/sci/ - Science & Math

Thinking about Mars heavily right now

>>12777452
>Often the emphasis is on "real world math", as if classrooms are not part of the real world.

Is anythin happening today

Today is literally the 1st time I have EVER heard of Astra. Who the fuck are they? I don't know why I care though they won't be a company in 2 years

>no launches today
My ADD and being a space fanatic do not go hand in hand

3 and a half hours...getting tired...

What to do while waiting 3 hours for the launch

>>11403360
I talk shit about psychiatry almost every chance I get, but you really picked the most retarded example possible here. If anything is legitimate it's anxiety. Low hanging fruit to "change your mind" here is probably the massive risk increase for both coronary heart disease and cardiac death.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109710016049
>Anxiety and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis
>Twenty studies reporting on incident CHD comprised 249,846 persons with a mean follow-up period of 11.2 years. Anxious persons were at risk of CHD (hazard ratio [HR] random: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15 to 1.38; p < 0.0001) and cardiac death (HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.92; p = 0.003), independent of demographic variables, biological risk factors, and health behaviors.
>Anxiety seemed to be an independent risk factor for incident CHD and cardiac mortality.
>The results show an association between anxiety and incident CHD with a 26% increase in risk. Anxiety was also specifically associated with cardiac mortality, with anxious persons having a 48% increased risk of cardiac death.

>survey says 91% of Americans do X
>survey says 84% of Brits do X
>survey says etc etc etc
>survey is always done with 2000 people or so
How do this make sense??? I get they cant test everyone in the country but can they really just 2000 random people and say that "x% of people in country do Y" so easily??? What if they tested 2000 different people and it was like only 40% of people did "X" instead??? Do they specifically test people to fit into that demographic theyre testing for or something?? How can they just say that the entire country does something because they tested a 2000 person group?!?!? This makes me upset and frustrated, please explain thanks :)

>>10959925
>quantum
Why don't you just say magic? That's obviously what you people mean when you co-opt that word.

>>10956558
>The brain, as well as the Universe as a whole, is non-sequential in its calculations
>quantum computers have the promise of simultaneous calculation, like the brain
This is all bullshit. Also refer to this:
>>10956786
>what is parallel computing
>>10956806
>does it do calculations in 11 dimensions as the brain does?
>The brain doesn't do this.

>>10903186
>Reverse inference is generally difficult in all cases
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883690
>The actual detection limit of the real-time NASBA assay was approximately 50 copies per reaction. Compared with reference methods (viral culture, conventional RT-PCR, and real-time RT-PCR), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the present assay were all 100%.
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/researchers-identify-tests-to-diagnose-invasive-aspergillosis-with-100-accuracy
>The fungal infectioninvasive aspergillosis (IA) can be life threatening, especially in patients whose immune systems are weakened by chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs. Despite the critical need for early detection, IA remains difficult to diagnose. A study in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics compared three diagnostic tests and found that the combination of nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) detects aspergillosis with 100% accuracy.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/045d/8c929c016af52aacf7ca48be4af350e3fddd.pdf
>Pan-gram positive and pan-gram-negative probes were able to detect four (S. aureus, S. epidermidis, E. faecium, and E. faecalis) and five (E. coli, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, E. cloacae, and K. pneumoniae) medically important species, respectively, and no cross-reactivity was observed between each group or with fungi. Pan-fungal, pan-Candida, and pan-Aspergillus probes also demonstrated 100% specificity. Eight Candida species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, C. guilliermondii, C. lusitaniae, and C. dubliniensis), four Aspergillus species (A. fumigatus, A. flavus, A. niger, and A. terreus), Cryptococcus neoformans, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Table 1) were detected easily by the pan-fungal probe without any cross-reactivity with the bacterial probes.

>>10880880
>Take the fence-sitting intellectual coward pill

>>10835289
>the universe
>a means of representing
>a machine that can interpret
>material
Real world physical limitations don't define mathematics you fucking pseud retard.
NONE of the numbers exist in the real world. They're abstractions, not physical things. Mathematics isn't a branch of physics.

>>10823658
>I have never heard of any counter to it
Then you've never actually read anything written about it that wasn't some pop sci clickbait trash.
If Sapir-Whorf were true, genderless languages would result in *less* gender inequality.
You know which nations speak genderless languages?
Sudan, Bangladesh, and Iran.
If Sapir-Whorf were true, common languages would supposedly correlate with concrete measures of behavioral differences such as per capita income, education, and life expectancy.
France and Haiti share the same language. Haiti is one of the poorest, least educated, and lowest life expectancy having nations on the planet ($800 GNI per capita, 5.2 years of schooling average, average life expectancy 63.5 years). France is the opposite ($41,070 GNI per capita, 11.6 years of schooling average, average life expectancy 82.4 years).

>suffer through university to get a math/physics/hard science degree
>only to become a spreadsheet monkey

How do you guys cope with this? Any research position job I looked at offered less money than a "data scientist" at a corporate office which in reality means "can use excel"

>>10759967
You can prevent light from making contact with someone's eyes.
You can't prevent "consciousness" flapdoodle from making contact with someone's brain.
Also if the "receiver" theory of "consciousness" were valid it wouldn't make any sense at all why you can take apart components of the brain and figure out how they produce different specific sorts of complex conscious behaviors.
Yes, we don't know everything about the brain
But no, we aren't so absolutely ignorant about the brain that we don't have ANY information about how any parts of it work.
And the information we do have clearly demonstrates complex conscious behaviors produced by the structure and activity of the brain.
It's not an antenna.
>>10760959
>Yet it is observably "there"
You haven't even gotten so far as establishing the "it" in that claim even refers to anything coherent or meaningful in the first place, let alone whether "it" is present in some particular location.

>>10715397
>AI can't be as smart as humans
Reminder that AI is already unbeatable by humans at Go.
Go is a game that cannot be brute-forced with computations.
Secondary reminder that retards like OP used to love laughing at how retarded early Chess AI.
No human Chess player in recorded history has ever ranked in with an ELO >= 3000.
More than 50 distinct Chess AIs have 3000+ ELOs now.
Tertiary reminder everyone called AI dead back when it was shown perceptrons couldn't even learn the XOR function.
A few years later the basic idea was slightly modified to overcome that limitation, and now:
>Google Duplex appointment booking AI produces a "nearly flawless" imitation of human-sounding speech to the point where people complained about ethical violations and they had to add an introductory prompt that tells you it's not a real person.
>AlphaZero mastered chess in 4 hours, defeating the best chess engine, StockFish, winning 28 out of 100 games and drawing the remaining 72.
>Alibaba language processing AI outscored top humans at Stanford University reading and comprehension test, scoring 82.44 against 82.304 on a set of 100,000 questions.
>Open AI ML bot played at The International Dota 2 tournament and won 1v1 against professional Dota 2 player Dendi.
>A propositional logic boolean satisfiability problem solving AI proved the long-standing open conjecture on Pythagorean triples over the set of integers, validated by two independent certified automatic proof checkers.
>Poker (an imperfect information game, unlike Chess or even Go) AI Libratus defeated 4 of the best human players in the world, individually, at an extremely high aggregated winrate, over a statistically significant sample.

>>10694875
>>10694921
http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/Evolution%20in%20America/evol%20religion%20free%20will.pdf
>Our questionnaire offered evolutionary scientists only two choices on the question about human free will: A, all organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, but humans still possess free will; B, all organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, and humans have no free will. To our surprise, 79 percent of the respondents chose option A for this question, indicating their belief that people have free will despite being determined by heredity and environment.
What a horribly phrased question.
>One hundred and forty-nine eminent evolutionary scientists responded
lol. Great consensus, anon-chan. Really got a strong majority on a convoluted mess of a survey prompt from all one hundred and forty-nine scientists who constitute this planet's entire scientific community.

>>10651999
Nothing "destroys" Occam's razor. Occam's razor is an approach to dealing with unknowns where you don't go out of your way to add on a bunch of extra assumptions. The more assumptions you decide to add to an attempted explanation the more unknown requirements need to be met for your explanation to be true. Adding assumptions makes your conclusion increasingly less justifiable, like a house of cards or a sand castle where you're building on top of a slew of artificially introduced new unknowns.
In contrast if you can explain an unknown in a way that makes hardly any assumptions one way or the other about how things ought to be then your conclusion is a lot easier to justify. If you have video footage showing someone who looks exactly like a murder suspect you're prosecuting and you have DNA evidence his hand was on a gun found at the scene of the crime and you have receipts found on his person at the time of his arrest showing he made a purchase at a convenience store one block away from the murder and you have forensic evidence showing the murder victim was likely killed at a time just before when he would've been going to that convenience store, etc, then you can conclude the guy on trial likely committed the murder without needing to make hardly any leaps of faith.

>>10582515
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

>>10368097
>>10370350
>It's a "pretending psych diagnoses are chronic diseases" episode

>another climate change thread

>another IQ thread