|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Oct 4, 2007 11:25
mimus hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Ma2dnaQ7TJBivpjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>> Since I haven't read any Chrichton since _The Andromeda Strain_ came
>> out, could you provide a precis of the "zoos are impossible" argument?
>
> Yes, please . . . .
>
Since it made no sense it's hard to make a precis of it. Basically, chaos
theory shows that what goes on in a zoo could never be precisely predicted,
so sooner or later the whole thing must break down.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Oct 4, 2007 11:37
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:25:18 +0000, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> mimus hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Ma2dnaQ7TJBivpjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
> >>> Since I haven't read any Chrichton since _The Andromeda Strain_ came
>>> out, could you provide a precis of the "zoos are impossible" argument?
>>
>> Yes, please . . . .
>
> Since it made no sense it's hard to make a precis of it. Basically, chaos
> theory shows that what goes on in a zoo could never be precisely predicted,
> so sooner or later the whole thing must break down.
Wouldn't that apply to Life Itself?
Besides, predictability is neither identical nor equivalent to function
(unless of course you're talking about a prediction-system), otherwise no
"chaotic" system (a non-linear system which operates in such a way that
even very small errors in measurement lead very quickly to gruesome errors
in prediction) could exist . . . .
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Oct 4, 2007 12:46
On Oct 4, 11:37 am, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:25:18 +0000, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> mimus hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:Ma2dnaQ7TJBivpjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:>
>>>> Since I haven't read any Chrichton since _The Andromeda Strain_ came
>>>> out, could you provide a precis of the "zoos are impossible" argument?
>
>>> Yes, please . . . .
>
>> Since it made no sense it's hard to make a precis of it. Basically, chaos
>> theory shows that what goes on in a zoo could never be precisely predicted,
>> so sooner or later the whole thing must break down.
>
> Wouldn't that apply to Life Itself?
>
> Besides, predictability is neither identical nor equivalent to function
> (unless of course you're talking about a prediction-system), otherwise no
> "chaotic" system (a non-linear system which operates in such a way that
> even very small errors in measurement lead very quickly to gruesome errors ...
|
| Show full article (5.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Joe PfeifferJoe Pfeiffer Date: Oct 4, 2007 13:58
Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> writes:
> mimus hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Ma2dnaQ7TJBivpjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
> >>> Since I haven't read any Chrichton since _The Andromeda Strain_ came
>>> out, could you provide a precis of the "zoos are impossible" argument?
>>
>> Yes, please . . . .
>>
> Since it made no sense it's hard to make a precis of it. Basically, chaos
> theory shows that what goes on in a zoo could never be precisely predicted,
> so sooner or later the whole thing must break down.
I think the argument might better be summarized as "anything people do
involving technology will inevitably lead to a disaster, using
whatever handwaving and technobabble is necessary."
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Dorothy J HeydtDorothy J Heydt Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:57
>Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> writes:
>>> mimus hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:Ma2dnaQ7TJBivpjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>> >>>> Since I haven't read any Chrichton since _The Andromeda Strain_ came
>>>> out, could you provide a precis of the "zoos are impossible" argument?
>>>
>>> Yes, please . . . .
>>>
>> Since it made no sense it's hard to make a precis of it. Basically, chaos
>> theory shows that what goes on in a zoo could never be precisely predicted,
>> so sooner or later the whole thing must break down.
>
>I think the argument might better be summarized as "anything people do
>involving technology will inevitably lead to a disaster, using
>whatever...
|
| Show full article (0.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Oct 4, 2007 15:23
>>I think the argument might better be summarized as "anything people do
>>involving technology will inevitably lead to a disaster, using
>>whatever handwaving and technobabble is necessary."
>
> Yup; that's Crichton.
>
You need to add "except for global warming".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dorothy J HeydtDorothy J Heydt Date: Oct 4, 2007 15:44
In article ,
Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> wrote:>>>I think the argument might better be summarized as "anything people do
>>>involving technology will inevitably lead to a disaster, using
>>>whatever handwaving and technobabble is necessary."
>>
>> Yup; that's Crichton.
>>
>
>You need to add "except for global warming".
Has Crichton done global warming yet?
|
| Show full article (1.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert CarnegieRobert Carnegie Date: Oct 4, 2007 16:44
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> writes:
>>>>> mimus hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:Ma2dnaQ7TJBivpjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>> Since I haven't read any Chrichton since _The Andromeda Strain_ came
>>>>> out, could you provide a precis of the "zoos are impossible" argument?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, please . . . .
>>>>
>>> Since it made no sense it's hard to make a precis of it. Basically, chaos
>>> theory shows that what goes on in a zoo could never be precisely predicted,
>>> so sooner or later the whole thing must break down.
>>
>>I think the argument might better be summarized as "anything people do
>>involving technology will inevitably lead to a disaster, using
>>whatever handwaving and technobabble is necessary." ...
|
| Show full article (1.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Oct 5, 2007 11:49
On Oct 4, 5:44 pm, djhe...@ kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote: > In article ,
> Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>I think the argument might better be summarized as "anything people do
>>>>involving technology will inevitably lead to a disaster, using
>>>>whatever handwaving and technobabble is necessary."
>
>>> Yup; that's Crichton.
>
>>You need to add "except for global warming".
>
> Has Crichton done global warming yet?
>
> In any case one wouldn't think it would be quite his venue. His
> button, which he learned to push long ago and has been pushing
> ever since with considerable popular and financial success, is
> the one that says anything the typical American moviegoer (or, to ...
|
| Show full article (2.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
