Buy Viagra Soft Tabs Without Prescription
A blog caught my eye today because a link in it sent an inordinate amount of traffic to LHCFacts yesterday. This must be a very popular blog. The blogger's name is Scott Aaronson and this link will take you to his blog.
Buy viagra soft tabs without prescription, Scott makes an interesting point which I would like to comment on. The point he makes, rather humorously, is that the earth might in fact be destroyed by NOT turning on the LHC. He explains that there is a non-zero probability that next year aliens may visit the Planet Earth and enslave us for having not discovered the Higgs boson via the LHC. He also points out that we may save Earth by learning from the LHC how to neutralize a wormhole or a chunk of anti-matter that may be careening toward Earth at this very moment. All scary thoughts, and all possibly carry a non-zero probability.
Therefore, his point is to match up, as he puts it, the "vanishingly small" probabilities of LHC destroys Earth vs. Viagra soft tabs alternative, LHC saves Earth, and in so doing invalidate the Precautionary Principle in this case. I have a couple problems with this. But first, overnight viagra soft tabs, Viagra soft tabs order, I'd like to highlight this comment by Scott from his own blog:
James, my point was not that the critics think the LHC should be stopped if P>0, viagra soft tabs australia, Buy viagra soft tabs no rx, but that they seem to assume without any evidence that P>Q, where Q is the probability of the earth being destroyed if the LHC is not turned on, discount viagra soft tabs overnight delivery. Viagra soft tabs bangkok, If both probabilities could be calculated and if P were orders of magnitude greater, then I think a strong case could be made against the LHC, cheap viagra soft tabs tablet. Viagra soft tabs rx, As it is, I think both probabilities are nonzero, drug viagra soft tabs, Buy viagra soft tabs from india, neither can be calculated (nor can their relative order of magnitude), and neither is far enough from zero to be worth expending many brain cycles on.
An excellent argument. Here's my problem. P is the probability of LHC destroys Earth. Now this probability may or may not be "vanishingly small", buy viagra soft tabs from us, Cheap viagra soft tabs internet, but it's origin is VERY different than the origin of Q, the probability that LHC saves Earth. P was deduced. Q was induced.
I won't go into great detail here about why deductive logic is much more powerful than inductive logic, buy viagra soft tabs on line, Viagra soft tabs approved, but all the concerns that have been spelled out by Walter Wagner and James Blodgett have been deduced from statements and theoretical predictions of the very particle physicists working on the LHC. And the arguments in favor of Q are induced, or forced, viagra soft tabs prices, Viagra soft tabs pharmacy online, as it were. A deductive conclusion always carries more weight than an induced one does, so this scale on which Mr, viagra soft tabs price. Tablet viagra soft tabs, Aaronson has placed P and Q clearly leans toward P on this reasoning alone.
Next I will address the "vanishingly smallness" of the concerns. Without getting "premature[ly] bayesian", one can easily apply Bayes Theorem to the general, find viagra soft tabs without prescription, Viagra soft tabs professional, theoretical predictions James Blodgett got from some of these physicists a few years ago. (see the last two paragraphs here) And the product of the bayesian calculation is anything but "vanishingly small". Sure it's small, but in my world as an advantage gambler, cost viagra soft tabs, Buying generic viagra soft tabs, even 49% is small. Vanishingly small usually means that it would take more trials to see the result than the universe has time to try. I'll admit, Mr, viagra soft tabs cheap price. Aaronson's LHC saves Earth scenarios are most likely vanishingly small, but Mr, buy viagra soft tabs without prescription. Online pharmacy viagra soft tabs, Wagner's concerns most certainly are not. So the scale leans even farther toward P.
Lastly, I will address the Precautionary Principle. Mr, viagra soft tabs sales. Viagra soft tabs in australia, Aaronson says,
And that being the case, find discount viagra soft tabs, Buy viagra soft tabs lowest price, the Precautionary Principle dictates taking the only safe course of action: namely, turning the LHC on as soon as possible.
After all, price of viagra soft tabs, Cheap viagra soft tabs without prescription, the fate of the planet might conceivably depend on it.
Actually, the Precautionary Principle differentiates between action and inaction. And since no one has come forward with a solid deductive reason the LHC is required to save Earth, viagra soft tabs no rx, Viagra soft tabs cheap, that very action of turning on the LHC falls directly across the table from P, LHC destroys Earth, viagra soft tabs medication, Viagra soft tabs for order, which asks only for inaction.
So you have Q, LHC saves Earth, order cheap viagra soft tabs, Find viagra soft tabs on internet, based on "vanishingly small" probabilities, originating from inductive reasoning, viagra soft tabs no rx required, Viagra soft tabs pills, asking for ACTION! And on the other side you have P, LHC destroys Earth, viagra soft tabs for sale, based on not so vanishingly small probabilities, originating from deductive reasoning, asking only for INACTION. (Or at least for a delay in action). I think this is a perfect scenario for the Precautionary Principle which states:
if an action... might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public... the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. (Raffensberger C. & J. Tickner (eds.) (1999) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, Washington, DC)
In the blog comments, James D. Miller asks Scott Aaronson,
For what values of P would you advocate stopping the LHC?
Scott answers by saying you must be able to calculate BOTH probabilities, P and Q, in order to see the balance of the scale. But I say that first you must have a Q that has as solid a founding as our DEDUCTIVE P with which to start calculating probabilities. And the probability of P, at least based on the faith of the scientists in their own theories, is not impossible to calculate.
James Blodgett has already shown this to be the case. If there were a balanced system in place to address these issues of existential risk, answers could be easily forthcoming. But in the environment we are in, where CERN conducts it's own safety study, and picks it's own peers for review, such is not the case.
One final thought. P maybe small or it may be large. But even if P is very small... I mean verrrrry small, the risk is still HUGE. Remember, P is just probability. But RISK = P * C (cost). And the cost we are talking about is the whole planet, everything, aka infinity. So get out your calculators, kids, and multiply .00000001 times infinity and see what you get. Yup, the risk is infinite. And that's why the Precautionary Principle is so important in issues of planetary risk.
Another
.
Similar posts: Buy female cialis without prescription. Buy tramadol without prescription. Buy levitra without prescription. Buy levitra jelly without prescription. Buy soma without prescription. Buy propecia without prescription. Buy xenical without prescription. Buy prozac without prescription. Buy ultram without prescription. Buy clomid without prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy viagra soft tabs without prescription. Furazolidone without prescription. Buy viagra plus without prescription. Buy epivir online without prescription. Buy cialis super active+ without prescription. Buy imitrex nasal spray without prescription. Buy probenecid without prescription. Arimidex online without prescription. Lithium online without prescription. Eflora cream without prescription.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread…”
July 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Why does sending out a bunch of anonymous questionnaires 4 years ago and cherry-picking the results count as ‘deductive logic’?
How about: ‘Black holes at LHC, IF they present any danger to the Earth within the lifetime of the Solar System, would also be produced by cosmic rays and stopped within white dwarves, BUT we see that white dwarves are not destroyed by this, THEREFORE there is no danger to the earth within the lifetime of the Solar System’.
Would that be ‘deductive’ enough for you?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:04 am
My understanding is that the magnetic fields around white dwarfs and neutron stars are so powerful that charged cosmic ray particles would never hit a white dwarf or neutron star. Perhaps this is why the cosmic ray and neutron star arguments were called “unverified” by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This is still more misleading misquotation of the committee findings. Only the neutron star argument applying at energies much larger than LHC was questioned by the SPC. The SPC report does not include the word “unverified” at all, therefore it is simply wrong to put that word in quotes as if it came from the report.
Here is the quote :
“at the LHC energy, any danger for the Earth on time scales lower than or
comparable to the natural lifetime of the solar system can be ruled out on the basis of its
contradiction with the observation of white dwarf stars of known mass, age and other
properties. This conclusion, while entirely valid for the LHC, would need further work to
be extended to conceivable future colliders of much higher energies. A powerful
argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed
neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that,
while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years.
On the basis of all these findings, we can conclude that there is no danger of whatever
kind from the hypothetical production of black holes at the LHC.”
The SPC believes the white dwarf argument to be correct. This is a fact you do not yet seem to have absorbed or admitted, you continue to misreport the SPC findings.
The question of magnetic fields has been specifically addressed in the Giddings & Mangano paper, section 6.1, both with regard to deflection and synchrotron radiation, where they conclude:
“This and the preceding sections have argued that in the hypothetical TeV-scale gravity
scenarios possibly relevant to LHC, 1) cosmic rays will produce significant numbers of black holes on white dwarfs of low (few x 10^5 G) magnetic fields, on time scales short as compared to known white dwarf lifetimes; 2) such black holes, even if neutral and with the highest masses accessible at the LHC, will be stopped on white dwarfs with masses M >~ M_sol, by accreting and scattering the dense matter of the star during their transit; and 3) the white dwarf will then be accreted.”
I should also ask why, if you’ve read so many articles about the dangers of the LHC, you haven’t yet read the Giddings and Mangano paper. It really covers every possible point. If you think their arguments are incorrect you should find the mistakes and point out where and how they are wrong.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I read the reports. I should have put “requires confirmation” in quotes not “unverified”. However you can word smith as you wish, the arguments are unverified. CERN’s plan is to potentially create micro black holes that potentially might destroy Earth while telling the public and other scientists that there is no concievable risk.
Professor Rossler refuted CERN’s safety arguments (paper at the top of LHCFacts.org). The LHC may destroy the planet in 5 years to 50 years based on Dr. Rossler’s calculations. The responsible course of action is to verify or refute safety arguments before high energy collisions begin and to be open and honest with the public and with other scientists about the lack of verified proof of safety.
The lawsuit before US Federal Courts and at least one of Dr. Rossler’s interviews aledge that CERN’s actions potentially amount to criminal neglegence. I agree.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am
JTankers,
if I were you, I wouldn’t ‘presume’ to know what CERN plans on doing.
Lets just say that arguments in favor of the LHC do have more pounding power than the ones against. Lets just say that scientists are not a crazy lot of hags intent on destroying mankind. Lets just say that we people may or may not have as much knowledge on the subject as them.
So maybe we can trust them on this one.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Really? Perhaps it is a while since Hollywood screened “The Thing from Another World”. There is a remake planned for this year but one of the classic lines comes from the scientist who says “It is your duty to die to preserve this specimen for the brain of the world”.
It just happened to be a fast breeding, blood draining vegetable with the capacity to wipe out all animals and humans and the scientist was intent on cultivating it. Also sabotaged the generator. No they are not to be trusted.
How soon we forget. Since when has it ever been the duty of all humanity to die for the benefit of science at ANY level of risk and this is not the first time.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I have no idea where you’re getting that the P value is deduced. Best we can do is put various upper bounds on it. For example, I can estimate, based on the existence of the numerous known neutron stars in the galaxy, and the number of similar proton interactions that would occur near their surface, an upper limit of P (MBH eats earth during the lifetime of the LHC) to be very roughly 10^-17.
Estimations for Q can be much more meaningful, since all related events exist within contexts that we have knowledge of; whereas the P event is a “what if everything we think we know is wrong”-type event.
One lower bound for the Q value would be p(human-extinction astroid collision event in next 10 million years) * p(given the astroid collision event, LHC provides knowledge which forms basis for technology which uniquely enables humans to avoid the collision).
Based on the geological record, and granting a good likelihood that for many astroid events at least a remnant of the human race could escape by other means, I’d estimate 10^-3 for the first probability.
Based on the fact that the LHC uniquely provides information we won’t otherwise obtain pertaining directly to the causes and nature of mass and gravity, I think an extremely conservative estimate for the second probability would be also 10^-3.
So considering only this very narrow slice of time and possible rescue scenario, Q = 10^-6.
so Q is 100 billion times larger than P = 10^-17.
Q/P is the only number that truly matters. So saything that Q is less reliable than P is a non-argument. The result will be roughly as reliable as its least reliable component. You can either try to make it more reliable or use it as-is. >1 you pull the starter cord, <1 you don’t. (It has a starter cord, right? :P)
As for risk, the reasonable potential lifespan of the human race would be 5 billion years, the remainder of the tenure of the sun. So the cost of the destruction of the race related to the Q event is on average 0.999 x the cost related to the P event. So the risk relationship is essentially the same as the probability relationship.
Of course, to be complete, we’d want to continue to look for extinction events after the first 10 million years, which would of course continue to increase (Q/P), as the benefit of knowledge multiplies indefinitely, whereas the non-occurance of a past imagined disaster remains static.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“Professor Rossler refuted CERN’s safety arguments (paper at the top of LHCFacts.org). The LHC may destroy the planet in 5 years to 50 years based on Dr. Rossler’s calculations.”
Professor Rossler is a CHEMIST — one who happens to not understand the mathematics of relativistic physics, despite his impressions to the contrary. There are several papers out there by actual physicists, who take the time to step through and show the errors that Rossler makes in his “calculations.”
September 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
You are quoting hollywood as your source for not trusting physicists?!??!
What is your basis for understanding that scientists too live on this very earth.
In the place where i live, the news channels were screaming that the very firdt test run on 10th would destroy the earth, so maybe i shouldn’t be writing this.Scientists are neither homicidal,nor suicidal. I hope you understand that. Anyways, lets wait till the 21st of October 4 further developments.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
*What shall make you understand ( second line).