Comments on: . . . and I feel fine http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/_and_i_feel_fin.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Another Physicst Lawyer http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/_and_i_feel_fin.html/comment-page-1#comment-49517 Another Physicst Lawyer Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:09:15 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/and-i-feel-fine.html#comment-49517 One proposal (don't remember whose) to avoid the problem of trying to resolve infinite harm vs. infinitesimal likelihood of harm is to treat likelihoods of catastrophic events over which we have no control as a baseline. In other words, we compute some odds of "foreseeable" catastrophic events (say, a meteor impacting the Earth, which can be estimated somewhat easily) to establish a baseline probability, p. Then, if a potentially catastrophic man-made event is expected to occur with probability less than or equal to p, then that risk is treated as insignificant. One proposal (don’t remember whose) to avoid the problem of trying to resolve infinite harm vs. infinitesimal likelihood of harm is to treat likelihoods of catastrophic events over which we have no control as a baseline.

In other words, we compute some odds of “foreseeable” catastrophic events (say, a meteor impacting the Earth, which can be estimated somewhat easily) to establish a baseline probability, p. Then, if a potentially catastrophic man-made event is expected to occur with probability less than or equal to p, then that risk is treated as insignificant.

]]> By: Keri Brooks http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/_and_i_feel_fin.html/comment-page-1#comment-49516 Keri Brooks Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:10:15 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/and-i-feel-fine.html#comment-49516 Something about the incongruity of talking about the total destruction of the universe in such a calm, rational manner struck me as humorous. Thanks for this thought-provoking laugh! I especially liked your comment about the evidence being destroyed. Something about the incongruity of talking about the total destruction of the universe in such a calm, rational manner struck me as humorous. Thanks for this thought-provoking laugh! I especially liked your comment about the evidence being destroyed.

]]> By: PhysicsLaw http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/_and_i_feel_fin.html/comment-page-1#comment-49515 PhysicsLaw Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:56:35 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/and-i-feel-fine.html#comment-49515 As a Physicist-soon-to-be-lawyer, I'd toss out these claims. Unfortunately, under Quantum Theory, just about anything is possible. The earth could appear next to the sun and get destroyed, although there is a near infinitesmal chance of this occuring (you'd have to see perhaps a googleplex of universes for the entire length of their existence to see a single planet tunneling through that much space). Anyway, I 1. doubt that a strangelet will be created, 2. even if it is created, it will exist for so short a period of time it will be unable to interact with any particles, let alone enough particles to turn the earth into strange matter, 3. the "black hole" is not black, as its gravitational field is not strong enough to pull in a single Hydrogen atom, and hence you end up with a lot of "bent space-time" in a tiny space, which ends up not making that much of a difference - if it can't interact with normal matter, eg, pull things into it via its gravitational field, it can't expand. Further, going "into it" won't stop you from leaving as a normal black hole, because there isn't this massive amount of gravitational force pulling you towards it. A more accurate description would be the creation of a naked singularity for a very very brief period of time, which might allow us, one day, to make wormholes/time machines. 4. Particle accelerators are a WASTE OF MONEY! At some point, those crazies making computer processors will figure out that they need to use a beam of protons/other particles to cut their silicon/other semi-conducting substrate, so that private industry will start building particle accelerators. 5. This post makes no sense, as I haven't slept in days As a Physicist-soon-to-be-lawyer, I’d toss out these claims. Unfortunately, under Quantum Theory, just about anything is possible. The earth could appear next to the sun and get destroyed, although there is a near infinitesmal chance of this occuring (you’d have to see perhaps a googleplex of universes for the entire length of their existence to see a single planet tunneling through that much space).

Anyway, I

1. doubt that a strangelet will be created,

2. even if it is created, it will exist for so short a period of time it will be unable to interact with any particles, let alone enough particles to turn the earth into strange matter,

3. the “black hole” is not black, as its gravitational field is not strong enough to pull in a single Hydrogen atom, and hence you end up with a lot of “bent space-time” in a tiny space, which ends up not making that much of a difference – if it can’t interact with normal matter, eg, pull things into it via its gravitational field, it can’t expand. Further, going “into it” won’t stop you from leaving as a normal black hole, because there isn’t this massive amount of gravitational force pulling you towards it. A more accurate description would be the creation of a naked singularity for a very very brief period of time, which might allow us, one day, to make wormholes/time machines.

4. Particle accelerators are a WASTE OF MONEY! At some point, those crazies making computer processors will figure out that they need to use a beam of protons/other particles to cut their silicon/other semi-conducting substrate, so that private industry will start building particle accelerators.

5. This post makes no sense, as I haven’t slept in days

]]> By: reader http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/_and_i_feel_fin.html/comment-page-1#comment-49514 reader Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:04:59 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/and-i-feel-fine.html#comment-49514 No standing - injury is not particularized. No standing – injury is not particularized.

]]> By: John Armstrong http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/_and_i_feel_fin.html/comment-page-1#comment-49513 John Armstrong Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:22:45 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/and-i-feel-fine.html#comment-49513 <blockquote>P may be low, but L is really, really high.</blockquote> This is the problem that innumeracy raises. P is not just "low". If we're putting L at "really, really high" then P would be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really low (modulo a few "really"s). It's winning the powerball every day for a month low. It's just not going to happen.

P may be low, but L is really, really high.

This is the problem that innumeracy raises. P is not just “low”. If we’re putting L at “really, really high” then P would be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really low (modulo a few “really”s). It’s winning the powerball every day for a month low. It’s just not going to happen.

]]>