= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The math of a subject is only valuable when one understands the basic terminology of the subject. As Chris points out, knowing when to use statistics (the basic assumptions and what the word applies to) makes something like the Doomsday Arguement good for a laugh. It is ridiculous. On evolutionary biology-- Evolution is defined as " any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." This frequency changes with each birth. So to make the definition into regular English we could say Evolution is defined as "living things reproduce" (the fact of evolution). In modem evolutionary genetics, natural selection is defined as "the differential reproduction of genotypes (individuals of some genotypes have more offspring than those of others)". In English- some cats have more babies than other cats. So the statement "It is a fact that some cats have more babies than other cats," would be the proof of evolution by natural selection as the terms are currently defined. Doesn't that help more than a mathematical equation?
Evolution is defined as " any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." This frequency changes with each birth. So to make the definition into regular English we could say Evolution is defined as "living things reproduce" (the fact of evolution).
This doesn't follow.
“If it seems to you like nothing you do makes you happy, and you can't even imagine what would make you happy, it's not because the universe is made of particle fields. It's because you're still solving the wrong problem. “
Imagine being offered an option of spending the remainder of your natural life-span inside a virtual reality machine where all your material problems (poverty, obesity, loneliness etc) are solved. Plus as an added bonus you would be able to consume unlimited quantities of virtual heroin without damaging your health or your virtual social life.
If the “meaning of life” is a meaningless concept, shouldn’t every reasonable person jump on this offer? Would you?
I know that if I'm at a party (of most types), for example, my first goal ain't exactly to win philosophical arguments ...
Funny, I've always thought that debates are one of the most entertaining forms of social interaction available. Parties with a lot of strangers around are one of the best environments for them - not only don't you know in advance the opinions of the others, making the discussions more interesting, but you'll get to know them on a deeper level, and faster, than you could with idle small talk. You'll get to know how they think.
Faster Than Light is FTL, not FLT. Of course, that can also be For The Loss, colloquially.
In general, I agree with you about context recognition. LEO can be Low Earth Orbit or Law Enforcement Officer, but we rarely find ourselves in a situation that seriously confuses the two.
I believe FLT, Faster than Light Travel, is the more common of the two. Never actually seen FTL in that context.
Hello all.
New user here, so far extremely gratified at what I have encountered. I've had a sort of a fetish for feedback/self-referential systems ever since reading Hoffstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" as a kid. While I no longer really agree with much in this work, at the time it was mind-blowing. I remember clearly the vision I had of the all-but-unlimited power of feedback loops and iterated functions.
What I'm trying to get at is that, while all* online forums, etc, are intrinsically self-referential, this one seems to be so in a special sense. Regardless of the content of a forum, perusal of the material initiates certain thought processes which lead to further discussion, ie, addition to and alteration of the content. This is the trivial sense.
From what I have seen, the content here is in the main devoted to examination and refinement of these thought processes (and also improving explication), for the purpose of engendering more fruitful discussion.
Not sure if i'm getting my point across, or if it's worth making at all, but that's what i'm here to explore!
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
My biggest problem is that I can't catch. A poor throwing attempt still moves the ball in the general direction that you want it to go in. A poor catching attempt ends up with you running after the ball once it's moved past you.
(I developed a strong aversion to basketball in elementary school. One of the activities in gym class was shooting baskets - into an adult height hoop. Unlike some of the other children, I never succeeded.)
Do you have a specific type of catching in mind? The techniques for different objects are different, more so than one might expect and in less-than-obvious ways. For example, I had trouble catching a football until someone explained to me that the catch is made at the point when the ball hits your torso, not before. Of course, this only applies to dead on throws. It also requires that you overcome the instinctive aversion to being hit by flying objects. Being hit by a briskly thrown, spiraling football hurts, when you're unprepared. This led me to try to catch with only my hands, as far from my body as possible. This is much more difficult and resulted in many jammed fingers. Once I understood that the ball was supposed to hit me, I found it really didn't hurt (too much) if I was prepared. Thus, I didn't have to block the ball; it was much more effective to allow it to come to me.
I could go into greater detail, but the particulars of football-catching aren't the point. Conceive of a task as difficult, and often it will oblige you by becoming so. This sounds trite, but I've had to learn it over and over again, in all sorts of different applications. Come to think of it, I'm likely making the same error right now, assuming that this is a hard-to-grasp concept which requires lengthy explanation. Just to relate it to the original topic, I see this as analogous to holding a pencil in a clenched fist when drawing, to ensure that it doesn't slip away from you.