Nobel Prize In Death

[YoungWillz 21,047]

Oliver Smithies, Medicine, 2007, dead at 91. http://uncnews.unc.edu/2017/01/11/oliver-smithies-carolinas-first-nobel-laureate-passes-away-91/

 

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Smithies

[YoungWillz 21,047]

Oliver Smithies, Medicine, 2007, dead at 91. http://uncnews.unc.edu/2017/01/11/oliver-smithies-carolinas-first-nobel-laureate-passes-away-91/

 

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Smithies

 

Daily Mail Obit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4110982/Oliver-Smithies-2007-Nobel-Prize-winner-medicine-dies.html

[Thatcher 2,417]

Sir Peter Mansfield, Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine (2003), has died aged 83.

[time 8,602]

Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Kaci Kullman Five, dies aged 65, beast cancer.

[theoldlady 2,301]

Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Kaci Kullman Five, dies aged 65, beast cancer.

This is very sad news indeed. Hard working lady.

[Grim Up North 3,726]

Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Kaci Kullman Five, dies aged 65, beast cancer.

 

Cancer of the beast - that sounds hellish!

[Thatcher 2,417]

Kenneth Arrow, who jointly (with John Hicks) won the Nobel Prize in Economics (1972), has died aged 95.

[JiroemonKimura 95]

4 hours ago, Thatcher said:

Kenneth Arrow, who jointly (with John Hicks) won the Nobel Prize in Economics (1972), has died aged 95.

I know economists don't tend to get a lot of coverage, but I am still shocked that the only major news outlets that have reported on his death 4 hours later are NYTimes and WaPo.  For someone as notable as him, I would've expected the media to explode all around the world by now.

[CoffinLodger 1,248]

4 hours ago, Thatcher said:

Kenneth Arrow, who jointly (with John Hicks) won the Nobel Prize in Economics (1972), has died aged 95.

Only 8 of the original list of 48 still alive then. Ken Arrow was the last of the economic laureates to go

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

8 hours ago, Thatcher said:

Kenneth Arrow, who jointly (with John Hicks) won the Nobel Prize in Economics (1972), has died aged 95.

4 hours ago, JiroemonKimura said:

I know economists don't tend to get a lot of coverage, but I am still shocked that the only major news outlets that have reported on his death 4 hours later are NYTimes and WaPo.  For someone as notable as him, I would've expected the media to explode all around the world by now.

Did he ever make a good point.

 

[The Dead Cow 620]

2 hours ago, rockhopperpenguin said:

Did he ever make a good point.

Only when he was not at rest.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

2 hours ago, The Dead Cow said:

Only when he was not at rest.

Not often someone quote's Xeno's paradox; nice.

[The Dead Cow 620]

On 2/22/2017 at 14:50, rockhopperpenguin said:

Not often someone quote's XZeno's paradox; nice.

Not often someone misspells his name either...

 

Anyhow, Financial Times obit: https://www.ft.com/content/0cb9f868-f8e8-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71

 

Edit: That's for Arrow, as he's a DDP pick. There'd be no point in posting Zeno's obit, as the penguin seemed to motion for.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

2 minutes ago, The Dead Cow said:

Not often someone misspells his name either...

Anyhow, Financial Times obit: https://www.ft.com/content/0cb9f868-f8e8-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71

Disappointing, thought it was Zeno's.

[drol 11,947]

A corollary of Zeno's paradox adfirms that if you shoot an arrow it will never reach the target because it's motionless every moment you watch it (photography did not exist back then, but it's like saying it would result motionless in every moment you take a photo of the arrow).

The poor man could not imagine the arrow would become an economist and question Zeno's paradox!

Nothing to reply, @bladan?

[bladan 293]

On 2/22/2017 at 18:56, drol said:

A corollary of Zeno's paradox adfirms that if you shoot an arrow it will never reach the target because it's motionless every moment you watch it (photography did not exist back then, but it's like saying it would result motionless in every moment you take a photo of the arrow).



The poor man could not imagine the arrow would become an economist and question Zeno's paradox!



Nothing to reply, @bladan?

Nothing to reply. However, I will try. I will post something, no matter how stupid. I say that  Zeno was right. The arrow will never reach the target because it doesn't really exist. Objects that we see around us aren't really out there, and that includes our bodies. All we have actually ever had, or ever can have for certain, are experiences in the mind. All the rest is deduced – modelled. (quote: Arthur Ellison, Late Prof Emeritus of Electrical engineering, the City University, London). Stephen Hawking agrees and says that we live in a model-based reality (check out his recent book named "the Grand Design").



 



All model-based realities are simulations or virtual realities.



 



In other words, unless Hawking is 100 % mistaken, we live in a simulation. Unless our sharpest scientists are morons, it is absolutely certain that live in a simulation. It is true that we are in the Matrix. The universe is not real. Therefore our physical bodies are not real.



 



Why don't you have a look at what Sir Roger Penrose says below. He says that there are three kinds of existence: physical, mental and mathematical. The obvious implications are that the physical body is mortal. So is the mental body (often called ego, or "soul"). However, the imaginary mathematical "quantum body" is eternal, and it has no location in space or time.



 



 

 



Zeno's arrow paradox is a mathematical problem. If it is treated as a physical problem, it is easily solved. (see e.g. Zwart: About Time, a philosophical inquiry into the origin and nature of time, 1976.) However, as Penrose points out, the world of mathematics is more real than the physical world. Therefore the arrow will never reach the target. That is because the physical arrow does not exist. Only the mathematical arrow exists, and in the mathematical world motion and change do not occur.



 



Our mortal physical bodies (which do not really exist) are physical problems, which are easily solved. A piece of cake. We are nothing but advanced apes, collections of atoms obeying the laws of physics. However, our true identity is mathematical, and because mathematics is eternal, I am eternal, and so are you.



 



You are what I am forever.



 



Also this:



 



https://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-implications-quantum-mechanics-philosophy.html



 



"The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."



"This proposal makes physical reality platonic in nature,"



 



Late addition:



 



However, the universe is a real simulation, and our physical bodies are real as simulations, They are real to our minds, which are also simulations. One more thing: there is only one mathematical quantum body, and it is called the quantum world. Therefore our physical bodies have no quantum copies.



 



Zeno's arrow paradox is both a mathematical problem and a philosophical problem. If it is treated as a physical problem, it is easily solved, and the arrow reaches its target because the arrow and target are PHYSICALLY real, that is, they are real simulations. But the paradox has no mathematical or philosophical solutions. Underlying our physical reality is a mathematical and philosophical reality.

Late addition #2

As Penrose says, there are three kinds of existence: physical, mental and mathematical. Thus Zeno's arrow paradox exists both physically, mentally and mathematically. But only the physical arrow reaches its target. What happens to the mental and mathematical arrows? Nothing at all. They do not move.



 



 



 

[bladan 293]

Ok my previous post wasn't any good. However, the 1933 Nobel laureate Schrodinger, a father of quantum mechanics, a genius, believed that there is no death. In fact, if death is real, we have to deal with the mind-body problem. No one has yet been able to explain what consciousness is, what causal powers it has if any, why did evolution by natural selection produce such an useless epiphemonenalistic thing and what is the mechanism by which mind ceases to exist when the brain dies. What is more, no one has explained the über-difficult Schrodinger cat paradox, according to which all of us are simultaneously both dead and alive at this very moment, because the Schodinger wave function says so.

 

Nothing to reply, drol?

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

11 minutes ago, bladan said:

Ok my previous post wasn't any good. However, the 1933 Nobel laureate Schrodinger, a father of quantum mechanics, a genius, believed that there is no death. In fact, if death is real, we have to deal with the mind-body problem. No one has yet been able to explain what consciousness is, what causal powers it has if any, why did evolution by natural selection produce such an useless epiphemonenalistic thing and what is the mechanism by which mind ceases to exist when the brain dies. What is more, no one has explained the über-difficult Schrodinger cat paradox, according to which all of us are simultaneously both dead and alive at this very moment, because the Schodinger wave function says so.

 

Nothing to reply, drol?

Well it's all about perspective. Dick Bruna is dead because he was on Last Word. Alan Aspin is still alive because he didn't obit.

[Joey Russ 7,228]

11 minutes ago, rockhopper penguin said:

Well it's all about perspective. Dick Bruna is dead because he was on Last Word. Alan Aspin is still alive because he didn't obit.

If only Jay Clark had died, then Spade would be really happy...

[bladan 293]

6 minutes ago, rockhopper penguin said:

Well it's all about perspective. Dick Bruna is dead because he was on Last Word. Alan Aspin is still alive because he didn't obit.

From God's perspective everything is both dead and alive. According to quantum mechanical, Buddhist, Vedic and common-sense views, there is only one perspective and that is the subjective one. Or can you name someone whose perspective is objective?

[drol 11,947]

Schrodinger's original formulation is incorrect: the cat is not alive and dead, it has a mixed state in which it's alive or dead, because the superposition of physical states (decay/not decay) applies to the system, not to the cat! That means it regards the probabiity of the cat's death/life, which is superpositioned, but that does not mean life and death are present at the same time in the cat. Like many others, it's a paradox whose fame is due to an incorrect formulation.

 

My question is another.  You know the infinite monkey theorem. Well, if we take the atoms in the universe as casual letters of a computer and time as infinite, why won't we come back to life if there is a finite number of atoms? (finite number of atoms in an infinite time will clearly be put together in every possible way, which also means there will be identical configurations at some point). It's either:

 

1)Time will finish. Don't know when, but it progresses till an end (like Zsa Zsa).

2)Atoms are infinite.

 

Or both.  

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

11 minutes ago, bladan said:

From God's perspective everything is both dead and alive. According to quantum mechanical, Buddhist, Vedic and common-sense views, there is only one perspective and that is the subjective one. Or can you name someone whose perspective is objective?

Samuel Johnson.

[deadsox 894]

7 minutes ago, drol said:

Schrodinger's original formulation is incorrect: the cat is not alive and dead, it has a mixed state in which it's alive or dead, because the superposition of physical states (decay/not decay) applies to the system, not to the cat! That means it regards the probabiity of the cat's death/life, which is superpositioned, but that does not mean life and death are present at the same time in the cat. Like many others, it's a paradox whose fame is due to an incorrect formulation.

 

My question is another.  You know the infinite monkey theorem. Well, if we take the atoms in the universe as casual letters of a computer and time as infinite, why won't we come back to life if there is a finite number of atoms? (finite number of atoms in an infinite time will clearly be put together in every possible way, which also means there will be identical configurations at some point). It's either:

 

1)Time will finish. Don't know when, but it progresses till an end (like Zsa Zsa).

2)Atoms are infinite.

 

Or both.  

I don't know about cats being alive and dead, only alive or dead.  I also know, by a popular theorem that if the cat is dead and you swing it over your head, you can't avoid hitting something that is abundant (I can't swing a dead cat over my head without hitting a (take your pick).

[msc 18,473]

Deathlist Forums - come for the dead celebs, stay for the philosophy discussions...

[time 8,602]

37 minutes ago, drol said:

Schrodinger's original formulation is incorrect: the cat is not alive and dead, it has a mixed state in which it's alive or dead, because the superposition of physical states (decay/not decay) applies to the system, not to the cat! That means it regards the probabiity of the cat's death/life, which is superpositioned, but that does not mean life and death are present at the same time in the cat. Like many others, it's a paradox whose fame is due to an incorrect formulation.

 

My question is another.  You know the infinite monkey theorem. Well, if we take the atoms in the universe as casual letters of a computer and time as infinite, why won't we come back to life if there is a finite number of atoms? (finite number of atoms in an infinite time will clearly be put together in every possible way, which also means there will be identical configurations at some point). It's either:

 

1)Time will finish. Don't know when, but it progresses till an end (like Zsa Zsa).

2)Atoms are infinite.

 

Or both.  

An interesting question, the answer to which is 42.