# [SOLVED] This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 220)

by John Baez
Tags: mathematical, physics, solved, week
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a John Baez wrote: [snip] > But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad. > An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this: > > \ / \ | / | > \ / \ | / | > ----- ----- ----- > | b | | c | | d | > ----- ----- ----- > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > ----- > | a | > ----- > | > | > This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Socks
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
 P: n/a In , on 09/01/2005 at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said: >Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one >theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few >that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly >predicts experimental results. A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose. The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

 Related Discussions Math & Science Software 7 Math & Science Software 26 Math & Science Software 0