....AN OPEN LETTER TO THE IGNORANT MASSES !!!!!

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


George Dishman wrote:

Good guess, Darwinian evolution has a number
of basic requirements, the first of which is the
ability to reproduce. Satellites don't do that, nor
do we yet have the technology to give them that
ability, nor do we have the millions of years it
takes for evolutionary process to work in the real
world.

If they are going to reproduce they are going to need added mass to
produce their young, where that mass will come from is a good question;
are they to consume other satellites like predators?


Can ideas reproduce themselves?
Take on a life of their own and adapt?
Can ideas change the world?
Can you even think in abstract terms?







Clearly, after all I'm sure Jonathon would confirm
that being a predator is more sustainable than
cannibalism so that would be how they would evolve.

George

jonathan wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
ps.com...

jonathan wrote:
I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.

No you haven't, you have a track history of
butting in on any conversation and trying
to change it to your agenda regardless of
the topic - a classic 'mission poster'.

Fine, what has that to do with the idea?

context restored

In another thread I wrote.

SPS has officially crossed the first big hurdle in
it's inevitable comeback.

Presumably "SPS" is something like
solar power satellite?

I am simply claiming we can apply the processes of Darwinian
evolution to this, and any, given problem. Therefore producing
a problem solving technique that rivals nature.

A problem solving technique that defines
.....the best this universe... can provide.

But I'm certain you will reject and ridicule this possibility.

Good guess, Darwinian evolution has a number
of basic requirements, the first of which is the
ability to reproduce. Satellites don't do that, nor
do we yet have the technology to give them that
ability, nor do we have the millions of years it
takes for evolutionary process to work in the real
world.

But my hobby is the abstract mathematics of Darwinian
evolution.

Fine, what has that to do with the idea? You were
suggesting using an evolutionary technique applied
to solar power satellites, you didn't mention maths.
Using evolutionary techniques within the modelling
as part of the design process is appropriate where
systems are too complex for analytical techniques
to give an immediate answer, but that's completely
different from launching a bunch of satellites and
letting them fight for survival and breeding rights.

Abstract means universally applicable.

No it doesn't:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ne:%20abstract

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...


But my hobby is the abstract mathematics of Darwinian
evolution.

Fine, what has that to do with the idea? You were
suggesting using an evolutionary technique applied
to solar power satellites, you didn't mention maths.
Using evolutionary techniques within the modelling
as part of the design process is appropriate where
systems are too complex for analytical techniques
to give an immediate answer, but that's completely
different from launching a bunch of satellites and
letting them fight for survival and breeding rights.


Well, my point is that is that we can use the concepts
of evolutionary processes to design ....a goal.
A goal for solving our energy future. Of which SPS is a good
example of what might be produced from such
a problem solving process.

The ultimate solutions to our energy future are too complex
and long term to come up with a definitive solution up front.
Which so many seem determined to do.

A goal should be designed with the same thought and
care as any piece of hardware, yet this is rarely the
case. Look at Nasa's desire to go back to the moon.
Even the administrator admitted it's a matter of faith, that
we should have faith that somehow it will produce
discoveries and benefits. Yet no one can really
say what those will with any credibility.

That's not a goal that's rational, it's more of a prayer.

I'm simply saying we should apply our best efforts and
science to the initial goal, before launching a forty year
hundreds of billions dollar program. As Nasa is doing
right now. On a prayer, driven by Big Contractor profits.

I believe we can apply evolutionary concepts to setting an
optimum goal. A goal with the best chance of inspiring public
and Congressional support and generating success would be...

To find a sustainable replacement for fossil fuels before
climate change becomes irreversible.

This goal would be optimized for the following reasons.

It will appeal to the broadest base of people possible by

Maximizing potential tangible benefits
Cheaper energy costs in the future
Reduces chances of wars over oil
Increases economic indepence

Maximizing inspirational appeal
Potential to bring cheap energy to the world
Potential to turn America into worlds energy supplier
Creates an optimisitic view of the future

It will simultaneously address two of our greatest long term anxieties

The impending shortage of fossil fuels
The impending destruction of Global Warming


In my hobby, complexity science, the point is to create a
self-organizing system. Which is accomplished when....
the static and chaotic attractor basins are in an unstable
equilibrium with each other.

The static attractor is that of tangible benefits.
The chaotic attractor is that of inspirational appeal
They become a dynamic system when the the
two are fully connected un an unstable equilibrium.

They become connected when both attractor realms
converge on a single solution.

Completing this problem, resolving the two realms into
one solution, ends up with solar energy and space.
Hence Space Solar Power. However, that solution
may evolve as technology and needs advance
over time.

My point is also, in theory, this goal has all the same abstract
characteristics as JFK's moon goal.

By maximizing the potential effect on the present, and the future
within a framework of great urgency.

SPS within a context of Global Warming should succeed
just as well. As it shares the same abstract design.
So this goal has the best chance to 'get the ball rolling'
and start a dedicated program aimed at finding the
solutions to two of this planets greatest problems.

Energy and Climate Change.
It's a goal designed to do nothing less than 'Save the World'.

It must appeal, and succeed. Else....


Jonathan





s

jonathan wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...


But my hobby is the abstract mathematics of Darwinian
evolution.

Fine, what has that to do with the idea? You were
suggesting using an evolutionary technique applied
to solar power satellites, you didn't mention maths.
Using evolutionary techniques within the modelling
as part of the design process is appropriate where
systems are too complex for analytical techniques
to give an immediate answer, but that's completely
different from launching a bunch of satellites and
letting them fight for survival and breeding rights.


Well, my point is that is that we can use the concepts
of evolutionary processes to design ....a goal.

OK, but ...

A goal for solving our energy future.

Too late, you just stated the goal ;-)

Of which SPS is a good
example of what might be produced from such
a problem solving process.

The problem is that you have to define a goal in
order to construct some sort of scoring scheme
against which each generation of your evolution
can be judged as the basis of which are tio be
selected to "survive".

Consider it logically, one aim might be to gather
as much energy as possible as cheaply as
possible. The surface area of the planet is then
grater than can be achieved by satellites so
using the planet is the option that propagates.
The logical end result is a comparison of wind
farms, hydroelectric, wave power and so on,
with IMHO bio-fuels as a key player.

The ultimate solutions to our energy future are too complex
and long term to come up with a definitive solution up front.
Which so many seem determined to do.

You assume w have to choose but that's not the
case, we can use _all_ the options wherever
they represent the most economical for a given
application. For example hydroelectric is very
productive where the terrain suits (look at Brazil)
while wind power is popular in Germany. Bio-fuel
has a clear advantage in the distribution costs
and negligible re-engineering need for current
vehicles.

A goal should be designed with the same thought and
care as any piece of hardware, yet this is rarely the
case. Look at Nasa's desire to go back to the moon.
Even the administrator admitted it's a matter of faith, that
we should have faith that somehow it will produce
discoveries and benefits. Yet no one can really
say what those will with any credibility.

That's not a goal that's rational, it's more of a prayer.

You have to understand the real goal - it was
purely politically motivated with NASA being
given the impossible task of justifying some
return _after_ it was announced, it wasn't
their initiative remember and many of the good
science projects will be killed to feed what is no
more than a publicity stunt by a beleagured
president.

snip

SPS within a context of Global Warming should succeed
just as well. As it shares the same abstract design.
So this goal has the best chance to 'get the ball rolling'
and start a dedicated program aimed at finding the
solutions to two of this planets greatest problems.

Energy and Climate Change.
It's a goal designed to do nothing less than 'Save the World'.

It must appeal, and succeed. Else....

Addressing the energy problem is something
I completely agree with, but you have already
broken with your stated aim, you have decided
that SPS is the solution without considering
the alternatives, and if you applied your hobby
to it, I'm sure SPS would be an early casualty
or at least become a survivor only in a niche
in the environment.

George