I came across a Juniper Publishing article that reminded me of lewd bathroom graffiti.
The authors are:
Lord Kelvin O Latex1*, Timmy Rimlock1, Jonathan GâSpot1, Rolf Harris2 and Kelvin Nutsack3
and it just gets worse from there.
4 Likes
Am I seeing the Emperor naked here?
4 Likes
It seems to be a way of formulating physics to allow processing by âAIâ analysis tools. A simple transform as it were.
1 Like
Interesting. One of the goals seems to be to explain how physics gives forth to life. To me, though, it seems like the question is settled as far as it can be â biology simply follows the laws of chemistry which follows the laws of physics. Itâs just a matter of scale â when you have zillions of particles with those laws, under the right conditions they self-assemble into life giving molecules. Is there anything else to be known about it?
3 Likes
Known? No. In analyzing things like stellar evolution and genetics, though, it reframes analysis to acknowledge the breadth of possibility outside the (often) narrow conventional wisdoms and axe-to-grind ratfucking that allows things like eugenics and quantum woo to suck up resources away from people doing actual science.
Source? My pocket dimension in my butt, but thatâs still my initial take.
3 Likes
Physics canât explain why certain physical constants, such as the fine structure constant are what they are.
(I believe Eddington had explanations of why the fine structure constant is 1/136 and later 1/137, but it isnât exactly.)
If you plug in different values for different constants, you get universes where stars and planets donât form, or where atoms heavier than helium donât form, or the like. Maybe ones where much heavier atoms form too. Most of the seemingly-possible universes seem incapable of creating life.
Now itâs possible that some higher theory of physics will eventually explain these values. But if not one alternative is that there are multiple universes. And we observe that ours creates life because, well, the chance of any given observer existing in a universe which creates life is a lot better than in one that doesnât.
4 Likes
Is this is âAnthropic Principle?â
3 Likes
The last explanation is.
3 Likes
I have to say that Iâve always been down with the anthropic principle. Even if Earthâs weirdly stable rotation (because of the moon) gave it this universeâs first real shot at life processes, it doesnât make us special in a narrative sense, just in a nominative and local sense, like the whole universe.
2 Likes
5 Likes
It has guided many of my self-educative investigations of the world and is no worse than being spoon-fed on woo and cruelty.
2 Likes
Maybe woo and cruelty made Harry Cohnâs butt quiet down and pay attention. When film became all woo and cruelty, there were gradations of it we could swim inside, as a people, because our butts worked differently with the pablum of Columbia than Harry Cohnâs butt did.
2 Likes
Related:
(Though, if I recall, the Mythbustersâ attempt to do this on a large scale ended up flopping)
2 Likes
3 Likes
Iâd rather they test on Elon, but thatâs just me.
4 Likes
for all we know, they already HAVE. i mean, it would explain a lot with him.
3 Likes
Mr Musk argues such chips could eventually be used to help cure conditions such as dementia, Parkinsonâs disease and spinal cord injuries.
This is so not news. A friend has dystonia, and as part of an NIH trial, got a brain implant usually used to treat Parkinsonâs. In her case, the power and processing are in a unit in her chest, connected by a subcutaneous wire to the electrodes in her brain. She can charge the thing and change the electrode intensity by an outboard charger/programmer. Itâs done absolute wonders. She used to have trouble walking without muscles seizing up; now sheâs back to normal.
Such implants have been around at least since the 1980s.
5 Likes
Harry Cohn was the Harvey Weinstein of his day.
6 Likes
2 Likes
2 Likes