Heisenberg's uncertainty principle vs. Asimov's Laws of Robotics
This one will be good. Oh so good. But first, I was rather disappointed in the quality of the trash talking for the first fight. I felt beanholio should have replied with a comeback, something like "I'll mellow your tune" would have sufficed.
But I digress. On to the deffinitions
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives a lower bound on the product of the standard deviations of position and momentum for a system, implying that it is impossible to have a particle that has an arbitrarily well-defined position and momentum simultaneously.
Asimov's Laws of Robotis
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
5 comments:
This is a tough match up, at least in my mind. See, very few people really understand Heisenberg, but his law has been tested. Asimov's laws are pure fiction, but concrete and easily explained in three short phrases (four if you include the zeroth law, not included here but feel free to take it in consideration).
Normally I would chalk one up for Asimov for making his laws more succinct. However, by grossly misapplying Heisenberg's law to Asmiov's we get the movie/book "I, Robot;" where Heisenberg wins, save for the heroic exploits of Will Smith.
So, begrudgingly I vote for Heisenberg.
This is a tough one, I agree.
1st - Asimov's Laws are not technically scientific laws - which is a count against them
2nd - Heisenberg's Law has never never caused anything to run amok and try to kill people. Whether this is a point for or against is a matter of personal preference. As a side note:
The closest to killing anyone that for Heisenberg that I know of is his pal Schrodinger's box - and we're not even sure whether the cat is dead or not. (Although as long as it has been in the box without being opened I think it is fair to assume the original cat is dead now.)
3rd - Heisenberg's has been restated in a much more funny matter in the classic science text Science Made Stupid as "We don't really know anything."
4th - Asimov's Laws are much more likely to affect my day to day life.
5th - Despite the thrashing Germany(Heisenberg) gave Russia(Asimov) to start things off, in the end it was Russia and the US (Asimov) that kicked Germany's trash.
Given all of that - I had to vote Asimov.
I'm with Kit, but only because I already like Asimov better.
I mean, some obscure German comes up with a way to explain nothing - what's the cool in that?
As a counter point to the argument that Heisenberg's Law has never caused anything to run amok and try to kill people - neither has Asimov's. In fact, Asimov's laws are constructed to avoid that very thing.
Um, and I hereby talk trash. Consider trash talked.
"I mean, some obscure German comes up with a way to explain nothing - what's the cool in that?"
Well, tommyp, where to I begin? You are approching this from the wrong 'cool' angle. While I agree that it is not 'cool' in the 'classic' sense, it may in fact be quite 'cool' in several other metaphorical senses. For example, I would invite you to analyze the 'cool' factor from a new perspective, try either beatnic, or Emo. You may be pleasantly surprised.
In addition, it seems some of you are voting based on popularity of the given laws. This isn't Highschool you twits; this is a no holds barred caged match.
Just think of using popularity votes as a kick to the crotch. It might not follow the rules, but it sure is effective.
Post a Comment