I'll go one step further. Science is about making predictive theories. The theories must predict future events based on observation.
Ah ya got me. I really meant predictive theories, but I'm glad you clarified in case somebody who doesn't really know what a theory is starts ranting about how worthless they are.
I remember a friend majoring in physics talking to me about theories one day. There was a time when physicists would make theories about what was "really" happening. These theories would like little stories about what the particles were actually doing.As long as the stories fit with observations, the stories got accepted.
Then someone made a story that said certain particles had a pilot element that intelligently guided them around to do what they had to do. His story fit with observation but it was patently ridiculous. Since then there has been a focus in physics on creating predictive equations without trying to add editorial about the true nature of the things being modelled. The focus was simply on creating predictive models.
I remember a friend majoring in physics talking to me about theories one day. There was a time when physicists would make theories about what was "really" happening. These theories would like little stories about what the particles were actually doing.As long as the stories fit with observations, the stories got accepted.
Then someone made a story that said certain particles had a pilot element that intelligently guided them around to do what they had to do. His story fit with observation but it was patently ridiculous. Since then there has been a focus in physics on creating predictive equations without trying to add editorial about the true nature of the things being modelled. The focus was simply on creating predictive models.
The Bohm interpretation isn't really patently ridiculous. All it does is take Einstien's statement that "God does not play dice" seriously and restores definite position and momentum to particles and eliminates the probabilistic collapse of the wave function. The result, however, is a universal wave "quantum mechanical" wave function which is actually generated by the experiment which act on the particle and reproduces the quantum nature of the experiment. This introduces "spooky action at a distance" in an extremely hardcore way with FTL effects and other strange issues.
Because of the FTL nature of the quantum mechanical wave function, nobody has figured out how to reconcile it with special relativity and its mathematically not useful, so the Bohm interpretation remains as a curiosity.
I'm not really certain where you're getting the narrative story from surrounding the Bohm interpretation, however. It is a nice way to point out to people who believe too much in waves and the uncertainty principle that those concepts might not be the ultimate truth. It didn't radically shake up our understanding of physics or quantum mechanics, however. It does sometimes get heavily abused philosophically in claiming that quantum mechanics "proves" that the universe is a hologram and that everything is connected.
I'd like to close out this argument by claiming that the next time I play D&D, my character is going to claim that the entire world was created 30 years ago by a great being named Gary Gygax and that all of the evidence to the contrary was placed there to fool us by Gary Gygax's evil twin brother who has a goatee.
... and that all of the evidence to the contrary was placed there to fool us by Gary Gygax's evil twin brother who has a goatee.
See, that's where you have it messed up. All contrary evidence must certainly have been placed by Gary Gygax himself, as only the creator can hold any power over his creation. Bill Hicks has an informative explanation of why it had to be this way.
If we can clone Neanderthals, should we? Also, for whoever was arguing that we have no missing links, if we cloned a Neanderthal from a chimpanzee embryo, and the result was pretty human like (capacity for speech, walked upright) how would that reality affect your opinion?
Personally, I think this idea is fascinating and terrible. I don't see how we can in good conscience do it, nor do I see how in good conscience we cannot.
"No one knows if Neanderthals could speak. A living one would answer that question and many others."
Raising a Neanderthal from cloned DNA in a modern environment would only determine if they could speak, but not if they actually did. If the Neanderthal can communicate in English it means little in the grand scheme.
"No one knows if Neanderthals could speak. A living one would answer that question and many others."
Raising a Neanderthal from cloned DNA in a modern environment would only determine if they could speak, but not if they actually did. If the Neanderthal can communicate in English it means little in the grand scheme.
Maybe. There is significant debate regarding how much of our ability to speak is learned vs an ingrained aspect of being human. Speaking English is clearly learned, but speech itself is witnessed in literally every human society.
If a Neanderthal could communicate in even rudimentary English, that would be a nearly definitive answer that they did speak. It wouldn't rule out the Og says, "Fire hot" assumptions, but it would probably put a nail in the Og says "oh oh ahhhh" (while shaking a stick) story.
In the grand scheme, it a mostly academic argument. However, there could be extraordinary health benefits to such a study. We might be able to pinpoint the genetic changes that gave rise to any number of behavioral or physical differences. Let's say Neanderthal has a better immune system, that's very interesting. Let's say it is what we would call antisocial, also valuable to know. It could serve as a kind of genetic Rosetta stone for many of mankinds features.
Cloning humans/humanoids brings up a whole slew of ethical questions. Are they property, or are the individuals? Can they be made slaves, or are they afforded basic human rights?
Cloning humans/humanoids brings up a whole slew of ethical questions. Are they property, or are the individuals? Can they be made slaves, or are they afforded basic human rights?
Well, Spain recently decided that all great apes should be afforded some basic rights, which is different than basic human rights. I would assume that we would do what we normally do, which is afford rights on a scale based on how valuable we think a species is. That's why nobody minds mouse traps, but a dolphin poison manufacturer would quickly go out of business.
Comments
Ah ya got me.
Enjoy!
Then someone made a story that said certain particles had a pilot element that intelligently guided them around to do what they had to do. His story fit with observation but it was patently ridiculous. Since then there has been a focus in physics on creating predictive equations without trying to add editorial about the true nature of the things being modelled. The focus was simply on creating predictive models.
I think this is the model I refer to above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
The Bohm interpretation isn't really patently ridiculous. All it does is take Einstien's statement that "God does not play dice" seriously and restores definite position and momentum to particles and eliminates the probabilistic collapse of the wave function. The result, however, is a universal wave "quantum mechanical" wave function which is actually generated by the experiment which act on the particle and reproduces the quantum nature of the experiment. This introduces "spooky action at a distance" in an extremely hardcore way with FTL effects and other strange issues.
Because of the FTL nature of the quantum mechanical wave function, nobody has figured out how to reconcile it with special relativity and its mathematically not useful, so the Bohm interpretation remains as a curiosity.
I'm not really certain where you're getting the narrative story from surrounding the Bohm interpretation, however. It is a nice way to point out to people who believe too much in waves and the uncertainty principle that those concepts might not be the ultimate truth. It didn't radically shake up our understanding of physics or quantum mechanics, however. It does sometimes get heavily abused philosophically in claiming that quantum mechanics "proves" that the universe is a hologram and that everything is connected.
Geek.
See, that's where you have it messed up. All contrary evidence must certainly have been placed by Gary Gygax himself, as only the creator can hold any power over his creation. Bill Hicks has an informative explanation of why it had to be this way.
Unless your are the DM and you allow my character to see into the real world.
...Or he repeatedly kills your character(s) until they see the light.
Me? I'm putting my faith in RaptorJesus.
If we can clone Neanderthals, should we? Also, for whoever was arguing that we have no missing links, if we cloned a Neanderthal from a chimpanzee embryo, and the result was pretty human like (capacity for speech, walked upright) how would that reality affect your opinion?
Personally, I think this idea is fascinating and terrible. I don't see how we can in good conscience do it, nor do I see how in good conscience we cannot.
Raising a Neanderthal from cloned DNA in a modern environment would only determine if they could speak, but not if they actually did. If the Neanderthal can communicate in English it means little in the grand scheme.
Maybe. There is significant debate regarding how much of our ability to speak is learned vs an ingrained aspect of being human. Speaking English is clearly learned, but speech itself is witnessed in literally every human society.
If a Neanderthal could communicate in even rudimentary English, that would be a nearly definitive answer that they did speak. It wouldn't rule out the Og says, "Fire hot" assumptions, but it would probably put a nail in the Og says "oh oh ahhhh" (while shaking a stick) story.
In the grand scheme, it a mostly academic argument. However, there could be extraordinary health benefits to such a study. We might be able to pinpoint the genetic changes that gave rise to any number of behavioral or physical differences. Let's say Neanderthal has a better immune system, that's very interesting. Let's say it is what we would call antisocial, also valuable to know. It could serve as a kind of genetic Rosetta stone for many of mankinds features.
Well, Spain recently decided that all great apes should be afforded some basic rights, which is different than basic human rights. I would assume that we would do what we normally do, which is afford rights on a scale based on how valuable we think a species is. That's why nobody minds mouse traps, but a dolphin poison manufacturer would quickly go out of business.