<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Emergent Fool &#187; Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentfool.com/category/causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentfool.com</link>
	<description>...explorations in complex adaptive systems...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kevindick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quantum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=3142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>, ﻿This is my hypothesis based on a relatively consistent diet of physics books over the last couple of decades.  Now, this hypothesis is by no means original to me (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics" target="_self">here</a>).  But it is certainly not the dominant view of and most laypersons are probably unaware it even exists, <b>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</b>, We’ve had several previous posts on Emergent Fool that have hinted at this possibility (me <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/01/15/particle-physics-follow-up/" target="_self">here</a>, Rafe <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/26/metaphysics/" target="_self">here</a>, <b>where can i order Wellbutrin SR without prescription</b>, <b>Where can i buy Wellbutrin SR online</b>, Plektix <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/06/02/quantum-reality-and-the-measurement-paradox/" target="_self">here</a>).  The latest bit of data that reinforces my belief in the Computation Engine Hypothesis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334" target="_self">From Eternity to Here</a></span>, <b>Wellbutrin SR for sale</b>, <b>Online buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, by <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" target="_self">Sean Carroll</a>.  In this book, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR from mexico</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR without a prescription</b>, Carroll tries to explain the arrow of time using the concept of entropy from the perspective of statistical mechanics.</p>
<p>The basic idea behind entropy is to compute the number of physical microstates (e.g., positions of each molecule of oxygen) that correspond to the same physical macrostate (e.g., the physical distribution of those molecules in a jar).  If a macrostate has lots of different corresponding microstates, it’s “ordinary” and has high entropy.  If a macrostate, has only a few corresponding microstates, it’s “special” and has low entropy.  There are a lot more ways to arrange a set of oxygen molecules so they are uniformly distributed than there are to arrange them in the shape of a duck, so the former has high entropy while the latter has low entropy, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>.</p>
<p>High entropy states occur more frequently than low entropy states.  So any interaction tends to increase entropy because transitions to more common states are more likely.  Thus the arrow of time is a statistical property of dynamic behavior, <b>buy generic Wellbutrin SR</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, But now there’s a problem.  One can apply this same type of analysis to the Universe as a whole (or more precisely, our “observable patch” of the Universe).   You see, <b>purchase Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR pharmacy</b>, it has rather low entropy compared to its maximum (which we can calculate using concepts from statistical mechanics).  There’s all this orderly clumping of matter into galaxies, solar systems, <b>Wellbutrin SR price</b>, <b>Buy cheap Wellbutrin SR no rx</b>, planets, animals, <b>buy no prescription Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, and humans.  And that’s just not very likely.  Now, you could try invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_self">Anthropic Principle</a>: that we wouldn’t be here to observe the Universe unless it were ordered this way.  Sorry, <b>where can i buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR online</b>, <b>Online buying Wellbutrin SR</b>, but no.  It’s actually much more likely that our brains would materialize out of the ether due to random quantum fluctuations (so called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain" target="_self">Boltzmann Brains</a>”).</p>
<p>Carroll has a loophole.  What if our Universe (and indeed each Universe in the "Metaverse") spawns new Universes?  Then there is no maximum entropy and the configuration of our observable patch becomes much more likely, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR in canada</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Wellbutrin SR</b>,  Here's how it might happen.  <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</b>,  Even a Universe at maximum entropy still undergoes fluctuations, definitely of quantum fields and perhaps of spacetime itself.  If a quantum fluctuation to a higher vacuum energy occurred at the same time that a bit of spacetime pinched off, <b>Wellbutrin SR samples</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR</b>, you would get what looks like a new universe undergoing a Big Bang.  Astronomically unlikely at any given time and place, <b>rx free Wellbutrin SR</b>, <b>Order Wellbutrin SR from mexican pharmacy</b>, but almost certain to happen eventually in a given Universe.</p>
<p>Aha!  Problem solved.  But think of the implications.  There’s a huge proliferation of Universes.  Now, <b>order Wellbutrin SR online c.o.d</b>, <b>Wellbutrin SR over the counter</b>, add in the proliferation of different versions of the Universe from from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation" target="_self">Many Worlds Interpretation</a> (MWI) of quantum mechanics.  Recall that the MWI explains apparently  “spooky” quantum behavior by suggesting that the wavefunction does not actually collapse.  Instead, every possible value of the wavefunction is realized in a different blob of amplitude, <b>buy Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</b>, a process known as decoherence.  Effectively, any time a quantum particle interacts with a macro objects, <b>order Wellbutrin SR no prescription</b>, <b>Buy Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</b>, it generates a version of the universe for each possible outcome of that interaction.</p>
<p>So at the quantum level, we’ve got all this branching of the Universe every microsecond.  Then at the astrophysics level, we’ve got new Universes spawning.  Of course, this spawning also obeys the MWI, so you’ve actually got an exponential proliferation of baby Universes.  If you squint, this whole process looks like a multi-dimensional forward-chaining computation.  Every possibility in this Universe is realized, whole new Universes with slightly different rules get created, and every possibility in them is realized.</p>
<p>Going back to the concept of entropy, it turns out that the Thermodynamic Entropy we can calculate for objects is exactly the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_entropy" target="_self">Shannon Entropy</a> we can calculate for information.  Shannon Entropy measures how unique a piece of information is.  Think of it in terms of compression.  You can’t compress a file any smaller than its Shannon Entropy will allow.  Structured files have low entropy and by encoding their structure, you can compress them more.  A random string of bits in a file has maximum entropy, so you can’t compress it at all.  Shannon Entropy is a measure of how potentially useful information is.  Just like Thermodynamic Entropy is a measure of potential energy.</p>
<p>So there’s already a known equivalence between the physical and informational.  Then if you buy into Carroll’s hypothesis and the MWI, it looks like the Metaverse is trying to compute every possible outcome.  In fact, it may compute every possible outcome more than once.  An infinite number of times if it runs an infinite amount of time.  After it runs long enough, someone who could observe the whole Metaverse could actually calculate very precise odds of <strong>any outcome given any condition</strong>.  You’d be statistically omnipotent.</p>
<p>Never bet against a statistically omnipotent being.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3125'>Buy Nasonex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3020'>Buy Lipitor Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2865'>Buy Misoprostol Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=766'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/?p=5892'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://lesstroud.ca/?p=1752'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://pixelsatanexhibition.com/?p=29298'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.myminnesotaorchestra.org/etour2009/?p=1261'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2907'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3409'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cotswoldsculture.com/?p=950'>Purchase Wellbutrin SR online no prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6198'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>. <a href='http://www.jasonunger.com/?p=726'>Where can i find Wellbutrin SR online</a>. <a href='http://elementalmotionmedia.com/?p=1793'>Wellbutrin SR from canadian pharmacy</a>. <a href='http://polymerstudios.com/?p=733'>Buy Wellbutrin SR online cod</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes? </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement &#8212; spooky action at a distance &#8212; between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.</p>
<p>We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the &#8220;ghost in the machine&#8221; of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring.  Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don&#8217;t.  Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/31/the-pattern/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Soma Online Without Prescription'>Buy Soma Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Daniel asks, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/"> Does the Mind Influence Physical Processes. </a></p>
<p>Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e, <b>where can i buy cheapest Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Online buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>, set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e, <b>buy Acomplia online cod</b>.  <b>Buy Acomplia from mexico</b>, goals are achieved).</p>
<p>This is a form of entanglement -- spooky action at a distance -- between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), <b>where can i order Acomplia without prescription</b>, <b>Purchase Acomplia online</b>, but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky, <b>buy Acomplia without a prescription</b>.  On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it, <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Acomplia online</b>, We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the "ghost in the machine" of consciousness.  But this could be just a red herring, <b>buy Acomplia in canada</b>.  <b>Online buying Acomplia</b>, Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don't, <b>buy no prescription Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense -- and so are biological, chemical, <b>rx free Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia no prescription</b>, social, psychodynamic, <b>buy generic Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia for sale</b>, etc.  <b>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</b>, Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety.  Chemically, <b>buy cheapest Acomplia</b>, <b>Buy Acomplia online no prescription</b>, there are bonds.  Biologically there is autopoiesis and function, <b>Acomplia from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Order Acomplia no prescription</b>, Psychodynamically, there is empathy, <b>order Acomplia online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Acomplia pharmacy</b>, Socially, there is community, <b>where can i buy Acomplia online</b>.  <b>Purchase Acomplia online no prescription</b>, And so on.</p>
<p>In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, <b>order Acomplia</b>, <b>Acomplia over the counter</b>, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein's advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler, <b>order Acomplia from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Acomplia price</b>,  What if more than one -- maybe even all. -- realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about..., <b>Acomplia samples</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Acomplia no rx</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2960'>Buy Ultram Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3044'>Buy Neurontin Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://blog.noelmarie.com/?p=2538'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://aia-arizona.org/?p=3184'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.telaveo.com/?p=5293'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.narragansettbeer.com/?p=6958'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.cloudsounds.co.uk/?p=734'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://levronereport.com/?p=3239'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.jewishweddingnetwork.com/?p=3835'>Buy Acomplia Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=751'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1648'>Rx free Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6484'>Where can i order Acomplia without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1170'>Buy generic Acomplia</a>. <a href='http://chappyshowcase.com/?p=305'>Acomplia price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/22/entanglement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>danielhorowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [vimeo]http://vimeo.com/4359545[/vimeo]</p>
<p><a title="Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" href="http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/" target="_blank">Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research</a></p>
<p><a title="Global Consciousness Project" href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" target="_blank">Global Consciousness Project</a> <b>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</b>, .  <b>Where can i order Zyban without prescription</b>.  <b>Where can i find Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban samples</b>.  <b>Rx free Zyban</b>.  <b>Order Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Online buying Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban in canada</b>.  <b>Zyban over the counter</b>.  <b>Order Zyban online c.o.d</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Zyban online</b>.  <b>Order Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy generic Zyban</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Zyban online</b>.  <b>Zyban from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban from mexico</b>.  <b>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban online no prescription</b>.  <b>Purchase Zyban online</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban no prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Zyban without a prescription</b>.  <b>Zyban pharmacy</b>.  <b>Zyban price</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Zyban</b>.  <b>Zyban for sale</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Zyban online</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2906'>Buy Prevacid Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3096'>Buy Nolvadex Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3040'>Buy Zithromax Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1161'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.travelvivi.com/?p=2783'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://thefabempire.com/?p=28285'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://freshout.us/?p=1338'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.ylse.net/?p=2977'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://blog.soulclap.us/?p=974'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.blades.com/?p=3239'>Buy Zyban Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1777'>Zyban for sale</a>. <a href='http://thedanzatap.com/?p=15822'>Australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</a>. <a href='http://www.kingnare.com/auzn/?p=693'>Buy cheap Zyban no rx</a>. <a href='http://www.screentours.com/blog/?p=303'>Online buying Zyban</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=587'>Order Zyban online c.o.d</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/04/08/does-the-mind-influence-physical-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autocatalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-linearity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarcity / Abundance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Fullfilling Prophecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today &#8212; adjacent to the present moment &#8212; that&#8217;s the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow&#8217;s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it&#8217;s not symmetric and it&#8217;s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible,&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Process'>The Process</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Secret'>The Secret</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Coherence'>Coherence</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Stuart Kauffman has a concept called the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/01/emergence_into_the_adjacent_po_2.html">Adjacent Possible</a> <b>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</b>, which I find incredibly useful in understanding the world.  Simply put, if you think of the space of possibilities from the present moment forward and just concentrate on those that are achievable today -- adjacent to the present moment -- that's the Adjacent Possible.</p>
<p>What's interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow's Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it's not symmetric and it's nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, <b>buy Penisole online no prescription</b>, <b>Penisole for sale</b>, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, <b>order Penisole no prescription</b>, <b>Rx free Penisole</b>, social and otherwise.</p>
<p>Due to our evolutionary heritage, <b>online buy Penisole without a prescription</b>, <b>Order Penisole online c.o.d</b>, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/10/overcoming-bias/">bias</a> or an actual state of affairs, <b>australia, uk, us, usa, canada, mexico, india, craiglist, ebay</b>, <b>Purchase Penisole online</b>, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/11/02/the-secret/">we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting</a>, <b>buy generic Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy no prescription Penisole online</b>, Here's how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:</p>
<p><a href="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2897" title="adjacent possible" src="http://emergentfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/adjacent-possible.jpeg" alt="" width="783" height="470" /></a></p>
<p><img src="file:///Users/admin/Library/Application%20Support/Evernote/data/51783/content/p2039/81d6bbbd93694cfaa290954024526d13.jpeg" alt="" />, <b>Penisole price</b>.  <b>Order Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole online cod</b>.  <b>Where can i buy cheapest Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole samples</b>.  <b>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole from mexico</b>.  <b>Penisole from canadian pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy cheapest Penisole</b>.  <b>Buy cheap Penisole no rx</b>.  <b>Where can i find Penisole online</b>.  <b>Purchase Penisole online no prescription</b>.  <b>Penisole pharmacy</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole in canada</b>.  <b>Order Penisole from mexican pharmacy</b>.  <b>Online buying Penisole</b>.  <b>Where can i buy Penisole online</b>.  <b>Penisole over the counter</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole without a prescription</b>.  <b>Buy Penisole no prescription</b>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Similar posts:</b> <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=2840'>Buy Aricept Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3120'>Buy Lasix Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://emergentfool.com/?p=3113'>Buy Accutane Online Without Prescription</a>.<br />
<b>Trackbacks from:</b> <a href='http://www.annadavid.com/annalytical/?p=1108'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://prankpatrol.abc.net.au/?p=1685'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/?p=466'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.access-investment-property.com/?p=6163'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.astheworldspins.com/?p=852'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.katetoon.com/?p=1447'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.thebasics.com.au/?p=708'>Buy Penisole Online Without Prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.outrageousfortune.co.nz/?p=3846'>Buy Penisole online cod</a>. <a href='http://localonlinenews.tv/?p=1548'>Online buy Penisole without a prescription</a>. <a href='http://roachpost.com/?p=1470'>Where can i order Penisole without prescription</a>. <a href='http://www.poorlittlerichgirls.com/?p=6392'>Purchase Penisole online</a>. <a href='http://www.ivanino-blago.com/?p=1064'>Penisole price</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/03/11/the-adjacent-possible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Process</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnectedness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limits of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symmetry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There&#8217;s just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There&#8217;s no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There&#8217;s no structure whatsoever, and nothing &#8220;in&#8221; any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it&#8217;s not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let&#8217;s imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.</p>
<p>Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there&#8217;s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It&#8217;s like a computer program, but it&#8217;s infinitely complex.  Let&#8217;s call it The Process.</p>
<p>If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/26/why-falsifiability-is-insufficient-for-scientific-reasoning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription'>Buy Cymbalta Online Without Prescription</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/04/08/notes-from-ted/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Notes from TED'>Notes from TED</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2010/08/18/the-universe-is-a-giant-computation-engine/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription'>Buy Wellbutrin SR Online Without Prescription</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">multiverse</a>, infinitely infinite.  There's just infinity.  Or if you prefer, nothing.   There's no space, no time, no matter, no energy.  There's no structure whatsoever, and nothing "in" any of the universes that make up the multiverse.  it's not even clear whether these individual universes are separate from one another or the same.  But since our minds seem finite and we have to start somewhere, let's imagine them as separate: an infinite collection of universes with nothing in them, no dimension, and no relationship between them.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there's no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It's like a computer program, but it's infinitely complex.  Let's call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an "in group" (all those that are picked) and an "out group" (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of "in-ness" or "out-ness", and between the two groups there's the relationship of "different".

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it's also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a "sub" of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal" target="_blank">fractal</a>.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" target="_blank">turtles all the way down</a>, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/10/asymmetry-is-the-root-of-all-value/">asymmetry</a> that wasn't distinguishable before.  For any network <strong>N</strong>, if you choose a subnetwork, <strong>n</strong>, then <strong>N</strong> "contains" <strong>n</strong> but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, <strong>N --&gt; n</strong>.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that's okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we're just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There's lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it's starting to get interesting here, so let's continue....

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let's call this structure, <em>Time</em>, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I'll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let's start using the words <em>network</em>, <em>system</em>, <em>particle</em>, <em>entity</em>, <em>agent</em> and <em>universe</em> interchangeably, so we can say things like "time network", "temporal system", "particles over time", and "A causes B" to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I'm jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that's my intent.  Hopefully you'll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a <em>universe</em> or a <em>multiverse</em>.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you'll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let's refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the <em>known universe</em> instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial -- remember it's not <em>space</em> and <em>time</em> but rather the <em>spacetime continuum</em>.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore -- also thanks to Einstein -- it consists of energy.  <em>Time</em>, <em>space</em>, <em>matter</em> and <em>energy</em> here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven't really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it's really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn't really matter what I'm saying, what you're hearing, or whether any of this is "true".  I'm just telling you a story, and hopefully it's amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere "out there" there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn't going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it's still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let's come back to the known universe and the "knowable" universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, "relativistic but not classical or quantum realms", or "closed systems but not open systems."  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let's just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word "law" and instead replace it with the word "principle" to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that's what's happened to every "law" ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it....)

Coming back to principles, there's one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" target="_blank">Anthropic Principle</a>, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn't be "here" and able to "notice" anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That's a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It's the same kind of argument as for why we haven't been contacted by aliens yet: there's a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we'll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It's also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it's really useful.  It has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes_theory" target="_blank">same logical structure as Darwinian evolution</a> and other "emergent" phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2007/12/31/coherence/">Coherence</a>.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it's fun to think of it as "like attracts like".  But we know that really it's just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it's a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence" target="_blank">quantum coherence</a>, if you like.

Now let's say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we'll say Gravity.  Isn't it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let's talk about the <a href="http://emergentfool.com/category/cooperation/">Cooperation</a> of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We've all heard about the "law of attraction" from The Secret, isn't it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here's a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn't change anything I've said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So "somewhere" in the infinite randomness, The Process "produces" the structure I've been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we're anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2010/02/24/the-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inoculating Against the Anti-Vaccine Meme</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asymmetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don&#8217;t pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you&#8217;d rather not do it yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine&#8217;s less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you&#8217;re wrong?  The marketplace&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/03/game-theory-and-military-planning/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Game Theory and Military Planning'>Game Theory and Military Planning</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2007/07/26/dangerous-ideas/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Dangerous Ideas'>Dangerous Ideas</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The debate over vaccination is raging (c.f. <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1" target="_blank">Wired article</a>) and it smacks of one of those conundrums that is unlikely to get resolved by scientific inquiry.  I offer the following hypothesis and a way out of the dilemma.
<blockquote><strong>Hypothesis</strong>: Vaccination is something that is good at the societal level but bad at the individual level.  That is, it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons</a>.  You want all your neighbors to get vaccinated so they don't pass on the germs to you, but there is enough risk from the vaccination process (at least for certain ones) that you'd rather not do it yourself.</blockquote>
The mathematics of the commons tragedies suggests that there are two ways out.   One is to change the payout/incentive structure, in other words, make the vaccine's less risky to the individual, or at least change the <em>perception</em> of the individual risk (as the Wired article suggests).  The problem with manipulating perception is, what if you're wrong?  The marketplace of ideas can be efficient, crowd wisdom can be greater than individual understanding.  And even in the cases it's not, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

The good news is there's another way out.  Just as with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>, you can iterate.

What would this mean in the case of vaccines?  It would mean that as a society we must recognize that if we "play the game" enough times we will find that not vaccinating as a whole leads to poorer outcomes to the the individual.  That means YOU.  And thus it becomes recognized that taking the "I'm not going to vaccinate" stance is immoral, or at least unacceptable.  Sure there will be "defectors", just as there are people who don't vote.  But those who don't vaccinate -- just like those who don't vote -- do so quietly.  They don't shout it from the rooftops or let their neighbors know.  And sometimes they even lie and say that they did vote when they really didn't....

The level of defection is inversely proportional to the level of transparency -- the less your neighbor can find out about your behavior, the more likely you are to defect.  Thus, we solve the dilemma by <strong>making public the record of everyone who vaccinates, along with their address</strong>.  Those not on the record are assumed to be defectors.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/26/inoculating-against-the-anti-vaccine-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Link Between Food &amp; Healthcare Reform</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan&#8217;s NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one&#8217;s health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition'>If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also must-read this Sunday is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Michael Pollan's NY Times Op-Ed</a> piece from Wednesday.  Nice cap to my week of ranting on the dismantling of rationality when it comes to lifestyle choices that directly impact one's health, <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/08/the-problem-with-processed-foods/">here</a> and <a href="http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/13/the-link-between-food-healthcare-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad people do bad things&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.</p>
<p>What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he&#8217;d been unsuccessful on his own).</p>
<p>While it seems on the surface that &#8220;bad people do bad things&#8221; &#8212; i.e. that&#8217;s how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/06/04/ted-talk-susan-blackmore/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: TED Talk: Susan Blackmore'>TED Talk: Susan Blackmore</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/08/the-vanguard-of-science-bonnie-bassler/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler'>The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In listening to <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088  " target="_blank">this account</a> of Hemant Lakhani, convicted in 2005 of illegal arms dealing, I was reminded of another This American Life <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=381" target="_blank">episode about Brandon Darby</a>.  Underlying both stories are accounts of seemingly incompetent, misguided, would-be bad guys who were actualized on a path of evildoing by law-enforcement agents during sting operations.

What I found most interesting was the quote in the title of this post, said by the prosecutor in the Lakhani case.  This was his justification for why it was okay to have the U.S. military supply Lakhani the weapon that he was convicted of illegally dealing.  (If you listen to the story you will learn that Lakhani had been making promises to the informant of being able to procure weapons for a long time and he'd been unsuccessful on his own).

While it seems on the surface that "bad people do bad things" -- i.e. that's how bad things get done, they require a bad person to do them -- renowned Stanford psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, has a different theory, which he uses to describe what happened in Abu Ghraib:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg[/youtube]]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/10/bad-people-do-bad-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rafe Issues Challenge to Statin Industry</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven&#8217;t been able to find any real evidence that they do.</p>
<p>If you ask a cardiologist it&#8217;s clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that&#8217;s not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&#38;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If&#8230;</p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/10/something-fishy-about-mercury/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Something Fishy About Mercury'>Something Fishy About Mercury</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Should You Use Sunscreen?'>Should You Use Sunscreen?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I have been trying to get the straight scoop on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin" target="_blank">statins</a> actually decrease mortality and morbidity in a significant way and I haven't been able to find any real evidence that they do.

If you ask a cardiologist it's clear that they believe unequivocally that statins work, mostly because they see what statins to do blood cholesterol levels.  But remember, cholesterol numbers in and of themselves do not matter.  They are a proxy variable for cardiovascular health.  Plaque buildup matters.  At one time blood cholesterol numbers were the only non-invasive indicator we had of plaque buildup, but that's not true anymore.  However, drug companies are highly incentivized to prove that statins improve health.  So they fund lots of studies.

Notwithstanding the systemic bias when there are profit motives and publication motives, we can turn to these studies and see if statins actually work.  The best way to remove bias is to look at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567909?ordinalpos=4&amp;itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  " target="_blank">large-scale meta-analyses, like this one</a>.  If you simply read the conclusion you see "statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."  However, if you decode the numbers you see that "significant" means that, for example, at age 65 you improve your changes of dying within the next four years from 8% down to 7% [hat tip to Kevin for helping me decode the numbers].  Now, is that <strong>really</strong> significant?

If my cardiologist told me I needed to take statins and I said "prove it" and he produced that study above, I would absolutely not take them.  For one, there are known deleterious side effects (which could possibly account for the small overall mortality risk decrease).  For another, the average length of followup was only 4 years, whereas I am told that I am to take these drugs indefinitely.  How do I know that the long-term side-effects won't overrun the long-term benefits sometime after the four year mark and thus <strong>increase</strong> my overall mortality risk?

On the other hand, some small scale studies done by well-respected physicians indicates that you can reverse even advanced heart disease, as measured by the number of cardiac events (i.e. what really matters) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FIRLLcLjyC8C&amp;pg=PA125&amp;dq=china+study+esselstyn#v=onepage&amp;q=china%20study%20esselstyn&amp;f=false  " target="_blank">through diet and exercise alone</a>.

You can object all you want to the statistical significance of small scale studies.  The real issue is, given the evidence, what would YOU do if you were diagnosed with heart disease or were at high risk of heart disease as measured by your cholesterol numbers?

Since I'm not such a candidate, I made a friendly wager with a good friend of mine about a year ago who is.  He has been under a physician's care for years because he has abnormally bad cholesterol numbers, and it runs in his family.  His doctors told him that he couldn't control it with diet and that statins are the only way to go.  Problem is, he has a hard time tolerating statins (i.e. deleterious side effects).  Despite being on various statins, his numbers had barely budged.  The wager was designed to test the hypothesis that through dietary changes and exercise he could improve his numbers, a proposition that he claimed was impossible because he'd changed his diet in the past but it didn't work.  My claim was that he was misinformed about what he was supposed to be eating and what he was not.  He got some advice from another friend who knows the literature.  Here is the result:
<blockquote>Been on about an 80%ish vegan diet, taking 2 meds (that I've taken before to little effect) that are pretty mild as far as lipid management,my cholesterol on a recent test came back lower than it's ever been:

total chol = 165, hdl = 40, ldl = 110, triglyc = 80

my LDL level was 270 less than a year ago, and my total chol was 350.

Still kind of stunned, and I expect the results are at least somewhat anomalous, but even if they prove to be outliers to my normalized levels it will represent a bigger improvement than I could have ever had taking super-dosage statins.</blockquote>
Here's my challenge to the medical establishment: produce a meta-analysis of statins that shows absolute age-adjusted mortality rate decrease of greater than 10% over 20 years.*

In the mean time, I'll be eating healthy, exercising regularly, and making money from people who want to take the same bet as my friend.

<hr /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">
* Statins were commercially available in the U.S. starting in 1987, so the underlying data should exist.  And remember, going from 8% to 7% is a 12.5% relative decrease but only a 1% absolute decrease.  Since we care about human lives, not publishable results, isn't it time that we start demanding absolute improvement from the medical community?
</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/09/rafe-issues-challenge-to-statin-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Use Sunscreen?</title>
		<link>http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/</link>
		<comments>http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rafe Furst</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epidemiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invisible Etiology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentfool.com/?p=2043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This is a very complex topic, as the following talk suggests:</p>
<p>The main takeaways from this that I got are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Cancers for which <strong>sunlight deficit</strong> is a risk factor are orders of magnitude more prevalent than the few for which overexposure is a risk factor.</li>
<li>People who are using sunscreen regularly are precisely the ones who shouldn&#8217;t be.</li>
<li>We should be very careful and sparing about recommending sunscreen usage or sun avoidance, and always temper such advice with the tradeoffs of <strong>not getting enough sunlight</strong>.</li>
</ol>
<p>As someone who wonders on a regular basis whether the public has the right information to make informed decisions about health-related tradeoffs, I am curious&#8230; does the above strike you as surprising?  What do you currently do regarding sun exposure, and are you likely to change anything based on the above?  What do you think the overall message that reaches the masses is regarding sun exposure?</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/04/invisible-etiology/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Invisible Etiology'>Invisible Etiology</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol></p>


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2009/02/27/crohns-disease/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Crohn&#039;s Disease'>Crohn&#039;s Disease</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/04/invisible-etiology/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Invisible Etiology'>Invisible Etiology</a></li>
<li><a href='http://emergentfool.com/2008/11/20/the-conflict-between-complex-systems-and-reductionism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism'>The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[This is a very complex topic, as the following talk suggests:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXtGHSt-5o&amp;feature=related [/youtube]

The main takeaways from this that I got are:
<ol>
	<li>Cancers for which <strong>sunlight deficit</strong> is a risk factor are orders of magnitude more prevalent than the few for which overexposure is a risk factor.</li>
	<li>People who are using sunscreen regularly are precisely the ones who shouldn't be.</li>
	<li>We should be very careful and sparing about recommending sunscreen usage or sun avoidance, and always temper such advice with the tradeoffs of <strong>not getting enough sunlight</strong>.</li>
</ol>
As someone who wonders on a regular basis whether the public has the right information to make informed decisions about health-related tradeoffs, I am curious... does the above strike you as surprising?  What do you currently do regarding sun exposure, and are you likely to change anything based on the above?  What do you think the overall message that reaches the masses is regarding sun exposure?]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://emergentfool.com/2009/08/25/should-you-use-sunscreen/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
