Ok, having reread my previous comment I feel the need to clarify that when I said "Nice post, Zemat" I was not intending it to sound sarcastic. I actually did enjoy reading the article.
Such is the nature of subjectivity that I did not read that possible meaning into it. Do any of these discussions even reflect what any of us are thinking in another's mind? I hereby declare that none of us truly exist. /undergrad
For example, one of the leading themes of current philosophy is that the notion of objectivity is utterly illusory. This is not some post-modern pose: the subjectivity of scientific knowledge has been proved with mathematical rigour.
How beautifully trite. Physics brought up a bunch of philosophical questions quite a number of years ago. Philosophy has since played a role. A lot of scientists have read about the philosophy of science. See Popper for some thoughts on the nature of evidence (of course having cited Wittgenstein, the author of the article possibly appears to be focusing on an anti-Popperian philosophical view). Nice post, Zemat.
Oh, and yes, the science we use to day has its foundations in philosophical views. Some questions can't be answered with evidence, and you define axioms based on thought alone. Thus, any medical advances or engineering advances found using research principles may be attributed indirectly to philosophy.
Fireflies are found in many places; John Buck is known for having looked into them in Asia, Africa and North America at least. Recently the theory of their flash synchronization has been studied/popularized by one S. Strogatz. There is a picture of firefly synchrony here, but that is a big pdf (long load); proceed with patience or just skip it.
Ah, fireflies. No experience as a young child quite equals the senseless destruction of removing their glowing butts and smearing them on a sibling.
This is wonderful. It was a very taut, fast adventure driving that little car around until it fell off the side, when it became a sad end to the story- it just dropped into the void, never to return, the helpless driver trapped in an infinity of turning the wheel, all for nought. (sniff)
Sorry, I just get so emotional about physics demos.
lkc: Not to pick nits, but actually Scatman Crothers voiced Jazz; Starscream was voiced by Chris Latta (the original voice of Mr. Burns; scroll down a page on that link, also he is credited there as Christopher Collins).
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum." That's right, "Rowdy" Roddy Piper stars in... They Live! Some may watch it for the paranoid anticapitalist diatribe, but I watch it for the timeless acting and hilariousaliens.
The virtual Sea Monkeys are much harder to take care of than the real ones. I have also learned in my many Sea Monkey experiences that they resort to cannibalism if not fed.
It would appear that they toss government non-interventionism (if that is really an -ism) in together with economic isolation. Stupid thing puts me in with the isolationists, which I am not.
Curses! I had a chance to go to one last year and passed it up for the sake of "studying" and "work" and "ambition". Stupid ambition makes me miss all the fun.
Gleick's Chaos book (here I am referring to the 1987 one) is very good for an understandable explanation of the science that has been come to be known as "Complex Systems", and I second it with the note that it actually came out before the field was mature, and it is very 1980's. Also, it is more historical than rigorous, but that is exactly what it is supposed to be.
If you want to see the fractal nature of cellular automata (discrete arrays that evolve in a stepwise manner according to certain prescribed rules), especially with pretty pictures and eye candy, I recommend Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. It is available entirely online now, so examples of manifestations of automaton-like fractal structures in biology can be seen without requiring purchase (for example, this and this). However, if you should consider reading it, be warned that this book has stirred some controversy, and the opinion of the critics should not be ignored; it puts the book in its place, which is extremely overblown if you listen only to the author.
rodgerd, there were some Shadowrun players that disallowed the magic side of the game, and also all the Tolkein fantasy aspects. Just a Street Samurai with no regard for his own Essence versus the world! That is where we'll live.
Ok, having reread my previous comment I feel the need to clarify that when I said "Nice post, Zemat" I was not intending it to sound sarcastic. I actually did enjoy reading the article. Such is the nature of subjectivity that I did not read that possible meaning into it. Do any of these discussions even reflect what any of us are thinking in another's mind? I hereby declare that none of us truly exist. /undergrad
posted by jjray 20 years ago
For example, one of the leading themes of current philosophy is that the notion of objectivity is utterly illusory. This is not some post-modern pose: the subjectivity of scientific knowledge has been proved with mathematical rigour. How beautifully trite. Physics brought up a bunch of philosophical questions quite a number of years ago. Philosophy has since played a role. A lot of scientists have read about the philosophy of science. See Popper for some thoughts on the nature of evidence (of course having cited Wittgenstein, the author of the article possibly appears to be focusing on an anti-Popperian philosophical view). Nice post, Zemat. Oh, and yes, the science we use to day has its foundations in philosophical views. Some questions can't be answered with evidence, and you define axioms based on thought alone. Thus, any medical advances or engineering advances found using research principles may be attributed indirectly to philosophy.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Electronic fireflies."
Fireflies are found in many places; John Buck is known for having looked into them in Asia, Africa and North America at least. Recently the theory of their flash synchronization has been studied/popularized by one S. Strogatz. There is a picture of firefly synchrony here, but that is a big pdf (long load); proceed with patience or just skip it. Ah, fireflies. No experience as a young child quite equals the senseless destruction of removing their glowing butts and smearing them on a sibling.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Meqon Physics Demo"
This is wonderful. It was a very taut, fast adventure driving that little car around until it fell off the side, when it became a sad end to the story- it just dropped into the void, never to return, the helpless driver trapped in an infinity of turning the wheel, all for nought. (sniff) Sorry, I just get so emotional about physics demos.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Have some shiny things"
O my god. I completely just didn't get some things done thanks to that distraction. You have my respect.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Petals around the rose."
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, not a set of dice.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
the quidnunc kid: What is black-and-white and equivalent to the axiom of choice?
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Happy Medard day"
Yeah but come on Spooky, who isn't?
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "It sucks, you should watch it!"
lkc: Not to pick nits, but actually Scatman Crothers voiced Jazz; Starscream was voiced by Chris Latta (the original voice of Mr. Burns; scroll down a page on that link, also he is credited there as Christopher Collins).
posted by jjray 20 years ago
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum." That's right, "Rowdy" Roddy Piper stars in... They Live! Some may watch it for the paranoid anticapitalist diatribe, but I watch it for the timeless acting and hilarious aliens.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Virtual Sea Monkeys"
The virtual Sea Monkeys are much harder to take care of than the real ones. I have also learned in my many Sea Monkey experiences that they resort to cannibalism if not fed.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Improve your self-esteem"
No kidding, rolypolyman. I had trouble telling happy from sad. What a self esteem killer!
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Curious George: *Tweeee!*"
The key to not double posting is to only post really abstruse things no one cares about. Not that I would know or anything.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Are you a neocon? "
It would appear that they toss government non-interventionism (if that is really an -ism) in together with economic isolation. Stupid thing puts me in with the isolationists, which I am not.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "The Dead Flag Blues."
Curses! I had a chance to go to one last year and passed it up for the sake of "studying" and "work" and "ambition". Stupid ambition makes me miss all the fun.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Physics in Flash."
I don't think it's easy to understand Einstein's work until you have had it explained by an ape. Also, it helps to have very concrete examples.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "Show me that smile again."
Mr. frogs, I love you.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "I may be drunk, but tomorrow morning I shall be sober, and you will still be ugly."
Learn to read, monkey boy. MonkeyFilter: Lern erst mal lesen, Affenjunge.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "University of Toronto CS lecture slides describing various fractals."
Gleick's Chaos book (here I am referring to the 1987 one) is very good for an understandable explanation of the science that has been come to be known as "Complex Systems", and I second it with the note that it actually came out before the field was mature, and it is very 1980's. Also, it is more historical than rigorous, but that is exactly what it is supposed to be. If you want to see the fractal nature of cellular automata (discrete arrays that evolve in a stepwise manner according to certain prescribed rules), especially with pretty pictures and eye candy, I recommend Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. It is available entirely online now, so examples of manifestations of automaton-like fractal structures in biology can be seen without requiring purchase (for example, this and this). However, if you should consider reading it, be warned that this book has stirred some controversy, and the opinion of the critics should not be ignored; it puts the book in its place, which is extremely overblown if you listen only to the author.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
In "The BrainGate™"
rodgerd, there were some Shadowrun players that disallowed the magic side of the game, and also all the Tolkein fantasy aspects. Just a Street Samurai with no regard for his own Essence versus the world! That is where we'll live.
posted by jjray 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)