Girl Number 9 - a review
It was a much-hyped web event. A quality drama, with well-known actors and writers. Because of its web presence and the past roles of the actors it would have been of interest to people who expected something strange.
So what happened with Girl Number 9?
It was fun to watch, but..
There were so many plot holes. A basement interrogation room with just one entrance? Talk about breaching of fire regulations! Interviews in which an officer was alone with the prisoner, and had a gun? What about the promise from a handcuffed prisoner to prevent the death of someone while still handcuffed, and alone in a locked room? ("Kill yourself", he said to the officer, "and I will save her"). How? Telepathy?
There was also some inappropriate gore. The first victim was ripped apart. There was no plot reason for such a gory death. It diminished the shock of the death of the police officer in the final episode.
Also, the ending was a disappointment. For goodness sake, given the hype and the presentation medium I expected something weird. A plot twist. The whole thing being a "Mission Impossible" style setup to catch the villain. The villain not being real, but some "Tyler Durden" alternate personality of the police officer: Imagine the excitement of an ending in which it turns out that the officer had set everything up, and was found alone, having committed suicide in the locked room.
But it was entertaining. The acting was very good indeed. Tracy Ann Olbermann (Eastenders, Doctor Who) dominated each scene she was in. Gareth David-Lloyd (Ianto Jones from Torchwood) was simply amazing. Joe Absolom (Eastenders) started off pretty well as a Hannibal Lecter-style villain but his characterisation ended up as merely a psychopathic yob, when it could have been more.
So, Girl Number 9 was flawed, but I'll certainly watch something again from the same team.
So what happened with Girl Number 9?
It was fun to watch, but..
There were so many plot holes. A basement interrogation room with just one entrance? Talk about breaching of fire regulations! Interviews in which an officer was alone with the prisoner, and had a gun? What about the promise from a handcuffed prisoner to prevent the death of someone while still handcuffed, and alone in a locked room? ("Kill yourself", he said to the officer, "and I will save her"). How? Telepathy?
There was also some inappropriate gore. The first victim was ripped apart. There was no plot reason for such a gory death. It diminished the shock of the death of the police officer in the final episode.
Also, the ending was a disappointment. For goodness sake, given the hype and the presentation medium I expected something weird. A plot twist. The whole thing being a "Mission Impossible" style setup to catch the villain. The villain not being real, but some "Tyler Durden" alternate personality of the police officer: Imagine the excitement of an ending in which it turns out that the officer had set everything up, and was found alone, having committed suicide in the locked room.
But it was entertaining. The acting was very good indeed. Tracy Ann Olbermann (Eastenders, Doctor Who) dominated each scene she was in. Gareth David-Lloyd (Ianto Jones from Torchwood) was simply amazing. Joe Absolom (Eastenders) started off pretty well as a Hannibal Lecter-style villain but his characterisation ended up as merely a psychopathic yob, when it could have been more.
So, Girl Number 9 was flawed, but I'll certainly watch something again from the same team.
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and castles in the air
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler is a well known popular science book about.. well, it is hard to know what it is actually about. The vague idea is that if the universe is all about us, then we can explain why it is why it is. I'm reading the book as research for a book of my own, and it has been quite a surprising read.
The "Anthropic Principle" is actually a series of ideas, which go from the obvious (any models of real universes has to include at least this universe because we can see it) to the bizarre (the universe only exists because we observe it).
The problem is that no-one has really sorted out what "observe" means. This leads to a real problem, as the many uses of "Anthropic Principle" have no clear foundation until that definition is clear.
There is also a real problem with any definition of the Anthropic Principle which says that the universe had to include life, or even intelligent life. Because what is life, and what is intelligence? Life is vastly complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. Intelligence isn't what it seems; just read a few books by Daniel Dennett. We barely have any idea of what is going on in our own heads. We aren't even competent and intelligent observers of ourselves, let alone anything else. Intelligence seems to be just some form of information processing (Barrow and Tipler talk about "computing").
So, If life is just chemistry, and intelligence is just a form of information processing, then all versions of the Anthropic Principle reduce to the following:
At least one universe exists, and it allows for pretty complex chemistry that can do some kind of information processing.
Which doesn't really get us anywhere. It certainly doesn't lead to anything as bizarre as Tipler's ideas of intelligent life having to exist effectively eternally, and the Omega Point.
The book highlights a real problem. If you start with an idea which may seem vaguely right ("observers") but has no real definition, then you can build wonderful castles in the air. Tipler's later books on physics and Christianity show the consequences of such castle building.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that this complex information processing chemistry isn't rather wonderful. I am very happy to be a particular bunch of chemicals typing this blog entry.
The "Anthropic Principle" is actually a series of ideas, which go from the obvious (any models of real universes has to include at least this universe because we can see it) to the bizarre (the universe only exists because we observe it).
The problem is that no-one has really sorted out what "observe" means. This leads to a real problem, as the many uses of "Anthropic Principle" have no clear foundation until that definition is clear.
There is also a real problem with any definition of the Anthropic Principle which says that the universe had to include life, or even intelligent life. Because what is life, and what is intelligence? Life is vastly complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. Intelligence isn't what it seems; just read a few books by Daniel Dennett. We barely have any idea of what is going on in our own heads. We aren't even competent and intelligent observers of ourselves, let alone anything else. Intelligence seems to be just some form of information processing (Barrow and Tipler talk about "computing").
So, If life is just chemistry, and intelligence is just a form of information processing, then all versions of the Anthropic Principle reduce to the following:
At least one universe exists, and it allows for pretty complex chemistry that can do some kind of information processing.
Which doesn't really get us anywhere. It certainly doesn't lead to anything as bizarre as Tipler's ideas of intelligent life having to exist effectively eternally, and the Omega Point.
The book highlights a real problem. If you start with an idea which may seem vaguely right ("observers") but has no real definition, then you can build wonderful castles in the air. Tipler's later books on physics and Christianity show the consequences of such castle building.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that this complex information processing chemistry isn't rather wonderful. I am very happy to be a particular bunch of chemicals typing this blog entry.