Monday, November 20, 2017 • Morning Edition • "Where your childhood dreams don't have to die alone."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Minority Report

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:49 pm

But once again, you're deviating from the discussion.

It has a set of rules which you continue to ignore.

1. There are precogs that can apparently see future crimes.
2. These crimes have been observed to occur as they were seen in the visions.
3. There is a possibility (however remote) that the suspect may not commit the crime (hence Minority Report).
4. Implementation of pre-crime apparently eliminates all major crime

Is it worth it?

Answer the fucking question.:P
User avatar

john lewis hawk

Founder of The Outhouse

Postby john lewis hawk » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:50 pm

jsalwen wrote:Well, under the laws of Minority Report, you can predict with reasonable certainty that someone will commit a crime.

That's what we're discussing here.

If you could reasonably predict that someone would commit a crime, would you create a system that halts and incarcerates said individual?

I would.
I wouldn't but then I'm a paranoid nutjob.
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Strict31 wrote:Feel free to test it at your leisure. Ordered states decay into disordered states. This is a fundamental rule of thermodynamics. The so-called arrow of time increases in the direction of the increase of disorder, or entropy.

Feel free to try watching a rotten piece of meat turn into a fresh piece of meat. I'll wait, but it won't be happening anytime soon.


Once again, what happens when the universe begins to contract due to gravity?

Hawking posited that this is a cyclical event, that the Big Bang has happened before, the universe expanded, then contracted, and it all started again.

When the universe contracts, he posited that the laws of thermodynamics may not exist as we know them since entropy will no longer be the fundamental rule. Would a shattered glass actually reform at this point? Who knows?

The point is, we don't understand the fundamental rules.

We have theories that explain our observations, just like you said.
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:53 pm

john lewis hawk wrote:I wouldn't but then I'm a paranoid nutjob.


You can't be arrested for just thinking lewd thoughts. Does that help?:P
User avatar

john lewis hawk

Founder of The Outhouse

Postby john lewis hawk » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:58 pm

jsalwen wrote:You can't be arrested for just thinking lewd thoughts. Does that help?:P
No because when there's the technology for predicting crimes, I'll have my genetically-engineered explosive sumo wrestlers ready to go. I will be framed!!
User avatar

Nightfly

Staff Writer

Postby Nightfly » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:59 pm

Strict31 wrote:Feel free to test it at your leisure. Ordered states decay into disordered states. This is a fundamental rule of thermodynamics. The so-called arrow of time increases in the direction of the increase of disorder, or entropy.

Feel free to try watching a rotten piece of meat turn into a fresh piece of meat. I'll wait, but it won't be happening anytime soon.

What of transmutation? Look at the life cycle of a butterfly or moth. And even the rotten meat gives rise to numerous lifeforms.

Frankly, I'm surprised you'd never heard of the "already happned" or "all at once" theory before (I probably read it in a comic sometime). It's bascially just a theory that our quatum reality is like an enclosed bubble or song on a record. All the info being there at once but linear time being the needle by which we travel along its grooves only able to ride it in one direction, non-stop from "beginning" to "end".
User avatar

Nightfly

Staff Writer

Postby Nightfly » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:03 am

jsalwen wrote:Once again, what happens when the universe begins to contract due to gravity?

Hawking posited that this is a cyclical event, that the Big Bang has happened before, the universe expanded, then contracted, and it all started again.

When the universe contracts, he posited that the laws of thermodynamics may not exist as we know them since entropy will no longer be the fundamental rule. Would a shattered glass actually reform at this point? Who knows?

The point is, we don't understand the fundamental rules.

We have theories that explain our observations, just like you said.

I think they actually do show the shattered glass reforming in the Brief History of Time film/documentary.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:24 am

jsalwen wrote:Well, what happens when gravity eventually wins and the universe starts to contract again? It's an interesting discussion posited by Hawking.


Re-read A Brief History of Time.

Edwin Hubble was able to determine that the universe was expanding. In the previous theories, it was believed that the universe would stop expanding and begin to contract. But hubble determined, due to the redshifting of cepheids, that not only was the universe expanding, it was doing so at an increasing rate of speed.

When the so-called Big Crunch idea was still being tossed around (it was never a genuine theory, because there was no evidence to support it), it was believed that the gravitational force of all the matter in the universe would be sufficient to contract the expanding universe.

Of course, the entire purpose of the Large hadron Collider is to determine what's up with the missing mass. "Missing mass" means scientists have determined the mass of the universe is insufficient to cause a gravitational collapse. The velocity of the expanding universe has exceeded the gravitation pull of all its matter.

To more clearly envision this, think of a rocket exceeding escape velocity on a planet. Below that threshold, it will fall back to earth. Above that threshold, it will escape the gravitational pull of the planet's mass.

Now, initially, even Einstein opposed this idea; the Steady State theory was the most accepted idea. Being the baller-ass genius he was, Einstein initially proposed the idea of a cosmological constant, an energy force that opposed the compressing pull of gravity. But he abandoned this because of his own prejudices about how the universe should work. "God does not play dice."

But when Hubble's findings were released and confirmed (you cannot change Cepheids or the speed of light in a vacuum), einstein realized his mistake.

Ironically, today, scientists are revisiting Einstein's cosmological constant idea. You may have heard of non zero energy, or dark energy. It's basically a background radiation that causes the fabric of space and time to "percolate." It's basically like an exothermic reaction; if you boil a pot of water, it bubbles and churns towards the edges of the pot. If you leave it untended, the water will expand over the edge of the pot, faster and faster.

Everytime you boil a pot of water, you are seeing exactly what will happen to the universe. If you do not turn down the heat, that water will spill outward, spreading all over your oven-top, and eventually the floor, cooling as it continues to spread.

This shit was all determined by simple telescopic observation in the 30s, and was debated up until the 70s, when most scientists agreed that the big crunch was no longer a valid theory. Including Hawking.

The search for dark matter is basically a search to find something that might, MIGHT cause the universe to contract, or to find something that will slow the velocity of the universe's expansion. It has not been successful.

This lengthy post is basically a summary of what you can find on a simple google search of "Universal Heat Death."

Something Hawking also worked on, and spoke of in A Brief History of Time was the shape of time. His work determined that the shape of time was generally bell shaped, and open. This is concurrent with the idea of an "open universe". The closed universe model, which does not agree with his shape of time, and does not agree with a universe that, as ours does, contains a non-zero background energy, allows for a big crunch. The open universe model does not.

Now...to be a valid theory, it must agree with that which can be reasonably observed. The open universe mdel does. The closed universe model does not. That means the big cruch does not agree with the conditions we have observed.

Hawking, as an Objectivist (which he mentions in A Brief History) would tell you (and does in that book) that a theory that does not agree with observed conditions must be either abandoned or must be made to agree with observable conditions.

This leaves us with a very clear conclusion for the idea that gravity will cause the universe to eventually contract.

Now, for some reason, you're unwilling to take my word for this shit. That's fine cuz I'm just a dude on the internet who talks about space bitches and zombies. But feel utterly free to read about it, which i have already clearly done. Extensively.

I do not mean to be insulting here, but if you're going to question basic things like thermodynamics, you're going to need to educate yourself a great deal more on the subject. That's why I asked "are you serious."

In other words, these thngs were questioned at one point in time. Subsequent observation has quelled those questions.

But it doesn't take having a telescope named after you to observe the simplicity of ordered states turning into disordered states.

Just sit a package of meat on the counter for a few days and watch it break down. If you like, grab a microscope and watch the cell walls break down. It's the same law that governs every chemical reaction. It's the same law that governs digestion, and the decay of stars. It governs the melting of ice cubes. It governs the evaporation of liquids into gases. And it governs even the most basic of events.

Thus, the ending of an event cannot preceed the beginning of that event.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:31 am

jsalwen wrote:But once again, you're deviating from the discussion.

It has a set of rules which you continue to ignore.

1. There are precogs that can apparently see future crimes.
2. These crimes have been observed to occur as they were seen in the visions.
3. There is a possibility (however remote) that the suspect may not commit the crime (hence Minority Report).
4. Implementation of pre-crime apparently eliminates all major crime

Is it worth it?

Answer the fucking question.:P


Once more, you are ignoring the possibility the characters, like fucking Einstein and Hoyle in the really real world, might be mistaken about their theory. And since their theory disagrees with thermodynamic law, which is constant for everything else in the story's setting, the only valid answers available are:

A: the story is ill-conceived (stupid)

or

B: the characters are intended by the writers to be wrong.

You refuse to accept this possibility in favor of the illogical presumption that Tom Cruise's character is a more reliable source of data than simple thermodynamic law. Maybe the writers intended, not to defy thermdynamic law, but to show that mankind can easily reach flawed conclusions despite their certainty. It's a possibility that you must add to your set of conclusions, but refuse to.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:41 am

Nightfly wrote:What of transmutation? Look at the life cycle of a butterfly or moth. And even the rotten meat gives rise to numerous lifeforms.

Frankly, I'm surprised you'd never heard of the "already happned" or "all at once" theory before (I probably read it in a comic sometime). It's bascially just a theory that our quatum reality is like an enclosed bubble or song on a record. All the info being there at once but linear time being the needle by which we travel along its grooves only able to ride it in one direction, non-stop from "beginning" to "end".


You proceed from a flawed premise. Namely, that the lifeforms that may gain sustenance from the decayed cells of that meat are in any way inherently connected to that groups of cells.

And what you continue to fail to acknowledge is that all of this things still go from ordered to disordered states. The meat decays, either on the counter, or in your stomach, If in your stomach, it is broken down by the acids in your belly, creating food energy you may use for a variety of tasks. That food energy is then expended by your exertions, leaving you fatigued. This causes you to require another piece of meat. Which again gets broken down from an ordered state to a dispordered state.

And in the process of order becoming disorder, energy is lost, and entropy increases. There is no such thing as a 100% efficient energy reaction. Not even the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter. Some small increment of energy is always lost to disorder.

In chemistry class in college or high school, you may have even been called upon to demonstrate this, by burning a candle and recording the mass before and after you ignite it. Or, by setting fire to a piece of paper.

Nothing I'm saying here is some sort of esoteric piece of knowledge available only to pencil-necks who communicate only through numbers and jokes about naked singularities.

If you ever took a chemistry class, you should already know this stuff.
User avatar

Nightfly

Staff Writer

Postby Nightfly » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:31 am

Strict31 wrote:If you ever took a chemistry class, you should already know this stuff.

Ironically, I never showed up much to chemistry class & when I did I didn't really pay close attention.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:41 am

Nightfly wrote:Ironically, I never showed up much to chemistry class & when I did I didn't really pay close attention.


Well, consider the ice cube I mentioned before.

In a very basic, rudimentary sense, a cube is a pretty ordered state of matter. If you put that ice cube on the counter, it melts into a puddle with no regular, determined shape. It is is now less ordered, or more disordered. Even if you could somehow refreeze that puddle on the counter, it will not return to the shape of a cube on its own.

Entropy is...rather tough to define. In some ways, it could be considered a measure of lost energy in a system. But, confusingly, that's not entirely correct. It's more like the difference between usefully lost energy and uselessly lost energy.

You know that, when you eat a piece of food, it gives you energy. But its not a 100% efficient transmission of energy. You use some to perform your daily activities. Like walking and breathing and even thinking. It's lost, but you use it.

There is a remainder that you do not use, however. It bleeds off in various biological wastes. To be crude; there's no useful energy in a fart. That biological energy just evaporates into the air, doing nothing aside from stinking for a few seconds. That is energy that is neither used, nor retained.

It is a useless loss of energy.

In a sense, I guess, entropy is the universe's fart gas.

That's an inexact example, but the best one i can come up with, since the only other way to explain it is with fuckin' numbers. And me and numbers ain't fans of each other.

Now, time does not flow in any particular direction in a physical sense. Time is not a physical force that moves as such. In fact, one of the most confusing things about time is that we often define it inexactly; thinking that, because we measure things in seconds and minutes and hours, that these are somehow basic units of reality.

In fact, they're just perceptual constructs to help us, with our linear brains, measure shit that happens to us.

But what we also call "time" is a basic component of space. Space and time are inherently connected. Gravity warps time just as it warps space. Time like space is denser, or more compressed, the closer it is to an intense gravity source, like a planet. The difference is largely negligible, and is only really significant mathematically, but the difference exists.

So time is basically both a human perceptual construct, and an actual component of the universe. And unfortunately, it's possible to incorrectly assign the qualities of one to the other. That is, if we watch a minute pass on a watch, we tend to assume that this minute actually exists as something more than just a thing we imagined.

It does not, but the reactions which occur in the universe, from cellular decay to farting all conform to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that ordered states tend to pass into less ordered states. This is a more exact form of measuring both perceptual time, and time as a..."dimension," if you will. It says nothing especially concrete about any specific measurements of time. But it does tell us that time follows the same thermodynamic "direction" as everything else.

Hence the "arrow of time." Time increases in the same direction as the increase of entropy; or the direction of ordered states becoming less ordered states.

That doesn't mean it has to flow forward or backward or in any physical direction; but this is mainly only useful for intellectual, mathematic models. Like, imagining how gravity would act if space and time increased in opposing directions instead of the same direction. "IF" is the functional word with these models, and Hawking spends a lot of time (heh) talking about it in A Brief History.

But I digress. The basic measure is not in which direction minutes flow, or anything like that; our basic measure is the passage of ordered states to less ordered states; the ice cube to the puddle.

Now, we do not live in a universe where puddles spontaneously transform into ice cubes. This is not just a matter of our linear perception, even though our perception is governed by the same law. The universe would literally have to function on an entirely different set of laws than we observe and record and reproduce before we would have the ability to know an event before it occurs.




Now, in quantum theory, there are units beyond which events cannot be recorded. This is called Planck time, or Planck limit. But these units are infinitesimally small. Some science fiction explores the increasing of Planck time. If that were at all possible in the real world, anything could occur within the boundaries of that limit. Rotten apples could spontaneous turn fresh. And puddles of water could spontaneously turn into cubes. The rules would be utterly suspended, and reality within those boundaries could be acted upon by forces no more tangible than mere thought alone.

But these units are primarily mathematic and serve little purpose beyond thought experiments. And unfortunately, without an infinite gravity source, space and time could not be compacted into a package small enough to fit inside this infinitesimal boundary.
User avatar

Nightfly

Staff Writer

Postby Nightfly » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:19 am

Thanks for the explanation, Strict. Appreciate it.
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:29 am

no problem.
User avatar

Doc Jon

Rain Partier

Postby Doc Jon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:42 am

Answer the question already...

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GiveWarAChance, pastajoe, uz000, zryson and 56 guests