Comments on: Umeshisms

By: Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » A Euclidean theater of misery

Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » A Euclidean theater of misery — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:06:05 +0000

[...] As winner of the Best Umeshism Contest (remember that?), Peter Brooke earned the right to ask me any question and have me answer it on this blog. Without further ado, here is Peter’s question: If it is assumed that God exists, what further, reasonable, conclusions can be made, or is that where logical inquiry must end? Reasonable means in the light and inclusive of present scientific understanding. Defend any assumptions and conclusions you make. At least Peter was kind enough not to spring “Is there a God?” on me. Instead, like a true complexity theorist, he asks what consequences follow if God’s existence is assumed. [...]

By: Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Best anthropicism contest

Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Best anthropicism contest — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:07:03 +0000

[...] Inspired by Peter Woit’s almost-daily anti-anthropic broadsides, and in the spirit of my earlier Best Umeshism Contest, I hereby announce a new contest for Best Application of the Anthropic Principle. Here are a few samples to get the self-selected tautological ball rolling, not that it could do otherwise than roll: Why do so many people seem to care about being remembered after they die? Because we only remember the ones who cared about being remembered. [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:22:00 +0000

If you are still alive you did not live dangerously enough

The bit one place to the left to the most significant bit is zero.

Do not waste your high-bit-principles on airports.

All significant bits are significant; we often cannot tell looking at which bit will turn out being important. Look at many bits.

Remember, not everything in life can be translated into bits.

By: Moshe Rozali

Moshe Rozali — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:54:00 +0000

Nice game, and I am a little late. How about:

If your speculations are not universally attacked as complete nonsense, you are being too conservative.

(My question would have been “what would a theoretical physicist hope to learn from research on quantum complexity”, but I am late…)

By: BRAD =)

BRAD =) — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:26:00 +0000

If you haven’t won a pointless online contest, you are spending too much time constructively.

If you haven’t offered a narcissistic prize for a pointless online contest, you don’t love yourself enough.

If you don’t understand what I’m trying to say, you must not be a very good scientist.

Too bad I missed the deadline.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:03:00 +0000

Unrelated suggestion for Scott:

If you differ from Lance Fortnow in your assessment of the year in complexity, want to draw attention to other recent complexity developments, or have hopes for the next year, we’d love to hear them.

By: D. Sivakumar

D. Sivakumar — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:15:00 +0000

If you’ve never been audited by the IRS, you’re paying too much taxes. (IRS = Internal Revenue Service, for the non-Americans reading this blog).

By: Miss HT Psych

Miss HT Psych — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:08:00 +0000

If you’ve never broken the bed, you’re not experimenting enough.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:38:00 +0000

If you’ve never been captured and eaten by the natives, you’re spending too much time in your canoe.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:34:00 +0000

if you hair is too tidy, then you spent too much time combing.