Science Memes

10923 readers

2319 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

430

Anthropologists: "You motherfuckers!" (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I've personally accepted that it's basically predictable/deterministic, but due to how complicated and unknowable the system is there's no practical way for an outside observer to get all the information.

I'm guessing the lower resolution imaging methods might still allow more or less accurate prediction, though? We don't need to know the details on every air molecule to do fairly accurate weather forecasting, so maybe the same approach can work to predict mindweather. Maybe it's possible to know a person's brain well enough and accurately adjust predictions very fast after random encounters/events influencing them – like the people they meet, the things they see, and a myriad of other things – and in that way get something more and more capable of predicting behavior?

I don't really know much about either field, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That sounds like the seasons of Westworld after season 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It does? I should watch the show.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

I think people were upset the show changed so dramatically half way through but I really liked the whole thing. Some really good actors in it and the first season has a lot of mystery to it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That sounds like the seasons of Westworld after season 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

It does? I should watch the show.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

idk why youve accepted that when its not proven at all. In fact newer ideas on the matter point toward the opposite. That consciousness may involve nanotubes that cause wave function interactions on the quantum level. If that is the case then it would function as a superimposed variable in the way our minds work, and completely break determinism. Think of it like a math equation. If one of the numbers was superimposed youd get different solutions everytime you solved the same equation. Or more accurately youd solve the equation and get a solution that was a superposition of multiple different solutions.

https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

I'm sure I have accepted many different things as likely without rigorous proof. Reality and my understanding of it don't exactly match. Quantum level chaos significantly affecting neurons is a new idea to me, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Even if you had perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe, knew all the laws, you still couldn't predict shit. The reason is chaos, more precisely: There are no closed-form solutions to chaotic systems. To simulate them you have to go through all the time steps (assuming, without loss of generality^1^, discrete time), simulate every single of them one after the other, arguably creating a universe while doing so. And you have to do that with the computational resources of the universe you're trying to simulate. Good luck. Chaos also means that approximate solutions won't help because sensitivity to small perturbations: There's no upper bound to how far your approximation will be off.

^1^ I can wave my hands faster than you. I dare you. I double-dare you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

First statement is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? We already predict a lot with useful accuracy.

But I get that in some things, chaos inhibits useful prediction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

Useful becomes useless quite quickly. Yes, we have useful predictions for the weather tomorrow. A week from now? Not really. Two weeks? Could just as well get your prediction from tea leaves.

And that's just statistical reliability. Weather predictions are actually allowed to be wrong, when the prediction for tomorrow is off then people shrug their shoulders. Not really what Descartes meant when describing his daemon.