The theory that we are all living within a computer simulation was made popular in 1999 due to the release of The Matrix, and since than has become a serious topic of debate among scientists, with leading figures such as Elon Musk claiming that the idea that we are all computer generated is not only possible, but is in fact very probable. His reasoning is as follows.
Imagine that in the future, someone where to recreate 2017 as a very elaborate video game, so elaborate, that it simulated the emotions and thoughts of all the people on the planet, and was indiscernible from "the real world" in every way. Then in theory every time this game was run, it would "create" a new version of every person alive in 2017, including you. Now if just one copy of a program was created, the odds of you being a computer simulation would be one in two. If the program was then recreated and sold as a product and one hundred people bought this video game, there would be a 99% chance that you were a computer simulation, but the percentage continues to increase. If a sequel of the game were to be released, say a game about 2018, and was also sold a hundred times, you would then have 0.5% chance of living in the real world. Now do the math for if the games were sold a more realistic number of times, say one million each, and you have a one in two million chance of being a real person, and these numbers assume that only two simulations that include you were ever created in all of time.
Now things get complicated.
Say a simulation of the year 3000 was created in the year 3001. By 3000, the technology for creating hyper-realistic simulations would already exist. This would then mean that within that simulation, other simulations would would be created, and within those even more simulations would exist. Think of the movie Inception. This in theory means there are an infinite number of simulations stemming from one simulation being created, thus making the likely hood of you being real one in infinity. Then multiply that likely hood of one in infinity by the total number of simulations that were created in the "real world." Needless to say the chance that you are an original copy of yourself is unimaginably small, if you go off of this theory.
So can all this math nerd stuff be true? And if it is, does it make life any less meaningful? The answer is up to you to decide. There is no way to feasibly determine if what we see hear and smell is real or just a computer running a code for what it thinks would have happened in the real world.
Sources Cited:
Are We Living in a Simulation? – 8-Bit Philosophy. Dir. Allec Opperman. Perf. Nathan Lowe. Youtube. Wisecrack, n.d. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB3v3bDba5g>
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? - Nick Bostrom, Oxford University - 2001
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Jury Nullification
It should be noted that this essay in no way condones the use of Jury Nullification, and should you ever be on a Jury I do not suggest using Jury Nullification as, under certain circumstances, it can result in your arrest.
So what is Jury Nullification? Well, put simply, Jury Nullification is a loophole in American law that allows a Jury to declare a defendant guilty, but nullify the law so that the prosecuted person is not convicted for their crime.
The loophole comes as the logical consequence of two other laws. First one law states that Juries cannot be punished for a wrong decision, even if everyone else believes the opposite of the Juries verdict. Second, a defendant who is declared 'not-guilty' can't be tried again for the same crime. The result of these two laws is that a Jury's verdict legally doesn't need to match what they believe. e.g. the Jury may believe that the defendant is guilty, but not convict them because they don't want to. Similarly a Jury may prosecute a defendant even if they think he/she is innocent, but to do this as much harder do to an overrule ability of the Judge (The Judge may negate the Jury's prosecution if he believes they are incorrect in declaring the defendant guilty, but not in the case of declaring the defendant innocent).
This loophole in essence allows Jury's to ignore the law as it is written, and naturally Lawyers, Judges, and most people into Law try to to prevent it.
So how is Jury Nullification combated? Why don't we see it more? Well, all potential Jurors are asked the following Question. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" If you know of Jury Nullification and believe it is a good idea, you would be expected to answer yes, which would then result in you being rejected from jury duty. If you answer no and then go on to suggest Jury Nullification in a court of law you have technically just committed perjury, which is a federal crime. This causes Jury Nullification to be mostly prevented. If you know, about and are called onto a Jury, you are most likely not going to bring up the idea, as you can be convicted.
So is Jury Nullification a bad thing? Well, in the past it has been used to prevent run away slaves from being convicted, but on the other hand it has been used prevent the conviction of lynch mobs. So in theory Jury Nullification is a good thing (in my opinion). It allows us to negate unjust and out dated laws that do not match our current day beliefs. The only problem is the potential abuse associated with the loophole.
Either way, Jury Nullification is an interesting topic and point for debate.
So what is Jury Nullification? Well, put simply, Jury Nullification is a loophole in American law that allows a Jury to declare a defendant guilty, but nullify the law so that the prosecuted person is not convicted for their crime.
The loophole comes as the logical consequence of two other laws. First one law states that Juries cannot be punished for a wrong decision, even if everyone else believes the opposite of the Juries verdict. Second, a defendant who is declared 'not-guilty' can't be tried again for the same crime. The result of these two laws is that a Jury's verdict legally doesn't need to match what they believe. e.g. the Jury may believe that the defendant is guilty, but not convict them because they don't want to. Similarly a Jury may prosecute a defendant even if they think he/she is innocent, but to do this as much harder do to an overrule ability of the Judge (The Judge may negate the Jury's prosecution if he believes they are incorrect in declaring the defendant guilty, but not in the case of declaring the defendant innocent).
This loophole in essence allows Jury's to ignore the law as it is written, and naturally Lawyers, Judges, and most people into Law try to to prevent it.
So how is Jury Nullification combated? Why don't we see it more? Well, all potential Jurors are asked the following Question. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" If you know of Jury Nullification and believe it is a good idea, you would be expected to answer yes, which would then result in you being rejected from jury duty. If you answer no and then go on to suggest Jury Nullification in a court of law you have technically just committed perjury, which is a federal crime. This causes Jury Nullification to be mostly prevented. If you know, about and are called onto a Jury, you are most likely not going to bring up the idea, as you can be convicted.
So is Jury Nullification a bad thing? Well, in the past it has been used to prevent run away slaves from being convicted, but on the other hand it has been used prevent the conviction of lynch mobs. So in theory Jury Nullification is a good thing (in my opinion). It allows us to negate unjust and out dated laws that do not match our current day beliefs. The only problem is the potential abuse associated with the loophole.
Either way, Jury Nullification is an interesting topic and point for debate.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Jean Jacques Rousseau was a highly influential philosopher; his work influenced several important historical events, such as the French Revolution, as well as inspired many modern political ideas such as Liberal, Conservative, and Socialist theories.
Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher and writer from the age of enlightenment. Born in Geneva Switzerland in 1712, he was raised Calvinist, with a minimal education outside of religion. He later moved to France where he gained citizenship and spent the remainder of his life moving around within the country. In adulthood he spent his time working on philosophy, which was mainly politically based, and pursuing the fine arts. He died in 1778 of a stroke.
Jean Jacques Rousseau is remembered best for his political philosophy. His views on the freedom of individuals and the importance of equality were uncommon and controversial, especially in France during the 1700’s. His most influential work, The Social Contract published in 1762, later was an important influence for the start of the French revolution. Jean Jacques Rousseau also possessed revolutionary ideas on education which were equally controversial, yet aren’t remembered as well today.
In addition to his philosophical work, Jean Jacques Rousseau was a prolific artist who achieved a fair amount of fame in his time and is said to have invented the modern autobiography. He also was an exceptional musician, writing several compositions including an opera, Le Devin Du Village, that was performed for King Louis the fifteenth, as well as creating his own form of musical notation that was said to show great musical talent and understanding, but was rejected as overly complicated. In addition to music Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote one of the most commercially successful novels of his era, Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse, which also has received critical acclaim.
Jean Jacques Rousseau’s views on nature were fairly unique. He believed man is good by nature, but has been corrupted by vanity and lust through a move from our primal state in a drive for luxury. He believed we should attempt to revert back slightly with a political system that would not pit man against man. His views on liberty were based off a democratic system that would not imply one man is greater than another, and that no man should control others. He was one of the few people of his time to be anti-slavery, and wanted everyone to be equal.
Today he is remembered as a figure who helped fight for equality and partially inspired the French Revolution.
Works Cited:
Bertram, Christopher. "Jean Jacques Rousseau." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.
Cranston, Muarice. "Jean-Jacques." Google Books. Google, n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.
Monday, December 19, 2016
A Review of Flatland
Flatland is a 1884 English Novella written by Edwin Abbot Abbot. The story takes a satirical look at Victorian England society, using its own warped and exaggerated class system to comment on the discriminatory system of the time. In addition Flatland gives an interesting take on dimension and our perception of them, which to me was the most interesting part of the book.
The basic premise of Flatland is of dimensions. Most of the books plot is spent in Flatland, a two dimensional world, and more than half of the book is spent merely describing the way in which Flatland and its residents are able to function: by moving about as objects on a two dimensional plane. This section is also where we learn of the aforementioned class system, which divides "people" by their geometric shape. Triangles are the lowest classes, and the lowest of the triangles have the smallest angles. After the triangles are the squares, who could be considered the upper middle class, and from there on the classes keep growing in respect based on the number of sides a "person" posses. This system continues all the way up to the high class of "circles," who have so many sides it is impossible to discern them from a circle with only the naked eye. The circles are of a class comparable to that of Victorian Royalty and/or that of High Priests.
In other sections we are introduced to the three other worlds: Pointland, Lineland, and Spaceland. Pointland is a point. It has a singular inhabitant who, to himself, is omnipresent. He is the only thing that he can perceive to exist, as he takes up all space he can understand. This of course is only a point, which has no height, width, or length.
Lineland is merely a line, it has many inhabitants, who all are also lines, and all inhabit the same line. They are unable to move around their neighbors and communicate by only their voices.
Then there is Spacland, which is made up three dimensional objects (cubes, spheres, pyramids) floating about and interacting with each other. Think of our world except instead of people there are perfect shapes.
The Part that I enjoyed the most about Flatland was its ideas of a fourth dimension. One recurring theme is that of a visitor, from a plane with more dimensions, coming to a plane with fewer dimensions to try and explain the extra dimension that the visitor can perceive but the hosts cannot. (e.g. an inhabitant of Flatland goes to Lineland, and trys to convey left and right to its inhabitants, who of course can only percieve forward and back).
Our main protagonist, a square inhabitant of Flatland, builds off this concept by trying convince us readers, along with the Spaceland inhabitant who is visiting him, of the possibility of a fourth dimension. Or a fifth. Or a sixth.
I personally found this possibility, and the way in which the book presented it, to be fascinating, and it made my head hurt as I tried to conceive the idea behind it. Though in researching for this review I learned that the fourth dimension is now widely considered to be time, and not another "direction." Though it should be noted that some theorists have created rules about what they believe would be a fourth directional dimension. Imagine a left handed glove. In three dimensions you can turn it about in which ever way you want. The theory states that if you could manipulate the fourth dimension, you would be able to "turn" the glove in a way that caused it to become a right handed glove. I thought this was cool.
In conclusion, even though it's written in painfully old English, Flatland is a short but sweet story that made me think, and presented a creative, clever, and original idea. I enjoyed it a lot, and would highly recommend it to any one.
The basic premise of Flatland is of dimensions. Most of the books plot is spent in Flatland, a two dimensional world, and more than half of the book is spent merely describing the way in which Flatland and its residents are able to function: by moving about as objects on a two dimensional plane. This section is also where we learn of the aforementioned class system, which divides "people" by their geometric shape. Triangles are the lowest classes, and the lowest of the triangles have the smallest angles. After the triangles are the squares, who could be considered the upper middle class, and from there on the classes keep growing in respect based on the number of sides a "person" posses. This system continues all the way up to the high class of "circles," who have so many sides it is impossible to discern them from a circle with only the naked eye. The circles are of a class comparable to that of Victorian Royalty and/or that of High Priests.
In other sections we are introduced to the three other worlds: Pointland, Lineland, and Spaceland. Pointland is a point. It has a singular inhabitant who, to himself, is omnipresent. He is the only thing that he can perceive to exist, as he takes up all space he can understand. This of course is only a point, which has no height, width, or length.
Lineland is merely a line, it has many inhabitants, who all are also lines, and all inhabit the same line. They are unable to move around their neighbors and communicate by only their voices.
Then there is Spacland, which is made up three dimensional objects (cubes, spheres, pyramids) floating about and interacting with each other. Think of our world except instead of people there are perfect shapes.
The Part that I enjoyed the most about Flatland was its ideas of a fourth dimension. One recurring theme is that of a visitor, from a plane with more dimensions, coming to a plane with fewer dimensions to try and explain the extra dimension that the visitor can perceive but the hosts cannot. (e.g. an inhabitant of Flatland goes to Lineland, and trys to convey left and right to its inhabitants, who of course can only percieve forward and back).
Our main protagonist, a square inhabitant of Flatland, builds off this concept by trying convince us readers, along with the Spaceland inhabitant who is visiting him, of the possibility of a fourth dimension. Or a fifth. Or a sixth.
I personally found this possibility, and the way in which the book presented it, to be fascinating, and it made my head hurt as I tried to conceive the idea behind it. Though in researching for this review I learned that the fourth dimension is now widely considered to be time, and not another "direction." Though it should be noted that some theorists have created rules about what they believe would be a fourth directional dimension. Imagine a left handed glove. In three dimensions you can turn it about in which ever way you want. The theory states that if you could manipulate the fourth dimension, you would be able to "turn" the glove in a way that caused it to become a right handed glove. I thought this was cool.
In conclusion, even though it's written in painfully old English, Flatland is a short but sweet story that made me think, and presented a creative, clever, and original idea. I enjoyed it a lot, and would highly recommend it to any one.
Monday, December 5, 2016
Why "A Love Supreme" is my favorite Jazz L.P.
A Love Supreme is a 1965 Jazz long-play record written by legendary saxophonist John Coltrane and recorded with his equally mythical quartet featuring Coltrane, bassist Jimmy Garrison, pianist McCoy Tyner, and one of my favorite drummers: Elvin Jones. Since its release, A Love Supreme has become a Jazz standard, as well as one of the most acclaimed and successful Jazz albums of all time. When I first discovered this masterpiece of music, it was almost instantly one of my favorite pieces ever, and sits even higher on my list of Jazz favorites.
So why is A Love Supreme so good? Well it's hard to say what makes any music good. Classic chord progression and song structure is constantly being manipulated to create new genres that are arguably better then their predecessors. Just look at Hip-Hop, Funk, and even Jazz itself. All these came from creative manipulation; by combining different old genres and rhythms with new ideas. A Love Supreme does this as well, occasionally using of Afro-Cuban rhythms and note structures that at times almost remind me of classical compositions.
Another part of A Love Supreme that stands out as exceptional as its ability to let the amazing instrumentalists who worked one it shine like only a quartet can. Don't get me wrong, my personal preference swings in favor of the big band route, but in big bands solos are kept short, sweet, and there are usually a lot of them. That, or the big band is only to back one big player, where that one person is almost always featured, think something like the Count Basie Orchestra (Please note I'm not hating on the Count Basie Orchestra, I am a huge fanboy when it comes to them). A Love Supreme can't and doesn't do this. It has multiple solos from each of the quartet members, each lasting several minutes. This allows the musicality of each musician to shine, and combines several rhythmic and difficult licks into the pieces; and all the solos on the record are impressive and beautiful by themselves. Me being both a percussionist and bass player makes the inclusion and focused moments of Jones and Garrison stand out even more.
In summary, A Love Supreme is an epic and beautiful Jazz composition, that combines many rhythmic varieties and chord structures, as well as allowing several outstanding members of the team that recorded it to solo and play at an extreme and professional level. All of this is why I find it so enjoyable to listen to. Plus of course my personal preference and whatever science makes our brains listen to music at all.
A film review of The Nice Guys
The Nice Guys is a spring twenty sixteen buddy cop flick starring Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling. The basic premises teams the two private investigators in trying to find and protect a young woman, who happens to be the daughter of a government official, as well as uncover the secret behind a pornography film. The story of the film has many traditional themes. Two private eyes. A brutal yet fun set of fight scenes. And a twist of who the actual bad guys are.
Unfortunately, though original and often funny, The Nice Guys turns out to be a sub average movie with few redeeming quality's. Though it posses originality, the film lacks a feeling of completion. The directing, acting, special affects, and so on are all there, and are all reasonably good; but when all paired together, the film is only forgettable. Much like this review.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)