Category Archives: Nature

Fine-Tuning: The Argument That Won’t Die

Posted on by
Reply

The universe shouldn’t work.

That’s not a philosophical position. It’s an engineering observation. The constants that govern how matter behaves (the strength of gravity, the mass of the electron, the rate at which the universe expands) are set to values so specific that adjusting any of them by a fraction of a percent collapses the whole structure. No stars. No chemistry. No time long enough for anything to happen. The tolerances are absurd.

Physicists call this fine-tuning. The name is polite. What they mean is: the odds against this universe are so extreme that “chance” stops being a useful word for it.

The Two Escapes That Aren’t

Two answers dominate the debate, and neither is as clean as its proponents pretend.

The first is design. Someone set the dials. The universe looks like it was built for life because it was built for life. The problem is that this explains nothing mechanically; it just relocates the question one level up. Who built the builder? And why does a universe designed for life consist of 99.9999% lethal vacuum, with life confined to a thin biological smear on one unremarkable rock?

The second is the multiverse. If you generate enough universes (some versions say 10 to the power of 500, which is a number that has stopped meaning anything), eventually one rolls the right numbers. We’re in that one because we couldn’t exist in any other. This is the Weak Anthropic Principle: we observe what permits our observation. True, trivially. It explains why we’re here without explaining what set the parameters. It also requires an infinite number of unobservable universes as its load-bearing assumption, which puts it in the same epistemic category as the thing it’s trying to replace.

Both positions treat the constants as prior: fixed before any observer arrives. That assumption is where the argument gets interesting.

The Observer Problem

Quantum mechanics has an unresolved problem at its core. A particle exists in a superposition of states until it’s measured. At the moment of measurement, it resolves to one outcome. The math is exact. The mechanism is unknown. Why does observation collapse probability into actuality?

Most physicists park this question and get on with the calculations. A few take it seriously as a clue about the nature of reality.

John Wheeler spent decades on it. His conclusion, which he called the Participatory Anthropic Principle, was that observers don’t just record the universe; they bring it into being. Not metaphorically. Retroactively, through the act of observation, the universe acquires a definite history. Without observers, there is no collapse, no resolution, no definite past. The universe requires participants to be real.

QBism (quantum Bayesianism) pushes this further. The wavefunction isn’t a property of the universe out there; it’s an agent’s belief-state about what they’ll find when they interact with it. Reality is co-created at the moment of contact between observer and system. There is no view from nowhere.

These aren’t fringe positions. They’re minority positions within a field where the majority hasn’t solved the measurement problem either. The standard interpretation (Copenhagen) essentially says: don’t ask. The wavefunction collapses when observed. Move on. That’s not an answer, it’s a professional courtesy.

What We’re Actually Arguing About

The fine-tuning debate has lasted this long because it isn’t really a physics debate. The physics is genuinely unresolved, but the heat comes from elsewhere. Fine-tuning is a mirror. It reflects whatever you bring to it: the theologian sees confirmation, the materialist sees a threat, the philosopher sees an infinite regress.

What it actually is, stripped of the freight, is an open question about the relationship between observers and the reality they observe. That question is at the center of quantum mechanics, unsolved after a century. Anyone who tells you they’ve answered it (with God, with the multiverse, with consciousness) is telling you more about themselves than about the universe.

The constants are what they are. The blueprints are still inside the control room. We’re standing outside, listening to the machinery run, and arguing about what the building is for.

The Inversion

I write sci-fi. I often start with a “what if” and build a universe from there: its physics, its rules, any departures from today’s starting point, then the situation, the characters, and let the story build itself. I discover the story a bit like you do when reading it.

Taking the above as a starting point: what if the constants aren’t set in advance? What if consciousness and cosmos co-emerge, and the tuning is the relationship, not the precondition?

The standard framing puts observers at the end of a long causal chain: universe forms, constants happen to permit chemistry, chemistry permits biology, biology permits minds. Fine-tuning is the mystery at step one.

The inversion says: the chain runs both ways. The universe doesn’t pre-tune for life. It and life arrive together, and the constants we measure are not prior constraints but the record of that co-emergence. We don’t observe a fine-tuned universe. We participate in one.

This has a strange implication for the Fermi paradox. That paradox asks, why, given a universe old enough and large enough to have produced intelligence a thousand times over, do we seem to be alone in our corner of it?

The standard answers are grim (they’re dead, they’re hiding, travel is impossible) or optimistic (we’re early, they’re out there, we haven’t looked hard enough). The inversion suggests something stranger: each consciousness-cluster tunes its local physics. Not deliberately, not by choice. By existing. The region of space we occupy is already, in some structural sense, spoken for. Other intelligences don’t fail to appear nearby because they never had a chance to evolve. This doesn’t rule out life; it says intelligence has an even higher evolutionary mountain to overcome. It can happen, but the positioning required is exquisite. Intelligence is separated by immense time and space by definition.

Light speed remains the speed limit of natural change (at the Planck foam level, tuning can propagate no faster). The observable universe is many billions of light years across. Other consciousness-centers can evolve concurrently (whatever “at the same time” means across cosmological scales) and as their influence zones expand and eventually overlap, they settle toward equilibrium. There’s no reason other intelligences haven’t evolved, won’t evolve. They just do so in ways that place them very far from each other. If they’re too orthogonal to reconcile, the incompatibility itself forces a fork: a separate universe instance where both can exist without contradiction.

The Soft Edge

If the constants are the product of co-emergence rather than prior fixtures, they can’t be infinitely rigid. The consciousness-affected zone is vast, maybe millions of light years across, but we can see vastly further than that. The universe across its whole breadth had to have had us as a possibility from the first, so it will be largely coherent. But at the very edges, looking out into reaches beyond our tuned zone, we might see the occasional wobble against our expectations. We do see things we can’t explain. Maybe that’s one reason.

There also has to be some original malleability in the underlying structure. At the Planck length, if our theories are even close, that’s where it would live. Once set, some mechanism, some momentum, holds things together. What that is remains open. But the what-if builds from here: what if minds operate in a non-deterministic state because we evolved a mechanism that makes us more than puppets of causality? What if that mechanism could be amplified? Could the universe, at small scales, be nudged by will, by perception: a natural ability turned up just enough to matter?

The rules of physics we measure in our tuned pocket are local, not universal. Outside them, things are possible that our physics would classify as impossible. Not because the laws of nature have been broken. Because the laws in that region haven’t fully hardened.

This is what a rigorous theory of magic would look like. Not violation of physics. Physics that hasn’t finished resolving.

This isn’t a claim about how the universe works. It’s a coherent frame, reasonably consistent with what we don’t know about quantum measurement and observer participation, and more interesting than either of the standard escapes.

A novel I’m working on takes this seriously as a premise. It builds from the cosmology down to the plot: what happens when a civilization discovers this reality, and what it means that others in distant galaxies may have known it for a long time and have reason to worry about a new competitor.

The adventure and space opera come with the territory. But the physics is the foundation.

What if our physics is contingent rather than absolute?

If You Want to Pull This Thread

John Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links” (1989). The paper where Wheeler lays out “It from Bit” and the participatory universe. Dense, but the original argument in his own words.

David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (1997). Makes the case for the multiverse more rigorously than most popularizations, and is honest about what it costs philosophically. Good for understanding the strongest version of the position before deciding what you think of it.

Chris Fuchs on QBism. His papers are technical, but his interviews and lectures are accessible. Search “QBism Fuchs” and find a talk. The core idea (that the wavefunction is an agent’s belief, not a fact about the world) takes about twenty minutes to understand and longer to shake.

Nick Bostrom, Anthropic Bias (2002). The most careful treatment of observer-selection effects and the anthropic principle. Dry, rigorous, and it will make you distrust every argument in this space, including the ones in this post.

Tags: physics, philosophy, cosmology, fine-tuning, quantum mechanics, consciousness, Fermi paradox

📺 YouTube: The Unretired Engineer | 🔗 LinkedIn | 📚 Published works — M.A. Harris

The Why-Shaped Itch

Posted on by
Reply

From cave walls to the cosmos: how humans built the One out of questions they couldn’t stop asking

Philosophy | May 2026

Intelligence is based in memory, without why they are useless. The moment you can ask why, you will, and you’ll keep asking until you hit a wall the evidence can’t get you past. That wall is where religion lives.

This isn’t a weakness. The why-drive is the engine behind every model humans build of the world. It starts with fire and weather and then, inevitably, it turns to the question behind all questions: what started this?

Vocabulary

Most discussions of God get tangled before they start because people use the same word to mean very different things. Here’s the map I work with:

  • The Origin — the start of everything, defined as an event. No feeling of intention behind it.
  • The Final Cause — which is to say, first cause, a step between the Origin and the Absolute. Still largely intentionless, but there’s a tint of something.
  • The Absolute — Less an event than an impersonal creative condition.
  • The One — the Absolute plus intent. This is a matter of faith, not evidence. It cannot be known from what we observe.
  • God — the personification of the origin of all we perceive. The One given a face and a relationship with humanity.
  • god (lower case) — a referent to one of many deities in a system where there is no single final origin.

On gender: rendering God as he or she assumes things that aren’t in evidence and are arguably contra-indicated by the concept itself. A creator might seem more female if you think in terms of procreation, more male or neuter from a philosophical standpoint. Neither is satisfying unless you set out from an assumed initial condition, personification is a human need.

Beginning

Animism came first — scratching the why-itch into a set of beliefs that could be shared across a tribe. It works at small scale. As culture complexifies, you get gods: local, specific, squabbling. Then philosophy pushes further back, past the gods, toward a single origin, and you start to get God.

The Hellenistic world shows this arc clearly. It started with gods, evolved philosophy that defined the absolute origin, and from there derived a concept of God. That Hellenistic concept of the One then wrapped around evolved Judaism — with its apocalyptic messianic tradition — and produced Christianity. Islam followed, melding tribal Arabian religion with Judaism and Christianity into something that collapsed individual conscience into a tribal collective. That’s the source of its strength but a reason that it’s historically been a threat to neighboring structures.

Egypt started a similar philosophical evolution and then, probably due to the shaping effect of Nile Valley culture on its social structure, devolved back to gods. The environment bends the theology.

Consciousness

Even extremely simple worms react to stimulation in idiosyncratic ways, suggesting some differentiation in even minimal nervous systems. Single-cell organisms show behavioral differentiation that might indicate some level of something. Ants recognize themselves in a mirror and try to remove marks that would get them attacked at the nest entrance.

Does only self-consciousness constitute mind? Does consciousness without self-consciousness exist? These are thoughts we struggle with as we look at the evidence in the world we live in and apply it to the question of origin. What is the relationship of Mind and Consciousness to the Absolute?

The evidence says there’s an origin. Whether that beginning had intent is the question the evidence cannot answer.

Origin

The origin of our universe produced complex organization that chained up through cosmology to chemistry, to life, intelligence, ecology, and society. That’s not random noise out of an infinite field of interactions. It’s structured emergence across effectively infinite time and space.

This argues, at minimum, for an Absolute that set the conditions for what is. It also suggests that ethics, philosophy, and meaning were intrinsic from the start not invented by humans but discovered, the same way mathematics and physics are discovered. Invention from nothing is not real, we find what was already there (in my opinion a categorically more difficult problem given the complexity of our reality.)

Whether you take the next step, from Absolute to One, from impersonal origin to intent, is where evidence runs out and faith begins. Not faith as credulity, but faith as a position you hold in the absence of proof in either direction.

From the One to God is personification: a human need, driven by the desire for relationship with the absolute rather than mere acknowledgment of it.

That’s not irrational. It’s the oldest human need there is.

More on engineering, technology, and science fiction on YouTube. Fiction and commentary on the bigger questions at Substack.

Andy Weir’s Genius in Project Hail Mary

Posted on by
Reply

Andy Weir has a rare gift: he writes ordinary people — genuinely, recognizably ordinary — who have a skill that is also recognizable, and then puts them in situations where their one extraordinary competence is the only thing standing between them and death (in the case of Project Hail Mary, the extinction of the Human race.) The heroism is quiet and technical and you could almost believe that you could do that in the right circumstances.

You believe it because he’s made you believe in the person first. I saw the movie. I read the book years ago. Both are excellent, and the movie is one of the most faithful book-to-screen adaptations in recent memory.

Like The Martian before it, the film sticks closely to the book in both thesis and spirit. That fidelity matters: both stories rely on the reader/viewer trusting that the protagonist’s problem-solving is real, not movie-magic. Break that contract and the whole thing collapses. Weir earns it on the page; the filmmakers preserved it on screen.

The one genuine gap between novel and film is interior monologue. Novels handle internal states naturally; movies almost cannot. But Weir constructs scenes that externalize internal conflict visually — and those translate superbly.

A couple of minor side arcs from the book are absent, and I think those were wise cuts. They deepened the protagonist on the page but would have felt excessive at feature length.

One thread that bothered me in the book and still bugs me in the movie: Ryland Grace is pulled into the program because in his post-doctoral research he had proposed that alien life does not require water and carbon — and had defended that position to a career-ending degree. When the AstroPhage is first discovered it appears very alien, so Grace is brought in for initial analysis. He then finds it’s made of the same materials as Earth life — which undercuts his entire reason for being there and threatens to sideline him. That it doesn’t is a good twist; go see the movie or read the book for how it resolves.

Here’s where my engineering brain creates further friction. The AstroPhage’s energy density is extraordinary, and the novel acknowledges this and hand-waves it away. I cannot see how any life form built on biology similar to our own could handle those energy levels — it feels bolted in, even if it probably wasn’t. Similarly, Rocky — the alien Grace meets at the target sun — turns out to be exactly what Grace originally proposed: a non-water/carbon life form, which feels a little convenient in vindicating him.

There are complaints about Rocky delivering a specific thematic point about first contact and communication. My view is the opposite (other than the niggle above) that whole piece is brilliantly on point and there would not have been much of a story without it.

None of that diminishes what Weir achieves. He takes relatable people with very human quirks and puts them in situations where they have to fight to survive — and we root for them completely. And here i put the very alien Rocky in the bucket of people…he is about the best alien I have seen in a move ever. I wish I were half the author he is, and I say that as someone who is trying. Project Hail Mary is the rare book where you finish it and immediately want someone else to read it so you can talk about it. The movie earns the same feeling. Go see it.

How Physics Empowers Free Will in a Deterministic Universe

Posted on by
Reply

Why determinism never felt right to me — and how modern physics actually opens the door to real agency.

For years, the idea of hard determinism has bothered me. It clashes with how life actually feels. The universe as a giant clockwork machine—every particle with a fixed position and momentum, every event preordained from the Big Bang—sounds elegant in theory. But it implies that everything I’ve ever done or will do was inevitable. My choices? Just an illusion.

Hard determinists often present this view with a certain intellectual swagger, as if it signals deep sophistication. Yet many of them still look both ways before crossing the street. As Stephen Hawking wryly observed: “I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined… still look both ways before they cross the road.”

That quip captures the tension. If the future is fixed, why bother acting at all? The view also carries an eerie resemblance to extreme Calvinism—some are saved, some damned, and nothing you do in this life ultimately changes the script. It never sat right with me, either intellectually or existentially.

Then I encountered the work of physicist and philosopher Jenann Ismael, particularly her book How Physics Makes Us Free. Link Her approach resonated strongly with an intuition I’d been developing for years: determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Physics doesn’t enslave us—it enables a deeper kind of freedom.

The “Now” Problem: Why the Instant is Trivial

Imagine the universe at a single frozen instant—the “Now.” In that timeless 3D snapshot, every particle has a position and energy vector. Past events fully determine what happens next. It looks perfectly deterministic.

But here’s the catch: that “Now” has no real existence for any actual observer. Relativity imposes strict limits. No particle (or person) can access information from outside its past light cone. At the exact moment of “Now,” that light cone has zero depth—nothing from even a tiny distance away has had time to reach you. Complete information about the universe is impossible in the present.

Laplace’s Demon—the hypothetical super-intellect that knows every particle’s state and can predict the entire future (or past)—assumes a “God’s-eye view from nowhere.” Modern physics makes that view untenable. Any real system faces data latency, noise, uncertainty, and computational irreducibility. The demon’s omniscience is a fantasy.

In short, strict determinism at the instantaneous “Now” (what I’ve called the InP, or Instant-Point) is technically true but functionally trivial. It tells us almost nothing useful about how agents like us actually operate.

Memory: The Engine of Agency

Freedom emerges not in the frozen instant, but across time through accumulated memory and structure.

Even in a blind, non-living universe, basic thermodynamics creates imprints: a rock scars the ground when it falls; waves erode a shoreline. These are primitive forms of “memory”—the past shaping the future through persistent physical traces.

Life takes this to another level. Biology is essentially memory in action. RNA, DNA, neural patterns—these are systems that record what worked and what didn’t. Evolution itself is a memory process: successful patterns persist and build upon one another.

Over eons, this scales up:

  • Simple input → output (basic matter)
  • Input → memory/comparison → internal model → action → output (living organisms)

A frog snaps at a fly. A squirrel flees at a predator’s scent. A honeybee dances to communicate nectar locations to the hive. These are not random reflexes but decisions grounded in accumulated history and pattern-matching.

Humans take it further. Language, culture, and shared knowledge externalize memory, allowing us to build on the experiences of countless others. Our decisions arise from rich internal models shaped by personal and collective history—not from some magical spark that violates physics, but from the universe’s own lawful processes.

The agent does decide. The cause of the action lies in the person’s internal identity and accumulated experience. Labeling that “determined” is technically accurate but misses the point. It’s how we function.

The Generalized Good as an Attractor

This memory-driven agency isn’t aimless. Over deep time, beings with even modest volition tend to optimize for what they perceive as “good”—survival, order, flourishing. Humans are guidable, not perfectible. We make mistakes and fall for bad influences, but signals from reality (what works vs. what fails catastrophically) are powerful if we’re willing to heed them.

History shows progress: fewer people in extreme poverty, fewer dying in wars (in percentage terms, at least). Our ancestors weren’t ignorant fools; their traditions often encoded hard-won lessons. Change isn’t inherently good, but neither is stasis. The “generalized good” acts as a global attractor, even if local maxima vary by time, place, and culture.

In deprived environments (think North Korea), external options shrink, yet people still imagine and yearn for “other worlds.” The internal model remains a generator of possibility.

My Thesis

Free will is not a violation of physics. It is the high-level, computational process of an autonomous agent using the universe’s built-in memory—personal, biological, and cultural—to steer itself through time.

Determinism at the microscopic level may hold, but it becomes trivial once you account for relativity, light cones, computational limits, and the reality of embedded agents. What matters is that you are the one deciding, drawing on your history and internal model. There is no external puppet master. The causes flow through you.

Physics doesn’t rob us of freedom. By creating a world with persistent memory, evolving complexity, and embedded perspectives, it makes genuine agency possible.

That’s why the universe feels open rather than claustrophobic. That’s how physics makes us free.

CPU’s the Universe and Everything

Posted on by
Reply
The image from an interesting article on the ultimate in cloud computing. Hubble image of the asymptotic giant branch star U Camelopardalis. This star, nearing the end of its life, is losing mass as it coughs out shells of gas. Credit: ESA/Hubble, NASA and H. Olofsson (Onsala Space Observatory).

Seems like there must have been a mash up of astrophysics/cosmology/cybernetics a couple of weeks ago there have been a series of articles about computers and the universe. One series pointing out that once could conceive of using the AGB stars in their ‘dusting mode’ (above) as a computing engine.

But on the other side there have been a couple of articles that touch on the metaphysical (philosophical basis of reality) concept that we and our universe, are one vast simulation.

…Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom’s philosophical thought experiment that the universe is a computer simulation. If that were true, then fundamental physical laws should reveal that the universe consists of individual chunks of space-time, like pixels in a video game. “If we live in a simulation, our world has to be discrete,”….

From: New machine learning theory raises questions about nature of science

….a discrete field theory, which views the universe as composed of individual bits and differs from the theories that people normally create. While scientists typically devise overarching concepts of how the physical world behaves, computers just assemble a collection of data points…..

From: New machine learning theory raises questions about nature of science

…A novel computer algorithm, or set of rules, that accurately predicts the orbits of planets in the solar system….

… devised by a scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), applies machine learning, the form of artificial intelligence (AI) that learns from experience, to develop the predictions.

Qin (pronounced Chin) created a computer program into which he fed data from past observations of the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and the dwarf planet Ceres. This program, along with an additional program known as a ‘serving algorithm,’ then made accurate predictions of the orbits of other planets in the solar system without using Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. “Essentially, I bypassed all the fundamental ingredients of physics. I go directly from data to data,” Qin said. “There is no law of physics in the middle…

…”Usually in physics, you make observations, create a theory based on those observations, and then use that theory to predict new observations,” said PPPL physicist Hong Qin, author of a paper detailing the concept in Scientific Reports. “What I’m doing is replacing this process with a type of black box that can produce accurate predictions without using a traditional theory or law.”…

From: New machine learning theory raises questions about nature of science

Ok so now I am going to go a bit sideways and you may want to just go on about your internet day. But while I laude Qin and his team I have a bit of an issue with what he claims re the basis is Philosophy. Not the claim that the discrete field theory sparked his concept exploration. But that the actual system he developed has anything to say about that metaphysical theory.

Taking nothing away from the team what I see seems like a straightforward application of machine learning. In fact a relatively simple one though I would laude the whole idea of applying it to physics in general. A very interesting though, like many interesting insights, oddly obvious is retrospect. (Sorry for the repeated Though clauses…I absolutely see this as fascinating insight…and possibly extremely important…it just seems like D’oh in retrospect.)

As physics is very much aligned with mathematics (I think because the discovery of each was feedback on the other) and mathematics and cybernetics are also deeply intwined it should come as no surprise that computer systems designed to create black box solutions, when fed the right kind of data, will create a black box model of physical phenomena.

The output of science are tools that allow us to predict finite things about the universe we live in, repeatably and accurately. These tools are often used by engineers to enable technologyy that make life better for everyone.

But in many ways this is an engineers (relatively narrow) viewpoint. To some large degree an engineer does not care why the tool works, only that it does and how accurately. Counter to that, a strength of the theory based + mathematical model approach is that it gives you a tool to link the rest of reality to the ‘discrete’ piece you are working on right now. A jumping off point or a linking point to other theories that allows us to move onto other problems and link the

And/But (you knew it was coming) i wonder if this has anything to do with discrete field theory per se. Maybe if the learning algorithm used had that in it this would show something of that nature, but otherwise I do not see this as showing anything in particular other than the ability of learning systems which are in some sense continuous not discrete systems to develop predictive models directly from the data (as Qin says) rather than through the labor intensive methods of theory extraction and proof that has been the basis for scientific exploration since it first evolved in the Middle Ages.

Again BUT, it has been getting harder to develop these ‘deep’ theories. Look at the colliders and other tools that physicists use these days to probe the depths of our reality. In this world there are many things, like Qin’s next test with Nuclear Fusion, where an engineering model might be much more valuable than a ‘theory of this’ if it can be captured and used in a fraction of the time.

It’s all good, fascinating, wonderful…but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

WOW! A cool SETI theory…

Posted on by
Reply
Figure: The Wow! Signal. The peak is 32 times the signal to noise ratio of the observations. Courtesy of Sam Morrell. (From the article)

Not much more to be said so I post the intro to the article from Centauri Dreams, about an article/Theory by James Benford. Cool…

Was the Wow! Signal Due to Power Beaming Leakage?

by PAUL GILSTER on JANUARY 22, 2021

The Wow! signal has a storied history in the SETI community, a one-off detection at the Ohio State ‘Big Ear’ observatory in 1977 that Jim Benford, among others, considers the most interesting candidate signal ever received. A plasma physicist and CEO of Microwave Sciences, Benford returns to Centauri Dreams today with a closer look at the signal and its striking characteristics, which admit to a variety of explanations, though only one that the author believes fits all the parameters. A second reception of the Wow! might tell us a great deal, but is such an event likely? So far all repeat observations have failed and, as Benford points out, there may be reason to assume they must. The essay below is a shorter version of the paper Jim has submitted to Astrobiology.

A little air, a bit of heat, some light

Posted on by
Reply

What Global Warming? 148 New (2020) Scientific Papers Affirm Recent Non-Warming, A Degrees-Warmer Past at WattsUpWithThat

Climate Change Horror Porn is another tool of the apparat to frighten us. In realty there is an objective truth out there…none of us know it. Two sides largely aligned Left and Right though not precisely have taken sides and because the liberal left is ascendant and deeply intwined in academia and the media they are trying to ‘scare us straight.’ It might be well intentioned in many cases, but ideologues, abusers, users and grifters have gathered around a powerful ideological tool that can be used to manipulate the population.

  • The science such as it is….which is a lot…but not what you are told it is by the media and the ideologues who want to use it.
    • Climate science
      • What climate was/is/will be:
        • Is based on models of how the whole atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere work.
          • Early simple models were very illuminating.
          • Complex models are horribly sensitive to incorrect knowledge and unknowns.
        • A lot of it is based on prior history comparing things like plant and sea life growth vs temperature, CO2 etc.
          • But most of this knowledge is based on proxies up until a decade or at most two ago.
          • Plus sparse and non technical accounts up until the modern era
          • Has a sparse and erratic technical record from about a century and a half.
          • Decent deep record for a couple of decades.
          • Can see what it is today in fair but not omniscient detail.
        • We model the future based on models that we ‘test’ against the past. Like the stock market sometimes these models can do an ok job. But that is only because of parameter fiddling to ‘match the curves.’ The models are by necessity highly simplified and often just plain wrong. For example:
          • recent discovery that cloud impact on surface temperature can increase not decrease surface temperature. And that it may depend on where you are in the world.
          • Recent discovery that CO2 concentration’s affect on green house is not linear and tapers quickly at higher concentrations.
          • That the planetary heat balance is highly affected by cooling at the poles, and that the magnetosphere/sun link into the climate also is highly linked at the poles.
          • Etc.
        • While the first climate models that brilliant men and women came up with less than a century ago have been proven to be largely correct, the details are practically, hardly better modeled today than they were in the 1950’s.
        • Today there are literally hundreds of complex computer models and that are run many times with many different start parameters. They generate families of predictions, effectively at random. Those predictions are never even close to right at a rate greater than chance.
Continue reading →

Icy moons, exciting targets of exploration

Posted on by
Reply
The Interior of Enceladus Looks Really Great for Supporting Life
Article in UniverseToday on one of Saturn’s moons

In the early days of space exploration it was the rocky planets, particularly Mars and Venus that held some hope of significant life. Though those with the tools of observation and analysis were pretty negative and life in the rest of the solar system looked impossible. But as our knowledge and tools expanded the icy moons quickly became of interest because as cold region natives know, ice is not a bad insulator and a couple of miles of it would protect a lake. These days it seems pretty clear that Icy Moons often have oceans, seas or lakes inside, and the heat that melts the ice from underneath (from orbital stresses and or radioactive decay) could quite conceivably support life.

The article linked discusses model based research based on data from earlier orbiters and flybys. It shows that notionally their are several mechanisms that could be feeding nutrients and energy sources into the ocean of Enceladus, at a rate suffient to support a significant biome.

There are lots of other interesting articles on space at universe today website, take a look.

Wow this is … Fantastic

Posted on by
Reply

20140201-170827.jpgA composite image showing jets and radio-emitting lobes emanating from Centaurus A’s central black hole. Credit: NASA/ESO/WFI
The photo-art and the article it goes with. The article Grey is the new black hole: is Stephen Hawking right? Jan 29, 2014 by Geraint Lewis at The Conversation. It is a great piece of science writing explaining the evolution of our understanding of Black Holes and the context of Hawking’s latest pronouncements