Beyond The Bomb

The "kaboom" part of a nuclear weapon is called the "physics package,"  presumably because it uses the one law of physics everyone knows: E = mC^2. 

Surprisingly, H-bombs are not efficient; only a few percent of the plutonium mass is converted to energy.  An anti-matter bomb, like the one in the Dan Brown novel, could theoretically operate at 100% efficiency.

But really epic kabooms can't be made by using the laws of physics; they're made by exploiting the laws of physics. 

A BB gun normally transmits energy using the law E=MV^2; change the laws of physics in  its vicinity such that E=M^1,000,000V^1,000,000 and you raise its destructive power to a whole 'nother level.

Science seeks to discover natural laws.  If Gnostic claims are true, and the universe was created by a finite, fallible creator, physicists may well discover not just natural laws, but the means by which those natural laws are implemented.  Future bombs won't have a "physics package" - they'll have a meta-physics package!

A Fortean Porn Result?

Previously, we noted that the infamous "Rule 34" breaks down when applied to Gnostic Forteanism.  Now, we still haven't found pictures of naked Gnostic girls, but we have found a porn-related experiment with decidedly Fortean overtones:

In another experiment, devised to test precognition, Bem provided his volunteers with the following instructions: “This is an experiment that tests for ESP. It takes about 20 minutes and is run completely by computer. First you will answer a couple of brief questions. Then, on each trial of the experiment, pictures of two curtains will appear on the screen side by side. One of them has a picture behind it; the other has a blank wall behind it. Your task is to click on the curtain that you feel has the picture behind it. The curtain will then open, permitting you to see if you selected the correct curtain. There will be 36 trials in all. Several of the pictures contain explicit erotic images (e.g., couples engaged in nonviolent but explicit consensual sexual acts). If you object to seeing such images, you should not participate in this experiment.” Which curtain covered an image was selected randomly by computer, which should have given subjects a 50 per cent chance of correctly locating the image.

The results were interesting, to say the least, with subjects achieving an overall hit-rate of 53.1 per cent for the pornographic pictures; while this may not sound all that impressive, statistically speaking it is significantly above chance. Their hit-rate on the neutral, non-erotic pictures was 49.8 per cent. Similar above-chance results were found in eight of the nine experiments, and across all nine an average ‘affect size’ of 0.22 was obtained.

Originally, this column was going to be about the Copenhagen Interpretation.  It's much safer for non-specialists to avoid modern physics - but where's the fun in that?  So, pressing forward, from Nature Magazine:

At the heart of the weirdness for which the field of quantum mechanics is famous is the wavefunction, a powerful but mysterious entity that is used to determine the probabilities that quantum particles will have certain properties. Now, a preprint posted online on 14 November1 reopens the question of what the wavefunction represents — with an answer that could rock quantum theory to its core. Whereas many physicists have generally interpreted the wavefunction as a statistical tool that reflects our ignorance of the particles being measured, the authors of the latest paper argue that, instead, it is physically real.

In other words, while the map is still not the territory, it's possible that there is, in fact, real territory for the map to represent.

Or is there?  It turns out there might be another explanation:

[T]he new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other.

Nature concludes this is unlikely, so we'll have to go with neo-realism, rather than having a "scientific" basis for things like ESP, alchemy, astrology, homeopathy, and other "action at a distance" phenomena.

Suddenly, Credibility

In my second blog post  I said we're not here to discuss politics.  But - and this is important - making predictions that later come true is how your Your Humble Commentator builds credibility.

I predicted that in order to reverse declining birth rates the US would reintroduce child labor, making children profit centers instead of cost centers.   It turns out Newt Gingrich agrees:

In an appearance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government last Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called child labor laws “truly stupid.”   Gingrich is known for — and proud of — his unconventional ideas. As he said himself in the same speech, “you’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals.”

 This one actually comes on the heels of efforts to change child labor laws around the country. But Gingrich’s suggestion that children start working as early as age nine goes far beyond what most other Republicans are proposing.

I don't know if Mr. Gingrich reads Bug Reports, or if he thought of the idea on his own.  While flattered, this does not mean that I endorse Mr. Gingrich's candidacy.   (Or that I oppose it - this blog IS NOT political).  We Gnostic Forteans have important questions of our own, such as my forthcoming post on the question "Does God Want to Eat Us?"

Still, I'm toying with another blog post that makes an outrageous prediction, so keep coming back to read "How America Will Win World War III, And Not Even Get A Scratch."

Discovery Channel: Call Me!

Most people who buy lottery tickets know they probably won't win; but if they buy a ticket they can indulge a fantasy.  That won't work for me; I've taken too many math courses.

Truth is, after a serious illness forced me into early retirement I learned how to be poor, but happy. Still...who doesn't dream of getting really, stinking  rich?  Tempered by adversity, I could handle obscene wealth without turning into a douche bag.

But how?


I've considered various stratagems: indy-filmmaking and / or starting a high-end audio company are both appealing.  But execution and follow-through are not my strong points.  I'm more of a pure idea man.

Which leads us directly to Reality TV, where the right premise is everything:

(Fade in)
Two MEN, rugged, outdoorsy types, in an epic western ladnscape; the Rocky Mountains, perhaps.  We see a bear trashing a campsite.

NARRATOR (Voice over)
"Bears are nature's champions, but if they loose their fear of humans, they can get in lots of trouble, and may have to be put down.  That's where me and my partner Ivan come in.  We use our mixed martial arts training to put the fear of man back in the bear.  We're..."
(Cut to: title, theme music)
"...the Grizzly Punchers.  Using our feet and our fists, we fight bears in order to save them.  After they meet us, they'll never want to see a human again."
(Cut to commercial)

Fun - and Fortean - as Reality Television can be, I think I've hit on an even better idea: starting my own Think Tank.  It's easier than TV; the ideas won't even have to be good ones....

Discovery Channel, if you're reading this - call.  Once I'm a high-powered public intellectual I'll be too busy for you.  Act now!

True Hallucinations?

Is reality a  lie?  Pop-culture Gnosticism thinks it might be, as films like The Matrix, The Truman Show, Inception, and Blade Runner demonstrate.  Descartes, an orthodox Christian, argued against a "demon" who could confound our senses, and for the proposition that reality - mostly - doesn't lie, in his Meditations.

Now comes this intriguing news from an article called "Drug Hallucinations Look Real in the Brain," in New Scientist:

[Researchers] asked the volunteers to look at images of people or animals while their brains were scanned using functional MRI, then asked the volunteers to close their eyes and imagine they were still viewing the image. Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that neural activity in the primary visual cortex dropped off when volunteers imagined seeing the image rather than actually viewing it.

But when the team then gave the volunteers a dose of ayahuasca and repeated the experiment, they found that the level of activity in the primary visual cortex was virtually indistinguishable when the volunteers were really viewing an image and when they were imagining it. This means visions seen have a real, neurological basis, says de Araujo – they are not made up or imagined.

It doesn't prove we live in The Matrix.  (Or in Terance McKenna's world)  But the hardware is ready.  Legacy support?  Or future proofing?