“Travelling Back In Time ” Closer To Reality ? By Lee Billing

What would happen to you if you went back in time and killed your grandfather? A model using photons reveals that quantum mechanics can solve the quandary—and even foil quantum cryptography

Recently Ralph and his PhD student Martin Ringbauer led a team that experimentally simulated Deutsch’s model of CTCs( Closed Time like Curve)  for the very first time, testing and confirming many aspects of the two-decades-old theory. Their findings are published in Nature Communications. Much of their simulation revolved around investigating how Deutsch’s model deals with the “grandfather paradox,” a hypothetical scenario in which someone uses a CTC to travel back through time to murder her own grandfather, thus preventing her own later birth. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

Deutsch’s quantum solution to the grandfather paradox works something like this:

Instead of a human being traversing a CTC to kill her ancestor, imagine that a fundamental particle goes back in time to flip a switch on the particle-generating machine that created it. If the particle flips the switch, the machine emits a particle—the particle—back into the CTC; if the switch isn’t flipped, the machine emits nothing. In this scenario there is no a priori deterministic certainty to the particle’s emission, only a distribution of probabilities. Deutsch’s insight was to postulate self-consistency in the quantum realm, to insist that any particle entering one end of a CTC must emerge at the other end with identical properties. Therefore, a particle emitted by the machine with a probability of one half would enter the CTC and come out the other end to flip the switch with a probability of one half, imbuing itself at birth with a probability of one half of going back to flip the switch. If the particle were a person, she would be born with a one-half probability of killing her grandfather, giving her grandfather a one-half probability of escaping death at her hands—good enough in probabilistic terms to close the causative loop and escape the paradox. Strange though it may be, this solution is in keeping with the known laws of quantum mechanics. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/

Posted By F. Sheikh

 

Subject: Setting rivers free: As dams are torn down, nature is quickly recovering – CSMonitor.com||

The article in the Christian Science Monitor carries a critical message we humans would do well to remember. Mother nature is far more adaptable than we think. It is a good lesson for people who deny climate change.  When humans improve their behavior, nature rewards and we are all better for it.

Nasik Elahi

Setting rivers free: As dams are torn down, nature is quickly recovering –
CSMonitor.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0803/Setting-rivers-free-As-dams-are-torn-down-nature-is-quickly-recovering#.U-ex2XpqJlQ.email

 

 

“The De-Darwinizing of Cultural Change” By Daniel C. Dennett

Interesting talk on how much Darwinian evolution plays its part in our lives and when De-Darwinism starts. (Posted By F. Sheikh )

You can’t explain human competence all in terms of genetic evolution. You need cultural evolution as well, and that cultural evolution is profoundly Darwinian in the early days. And as time has passed, it has become more and more non-Darwinian.

I have an example that I use when I’m writing about this, well, two examples: One is Turing’s computer. If there ever was a top-down design, that’s it. I mean, they would not have given him the money to build the Manchester Computer if he didn’t have proof of concept and drawings. This was the idea, the understanding preceding the physical reality. Just the opposite of, say, a termite colony, which is bottom-up designed, and although it’s brilliantly designed, it’s a product of little entities that are themselves non-comprehending but very competent in very limited ways.

Think for a moment about a termite colony or an ant colony—amazingly competent in many ways, we can do all sorts of things, treat the whole entity as a sort of cognitive agent and it accomplishes all sorts of quite impressive behavior. But if I ask you, “What is it like to be a termite colony?” most people would say, “It’s not like anything.” Well, now let’s look at a brain, let’s look at a human brain—100 billion neurons, roughly speaking, and each one of them is dumber than a termite and they’re all sort of semi-independent. If you stop and think about it, they’re all direct descendants of free-swimming unicellular organisms that fended for themselves for a billion years on their own. There’s a lot of competence, a lot of can-do in their background, in their ancestry. Now they’re trapped in the skull and they may well have agendas of their own; they have competences of their own, no two are alike. Now the question is, how is a brain inside a head any more integrated, any more capable of there being something that it’s like to be that than a termite colony? What can we do with our brains that the termite colony couldn’t do or maybe that many animals couldn’t do?

It seems to me that we do actually know some of the answer, and it has to do with mainly what Fiery Cushman was talking about—it’s the importance of the cultural niche and the cognitive niche, and in particular I would say you couldn’t have the cognitive niche without the cultural niche because it depends on the cultural niche.

What I’m working on these days is to try to figure out—in a very speculative way, but as anchored as I can to whatever people think they know right now about the relevant fields—how culture could prune, tame, organize, structure brains to make language possible and then to make higher cognition (than reason, and so forth) possible on top of that. If you ask the chicken-egg question—which came first—did we first get real smart so that now we could have culture? Or did we get culture and that enabled us to become smart? The answer to that is yes, it’s both, it’s a co-evolutionary process.

What particularly interests me about that is I am now thinking about culture and its role in creating the human mind as a process, which begins very Darwinian and becomes less Darwinian as time goes by. This is the de-Darwinizing of cultural change in the world.

http://edge.org/panel/daniel-c-dennett-the-de-darwinizing-of-cultural-change-headcon-13-part-x

Small Animals Live in a Slow-Motion World

Small Animals Live in a Slow-Motion World

The following article is taken from the latest issue of Scientific American

Time seems to pass more slowly for lighter animals with faster metabolisms

One “dog year” supposedly equals seven human years. But does one year feel like seven years to a dog? Evidence suggests that distinct species do indeed experience passing time on different scales. A recent study in Animal Behavior reveals that body mass and metabolic rate determine how animals of different species perceive time.

Time perception depends on how rapidly an animal’s nervous system processes sensory information. To test this ability, researchers show animals a rapidly flashing light. If the light flashes quickly enough, animals (and humans) perceive it as a solid, unblinking light. The animal’s behavior or its brain activity, as measured by electrodes, reveals the highest frequency at which each species perceives the light as flashing. Animals that can detect the blinking at higher frequencies are perceiving time at a finer resolution. In other words, movements and events will appear to unfold more slowly to them—think slow-motion bullet dodging in an action movie.

For further details,  please click the following hyper-link:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-live-in-a-slow-motion-world/?&WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20140714