431–440 of 839 posts
Entropy. Sometimes you read that it's a measure of randomness; sometimes, information. Aren't randomness and information opposites?
Fourier Transforms. I'd wish I had a intuitive understanding of how they work. Until then I'm stuck with just believing that the magic works out.
It's difficult to relate the two together and even after hearing every heuristic and every cutesy analogy, I still can't quite wrap my head around what happens to one when I increase the other (and so on).
The mathematics of training a neural network. I understand how they work once trained, but that you can train them almost seems too good to be true.
Evolution. How does large scale randomness result in such complicated and intelligent systems, while after decades of research and all the computing power we have today, we still struggle to model and reproduce the intelligence of an insect.
"The Selfish Gene" was the book that finally made this click for me.
From the book:
> The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology. There is no reason to suppose that electronic computers are conscious when they simulate, although we have to admit that in the future they may become so. Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.
Double slit experiment. There's a lot out there detailing what happens but relatively few explanations go into why observing the state of a photon results in it "choosing" one slit over the other. I suspect many come away with the impression that it's magic despite there being a reasonably simple explanation for what's going on.
It also goes on to explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment but I don't think that's quite convincing.
Sort of meta, but I always shudder when someone says that science has "proven" something. What sets science apart from most other methods of seeking answers is its focus on disproof . Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. This misconception rears its head most prominently in discussions at the intersection between science and public policy. Climate change…
Not to be rude, but given current daily attacks on science and the scientific method, I can't let this stand - I think your meta intuition represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It is simply wrong to think that scientific questions can never be definitively settled. Clearly there are some hypotheses that have been difficult (and may be impossible) to prove, for example, Darwin's idea that nat…
No. What is the basis for these claims?
They're both wrong.
It's not true that CO2 increase is necessary for global warming. If the sun got a lot hotter, global temperatures would rise. If non-CO2 GHGs increased, global temperatures would rise. If the overall albedo of the planet changes, global temperatures can rise. There are literally thousands of things that could cause the temperature to rise.
It's also not true that CO2 increase, holding everything else constant, would lead to long term or even medium term warning. We have no idea what the ecosystem will do for any given change in CO2 levels, since there are countless species both who are net producers and net consumers of atmospheric CO2, all of whom have exponential growth and feedback loops.
Even still, even since both of those claims are wrong, CO2 increase may still cause global warming.
Furthermore, the things you claim are proven, are not proven, they are true by definition. All molecules carry information, and the fact that DNA carries genetic information is a direct consequence of the fact that it is DNA. V=IR by definition. F=ma by definition. There's no such thing as a "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" entity per se, these are metrics that are by definition equal in a given physical framework.
There is no way to 'technically' prove anything in science, and the reasons are simple:
(1) The past is gone - you can't access it
(2) You can't see the future
(3) Your knowledge of the present is extremely limited and inaccurate
These are the limitations of the real world, and science does its best to provide utility within that. It only focuses on making future predictions using the observed past as evidence, because you only can do that. You can't check your model in the present, because you can't instantaneously observe anywhere you aren't already observing. Checking your model on the past relies on what you think happened, i.e. what allegedly happened, but there is absolutely no way to truly know.
You can't even really prove anything 'novel' in mathematics, which is the only place where you can actually prove anything, but even there all proofs are effectively just framing something that was already implied axiomatically in a way that allows our limited human minds to see the relevant/useful patterns that aren't immediately obvious to us.
My point is, acting as though you can truly prove anything in science,
> what's really absurd is to think that no scientific questions can be settled
is not only wrong, but in my opinion is a distraction from what science is actually for. It's not about settling questions. Science is never settled, and that's part of what's beautiful about it. It's about reducing our own ignorance and proving our past selves wrong, discovering patterns and models that equip us with the knowledge to build a better world for ourselves and the rest of humanity.
Why lie about being a great soccer player when you're already great at basketball? Let's focus on the beauty of science as a great journey of growth and exploration that accelerates the progress of humanity, instead of trying to make it do something that isn't possible in the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A whole LOT of time, a whole lot of space. So estimate 1 minor good random mutation per 10,000 population. Assume 1 major mutation per 1000 years, per 10,000 population.
That's essentially the same kind of explanation as 'god did it'.
Sort of meta, but I always shudder when someone says that science has "proven" something. What sets science apart from most other methods of seeking answers is its focus on disproof . Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. This misconception rears its head most prominently in discussions at the intersection between science and public policy. Climate change…
Not to be rude, but given current daily attacks on science and the scientific method, I can't let this stand - I think your meta intuition represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It is simply wrong to think that scientific questions can never be definitively settled. Clearly there are some hypotheses that have been difficult (and may be impossible) to prove, for example, Darwin's idea that nat…
That said, it is indeed annoying when people who don't understand science interpret "open for disproof" to mean "it's easy to disprove." Quantum mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics could in principle be disproven, but the evidentiary burden would be extremely high. (Insert obligatory Carl Sagan quote here.)
Has someone that thought they were taking LSD ever turned into a permanent schizophrenic zombie or in a mental institution, or is it all urban legend. If someone that didn't know they were predisposed to mental illness, is it applicable to dismiss their experience in order to maintain how safe LSD is? If any of this is true, are there any sources aside from "my friend's friend's brother took too much and now he is...…
Tangential, and not an answer to your question, but if you're like me, you will be fascinated to learn that there is a drug (MPPP, synthetic opiate) that if cooked incorrectly yields "MPTP"[1] which will give you Parkinsons. As in, forever. You take this drug (at any age) and then you have Parkinsons for the rest of your life.