costela.net

One argument I’ve seen thrown around a few times about why an universe simulator couldn’t work is that it would need the processing power of the entire universe to simulate the entire universe, given a quantum state granularity of details.
While I do agree this might be strictly true in the physical sense (I’m unfortunately no quantum physicist to judge), I disagree it might be a deterrent in most contexts I’ve seen this used, namely when speaking about the totally immersive matrix-like simulators envisioned by some post-singularity proponents.

The reason I disagree (as much as a layman can) is that being totally immersive, the amount of information one could possibly extract from it is exactly as limited as the amount of information we can currently extract from the universe as a whole at any given time. In other words, just like a video-game rendering engine doesn’t need to render the textures for surfaces outside the player’s view, the simulator doesn’t need to process quantum states for particles not being currently analyzed, relying instead on rough approximations.
Therefore, even if the person was immersed after having lived in the real world for some time, it’s theoretically possible – albeit certainly not currently – to simulate something indistinguishable from reality as far as the senses are concerned. If the person was immersed from birth, well, then we can basically define the rules of the game as we see fit, right? It’s not like you’d notice there’s anything missing anyway.

This sort of design limitation could even be blamed – treading into sci-fi territory here – for the famous wavefunction collapse related effect experienced when a beam/wave of light is observed. Our world simulation follows our attention and only raises the resolution, so to speak, when we actually look at something.

This rant feels like the kind of thing I should have talked about after watching the first (and only) Matrix movie, but what the hell…

From this Scientific American post on the “60 Second Science” blog:

This week, Purdue University is auctioning off the rights to name seven newly discovered bats and two turtles, the Associated Press is reporting. The winners — who will shell out a minimum of $250,000 for at least one of the bats, a Purdue spokesman told ScientificAmerican.com — can link their own name or that of a pal to the animal’s scientific name.

Someone please call Adam West! He’s gotta enter this thing!
What could be better than using this opportunity to honor one of the most – if not the most – famous bat-derived characters in the world? And what better way to honor Batman than having his most chubby and hyper(homo?)sexualized incarnation into the annals (no pun intended) of science!?
“Desmodus adamwestus“, please!

Why didn’t anyone think of him before? Come on! You call yourselves scientists!? Pff…

Of course, if someone wants to make a more direct homage, they could name it “Desmodus batmanus“, but that’s just silly.

(via johnhawks.net; which I got to know via my very own crazy-scientist friend)

And now for something (not) completely different.

While checking out Adam West’s IMDB entry (just to make sure he was still alive and could still shell out the 250K), I noticed he’s been married to a woman named Ngatokoruaimatauaia Frisbie Dawson.*
Read that again, please.
I’m left wondering if the “Frisbie” was a way of shocking you out of the first name, or if perhaps it was the other way around…

* disclaimer: the internet can be wrong, you know? I googled, found tens of sites mentioning the name, and none mentioning it as a hoax… so… it still doesn’t prove squat. Funny stuff, nonetheless.

Tem gente que é burra e não tem jeito.

Mesmo longe da terrinha ainda tem certas coisas que me perseguem, como por exemplo o Paulo Coelho. O status dele como “autor brasileiro mais vendido internacionalmente” complica um pouco minha fuga.
Tomando café com alguns colegas depois de uma prova (que diga-se de passagem poderia ter ido melhor) e lendo um catálogo de livraria me deparo não só com um livro do maldito supracitado, na lista de recomendação pra temporada de natal, como também com três (mais do que dois, menos que quatro, cinco está fora) colegas que gostam da figura. E acham ele um bom autor!
Bem, não me levem a mal. Eu tenho hábitos de leitura que me impedem de subir no palanque e dar lição de literatura. Certamente gostei de alguns livros que estão muito abaixo do que seria considerado pela banca do prêmio Nobel como papel higiênico encadernado, mas tenho a capacidade de no mínimo assumir que meu gosto não define qualidade técnica. Sei que tenho uma queda por alguns estilos e temas, e que apelando pra essas preferências mesmo um autor medíocre conseguiria me fazer gostar de um livro.
Claro, o conceito de “bom autor” é relativo à colocação do autor em questão, em relação aos demais autores comparados, e está longe de ser um conceito objetivo, mas não consigo evitar de regular por cima (ou no caso do Paulo Coelho, poderia até regular pelo meio) e usar o termo em relação – no mínimo – aos clássicos mais difundidos da literatura ocidental, já que seria demais pedir uma comparação só com autores brasileiros e/ou portugueses, geralmente desconhecidos fora de países de língua portuguesa.
Também não consigo evitar de considerar a técnica de um autor como algo mensurável – se não quantitativamente, ao menos qualitativamente – e de achar que partindo de uma tabula rasa qualquer pessoa concluiria a superioridade de um determinado texto sobre outro.
Enfim, independente da argumentação e das menções de plágio, das comparações de estilo e conteúdo, os fãs continuam com sua opinião.



Perguntas:

1. Quem é o burro dessa história toda? Justifique sua resposta. (valendo 10 pontos)
2. Qual é o seu nome? Qual é a sua missão? Qual é a sua cor favorita? (valendo a vida)

Resposta: eu, por me deixar levar pelo absurdo da situação e esquecer o quão estúpido é argumentar preferências pessoais – muito mais estúpido argumentar com quem gosta de Paulo Coelho.

Mais um post trazido a vocês por: Sociedade em prol dos intolerantes carentes – doe o quanto quiser, eles vão te achar idiota mesmo assim

“I’m gonna [flock of crows] you and your whole family!”

I consider myself a pretty good English speaker, so it murders me (ha!) to admit I didn’t know that particular meaning. Some less common words, sure, those are quite likely to have some unknown or obscure semantic gotcha, but new meanings to common words are a genuine surprise when they come along.

There is this feeling in the back of my head that I might have seen this already, reading some book, and forgotten about it later, or maybe I just glossed over my faulty comprehension telling myself I was too stupid to understand the literary genius and subtlety of the author. That seems to happen pretty often.

The question remains whether the language influenced the cultural association from crows and bad omens or the other way around. Or perhaps it’s just a freak coincidence.
It’s times like this I wish I had a nice etymological dictionary.

The definition of “love” is a pretty interesting question, but what really bugs me is the definition of “you“.

Ah, cheap poetry…
Makes you feel all deep and mysterious, right?