Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
93
-
25
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
I think a large element of what is said about Elon is disingenuous; people see him as "the rocket" or "EV guy" and do not listen to what he actually says.
In his latest Lex Friedman interview, when talking about resolution, he clearly discussed the possibility of using electrodes to create interference patterns that enable higher resolution that the number of electrodes themselves would imply.
(This is the same approach used in lithography for producing microchips at smaller and smaller resolutions.)
To me, this indicates an extremely sophisticated understanding of the potential ways forward, even if some of them turn out to be blind alleys (no pun intended).
As to brain mapping... This is tricky. The visual cortex fixes around 8, and, I believe, is one of the least plastic of all regions (not my area of expertise, but have some issues with my eyesight, so have done some research...).
That said, our brains are incredibly adaptable and it may be the case that the brain of a patient will simply adapt to the incoming signals, obviating the need for such deep pre-mapping technology.
I for one am going to remain optimistic that we truly are in the "it's just an engineering problem now" phase of development.
6
-
5
-
THANK YOU!
I've been convinced of this for years, and all the explanations have always left a bad taste in my mouth - they all rely on "instant" transmission, which, as a computer scientist, makes me instantly suspicious.
Sadly, I don't have the physics background to prove it, but Lorentz transformations have always seemed the key to me; logically, there must be a frame of reference that provides a completely linear perspective, so any travel can be translated into this frame.
If there is such a monotonic frame, then as long as you don't violate causality in this frame, you can't be violating causality in any other frame, it just appears that you are, like an optical illusion.
What you describe as the co-moving frame seems to match this idea...
4
-
4
-
@MrWizardGG Sorry, you're talking about something you clearly do not understand.
We do not need "credibility" to be 'granted to us' by 'older, establised' fields.
The work of computer scientists and therefore, the field more generally, is only deserving of the credibility it gains from standing on its own two feet; we are only as credible as our ability to do good science.
If Computer Science is treated any other way, it is 'merely' a sub-field of those, from which, it steals its credibility.
This is The Way of Science. Any 'Computer Scientist' who would argue otherwise, should be treated with deep skepticism, in my opinion.
Alan Turing was a mathematician. He has had a profound impact on physics, by enabling the the development of digital computers, which have already enabled experiments that would not otherwise have been possible.
It is a nonsense to say that his mathematical paper is deserving of a Nobel Prize, because that is not what then NP in Physics is supposed to be for!
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I strongly disagree with almost everything you've said, because, fundamentally, you fail to display an appreciation that the "simplicity" that "both sides" engage in comes from a recognition of the fundamental nature of the issue.
On one side, you have Platonists/Hegelianists/Marxists who explicitly reject the very concept of empiricism; of "fundamental truth".
On the other side, there is "everyone else".
In this "debate", one either believes that truth exists, or one does not. If you believe truth exists and apply anything even approaching an "intellectually honest investigation" to the issue, then there can be only one conclusion: men and women are fundamentally different; we are a sexually dimorphic species and that the genetic and congenital aberrations are nothing but a distraction when dealing with the fundamental truth of the matter.
Or, in other words, if you have XY chromosomes, you are male and will become a man and if you have XX chromosomes you are female and will become a woman and that one cannot change this fundamental truth of *reality*, no matter how hard you try (or how many people you mutilate and kill along the way...)
If you have a physiological variance to these norms, I feel empathy for you (what, you think I'm "physically perfect"?), but there is nothing that can change the fact that you are NOT normal and you will have to navigate the grey space between this binary, but that is YOUR problem, not mine and there is no obligation on me to deny reality in order to reinforce any delusions you may hold.
(EDIT: Fix dyslexic slip.)
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When speaking English, please do not use the phrase "gender assigned at birth".
This phrase was created by political ideologues. The correct phrase would be "assessed at birth" or "described at birth".
The English language is a DESCRIPTIVE language, NOT prescriptive. The people who assert the opposite are Marxists or support related and/or derived philosophies.
The lie perpetrated by these ideologues is that there is some difference between "sex" and "gender". These are synonyms; gender was used as an alternative so that the word "sex" does not need to be used in "polite conversation" (as silly as that may sound, but hey, we're British!). It is sophistry at its "finest".
Whether you intend it or not, by using this language, you implicitly support the misogynistic, mass-murdering philosophy and the position that "there is no difference between men and women" or that "trans women are women".
In all seriousness, there is VERY little difference between the the "gender ideologues" and the mid-century Germans. Yes, I went there, not through insensitivity, but through genuine concern - you have always given the impression that you try to uphold the best principles of the scientific method and I want to give you to be clear on the terms of engagement.
I'm sorry, but with respect to this issue there are, precisely, 2 sides: empiricism or ideology. It is NOT possible to "straddle the fence". You will be denounced by one side or the other for not picking a side; by the Left (evil gender ideologues) for "being a bigot" and everyone else for being an intellectual coward.
I'm almost sorry that you made this video... While I do not doubt your sincerity, I do question your appreciation of the minefield you just walked into. 🙁
2
-
2
-
@jeromejerome2492 You want to make the claim "I understand the climate", yet can't explain the MWP?
Your theory must match all data or it's just cherry picking.
If your models aren't making accurate predictions, why are you claiming they "prove" anything?
So, you "turn off" GHG emissions. Okay, but how do you know that you haven't over-weighted their influence? (Hint: they already realised this, more than once.)
You test your model against ALL historical data, including the MWP.
What if we're experiencing another MWP that just happens to coincide with changes in atmospheric gas composition? I can't be sure of this unless and until you can adequately explain the MWP in the first place, can I?
How do you know those changes (overall) are not effect, rather than cause? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's on you to prove your assertions, not just say "well we have been burning hydrocarbons"; that's a clue, not proof.)
Science is hard. Suck it up and show me the proof.
(FYI/FWIW: I'm more skeptical of the "science" behind ACC now than I was 20 years ago.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Feolips Yes, H2 storage IS harder than an oil rig!!!
The "better energy density" of H2 comes at a massive cost - it has to be in liquid form, which takes a massive amount of energy.
There are also a number of material problems associated with hydrogen, because it can pass through materials.
Here's a thought:
Instead of breaking-down natural hydrocarbons to free the hydrogen (and do, what, with the carbon?), how about creating synthetic hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 which would, at worst, maintain current CO2 levels?
I understand why you think H2 is a good idea, but it isn't. Synthetic hydrocarbons are EASILY a better, cheaper solution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@Sim-q9t You seem to have drunk the Cool Aid that there's something magical and mysterious about universities.
I'm sorry to disabuse you, but they are, simply, businesses that are in the business of providing education.
If you cannot see/accept this reality, then you do not understand the nature of the problem and consequently, your contributions can, by this fact, be of limited value.
If you feel demeaned by my comments, that's on you, I am simply stating what I have come to understand to be objective reality. The very fact that you believe this to be a bold claim is proof that you have swallowed the propaganda put out by the universities.
You may protest that this is a tautological claim, but given my first "claim", it is self-evidently true that the second predicate follows from the first, given the language that you have used.
The universities are businesses, selling a bad product for at an inflated price. Like all businesses that do this, they should fail and should be allowed to fail. The market will see this and react accordingly, with the "well-run" businesses reacting quickly-enough to survive.
Government intervention, in this case, is the problem, not the solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1