picture of their grantors. They must have geen getting on the order of 30 million in 2001 alone. I'll look into this further. Hi again Dave and whoever's out there--- an update:

While you can get the summary financials Dave linked to by going to "About Us" on the menu "About" at NBER's homepage (and following a link at the bottom), the full annual report isn't there. They are incorporated in New York, and I wasn't able to find a free database of New York nonprofit annual reports. More effort might well turn up a commercial database with limited free access...

If they are getting 32.4 million./yr currently from grants, I suspect this means the 10 million or so sourcewatch cites "from just 4 foundations" over 16 years is not be a rounded picture of their grantors. They must have geen getting on the order of 30 million in 2001 alone. I'll look into this further.

]]> Comment on Where does the National Bureau of Economic Research get its money? by Howard Barnum http://winephysicssong.com/2010/09/16/where-does-the-national-bureau-of-economic-research-get-its-money/comment-page-1/#comment-1216 Howard Barnum Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:00:29 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=666#comment-1216 Hi Dave--- I figure as a not-for-profit corporation, they probably have to file a publicly available financial report, which I was planning to look for. This looks like the summary page from that---there are probably more details in a full report though I'm not sure if they have to disclose funding sources by name. One thing that's clear from the income (i.e. "activities") part of the statement, is that current grant income is far and away their biggest source, at 32.4 million, with investment and interest big at around 5 million (presumably mostly from an endowment) and revenue from publications a distant third though non-negligible at around 1.5. (This isn't necessarily mostly from working papers subscriptions, though, as they actually publish things through University of Chicago press and may make money that way.) Thanks for the info and I'll try to track down the full report and see where the grants come from. Besides being specifically interested in the NBER, I'm a bit curious to see what the financial report of a nonprofit looks like. Hi Dave---

I figure as a not-for-profit corporation, they probably have to file a publicly available financial report, which I was planning to look for. This looks like the summary page from that---there are probably more details in a full report though I'm not sure if they have to disclose funding sources by name. One thing that's clear from the income (i.e. "activities") part of the statement, is that current grant income is far and away their biggest source, at 32.4 million, with investment and interest big at around 5 million (presumably mostly from an endowment) and revenue from publications a distant third though non-negligible at around 1.5. (This isn't necessarily mostly from working papers subscriptions, though, as they actually publish things through University of Chicago press and may make money that way.) Thanks for the info and I'll try to track down the full report and see where the grants come from. Besides being specifically interested in the NBER, I'm a bit curious to see what the financial report of a nonprofit looks like.

]]> Comment on Where does the National Bureau of Economic Research get its money? by Dave Bacon http://winephysicssong.com/2010/09/16/where-does-the-national-bureau-of-economic-research-get-its-money/comment-page-1/#comment-1196 Dave Bacon Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:40:41 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=666#comment-1196 Though it doesn't trace down where the grants come from. Though it doesn't trace down where the grants come from.

]]> Comment on Where does the National Bureau of Economic Research get its money? by Dave Bacon http://winephysicssong.com/2010/09/16/where-does-the-national-bureau-of-economic-research-get-its-money/comment-page-1/#comment-1195 Dave Bacon Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:40:02 +0000 http://winephysicssong.com/?p=666#comment-1195 I asked on twitter and Kim Z pointed to http://www.nber.org/FY2010FinancialsSummary.pdf I asked on twitter and Kim Z pointed to http://www.nber.org/FY2010FinancialsSummary.pdf

]]>