If you believe mathematics lives outside the human brain do not read on....
"Logic" is an extension of our neural wiring. The logical statements that would be created by another being that lives, say, in a highly viscous medium or who lives on very short or very long timescales compared to humans would be almost incomprehensible to us. There would be overlaps because we share the same universe but if our understanding of nature through our development of physics has taught us anything we know our view of nature is heavily dependent upon our observation platform. Quantum "weirdness" is a fine example of the impedance mismatch between our brains which have evolved to make babies, avoid rocks etc, and the atomic scale. (Though mathematics is not physics, the mathematics that sticks around in the minds of many is that which serves some purpose in our understanding of the physical universe so its hard to separate the two.)
The observation in the article hints toward an interesting notion. Intrinsic categorization challenges embedded within networks may have something to tell us about the limits of our ability to categorize nature to some practical purpose. Thanks for the post.
"Actually existing in and of themselves"... I think we will find that even "real" particles are quasiparticles. We only know "real" particles because they act like particles which is exactly how we identify quasiparticles. I think we will get further in understanding our perspective of nature if we realize the names we give to things don't change the things themselves. Particles are the tip of an iceberg we don't fully understand so the distinction between what call particles and what we call quasiparticles is a human thing that is vestigial from previous perspectives. Let it go.:)
I should think the travesty in this article is an economist not making a huge deal about the real issue here and that is measures of central tendency (any measure) only really makes sense when you're looking at gaussian type data (don't economists have fat-tail debacles etched into them at school???). Using a mean and a standard deviation, rmse or whatever to encapsulate a power law distributed thing is dangerous when you start USING it for something (like derivatives pricing). Power law distributions are more prevalent than popularly imagined... Use care when using measures of central tendency on them.
We see power-law scaling everywhere and it looks a lot like the statement in the article. If the size of cars obeyed a power law distribution it would be hard to tell how far you were away from the ground by looking at the apparent size of the cars. The wider you make your gaze the larger cars you will find. We see power-law scaling in continuous phase transition when the system can't really "decide" what scale to prefer so it kind of exists in all scales. Perhaps this means the universe is undergoing some sort of continuous phase transition. Very cool.
I believe (in a metaphysical sense) that all particles will be found to be "quasiparticles" in sence that they are emergent from some other phenomena. So, stop hating on the fact that this is not a "fundamental" particle. The idea of the quasiparticle is one of the most significant physics developments evar.
In other news: Condensed matter physicists enherit the earth!!!!!
3 words: Orbiting fuel stations (I'm sure someone mentioned this earlier but I didn't see it in first 100 postings)
Think of how absurd it would be if trucks had to deliver fuel to us at out homes for our round trips to work. There are hundreds of solutions to this problem its just a matter of will (and $$$). I'm frankly surprised this made it on the/..
There are more fundamental limitations to drilling past the mantle than this. Furthermore, I think exploring the oceans would be a much better place to spend this type of money. Colonize the ocean!
I swear to god that was one of the funniest things I've read on here in a very long time. The content was funny but the build up was genius. Thank you.
The fact that the breaking news on slashdot is "someone found the third way to attack a mac machine" is a compelling argument to purchase a mac over a PC. Unless someone can explain to me how this is the seed of an impending snowball of mac-targeted malware.
From 30 Rock: Tracy Jordan: "Dr. Spaceman, is it true that bread eats away at your brain" Dr. Spaceman: "We have no way of knowing , because the powerful bread lobby won't let me complete my research"... Tracy J.: "Well folks, bread will never maybe attack your brain again"
Seriously, what is up with this article. Is it an attempt at the Jedi mind trick?
His losing his job is just following the proper form. *Obama distancing himself from company. *Company distancing itself from employee.
What is slightly disturbing is that this form is required. No one has anything to be ashamed of. Obama should say, "I had nothing directly to do with this. I am glad, however, that I have inspired people to do such creative work. I will continue to do what I am doing so one day, when I am president, I can inspire such creativity in more americans" Hillary should say "Hey, this thing struck a chord. Maybe I am doing something wrong"
My hope is that similarly creative works continue after the democratic primaries.
The knee jerk reaction to this sort of thing is that they are trying to get something for nothing on the backs of us under appreciated geniuses. I've seen the NGASAEB W.C. Fields quote in The Economist many times so this mindset may actually exist in thier mission statement somewhere. However, I have a list of ideas in my head that I would like to see happen but know I will never make them happen. Ideas--even really good ones--are cheap. The hard part is making them happen. If they can extract something useful from the minds of the creative but uninitiated, bully for them.
N.b.: Corporations do this all the time... Consider the pharmaceutical industry. Without the research that they get for free in the form of research articles that are in large part paid for by taxpayers the pharma companies would have to do WAY more R&D than they have ever done or will ever do.
This is great if A.) You do not need a laptop and have enough money to optimize for size or percieved coolness. 0.1% of population B.) You have enough money to plop down $2K at a whim and you like to have a continuum of gadget sizes on your person (watch phone flipstart laptop). 0.5% C.) Only have a bag big enough to hold this thing but not a laptop or really big pockets and you are happy with carrying a brick in them. 0.5% D.) Are not smart enough to wait for something better. 10%
Number of people who would buy this thing (P(A)P(C) + P(B))P(D) ~ Steve Jobs (to use it as a paper weight... you know for laughs)
Here is an rough idea. Calculate the average pay someone gets for a particular degree gets for particular degree: $x BS in math/science $X MS in math/science $y BA english $Y MS in english $z BS in liberal arts...etc.
Based on the idea that the last person you want teaching a particular subject is the least qualified in the particular field, scale the teachers pay by some constant factor r. So teachers in the above fields will make $r*x BS in math/science $r*X MS in math/science $r*y BA english $r*Y MS in english $r*z BS in liberal arts...etc.
Of course this will be hard to explain to the ys and zs but that is only because the r factor for the math and science teachers they had in elementary school education was so low.
Global warming is a complicated conglomeration of troubling evidence that is based in sound science (I am a physicist so I at least know what that means). However, I do not believe it is appropriate, to "teach" global warming in the context of an elementary school science class anymore than I think it makes sense to show movies on super-fluidity of liquid helium.
Elementary school science education should be squarely focused on teaching the process of science so that they will have to tools to make the sometimes fine distinctions between what is bulls***, what is possible, what is believable, what is reasonable and what has been firmly established to the best of humankind's abilities. Before children can understand the power and limitations of our most advanced ideas, they must first learn them. They must learn the power of objective measurement, the quantification of error and the consistent framework upon which our most prized beacons of understanding are built. This will prepare them to learn quantum field theory, or search for the justification of a political viewpoint, or supply them with tractable rage to motivate them to change the status quo of smoke-and-mirror obfuscation.
The process of science is NOT political. If teaching the process of science were the true focus of elementary school education, the scouring of politics from science would not be needed. Based on the assumptions underlying Ms. David's plea, the problem with the public perception of science is that it is a collection of "facts" or "truths". There are many facts out there, limited time forces a choice to be made. It is at this stage that result based science education becomes inextricably linked to politics.
If, by funding an initiative to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" Exxon Mobil gets to define the standards there is obviously a conflict of interest. However, if we prepare children in school to see science as collections of "facts" we are opening the door for such abuses. Unless we change the fundamental premise of what science IS, the person/corporation with the largest influence, slickest website and smoothest talkers wins the battle of "facts". In this sense, by begging to be a part of it, Ms. David is further entrenching a deeply flawed system of education, ensuring the battle for the real estate of children's minds is one of power and influence.
The inconvenient truth here is that if the public has the science = collection-of-truths view we are failing miserably at educating our public about science and the increasingly horrible consequences of global warming may be but one of many serious problems we will face in our future.
PS
Of course a career in science is rife with politics of all sorts. Grants get awarded and papers get published that are not consistent with the ideals we should be teaching to elementary school students. Over time the constant fear of being shown to be scientifically incompetent and the constant influx of idealistic youngsters keeps science honest on long time scales.
Slashdot Mirror
If you believe mathematics lives outside the human brain do not read on....
"Logic" is an extension of our neural wiring. The logical statements that would be created by another being that lives, say, in a highly viscous medium or who lives on very short or very long timescales compared to humans would be almost incomprehensible to us. There would be overlaps because we share the same universe but if our understanding of nature through our development of physics has taught us anything we know our view of nature is heavily dependent upon our observation platform. Quantum "weirdness" is a fine example of the impedance mismatch between our brains which have evolved to make babies, avoid rocks etc, and the atomic scale. (Though mathematics is not physics, the mathematics that sticks around in the minds of many is that which serves some purpose in our understanding of the physical universe so its hard to separate the two.)
The observation in the article hints toward an interesting notion. Intrinsic categorization challenges embedded within networks may have something to tell us about the limits of our ability to categorize nature to some practical purpose. Thanks for the post.
"Actually existing in and of themselves"... :)
I think we will find that even "real" particles are quasiparticles. We only know "real" particles because they act like particles which is exactly how we identify quasiparticles. I think we will get further in understanding our perspective of nature if we realize the names we give to things don't change the things themselves. Particles are the tip of an iceberg we don't fully understand so the distinction between what call particles and what we call quasiparticles is a human thing that is vestigial from previous perspectives. Let it go.
Physicist here...
I should think the travesty in this article is an economist not making a huge deal about the real issue here and that is measures of central tendency (any measure) only really makes sense when you're looking at gaussian type data (don't economists have fat-tail debacles etched into them at school???). Using a mean and a standard deviation, rmse or whatever to encapsulate a power law distributed thing is dangerous when you start USING it for something (like derivatives pricing). Power law distributions are more prevalent than popularly imagined... Use care when using measures of central tendency on them.
We see power-law scaling everywhere and it looks a lot like the statement in the article. If the size of cars obeyed a power law distribution it would be hard to tell how far you were away from the ground by looking at the apparent size of the cars. The wider you make your gaze the larger cars you will find. We see power-law scaling in continuous phase transition when the system can't really "decide" what scale to prefer so it kind of exists in all scales. Perhaps this means the universe is undergoing some sort of continuous phase transition. Very cool.
I believe (in a metaphysical sense) that all particles will be found to be "quasiparticles" in sence that they are emergent from some other phenomena. So, stop hating on the fact that this is not a "fundamental" particle. The idea of the quasiparticle is one of the most significant physics developments evar.
In other news:
Condensed matter physicists enherit the earth!!!!!
3 words:
Orbiting fuel stations (I'm sure someone mentioned this earlier but I didn't see it in first 100 postings)
Think of how absurd it would be if trucks had to deliver fuel to us at out homes for our round trips to work. There are hundreds of solutions to this problem its just a matter of will (and $$$). I'm frankly surprised this made it on the /..
There are more fundamental limitations to drilling past the mantle than this. Furthermore, I think exploring the oceans would be a much better place to spend this type of money. Colonize the ocean!
I swear to god that was one of the funniest things I've read on here in a very long time. The content was funny but the build up was genius. Thank you.
The fact that the breaking news on slashdot is "someone found the third way to attack a mac machine" is a compelling argument to purchase a mac over a PC. Unless someone can explain to me how this is the seed of an impending snowball of mac-targeted malware.
From 30 Rock: ...
Tracy Jordan: "Dr. Spaceman, is it true that bread eats away at your brain"
Dr. Spaceman: "We have no way of knowing , because the powerful bread lobby won't let me complete my research"
Tracy J.: "Well folks, bread will never maybe attack your brain again"
Seriously, what is up with this article. Is it an attempt at the Jedi mind trick?
His losing his job is just following the proper form.
*Obama distancing himself from company.
*Company distancing itself from employee.
What is slightly disturbing is that this form is required.
No one has anything to be ashamed of. Obama should say,
"I had nothing directly to do with this. I am glad, however, that
I have inspired people to do such creative work. I will continue to
do what I am doing so one day, when I am president, I can inspire
such creativity in more americans"
Hillary should say "Hey, this thing struck a chord. Maybe I am doing something
wrong"
My hope is that similarly creative works continue after the democratic primaries.
The knee jerk reaction to this sort of thing is that they are trying to get something for nothing on the backs of us under appreciated geniuses. I've
seen the NGASAEB W.C. Fields quote in The Economist many times so this mindset may actually exist in thier mission statement somewhere. However,
I have a list of ideas in my head that I would like to see happen but know I will never make them happen. Ideas--even really good ones--are cheap. The hard
part is making them happen. If they can extract something useful from the minds of the creative but uninitiated, bully for them.
N.b.: Corporations do this all the time... Consider the pharmaceutical industry. Without the research that they get for free in the form of research
articles that are in large part paid for by taxpayers the pharma companies would have to do WAY more R&D than they have ever done or will ever do.
This is great if
A.) You do not need a laptop and have enough money to optimize for size or percieved coolness. 0.1% of population
B.) You have enough money to plop down $2K at a whim and you like to have a continuum of gadget sizes on your person (watch phone flipstart laptop). 0.5%
C.) Only have a bag big enough to hold this thing but not a laptop or really big pockets and you are happy with carrying a brick in them. 0.5%
D.) Are not smart enough to wait for something better. 10%
Number of people who would buy this thing
(P(A)P(C) + P(B))P(D) ~ Steve Jobs (to use it as a paper weight... you know for laughs)
Here is an rough idea. Calculate the average pay someone gets for a particular degree gets for particular degree:
$x BS in math/science
$X MS in math/science
$y BA english
$Y MS in english
$z BS in liberal arts...etc.
Based on the idea that the last person you want teaching a particular subject is the least qualified in the particular field, scale the teachers pay
by some constant factor r. So teachers in the above fields will make
$r*x BS in math/science
$r*X MS in math/science
$r*y BA english
$r*Y MS in english
$r*z BS in liberal arts...etc.
Of course this will be hard to explain to the ys and zs but that is only because the r factor for the math and science teachers they had in elementary school education was so low.
Global warming is a complicated conglomeration of troubling evidence that is based in sound science (I am a physicist so I at least know what that means). However, I do not believe it is appropriate, to "teach" global warming in the context of an elementary school science class anymore than I think it makes sense to show movies on super-fluidity of liquid helium.
Elementary school science education should be squarely focused on teaching the process of science so that they will have to tools to make the sometimes fine distinctions between what is bulls***, what is possible, what is believable, what is reasonable and what has been firmly established to the best of humankind's abilities. Before children can understand the power and limitations of our most advanced ideas, they must first learn them. They must learn the power of objective measurement, the quantification of error and the consistent framework upon which our most prized beacons of understanding are built. This will prepare them to learn quantum field theory, or search for the justification of a political viewpoint, or supply them with tractable rage to motivate them to change the status quo of smoke-and-mirror obfuscation.
The process of science is NOT political. If teaching the process of science were the true focus of elementary school education, the scouring of politics from science would not be needed. Based on the assumptions underlying Ms. David's plea, the problem with the public perception of science is that it is a collection of "facts" or "truths". There are many facts out there, limited time forces a choice to be made. It is at this stage that result based science education becomes inextricably linked to politics.
If, by funding an initiative to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" Exxon Mobil gets to define the standards there is obviously a conflict of interest. However, if we prepare children in school to see science as collections of "facts" we are opening the door for such abuses. Unless we change the fundamental premise of what science IS, the person/corporation with the largest influence, slickest website and smoothest talkers wins the battle of "facts". In this sense, by begging to be a part of it, Ms. David is further entrenching a deeply flawed system of education, ensuring the battle for the real estate of children's minds is one of power and influence.
The inconvenient truth here is that if the public has the science = collection-of-truths view we are failing miserably at educating our public about science and the increasingly horrible consequences of global warming may be but one of many serious problems we will face in our future.
PS
Of course a career in science is rife with politics of all sorts. Grants get awarded and papers get published that are not consistent with the ideals we should be teaching to elementary school students. Over time the constant fear of being shown to be scientifically incompetent and the constant influx of idealistic youngsters keeps science honest on long time scales.