The real question is not whether a warp drive, which by Cleaver’s estimate is hundreds of years away, will be stable or not. It’s about the fundamentals of the universe; do we live in a universe where 1 plus 1 equals 2 or 3? Until scientists can answer that question, there will be significant limitations on scientific models of the universe.
Is anybody here familiar enough with the state of modern physics to explain why this is even a question? I find it amazing that physicists are debating whether 1+1=2. I can’t believe it.
The author of the piece is misrepresenting what the scientists are actually debating; perhaps, in order to make it more understandable to a layman, they put it in those terms, but in terms that the professionals can understand it is actually non-contradictory. I have to say that’d be a poor metaphor though, precisely for the reason that it seems contradictory on the face of it.
These particular scientists interviewed have gone bonkers and are actively interpreting data they get in an irrational manner.
The author of the piece is misrepresenting what the scientists are actually debating…
I looked at what I believe to be the article in question and I think that your first hypothesis is the correct one: the author probably misunderstood what the reviewer said.
The authors of the article submitted for publication write that they could perform the calculations for “1 + 1 dimensions”, that is for a simplified model with only one spatial and one temporal dimension. The authors note that for “3 + 1 dimensions” (that is for the real case of three spatial dimensions) one has to resort to numerical calculations, and that the result could be qualitatively different.
The article does not question the result of the addition 1+1.
The article does not question the result of the addition 1+1.
Thanks for the explanation.
That article was misleading in the extreme and made me question the sanity of the scientists involved. I’m surprised that no one on the editorial staff noticed such a blatant error.
I wonder how many people read that article and either concluded that theoretical physics was irrational, or worse, that 1+1=2 was a legitamate question that scientists hadn’t solved.
I read that article a few days ago and realized what some scientists do is to mentally play with the fundamentals of what it means to have a universe. They weren’t questioning if 1+1=2 in our universe, but rather projecting what would be possible if 1+1=3 in some hypothetical universe. It’s kind of like fantasizing what it would be like to be able to walk through solid walls, as in science fiction. In a universe in which 1+1=3, the mathematics would be different, leading to a solution for a mathematical problem that can’t be solved in our universe where 1+1=2. By projecting this, it wouldn’t take the entire matter / energy of Jupiter to be able to form a stable warp drive.
I think this is a bizarre methodology, and I think this disconnects the scientist’s mind from reality – that is, it is a form of rationalism. Kind of a rationalistic form of science fiction.
There’s an old math joke: 2+2>4 for very large values of 2
Or (alternative phrasing) 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
I am told that the very earliest FORTRAN compilers would generate code that could be “tricked” into changing the values of numerical constants, so that people debugging the code would check everything and see no problem. “X is still 2, so I don’t understand it!” “Yes, X is still 2, but 3 isn’t 3 anymore!”
Adding two and two to get five is an old trick with spreadsheets and calculators. It works by the precision of the number in calculaton being higher than the precision of the number as displayed. 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, but when the figures are rounded to whole figures for display purposes it looks like 2+2=5.
I am told that the very earliest FORTRAN compilers would generate code that could be “tricked” into changing the values of numerical constants, so that people debugging the code would check everything and see no problem. “X is still 2, so I don’t understand it!” “Yes, X is still 2, but 3 isn’t 3 anymore!”
I never used FORTRAN, but in Pascal variables had to be defined at the start of the program. It was common to break into someone else’s programs and screw up the variables.
As to spreadsheets, Mr. McVey, they still plague us with hidden decimals. I’ve seen people spend two or three hours hunting down an error only to find they entered 5.455 instead of 5.45 in some cell displaying only two decimals.
As to spreadsheets, Mr. McVey, they still plague us with hidden decimals. I’ve seen people spend two or three hours hunting down an error only to find they entered 5.455 instead of 5.45 in some cell displaying only two decimals.
I never experienced it myself, but apparently in the 90’s there was a bad batch of Intel CPU’s that had dodgy floating-point subunits. It must have sent people needing to calculate with big mantissas bonkers. A certain chant was later reworded and pressed into service:
“We are Pentium of Borg. Precision is futile. You will be approximated.”
I never experienced it myself, but apparently in the 90’s there was a bad batch of Intel CPU’s that had dodgy floating-point subunits. It must have sent people needing to calculate with big mantissas bonkers.
I recall reading something about it. I really don’t like doing complex stuff on a spreadsheet anyway. Spreadsheets have no memory, after all, and don’t keep track of movements and changes to them. You should see the trouble I had keeping an inventory in one (I reworked the inventory in a dedicated program instead, a lot easier).
A certain chant was later reworded and pressed into service:
“We are Pentium of Borg. Precision is futile. You will be approximated.”
Cute. I’d like to know of any software or hardware glitch that can’t be attributed to the Borg
BTW back in the 90s I made a few Borg taglines. These are the funniest:
“I am Droopy of Borg. You know what? You will be assimilated.”
"Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?
I think so, Brain. But what if the Borg won’t wear the nylons?"
Spreadsheets have no memory, after all, and don’t keep track of movements and changes to them.
Excel has a track-changes option in it - at least from 2003 onwards. I haven’t used it, though, so I don’t know if it would suit your needs (I have used it in Word and found it helpful).
Excel has a track-changes option in it - at least from 2003 onwards. I haven’t used it, though, so I don’t know if it would suit your needs (I have used it in Word and found it helpful).
I dind’t know that. Anyway, I used it for inventory around 2001 and I don’t think that PC ever went beyond Office 97. I inherited the spreadsheet from someone else. The problem came if I made an error and everything went out of whack. Tracking down the error took hours. With the dedicated program it took a minute, 90 seconds at most.
I use Excell a lot these days, but for other things that don’t require keeping track of changes.
So this, too, will be off-topic, and it’s an oldie but a goodie:
Let A = B, then
A^2 = AB ==>
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2 = (A+B )(A-B ) = B(A-B ) ==>
A+B = B = 2B ==>
2 = 1.
I think it is a case of rationalism, and it doesn’t say that 2=1, it says that both A and B are zero. The second line A^ -B^2 would be equal to zero, since A=B, so (A+ B) (A- B) indicates that both A and B are zero. So the last line says Zero +Zero = Zero, and any number multiplied by Zero is Zero; so you might as well have said 500B and not just 2B, and then rationalistically said that 500=1.
I’m reminded of discussions with The Maverick Philosopher who loved modal logic and never brought his thinking down to earth.
Added on Edit: On second thought A+B = B solved for A is A = 0, so B = 0.
So, you really haven’t said anything, except for the fact that you can do abstract addition using zero as a number.
If A-B does not equal zero, then you can divide both sides with (A-B ), and you will get A+B=B ==> A=0.
If A-B = 0, then you get A=B.
What you can’t do is divide both sides of the equasion by zero, and then claim that the product of your mistake is the correct result. This example was devised by someone who failed math in highschool, because he didn’t bother learning about solving equasions.
As Jake pointed out in a long-winded way, and Rudmer pointed out in a brief way, A = B (so they’re not both zero, they’re just equal). That was in the initial set-up. And so you can’t divide by A - B = 0. This has nothing at all to do with rationalism and I don’t see an out-right problem with modal logic. It’s consistent and provably complete for many of its axiom systems, so it’s a pretty fun tool.
As Jake pointed out in a long-winded way, and Rudmer pointed out in a brief way, A = B (so they’re not both zero, they’re just equal). That was in the initial set-up. And so you can’t divide by A - B = 0. This has nothing at all to do with rationalism and I don’t see an out-right problem with modal logic. It’s consistent and provably complete for many of its axiom systems, so it’s a pretty fun tool.
I’m not sure what you mean, all I did was explain why this statement, from your post, written as if it’s correct, is in fact wrong:
(A+B )(A-B ) = B(A-B ) ==>
A+B = B
The correct version of that is:
(A+B )(A-B ) = B(A-B ) and A-B <> 0 ==>
A+B = B
It’s not some type of higher mathematics everyone is missing, it’s an attempt at very basic mathematics, but done incorrectly. It proves nothing, and is relevant to nothing, except the fact that its author is bad at basic math. It is rationalism : whoever came up with that set out to prove that 1=2, and did it without any understanding of what he is doing, instead of trying to investigate what the truth is, without bias.
