Is dark matter imaginary matter?

I do not know (almost) anything about cosmology, QFT or those kind of things. Anyway I will post a wild suggestion here that just stroke me. Maybe we should think of dark matter/energy as imaginary matter energy, where imaginary is in the sense of imaginary numbers.

My point being, the real numbers set is not algebraically closed, while the complex set is. Thus, should not the word contain this symmetry is a more concrete way? The real numbers set is really not a very pretty looking thing, but the complex set really is! It is not only the closure thing. It is all the nice properties that follows with it, analytic functions, simple trigonometric identities and so on...

Or maybe is it antimatter we should view in this way?

Reasons for believing or not in God

In this post I will try to list the reasons for believing in God, and the reasons for not. The matter is quite interesting, and I would love to hear comments about the list and other reasons for or against you might find worth mentioning. The post is sort of ongoing, so I guess the list will expand in time. The arguments are sort of semi-formal. I'm trying to keep a fairly formal reasoning tone, but of course; I'm dealing with one of the worst defined concepts there is, so there have to be some hand waving.

By the way, I will also make a list with reasons I have come across that I find are not proper arguments for either.

Pros

• Classical mechanics is much simpler that quantum mechanics. This could be an indication that the creator of this world chosed to make it as comprehend-able as possible by creating it such that the emerging mechanics is simpler than the basis. This is otherwise counter-intuitive, one would spontaneously guess that the emergence is more complex, eg. as the popular theory of life.
• We are trapped between the extremely small and the extremely large. This idea is related to the above argument. I am for sure no expert in cosmology or quantum field theory. But as I understand it, science seem to suggest that there are limits to what we can explore scientifically. And this holds both for the very small and the very large. Thus "we" (humans, intelligent beings...) are trapped, we are really enclosed in a world where our reasoning can not escape. To me this looks like "someone" has put these bounds there to keep us in place.

Cons

• The Theodicy problem. This is to me a really hard one to crack if one wants to believe in a God that wants good. However of course, it is no argument against the usual guy with power.
• If God exists, why can't we communicate with it/detect its presence? To me this is quite problematic. If there exists a creator of the world, and this creator did have the intention to create humans, why is there no interaction with us?
• What created God? This is a crucial problem with the idea of a God as I see it. If we put in the concept of God "the creator of the Universe" (everything in some sense), what created God? Over-God? Not helping, what created Over-God?

Non adequate

• It gives comfort to believe in God. This is not an argument for or against God, it is simply a way to still a psychological need.
• There are so much in the world that we are not able to explain, someone have to have designed it. Just because we are not able to explain it, there is no reason to believe it unexplainable - look at all the thing that once were unexplained that we understand today.
• Intelligent design, the state of the marvelous humans and the animals must have been created by an intelligent being. These kind of arguments, hinting that someone must have designed us, or the world to yield us via e.g. evolution, since we have appeared so great is not an argument at all. For all we know, the processes of the world might have created us the way we are. And the processes of the world seem quite self-contained, not requiring any God for its existence. On the other hand, it might well be that the world actually was designed. We seem not to find any strong indications saying it absolutely can not have been designed. Thus, The argument indicate either pro nor con.

Wearable computers, the future

The discussions about Google glass continuous. My take: this is a great start, but wait for it. Is a few years we will have sterioscopic screens on both eyes and cameras on both eyes as well. Till will make possible sterioscopic (3D, that is) projections which can be used e.g. to produce the input mechanism to the system where the sterioscopic cameras will be used to receive gestures from the users. This will be the true 3D interface. It will render 3D TV obsolete, and combine it with true 3D sound, and you will have a new level of augmented reality.

But it won't stop at that, we will have IR sensors, active noise canceled sound, body mounted RF radar, millimeter positioning, you name it. And more computational power than anyone can imagine. This we give us new senses. Imagine a person using lenses with this capability. They won't be visible to anyone else, and they won't be annoying to wear, but they will make perceiving the world at 60GHz.

No point in complaining about this. It will happen, it is only a matter of time, and we will love it!

Per Bolund trasslar till det

Lyssnade på Miljöpartiets ekonomiska talesperson, Per Bolund idag på P1. Han försöker i Ekots Lördagsintervju förklara hur Miljöpartiet resonerar kring deras förslag till slopat sjuklöneansvar för småföretagare. Bolund pekar på två faktorer, en administrativ börda samt en kostnad. Miljöpartiet vill att företag med färre än 10 anställda ska slippa betala sjuklön de två veckorna som nu gäller.

Jag kan inte förstå dagens fjäskande för företagen? Håller helt med om att vi måste skapa ett konkurrenskraftigt företagsklimat i Sverige om vi ska behålla välfärden. Men, som Saarinen påpekar i P1, så kompenserades företagen för att denna extra bördan lades på dem när den infördes med sänkte arbetsgivaravgift. Alla dessa kringelikrokar handlar bara om nyliberala ideologier där man försöker friställa företagen från varje gnutta samhällsansvar genom att successivt trolla bort krav på företagens deltagande.

Om det nu är så problematiskt för små företag att hantera kraftiga fluktuationer i och med sjukdom hos sina anställda, varför inte ingå en försäkring inom företagarna för detta så att denna "extra" kostnad då kan täckas av en sådan försäkring. Detta är ju vad man vill tvinga anställda till hela tiden t.ex. i olika fackliga inkomstförsäkringar och privat pensionssparande.

Bolund uttrycker att vi vet att dom små företagen är ansträngde idag, men vi har ju den Svenska modellen som trots allt renderat världens rikaste land (mer eller mindre) där vi inte vill ha företag som inte bär sej. Varför ska vi lämna den modellen?

När Saarinen påpekar att en övergång från att arbetsgivaren betalar sjuklön till att försäkringskassan gör det riskerar personer att få lägre ersättning. Då föreslår Bolund att det ska lösas med kollektivavtal, så att t.ex. arbetsgivaren ska betala en liten del trots allt. Så då verkar inte administrationen som har påpekar är så problematisk vara så problematisk helt plötsligt. Och kollektivavtal sedan? Dvs. arbetstagarna får en till punkta att argumentera för i avtalsrörelsen, vilket naturligtvis sänker deras ställning generellt gentemot arbetsgivaren.

Bolund trasslar också in sej när han inte vill kommentera parternas krav i diskussionen i den nuvarande skolbespisningskonflikten men samtidigt tycker det är OK att diktera hur mycket mer lärarna bör få i lön. Inkonsekvent helt enkelt.