
The world is not enough - vo2maxer
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/the-world-is-not-enough/
======
tyingq
I was curious about the phrase "The World is not Enough". Apparently the Bond
film used the title because _" Orbis non sufficit"_ was on the Bond family
crest in an earlier film.

I assume derived from what is supposed to be Alexander the Great's epitaph, _"
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.”_ Though I'm unable
to find a credible source that's actually his epitaph.

Also on the family crest for King Phillip II of Spain:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Fu...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Full_Ornamented_Coat_of_Arms_of_Philip_II_of_Spain_%281580-1598%29.svg/1148px-
Full_Ornamented_Coat_of_Arms_of_Philip_II_of_Spain_%281580-1598%29.svg.png)

~~~
ljw1001
This reminds me of the classic Tolstoy short story: How much land does a man
need?

~~~
dorchadas
Oh, wow. I remember reading this in high school, but had no clue it was
Tolstoy.

------
HankB99
"Take any solid element that doesn’t vaporize, and heat it to, say, 700
degrees and you will find it emits exactly the same spectrum of light as any
other solid element also at 700 degrees."

Is this really true? I thought that the elements (compounds?) could be
identified by the wavelengths of light they emitted when heated. This article
on Wikipedia seems to confirm that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)
Maybe the statement is true for solid materials.

I didn't read much past that point. Maybe I'm oblivious to the point the
author was trying to convey, but I find it hard to get past statements that
appear to be obviously false.

~~~
dredmorbius
The emission (or absorption) spectrum is characteristic of _electron state
transitions_ within an element -- the specific quantuum state changes that
occur as (valance) electrons shift between orbital levels.

That's contrasted with _black-body radiation_ , which is characteristic of
_any_ material, and dependent only on the temperature. The relationship isn't
perfect -- there's "ideal black-body" and actual -- but it's quite good, and
has applications from cooking, pottery, and metallurgy to astronomy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-
body_radiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation)

------
slfnflctd
Say we go with that thought experiment saying if it's possible to simulate our
observable universe, we're likely to be in such a simulation. When some of our
better theorists try to model the realities of trying to simulate our reality,
they seem to keep bumping into hard walls. That old 'not enough atoms in the
universe' thing.

This brings to mind the possibility that we are being simulated from a much
different, maybe more complex universe with its own physics (and probably a
whole lot more matter/energy). How much knowledge about such an origin point -
or next ladder rung up - can we reasonably expect to derive from our ability
to measure what's observable within our own simulation?

------
nixpulvis
> And so this seemingly faster-than-light action must be accounted for – you
> are forced to conclude that either time or space is not fundamental to the
> universe.

While I don't disagree with this, it did seem like it brushed over the single
classical bit of information needed to perform "quantum teleportation".

Am I missing something new or different?

------
gdubs
Beautifully written. Felt a bit prepared for this having recently read,
“Reality is Not What it Seems”, but these concepts are still so hard to grasp.

I just recommended the Dalai Lama’s “Universe in a Single Atom” in another
thread and there’s something in that book that to me sounds like what Smolin
is getting at — if I’m understanding correctly (and I’m probably not) — that
ultimately reality must be studied _subjectively_ to be truly understood. His
claim is that through deep meditation on the true nature of things, the
meditator can essentially conduct thought experiments — and that if we ever
hope to truly understand reality, we need a way to scientifically measure
those experiences. I have no idea how you’d go about that, since it seems
fundamentally opposed to how we use _objectivity_ to validate experiments —
but it’s a fascinating thing to consider.

~~~
nixpulvis
Just a thought, but is not the only difference between objectivity and
subjectivity the object and subject's language?

------
CraneWorm
But it is such a perfect place to start, my love

~~~
TheRealSteel
I have nothing useful to add to this thread, but I thought it nice that I
happened to be listening to Garbage and walking thru the streets of Edinburgh,
Shirley Manson's home town, when I happened upon this thread and comment.

------
trhway
>Take any solid element that doesn’t vaporize, and heat it to, say, 700
degrees and you will find it emits exactly the same spectrum of light as any
other solid element also at 700 degrees. The reason this happens is because we
live in a quantum world.

i think the author is deeply mistaken here. The idealized "black body
radiation" of classical physics would be the same for both elements. It is
because of quantum mechanics that the actual spectrum of different elements at
the same temperature is different.

------
squeezingswirls
Nice article but Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965, not
1964.

[https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/summary/](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/summary/)

------
jonstaab
Reading about the idea that relationality is fundamental to existence, it's
hard not to think of John 1: "The Word was with God... No one has ever seen
God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."
Salvation is simple: knowing the creator, the source of existence.

~~~
mikestew
Interesting theorem, though experimental data might be hard to come by.

~~~
jonstaab
That's the whole problem of quantam physics, isn't it

------
jodrellblank
> Enter Lee Smolin,

Anyone else recognise his name from years of pop-physics articles about this
or that fringe idea .. and nowhere else?

I'm amused by the idea that he might not even be a real person, but rather a
shared pen name used by serious physicists when they want to endorse an idea
outside the norm without taking a reputation or status hit from it. An anti-
Nicholas-Barbouki, if you will.

~~~
lonelappde
It's quite rude to say that a real person does not exist, just because you
have not bothered to educate yourself about his field.

~~~
jodrellblank
It's quite rude to put words in my mouth which I didn't say, then make up some
things about what I have or haven't done and use them as an insult against me.

"I'm amused by X" != "X is true"

