Sunday, 8 January 2012

Computer Paranormality Afterthought

Say that I present to you a bunch of tiny intros but I don't show you the code or file size and claim them to be 256 bytes or less. An expert who doesn't know the demoscene but his field has to do with computer graphics or image compression comes and shares his skeptic opinion that it's quite improbable that such detail of imagery and animation could be fit in such tiny space and this would even break the mathematical rules of what is the possible limit in loseless compression (just an example, I am not familiar with compression laws or limits). But think about it, if you were an expert in compression and didn't have an idea about procedural graphics, then based on your frame of reference you would conclude that the 256b intros hypothesis is a scum.

I want with this example to make a parallel to similar cases in real life where experts come out and sound so credible when they conclude that a particular case is a conspiracy or a hoax alternatively. Who am I to deny what they say? I'd wish to but I lack the expertise to truly make a definite conclusion. I could search for other sources on the internet but still I wouldn't know on my own. One says we didn't go to the moon because the Van Halen radiation belt would fry the astronauts and he says he is a physicist and doctor so that he knows what he is talking about. Other experts say it's possible because the speed of the space shuttle through the radioactive zone didn't left for enough time of exposure to be lethal. Both are experts. I don't even know about the Van Halen zone and how much is a lethal dose of radiation. All I can read is opinions of believers and also opinions of skeptics. Same with 9/11. The buildings really look like they had a rapid fall. It's strange. Conspiracists present it in such a way that make you believe. But there are also logical arguments that discard the conspiracy hypothesis and make the impossible seem possible. I don't have the knowledge in these matters to conclude myself. Most people just read either the believers or skeptics opinions and choose side. I can't. I don't know.

That's one important problem in conspiracy theories I think. Lack of expertise and time to properly verify the validity of them and be personally satisfied that you finally have a good explanation that you understand. Of course I could "verify" them by listening to a preferred side, the believers or skeptics. Though this is not truly knowing. This is belonging. I am really keen to learn and understand the whole truth behing things even if it doesn't proove to be extraordinary but trivial.

That's why I asked for computer paranormality in one of the previous posts. Because then I would be in the position of analyzing the claims with a higher feeling that I am actually the one who is concluding about reality, not the sources I read.

1 comment:

  1. Just reading in wikipedia about the
    Van Allen radiation belt and the implications for space travel: The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the Moon; however, exposure was minimized by following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the strongest areas of radiation. The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be much less than the five (5) rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

    Why, oh why didn't I read this in any of the skeptics explanations against the moon-hoax arguments? Given the shape of the Van Allen zone as depicted in wikipedia (I was thinking of something completely different) it's quite possible to pass through it safely.

    ReplyDelete