Author: admin

People discuss the nature of the universe, that its computational. In that context the concept of the “Turing Machine” is often used. The Turing Machine was thought up as an abstraction of a computer by Alan Turing. It is basically a linear memory (a piece of tape) that you can move back and forth on, writing symbols or reading information, and also processing it based on the symbol that is read. When I did computer science and AI I had to simulate being a Turing Machine and try to solve problems with it.

[I don’t use images because I got copyright claims]

A closely related concept is the Markov Chain which represents ‘states’ of a ‘system’ as nodes in a graph that have connections which can be directional and weighted or return to itself, also doing processing to the state along the way. You could also include Von Neuman machines. Same argument.

Modern computers can be modelled using Turing Machines or Markov Chains, because one thing they seriously take care of is the bits and bytes in them and what happens to them. No bits get arbitrarily lost or are created in your mobile phone, it would crash it quite quickly. Both the Turing Machines and Markov Chains have the property of states, which have clear features, like a bit that is set or not set, representing something of interest or importance.

Even when we do math by hand this structure is retained, we are trying to figure out what the x stands for in 3x+5 = 20, then either on paper or in our heads nothing is added or substracted, we don’t end up with two anwers like +5 and -5 because that would make zero sense. This is because our mind works this way, it tries to reach a fixed outcome when its experience is simplified to maths or symbolic reality. Humans try to get things done, meaning a threat or burden out of the way. The way we do it is by achieving results, objectives, goals. Our mind works and the result is achieved, we are done, next problem.

The universe does not get done ever. It is a soup of particles, or at lower levels a quantum liquid or fields as physicists call them. If there are more than one field this would surprise me but physicists believe it. These fields are active, dynamic. Even empty space constantly produces particles and anti-particles. If you compare it to a Turing Machine it would first of all always be running, never stop. It can’t stop. There is no way for the waves propagating through spacetime to stop. As a Markov Chain the state would always be changeing. Even in a Bose-Einstein condensate it would, it sloshes about, climbs up the glass walls that confine it or leaks through it.

The main most salient difference between math, a TM or MC and the universe is that the universe does not have a memory, it does not have processes or operations. It seems to have one very basic action, which is repulsion between its most basic constituents (below the level of the electron or quark). This repulsion allows the propagation of waves in its fields. The fields already seem a concept that is projected by humans. There is probably no electric field, just orientations of movement of space time nodes that causes complex stabile space-time convolutions to adjust their ‘progression’.

The structures we defined or measured are very much like images on a screen, we see the image, the pointer of our mouse, but its doesn’t exist, the illusion is carried from one pixel to another as we move it across our screen. We see electrons, but electrons are not made up of the same space time through time, they are dynamic three dimensional waves, one could say of a front made up out of what? Photons of some kind? Compression of space time?

Math has given up modelling the universe a long time ago. The probabilities in quantum mechanics are a solution to the nature of the universe, where we can only know if something is where it is by interacting with it, and we also change it by interacting with it. The ‘wave function’ is a probability distribution, not reality. Now can you imagine a Turing Machine where the value of a field is undetermined until you arrive at it? That is not how it is defined. There is no read or write head, there is no process, there is no tape in the universe.

The big mystery to me is that ok, if you assume we are dealing with a quantum fluid, then its made up out of ‘nodes’ in ‘space-time’ reticulum (net) where the nodes can move around but not through each other without friction and can in some cases collapse (two into one) and split (one into two) the general liquid being under enormous pressure all the time (hence expanding into non-space time), then how are these movements determined, how are conflicts resolved, how does one node move or flow around another, how does it know to keep flowing.

A derivative question is as space-time is a frictionless quantum fluid, does it split up into totally local regions, say if I spin a metal ball on my table top does that ball separate near totally from the surrounding space-time? Or a train moving at high speed. Its either that or all the particlesof the train have to be recreated at every part of the track by the ‘pixels’ of space-time, even while the air molecules persist on top of this substrate and have to flow around the machine. Can you measure a delay in the effect of gravity in a fast moving object? Is this the point of relativity. It would make the most sense to me.

If you approach it from the level of photons you could maybe suggest photons are memory in this system. A photon traveling from a quasar to Earth can preserve the memory of it over billions of years. Our part of universe space-time is at any time inundated by arriving memories of other parts of the universe. But still that doesn’t make it a turing machine, or even a derivative.

If you disagree, let me know via @climatebabes on X.com

If you ever read Il Principe by Machiavelli you know he describes how after a war the ruler should punish and kill the worst animals in it, the cruelest butchers, because they have no use in the new peacefull society achieved. Also if a ruler wants to prevent uprisings there should be no fortifications left standing around cities, so they are defenseless and can be easily threatened or dominated. This is an example of tool removal, to prevent abuse.

Humanity makes a lot of tools and technology, and the economy tries to make whatever is made generate as much cashflow for banks, regardless of utility or consequence for nature, humans etc. If a company invents a thing that people like to use, they can keep doing that until a popular uprising or new law prevents them. Example are DDT, Sigarettes, dangerous cars, the list is endless. The advocated free market economy does not protect anyone and only serves to maximize bank cashflow. Economics is still making fossil fuel based expansion plans as our oceans are starting to boil from fossil fuel powered tool use.

[I don’t use pictures because copyright hawks will fine 200 for use even without the author getting any money]

The big error is that we do not strive for specific outcomes. A city can be designed with a specific outcome in mind, this is the nature of design, but the world is discouraged from designing an outcome. It is the most natural thing. But this does not allow maximal cashflow for banks, and to retain their power banks must strive for it no matter what. It seems Singapore is the best planned society. The reason why planning in building works is because it makes bank cashflow predictable. You can not plan for the elimination of banks by adopting 100% self owned renewables to do everything you need.

But back to the tool story. When the french revolution happend there as demand for guillotines, and after it that demand dropped, but the guillotine makers where trying to sell them to anyone because they knew how to make em. The same with electric chairs, they where sold as thrones in Africa, The economy does not watch the proliferation of products or tools that makes no sense, it does not care.

It would make much more sense to both guide the growth and shutdown of some companies, because their existence becomes damaging and problematic after a while. When talking about big building projects, if its done with a lot of equipment, the economy assumes that equipment will be redistributed across the world to do work elsewhere. But often the people and money involved allows them to corrupt local people into initiating a next project that uses all the resources already present, the tools persist and because money flows banks don’t object. You could take the concrete jungle found around some cities in Italy (Palermo) as an example of tool persistence through corruption.

Tool use must be based on a vision, tool retirement or demolishing should be a common thing to prevent overuse due to corruption

A main reason this went wrong in the past was lack of oversight, of monitoring and care, but today we have computer systems that can model the use of equipment, tools products across the entire world. We can even detect vehicles from space, track progress by image analysis. We can prevent overuse of tools by retiring them or allocating them to better projects that are more usefull and intelligent than another depressing brutalist monster. At the same time its important to promte a shared vision, so people know when tools go off the rails or in overdrive. That includes industries like farming or fishing, where you basically see tools invested in for cashflow reasons while the planet is not prepared for their use, so they can’t actually realize their potential. Still the get used.

When our societies where formed, it was often by battle against many dangers and ourside forces. This put the most usefull people in charge, those that pest knew how to allocate resources, inspire people, keep them aligned with protecting their health, wealth and future. This happened in many ways, some evoided all weakness like the Spartans, others simply created classes and excluded part of society from fair trails or any rights at all.

In the ‘western’ culture of the 20th century we did all that but had at the same time a great source of weatlth to share, mechanization and fossil energy. This led to a society that was quite egalitarian and social on the surface, and sometimes in every respect. However the banks that ran it where never satisfied, they had and have to keep a myth of growth going and this is a problem.

A bank can always finance an undertaking that can extract money from the economy, and it wants to because the more money is extracted, the harder we need the bank! This made nearly everybody in society desperate for income, and because banks create a bottom half of society, some there are really desperate.

The privatization of health care is now showing its principle driver : profit. But sick people are never profitable, so how was this ever a thing? Well, it wasn’t. Sick people where taken care of by the healthy, by doctors and nurses in hospitals that worked with what they had. Then insurance was introduced, so people payed into the potential cost of care every month. This created revenue, a large pool of money to be tapped into, by who? By all those desperate and greedy people the banks created.

The simple truth is that the cheapest care is no care, and that people in commercialized health care systems are viewed as sources of money. The economic potential of a healthy person is eroding fast, because we don’t need people for so many things now. The list of useless people is growing fast, and AI researchers are working on that as hard as they can. Now you would expect a social movement to go against this trend, but people are so easy to indoctrinate via their social media consumption that its rediculous. Some where paying more than $1000 to see Oppenheimer in Imax, a shit movie at best, because everyone around the woorld has been brainwashed to want to see that movie, which is insane.

But there is a darker situation evolving. This is the reality that some people can afford getting robbed, others can’t. This means the divide between rich and poor is increasing, and the rich really don’t care because that would spoil them enjoying their hard earned position. Its all noise in the background as far as they are concerned, at least if we accept it.

What happens if the people with money who are corrupting all the lawmaker quite obviously (because you can’t run for a position of power without millions of support) just stop caring for anyone that simply needs ‘humanitarian’ help, someone that needs a ‘semaritan’, anyone sacrificing anything. Part of society will become lawless, feral and dangerous, but very cheap!

Another risc in this situation is that small companies, struggling to become bigger will use every leverage they can get to extract money from customers. You agree to some service, then you get pulled over the rack with extra charges, as there is no other way to make money than to get it from someone else, and the pressure to get more is constant. This is the Robconomy.

If you have money and you buy all the nonsense banks tell you you find you will only do well if your business is profitable to the banks, and if not, you will be demolished by the same banks! The fact we don’t look out for each other is the main reason, and banks are behind this, always dividing society up by any possible division, always weakening the fabric, disowning, debt loading, trapping people.

The owners of this system have no reason to stop doing it, the gradient towards dominance is quite smooth, so its not like you one day have to decided to be a rich asshole, you just become it, unless you become independent.

This leads to the central question in the a society that is developing into a Robconomy : Ownership. How can a person exist without owning land or at least the ability to grow food for themselves. This should be a fundamental human right. It is denied people in most cities unless they pay for it, but this gives banks the right to set prices. Why do banks own all the land? Don’t they? The point is : If I don’t want to try to rob someone else, I need a means to sustain my life in another way.

Desert farming is possible, there have been several desert greenhouse examples, some stuffed away, one bought by Goldman Sachs and actually in use in Australia. As long as you have sun and water you can grow crops. The challenge is of course that he economy will maximize fossil fuel use of any design (if it starts to actually build them), so you get expensive glass/aluminum digitally irrigated RO water desalinating etc. etc. nonsense.

For a while now I envisioned this kind of solution to keep crops cool in hot regions. The drawing above gives an impression. You basically grow crops underground, and allow light to enter the vertical trenches but you also reflect part of the light back. This can be done with bariumsulfide or calcium panels which reflect IR and UV as well as visible light. In the pits you can grow both crops and material to use to make this work like bamboo.

Of course you can also set up bamboo poles and do it above ground, but then you are more vulnerable to storms and other calamities. If you find a self sustaining way to do the pit thing you can expand it over large areas. The trick is to use zero fossil input, only input that is generated by it or can be made with whatever the system yields.

What do you think?

Its been suggested that increasing ocean albedo can help keep our planet cool. The question seems to be how. Some suggest to use the foam already created in ships wakes, but that would result in only a tiny increase in ocean foam. Below from a 2010 paper:

People debating ship wake ocean foam immediately warn for weather effects. But we are moving into global heatwave territory fast. We have few options and ocean albedo increasing is one of them. To say we should not hurry into a solution assumes there would not be solid research. It is also a weak argument because it was never a problem as we expanded the use of fossil fuels. Within the economy its all competition and new solutions are rarely welcome.

One of the strange things I see in many papers is that an intervention is proposed but then it is ended after a while, so ocean foam enhanced, then it stops 50 years later. There is no reason to assume it would stop or to want it to stop. Long term continuity is a challenge. especially at sea.

It seems whatever means we use has to be self sustainig, not need any high tech input and should bring sustenance to whover employs it. This is the extraeconomic method or model, meaning whatever biomass, resources are created they are not shared with the rest of the world. The reason for that is that this would mean consumption which causes new CO2/Methane emissions.

Microbubbles/Sea Foam (Technology Briefing)

https://opg.optica.org/viewmedia.cfm?r=1&rwjcode=ao&uri=ao-16-8-2257&html=true

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20168905/

Can ocean foam limit global warming?

The total effective sea foam albedo

An interactive ocean surface albedo scheme

On the energy required to maintain an ocean mirror using the reflectance of foam

We all need to make better reflective paints to reflect more light back into space and prevent our planet from warming too much. The key to these paints is that they reflect IR and UV, and that they have very fine pigment so they cover the entire surface, not part of it with high granularity. Making these paints is thus a matter of getting to a mix that is optimal to catch and reflect the most radiation.

The temperatures are high in many parts of the world. Not for a day but for weeks on end. This is exhausting, its ruining crops, it makes nuclear reactors useless because there’s no cooling water. It is the frightening predicted result of unabated economism, banks telling us to maximize GDP and profits, even as it is killing us.

But there’s another aspect about it that I have not seen mentioned. Male ballz (as I will call them to keep it tastefull) are picky about temperature. They like to be a bit cooler than the body itself. They like 93 Degrees Farenheit or 34 Degrees Celsius. Not the 100 and 37 of the rest of our body. Maybe because the process of DNA splitting has to be done in a ‘less noisy’ chemical environment to go right.

Each 1°C increase in the ballz temperature leads to a 14% decrease in sperm production

Oops! So in over 100 Farenheit or 37 Celsius weather you are already producing 42% less sperm. What about places where its 50 Celsius? No Jizz at all! A study mentioned in the Jeruzalem post even states just 100,4 Farenheit or 38 Celsius can lead to infertility. This does not bode well for anyone already worried about population collapse. Under the heat dome most men are not producing any sperm! This should become visible in the birth rate data, which lags the heatwaves by an obvious 9 months.

Just wanted to put this out there..

Climate activists are struggling with demonstrating they do not personally cause a lot of CO2 emissions. It is not easy to live in a modern city, using the internet, not having your own land to grow stuff, working in a job that hardly pays attention to its climate effect, to be ‘neutral’. The reality is though that it doesn’t even make sense to require it. Does a baker eat all the bread he tries to sell, does a doctor take all the medicine he prescribes, does a surgeon operate on himself? You don’t always have to follow the rules you advocate yourself.

To me it looks like people miss an important aspect of climate change, which is its duality. There are two timescales at which things happen, and both need to be addressed, but you can ignore your personal emissions as long as you do. This is because the CO2 has to spread out through the atmosphere and then stays there for a long time. The best way to imagine that is to think of dropping ink in a swimming pool. Throwing it in is easy, getting it out once diluted is impossible.

The CO2 that was put into the atmosphere in the past will spread out and become more effective in absorbing IR radiation and causing a warmer climate over time. If we would stop emitting today temperatures would keep going up for decades. Then there’s also feedback effects (most prominently visible forrest fires). So you can say that climate action is useless. That is if you hope to see CO2 stall or drop any time soon. Of course it is NOT useless, the result just takes more time to materialize.

The duality is that although we won’t see much effect, we still have to rigorously cut emissions as fast as we can. The tiny amount added by people who make this happen is irrelevant.

The average temperature on Earth is directly linked to the CO2 concentration so to get it back to livable levels (where life can thrive), we need to recapture CO2. This can take thousands of years because the CO2 is diluted and it takes energy to separate it out and energy to convert it in to something that does not cause a greenhouse effect.

The process of CO2 capture is a problem if it could work in our economy, because it would effectively be an energy source the economy is very capable of putting to use. Banks would want to trade it. It would also compete with fossil and nuclear and renewables, so it would not be really welcome and it would not be permanent. This is why I suggest CO2 capture and conversion to fuels or plastics or some permanent form has to happen outside our economy (extraeconomically).

The question is : Will we survive the time average temperatures will keep going up, will people be able to focus on the capture of CO2 or will chaos and famines engulf the world to the point where nobody has any idea its even possible to fix things. Nature is not going to. We have to.