I think people can better understand who I am by showing them my library. Since you can already see it on this site - it is the background picture - I give you also the update list of wished books.
Currently I am looking for Startup Nation. If anyone of my beloved readers have it, I'd love to borrow it.
See you soon.
10/12/2015
THE PLANETARIUM HYPOTHESIS
Today I was thinking - and reading - about a post on tax rates' and world competitiveness' ranking, stimulated by this piece. I was really in that, but something change my mind.
It is the story of Elon Musk plan to colonize Mars. He thinks that humans have little or no chances to go through the next age, so he's planning to send the first million settlers up there. We'll see. (By the way I encourage him).
What I came across that stuck me was a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox, called the Planetarium Hypothesis. Fundamentally this theory says there is no other intelligent life out in the universe since us, our planet, our galaxy and the stars we can see are closed in a huge box - the Planetarium - separating us from the rest of the universe.
First let's explain what is the Fermi Paradox. In the early '50 in the New Mexico desert-Los Alamos laboratory Fermi asked "Where is everybody?". He means that since high probability of extraterrestrial life were affirmed at the time by theory, there was still - and there is still - not any signs of such life. Here the paradox and the reasonable question.
Many answers have been proposed to the paradox. A entire book tries to summarize all them. From the most skeptical ones like "they do not exist for life is unique to us" or "we are the first intelligent life in the universe", to the mild hypothesis of technological barrier, or as astrophysics (and science-fiction writers) call it the "great filter", which prevent aliens to communicate with us. Reasons for the barrier is a different kind of mathematics, the huge amount of time and space for any signals to reach us or the common cloudy skies.
The painted ceiling
A third group of answers says that they are already here - or at least they exist. And in this last category falls the Planetarium Hypothesis. It was first proposed by Stephen Baxter. Basically he says that a very far more intelligent form of life exists out there and they are basically looking at us, since they've formed us, or at least they've created the astronomical space we see from Earth.
It is like a huge painted ceiling, walls and floor that surround us and we are unable to reach due to the distance. By that mean we will never be able to find other intelligent forms of life.
I am fascinated and disgusted at the same time by this idea. It can be true that a higher form of life has created a fictional sky and universe - but some questions remain, like Why? Do they want to prevent us to discover them? How can we prove it? Have we to look at every inch of our fake sky and find a bug, a scraped paint? What I don't like about this theory is that it gives a reason to give up all scientific efforts to find out more about our universe.
I cannot say our universe is inhabited - others than by us - neither can I refuse it, but I believe it is worth trying find it.
By the way, I am really fascinated by how can we prove that our universe is a planetarium. In other words, how can a man in a "unreal" world find out the reality? This remember me the brain in a vat experiment, but I will discuss it another time.
It is the story of Elon Musk plan to colonize Mars. He thinks that humans have little or no chances to go through the next age, so he's planning to send the first million settlers up there. We'll see. (By the way I encourage him).
What I came across that stuck me was a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox, called the Planetarium Hypothesis. Fundamentally this theory says there is no other intelligent life out in the universe since us, our planet, our galaxy and the stars we can see are closed in a huge box - the Planetarium - separating us from the rest of the universe.
First let's explain what is the Fermi Paradox. In the early '50 in the New Mexico desert-Los Alamos laboratory Fermi asked "Where is everybody?". He means that since high probability of extraterrestrial life were affirmed at the time by theory, there was still - and there is still - not any signs of such life. Here the paradox and the reasonable question.
Many answers have been proposed to the paradox. A entire book tries to summarize all them. From the most skeptical ones like "they do not exist for life is unique to us" or "we are the first intelligent life in the universe", to the mild hypothesis of technological barrier, or as astrophysics (and science-fiction writers) call it the "great filter", which prevent aliens to communicate with us. Reasons for the barrier is a different kind of mathematics, the huge amount of time and space for any signals to reach us or the common cloudy skies.
The painted ceiling
A third group of answers says that they are already here - or at least they exist. And in this last category falls the Planetarium Hypothesis. It was first proposed by Stephen Baxter. Basically he says that a very far more intelligent form of life exists out there and they are basically looking at us, since they've formed us, or at least they've created the astronomical space we see from Earth.
It is like a huge painted ceiling, walls and floor that surround us and we are unable to reach due to the distance. By that mean we will never be able to find other intelligent forms of life.
I am fascinated and disgusted at the same time by this idea. It can be true that a higher form of life has created a fictional sky and universe - but some questions remain, like Why? Do they want to prevent us to discover them? How can we prove it? Have we to look at every inch of our fake sky and find a bug, a scraped paint? What I don't like about this theory is that it gives a reason to give up all scientific efforts to find out more about our universe.
I cannot say our universe is inhabited - others than by us - neither can I refuse it, but I believe it is worth trying find it.
By the way, I am really fascinated by how can we prove that our universe is a planetarium. In other words, how can a man in a "unreal" world find out the reality? This remember me the brain in a vat experiment, but I will discuss it another time.
10/08/2015
THE WEIRD CASE OF A PUBLIC-DEBT-WIPING-OFF DONATION
Have you ever thought of dispose all of your personal wealth in favor of the unknown general public instead of those of your close relatives? A man thought so in the early 20th century and all his money went to a fund aim at paying all the UK Public Debt. It was 1928 and a anonymous man made a donation of £308,909 in cash and £160,969 in securities in order to be “retained and accumulated until either alone or with other Funds it was sufficient to discharge the National Debt”. The money was then put in a trust with the scope to invest it until it will match the (then-not-so-immense) Public Debt.
Since then the fund has performed pretty well, increasing assets from £500,000 to nearly £400 million in 2014. But the amount of the fund now is getting problems to Barclay bank, who manages the trust, and they now are asking to give the money away. As a matter of fact, though, the UK Public Debt has reached £1,377 billion, almost 3,500 times the fund. A situation when the fund will be enough to pay out the Public Debt is not likely in the next future.
So, the bank, the attorney general’s office and the Charity Commission are working to change the original objects of the fund. Then any change has to be approved by a court of law. The legal problem, relating to the certainty of law and the sanctity of the will, is whether it is possible to change the interpretation given to a testament after more than eight decades driven by one objective.
The legal issue.
On one side, kept until today as the valid and driving rule, there is the literal meaning of the will, that subjects the final disposition of the fund to the discharge of the National Debt. If we believe a man’s character is made by the sum of his will and cannot be changed due to different circumstances, the National Fund should stay such.
On the other side, pushed by the trustee, there is the armchair principle which enables circumstances existing when the will was made – in this case, the relative manageable amount of public debt and the impossibility to foresee its growth – to be used to better understand the meaning of the will. This will allow a change in the scope of the trust and in its final disposition.
As always, facts are clear and law is not. We can speculate, until a judge will address this issue, and we will see if the will of a dead man or that of the living ones prevails.
10/07/2015
SOME INTRODUCTION - WHY THIS BLOG?
My name is Davide Perrone and I am finishing Law at Verona University in Italy.
I will write in this blog about my interests, which are not limited by Technology, Investments, International Tax Law, Business, Start-Ups, Innovation, Leadership, Management, Economics, Stories of Extraordinary Lives, Israel, Venture Capital, Intellectual Property, Trade Marks and Patent Law.
Welcome on board!
My name is Davide Perrone and I am finishing Law at Verona University in Italy.
I will write in this blog about my interests, which are not limited by Technology, Investments, International Tax Law, Business, Start-Ups, Innovation, Leadership, Management, Economics, Stories of Extraordinary Lives, Israel, Venture Capital, Intellectual Property, Trade Marks and Patent Law.
Welcome on board!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)