Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 395 Editor's Choice: 41
-
Occam (or Okham)
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Occam said was that you have to remove as many assumptions and hypotheticals as possible from any theory to get to the correct answer - "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". This, over time, has been expanded and modified to the principle we have today - "all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one".
The reason the principle works is because when you start adding assumptions you are invariably deviating from logic and coloring the theory with your underlying beliefs and preconceived notions. People don't make assumptions that are contrary to what they are trying to prove. Given a choice between 2 opposing assumptions that both fit the facts, they will almost always choose the one that supports their initial beliefs.
And the reason it seems it sometimes doesn't work is because we are not always working with perfect information, and because sometimes our assumptions are correct. The answer is always going to fit the facts, just not necessarily the facts as we know them.
Using the UFO example, the reality is that most people who believe we have been visited by alien life forms have no evidence to support that belief beyond the unsupported claims of others. The fact that millions have claimed that they have spoken to God doesn't prove the existence of God, and the fact that thousands (or hundreds of thousands, whatever) claim to have had contact with alien life forms doesn't prove that we have been visited by alien life forms. Doesn't disprove it either.
To believe we have been visited by UFO's you have to make these assumptions:
1. Intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe - likley it does, the odds dictate it, but we have no evidence.
2. That intelligent life is much more highly advanced than we are - if assumption 1 is treated as a given, then this is likely true. We haven't been around very long. But assumption 1 is not a given.
3. Those lifeforms have an interest in space exploration. Again, likely if 1 and 2 are true, but they are aliens and we really wouldn't have a clue about their thought processes and priorities.
4. Those lifeforms are interested in meeting other life forms. See assumption 3.
5. Based on assumption 4, you get
5a. They are very close. Radio is a fairly new invention, and for them to know we are here they would probably have to have heard our broadcasts.
5b. They are from far away, but they were looking for a planet like ours. This one cuts both ways. From what we know, planets like ours are rare, which reduces the odds that alien life would need or want one. On the other hand, if they happen to be from a planet with liquid water and require a highly corrosive and flammable gas in large concentrations in order to maintain a breathable atmosphere, we are part of a small, desirable subset.
5c. They were just in the neighborhood. The universe is big. The odds would be astronomical (pun intended).
5d. Earth contains some element that is highly desirable but exceedingly rare, and they were out looking for that. Unlikely but possible.
Any of the assumptions on this far from complete list could be true. They could just as easily be false. 5 of them have to be true for there to be any possibility of the claims of UFO's to be true.
Not simple.
-
This requires research?
[Read the article: The coming age of lying avatars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People lie online. If they couldn't lie easily and transparently, most people wouldn't bother. There are those who use the online environment to meet people with obscure common interests, but mostly it's people trying to escape from the life they actually have. Why would anyone choose to be an overweight, balding, divorced accountant when they can be a wealthy yachtsman? Or a 50 year old office worker when they can be a 30 year old nymphomaniac supermodel?
In business dealings I can see how this is a real problem, which is why I don't see virtual worlds replacing video conferencing any time soon - an avatar or text on a screen leaves out half the information you get from a live person or live video.
But Second Life (or as I call it, Second Rate, because it is truly awful, and truly pointless, software)? Anyone who would even think about conducting serious business in SL is crazy. Even if you know who you think you are dealing with, you don't know who you are actually dealing with.
Google may come to the rescue here with their virtual world, if - and only if - they incorporate real security and allow for some sort of strong connection to the real world. They already plan to use GoogleEarth as the foundation from what I am told, but if they let me claim the Taj Mahal it won't be any better than SL. If they make it so web cams and phone numbers are strongly associated with the locations where they actually exist, they may have something cool and useful on their hands.
But no one should expect to be able to conduct real business in a toy universe.
-
Not just still relevant
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More relevant.
The shot at Fred ("I'm not Ronald Reagan, but I sort of played someone just like him on TV") Thompson is dead on, but the commentary on what has happened to our ideals, and our idealism, in the last 20 years is even more on target.
Idealists are fruitcakes or idiots - ask any Republican or hard core liberal, and they'll tell you. For a country that was founded by the greatest idealists in history, and built on the highest of ideals, that is the saddest commentary of all.
Thank you, George Bush.