5 ms·

This article does not take into account quantum phenomenon. It's possible that instead of being limited by the speed of light transmissions, such a system uses

This article does not take into account quantum phenomenon. It's possible that instead of being limited by the speed of light transmissions, such a system uses quantum phenomenon for communication. Which then would make the whole argument that this article makes invalid. It's based on the premise that life would be based on the same sort of physics as life on Earth... which does not make sense as such life if it exists would evolve using a different set of rules which would include things such as limits on speed of light transmission in such large systems... so it would've learned to exploit quantum phenomenon for transmission. edit: Superluminal, or faster than light, communication is said not to work because it allows information to be sent into the past. There is however non-locality which is not the same thing. Sorry not an expert on this, but this seems to apply to the exact discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of...

balfirevic 9y ago
It is not possible to use quantum phenomena for faster-than-light communication. It's fine to speculate about completely new physics allowing for such communication, but it really doesn't have to do much with what we call quantum physics.
danharaj 9y ago
There are no quantum effects that allow superluminal communication of information.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Cozumel 9y ago
  Sure there is. You've just not seen it on HN yet.
banachtarski 9y ago
It doesn't need to take into account "quantum phenomenon" because the phenomenon you are citing is fictitious.
Retra 9y ago
All communication relies on quantum phenomenon. The universe is a big mess of quantum phenomenon. It's not magic that lets you violate the laws of physics, it is the laws of physics.
- devoply 9y ago
  It's funny with all the downvotes, first I never said that anything violated the laws of physics, I said that they don't follow the physics as life on earth. Second, there are many downvotes, but no actual evidence of what I said being wrong. I feel as if I am arguing with self-reassured people.
  - axiom92 9y ago
    The burden of proof lies on you, not 'them'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
    - paradite 9y ago
      The same analogy can be applied in reverse. The article here is the one that is making an unfalsifiable claim that "a living creature cannot be as big as a galaxy", but offers no definitive proof of nonexistence of such creative.
      - dsacco 9y ago
        No, that analogy can't be applied in reverse. You're right that placing the burden of proof on the positive assertion is a dialectic oversimplification. But the specific claim, "A living creature cannot be as big as a galaxy" does not suffer from the problem of induction - we can use deductive reasoning to falsify it given relevant, empirical observations. The classic example of white swans and black swans adheres to the problem of making universal generalizations because we simply have not yet observed a black swan, and we cannot use the continued observation of white swans as empirical evidence. However, we are not attempting to make a universal generalization based on inductive reasoning. We have, available to us, a schema for enforcing the testability of this claim, which the article and its references explore in detail. The square-cube law and our current model of physics both make it impossible for a "living creature" to be as large as a galaxy, for any definition of "living" and "creature" that is reasonably agreeable. The normal processes of life; including temperature regulation, metabolism, energy expenditure and movement would all be severely impeded in a single discrete organism of that size. Moreover, it would have severely limited cognition even if signals traveled at the speed of light, which handicaps both its own sophistication and potential evolution. It doesn't seem appropriate to characterize something that cannot have these functioning traits as "living"; the only way forward seems to be to broaden our definition of "living" or "creature" to some sort of aggregated, abstract consciousness that makes organisms like ourselves analogous to bacteria. But that can hardly be called a discrete organism in the same way that our brains are cognitively independent of the life around them.
neom 9y ago
I've thought about this a bunch also. Once you start to think about say, the outside of the outside of a pilot wave...or the determination of the resonance of a string... I don't think it's fair to say the article is invalid, but it doesn't account for a lot of the more fringe areas of quantum mechanics for sure. I'm surprised you're getting downvoted.

balfirevic 9y ago

It is not possible to use quantum phenomena for faster-than-light communication. It's fine to speculate about completely new physics allowing for such communication, but it really doesn't have to do much with what we call quantum physics.

danharaj 9y ago

There are no quantum effects that allow superluminal communication of information.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Cozumel 9y ago
Sure there is. You've just not seen it on HN yet.

banachtarski 9y ago

It doesn't need to take into account "quantum phenomenon" because the phenomenon you are citing is fictitious.

Retra 9y ago

All communication relies on quantum phenomenon. The universe is a big mess of quantum phenomenon. It's not magic that lets you violate the laws of physics, it is the laws of physics.

devoply 9y ago
It's funny with all the downvotes, first I never said that anything violated the laws of physics, I said that they don't follow the physics as life on earth. Second, there are many downvotes, but no actual evidence of what I said being wrong. I feel as if I am arguing with self-reassured people.
- axiom92 9y ago
  The burden of proof lies on you, not 'them'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  - paradite 9y ago
    The same analogy can be applied in reverse. The article here is the one that is making an unfalsifiable claim that "a living creature cannot be as big as a galaxy", but offers no definitive proof of nonexistence of such creative.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      No, that analogy can't be applied in reverse. You're right that placing the burden of proof on the positive assertion is a dialectic oversimplification. But the specific claim, "A living creature cannot be as big as a galaxy" does not suffer from the problem of induction - we can use deductive reasoning to falsify it given relevant, empirical observations. The classic example of white swans and black swans adheres to the problem of making universal generalizations because we simply have not yet observed a black swan, and we cannot use the continued observation of white swans as empirical evidence. However, we are not attempting to make a universal generalization based on inductive reasoning. We have, available to us, a schema for enforcing the testability of this claim, which the article and its references explore in detail. The square-cube law and our current model of physics both make it impossible for a "living creature" to be as large as a galaxy, for any definition of "living" and "creature" that is reasonably agreeable. The normal processes of life; including temperature regulation, metabolism, energy expenditure and movement would all be severely impeded in a single discrete organism of that size. Moreover, it would have severely limited cognition even if signals traveled at the speed of light, which handicaps both its own sophistication and potential evolution. It doesn't seem appropriate to characterize something that cannot have these functioning traits as "living"; the only way forward seems to be to broaden our definition of "living" or "creature" to some sort of aggregated, abstract consciousness that makes organisms like ourselves analogous to bacteria. But that can hardly be called a discrete organism in the same way that our brains are cognitively independent of the life around them.

neom 9y ago

I've thought about this a bunch also. Once you start to think about say, the outside of the outside of a pilot wave...or the determination of the resonance of a string... I don't think it's fair to say the article is invalid, but it doesn't account for a lot of the more fringe areas of quantum mechanics for sure. I'm surprised you're getting downvoted.