A FAIR DEBATE

[bobdude11]

In fact, here's what I say--there is no debate possible.  A debate is weighing two matters of opinion.  What we are weighing here is fact and the ignorant opinion that it's wrong.  Ignorance always loses.  You can couch it in the language of Christian Fundamentalism.  You can couch it in the language of New Age hippies.  You can couch it in any language you want, but the ignorant person does not have a reasonable expectation of convincing an educated person that their education was completely wrong, because the ignorant person doesn't have the knowledge to counter it.

As Arthur C. Clarke once stated: (rule 3) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - perhaps he believe in Donde Be Sassa ...

[gillianren]

Yeah, I've always thought that Clarke quote was overrated.

[bobdude11]

I find it still fits in some cases *cough* DAKDAK *cough*

[gillianren]

Actually, that's a lot of my problem with it.  The thing is, if he wanted to learn, it wouldn't be magic to him.  He doesn't.  Yes, okay, he has to do a lot of catching up, but it can be done.  Whereas how does magic work?  It's magic!

[ka9q]

"Core rope" is entirely different from multithreading. Multithreading is a common software technique for executing more than one task (logically) at once. If you have multiple CPU cores, then you actually can execute those tasks at the same time. Threading is usually distinguished from multitasking (an older concept) in that each task has its own address space, while threads usually run in a common address space. Both methods are very widely used.

"Core rope" is a long-obsolete hardware technology used in the Apollo Guidance Computer as a read-only memory holding all the computer's programs. It was called "rope" because that's what it physically resembled. It consisted of wires threaded through a series of small transformer cores, forming a "rope" that was folded up and mounted on circuit boards in the computer.

[nomuse]

I thought someone here already had Florence Ambrose's addendum to Clarke's Law as a sig line:

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff300/fv00255.htm

[ka9q]

I have my own corollary to Clarke's law:

Any sufficiently advanced communication scheme is indistinguishable from noise.

This is actually true, when you consider Shannon information theory.

[Grashtel]

I thought someone here already had Florence Ambrose's addendum to Clarke's Law as a sig line:

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff300/fv00255.htm

I certainly use that on CQ/BAUT, not sure if I ever used it here (or the old forum) though, but as you mentioned it I have started using it (and found that the sig limit is rather short)

[nomuse]

I wonder if there are any anti..  whatever you call a strong non-correlary.

Such as; "Any sufficiently wackaloon magic can never be properly described in terms of technology."

[Tedward]

Often wondered about this comment about magic. Say, for example, you showed an educated person from the dark ages a car, I think that would not be too hard to describe to remove the perceived magic. A method of transport etc etc. Maybe even an uneducated person. How far back do you have to go in the ignorance stakes? From my perspective, if an alien landed tomorrow and pointed to the sky and said they were from there, you would assume they travelled it somehow. My first thought would be, show us your engine, four pot or eight pot, where are the carbs etc etc not (insert Monty Python cliché) Burn em, they are a witch.....


PS, just google Shannon information theory. Pass me a couple of tin cans and some string... (actually, some of it rings a bell).

[Noldi400]

I think it would be more along the lines of trying to explain the workings of a television, computer, or cell phone to someone from the dark ages. They just wouldn't have the educational or cultural background to understand electronics even at a very basic level.

I note that Clarke used the word "indistinguishable". It's not that we would think a far advanced technology was magic - we would just be so unable to understand the workings that it might as well be magic for all we could tell.

[gillianren]

But I disagree with that premise.  Or, more accurately, if it's true, I think it is already true to quite a lot of people.  I know a lot more about the practical theories of cell phones than the average, from what I can tell, and it's still a kind of magic to me.  (A dark one that tethers people, but magic.)  I know it's physics, and I have a sort of grip around the issues that create it, but that doesn't mean I think I understand.

[ka9q]

Often wondered about this comment about magic.
[...]
PS, just google Shannon information theory. Pass me a couple of tin cans and some string... (actually, some of it rings a bell).

As a 12 year old kid I was as fascinated by Apollo's communications as I was by the fact humans were standing on an entirely different world. It seemed like magic. I got a ham license, then an electrical engineering education and a career in communications R&D. And while I understand Shannon now, and I know it's not really magic, receiving bits that have traveled across more than a hundred AU of empty space still has some of that magical "feel".

So don't dismiss the accomplishment too quickly. JPL has made some amazing strides in their deep space telecommunications capability as shown by this famous "stairstep" plot showing their bit rate capability, normalized to Jupiter distance (5 AU), as a function of date:

http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/PerformMetrics/stairstep.pdf

Keep in mind that radio signals, like light, drop off with distance according to the inverse square law. Maintaining a given data rate between a given pair of radio antennas requires four times as much power when the distance is doubled. The great distances between the planets means that were JPL's capability applied to geostationary satellite distances their data rates would now be way into the terabit/sec range (if they had sufficient bandwidth).

[ka9q]

I know it's physics, and I have a sort of grip around the issues that create it, but that doesn't mean I think I understand.

I do understand how cell phones work; I work in the industry (specifically for Qualcomm). Yet if anything my understanding gives me an increased appreciation for the accomplishment, while still retaining a little of that sense of magic. It was also the result of a lot of hard work that is seldom understood by or even visible to those who aren't doing it.

[ka9q]

I think it would be more along the lines of trying to explain the workings of a television, computer, or cell phone to someone from the dark ages. They just wouldn't have the educational or cultural background to understand electronics even at a very basic level.

I think it would depend on the person. The humans who lived 1,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 years ago were essentially identical to us living today, and were just as smart. One should still be able to understand modern technology if they are willing to learn. The problem, as we see with many hoaxers, is that cultural, educational (or lack of same) and psychological issues make them unwilling to learn, not unable to learn.

Very few hoaxers are actually stupid. The vast majority are simply willfully ignorant.

Listen to any interview with a Nobel Laureate. Virtually every one will tell you how lucky he or she considers himself to have retained his childhood curiosity into adulthood.