Why is there no antimatter in the Universe?

This question is widely discussed in the physics community with no answer yet presented. It was recently demonstrated that Hydrogen and anti-Hydrogen have the exact same excitation spectra, further strengthen the standard model in this respect.

So here is a wild (and as usualy not very firmly grounded since I don't know very much about this) suggestion to the assymetry.
Maybe there is some kind of process that can oscillate between matter and antimatter. Currently the universe is in the matter oscillation stage. Maybe there is a gradual process towards antimatter or maybe the big bang was initiated from the antimatter state some how. That is, e.g. the big bag was preceeded by an anti matter bug crunch.

Another thought regarding this is, since there is no difference in the spectrum, how can we be sure that the other galaxies, or galaxy clusters, actually consists of matter? Maybe actually they consists of antimatter and everything is much more symmetric then we think. But a quick googling indicates that this is unlikely.

Sensor OSI-model

Introduction

In communication there is the famous OSI network stack model. However, to my knowledge, there is no such thing for sensors. So, here is my proposition for such a model:
6. Decision layer
5. Fusion layer
4. Distribution layer
3. Classification layer
2. Detection layer
1. Physical layer

Layer descriptions

The function of these follows

Physical layer

This is very similar to the physical layer in the OSI model and consists of the hardware raw data produced by the hardware.

Detection layer

The function of this layer is to determine when the sensor gets actuated. Some sensor like for example a temperature sensor probably gets activated all the time, as long as it is on. But others, like radars and image sensors might only get readings of at certain time instances.

Classification layer

There is often a need for a sensor to classify the detections in one or another way. That can for example be a face recognition algorithm in an image sensor, or a tracking filter in a radar or lidar sensor.

Distribution layer

In this layer the sensor data is packages (typically using some communication protocol) and distributed to the unit that is processing the sensor data. At this stage, the sensor data is converted to some object format. Maybe time stamps or accuracy information is bundled with the actual read data as well.

Fusion layer

At this layer, data from all sensors is fused to form a coherent picture of the sensed scenario. This can for example be GPS and Lidar data in an autonomous car and the processing stage is then denoted an occupancy grid.

Decision layer

Once all data is fused into a complete picture - a decision layer processes it to determine how to act on the sensor data.

Conclusion

This is my draft of how a layer model for sensors could be formed. Would be very interesting to hear any comments on it.

A proposition on (free) will

I have a proposition on what might constitute (what might appear as free) will. It is a complex set of "high order" rules where by an entity operate or which govern the entity's operation.
This is an intuitive definition of will in the sense that people tend to use the word in contexts which apply to the above definition. It is most clear with computer programs where people can talk about the computers "will" when it does something (it should not). But it can also be seen e.g. when animals or plants are discussed: "The flower wants to have much sun", or rain. Or "the moskito wants to suck blood".

Now, I would like to propose that we should look for these high order rules and see if they can be built in to a program to emulate will.

These higher order rules can probably be associated to different orders of logic or Russells type theory.

Another key aspect of these rules is that they should have a connection to senses and actuators. That is key for interaction.

This might be a bit behavioristic. But one can view mind as an hirarcical entity consisting of entities which can be probed from the outside, but when viewed internally no mind process can be found. The entities them selves consist of further new entities which cannot internally be associated to a cognitive process bytes can perform one as a whole. This is some kind of emerging phenomenon model. Ideas similar to these, but expressed differently were also presented here.

About machine learning

It has recently, in so many places, been suggested that "AI" poses the single largest threat to humanity. To me, this claim is just uninformed and rediculus. Some arguments against:

1. It has been stated that we will not be able to predict the evolution of AI. And it will grow in intellegence exponentially and BAM out-smart and kill us all. But looking at history this kind of prediction has been made lots of times befor with different technical advancememts. To error. I see no reason to beleive this piece of tech will be any more disruptive in that sense.

2. AI is, also amongst highly educated people, vastly miss-understood. In its current incarnation, it is a set of tools to solve detailed technical problems. No where is there any will or intention. AI people still say (and so do I)they do not even understand will.

3. They keep saying we will have an escalation of ai evolving it self away from us slow biologically evolved beings. And finally erasing us. But if an ai is intelligent enough, and the above is a problem, why would it want to have it self superseded by a smarter ai? Won't that feel like for us and the level 1 ai?

Rehammar's law

I just read about Godwin's law. I think I can make a generalisation: If the number of entries in a discussion thread on the internet (or some where else) goes to infinity, every statement that can be made, will be made. This is just due to that people tend to make all sorts of weird connections and sooner or later, every statement will be made. Woilla - Rehammar's law.

Why Windows is such a success

I have devoted a full blog post here to all things I hate about Windows, and it is growing. However, it is impossible to deny the huge success the operating system has had on the desktop. And I think I just realized how this came about. It is really one key thing they realized:
Distribute self-contained binaries and keep binary compatibility.
I think this is the genius move that *NIX did not understand, and still does not.

Open mobile

When will we see an android version for a phone running on openrisc or risc v and some free gpu? This would be a really nice thing that could potentially in the long run increase availability and lower costs for end consumers of mobile phones.
The last piece in this puzzle would then be a free lte stack and a free asic to execute it.
When will I be able to buy that?