Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1.  @rosomak8244  what I said: "Like all math, there will be uses for the strategies developed in string theory in a completely unrelated domains" So to your question, one use case is statistical analysis for planning with uncertainty. Another use case is game theory. Another use case options trading when an analyst is analyzing risk/reward. Another use case is quantum computing. Another is developing experiments since resources are limited, selecting the best thing to tackle next without powers of premonition require comparing infinites. But again, what I said was "there will be uses", meaning in the future even if there are no known uses today, eventually all math strategies are applied somewhere, some day, because that is an infinite set barring extinction ;p
    1
  2. The funny thing is they're the anti-science if their censorship discourages progression. We're a very frail species. We rely on our intellects. For science publishers to suppress intellectual progression for humanity is just mind-boggling stupid to me on so many layers. Let the philosophers philosophize, it's not like they're over worked. Give philosophers a job and make them work with researchers and professors to calibrate a basic standard for publication on a regular basis, You can't believe in science and deny a scientific organization of the scientific community lol. It would be falsey... you just can't it. Look at all the "work in progress" papers they're publishing in ML right now. Hundreds per week redeveloping transformers and perceptrons on larger scales paid to FAANG to process and spit out larger and larger feature sets over the same old models and tossing the word salad the entire way along. It''s irritating. I guess that's what I'm saying. it's irritating AF trying to get research published/funded these days. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't see good moeny thrown at bad everywhere around you when a small bit here would go 3 times further somewhere new lol
    1
  3. "... this bubble will burst, it's just a matter of time..." Ahhh, but quantum time is right on the edge of every event horizon lol
    1
  4. They could melt PET plastics using parabolic mirrors and the sun, containing the carbon and separating the melted compound in a sealed chamber without any added energy at all imho
    1
  5. For the record, rulers aren't variables because that's a ratio, not a ruler. Rulers work because they are consistent f = 1x, when they cease to be 1:1 they become functions f = g(x) or f = g(y(x)) etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, I ain't no physicist.
    1
  6. SWIM takes drugs but won't touch paracetamol lol
    1
  7. I need to object at 5:25... I would've guess hydro and nuclear would've been predominant power sources since 1990's based on current technology at the time and my tiny kid brain. Calculators weren't even common until 1996 with their like solar panels lol.. Nuclear baseline power with very flexible hydro is still a fantastic solution today, objectively. So I protest that "no one would have guessed how we power the world today" because even public school educated children did guess it correctly based only on being raised in Manitoba, Canada, where hydro and nuclear have made us net energy exporters for decades.
    1
  8. Microtubials collapsing into coherent quantum states? I think we need a Microtubials episode lol 👍
    1
  9. Weinberg is a fun read
    1
  10. Instead of holographic principle it should be called the topological tortion principle or something like that. Twisting a surface is more intuitive than projections but both refer to the same displacement of energy proportional to area be it by projection or by distortion of the substrate of matter. Another way to think about it might be that we don't experience the collapse of reality because space-time can move faster than light and particles move slower than light so the instability might not necessarily ever catch up to actually fall apart from the instability. Thr hologram illustrates black holes well as a local instance of this relationship, but the universe as a whole I think is better considered as a topology than a projection even though both say the same thing, most people try to relate too personally to visual illusion holograms to contemplate the phenomenon past the illusion. It's the same issue as quantum mechanical interactions of waves of energy densities being related to kaleidoscopes, fractals, or little negatively charged dots which orbit atomic nuclei rather than the reality of probabilistic clouds of electric charge which are only isolated to that dot once the cloud consolidates upon measurement. Orbitals are useful but when the rings are taken too literally we actually lose understanding the more we try to draw the permissible energy stages as rings and dots when cloud patterns of likelihoods are far more useful for deeper understanding.
    1
  11. Fossil fuels are cheaper because lighting gas on fire is very easy, and that's why it's dirty and unsustainable. Eating feces and drinking pee is easier than getting groceries and cooking and doing dishes, but eating excrement is dirty and it's worth it to eat food. There are so many crazy arguments in this area.
    1
  12. Is Lenny Susskind's "e equals r p" related to many worlds and locality or is that something completely different?
    1
  13. I'd love to see a video on each going through the different ways we've tried to reconcile these coincidences but failed. Ideas of why these occur would be a great way to encourage thought and developing/testing hypotheses
    1
  14. First commandment violation count: 5 in first 2 minutes lol
    1
  15. If gravity isn't a force then why does a theory of everything "need" quantum gravity? That never made any sense to me.
    1
  16. I think ai progress will plateau then grow sort of linearly as we get more civilized over the next centuries. Randomness will just cause it to hallucinate more and do it with more subtlety.
    1
  17. Lol I bet sabine and elon will make the best of friends one day. Same sense of humour I bet you anything
    1
  18. Lol I love how Eric always calls you his good friend but you never reciprocate 😂
    1
  19. So the author didn't even mention the most feasible case for the headline? That's hilariously irrational lol
    1