The future of modern science, extinction?

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

negru
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by negru » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:19 pm

midwestphysics wrote:Great answer! Thanks for discussing the topic.
which is very boring and which we can't answer anyway since none of us are astrologists.

Back to the interesting topic.


Why is my example a "false dilemma"? It's a hypothetical situation that whatever system you're proposing has to solve in an objective way.

My point is that unless you can create perfect perfect laws, you'd better not make any. Imperfect laws only allow for some to abuse them at the expense of others.

Consider my other questions: how many notes does a song need to have in order to get copyrighted? 2? 3? 14? I expect no less than a fixed number, or, lacking that, an objective method of solving the issue. If this method involves the phrase "sounds like", I expect a mathematical formula which measures this "sound alikeness". Lacking any of these, you'll have to agree that copyright laws are pretty arbitrary or subjective.

negru
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by negru » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:28 pm

oh ya and that mathematical formula needs to be the unique formula which can compare two songs. gl!

bfollinprm
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by bfollinprm » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:34 pm

negru wrote:oh ya and that mathematical formula needs to be the unique formula which can compare two songs. gl!
Why are you going to physics grad school? You don't seem to like incompleteness, and like to toss out Generally Good Things when they fail in esoteric cases.

Sounds like you should be getting a degree in pure mathematics and start yelling at us physicists that all those times we collapse our delta functions we are committing extreme, egregious errors.

I had someone like you in a few of my philosophy courses, someone so in love with the broad idea of nihilism that he irrationally held on to the idea that you should reject anything with a small logical hole even after finding himself unable to repair the large gaping holes in the logic behind his nihilistic philosophy.

Look, if your argument as to why laws should be abolished is that people are going to use the laws to take advantage of other people, you need to explain why the unmitigated, lawless version of society won't have people taking unfair advantage of other people. And that's hard, because if it was legal I might find myself bashing your head in with a rock.
Last edited by bfollinprm on Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by midwestphysics » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:40 pm

I've clearly opened a portal into the eighth circle of hell with this topic and can't close it, for that I apologize to all the other users. That being said, Negru, if you love your topic so much and hate this one then why not start your own? You can then have people clearly know what they're getting into when they read the subject line, and I'm willing to bet you'll get all the responses you want. That is unless someone highjacks your topic with some random craziness, which I obviously can't promise won't happen.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by HappyQuark » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:50 pm

bfollinprm wrote:
negru wrote:oh ya and that mathematical formula needs to be the unique formula which can compare two songs. gl!
Sounds like you should be getting a degree in pure mathematics and start yelling at us physicists that all those times we collapse our delta functions we are committing extreme, egregious errors.
The Dirac Delta Function is NOT A FUNCTION! Damn you physicists and your misappropriation of the sacred maths!

Dreaded Anomaly
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by Dreaded Anomaly » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:00 pm

It's foolish to suggest that anything we can't do perfectly, we shouldn't do at all. The only time imperfect laws shouldn't be made is when they do more harm than good, i.e. they do not lead to a net improvement of the situation. It's obviously not the case that any given situation is so close to perfect that only a perfect law could improve it.

On topic: Virgin Galactic Signs Deal to Launch Scientists Into Space

This is a good thing, but that it's suborbital-only highlights the fact that we currently still need NASA to achieve orbit.

negru
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by negru » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:34 pm

Dreaded Anomaly wrote: The only time imperfect laws shouldn't be made is when they do more harm than good, i.e. they do not lead to a net improvement of the situation. It's obviously not the case that any given situation is so close to perfect that only a perfect law could improve it.
But you see that's the point of my examples: to show that you can't always know when the net effect is positive. How do you compute this effect over large populations? Do you make an average of happiness points? Maybe a weighted average? What's the formula?
HappyQuark wrote:
bfollinprm wrote:
negru wrote:oh ya and that mathematical formula needs to be the unique formula which can compare two songs. gl!
Sounds like you should be getting a degree in pure mathematics and start yelling at us physicists that all those times we collapse our delta functions we are committing extreme, egregious errors.
The Dirac Delta Function is NOT A FUNCTION! Damn you physicists and your misappropriation of the sacred maths!
THANK YOU HappyQuark. It's a freaking distribution function, goddammit!

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by HappyQuark » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:14 pm

Dreaded Anomaly wrote:It's foolish to suggest that anything we can't do perfectly, we shouldn't do at all. The only time imperfect laws shouldn't be made is when they do more harm than good, i.e. they do not lead to a net improvement of the situation. It's obviously not the case that any given situation is so close to perfect that only a perfect law could improve it.

On topic: Virgin Galactic Signs Deal to Launch Scientists Into Space

This is a good thing, but that it's suborbital-only highlights the fact that we currently still need NASA to achieve orbit.
While speaking to one of my undergraduate professors, he said something that always stuck with me:

"EVERYTHING in physics is an approximation"

negru
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by negru » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:36 pm

HappyQuark wrote: While speaking to one of my undergraduate professors, he said something that always stuck with me:

"EVERYTHING in physics is an approximation"
And that's when you decided that your cat is actually a bunny?

Or I'm sorry, maybe your comment is related in some other way to this topic? Cause I didn't get it.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by HappyQuark » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:36 pm

negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: While speaking to one of my undergraduate professors, he said something that always stuck with me:

"EVERYTHING in physics is an approximation"
And that's when you decided that your cat is actually a bunny?

Or I'm sorry, maybe your comment is related in some other way to this topic? Cause I didn't get it.
It's a comment on this childish notion you have that all things must be precisely quantifiable to be useful. Since physics, arguably the most fundamental and precise of all the sciences, can only ever ascertain approximations even under the best conditions, your predilection towards certainty ought to be ignored.

Have you ever considered getting your PhD in philosophy instead of physics? They like to whine about what can/can't be known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

User avatar
sphy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:23 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by sphy » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:05 am

midwestphysics wrote:I've clearly opened a portal into the eighth circle of hell with this topic and can't close it, for that I apologize to all the other users. That being said, Negru, if you love your topic so much and hate this one then why not start your own? You can then have people clearly know what they're getting into when they read the subject line, and I'm willing to bet you'll get all the responses you want. That is unless someone highjacks your topic with some random craziness, which I obviously can't promise won't happen.
Do you know something that this topic has the highest value of "Replies to Views" ratio in the history of physicsgre.com.
Apparently you should feel proud. :wink:

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by HappyQuark » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:08 pm

negru wrote: Consider my other questions: how many notes does a song need to have in order to get copyrighted? 2? 3? 14? I expect no less than a fixed number, or, lacking that, an objective method of solving the issue. If this method involves the phrase "sounds like", I expect a mathematical formula which measures this "sound alikeness". Lacking any of these, you'll have to agree that copyright laws are pretty arbitrary or subjective.
The problem here is that you've horribly oversimplified what music is and then suggested we ought to set exactly defined regulations on that oversimplification. A song isn't just defined by the number of notes it contains but also by its tempo, timbre, rhythmic patterns, chordal patterns, dynamic qualities, arrangement, etc. If I created a song called "A Midnight Summer's Breeze" and it was precisely 1,139,312 A-440 tones, all held precisely for one standard quarter note, in common time at a tempo of 120bpm and with uniform dynamic, nobody would allow me to copyright that, despite the fact that it has so many notes in it. In fact, precisely the reason we have a judicial system with courts and judges is because such a law can't be decided by one singularly defined value. If things really were that easy then we would have no need for the judiciary, we'd simply define exact quantities that must not be exceeded to be legal and anytime anybody matched or exceeded that tolerance, we'd throw them in jail. It clearly doesn't work that way and anyone that thinks that could or even that it ought to is horribly naive.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by midwestphysics » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:02 am

sphy wrote:Do you know something that this topic has the highest value of "Replies to Views" ratio in the history of physicsgre.com.
Apparently you should feel proud. :wink:
Eh, take the little victories where and when you can I guess, thanks for pointing that out. 8) I'm curious though where did you come up with that?

bfollinprm
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by bfollinprm » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:22 pm

Speaking of zombies, they're perfect graduate applicants. Look at all the things they have going for them:

* Persistence [even in the face of shotguns]
* No bothersome connections to their past life that might distract them from work
* Motivated to pick the brains of professors for help [satiating their blood lust]
* Thrive [nutritionally] in an academic setting

EDIT: sorry, I think I might have misunderstood the topic of this thread.

User avatar
sphy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:23 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Post by sphy » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:42 pm

midwestphysics wrote:
sphy wrote:Do you know something that this topic has the highest value of "Replies to Views" ratio in the history of physicsgre.com.
Apparently you should feel proud. :wink:
Eh, take the little victories where and when you can I guess, thanks for pointing that out. 8) I'm curious though where did you come up with that?
Hey that's so simple.
On any initial page of physics gre forum you have seen all these things, right?
Topics Author Replies Views Last post

now you calculate the ratio your's will be highest. Unless there is some other post which only one of us have seen so far and that has only one reply, in that case the ratio will be 1 and which is paradoxical by the way.

And the irony is that over the years the ratio of every post naturally will come down and down. So it's a dynamical quantity. Hope you get my point straight.



Post Reply