The world is not enough | Hacker News Reader

The world is not enough

the-tls.co.uk

69 pointsvo2maxer29 comments

I was curious about the phrase "The World is not Enough". Apparently the Bond film used the title because "Orbis non sufficit" was on the Bond family crest in an earlier film.

I assume derived from what is supposed to be Alexander the Great's epitaph, "A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.” Though I'm unable to find a credible source that's actually his epitaph.

Also on the family crest for King Phillip II of Spain: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Fu...

Yes.

> “The World Is Not Enough” is an English translation of the Latin phrase Orbis non sufficit, which in real life was the motto of Sir Thomas Bond. In the novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service and its film adaptation, this is revealed to be the Bond family motto. The phrase originates from the epitaph of Alexander the Great.

Sure. I could find references like that to Alexander the Great's epitaph, but no real info, like the original phrase in Greek, etc.

I'm fairly certain it's made up since the tomb itself has never been confirmed. It seems likely it's derived from later writings, like Juvenal's Satires [1]. "The world was not big enough for Alexander the Great, but a coffin was."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satires_(Juvenal)#Satire_X:_Wr...

This reminds me of the classic Tolstoy short story: How much land does a man need?

Thank you for linking, that was a wonderful story.

Oh, wow. I remember reading this in high school, but had no clue it was Tolstoy.

"Take any solid element that doesn’t vaporize, and heat it to, say, 700 degrees and you will find it emits exactly the same spectrum of light as any other solid element also at 700 degrees."

Is this really true? I thought that the elements (compounds?) could be identified by the wavelengths of light they emitted when heated. This article on Wikipedia seems to confirm that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum Maybe the statement is true for solid materials.

I didn't read much past that point. Maybe I'm oblivious to the point the author was trying to convey, but I find it hard to get past statements that appear to be obviously false.

It's approximately true.

Heated solids will emit the same overall spectrum, but with some gaps. Those gaps can be used to identify the substances.

The statement is more true for holes. If you heat the hole walls, it tends not to have the gaps (the deeper the hole, the less visible the gaps).

700 celsius.

A better ref is the description of "black body radiation" in Wikipedia.

The emission (or absorption) spectrum is characteristic of electron state transitions within an element -- the specific quantuum state changes that occur as (valance) electrons shift between orbital levels.

That's contrasted with black-body radiation, which is characteristic of any material, and dependent only on the temperature. The relationship isn't perfect -- there's "ideal black-body" and actual -- but it's quite good, and has applications from cooking, pottery, and metallurgy to astronomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

Say we go with that thought experiment saying if it's possible to simulate our observable universe, we're likely to be in such a simulation. When some of our better theorists try to model the realities of trying to simulate our reality, they seem to keep bumping into hard walls. That old 'not enough atoms in the universe' thing.

This brings to mind the possibility that we are being simulated from a much different, maybe more complex universe with its own physics (and probably a whole lot more matter/energy). How much knowledge about such an origin point - or next ladder rung up - can we reasonably expect to derive from our ability to measure what's observable within our own simulation?

> And so this seemingly faster-than-light action must be accounted for – you are forced to conclude that either time or space is not fundamental to the universe.

While I don't disagree with this, it did seem like it brushed over the single classical bit of information needed to perform "quantum teleportation".

Am I missing something new or different?

Beautifully written. Felt a bit prepared for this having recently read, “Reality is Not What it Seems”, but these concepts are still so hard to grasp.

I just recommended the Dalai Lama’s “Universe in a Single Atom” in another thread and there’s something in that book that to me sounds like what Smolin is getting at — if I’m understanding correctly (and I’m probably not) — that ultimately reality must be studied subjectively to be truly understood. His claim is that through deep meditation on the true nature of things, the meditator can essentially conduct thought experiments — and that if we ever hope to truly understand reality, we need a way to scientifically measure those experiences. I have no idea how you’d go about that, since it seems fundamentally opposed to how we use objectivity to validate experiments — but it’s a fascinating thing to consider.

Just a thought, but is not the only difference between objectivity and subjectivity the object and subject's language?

But it is such a perfect place to start, my love

I have nothing useful to add to this thread, but I thought it nice that I happened to be listening to Garbage and walking thru the streets of Edinburgh, Shirley Manson's home town, when I happened upon this thread and comment.

>Take any solid element that doesn’t vaporize, and heat it to, say, 700 degrees and you will find it emits exactly the same spectrum of light as any other solid element also at 700 degrees. The reason this happens is because we live in a quantum world.

i think the author is deeply mistaken here. The idealized "black body radiation" of classical physics would be the same for both elements. It is because of quantum mechanics that the actual spectrum of different elements at the same temperature is different.

Nice article but Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965, not 1964.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/summary/

Reading about the idea that relationality is fundamental to existence, it's hard not to think of John 1: "The Word was with God... No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Salvation is simple: knowing the creator, the source of existence.

Interesting theorem, though experimental data might be hard to come by.

That's the whole problem of quantam physics, isn't it

I can think of way better and more appropriate quotes, the only relation to relationality this one has is the preposition "with". And regardless, your comment could do without the proseletizying in the last sentence.

It's not proselytization, it's a restatement of the central doctrine of Christianity, undergirded by the doctrine of the Trinity which is pretty germane to relationality, and most commonly argued for from John, especially chapter 1.

> Enter Lee Smolin,

Anyone else recognise his name from years of pop-physics articles about this or that fringe idea .. and nowhere else?

I'm amused by the idea that he might not even be a real person, but rather a shared pen name used by serious physicists when they want to endorse an idea outside the norm without taking a reputation or status hit from it. An anti-Nicholas-Barbouki, if you will.

What? He's got a Wikipedia page with photos and a biography...

LOL, I like how you’re thinking. FWIW, there exists a man that calls himself Lee Smolin (and that other physicists also acknowledge to be so), and I’ve met him. I assume he’s the one writing these papers, for he would dispute the use of his name otherwise. Unless he’s been chosen for exactly this role, in which case the conspiracy good to deep... possibly deeper than quantum mechanics! :-)

It's quite rude to say that a real person does not exist, just because you have not bothered to educate yourself about his field.

It's quite rude to put words in my mouth which I didn't say, then make up some things about what I have or haven't done and use them as an insult against me.

"I'm amused by X" != "X is true"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com