Using The Higgs Boson To Prevent Terrorism

Imagine an elaborate system to prevent terrorism by using the theoretical quantum particle known as the Higgs boson.

To do this, one must build a rigid set of guidelines with a directed point of failure.  The point of failure will be used to decide if a Higgs boson particle should be created.

This boson doesn't "want" to be created.  The Higgs boson is a particle that should not exist in this spacetime frame.  It only exists in other frames of space-time.  If we cause this boson to appear in this frame of space-time, we will create a paradox.  But basic causality will prevent the Higgs boson from appearing in this frame.  It's just a fact of nature.  It's a scientific law.

In this way, it's similar to lightening.  Lightening travels through the path of least resistance.  In the case of a temporal paradox, causality will use the easiest effect to prevent a cause.  Cause and effect are reversed in the situation of a paradox framework.

When I say "easiest," I am not referring to Occam's Razor.  The actual effect that prevents the cause may appear to us as the least obvious effect.  So directing the effect is very difficult.

I think the best way would be to use encryption.  Each airplane that we would like to protect will carry several encryption keys all over the plane.  They will be made of very fragile material.  Under normal circumstances, if they plane remains intact, they keys will be retrievable.  If the keys are retrievable, they can be returned to the facility that will decide to then not attempt to produce the Higgs boson particle.

The keys are encrypted in order to prevent counterfeit keys from entering the equation.

That's the setup.  To summarize: Got all the keys?  Yes, we do?  Ok, then we will make no attempt to produce the particle today.  We'll try again tomorrow with new keys.

The tricky thing to remember is that the Higgs boson particle will only be produced if and only if a key is missing.  The idea is to build a system that will mean the easiest way to break down key retrieval is to destroy an airplane.  Since that is the easiest thing to do, causality will require terrorism to become harder.

Got all the keys?  No?  Uh oh, one or more is missing?  Ok, we shall now attempt to produce the particle that "doesn't want" to be produced (which then prevents the terrorist attack in the past).

It is important to ensure that the Higgs boson particle will be created in earnest if even one key is missing.  If the key is missing because a plane was destroyed, it is imperative that they attempt to proceed.  Doing so will then produce the effect to prevent the cause.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

The Prime Directive is Immoral

Remember The Prime Directive from Star Trek?  It is Starfleet's General Order #1, the most prominent guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets.  And it is totally and 100% morally bankrupt.

The Prime Directive is defined thusly:

WHEREAS, the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred.

WHEREAS, interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United Federation of Planets, in meeting duly assembled, accepts and supports the following findings: No Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture.  Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

The Prime Directive violates morality since this moral behavior should be preferred (or proscribed) for all Starfleet personnel in all places at all times (i.e., universal).  Starfleet is included as a protected culture since no exemption of any culture is listed.

For a proposition to be defined as moral, it must advocate a logically consistent set that violates The Prime Directive, such as “do not interfere.”

Anyone who argues for The Prime Directive must do so using clear language, arguments, logic and evidence; all based on the principle that truth is better than falsehood.

Clear language, argument, logic and evidence (and a universal preference for truth over falsehood) are all examples against The Prime Directive because the United Federation of Planets can only argue The Prime Directive by violating The Prime Directive.  This assumes anyone who argues is acting on the premise that clear language is universally preferred to gibberish, logic to illogic, and truth to falsehood.

Since The Prime Directive can be opposed by accepting the premise of The Prime Directive, it must stand as an invalid concept.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog