Banner
No Go Area! What? What is that?

This is a warning especially to East Asians, most of which have never seen anything like this...

Nano Bubbles Unexplained Mysteries And One Big Mystery

The physics of nanometer sized bubbles is mysterious and controversial. Gas bubbles in liquids...

Free Speech in Bestest Year Ever: The Desperate 2016 Shutdown Breaks Dam

Usually the arXiv does time wasting nasty things like delay and then re-categorize articles with...

Zen Cooking: The Science Behind The Rejuvenating Diet Of The Masterless Monk

Zen cooking according to the teachings of the master-less monk Feng Sa Sha (风洒沙, Wind Sprinkling...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Thor Russellpicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Michael Martinezpicture for Quentin Rowepicture for Bente Lilja Bye
Sascha VongehrRSS Feed of this column.

Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙], physicist and philosopher, studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory) at Sussex University... Read More »

Blogroll

XKCD makes fun of the fact that a 95% certain test is to 5% uncertain, and so, if one just often enough tests, a false positive will at some point result. Ha ha ha, good message, but I have to poop on the party, sorry – party pooper – don’t know me yet? I mean, I would applaud if this were directed at misusing error analysis and statistics, as I criticized before, but this seems to go against the media again, not the scientists.

A solid month of almost daily “there is no problem but today we have big progress on it” is near, and a post on this record was planned to come in a few days time, but today my irony meter exploded, a lowly height has clearly been already reached. Greg Laden has covered it already, and his take is similar: Welcome to the "I'm starting to get cynical" edition. Yes, this is pretty much what I thought about the news today, too; how can you not get cynical.

Mysterious Symmetry between Destruction and Growth asked “How on earth does blowing stuff up violently constrain unrelated growth mechanisms? This is the mystery.”

Why should technology not go on and accelerate like it has before? Why should humanoids not get ever brighter; why should democracy not grow until true communism emerges? Techno-progressives emanate an air of renegade radicalism. They like to accuse critics of not thinking things through sufficiently and stopping at the point best befit to rationalize beliefs.


Yet both, the critics and many proponents of technological enhancement alike agree on where to stop asking: a racist ‘we (I, humans, our planet) must survive and conquer’ plus lip-service toward a pseudo-democratic doctrine so comfortably ‘coincidentally’ at the helm as we speak. As bad as that may be regarding other issues, it turns into Jules Verne stories when discussing future.

The disaster at the Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, is still unfolding. It is still not ensured that the reactors will stay under the partial control achieved. The media keep downplaying the problems, focusing on any good news it can make up: That electricity has been brought to all six reactors is “news” every day again for over a week now. The electricity, although brought in, is still neither connected to most of the reactor blocks, nor do you hear anybody asking what electricity is supposed to do with the broken equipment in those blocks.

We are developing past the merely human stage. We couldn’t stop it if we all really wanted to. Techno-future will be.


The transhumanism crowd has understood what evolution is all about while many other intellectuals still grapple with getting their head around mere old biological evolution. Evolution is true by tautology: Whatever there will be (successful, more numerous, …) in the future, will be there (successful, more numerous, …) in the future. This is the basis of what some call ‘algorithmic evolution’.