The World's Weirdest/Stupidest Conspiracy Theories

(in no particular order, with each theory's author or main proponent in parentheses)

• The driver shot JFK. (the late William Cooper)
• The Beatles were designed and sent to the U.S. by the British Psychological Warfare Division, to undermine the morals of American teenagers. (Lyndon LaRouche)
• Christ's Crucifixion was staged. (Hugh Schonfield) Christ eloped with Mary Magdalene, and one or both of them fled to France to raise their family. (Baigent/Leigh/Lincoln)
• Christ and his disciples were a magic-mushroom cult. (Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Allegro)
• HIV/AIDS was created in a lab.
• HIV does not cause AIDS.
• Man never landed on the moon. It's not even possible. But there is an alien base there. (see Wikipedia; for an artful and very funny parody of how these theories can be patched together from unrelated material, watch the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon)
• The Zapruder film is entirely fake, even though it contradicts the findings of the Warren Commission. (Jim Fetzer)
• Stephen King killed John Lennon. (Steve Lightfoot)
• WWII was staged. It never really happened. The Illuminati employed elaborate special effects, stage magic, and phony journalism to scare the world into pacifism. (Donald Holmes)

Check out the link for other gems

Hilarious.

Hilarious *rolling eyes* or hilarious *ha ha*?

Both

hehehe okay

So what did my Great cousin die of then if he wasnt in a Spitfire?

Probably in a Hurricane ?

Ok I'll rewrite it:

So what did my Great cousin die of then if he wasnt fighting in the war in a Spitfire?

Ahhhhh! Did you really have a great cousin? Or is that all a part of the conspiracy? After all you never met him, did you?

ROFL!!

I somehow doubt that ww2 was a big conspiracy if you actually go over to the trenches, bomb damage, pillar boxes and people killed in the war. It would sort of mean about a million people be in on the scheme.

And incidentally I really did have a great cousin (actually hes my great great cousin) as he is in many books and records which were written by my other relatives which I have met.

So your relatives were the only ones writing these books......? Still, you never met him did you? Families often have these types of tall tales about their histories and writing them down doesn't make them any more real: I will now write in my diary now about my great uncle Simon and his derring-do in the war. He still doesn't exist.Unless ....."THE CONSPIRACY" wants him to. What makes your family not in on it?

"I somehow doubt that ww2 was a big conspiracy if you actually go over to the trenches,"

You see, you have already been mis-lead, what "trenches" in WWII? You see how THEY confuse the issue to keep you off balance? Besides records, newspaper reports,film footage bomb damage can all be manufactured, coupled with years of War Movies and the Grand LIE is complete for the succeeding generations, like yourself, afterall what evidence do you yourself have?

Have you ever noticed that every so often, long after the golden era of War Movies of the late 1940s, 50s & 60s, they still make a new one? Just to keep the illusion alive? Why? Surely every story has been told? Why continue?

True... but JR, what about your great grandfather who saved my Mums cousins brother in law, from enemy fire when their platoon was attacked. If not for your great grand father my Mums cousins brother in laws children would not be alive today. so WWII must be true, otherwise my Mums cousins brother in laws children wouldn't exist.

Not to be a balloon buster HappyWanderer, but I actually agree with JR.

One branch of my my ancestry comes from Scotland, the Campbell Clan to be exact. If you are Scottish or know Scottish history you will know that there are many stories surrounding the Campbell Clan, along with the Wilson Clan, and the Wallace Clan. (every body knows William Wallace, thanks to Mel Gibson). Anyway these three clans were a very cutthroat and ruthless lot and there are many family stories and some famous surrounding these clans...

Anyway where I'm leading with this is... My Grandfather researched our family tree, with the help of a few universities, and the stories surrounding our heritage, and published a book on many of these stories told in the family and famous stories (cant remember the name of the book, will post it when I do). And found that some of the stories (although members of the family did exist) didn't actually happen, or were made more magnificent than the actual events so what really happened didn't seem so harsh or embarrassing to the family.

What I'm trying to say is, that although people may not be involved in a 'greater' conspiracy, stories of valor and bravery, or death and absence are told for prestige and reputation, or to cover up a more 'boring' or 'tragic' truth. And sometimes to even protect the innocence of knowledge within a family (eg: Daddy didn't come home because he was shot down in the war, when really he fell in love with a Vietnamese girl on tour and now lives with her in Vietnam)

I'm not saying that your family member didn't exist, or that he didn't fight in WWII or even that WWII didn't exist. All I'm saying is, stories and written word told through time or recorded are only as good as the word of those telling or writing them, which is fallible. Not to mention the 'enlargement' effect of fable and lore and miss communication. "Chinese whispers".

An interesting footnote to pseud's post: in the UK there is a TV show, Who Do You Think You Are? (in Australia you can see it on UKTV), where the famous trace their family history. An edition that recently aired in the UK had the actor John Hurt exploring his Irish heritage - believing he was a wrong side of the sheets descendant of the Earls of Sligo - only to discover, much to his hurt, anger and great disappointment, that the "Irish" family history and noble connections  had all been manufactured by an ancestor to sell himself up a bit. And there was not a jot of Irish heritage in Hurt's past.

Random spinoff from one word in JR's post: Anyone ever read The Meaning of Liff, by Douglas Adams and John Lloyd. It's written like a dictionary but matching place names to things that there was never a word for before (like the relaxing feeling from the cold side of the pillow, or the little plastic bumps on the bottom of a toilet seat)

Sligo was in there, defined as "An un-named and exotic sexual act which people like to believe that famous film stars get up to in private. - 'To commit sligo'

I've been meaning to get my hands on that one!

The village where my gran lives (Dorridge) is in there too, defined as "Technical term for one of the lame excuses written in very small print on the side of packets of food or washing powder to explain why there's hardly anything inside. Examples include 'Contents may have settled during transit' and 'To keep each biscuit fresh they have been individually wrapped in silver paper and cellophane and separated with corrugated lining, a cardboard flap and heavy industrial tyres"

ROFL!!

ok then ill prove to you lot that he existed.

And incidentally this isnt like a story passed down by old deluded people in my family. I did also read about it from a book which has sort of been passed by the British Library and Military records which whatever way you look at it is a very reliable source.

...but I cant proove it now because im very busy.

@Happy

I do believe you!

I was just messing around showing how easy it is, with some forced and tenacious argument, to turn just about anything into a 'conspiracy', and to call just about anything a Lie.

@Happy: Yeah I believe you too, I was just carrying on what JR was saying as a segway into saying conspiracy or not some things in history don't actually happen, but are said they do... "I'm not saying that your family member didn't exist, or that he didn't fight in WWII or even that WWII didn't exist."

I do find it highly unlikely that something as large as WWII was an elaborate hoax, and if it was, then it would be easier to believe that the Apollo moon landing was an elaborate hoax... Or maybe they're both part of an even bigger conspiracy not by the US government but by a secret super organization like the Illuminati to subtly control the world population to keep us hidden from some of humanities more terrifying truths.
 

You don't have to prove anything... but if you want to post photos and clippings and stuff of him from WWII, maybe you could start a new topic. I've got photo's of my grandfather from the end of WWII on the HMS Australia and pics of his meddles  to contribute.

Now I wonder if he has been paid off for keeping his mouth shut as part of this major conspiracy...

It's impossible to prove that you're not a brain in a jar, being fed stimulus through an intricate system of little wires and electrodes, but not many people lose sleep over that

or do we actually ever sleep, so that we could lose sleep over it???

OR....Perhaps we are all asleep now, or just one of us is and everyone else is the product of a dream of the one.

Or maybe, here's a shocking possibility, and it takes us back to time travel: It has been postulated that the only way we could ever master time travel, is to first ask why we would do it. The answer, would be to experience the past. If we cannot actually do it, then the next best thing would be, with enough computing power, sometime in the future, to recreate the past inside a program and let it run autonomously with all the right inputs, thus recreating events as they happen and then observe. Maybe we are being observed by our future selves and our universe is the program.

Whoooo spooky.

So can we change the coarse of our historical future through free will within the program, or is our future to play out the same way it did, when our real selves lived it???

The future is to play out the way it "did". The observation is of smaller events, all the known or bigger events are pre-programmed.

Whether it's a program or not we can always change our future, in so far as we are concerned, but the final outcome - the point at which the program was set to run - is pre-determined.

However, variations added by the programmer to see what might have happened, would lead to a different series of events, but we would never know, so for us it's academic.

We just wouldn't know either way.

That being said: If I am preprogrammed to take part in a major world event in the future, that would mean I can't kill myself now right?

Or if I die when trying to kill myself, this would be explained as the programmers introducing a variation to see what would have happened in this major world event, without my participation?

Ultimately, if what I was supposed to archive, was a major turning point or 'historical' event... without my participation, would someone else take up my place, and fulfill that which I was supposed to achieve... and would history remain the same, within the major events, but without my participation?

That being said: If I am preprogrammed to take part in a major world event in the future, that would mean I can't kill myself now right?

No, you yourself, if in possession of the knowledge, if true, would be able to adjust the program by killing yourself, hence the observation part. Who is to know that the realization of our predicament is not a part of the program?

Or if I die when trying to kill myself, this would be explained as the programmers introducing a variation to see what would have happened in this major world event, without my participation?

Yes that would hold, if you (or those descended from you or around you)  were to play a major part in an already played out history. But of course we have the problem of the fact that when WE get to the requisite time in OUR history when such computing power is a available, we will create our own history program thus making a (possible) new history.

Ultimately, if what I was supposed to archive, was a major turning point or 'historical' event... without my participation, would someone else take up my place, and fulfill that which I was supposed to achieve... and would history remain the same, within the major events, but without my participation?

It wouldn't matter, certainly not to the originators of the program, your actions would just be a variable, intended or otherwise.

So if Hitler never existed, would that have changed how the world is today, or would someone else have taken his place, and ultimately the world would be the same today?

And... How do we know that our programmers simply aren't programs themselves of an even higher level of programmers?... those programmers got to a technological point in the programmed events and started to mimic the events that took place after the original programmers begun to build history as a programmed environment.

And... How do we know that our programmers simply aren't programs themselves of an even higher level of programmers?....[etc, and all the variables]

I had thought I had alluded to that very point, somewhere. WE don't know.

So if Hitler never existed, would that have changed how the world is today, or would someone else have taken his place, and ultimately the world would be the same today?

Hitler is a variable in our program. We don't know that he didn't exist in another. Or that if he did, the outcome was somewhat different, or worse.

I wonder if the life program includes for re-boots, upgrades and other downtime...

@Dek (on something not related to this thread - or food).  When I edit a post I click edit.  The pop up appears and the text just "flashes".  So I cancel and click edit again and it's OK.

Why can't it just say "do you really want to edit your post" instead ;-/

There is a similar theory that says as the universe ends, and fades, all things would be equal and as one, so history would replay endlessly, allowing for multiple endless (within our own space-time) variables.

We can experience this/test the theory at the very edge of our universe, IF we could get there without encountering the loop that resets us onto our own time and place within.

@Arthur Yep, it's a known bug which will be fixed soon

Which browser are you using?

Opera

or Firefox

Okay, cool thanks.

Oh yes...  I forgot I'm on my work laptop now and that is (clears mouth and spits) IE7 but it's the same on the others

hahahaha

IE7.... enough said

sorry 'bout that, I just get a bit protective when it comes down to my family history. Its the elves in my head y'know. Those pesky elves.

I read a short story a while back about some scientists who, with the aid of a generic giant supercompter, simulate the world (either the universe from its beginnings, or just the recent bit, or possibly the whole of history but in fast-mode to get to the present quickly) and then look into the simulation and see that it exactly mirrors what they were doing a few days earlier, the simulated people then start a simulation, and those simulated people also start a simulation and etc.

They then realised they could themselves be a simulation (and that it's actually more likely to be that way - near infinite chain, only one top rung), and that because all the simulations were perfect, their actions would exactly mirror those of the people above them in the chain. Therefore if they switched off their computer, it would mean that the ones above them switched off theirs, so in effect they had their own universe in their computer.

On the other hand, the people above them would have come to the same conclusion, and all the way up to the top (who would also have decided it was very likely that they were a simulation) and so, barring power failures, no-one in the chain would take the risk of shutting down the computer.

interesting... and exactly what we are discussing, interesting... I look forward to the day that we are technologically capable of simulating our universe. But the type of computing required to do such 'universe creation' is far beyond our current reach, and even understanding of both conventional and quantum computing.

"whole of history but in fast-mode to get to the present quickly" - Does this explain the phenomena of how we feel that time travels so quickly??

"Therefore if they switched off their computer, it would mean that the ones above them switched off theirs, so in effect they had their own universe in their computer." - much like some of the larger MMORPG, like say EVE (not biased in any way ), The server is shut down for maintenance and rebooted ever 24 hour cycle for 1 hour... When the server reboots, everything is as it was, right before the server shut down.

How do we know that our server is not shut down and rebooted in a cyclic period... We don't, because we would be in exactly the same position we were at the moment right before the server shut down. mid sentence, mid thought... as per our discussion in the Theoretical Teleportation topic, our selves, our thoughts, our very essence are made up of particles that applied physics tell us are quarks and gluons and at a theoretical physics level we keep breaking those particles down untill we reach the ether. So if we are in a computer that simulates or re-creates our universe, than that computer would understand the principles of the ether, and how everything effects everything else... If that were the case, than the computer would be able to store the state of the ether right before shut down, then reinitialise the position of the ether on reboot.

As long as the computer reboots, we are safe from total annihilation... and if the computer were to crash or cut out from lack of power, as long as the existence at the top of the chain were there to reboot the machine, we would not know the difference, and we would be rebooted to the last restore position.

@SK: Can you remember the name of the short story, or book/site it was in?

Only problem is it is impossible to put the Universe into a computer. Youd need the human error that pc's just cant do without people telling them to do so. Itd probably be something from Doctor Who with a brain or something in the middle.

But that idea is very convincing. Much better than Christianity.

Sorry pseudyx, can't recall the name or location of it, it was quite a while ago that I saw it.

If you like that kind of clever computer-based fiction there's a good read here about an insanely powerful computer that attains god-like capabilities (is created with highly advanced power, and uses it to improve itself exponentially - as in theories about "The Singularity") then ends up storing the whole human race in a simulated world where they can't die or come to any harm.

The main character is pissed off with all the fakery and goes on a li'l quest to restore reality, and the ending is pretty cool so I won't tell you about it

Also this short story loosely based on the game System Shock (very loosely) about a highly advanced AI that goes out of control when a hacker (the protagonist) is asked to modify it slightly but fails to understand exactly how it works

"Youd need the human error" - So tell me... What exactly is human error? Then explain how human error could not be actually events set in motion caused by other events. Then if this super computer like I said, understood the ether... than human error within the computer would just be seem to be human error, but instead be an effect of another programmed event.

"The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does." [Ian Stewart,Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141]
 

@SK: Thanks for the reading material... sounds like I will enjoy

human error cannot be explained, determined or calculated. Thats the beauty of it.

It might seem inexplicable, indeterminable and incalculable, but if on the tiniest level, the interactions between the sub-sub-atomic particles are deterministic, predictable, etc. then it follows that that predictability carries upwards into the macro-world.

Some kind of quantum crazyness might make things more chaotic, but we're still slaves to the little electochemical impulses in our brains.

I've read that something like 80% of a person's actions can be predicted by close observation of subtle subconscious cues.

• ahhh but in the 20% what a difference.
• It does not follow at all that because things are predictable at one level that predictability carries upwards.  In fact, none of the 'strangest' of quantum level effects arise in the macro-world.
• sub-atomic life is not deterministic, predictable, etc. --- While aggregate behavior of billions of entities at this level exhibit probabilistic behavior that can be tracked with some precision within limits of what we know (note at the individual level, Heisenburg's Uncertainly principle seems to hold true despite our best efforts to 'sneak around the limits imposed by imperfect measurement processes on an objective understanding of 'reality' - at this level the best we can hope for is probabilistic measures)

Either that, or the answer is so complicated that if we ever came close to solving it, it would only change itself to confuse us some more 

Free Will is another one of those things that passes the duck test (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably a duck, free will looks and feels like it's real so for all intents and purposes we assume it is).

If free will doesn't exist, then whether or not we ever realise that is already predestined, if it does.. then yay, we were right 

(I take it "on faith", although I don't like the connotations of "faith", that we have free will, I just like to screw around with arguments, advocate the devil and such )

hmmm Devil's Advocate doesn't actually advocate for the Devil...  just takes what might be a similar stance i.e. advocating against the good (in context its  in order to reveal weaknesses that should be considered before what might be a otherwise virtuous choice) ... quite a different term is appropriate for advocating the devil

I just read a book where the author indicates that she often chooses something at a restaurant that she knows she won't like just to prove that she really has no free will.... [elevator doesn't go to the top floor in my opinion]

I just read a book where the author indicates that she often chooses something at a restaurant that she knows she won't like just to prove that she really has no free will....

That makes no sense at all

wow she sounds a couple cards short of a full deck!

@HappyWanderer: "human error cannot be explained, determined or calculated. Thats the beauty of it." - Reread mine, and Super-Kings (under the statement in question) posts.

At the moment this discussion is only taking into consideration, common excepted theories in chaotic mathematics, and what we (the limited bodies that make we tanglerites) understand of the human limitations of observation...

Let me put this to you... Just because we can't understand how something works, doesn't mean it doesn't work...

At a very basic level I can look at the running engine of a car and I can tell you that it is working. Because there are indicators that my knowledge/experience tell me means that the engine is working (heat, vibration, noise, etc) from observation. I can explain to you some of the features of an engine, such as the principles of combustion from acquired knowledge. But I can't tell you what some features of the engine do, or how to build an engine, or how this particular engine works (other than some basic principles) Because I don't have the knowledge  of some of the principle of mechanics, engineering, etc.

The same can be said about the Mathematics of Chaos, and our topic at hand, human behavior. We can understand the basic principles of human behavior from the observations we can make. And as our ability to observe higher levels of information, or expand the view of our observations, our results, our understanding of said behavior can be better analyzed... Now, just because we don't understand how things work at the ether level (or as Super-King put it "sub-sub-atomic particles"), doesn't mean that these reactions and events don't effect our 'human behavior'. We just have no means in our present understanding to observe the effects.

so, "ahhh but in the 20% what a difference.", that last 20% that appears to (be a duck) be human error or free will, is only 20% that we are unable to measure and therefore lack the understanding of.

"I take it "on faith"" - OK, so if you want to bring "faith" into it, I suggest you read up on your bible stories, because I can guarantee that there will be at a minimum 3 arguments for, and 3 arguments against for anything you can think of.

We are said to have been given Free will, this is what sets us apart from the Angels (that and the obvious fact that the Angels are with god and we are here  )... but, there are numerous versus that suggest we are set on a path for which we have no real control (I know this hurts some of your heads, because you are Neo-ites "you don't believe in destiny, because you don't like to believe your not in control"). "God is the Author and Finisher of our faith", "that who he forknew, He predestined."

Romans 9:11 - the Story of Jacob and Esau:

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Translation:
The difference was made between the brothers by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any good or evil. Both lay alike in their mother’s womb, when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen, that the purpose of God according to election might stand—that this great truth may be established, that God chooses some and refuses others as a free agent, by his own absolute and sovereign will, dispensing his favours or withholding them as he pleases.

... I could go on, but the bible has to many for and against arguments, it would become too confusing.

I didnt say that it was impossible. It just wouldnt work like any computer built before it.

And a computer of that size would be really quite big. Like the super computer of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy which was actually the earth run by mice.

Computers today have the power of a fly's brain. If there is to be a computer that would calculate existance then it wouldnt be in our lifetime before it was either made or completed.

I said I don't like the connotations of faith specifically because of its association with religion - I don't follow a religion, but by necessity I act as if I have free will, despite knowing that it may well be an illusion. The 2 things are entirely different so please don't bring up the Bible as if I just said "I believe that God has granted us free will"

Seriously, I'm full aware that the Bible will contradict itself on any given issue a dozen times

@HappyWanderer:

"I didnt say that it was impossible. It just wouldnt work like any computer built before it." - that goes without saying as I said above "So if we are in a computer that simulates or re-creates our universe, than that computer would understand the principles of the ether, and how everything effects everything else... If that were the case, than the computer would be able to store the state of the ether" - currently computers work on binary 1 and 0, which is 2 states the theory of quantum computing is getting closer with 4 states and superpositions of... but you are 100% right, It wouldn't work like any computer built before it, there is not even a common excepted theory that explains how this computer would work.

"And a computer of that size would be really quite big. Like the super computer of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy which was actually the earth run by mice." - Why do you think in matters of size when you think of computing power??? with every advancement of technology we have, our computing power increases while the size of our computers decrease... The first large-scale, electronic, digital programmable computer 'ENIAC', short for Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer was the size of 8.5 feet by 3 feet by 80 feet, took up 680 square feet, and consumed 150 kW of power. The same power of computing today is archived on the standard scientific school calculator

With every advancement we slowing become aware of other areas to explore, which give rise to new theories, we then try to prove or disprove those theories which leads to new advancement... and so on.

"Computers today have the power of a fly's brain." - Not even close... Computers can process the same input of a fly brain, but the processing or computing power of a fly is far more advanced than binary computers... But we are advancing in nano computing and quantum switching, which allows us to process more and faster than a fly brain

"If there is to be a computer that would calculate existance then it wouldnt be in our lifetime before it was either made or completed." - Which brings us full circle back to John Robie's original post. How do you know we are not the product of that very system now?

@SK: OK

(Touchy subject)

I was referring to a desktop pc to having the intelligence of a flies brain, not a super pc.

Personally I believe that the universe we live in gets to a point in history and then resets itself. Say the opposite of the big bang would occur, another big bang would occur and so on.

Of course the pc is going to be big no matter whatever way it works.

And say you have built a computer that could calculate existence, what do you tell it to do? It doesnt have an opinion. You'd have to tell it exactly what to do 24/7 if it didnt have Intelligence (not artificial intelligence).

You are into the realms of Deep Though for that kind of computational scenario.

If I had a computer with processing capabilities sufficient to simulate all of existence then I'd load up a copy of the Sims and wile away some time playing God 

"I was referring to a desktop pc to having the intelligence of a flies brain, not a super pc." - So was I

I see why you thought I was saying differently, I have edited to make more sense: "Computers can process the same input of a fly brain, but the processing or computing power of a fly is far more advanced than binary computers"

Flies seem to have a reasonable grasp of the physics of motion whilst they are at a stand still, given that they know exactly when to lift off the bench to avoid the swatter.

Flies in motion on the other hand are a much easier target. I suspect they have limited computational power whilst on the move.

"Say the opposite of the big bang would occur, another big bang would occur and so on." - So you believe in the Wisp Unification Theory and the Copernican principle? as apposed to the steady state theory? Do you believe in The Big Rip or a Universal collapse, back to singularity

Personally I believe that the universe will become too cold to sustain life due to continued expansion and the decay of free energy due to the action of entropy. Which I find is more theoretically sound than the universe reversing back to singularity... And before I even being to consider reversal, I would take into consideration the Big Rip theory, where matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe.

"Of course the pc is going to be big no matter whatever way it works." - Only in basic principle theories... Quantum computers, which can process 4x that of binary computers are the size of a cluster of atoms. I guess you missed the point I was trying to make from ENIAC to calculators and the advancement of tech and our understanding of.

"And say you have built a computer that could calculate existence, what do you tell it to do? It doesnt have an opinion. You'd have to tell it exactly what to do 24/7 if it didnt have Intelligence (not artificial intelligence)." - You don't tell it to do anything... Existence is (as far as we are aware) infinite, the computer would infinitely calculate the universe. As the programmers we would do nothing other than observe the calculation, until the computer either runs out of the capacity to calculate or it finds a finite ending to the universe.

Its like today, asking a super computer to calculate Pi... you can sit there for months and watch it spit out numbers, but it will stop when it no longer has the processing capacity to continue. You do not tell it to do anything except start calculating Pi, and watch.

"You are into the realms of Deep Though for that kind of computational scenario." - Which one: Douglas Adams Deep Thought, or IBM's Deep Thought

"I suspect they have limited computational power whilst on the move." - I would disagree, the amount of data they are processing when flying isn't only movement, but also processing odorant molecules, audio, and visual information from hundreds of tiny lenses in their compound eyes.

The fact that you can swat them in the air has more to do with your processing capability (brain) than the lack of the fly's

@SuperKing... And Sim hospital, Sim Themepark, Sim Office...

In that case would if be fair to say they have "limited surplus computational power whilst on the move"?

I suppose

Douglas Adams.  The kind of Deep Thought needed here would need to be created, not designed. IBM does not have the same ability to create stuff as beings who exist in a 4th dimension and project themselves into our mere three dimensions as white mice.

btw, on the topic of simulating yourself and environments and what that does to you psychologically and for your status in society, read Permutation City. It leads you through all sorts of cool examples. For example the leading character copies himself into an artificial environment and does all kinds of tests on himself. Another example: the copies of the dead super rich, the only ones who can pay for this kind of thing, try to get citizenship and rights in our society. Recommended.

...therefore even a computer made of atoms in its relative size would be complex and therefore in atomic terms BIG.

Itd be like the ultimate sims game ever.

“...therefore even a computer made of atoms in its relative size would be complex and therefore in atomic terms BIG.” – BZZZD, wrong answer. You’re still thinking in principles of conventional applied physics.

What if we could encode electrons with information to transfer from 1 atom to another atom while using protons to store that information!!! So we would need 1 atom to send information, 1 atom to receive information, and (according to communication theory) 1 atom to data check (error and consistency checking ie: CRC). So that’s only 3 Atoms… A 3 atom capacitor, but unlike conventional capacitors (on/of, open/closed, store charge/release charge), can store more information based on the position of the protons, and the atoms atomic number (number of protons and electrons).

Say we use the atom Darmstadtium, which has an atomic number of 110… that’s 110 protons and electrons, so the Darmstadtium Atomic Capacitor can store 110 states of data, as apposed to the conventional 2.

So using the same ‘size’ as a conventional microprocessor found in the average CPU we could fit more Atomic Capacitors in the same space that the conventional capacitors occupy. The microprocessor is (Atomic number)x(number of capacitors) more powerful than the conventional microprocessor of the same size.

Using existing technology to achieve this, the computer might be the same size comparatively as ENIAC is to the calculator. But as we advance the technology will again become smaller.

As we continue to follow this path our understanding of atomic processing will become much more advanced and we would be able to use the sub atomic elements for greater levels of processing. Technology ever getting smaller as our understanding gets bigger.

ok sub atomically, thing is going to be complex therefore big.

In any case it doesnt solve the problem. A computer cant calculate existance because it is not a mathematical equasion.

In any case quantum computing is still a long way from becoming a reality because of its complexity.

But until you get a computer to think, then the answer can be calculated. But technically it wont be a computer.

Compared to subatomice particles, a computer made of subatomic particles would be big, yes. But in human terms it would be minuscule.

You also need to define "think". If it's simple information processing, computers already do it quicker than we do, if it's decision making then AI is getting better all the time, and will be able to do so more effectively with super-dense information processing (we're doing pretty good using whole cells as our basic processors), if you're talking about emotions, then I don't think computers need them in order to be thinking..

Our "processors" follow in-built rules just the same as a computer does, the only difference is that ours has a chemical as well as electrical element to it, and more in the way of "fuzzy logic" based around the varying levels of stimulation or gene expression or whatever else is going on inside our grey matter

“complex therefore big.” – Why do you still think in terms of size when thinking of complexity. A cluster of 3 atoms beside 1 atom is relatively large in comparison to each other, but in comparison to a human, is as Super-King sais, miniscule. Can not be see with the basic optical microscope. So size is relative to comparison.

“A computer cant calculate existance because it is not a mathematical equasion.” – Its not??? How do you know??? What about the golden ratio. In mathematics and nature the golden ratio can be found in everything. If you divide the length of your arm with the length to your elbow it will be approx 1.61803399. If you divide the height of a tree from bottom most root, to top most branch, then divide it with the height of the tree from ground to the top most branch it will be approx 1.61803399. You can’t tell me that existence is not mathematical when similarity in everything can be expressed mathematically. “God does not play dice [with the universe], God always takes the simplest way” – Einstein.

“In any case quantum computing is still a long way from becoming a reality because of its complexity.” – No. quantum computing is a reality and we have it in the lab now (CERN)… its just not possible to do complex equations yet, such as mapping existence

“But until you get a computer to think, then the answer can be calculated. But technically it wont be a computer.” – I think we have found some common ground here. I agree it wont technically be a computer, as far as the commonly accepted notion of a computer is now. But, what is a computer??? And what is intelligence???.

I agree with Super-King, you must define ‘think’. What is it that differentiates Intelligence from Artificial Intelligence?

The most powerful AI is a replica of the information processes that humans make, that have been pre programmed in a condensed time span, with little to no ‘error by internal processing trial’ without external interference (trial and error). The human brain begins creating information process paths (logic) while still in the womb, however after leaving the womb the baby is able to start creating information paths based on external stimuli through ‘error by internal processing trial’ (trial and error), if the baby attempts something and it is successful, it is remembered as a successful trial, if it was unsuccessful the brain remembers and the baby attempts something different.

A major difference between AI and the human is that we have many more stimuli receptors. Audio for AI is easy, and in many cases the AI can process more than the human (range, pattern, pitch). Video, a little harder but still not all that complex… but what we have that many AI don’t is the tactile reflex ie; surface, pressure temperature etc. The biggest organ in the human body is also the biggest sensor that the AI does not usually have… Skin. Our skin tells us the ambient temperature, but can also tell us localised temperatures at different areas around the body, the skin (connected to the nervous system) can tell us how something feels (texture), as well as chemical receptor such as telling us when we have acid on our skin etc.

If an AI were to have all the stimuli receptors of a human, and was programmed to create processing paths based on these stimuli. What difference would this AI have to a human brain?

On the subject of AI-vision, the latest AIs are "able" to make the same mistakes as humans (being fooled by certain optical illusions after being trained to recognise colours, edges etc. on ordinary images)

Shows that they're learning image-recognition skills in the same way as we do.

No!  It is possible have equifinality - that is reach the same end point from a number of different starting points /different paths. Having the same type of errors in output doesn't necessarily mean that the process is anywhere near the same.

 

Ok, fair enough

But when the programming is intending to mimic the way humans learn image recognition? Seems like a simpler explanation that they're doing something at least similar
 

I remember reading an article last year about an AI being developed based on the social structure of ants... these AI-Ants had access to a few different networks, within each network were cameras pointing at coloured shapes. Different AI-Ants would start in different networks, and were allowed to travel between the networks... the scientists creating the AI said that the AI-Ants were developing their own form of communication to communicate about the different coloured shapes in each network, to identify to each other what it was that they were looking at. The project became very successful and was released onto the internet, by way of users signing up and 'starting' their own ant, based on the AI. Then the AI-ants would start on 1 users machine and travel around the internet to other users.

I think it was in France... I will look for the article it is very interesting... especially for programmers.

 

I've been developing an AI structured on a germ that can evolve by 'eating' other germ AI's  (in flash, have been updating it into AS3).

The idea is that each AI has its own Class file, with particular functions, such as movement, communication with elements in the environment, use of resources put into the environment (food). If one of the AI's eats another of the AI's it inherits that AI's Class, which intern gives that AI the functions of the other AI... If an AI-Germ was to 'eat' another AI-Germ that had already 'eaten' another AI, than that AI would inherit all the Classes that the other AI had 'eaten'.

Still a long way from being anywhere near ready to put on my website, but I might put up a preview of one of the AI-Germs in its little programmed environment.

The idea after I have created this is to then, allow people to download the Environment from my website and create their own germ, then they can communicate with other users (by way of my website) to compete their AI-Germs against each other, to see who which is the strongest, AI-Germ and how they evolve.
 

@Happy

Itd be like the ultimate sims game ever.

This was the point of my original post.

AND how do we know we are not already the product of the ultimate Sims game? AND how do we know that the creators of our reality (our Sims game) are not themselves products of an earlier reality? AND how do they know they are not the products of an even earlier one? And so on and so on ad infinitum?

Each time a society, within the program, reached the technological level of competence required, they too would create their own "ultimate Sims game" and watch it run.
 

This would negate any argument about the fate of the universe.
 

@ pseud

“God does not play dice [with the universe], God always takes the simplest way” – Einstein.

That is both a typical misquote and an unfair application of the "quote". It has little to do with the Golden Ratio.

Einstein was expressing his refusal to accept Uncertainty in a letter to Max Born. The actual quote, in context, was: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

We now know that Einstein was proven wrong, so quoting him in support of your argument in this fashion is dangerous.
 

No, you cannot say that Einstein was proven wrong.  At this point theory (both relativity and quantum as Einstein noted) "say a lot" but they are theories to this day.  The preponderance of evidence is not absolute proof and there may yet be "hidden" variables that we are not aware of that have an impact on events... but as they are unknown to us we use the gross tool of probabilities(that is futz around our knowledge limitations)

Even in the simpler case of Brownian Motion, for example, we can use probabilistic formulas to say a great deal about the behavior of a gas but full deterministic explanation is beyond possibility for a number of reasons. But at this level, it doesn't appear that dice are involved.... yet that is the best tool we have and it works extremely well when the population is large).

[Now I'll scroll up to the actual  bit and see what psued was arguing to see if I agree with the rest of your (JR's) argument ]
 

OK, from that more elaborate perspective we cannot say Einstein was wrong. But whereas Einstein was rejecting Uncertainty, we can now accept it.

I know that... but Happy didn't And it wasn't supposed to have anything to do with the Golder Ration, but another quote that supports the fact that everything isn't just random. - Your absolutly right, which is why I only used a section of the quote "God does not play dice [with the universe]" and added mixed it with another of his quotes. It doesn't matter if Einstein is right or wrong, and I agree with Bric, it is still nothing more than the best fitting hypothesis, that has not yet been proved write or wrong, only other theories to 'suggest' otherwise. The quote is just a support to the point that maybe everything in the universe is 'engineered' to happen that way.

"that is futz around our knowledge limitations" - Thanks Bric, I've been trying to explain this the whole time... we only 'know' what we currently understand, which doesn't mean there is nothing left to learn.

Actually my facts come from the science labs which build these type of computers who still say that building one is still a long way from becoming a reality. Once again, I didnt say building one was impossible, I said it will take a very long time and the scientists proved my point.

btw computers dont think, they process.

and Einstein's theories including possibly that one were not all correct, as he pointed out very late in his life.

btw computers dont think, they process.

Explain the distinction

"btw computers dont think, they process." - that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard... btw humans don't think they process...

@Happy: which science labs? and where did you read it.. because we have created a quantum switching machine, which only processes an on or off switch. Which is what I said before, we have quantum computing... just at its most basic form

And remember everything that is scientifically achieved isn't published to the mainstream Journals immediately... Also we still have some technology, that has only been published to the university Journals, which are only available to Post Grads and Alumni.
 

Good point pseud,

there is a lot of valid science out there that has yet to reach the mainstream media or even some of the more obscure scientific journals. A lot of (lay) people are prone to setting too much store by work being published in "recognised" journals.
 

A lot of people take journals and magazines like "New Scientist" to be the latest advances in Sci/Tech, but most don't actually realize the process that one must go through to have an advance or theory recognized, by the science community let alone the mainstream. Sometimes there is a gap of about 12 months between an advance and having it recognized by the mainstream... And thats only if one can get a patent of peer review, depending on what it is your doing.

Especially when it comes to areas of theoretical physics that the mainstream don't particularly agree with... and even sometimes we have to wait for someone else to release something before our discoveries are even looked at.

One famous example of this was the discovery that light is actually particles that travel in waves... not waves, like other radiation. Some schools today still even teach that light is waves. And another; the discovery that the speed of light is not a constant... there are still many debates over this.
 

Its basically quite simple. For something to think, it requires imagination which computers do not. Humans cannot process because they are not a switch unlike a computer, which is. Computers never make mistakes which thinking can lead to, which is why a computer will never be able to think like we do until it is modified to such an extent that it would no longer be a computer.

"Although we are still some way off actually building a quantum computer, the possibilities are extraordinary," says Professor Neil Johnson of the University of Miami's Department of Physics.

Thats the difference between thinking and processing.

In that case we need to define what imagination is - at it's most basic level the human brain operates on "switches" - neurons either fire or they don't.

I would say that creativity is being able to take what you already know about, recombine it with other things (even when of your own invention, everything will be based on concepts you already know about), and that imagination is the ability to think of something that doesn't exist - it might be something that will exist when you apply some creativity to it, something that can't exist, something that does exist but isn't sat right in front of you etc.

Since computers can very easily recall images of things they have previously seen and "imagine" them (though with massively better accuracy than us) I guess that it was creativity you were aiming for, and even that could be created in an AI with sufficient programming
 

I wouldnt say the brain works like switches but a valid point.

Neuron fires/neuron doesn't fire

On or Off, 0 or 1
 

""Although we are still some way off actually building a quantum computer, the possibilities are extraordinary," says Professor Neil Johnson of the University of Miami's Department of Physics." -- What website where you reading that from?... I'm sure the University of Miami is still some way from building a quantum computer. Read my post above about time from discovery to peer review to science community recognition to publicly acknowledged.

Technically, a computer is a programmable machine. This means it can execute a programmed list of instructions and respond to new instructions that it is given. When I say we have created a quantum computer, I mean nothing more than very basic machine the allows us to pass electrons in an individual stream on an 'on' command and and 'off' command. When Professor Neil Johnson said "we are still some way off actually building a quantum computer" he was referring to the 'University of Miami" we, and the more commonly accepted notion that a computer is something similar to the standard desktop, laptop or mainframe that is able to do many calculations and processes at one time.

This image of a karakuri doll is one of the earliest computers/robots.

Karakuri ningyo are mechanized puppets or automata that were built during Edo period (1603 to 1867).

"For something to think, it requires imagination which computers do not." - How do you know that our most advanced an AI does not have imagination?

"Humans cannot process because they are not a switch unlike a computer, which is." - again one of the stupidest things I've heard. Each cell of the human body is an elaborate bio-chemical computer.

Before you start making things up how about you do a bit of research, some of us here actually work in this field... Here I'll help you get started:

Please read this:

• HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES INFORMATION
  A brief 2 page introduction to how the brain processes information
• Information Processing in Human Body
  Based on final project for MIT Class MAS 862 (1998) by Vadim Gerasimov
  Corrected and updated in 2000-2006.

At the end of Information Processing in Human Body, please see the 17 references... more specifically:

• An introduction to genetic analysis. / Anthony Griffiths [et al.] 1993
• Molecular evolutionary genetics. / Masatoshi Nei 1987
• Controlling Computers with Neural Signals/ Hugh S. Lusted and R. Benjamin Knapp, Scientific American October 1996
• Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: a model for consciousness. / S. Hameroff, R. Penrose 1997
• ntelligent machines. / Hans P. Moravec 1977

"Computers never make mistakes which thinking can lead to," - I'm going to throw some common phrases at you: Computer Bug, Program Error, System Fault, illegal operation, etc.

"which is why a computer will never be able to think like we do until it is modified to such an extent that it would no longer be a computer." - Again, you need to read up... Start with Neural Processing and make your way to Object Oriented programming, along the way you will find that thought, and information processing is based on the constant flow of incoming information for our senses or sensors , and the neural pathways that have been set from many years of processing the same information.

@Super-King: I like your explanation of imagination... very imaginative

Computer Bug, Program Error, System Fault, illegal operation, etc.

And guess what, all human error. Its not the computers fault.

For the last time, we have not built a computer like that yet. What you are going on about is still just theory. It hasnt been tested yet. At least not in the terms you are describing.

"Computer Bug, Program Error, System Fault, illegal operation, etc.

And guess what, all human error. Its not the computers fault." - Are they really ... I have a few computer programmers here who would tend to disagree with you. In some cases you are correct. But you are incorrect to say that they are all human error all the time... An I am just trying to illustrate that error happens without human input... For an AI this is even more the case.

"For the last time, we have not built a computer like that yet. What you are going on about is still just theory. It hasnt been tested yet. At least not in the terms you are describing." - As far as your knowledge. Remember what I say:

1. Don't Make things up, because you never know who actually works in the field
2. If your going to get involved into a discussion on a technical point then do your research, otherwise only get involved on an opinion level.
3. Don't pretend to be an authority on a topic when you only have a high school and/or Internet, understanding of the topic.

We have, and when I say we, the scientific community. Not the public We, which is obviously you: A very basic machine the allows us to pass electrons in an individual stream on an 'on' command and and 'off' command. Very similar to nanotubes.

Go and talk to the guys in the Condensed Matter and Photonics research labs about electronic self-organisation near quantum critical points.

Then discuss the effects on ferromagnetic materials MnSi, Ni3Al/Ni3Ga, ²-Fe and ZrZn2, as well as layered oxides such as the high-Tc cuprates and the ruthenates, in high-field/low-temperature.
 

It has been documented at Max Planck Institute for complex physics systems, that the low temperature state of NbFe2 can be tuned by slightly modifying the composition within the narrow Nb-Fe homogeneity range. Slight Fe-excess induces lowmoment ferromagnetism. Non-Fermi liquid power-law forms in the electrical resistivity with exponents approaching 1.5−1.7 at low temperatures for polycristalline and single crystal samples across the homogeneity range.

The research that I have so subtly been suggesting hasn't been released into the science community yet is the further research into these findings, which point at the existence of an effectively ferromagnetic quantum critical point in slightly Nbrich NbFe2.

note to self: the forefront of scientific research is a confusing place unless you work there or know people who do, try to avoid being on the opposite side of a technical argument with pseudyx 

So.. is there a consumer-level quantum computer chip within sight? (Even if distant). It'd be a pretty cool thing to be able to say that you had a quantum CPU

Wouldn't want it to go into a state of both existing and not existing when I put it in box and shut the lid though... 
 

"try to avoid being on the opposite side of a technical argument with pseudyx" - Your pretty safe if that argument falls outside the realm of programming and Particle and (some) theoretical physics. , outside that realm my applied knowledge is pretty useless.

I've just been lucky to be involved in conversations that tend to end up that way

"is there a consumer-level quantum computer chip within sight" - We are a very (very, very) long way from that point. That type of computer and computing is what people commonly consider the definition of 'computer', and wouldn't say its quite within our sight, unless you are comparing 'sight' with Arthur C. Clarks visions of satellite communications long before they existed. Quantum CPU is still something of science fiction. Its just that we have discovered a little more about how particles work at very extreme conditions, and how we can create resistance '0' or conduction '1' by slightly modifying a particle in certain conditions. By applying these conditions or 'commands' we have the most basic form of the definition of a computer. But still a very far way from having any practical application.

At the end of the day the resulting product is going to be very different from anything thats on this blog.

Dont mock my intelligence. I may not be a scientist but I have many scientist friends who all back me up.

Any way you look at it, a computer does not make a mistake. It is always always the guy who did it's fault. There is no exception. Somewhere down the line theres going to be a guy who wrote the wrong code, built a faulty computer etc.

"is there a consumer-level quantum computer chip within sight" - We are a very (very, very) long way from that point.

which is almost exactly what Ive said from the very beginning.

@ HappyWanderer "Any way you look at it, a computer does not make a mistake. It is always always the guy who did it's fault."

Wrong.

Let me give you an exception to your extreme "absolutionist" position on computers then HappyWanderer:

Los Alamos Simulates Cicuit Failures From Cosmic Rays:

Its been known for a long time now that neutrons formed when "cosmic rays" hit the earth's atmosphere can cause memory errors in silicon chips.  As the density of memory and ICs get greater and greater, the more the potential problem of random error in all types of sensitive equipment - including for example control systems (including planes; automated plants such as atomic power, etc.)  The Los Alamos lab  does "accelerated" testing so that manufactures can work on error-correcting circuits and the like but there is not perfect solution.  Computers hit by stray neutrons make mistakes independent of designer, builder, software author, or end user.  Rarely, but they do happen.

Relevant to the argument... you decide.  But from my perspective (having mostly just lurked here rather than participate actively till now; and for all of debaters here) it is common that when arguments devolve to the use of words such  "IT IS  ALWAYS THUS"... they are ALMOST always wrong.

"Dont mock my intelligence. I may not be a scientist but I have many scientist friends who all back me up." - First of all, I'm not mocking your intelligence, I only make comments to things that you have said, I say stupid things at times... and when it comes to this thread, you have said some pretty stupid things, that to others are obviously or logically wrong, or not entirely wrong but with fault.

I also am only pointing out that you project yourself as very knowledgeable or an authority on the subject, when it is clear from reading your posts that you are not. And while I don't have any problem with people submitting posts in areas that they have no authority on, as I do this myself, or submitting opinions on subjects, I do have a problem when someone projects themselves as an authority and fights on a subject that they don't have a clear understanding of. When I have an opinion or basic knowledge of something, and someone corrects me, I will withdraw and/or acknowledge that the person has a better understanding, and in many cases end up discussing with that person to further my own knowledge on the subject. An active discussion of different but equal points is different, and can raise some great discussions... see the Theoretical Teleportation discussion its a good read.

"Any way you look at it, a computer does not make a mistake. It is always always the guy who did it's fault. There is no exception." - I agree with Bricoleur. Bric has submitted a good example, but this is one of many different affecters that can cause fault. The most common form of fault affecter which is not dissimilar from our own brain is heat. Heat can cause us to think "askew", heat can also affect the processing of a computer.

Another common affecter is magnetic interference. Magnetic fields again can have an effect on the electrical impulses in our brains, and similarly affect computers.

In my line of work we do a lot of programming, and a lot of errors can be attributed to programmer error, however there are always ‘gremlins in the system’, and intermittent variances in logical solutions, that aren’t affected by human input.

“"is there a consumer-level quantum computer chip within sight" - We are a very (very, very) long way from that point.

which is almost exactly what Ive said from the very beginning.” – Correction, you said, “For the last time, we have not built a computer like that yet.” After I explicitly said “Technically, a computer is a programmable machine. This means it can execute a programmed list of instructions and respond to new instructions that it is given. When I say we have created a quantum computer, I mean nothing more than very basic machine the allows us to pass electrons in an individual stream on an 'on' command and and 'off' command.”

I openly acknowledged that fact that it is only the simplest form of the definition of a computer: “we have quantum computing... just at its most basic form”

"it is common that when arguments devolve to the use of words such  "IT IS  ALWAYS THUS"... they are ALMOST always wrong" - Or just illustrates the limitations of ones knowledge the given subject.

On the Quantum Computing front I would add just one more thing.... I have the feeling that in this case more than the usual level of secrecy is in place pre publication  due to the interest of both big money interests in commercializing the research and in big government interest in the potential encryption and other security use potential....

I've talked to some legal and finance types that are involved in university/industry consortiums (including venture capital money) doing work that in most fields would be considered primary research and not part of the corporate sphere...this also delays the public announcement of those aspects of the work that might be closest to "moving out of the labs"
 

Psuedyx... you're right on the other affectors... in addition to your list several more came to my mind as I wrote that post, but I wanted to select one that couldn't be, by simplistic argument, tied back to lack of human insight in any way.

I remember early installations of PDP-8s (yes I go that far back) in research labs -  Physics and Radio Telescopes- that were shielded in their own  Faraday Cages to prevent electrical noise from the experiments and other equipment from crashing the recording computers. Despite the best effort at keeping this kind of interference out of the picture there was nothing in the arsenal at that time that prevented data corruption from the occasional cosmic influence being a fact of life.... Its somewhat better now in most environments -  as recording the data from the High Energy Physics experiments forced us to come a long way; but there is still no way we can control everything the environment throws at our systems.

Exactly. Industrial, academic and Lab secrecy are huge factors into the delay. Often the secret development and research of breakthroughs is kept that way until a 'patent' or 'product' can be acquired/legalized, so that other entities don't acquire the knowledge/technique/results to use for their own gain... You would not believe the amount of secrecy on some of the projects that I am involved in, just between departments... And we are the same university. Its ludicrous.

Yeah, I thought about that, after I posted it... Your example is a good example that can't just be argued as user fault due to poor environmental conditions.

PDP-8s hey, so your at least (appx) 60... no wonder you are such a source of knowledge. Well, I wasn't alive when they were installed, but I was there when the Ultra 2 workstations with UltraSparc-II processors were installed.;) (just starting my traineeship)
 

...Easy does it .... I'm not yet 56 --- not some old fellow of 60!

My friends and I were very precocious in our high school days (now those were in the '60s ) , and we weren't about to let the system get in the way of our learning... so when I was supposed to be learning Latin et al I was off to two of the local Universities every moment I could arrange transport- with the blessings of my teachers! ... I don't think they let too many kids do such things these days...but for two of us especially our teachers encouraged it ...  and we had several "sponsors" that went as far as arranging and taking us on "3 student" field trips to the more distant Radio Telescope facility among others things...it was partially those experiences that led me to my choices in the early days of  my 'real'  uni  in 1970 - Geophysics and Astronomy.

The PDP was in the last stages of its useful life (we tried to raise the money to buy one of them when I was in grade 12 and it was retired) but I actually learned my programming on one of the first IBM 360's in the province (Waterloo Fortran of all things) when that beast was still considered an engineering miracle by society in general.
 

And another; the discovery that the speed of light is not a constant... there are still many debates over this.

This is a good one.

There is still the on-going belief, and (as you say, vis-light waves) still taught in schools, that light travels at a fixed and immutable speed, yet it has been clocked at traveling as low as 56kms per hour. This is not very new work but was done some 15 (or so) years ago.

What was that, a laser cutting a hole through a really thick piece of steel or something that is impervious to light?

It was a comparative test. They put a light a light emitting source on the head of a Scot (some special contraption or other) and timed how long it took to get  to the bar.

Or more seriously: I don't know exactly, but I believe it involved an "absolutely" dark and near absolute cold environment.
 

I didn't think it was anything new that light could be slowed down by the medium it was travelling through.. without that it wouldn't refract

Exactly.

The speed of light is constant in a vacuum (I won't get into all the impacts of the theories of relativity here) but it travels slower in a gas, a liquid, glass, etc.  Nothing inconsistent there....

As far as JR's hoary story I heard it was the head of an Irish Man.... but there you go.  I'm off to test the phenomenon in this part of the universe (but given I will be carrying my timepiece with me, so may not get verifiable results.
 

On light vs waves... its no debate.....just lack of a good metaphor to explain a phenomenon that doesn't match what we see, and describe,  in our macro-environment it in general language terms.

Our minds rebel at many of the thoughts required to describe this domain... particles (photons) that give a pattern that exactly matches the diffraction pattern that you would get if you sent waves (rather than particles) at a wall with a slit/slits in it for just one example.  Light appears to show characteristics that, in the world  at a scale we can use our own senses on, are contradictory... sometimes we model them by use of "particle" constructs, sometimes we must use "wave" constructs.  String theory would indicate that at the bottom of the stack of turtles it is neither point nor wave but vibrating strings.

One of the things I find rather ironic is that science in its search for a "theory of everything" is leading us to mathematics and descriptions of 'reality' that are unverifiable... That is, in the end its a case of "take your choice of universes, please"  as it comes down to  unknowable conditions of initiation, existence, and end. However a theory that is not testable fails one of the most basic propositions of the philosophy of science and yet, in the meantime, we are making tremendous strides in bringing artifacts we find in our search for the fundamentals of the universe into our arsenal of tools.  Most interesting times that we live in.

 

Beyond a certain level, theoretical science seems to turn into magic.. stuff can pop in and out of existence, only stopping long enough to emit some other exotic type of particle, wave or radiation. Things can be in several places or have several different properties at once, but only until you look at them. Everything goes freaky when you look at the nature of light, energy and forces. Dimensions curl up inside each other then have branching strings that are either holding the universe together or pushing it apart depending on who you listen to. A large segment of the "stuff" out there can't even be seen or measured.

So basically, anyone who makes any claim to know anything for certain is likely to be talking out of their rear

[well, that's the impression I get from an interest in, but not all that much hard knowledge of, the weird crap at the far end of science]

@ Brico

... actually learned my programming on one of the first IBM 360's in the province (Waterloo Fortran of all things) when that beast was still considered an engineering miracle by society in general ...

Thats excellent. I was a bit more advanced. When I started learning Fortran77 we were smoking (among other stuff) the IBM 5150's with twin 360kB floppy drives. There were also a few XT's with the massive 10MB hard drive onboard and 128kB of memory. At the time the uni lab was phasing in the cutting edge 386SX's.

I still have a Fortran compiler lying around somewhere but nothing that will run it, but I always preferred Turbo Pascal and still use it a lot.

@John Robie: "...at traveling as low as 56kms per hour. This is not very new work but was done some 15 (or so) years ago." - If that is the same experiment I'm thinking of re "but I believe it involved an "absolutely" dark and near absolute cold environment.", I believe the light was passing through a gas of some sort.

@Bricoleur:

My apologies, I'm very sorry. I figured because they started to put the PDP-8's into labs in the early 60's and you saying "I remember early installations of PDP-8s (yes I go that far back) in research labs", I figured you were working by then, didn't actually think about interest or study... or the fact that you were a child prodigy

"The speed of light is constant in a vacuum" - Not necessarily... It also depends on the magnetic and ionic interference of the vacuum... But Now I'm starting to get out of my league and into yours...

"Sting theory would indicate that at the bottom of the stack of turtles it is neither point nor wave but vibrating strings." - I like this quote, where did you find it?

"science in its search for a "theory of everything" is leading us to mathematics and descriptions of 'reality' that are unverifiable..." - which brings us full circle back to the discussion that the universe could be mapped into a supper computer...

"in the end its a case of "take your choice of universes, please"  as it comes down to  unknowable conditions of initiation, existence, and end." - where Universal String theory and Chaos Mathematics theory collide... I call it... "Pseudyx theory"... but seriously, I agree "Most interesting times that we live in."

@Super-King

"So basically, anyone who makes any claim to know anything for certain is likely to be talking out of their rear" - Welcome to the fun, weird, and always interesting world of theoretical physics... I'll be your guide this evening. On your left you will see Quantum phase particles, and if you look to the right, you will see the exact same particles in phase

@All: This is so cool, we have a lot of people here from many places with such a great range of experience, and usage of different tech
 

@Pseudyx  re: "String theory would indicate ... the bottom of the stack " - I have heard it said that all new things come from mutation, error, or copulation (the combining of other things) so this one fits into the category of copulation.... as it sits this sentence just sprung to my mind as I typed.... but it obviously pays homage to an old story.

I'd heard it before but I believe it was repeated by Stephen Hawking (in one of his books I think) about a scientist who was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong and reality consisted of  a flat plate (ie the world) being supported on the back of a giant turtle.  The scientist  trying (with some  deference to old age of the lady)  to argue without showing disrespect simply asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"

To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."

Re PDP 8- It was first released in 1965 I believe... my first contact (if my memory - at this old age  - is to be relied on) was  in '67, Later that year I was skipping high school class to teach myself program on the IBM -- card deck, batch processing et al --  mainframe.

Yeah some of the turtle story sounds familiar, but was hoping you had a book title ???

I love the juxtaposition of "turtles all the way down", with string theory... it just gives me a big smile, in thinking about it, and how the two relate... It's such a simple statement, and yet very complex undertones.

arrr ... I was afraid you might ask that.... I'll go see if I can find which one of his books I have .... if it wasn't Hawking be prepared for a bit of a wait.... As I said I heard it before (there weren't too many astronomy jokes when I was involved  so some like this got recycled many times ; or it might even have actually happened!)   I'm glad you liked the juxtaposition of the turtles with string theory - it just jumped to me as I typed as my mind works in a somewhat bent fashion and juxtaposes all kinds of things.... it drives some people absolutely crazy but amuses others...

 

Well Turtles isn't in Hawkings "On the Shoulders of Giants" or "the Universe in  A Nutshell" so if it was him that retold the story it must be in "A Brief History of TIme"  but I haven't been able to locate my copy (buried somewhere in the stacks )... I did stumble across a couple of Penrose's books that, on second thought, might have been where I saw it in print but couldn't see it there either.  The good news is I got reacquainted with dozens of old friends in the stacks that I'd almost forgotten..

I've got some real work I've got to get done... but will return to the stacks shortly (I'm using this partly as an excuse to avoid some work; partly to get some of my more obscure books posted on my Goodreads Shelf!)
 

<smacks hand to forehead>  

I use wikipedia for initial point of search for all kinds of other stuff why not this?

Sure enough there is an article on Wikipedia "turtles all the way down" which says "the most widely known version today appears in Stephen Hawking's  1988 book A Brief History of Time. "

The entry suggests that the original lecturer to whom the old lady spoke may have been Bertrand Russell (at a speech Russel gave in 1927) but also lists several other possible "first cases"...one reference that was interesting to me was the note that "Carl Sagan recited a version of the story as an apocryphal anecdote in his 1979 book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science" as an exchange between a "Western traveler" and an "Oriental philosopher."  While I read this book I don't explicitly recall the anecdote from it -- but as I said above "jokes" <and anecdotes it appears> get well circulated and recirculated in the astronomy field and I new I had heard it before I read it in Hawking's book... so this may have been my first contact with the story.

(from Wikipedia article)

I have "A Brief History of TIme" so I'll have a look for it, I'll let you know.

OK, So I just finished reading your post... and am now going to have to go back and read A Brief History of Time because I can't recall that quote, so now I'm starting to think about what else I can't remember (paradoxical)

""jokes" <and anecdotes it appears> get well circulated and recirculated in the astronomy field..." I think it might be all sciences in general, because there are a lot of jokes (and anecdotes) that circulate in theoretical physics, especially when it comes to quantum.

Probably the most common that I hear, especially from new graduates is: "To understand something means to derive it from quantum mechanics, which nobody understands."

"I'm starting to think about what else I can't remember (paradoxical)"  hmmm ....and I thought it was just old age

I love your "catch-22" quote - I think I'll start using it myself!
 

I think it doesn't have anything to do with old age, just cramming so much information into such a small (relative) cephalic space.

Yup... Hawkings did use the story in "A Brief History of Time"  (Its the very first paragraph of chapter one ! and he attributes it to a real event with Betrand Russell as the lecturer of note)

awesome thanks for the research... I'm going to have to pull the book down from the top shelf again... Book shelf arranged Alphabetically from Top to bottom.

And that would explain why I don't remember it... First para of chap 1... by the time I got to the end of the book all the new stuff in had pushed it out

 

Your books are arranged?  How do you manage that?  are you a miracle worker?

... I didn't say 'all' my books were on the bookshelf

ahhh I see ... mine are spread out with 1/2 dozen or so volumes (currently being read) spread throughout the house in my favourite reading spots with  the balance on formal bookcases in my den, floor to ceiling shelves in the closet in the den, my library with its 16 book cases plus overflow stacks, a shelf in the walk-in closet in the master bed room, a set of shelves in my eldest son's old bedroom, an archival set of cases the garage and finally floor to ceiling shelves in the kitchen (in what used to be my wife's pantry).

I guess I could order them one day... but then I wouldn't find the nearly forgotten old friends nearly as often

... well you certainly have a lot more books than I... But I'm sure when I have had as many summers to acquire and winters to read, I will have something that sounds very close to your description