<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">[Delayed posting]<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
On 2015-08-28 01:55, spike wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:01f201d0e12c$446429d0$cd2c7d70$@att.net"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p>
</o:p></span><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
extropy-chat [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org">mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike Dougherty<br>
<b><span style="color:#1F497D">…</span></b></span><br>
><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span> On the
contrary, do invent dimensions, if the notion explains some
observed phenomenon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span>Is it still ok if
it is to explain un-observed phenomenon ... or observed
non-phenomenon. :)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">Hmmm, that is a bit close to
improper procedure. A bit too religioney for my taste.
{8^D However, in the particular case of Fermi’s Paradox,
I am flat desperate.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As one of our locals once said, "pluralitas non est ponenda sine
necessitate" - do not add extra stuff to your theory unless you
need it. But the *kind* of stuff can be strange: extra dimensions
are not stranger than other kinds of matter or negative numbers.
But simpler, less extravagant stuff is of course always
preferable.<br>
<br>
For Fermi, we are dealing with something that is either very
simple (we are alone) or deeply complex (the overall evolution and
behavior of all intelligent life in the universe). We cannot tell
which side is the right one, so we should consider both (and weigh
them according to what our evidence and prior guesses are). <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:01f201d0e12c$446429d0$cd2c7d70$@att.net"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span> Edwin Abbott
was brilliant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span>You probably could
read the book in about as much time as watch: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/">http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/</a></a>
- however the movie does a good of preserving the intent
while updating some of the obsolete social commentary.<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
political incorrectness of the original is part of its
charm. Even my bride has sufficient sense of humor to
appreciate the flagrant (apparent) sexist and classist
views of Abbott. It gives us a view of how far society
has come, ja? There is another dimension as well ({8^D):
Abbott was writing parody within parody, ridiculing the
sexism and classism of his day and place.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is one classical satires. I remember encountering it via Martin
Gardner's writings, and then spending weeks drawing cross-sections
of 4D objects.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>