Virtual World

I read a great article from the NY Times about Dr. Bostrom's theory that we might be living in a virtual world.

The great part was that it used a completely logical argument for this. Here's a quick run-through. Within around 50 years we will have a computer with the processing power of all of humanity's brains combined. Within 100 years such machines will be totally commonplace. A simulation of a complete human world will be as easy to run as something like the Sims or WoW is now.
For a number of reasons, future people are likely to simulate humanity. First, scientists will want to know more about the development of their ancestors. Second, playing with people, place or events you're familiar with is fun - witness the success of the Civilization series. Third, even if this was developed by some non-human race, they'd have fun playing with us too -witness orcs and elves in Warcraft, the aliens in Starcraft or even the near-infinite variability in the much-anticipated Spore.

What's the point? Well, if there are 9 million people playing WoW right now, it seems like a safe assumption that a similar number will play these new, more intensive games. So. If there's one 'real' world that hosts a million virtual worlds and all we know is that we're in a world, it's hugely probable that we're a simulation of some sort. Also, if computers start to be awesome enough, they'll be able to simulate things like worlds were simulation techniques are developed. And then you get a million squared. And the argument to cubed and more can follow the same logic. Basically, we are almost certainly virtual unless there is something else correlated with having this powerful a computer. For example, if we believe we'll blow up Earth earlier than this amount of technology then there will never be virtual worlds (assuming any aliens that could exist also kill themselves off before attaining this level of technology). He brings up other possibilities, but they seem sillier.

Near the end of the article, Dr. Bostrom says his gut feeling is that there's a 20% chance that our world is virtual. Personally, I'm thinking it's far far higher. Not that this affects anything for me, but it's an interesting thought. Please do leave thoughts. I'd particularly like to hear a religious take on this article if anyone's up for it...

More on metric

I'm writing this as a response to a great comment on my post about metric system use in the US.

Do you really think so? Speedometers have both metric and imperial units, but I don't think that's done much to improve "metric literacy" in the 'States.

Listing metric measurements after the imperial units doesn't quite say "these units are the ones we will be using." Even then, the things that list both don't really have "teeth." Switching speed limit signs to metric only would, I think, have a much larger effect since people could be punished for failing to process the information.

But, yes. Hooray for New Hampshire!

True enough anonymous. That being said, speedometers are easier to ignore. It's an analog measurement so you don't get the effect of repeated drilling of a=b. Also, the metric numbers are way smaller and on the inside loop. It's true that you could just look at the left side of the sign, but I think the minimum benefit would be a definition for a number of common mileages (1, 1/2 etc). I'd guess a fair number of people know that 100 k/h is close to 60 mph because those actually have lines on the speedometer and they're pretty close. Likewise I'd bet lots of people know 0°C is the same as 32°F because that's a temperature that people are exposed to (on both scales) on a regular basis. I'd bet 32 f/s being equal to 9.8 m/s is also not uncommon.

Here's a long-term plan I just came up with right nowish. Whenever an all-imperial sign needs to be replaced, put up a sign with imperial units followed by metric units in parentheses. When on of these imperial-metric signs needs to be replaced, put up a metric-imperial sign that has metric units followed by imperial units in parentheses. At some pint, once everyone is pretty hip on things, stop having imperial units on the signs at all. Hooray!

I don't think teeth are needed. I don't think this is a switch we can, should or will make quickly. My thought is pretty much that the next generation should be heavily exposed to metric - they should become SI literate even if we have failed to do so ourselves.

Is this just me? If I think about how many meters are in 32 feet, I take quite a while to get a correct answer. First I estimate by using yards and I get just under 11 meters. On my second pass, I use 1 m = 3.3 ft and get that it's just under 10 m. Win.
It's odd that my mind doesn't just think of the fact that it knows 9.8 m/s ~ 32 f/s and that it can just cancel the seconds and get to a much faster, more correct answer...

10 points to NH

I saw this sign in New Hampshire and was really impressed:

Ten points to NH for metric system use. Sadly, I only found three signs like this...

I really think this is how the US should be addressing the issue of SI ignorance. If they were simply to use both systems on new signs, we'd get huge benefits in the long-run at an extremely low price. I'd imagine that a kid seeing a sign like this every day for 5 years would have about as much trouble telling you what a mile was in kilometers as you'd have telling me how many inches are in a foot. The just go together so much that it becomes more than even just connectedness - it becomes identity.

Linux for the masses

By now, it's common knowledge that Dell is offering a computer preloaded with Ubuntu (an easier-to-use-than -most Linux distro). This was huge for Linux users everywhere - it means that people who aren't huge nerds are starting to use it.

The Linux community's growth among non-geeks now has something else to look forward to. It appears that Walmart's super-economy (sub $300) line of desktops may offer a Linux version as soon as this year.

And it looks like we might soon see other big PC makers preloading Ubuntu. At Ubuntu Live, Shuttleworth told his audience that they would indeed be seeing "more top-tier PC manufacturers offering Ubuntu pre-installed." Looks like Ubuntu is really pushing for the mainstream.

Insane. I can actually imagine seeing Ubuntu be a serious player in the field. ie We could have Ubuntu pop out of the 'Linux' category that we now have when talking about operating systems: Windows, MacOS, Linux, other. That'd be neat.

What I'd really like to see for the masses (and maybe even us geeks) is a cheap Linux box that's ready to run headless and interface with Macs and Windows PCs. I think a cheap Linux box, some clever software and a huge hard drive would be an extremely marketable product. It could actually make backing up computers happen in normal households. I wonder if I'm seeing too much potential in this - the status quo is quite a force to be reckoned with...

Sometimes the world is sad and pathetic

Just in case there are any normal/reasonable/sane people reading, I'll give a little bit of background.

There are now many games online that involve spending huge amounts of time acquiring experience (which makes your character better) or items (which also make your character better, but are fungible in game). Lately, an interesting practice of selling accounts has begun to take place. It really makes a lot of sense when you think about it - people are buying something of value that they can't get any other way that doesn't take an absurd amount of time. But here's where it gets gross.

A couple of weeks ago a curious incident took place. A leading player of Gunbound was kidnapped and had his life threatened in an attempt to obtain his account's password. Incredible. Evidently, one of the four kidnappers' girlfriends met up with this gamer online (on Google's social networking website Orkut). They set up a date at a mall, but when the dude showed up, he got a guy with a gun instead of a hot girl.

That sucks right? It gets better/worse. He refused to give them his account's password despite the fact that they held a gun to his head for five hours. Yes. Five hours. Insane. They eventually just gave up and were caught later. This dude is such a dumb ass. But I guess he won or something...

Unbelievable you say? I agree. So I checked the source and it seems to be all good. That's so gross.

Semapedia

So I read about this neat site called Semapedia. The general idea is that Semapedia wants to make it possible to create physical links to wikimedia foundation pages (eg wikipedia).

The gig is that you can put in a wikimedia foundation page's address on their site and they will give you a pdf to print out. This pdf has labels that can be read using a program for cell phones that they link you to. End result? You scan a hyperlink irl ('in real life' for those who live more of their lives irl) and it points your browser at the appropriate page.

Honestly, their learn more page is pretty and easy to understand so you should hit that up if your interested. Anyhow, Check out this sample label:

Pretty cool huh?

So here's where I ask you for a favor. If you have a data or web plan, could you check if your phone has an install available for it? Just go to http://reader.kaywa.com on your phone and they'll let you know if it's supported or not. Thanks a bunch!

If you do get something going, leave a comment. And if I'm anywhere near you, give me a call - this makes me all excited... can you imagine if these were ubiquitous? I wonder how that camera's rated? *ping* I wonder what the political atmosphere was like at the time that this sculpture was made? *ping* Shiny, shiny, shiny!

Money

So I watched a clip about money that seriously attacked our current system and decided that it should be torn to shreds so here goes.

A bit more than halfway in they ask four questions that I'll go ahead and answer:

1 - Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when gov't could create all the interest-free money it needs, itself?

Ok. Imagine the government just spawning more money whenever it needed it. If the total value in a system is unchanged and more money is introduced, all the money will be worth less. In the extreme, governments using arbitrarily created money lead to hyperinflation and disastrous consequences.

So why doesn't this happen with money that private banks create? Private banks create money when an individual makes a contract to repay it and collateral exists. The money does have real-world value - the property that would be foreclosed.

2 - Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently?

This kind of money system would work.

But it would work more slowly. The ability to get a loan lets people gain more leverage and be able to accomplish more with the same original amount. Using a dynamic system instead of a system of permanent circulation allows greater value to be created from the same initial monetary investment.

The concept of a static money supply is silly. Suppose a static money supply. Assuming that humanity is productive (which is, I hope, a fair assumption), the value of money would be forced to increase. With a static money supply, money represents a fraction of the world's value; in other words, increases in global value would lead to runaway deflation. If humanity is productive and deflation is steady, the best way to amass value would be to simply sit on your money. Deflation would pretty much serve as an interest payment - talk about the rich getting richer.

The whole concept that our system is broken because it is independent of permanent money is flawed. It's true that it relies on debt; our system relies on a constant flow of paying loans and getting new loans. This common event, called equilibrium, is ubiquitous. It's found in everywhere in nature and it also dominates the structures of man. Supply and demand; debt and money. Everything balances.

3 - How can a money system dependent on perpetually accelerating growth be used to build a sustainable economy?

This part is, in my opinion, the only fair concern in the film. If humanity as a whole ceases to create value at an exponential rate everything will break. We must continue to create value faster than we create debt - and we have been.

To be sustainable we don't need to be using up less than or equal to the amount of resources that are produced in a specific period of time. We can afford to use some non-renewable resources because we are counting on becoming independent of them before we run out of them. As long as this is true, it is irrelevant that we may have used up of our non-renewable resources if they are no longer needed. In short, we are betting on technology. The bet seems OK to me though; technology also advances exponentially.

As a short response to this question, I will use my favorite quote from the clip itself:

One thing to realize ... is that, like a child's game of musical chairs, as long as the music is playing, there are no loser.

Simple. If we can continue to play the game (create value), our system will run smoothly.

4 - What specifically needs to be changed to allow the creation of a sustainable economy?

Things could certainly be improved by change, but it the monetary system itself is not inherently broken.

This post is getting really long so I will satisfy this question by saying that my previous arguments make the question invalid in the spirit that it was originally presented. If I were to write about my none-too-solidified opinions on our government and economics, this rant would become a paper that I don't have the inclination to write at the moment.

----------------------
These are just a couple of moments in the movie that made me angry that I couldn't work into the post well:

• Money earned from lending money is not the act of a parasite or a thief. Money is gained by creating value - the use of fungible money is hugely valuable. Lenders do not leech from the system; they make it more efficient.
  

• I think the worst one IMO was at 23:08. The clip says that individuals have more money to spend when they've paid off their debts - this is false. If I take out a loan, I'll have more fungible money available. It's the same on an individual and national scale.

----------------------

Please feel free to correct whatever I messed up and contribute opinions. ...I know this blog is read by at least one econ major.

SigSys paper and Stupid People

*Exhales*

I'm done with SigSys. I'm done with everything but Meta actually. I ended up really liking my SigSys end-game. I wrote a sweet paper. It's 6 pages long, but highly skimmable. Read the intro to the analogy if you're going to read any of it. It's about a model of the classroom that implements communications ideas. The goal is to be able to better understand pedagogy by linking it to something that is already pretty well-understood.

Man. I really like that paper.

Moving on to things I don't like: stupid people. What the hell. I just don't understand what these people were thinking. This article is about a Vegan couple that's being tried for involuntary manslaughter for the death of their baby who was kept on a diet of soy milk and organic apple juice. Things like this make me so angry. How can they call this involuntary? Ignorance isn't supposed to be protective. As parents they had a duty to know what their child needed. They consciously and purposefully failed to do what they should've done. Arguably they didn't know better, but it was their responsibility to know better. People are frustrating.

Some world thoughts

[Alt + Shift]

Man. It seems like I have less and less time nowadays. Today I will talk about divestment.

I have heard a lot of very smart people express views that divestment is a great cause. I have heard a lot of very smart people claim that divestment isn't going to work or even that it's actually bad. So what's up?

The theory behind divestment is to put pressure on companies in Sudan by driving their stock prices down. In particular, activist groups target specific companies that end up having their profits flow into the government (mostly Chinese oil companies). The idea is that the companies will in turn pressure Khartoum (the government) by considering leaving the country unless action is taken to get investors to put money back into the company (by ending the genocide).

Lets run down some reasons why people have said divestment might be a bad idea:
-Opportunity cost of helping is high
-It's too indirect and won't be effective
-Taking money away from the economy harms the people
-If money becomes an issue, Khartoum might not continue giving southern Sudan oil money

Opportunity cost. This refers to the idea that one might be able to do more good by hurting people to gain money if you can help more people in the end. The idea is completely sound, but I doubt many people would actually do this in such a way that it's actually more helpful (assuming that divestment is helpful).

Indirectness. OK. So this is the one I consider strongest by far. It just won't work. People can take their money out of companies operating in Darfur, but the market is self-correcting. If a company becomes undervalued, someone will buy up its stock. It's the smart thing to do. The game plan of divestment involves having companies' stock be grossly undervalued. It won't happen. There will be people who'd rather make money. I guarantee that.

Taking money away from the economy. Yeah this will harm people. That being said, the companies targeted are not companies that are being the livelihoods of the common folk. They are having their profits go to Khartoum. On the other hand, in a longer view this could cause cause more abuse to make up for the money lost.

This was a new one to me. Evidently Khartoum's peace deal with the south involves the south operating autonomously and receiving a hefty portion of the oil money. Cutting the total oil money might cause Khartoum to keep all the revenue instead of sharing it as per the agreement. This of course, would not be fun.

Anyhow, just some thoughts. Please discuss.