osmie: (Default)
I've been struggling for months with an inability to view any custom ringtones on my iPhone. Despite following all the usual instructions for creating & uploading an .m4r file, and even despite being able to see a list of custom ringtones in iTunes, I've been unable to access them from my Settings/Sounds/Ringtones control panel, or from any other list on the iPhone proper.

Late last night I figured it out. Apparently iPhone custom ringtone names, unlike both music tracks and built-in ringtones, may not contain any spaces. I renamed all the ringtones with underscores instead, and they promptly all appeared the next time I synched.
osmie: (Default)
I've been struggling for months with an inability to view any custom ringtones on my iPhone. Despite following all the usual instructions for creating & uploading an .m4r file, and even despite being able to see a list of custom ringtones in iTunes, I've been unable to access them from my Settings/Sounds/Ringtones control panel, or from any other list on the iPhone proper.

Late last night I figured it out. Apparently iPhone custom ringtone names, unlike both music tracks and built-in ringtones, may not contain any spaces. I renamed all the ringtones with underscores instead, and they promptly all appeared the next time I synched.
osmie: (Default)
O my fellow IT geeks,

I need a solid piece of project management software, into which to corral the many projects under my supervision at work. Typically a power law holds: if I have N projects which would take t hours each, then Nκt is a constant for some κ ... in other words, there are a lot more smaller projects than larger ones, but they all need an appropriate level of management. I need software which can:
  • catalogue & manage spec for every project;
  • break down large projects into smaller ones;
  • indicate dependencies, e.g. we can't paint the monkey bars red until we've invented paint;
  • create Gantt charts and track deadlines; and
  • do any other really basic pieces of project management which I may have forgotten to include here.

The software doesn't need to support multiple users, since I'm going to be its only administrator for the foreseeable future.

Web-accessible is probably a good idea, but the data need to be stored locally. This is not a job for Google. In fact, the software does not necessarily have to run on a computer: I'm perfectly happy to become part of the hardware architecture. If this is the sort of task which could be more readily accomplished by a nifty paper filing system, then please point me to an instruction book!

Do you use (or write) any software you could recommend?
osmie: (Default)
O my fellow IT geeks,

I need a solid piece of project management software, into which to corral the many projects under my supervision at work. Typically a power law holds: if I have N projects which would take t hours each, then Nκt is a constant for some κ ... in other words, there are a lot more smaller projects than larger ones, but they all need an appropriate level of management. I need software which can:
  • catalogue & manage spec for every project;
  • break down large projects into smaller ones;
  • indicate dependencies, e.g. we can't paint the monkey bars red until we've invented paint;
  • create Gantt charts and track deadlines; and
  • do any other really basic pieces of project management which I may have forgotten to include here.

The software doesn't need to support multiple users, since I'm going to be its only administrator for the foreseeable future.

Web-accessible is probably a good idea, but the data need to be stored locally. This is not a job for Google. In fact, the software does not necessarily have to run on a computer: I'm perfectly happy to become part of the hardware architecture. If this is the sort of task which could be more readily accomplished by a nifty paper filing system, then please point me to an instruction book!

Do you use (or write) any software you could recommend?
osmie: (Default)
(Gosh. It seems odd to think that for two years, I had time to update this blog at least a few times each week. For many months I've been growing new habits which involve a lot less writing and a lot less public performance, and to be honest, I don't much like them. Today is probably not the day for a dramatic change -- indeed, I'm not convinced that dramatic changes in habit are ever sustainable -- but I think it may be the right time to shift slowly back the other way.)

Today I'd like to write down some iconoclastic ideas I developed, twenty years ago, about quantum physics and mortality, and which I was surprised and somewhat mindblown to see developed in Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem. (One sentence book review, which de facto cannot quote a complete sentence from page 119: I loved it, even though one scene near the climax seemed to be ripped off -- probably unconsciously, but also quite faithfully -- from Greg Egan's Quarantine.) There will be some minor spoilers to the ideas in the novel, but I promise to steer clear of the characters & plot.

So once upon a time, I began to wonder about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Hmm. I suppose this means I'm going to have to digress briefly into what quantum mechanics actually says.

Okay, I'm game. )

I'm going to repeat and paraphrase that last sentence, which is a fairly important concept called the Copenhagen Interpretation. The act of bumping two particles together creates an "event," and localizes both of them in a particular place and time. Before and after they bumped into each other, they both filled the entire universe, but bumping into each other was a specific event at a specific point in spacetime.1

The Many Worlds Interpretation is slightly weirder. What if both particles filled the entire universe, not just before and after the event, but also during the event ... but for some reason we can only see it happen in one place and time? In this interpretation, the universe is constantly splitting into an infinite number of paths, one for each place and time the event might have occurred.

When you consider how many events are constantly occurring in one cubic centimetre of air, let alone the entire universe, the number of paths quickly becomes mindboggling, and it's tempting to throw the whole many-worlds interpretation at Occam's Razor just to watch it die screaming.2 But in fact it makes the math much easier to work with, and physicists are suckers for easier math. If two equations predict the same experimental result, you can make a pretty good argument to throw the difficult math at Occam's Razor instead, and no one will be too upset. Heck, they'll even quote Copernicus vs. Ptolemy at you: "Yeah, your math is easier, but it doesn't make any sense unless the earth moves, which is so obviously ridiculous I can't believe I'm even talking to you. No way! I'll stick with my really complicated math, thanks."

I can usually get more of a handle on the multiple-universes thing by multiplying some really big numbers together. )

So once upon a time, I began to wonder how the many-worlds interpretation interacts with the idea of consciousness. And I came up with three major possibilities.

In options (1) and (2), consciousness is unique. The universe may constantly fracture into many worlds, but consciousness picks a single path through time. Since there are a lot of conscious beings out there, this raises the question of whether every consciousness picks the same path: and so option (1) constrains all conscious beings to experience the same universe, while option (2) doesn't.

In option (3), consciousness keeps on splitting just as the rest of the cosmos does, and every conscious being in the universe continues to be conscious in every universe where they exist.

Each of these three options carries with it a slightly terrifying implication. )

All of this is a sequence of speculation I first followed almost twenty years ago. The new insight which Mr. Stephenson recently brought me is a way of merging options (1) and (3).

In option (1) I identified the need for a force which operates on consciousness, and deduced that the cause of this force was outside & between cosmi. But this is a false deduction. Two electric charges can operate on each other without any charge in the space between, and two masses can interact without any intervening mass. There's no reason to invoke an external conscious entity to operate on consciousness, and in fact the math is much simpler if we don't. In short, we either become our own gods, or else we laugh at my 20-year-old self for imagining that "gods" was an appropriate term for something as simple as a universe-spanning consciousness.

Meanwhile, in option (3) I supposed that consciousness always bifurcates. But what if, instead, consciousness actually spans multiple universes? In particular, what if consciousness -- the ability to consider & decide among many possible outcomes, both in an abstract sense and in everyday life -- is the particular physical manifestation of a quantum computer? Then all our conscious minds, by definition, already span all of the universes in which we exist. It's not a matter of perceiving one particular universe among a googol of possibilities, but of perceiving all of them, and identifying as real the most common elements -- which would reinforce each other as constructive interference.

We can remain aware of a myriad (or even a googol) of possible outcomes, while concentrating our perception on the likeliest outcome. We do it all the time, like swirling red and blue watercolour paint until we get purple instead of paisley. It's pretty basic second-law-of-thermodynamics stuff. But every possible outcome is contained within one of those universes, and therefore part of our perception as quantum computers. If we collectively and intuitively choose to inhabit the universe with the greatest number of common elements -- the one at the centre of the bell curve -- then entropy itself becomes an emergent phenomenon of how consciousness progresses through multiple worlds.



1Heisenberg proved that you can't measure a particle's momentum at a specific place, and that you can't measure its energy at a specific time, but he never ruled out measuring its place at a specific time. In fact, you have to be able to measure its position in 4-dimensional spacetime for Heisenberg's equations to make any sense!
2I like to imagine Occam's Razor being wielded by Sweeney Todd.
3Except Alan Thicke, who is apparently immortal in this timeline.
osmie: (Default)
(Gosh. It seems odd to think that for two years, I had time to update this blog at least a few times each week. For many months I've been growing new habits which involve a lot less writing and a lot less public performance, and to be honest, I don't much like them. Today is probably not the day for a dramatic change -- indeed, I'm not convinced that dramatic changes in habit are ever sustainable -- but I think it may be the right time to shift slowly back the other way.)

Today I'd like to write down some iconoclastic ideas I developed, twenty years ago, about quantum physics and mortality, and which I was surprised and somewhat mindblown to see developed in Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem. (One sentence book review, which de facto cannot quote a complete sentence from page 119: I loved it, even though one scene near the climax seemed to be ripped off -- probably unconsciously, but also quite faithfully -- from Greg Egan's Quarantine.) There will be some minor spoilers to the ideas in the novel, but I promise to steer clear of the characters & plot.

So once upon a time, I began to wonder about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Hmm. I suppose this means I'm going to have to digress briefly into what quantum mechanics actually says.

Okay, I'm game. )

I'm going to repeat and paraphrase that last sentence, which is a fairly important concept called the Copenhagen Interpretation. The act of bumping two particles together creates an "event," and localizes both of them in a particular place and time. Before and after they bumped into each other, they both filled the entire universe, but bumping into each other was a specific event at a specific point in spacetime.1

The Many Worlds Interpretation is slightly weirder. What if both particles filled the entire universe, not just before and after the event, but also during the event ... but for some reason we can only see it happen in one place and time? In this interpretation, the universe is constantly splitting into an infinite number of paths, one for each place and time the event might have occurred.

When you consider how many events are constantly occurring in one cubic centimetre of air, let alone the entire universe, the number of paths quickly becomes mindboggling, and it's tempting to throw the whole many-worlds interpretation at Occam's Razor just to watch it die screaming.2 But in fact it makes the math much easier to work with, and physicists are suckers for easier math. If two equations predict the same experimental result, you can make a pretty good argument to throw the difficult math at Occam's Razor instead, and no one will be too upset. Heck, they'll even quote Copernicus vs. Ptolemy at you: "Yeah, your math is easier, but it doesn't make any sense unless the earth moves, which is so obviously ridiculous I can't believe I'm even talking to you. No way! I'll stick with my really complicated math, thanks."

I can usually get more of a handle on the multiple-universes thing by multiplying some really big numbers together. )

So once upon a time, I began to wonder how the many-worlds interpretation interacts with the idea of consciousness. And I came up with three major possibilities.

In options (1) and (2), consciousness is unique. The universe may constantly fracture into many worlds, but consciousness picks a single path through time. Since there are a lot of conscious beings out there, this raises the question of whether every consciousness picks the same path: and so option (1) constrains all conscious beings to experience the same universe, while option (2) doesn't.

In option (3), consciousness keeps on splitting just as the rest of the cosmos does, and every conscious being in the universe continues to be conscious in every universe where they exist.

Each of these three options carries with it a slightly terrifying implication. )

All of this is a sequence of speculation I first followed almost twenty years ago. The new insight which Mr. Stephenson recently brought me is a way of merging options (1) and (3).

In option (1) I identified the need for a force which operates on consciousness, and deduced that the cause of this force was outside & between cosmi. But this is a false deduction. Two electric charges can operate on each other without any charge in the space between, and two masses can interact without any intervening mass. There's no reason to invoke an external conscious entity to operate on consciousness, and in fact the math is much simpler if we don't. In short, we either become our own gods, or else we laugh at my 20-year-old self for imagining that "gods" was an appropriate term for something as simple as a universe-spanning consciousness.

Meanwhile, in option (3) I supposed that consciousness always bifurcates. But what if, instead, consciousness actually spans multiple universes? In particular, what if consciousness -- the ability to consider & decide among many possible outcomes, both in an abstract sense and in everyday life -- is the particular physical manifestation of a quantum computer? Then all our conscious minds, by definition, already span all of the universes in which we exist. It's not a matter of perceiving one particular universe among a googol of possibilities, but of perceiving all of them, and identifying as real the most common elements -- which would reinforce each other as constructive interference.

We can remain aware of a myriad (or even a googol) of possible outcomes, while concentrating our perception on the likeliest outcome. We do it all the time, like swirling red and blue watercolour paint until we get purple instead of paisley. It's pretty basic second-law-of-thermodynamics stuff. But every possible outcome is contained within one of those universes, and therefore part of our perception as quantum computers. If we collectively and intuitively choose to inhabit the universe with the greatest number of common elements -- the one at the centre of the bell curve -- then entropy itself becomes an emergent phenomenon of how consciousness progresses through multiple worlds.



1Heisenberg proved that you can't measure a particle's momentum at a specific place, and that you can't measure its energy at a specific time, but he never ruled out measuring its place at a specific time. In fact, you have to be able to measure its position in 4-dimensional spacetime for Heisenberg's equations to make any sense!
2I like to imagine Occam's Razor being wielded by Sweeney Todd.
3Except Alan Thicke, who is apparently immortal in this timeline.
osmie: (Default)
Now, many years ago, in the lost days before Magic: The Gathering, when Douglas Adams wrote games for Infocom and no one had ever thought of writing a second edition to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, a friend and I -- well, mostly my friend -- published a Traveller fanzine. I was so young I barely knew how to perform calculus, and certainly didn't know why; and so one day I conceived the idea of deriving the kinematic equations of jump space.

It's been many years since I last played Traveller, so don't quote me on the details, but "jump space" was the macguffin which allowed faster-than-light travel. All jumps took exactly one week, regardless of how far you travelled; bigger ships with bigger jump drives could travel farther; and the upper limit for jump distance was six hexes. If you tried to jump seven, your ship would be lost forever. So I sat down with these constraints, wrote them out as boundary conditions for a set of differential equations (not that I knew this terminology at the time), and derived some equations of motion which led to precisely this behaviour.

Jump space, I wrote, was an orthogonal spatial dimension to our primary three spatial dimensions. A force analogous to gravity operated within this space, pulling any mass "down" toward our dimension -- where some unexplained contrary force balanced it exactly, just as the pressure of the planet beneath our feet balances the force of gravity. Matter tends to stay in our universe just as most heavy objects tend to stay on the ground.

It so happens that if you throw a ball on the moon -- in the presence of gravity, but without any frictional forces to slow it down -- it will keep moving horizontally at a constant velocity, while gravity acts on its vertical velocity. Once it hits the surface, it meets other matter to interact with, which will usually stop it from moving horizontally too. I hypothesized that something similar happens in jump space. If you enter jump space with a particular normal-space velocity, you'll retain that velocity throughout your travels in the jump dimension, because there isn't any ordinary matter on which you can get purchase to change it.

And so I calculated the field equations for a force which would return matter to normal space in a constant time, but which (above a certain threshold) wouldn't return it at all. They were just numbers, with no geometric basis for articulating why they worked in physical terms -- but they agreed precisely with the physical observations written up in the Traveller rule books.

By the time I was done, I was really very impressed with myself. I was the princess of RPG geekdom! I could do anything!

And so for my next trick, I decided to come up with a scientific basis for the Dungeons & Dragons magic system.

It's still the best magic system evar. )

By publishing this magic system on my LJ, I am also releasing it into the universe under a Creative Commons licence. Anyone can use it, or vary it, for free, but in the unlikely event you plan to make money by selling it, I want a cut.
osmie: (Default)
Now, many years ago, in the lost days before Magic: The Gathering, when Douglas Adams wrote games for Infocom and no one had ever thought of writing a second edition to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, a friend and I -- well, mostly my friend -- published a Traveller fanzine. I was so young I barely knew how to perform calculus, and certainly didn't know why; and so one day I conceived the idea of deriving the kinematic equations of jump space.

It's been many years since I last played Traveller, so don't quote me on the details, but "jump space" was the macguffin which allowed faster-than-light travel. All jumps took exactly one week, regardless of how far you travelled; bigger ships with bigger jump drives could travel farther; and the upper limit for jump distance was six hexes. If you tried to jump seven, your ship would be lost forever. So I sat down with these constraints, wrote them out as boundary conditions for a set of differential equations (not that I knew this terminology at the time), and derived some equations of motion which led to precisely this behaviour.

Jump space, I wrote, was an orthogonal spatial dimension to our primary three spatial dimensions. A force analogous to gravity operated within this space, pulling any mass "down" toward our dimension -- where some unexplained contrary force balanced it exactly, just as the pressure of the planet beneath our feet balances the force of gravity. Matter tends to stay in our universe just as most heavy objects tend to stay on the ground.

It so happens that if you throw a ball on the moon -- in the presence of gravity, but without any frictional forces to slow it down -- it will keep moving horizontally at a constant velocity, while gravity acts on its vertical velocity. Once it hits the surface, it meets other matter to interact with, which will usually stop it from moving horizontally too. I hypothesized that something similar happens in jump space. If you enter jump space with a particular normal-space velocity, you'll retain that velocity throughout your travels in the jump dimension, because there isn't any ordinary matter on which you can get purchase to change it.

And so I calculated the field equations for a force which would return matter to normal space in a constant time, but which (above a certain threshold) wouldn't return it at all. They were just numbers, with no geometric basis for articulating why they worked in physical terms -- but they agreed precisely with the physical observations written up in the Traveller rule books.

By the time I was done, I was really very impressed with myself. I was the princess of RPG geekdom! I could do anything!

And so for my next trick, I decided to come up with a scientific basis for the Dungeons & Dragons magic system.

It's still the best magic system evar. )

By publishing this magic system on my LJ, I am also releasing it into the universe under a Creative Commons licence. Anyone can use it, or vary it, for free, but in the unlikely event you plan to make money by selling it, I want a cut.
osmie: (Default)
For the first time since [livejournal.com profile] sculpin and [livejournal.com profile] rjl20 hooked me many months ago, I have beaten Survivor mode on Desktop Tower Defense! 7280 points, no juggling (I don't like juggling), and only 4 escapees, all from level 49!

My grid is behind the cut. )

I am far too pleased with myself. It's been a good day. Fortunately for my grasp on reality, this isn't the only reason, but it does provide a fitting climax.
osmie: (Default)
For the first time since [livejournal.com profile] sculpin and [livejournal.com profile] rjl20 hooked me many months ago, I have beaten Survivor mode on Desktop Tower Defense! 7280 points, no juggling (I don't like juggling), and only 4 escapees, all from level 49!

My grid is behind the cut. )

I am far too pleased with myself. It's been a good day. Fortunately for my grasp on reality, this isn't the only reason, but it does provide a fitting climax.

Profile

osmie: (Default)
Osmium Penguin

April 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
345678 9
10 111213141516
171819202122 23
2425262728 2930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags