|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:31 pm
In one of the other guilds I'm in, there's a random thought thread. I used it quite often.
But most of that guild isn't concerned with scientific or mathematical study, so most of my random thoughts aren't intelligible to them.
But random scientific or mathematical thoughts are fun. So here we go:
From now on, I'm going to refer to time paradoxes as retroactive chronological invariance violations. Mostly because it sounds very scientific, and thus lends credence to what is currently pure metaphysics.
Plus, everyone loves the word "invariance."
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:43 am
Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor I'm watching an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise where they really start going into the plotline of the Temporal Cold War. Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:37 pm
(WARNING: this post is dripping in sarcasm)
We were studying dummy variables the other day in class, but we decided that the word 'dummy' was not very politically correct and the government would not approve of it. SO from now on "Dummy Variables" will be known as "Intellectually challenged variables".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:06 pm
It kind of scares me that the most convoluted form of mathematics that I know of is what I basically consider "blind counting" i.e. analytic number theory.
Essentially: we don't know how these numbers/functions/algebraic varieties act, how many of them there are, how dense they are, so let's transform them via any of a multitude of convenient groups, stick them in an infinite series, create an analytic continuation, add a point at infinity, and then find the 0s/poles, thus giving us a ridiculous amount of information on the original set of things.
This is possibly the only time where my mathematical intuition breaks down, because even though I've seen the mathematics, I still have no idea why the Riemann hypothesis gives us a bound on the growth of primes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:04 pm
I wonder if there is any difference between a physical world and a simulated world. If matter in our world seems tangible, could it be that it's only our senses that give us this narrow view? Would a simulated person, who is set to perceive the world as we do, think any differently? To this person, the simulated world would seem to be real.
So what is our world beyond what we can perceive? Any claims on this would be based solely on guesswork. Our minds are limited things indeed. So simple and yet we have such trouble understanding them.
. . . Ok, I'm done with rambling today sweatdrop Thanks for starting this thread, Layra-chan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:19 am
I can abort the Tevatron at this very moment. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:21 am
Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor Which came first... the chicken or the egg... the egg or the chicken... the chicken or the egg... Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:24 am
Harry Potter says that a circle has no beginning.
…
Anyone think that the true demarcation criterion is whether scientists say it is science? People are quick to cite Popper but as string theory shows, if enough scientists say something is scientific, it is regarded as scientific despite what a philosopher of science would say.
Highly mediocre, methinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:51 pm
Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor As far as I know, the only time scientists ever truly agreed on what constituted science was during a trial over intelligent design in the classroom back when Stephen Jay Gould was alive. Even then, it was only in a legal sense. Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:15 pm
Hmm. Kitzmiller vs Dover Decision (via the Wiki) After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. That looks like the ability to be falsifiable was central to the decision-making process. Popper wins here. Though, science never really progresses in a Popperian fashion. Ideas become vogue and garner much attention despite the lack of results. I think the more Kuhnian view about paradigm shifts is more accurate. Orthodox scientific thinking is influenced by the generations of scientists who grow up more receptive to "newer" ideas and gradually replace the old codgers as they pass onward. Of course, you can have brilliant inspiration promoting such radical changes as well. One thing Popper seems to hate was the idea of confirmation, but I think confirmation-falsification is how we progress. We confirm large bold claims — "there's a planet out there because this orbit is funny; wow, it is there" — and later tweak them as more data comes to light — "so it was not M massive, it's a little bit more because of blah and blah".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:17 am
That's kind of sad.
In other news, I wish I could visualize things in ways that I could explain to other people. When I try to explain how I visualize non-physical mathematical entities, it never makes any sense and loses cohesion.
I can see the n-fold symmetric product of spaces, I just can't draw it very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:24 am
"Hey babe, can I get your curvilinear coordinates, because you definitely orient my manifold."
Orient is a quadruple innuendo, at least for certain people, and that makes me very happy. If someone actually said this to me with a straight face, I'd probably go out with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:53 pm
"Small things amuse small minds, very small things amuse great minds."
"Quantam machanics? Is that like people who make really small cars?"
Yeah, me and my friedns were talking abou quantam physics today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:21 am
In the science domain of the realm of randomness:
-- I wonder if there could be a system that, without the use of cause-and-effect, spans across multiple moments in time.
Entirely in the realm of randomness:
-- I'll bet that if you flipped the U.S. upside-down, you'd find a tag that reads "Made in China."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:27 am
The only thing that is truly unique is everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
