Are other kinds of universe possible? What is possible or impossible? Having studied philosophy, I have some understanding of logical impossibility. Not having studied physics, I do not understand physical impossibility except insofar as physicists are able to explain this to the rest of us.
Logical Impossibility
A proposition is logically impossible if it is internally inconsistent/self-contradictory like many statements made about time travel in sf. In Poul Anderson's Time Patrol story, "Brave To Be A King," Manse Everard, addressing Keith Denison at a particular time and place in a single timeline, states that it might come to be the case that Keith Denison does not exist at that time and place in that single timeline. Clearly, Everard contradicts himself. Of course it is logically possible that Denison exists at a particular time and place in one timeline but does not exist at that time and place in another timeline. This is what we mean by different timelines: alternative sequences of events. The Germans lost World War II in our timeline but might have won it in another timeline but it cannot come to be the case that they did win it in our timeline.
Physical Impossibility...
...seems to combine observation with logic. Thus, constants like G (gravity) and c (the speed of light) are discovered and measured by empirical observation, then incorporated into logically consistent mathematical equations.
A material body can increase its mass over time but cannot increase to infinite mass over finite time. Speed increases mass. A body moving at light speed would have infinite mass. Therefore, a body can accelerate towards c but never reach it. That conclusion follows logically from the preceding propositions but why does speed increase mass and why must a body moving at c have infinite mass? Could these data be different in another universe? Are there alternative universes where there is regular faster than light (FTL) interstellar travel?
Poul Anderson's quantum hyperdrive sidesteps the light speed barrier and is the cleverest FTL drive in sf.
27 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'll have nothing to do with futilities like wind mills, solar panels, or EVs; I also recall how the two worse polluters in the world, Maoist China and India, don't care beans about such concerns. No matter what the UK or US might do the regimes in Peking and Delhi pollute more than all the rest of the world.
Robert Zubrin, in another book, THE CASE FOR SPACE, discussed in detail solutions to environmental problems that would work--except they are not Politically Correct. I esp. recall his discussion of an amazingly successful experiment using plain old rust to sop up carbon dioxide from the ocean. Which I quoted in this blog years ago. I could go on, such as how useful nuclear power would be--except that's Politically Incorrect.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That blames everyone else and solves nothing! Are you concerned that the environment is being destroyed?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The best way to show concern is to advocate for solutions that word, as Zubrin discussed in his book.
Realities need to be faced, such as how China and India pollute more than all the rest of the world put together. Everyone in the UK/US could become Benedictine monks and nuns--and it would not put a dent in the pollution put out by India and China.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But solutions that work are not being implemented. Do you care about that?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The problem in the US is that those who most fanatically oppose solutions that work are the ignorant leftist Luddites who dominate the abominable Democrat party. The only "solutions" they can think of are futilities like the ones I listed above--to be administered by bloated, tax sucking bureaucracies staffed by them. These leftist Greenies have the clout among the Democrats to do their best to cripple nuclear power.
It's very hard for the opposition Republicans to reverse bad policies even when they have a majority. Because these majorities are usually narrow and prone to being reversed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
When I ask "Do you care?," what I am getting at is this. You seem determined to blame anyone and everyone for pollution except the US oil industry, then to leave it at that! This is surely both partisan and not enough?
"...fanatically...." "...ignorant leftist Luddites...," "...abominable...," "...futilities...," and "...bloated, tax sucking bureaucracies..." all sound like fanatical language to me!
We all need self-criticism as well as other-criticism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I will not blame the US oil industry, because when compared to how leftist ruled Venezuela manages its oil, the US fossil fuels industry is far more efficient and pollution controlled minded. Moreover, because of how alternatives like nuclear power had been so badly crippled by leftists, we have no choice but to use fossil fuels.
I am not a politician, not running for or holding office. Which means I don't have to guard every word I say. I feel free to express the anger and contempt I have for American leftists and their catastrophic policies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No fossil fuels industry can be exonerated! That flies in the face of the facts. You cannot blame "leftists" for everything. They as a group do not hold all the economic and political power in the US or in the world.
I feel no anger or contempt. Those are entirely negative emotions of no benefit either to those who feel them or to those that they are directed against.
We can build a better world than this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I did not "exonerate," my belief remains the US fossil fuels industry is better managed than the mess seen in Venezuela, India, China, Russia, etc.
Leftists have far too much power and influence in the US, with disastrous results everywhere.
Any hope of building a better world requires rejecting/defeating unrealistic, counterproductive, failed ideas.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That IS an exoneration. The point is that fossil fuels are destroying the environment, not which of the industries is better managed.
Yes. And we disagree about which ideas are unrealistic, counterproductive and failed. Continued business as usual is already disastrous.
Leftists wield power in the US? - when Trump is in his second term?
Paul.
The opposition to nuclear power is harmful. Fortunately, the power of the anti-nuclear crowd in the US Democratic party seems to be weakening.
An all too common human fault is to regard believing (or claiming to believe) some proposition is needed to be considered a 'member of the tribe', regardless of evidence (or lack there of) for that proposition. This may be 'hard to fake signal', which is why it is common despite its major drawback of blocking the search for truth.
Political parties all too often are tribes of this sort, and this makes it difficult to shift a party away from harmful policies.
Sean: You seem to be acutely aware of 'left wing' parties falling into this trap in the case of nuclear power and transgender, but you seem blind to 'right wing' parties doing similar things.
I would consider unbending opposition to abortion to be such a mistake. Abortion is often the least bad option.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
for an example.
Jim: I agree that abortion is the destruction of a human life, but then I don't attach much importance to individual human lives, so... Except my own, of course.
Kaor, Paul and Jim and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, it matters that the US fossil fuels industry is better managed than in all the other countries I listed.
Leftist do wield power in the US, which is not (yet) a one party despotism. Democrats rule many states and cities, some (like California and Chicago) for so long they are de facto one party oligarchies. And they have too credible hopes of regaining control of Congress in the mid-term elections. Leftists also dominate in academia and most of the media. It's an uphill struggle for conservatives and principled libertarians to oppose them.
Jim: There are so many other reasons why I dislike the Democrats, not just their anti-scientific irrationalism, abortion, or the transgender nonsense. One huge reason why I am so opposed to them is that, since at least since the 1932 Presidential election, they have steadily become more and more the party concentrating more and more power in the State, both Federal and the states. Democrats are those who want an increasingly autocratic gov't. And all I've seen from that is gov't, Federal and states, becoming more incompetent and burdensome the more it tries to do.
Another big reason for my anger at the Democrats is how, since the 1960's, they have often shown themselves often hesitant/reluctant to effectively defend the US. Most often by being too weak at thwarting attempts by hostile powers to weaken/undermine the US. And they have too often been reluctant to adequately fund the armed forces.
Mr. Stirling: Matthew 10.29-31 helps explain why I can't rate so low individual human lives. Even of people I don't like.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You do not seem to understand that, if fossil fuel industries are destroying the Earth, then it does not matter which of them is managed better.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
And what do you want the UK/US to DO? Deliberately impoverish themselves by reverting to the technological level of 1800? Which would mean many millions of Britons/Americans dying of starvation and no longer having access to modern medicine. Some of the more crazed and fanatical Greenies might be vicious enough to want that, as long as they survived!
To even ask such a question is to answer it, it's not going to happen. Not even most Democrats are going to shut down the US fossil fuels industry if it means something as horrendous as the scenario mentioned above. But too many are still cowed by the anti-nuclear Luddites.
And you stubbornly persist in waving away the problem posed by China and India, who pollute more than all the rest of the world put together. Should the UK/US go to war with them, to force them to give up coal and oil? I've seen nothing from people who think as you do on what to do about them. We would be in much better shape if they managed fossil fuels even half as efficiently as the US does.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The question of what should be done is different from the simple question of whether all the fossil fuels industries including the American one are in fact destroying the Earth. It is that question alone that I have been asking. I have not been advocating any particular solution. People who think as I do? What do I think? I have not said that I think anything about this yet.
It seems clear to me that all governments, including the UK/US ones, need to heed the best scientific advice on this issue and to cooperate with each other in taking drastic urgent action. That scientific advice might well be to make more use of nuclear energy despite its alleged dangers. How do I know? I am not one of the informed environmental scientists whose advice should be heeded.
I do not stubbornly persist in waving away the problems posed by Chinese and Indian pollution. When did I do that? Surely I have made it clear that I am equally concerned about all pollution? You are locked into a "The US is better than China and India" mindset so you think that, if I criticize the US, then I must be stubbornly persisting in waving away the problems posed by China and India. When did I do that?
I do not think that anyone should deliberately impoverish themselves. But it seems that they cannot just carry on as they have been doing either. That will impoverish us.
Crazed and fanatical Greenies? Anti-nuclear Luddites? This language sounds to me extreme and fanatical! It seems that the globe is warming dangerously and that managing fossil fuels efficiently is nowhere near enough. Merely arguing that OUR side is doing better than THEIR side is nowhere near enough. That kind of argumentation is part of the problem, not of the solution.
Of course, to anticipate another objection, the question of whether existing governments SHOULD cooperate is not the same as the question whether those governments are AT ALL LIKELY to cooperate. We see all the evidence that they are likely to continue arguing, threatening and fighting indefinitely. There are many people around the world in every country who are motivated to campaign for something much better than what we are offered by any of our present rulers. My hope lies in such campaigns.
Paul.
Paul: for most of the history of life on earth, it was substantially warmer than now - 5 to 15 degrees -- and there were no polar icecaps or glaciers.
Kaor, Paul!
It's not enough to insist fossil fuels need to be replaced, you should also propose realistically possible alternatives. Otherwise, nothing will be done.
We don't need that "best scientific advice" because a practical alternative to fossil fuels already exists, nuclear power. It was because of politics and opposition by ignorant "environmentalists" which has prevented nuclear energy from replacing fossil fuels.
Yes, I will continue to insist the US manages fossil fuels far better than China/India. It's only the US/West you seem to focus on re environmental issues. What is the point of that when it's precisely the most Westernized nations which at least tries to handle fossil fuels efficiently?
Pay more attention to China and India, otherwise focusing only on the West will not be convincing.
The only conclusion I can draw from many "environmentalists" is that they want the West to become self-impoverished.
It cannot be denied there are crazed and fanatical Greenies who are blindly opposed to nuclear power.
There's not going to be any global unity till either a single power or an alliance of powers conquers the world. I put no confidence in the kind of idealists you mentioned.
Last, take note of what Stirling said.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not merely insist that fossil fuels be replaced. I want alternatives. But I do not know of my own knowledge which is the best alternative and anything that I proposed would make no difference in any case!
We do need "the best scientific advice." How absurd to suggest otherwise! By your account, that advice will definitely be to use nuclear power.
Are "environmentalists" ignorant? More extreme language.
I will continue to insist that, if fossil fuels as such are harmful, then it is pointless and partisan to keep insisting that the US manages them better.
Show me where I have focused only on the US/West. You assume that I do because you focus on defending the US/West!
Talk to and listen to "environmentalists." (Sneer quotes?) They do not want anyone to become self-impoverished and are concerned about the planet, not just about the West.
It can be denied that there are crazed and fanatical Greenies who are blindly opposed to nuclear power. What extreme language! Are you "blindly" in favour of nuclear power? Of course not. But you disagree with others on the issue. Can we not just discuss these issues in those terms?
We do not know how global unity will come about. I refer not to idealists but to massive resistance around the world to the current powers that be. Resistance changes regimes and has changed laws. We can now all vote - in some countries.
I take note of what everyone says. Can we not just discuss this instead of engaging in an all or nothing argument? We always remain exactly where we were at the end of every exchange. We need to acknowledge that instead of - apparently - thinking that we can annihilate other views by calling them fanatical, crazed, blind etc.
Paul.
Earth has been warmer before. Sure. But is it about to become too hot for human life or maybe just for civilization? I do not know and am certainly not dogmatic but I am concerned about what a lot of informed people are saying.
Kaor, Paul!
But the most realistically practical alternative to fossil fuels already exists: nuclear power. Any non-nuclear alternatives which might someday be feasible, such as a space based solar power system, will take years or even decades to be built. Nuclear power exists now and is even being used despite the best efforts of anti-nuclear Luddites to kill it. A really vigorous effort to reopen/build nuclear power plants can be done far more quickly than any alternatives.
We are going to have to agree to disagree about the rest.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there is very little left to disagree about.
Is it necessary to replace fossil fuels? It seems so although the fossil fuels industry itself is using all its money and influence to block that at the annual COP talks.
Is nuclear power the best alternative? I am not arguing against that particularly although it is insufficient merely to state it and to leave it at that. And there are informed, not ignorant, people who argue otherwise.
Meanwhile, the Poles are melting, sea levels must be rising - I believe that this is already affecting some island dwellers - , weather is increasingly chaotic and the globe is warming, some people say catastrophically.
So something has to be done. It is insufficient merely to have a firm opinion about WHAT has to be done.
Paul.
How many species necessary to the global ecology are becoming extinct?
If equatorial regions become uninhabitable and entire populations migrate north, what will we do? Shoot them?
Kaor, Paul!
The point I'm trying to make is that nuclear power is existing, off the shelf tech that can rapidly be used if the political logjams blocking its use are finally broken. No need to spend 10, 15, or 30 years developing an alternative to fossil fuels.
All self-respecting nations will fight if that is what's necessary to survive--and rightly so. You cannot cram all seven or eight billions of the global population virtually overnight into the US/Europe without destroying the unique factors/civilization that makes them so attractive. That is what underlies the anger so many have for unrestricted "immigration"/invasion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Shooting masses of refugees would count as legitimately fighting for survival? No, we would have brought it on ourselves as a civilization if we let that happen.
There is no unrestricted "immigration"/invasion. As in the 1930's, there is xenophobia whipped up in defence of a failing socioeconomic system and there is now in Britain a growing movement of opposition to that xenophobia.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Impasse. I believe in the absolute right of sovereign nations setting the terms and conditions for allowing foreigners in. I will not retreat from that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Why absolute? Nations have not always existed and will not always exist. While they do exist, they change like everything else. They can be persuaded to change their laws. They exist to serve real physical individual human beings and their families, not vice versa, like the Sabbath.
Immigrants who inspire anger in some inspire solidarity in others. In Britain, we now have a growing movement which aims to demonstrate that those others are the majority. We will outnumber the racists on the street.
Immigrants enrich our society and keep our Health Service working. I attended a meeting where a guy said, "If any of you counter-demonstrated against the National Front last month and were hit by a brick, I want to apologize because there is a chance that I threw that brick because I was on that NF demo. Since then, my life has been saved by a black surgeon supported by black nurses. If they had had the same stupid prejudices I had, I wouldn't be alive." We were on a Right to Work march and pounded the wooden floor of a social club with our walking boots.
It is a mistake to equate current immigrants with the masses of refugees that might come in the event of equatorial regions drying up. In the latter case, that will be a global catastrophe. Our environment here will be going down the tubes as well. Everyone will be hard put to survive. We will not be in a familiar scenario of defending our sovereign territory against invaders. Continuing to fight among ourselves, let alone killing masses of innocent refugees, will be the final folly. But of course we know that some of us are capable of that.
I have ideas for more blog posts but first must perform some mundane tasks.
Paul.
Post a Comment