|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:The significance is that the frames are not moving, the space between them is expanding. There is a difference. Nothing is actually moving FTL. Yes. The very concept of movement over extended distances is problematic in general relativity because there's no longer global SO(3,1) (aka Lorentz) symmetry; the SO(3,1) symmetry becomes local. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RtMMupdOC4 Further, as I said, there's always the possiblity that SO(3,1) symmetry is weakly broken. Beyond that there's even fun times with things like SO(3,2) symmetry where you completely lose distance and movement as meaningful concepts.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
It is Spirit, mang
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Humboldt Squid posted:I don't understand how people can realize things like this and say "only" like it isn't amazing and awe inspiring. Awe and inspiration are not real according to goonlogic
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I need some equations to describe how this poem causes my spirit to move
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I need some equations to describe how this poem causes my spirit to move scientism = bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:scientism = bad actually it's good determinism ftw
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:actually it's good Those two aren't the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Those two aren't the same thing. i know but both are cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
blowfish posted:i know but both are cool Scientism is for fools who cannot fathom that every method, no matter how succesfu, has its limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Ah, okay, you were using information in a very different way from "informing Bob about his rectal cancer", and more to mean a set of related states. Could Conway's Game of Life contain real life-forms? Basic patterns in Life are just inanimate machines and the "physics" or rules are simpler than our own so implementing a real life-form would require more elaborate spatial arrangements to do computation with than in our ruleset, where there are distinct differences of kind down to the most fundamental levels of both matter and energy. Since it is a less varied universe than our own, the diversity of information to be processed is not all that large either. However, there's no reason a sufficiently complex initial setup couldn't generate both a changing environment and an adapting pattern that at least minimally qualifies as alive. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:There's been advancement in space exploration, but yes, that as slowed down recently. To me, there seem to be two big reasons for this: I guess it depends upon the field, but I'm thinking of biology/genetics as an example (which is the only field I'm that familiar with). In the past couple decades we've made absolutely massive strides, but it isn't the sort of thing that you can expect to go on indefinitely (and indeed there are already signs that the massive gains from the advent of sequencing/our ability to analyze genomic/genetic data will slow down). In this case, technological advancement has resulted in us being able to generate massive amounts of data, but computing power isn't sufficient to analyze this data beyond a certain extent (and shows no signs of reaching the point where it will be). Even when we use super expensive clusters, individual analyses still often take like a week. It's a situation where, after developing this technology, we went "oh poo poo there's so much cool stuff we can learn now!" but ended up realizing "jesus gently caress how in the world will we ever be able to make sense of a lot of this." There's also another important issue more related to the scientific community/society itself that I'll mention at the end of this post after the *. It's entirely possible that we'll continue to see these massive increases in our knowledge/technology for another hundred years or even longer; my point is just that it's been a relatively short time since we became able to do things like harness electricity or build microprocessors, and that it isn't unrealistic to attribute a lot of recent growth to the fact that these things opened up a lot of doors towards obvious areas of study. Regarding space travel specifically, I think it's entirely likely that we could travel through our own solar system, but anything beyond that represents such a massive gap that we can't really extrapolate bridging that gap. Even if we managed to build one of the theoretical spaceships that could travel such a distance within a human lifetime, there are still problems that we have no conceivable solution to. It just isn't logical to point towards this period of growth as a sign that growth will continue indefinitely. Our universe is how it is, and if there exist hard limitations to what humans can accomplish then no amount of research will change that. We have what is likely a distorted view due to living in a period of great growth. Sort of like if someone's only frame of reference for the stock market was the roaring 20's, except instead of the growth period only being <10 years having it being a few hundred years. *It's also very important to consider the way the scientific community operates. Using biology as an example (again just because I'm familiar with it), scientists are generally very hesitant to put effort towards solving the more difficult problems, because it is much more difficult to get funding towards them. It's much easier to get funding towards researching some gene that we already know has some connection Alzheimer's or something. My coworker actually did a very interesting study on this. He ended up finding out that an overwhelming majority of scientific studies focus on a small minority of genes, even if you narrow it down to only genes we know to be highly expressed somewhere (I think he used some important brain regions as an example). You end up with a ton of studies that just do simple GWAS's (genome wide association studies, where you look across the entire genome to see what region a particular trait is associated with), even though in most cases these studies are insufficient to actually prove a causal relationship. In reality, there is an extremely complex system/network of variables that affect various traits, but many (probably most) studies will just control for a few other variables and call it a day, either because they want a positive result or because the biologist simply lacks the knowledge of statistics/mathematics to do such a thing. My point here is that even if it might technically be possible to make far more scientific progress, the way our society/economy is structured makes it very unlikely (and there are zero signs of this changing). While we might be able to accomplish a bunch of amazing things if the government suddenly deciding to reallocate some large portion of military funding towards research while simultaneously having the scientific community rework how it values research that doesn't necessary provide "major" results, there is no sign of this actually happening. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I think that the advances in medical research are a bit overrated, compared to the progress in fields like technology. There are a lot of discoveries with respect to underlying molecular mechanisms, but they are not translated in actual progress in therapeutics. I think that there is a kind of stagnation during the last 20 years and i think that this will be more evident in the upcoming years. This is mainly due to the complexity of biological functions and the huge amount of cross-talks that are difficult to be affected by a single substance (drug).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
minasole posted:I think that the advances in medical research are a bit overrated, compared to the progress in fields like technology. There are a lot of discoveries with respect to underlying molecular mechanisms, but they are not translated in actual progress in therapeutics. I think that there is a kind of stagnation during the last 20 years and i think that this will be more evident in the upcoming years. This is mainly due to the complexity of biological functions and the huge amount of cross-talks that are difficult to be affected by a single substance (drug). CRISPR is going to change that. I am working on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
life is the grand mistake of a disordered and chaotic universe, op. nothing less foolish than an imperative of self-preservation in a reality where the only certainty is eventual death. you may endure it, if you wish, but there is really only one true freedom afforded to beings cursed with sentience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
McDowell posted:CRISPR is going to change that. I am working on it. CRISPR is quite promising! I hope it won't turn out to be a hype like all previous gene therapies or the miraculous power of stem cells, or the hype of novel cancer immunotherapies...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
minasole posted:CRISPR is quite promising! I hope it won't turn out to be a hype like all previous gene therapies or the miraculous power of stem cells, or the hype of novel cancer immunotherapies... Those things still have a lot of potential but as you've said we lack the fine control. CRISPR is precise enough to tweak biochemical pathways in terms of any single gene/protein component. There would still be lots of work actually reverse engineering all the systems that control cell/tissue organization- and that knowledge + the tool will likely move some of those breakthroughs you mentioned towards viable economic goods. I'm not going to say more  but I am optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Scientism is the philosophical position that no statement is true unless it can be empirically or logically verified. This statement cannot be empirically or logically verified. This completely ignores the role of contingency in the view point. "truths" are *contingent* on verification, but it still allows that the verification was wrong and that the assumptions where wrong. If I observed an apple falling a thousand times and decided that it must be the earths magnetism causing it (Assuming we hadnt discovered gravity yet) , my observations would appear to confirm my theory, and for all purposes its still science. its just that its wrong. Later research might overturn it noting that the apple does not appear to react to magnets and thus another force might be at play. Perhaps they'd call it "gravity".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Sometimes it isn't a linear path. Humanized antibodies were hot well before hESCs ever were. At the time, the technology totally wasn't there so academic excitement lead to start-up exuberance followed by a market crash. For a while, nobody took antibody therapy seriously. But now technology has caught up to the promise and now antibody therapy is having a huge renaissance. Likewise ESCs gave rise to iSCs, a much more promising technology. But totally not ready for prime time. Maybe CRISPR can bridge the gap, maybe CRISPR is totally awesome on its own. If it plays out like pretty much every biological discovery after the libertarian free-marketeering days of insulin. With history as a guide, I'd recommend investing in long standing iSC companies and shorting CRISPR start-ups that have gone public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
The universe and existence is infinitely complex, the curse of humanity is to simplify it all into understandable forms. Really, it's all just poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Sorry I missed this one:The Larch posted:Scientism is the philosophical position that no statement is true unless it can be empirically or logically verified. This statement cannot be empirically or logically verified. To correct your position a bit: scientism is the philosophical position that no statement be treated as true unless it can be empirically and logically verified, that that this should be seen as authoritative. Just because you cannot cross the is-ought, doesn't mean scientism is inherently self-contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
People generally have the is ought distinction backwards anyway. Hume was a sentimentalist. He was a lot more concerned with statements like Aristotle's justification of slavery than whether moral principles can be derived from scientific advancement. Dude already knew where moral sentiments came from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Those things still have a lot of potential but as you've said we lack the fine control. CRISPR is precise enough to tweak biochemical pathways in terms of any single gene/protein component. There would still be lots of work actually reverse engineering all the systems that control cell/tissue organization- and that knowledge + the tool will likely move some of those breakthroughs you mentioned towards viable economic goods. The ultimate point we can reach, maybe in a thousand years from now, is to get the full map of the chemical reactions of ones body, and the complete chemical map that is not working properly and causes a disease. This will definitely be the end of medicine as we will be able to heal everything. However, as this is quite difficult to achieve, lets hope that despite biological complexity and myriads of cross-talks, we will be able to achieve many things with simplier methods alot sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I don't think this reflects the belief of any christian group. He who shall teach the Child to Doubt The rotting Grave shall neer get out He who respects the Infants faith Triumphs over Hell & Death - William Blake
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Those things still have a lot of potential but as you've said we lack the fine control. CRISPR is precise enough to tweak biochemical pathways in terms of any single gene/protein component. There would still be lots of work actually reverse engineering all the systems that control cell/tissue organization- and that knowledge + the tool will likely move some of those breakthroughs you mentioned towards viable economic goods. ...Of a single cell. Just because you can exert changes to a couple hundred cells in a reactor doesn't mean you have infinite power over an organism. Besides that little hurdle, whatever social changes that might be brought about by practical gene therapy are going to be defined by the economic systems they will operate in. And looking at the direction global capitalism is heading (ie authoritarian and inegalitarian), methinks CRISPR is going to remain a plaything of the corporations for the next few decades at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:...Of a single cell. Just because you can exert changes to a couple hundred cells in a reactor doesn't mean you have infinite power over an organism. Besides that little hurdle, whatever social changes that might be brought about by practical gene therapy are going to be defined by the economic systems they will operate in. And looking at the direction global capitalism is heading (ie authoritarian and inegalitarian), methinks CRISPR is going to remain a plaything of the corporations for the next few decades at least. In addition to what this poster is saying, the ability to make these changes doesn't change the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, we don't know what changes need to be made (because the systems involved are simply too complex for us to analyze properly). I mean, it's still potentially a huge deal and will help people who have conditions that are relatively straight-forward (in terms of their biological/genetic cause) in addition to facilitating a lot of additional research. But it won't really solve the more fundamental problems when it comes to medical applicability. I honestly have no idea how we'll ever be able to deal with the complexity inherent in some of these systems. We can cut computation time by improving the algorithms we use, but even then it's still prohibitively computationally intensive to ever control for more than a handful of other variables. And while this is often sufficient to get a useful or informative result (whether in terms of research or medicine), it probably isn't going to be sufficient to pin-point the specific causes of any particular complex condition/trait. By "prohibitively computationally intensive", I mean that we'll basically never be able to do this stuff (without some presently inconceivable advance in technology), even after accounting for our recent/projected growth in computation (which we can't really expect to continue forever due to physical constraints). I'm completely open to someone disagreeing with me here; this is just the impression I get from talking with various scientists I work with and seems to more or less be the consensus among anyone who deals with computational biology/bioinformatics (though there are some people who more or less "drink the kool-aid" of their own grant applications sometimes). Anyways, going back to the general point my earlier post dealt with, I'm using biology as an example of the fact that growth - no matter how great - does not in any way imply that we'll be able to solve all the problems we encounter. There may be things we can never do. Obviously we should operate on the assumption that it's worth attempting to do these things, since we aren't blessed with the knowledge of which specific things are impossible. But there's certainly no rule saying that anything is technologically possible given enough time and effort, yet many people seem to have what amounts to faith that "science" will inevitably figure out all this stuff. When people say things like "but we used to think _____ was impossible!" they're forgetting about all the things we used to think were impossible that we still think are impossible; it's a confirmation bias thing where they're cherry-picking examples to prove their point (that something is probably possible even if we presently think it isn't). Yes, some things we used to think were impossible turned out to be possible; this does not mean that it is likely that any given thing we believe to be impossible is actually possible. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Anyways, going back to the general point my earlier post dealt with, I'm using biology as an example of the fact that growth - no matter how great - does not in any way imply that we'll be able to solve all the problems we encounter. There may be things we can never do. Obviously we should operate on the assumption that it's worth attempting to do these things, since we aren't blessed with the knowledge of which specific things are impossible. But there's certainly no rule saying that anything is technologically possible given enough time and effort, yet many people seem to have what amounts to faith that "science" will inevitably figure out all this stuff. When people say things like "but we used to think _____ was impossible!" they're forgetting about all the things we used to think were impossible that we still think are impossible; it's a confirmation bias thing where they're cherry-picking examples to prove their point (that something is probably possible even if we presently think it isn't). Yes, some things we used to think were impossible turned out to be possible; this does not mean that it is likely that any given thing we believe to be impossible is actually possible. However, as a corollary, everything that we observe must by definition be possible to achieve, even if doing so may or may not become practical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Zas posted:actually op i read that only death is certain The only thing any of you should take away from this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:The only thing any of you should take away from this thread. I don't agree! Since even complex phenomena can be explained, there can always be a way to win death. Maybe we won't be here to see it, but if progress continues, then it is inevitable. For instance, even if CRISPR or anything else we do today fails due to the tremendous complexity of living beings, there is always the option to someday map all the chemical reactions of a human. And of course map the reactions that gone wrong. Given that our food and reactions in the gut microbiota are the initial substrates of the system, we can manipulate the system directly or indirectly...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
We will die, but Life itself is immortal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
The soma is disposable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Everyone ITT needs to read the Qur'an ASAP. I fear for your souls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
I wonder how many blown up stars have had their remnants pressed into the various ignoble processes, accidents, and misfortunes that led to the creation of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
minasole posted:is life only evolved and selected chemical reactions? the gently caress are you even on about
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:the gently caress are you even on about yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:the gently caress are you even on about Just say yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
minasole posted:is life only evolved and selected chemical reactions? Complex chemistry, and especially organic chemistry with the myriads possible combinations of isoforms, if sustained for a long time, theoretically in the long term only those reactions that sustain themselves will prevail and will be in the final mixture. But what is life other than a sum of self-sustaining chemical systems?? However, i think that things are not so easy, because in that case, there will be a problem with respect to entropy and order...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
The big issue is the Drake equation - Earth has three things going for it: 1) Energy and other benefits from the sun and volcanism. Plate tectonics help produce the atmosphere and the magnetic field maintains it from the sun. The sun provides just the right amount of energy for... 2) Lots of solvent in which reactions can take place (liquid water). Water itself is fairly unusual - especially since it can give a receive an H+ fairly freely - which biology exploits. 3) The moon - the Earth-moon system is still astronomically unique - if the center of gravity wasn't below earth's surface they would be binary planets. The tides and related ecosystems may be required for more complex forms of life to evolve. Given these conditions life only started once in the first couple billion years of the earth and moon existing (everything uses the same codons) - it then started to compete with itself to colonize the whole surface. Our idea of thermodynamics might work on our little 4D perception of reality - but you can't determine if the entire universe is a closed or open thermodynamic system. Arguably the universe is moving to equal entropy everywhere - a lowest possible energy level state. The alleged pattern is that energy coalesced into matter (H/He) which then condensed into stars which went nova and seeded the cosmos with fusion products. This solar system is a second generation of this phenomena - which also either burns out and collapses or explodes outward in a great expenditure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
G-d is not a Deity; that is to say an Individual; G-d is an extreme Multiple to the point of Technical Infinity (there is no such Thing as Infinity); rather than creating Situations where Probability does not exist this Multiple exerts super natural forces upon the existing Possibilities; creating an Instance where in a Possibility is created and nurtured via external Factors. Chaos to the extent that a Complex State such as Conscious Life could be brought into being by Chance is not comprehensible with in the Neurological Constraints of Humanity (all Psychology is created and furthermore limited by the properties of Cell; there fore it inhabits the same Sphere as G-d; that is to say a vast and unknowable Force. There fore the only Logical Conclusion is to believe in a Creative Force; and by extension to believe in Creation (though I do not agree with the word Creation as commonly used; no thing can be created or destroyed; a more suitable term is Manipulation; or Artistry) by believing in infinitely nesting Yes Possibilities leading to the existence of Conscious Life; Thought; Philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
RODNEY THE RACEHOR posted:G-d is not a Deity; that is to say an Individual; G-d is an extreme Multiple to the point of Technical Infinity (there is no such Thing as Infinity); rather than creating Situations where Probability does not exist this Multiple exerts super natural forces upon the existing Possibilities; creating an Instance where in a Possibility is created and nurtured via external Factors. Chaos to the extent that a Complex State such as Conscious Life could be brought into being by Chance is not comprehensible with in the Neurological Constraints of Humanity (all Psychology is created and furthermore limited by the properties of Cell; there fore it inhabits the same Sphere as G-d; that is to say a vast and unknowable Force. There fore the only Logical Conclusion is to believe in a Creative Force; and by extension to believe in Creation (though I do not agree with the word Creation as commonly used; no thing can be created or destroyed; a more suitable term is Manipulation; or Artistry) by believing in infinitely nesting Yes Possibilities leading to the existence of Conscious Life; Thought; Philosophy. Thanks Rodney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:27
|
|