Category: Notes

Daily check-ins and other notes.

Hitler’s Antarctica Expedition

https://www.histarmar.com.ar/Antartida/Base-Hitler/LaBaseAntarticadeHitler.pdf

ABSTRACT. In January-February 1939, a secret German expedition visited Dronning (or Queen) Maud Land, Antarctica, apparently with the intention inter alia of establishing a base there.

Between 1943 and 1945 the British launched a secret wartime Antarctic operation, code-named Tabarin. Men from the Special Air Services Regiment (SAS), Britain’s covert forces for operating behind the lines, appeared to be involved. In July and August 1945, after the German surrender, two U-boats arrived in Argentina. Had they been to Antarctica to land Nazi treasure or officials?

In the southern summer of 1946–1947, the US Navy appeared to ‘invade’ Antarctica using a large force. The operation, code-named Highjump, was classified confidential. In 1958, three nuclear weapons were exploded in the region, as part of another classified US operation, code-named Argus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Argus

Who needs science anyway?

Comments on: https://archive.org/details/lev-tarasov-the-world-is-built-on-probability-mir-2023

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35937375

FollowingTheDao
My Hypothesis: All matter exists in a sphere of probability. Our brains are masters of computing probabilities to tell us the most likely location for any object. It is not that we collapse the wave form, but that our brain ignores the wave form for our convenience.Light is always a wave, never a particle. And a wave is just a probability.
imdoor
Do you account for the fact that probability distributions can have multiple peaks with equal probability? If multiple brains were involved, they’d somehow have to coordinate on what they deem the most likely outcome.
FollowingTheDao
Our brains all use the program, but we can see when some of these programs have a glitch. Take some LSD and you will see what I mean.> probability distributions can have multiple peaks with equal probability?I think I know where you are going, but can you be more clear so I do not confuse things with my assumptions?
imdoor
Say there is a quantum system – a particle or something – that has an equal probability to collapse in either of two classical states if measured. Say there are two scientists in a laboratory who perform a measurement on that system. If your hypothesis is true, how do they agree on what they perceive when looking at the result of the measurement? Each brain would have to make an arbitrary decision on which of the two equally likely outcomes to perceive.
pharmakom
Our brains would then exist in a state of probability too.
FollowingTheDao
Yes, they do. But our minds do not. The brain creates the mind, the ego, and this is another collapse of a wave form.
goatlover
The wavefunction is deterministic. If you take the MWI as the most straight forward interpretation of the math, then the universe if fundamentally deterministic. Probability on a physics level would represent our ignorance of the other branches. reply
golol
I don’t think you can reason like this. As far as I understodod, standard quantum mechanics does not make any statement about how the measuring process and the collapse of the wavefunvtion happens. So while the waveform evolves deterministically, you can only ever apply this model when you are in the position of performing measurements on some quantum mechanical system. As I understand, Quantum mechanics is not meant to also model you together with the experiment as a wavefunction, because the act of you performing a measurement does not have a definition in the form of the wavefunction interacting with itself somehow. So without extensions to QM, you should not reason with universal deterministic waveforms. reply
williamcotton
Simplicity of mathematical models at the expense of falsification… who needs science, anyways?

andrewgleave

David Deutsch’s “Physics Without Probability” covers the history of probability, it’s legitimate and misconceived uses and concludes that according to MWI there is no such thing in reality – it’s basically that probabilities correspond to how measures of the multiverse proportion themselves as differentiation occurs.

I watched it a few years ago so may be misremembering bits but I think that is the gist…

Worth a watch especially if you balk at this idea just to to see a strong counter argument.

An Armageddon Science Reading List

Here’s a list of books extrapolated from Armageddon Science by Brian Clegg

  • The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner by Daniel Ellsberg: A gripping insider’s account of America’s nuclear program in the 1960s and the development of a doomsday machine.
  • Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety by Eric Schlosser: A detailed examination of the history of nuclear weapons and the numerous near-miss accidents that could have led to catastrophe.
  • The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes: A comprehensive account of the development of the first atomic bomb, from the initial scientific discoveries to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  • The Science of Discworld by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, and Jack Cohen: A fascinating blend of science, fantasy, and humor that explores the scientific concepts behind the popular Discworld series.
  • Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel by Michio Kaku: A thrilling exploration of the science behind popular science fiction concepts and the possibilities for their future realization.
  • Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong by Paul A. Offit: A collection of cautionary tales about scientific advancements that led to unintended, often disastrous consequences.
  • The World Without Us by Alan Weisman: A thought-provoking examination of what would happen to Earth if humans suddenly disappeared, offering insights into the long-term impact of human activity on the planet.
  • The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones—Confronting A New Age of Threat by Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum: A timely exploration of the changing nature of violence in the 21st century and the technologies that enable it.
  • Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes: A detailed account of the development of the hydrogen bomb, focusing on the political, scientific, and military aspects of its creation.
  • The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History by Elizabeth Kolbert: A compelling investigation into the ongoing extinction event driven by human activities, exploring its causes and potential consequences.
  • The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells: A sobering look at the potential effects of climate change on our planet and the urgent need for action.
  • Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari: A fascinating examination of the potential future of humanity as we develop advanced technologies and grapple with existential challenges.

Reddit Comment: Author vs. Writer

A Reddit comment on Brandon Sanderson’s reply to the recent Wired article about him.

daxelkurtz:

My uncle (who’s written some bestselling books) says that there is a difference between an author and a writer.

An author is who they are in public. A writer is who they are in private.

Most writers are pretty much the same: a person sits in a dirty bathrobe staring at a word doc while trying desperately not to start playing a browswer game.

Whereas an author can be anything. Because humans have limitless variety in who they are and where they come from.

But also, the author is a story. You’re asking a storyteller to tell you a story about themselves, but it’s still a story! They might tell that story in one way that comes across as totally different from if they told it a different way. (And they might – rust and Ruin! – even make stuff up!)

An author’s story can be just that of a writer, dirty bathrobe and all. Or it can be very far away – can be anything. Mr. Sanderson’s author-story is very close to being just the story of a writer.

The person behind this article doesn’t like that. He struggles a little to articulare why. Perhaps he thinks Mr Sanderson’s story of himself should be as exciting as his stories of Vin and Venli and Vivenna. Perhaps he just disagrees with Oscar Wilde. Perhaps he’s just disagreeable – or that is the story he’s telling.

Personally, I like Mr. Sanderson’s story of himself. I like who he is as an author. I think it’s a good story! He seems like a hard-working, thoughtful, pretty normal guy. He seems like he tries to be a good person – to his family, to his many employees, and to his many many fans. Personally I find it pretty inspiring. Not in the same way that Kaladin’s story is inspiring. But not necessarily more or less. Because there’s – gasp! – different kinds of stories!

But also – there’s so much that’s interesting here! How does a pretty normal, decent guy, build such incredible worlds and tell pretty moving stories? A person could ask How! A person could ask Why! A person could explore that apparent dissonance – and quite possibly find that it isn’t dissonant at all! A person could talk to other similar writers. Gather datapoints! Look for patterns! Be interesting!

After reading this article, I am left with one overriding thought: I so look forward to reading an article about Mr. Sanderson that is interesting.

This got me thinking about what kind of story I might tell about myself. I’m often trying *not* to talk about myself. I can’t deny that many of the more successful authors I know have a very strong, appealing story about themselves that is a big part of their marketing. I’ve always shied away from this.