Jump to content

foodchain

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by foodchain

  1. Just two problems I see with that. You have some many fields of chemistry, nuclear and physical for instance. Why should chemistry just be squared off to the periodic table really, if the science it uses is applicable to all kinds of changes in matter or substance via "reactions" or whatever is the correct scientific wording. Maybe something for science could be gained if chemistry was not just held to understanding products of the periodic table however a large a task that in itself is. I mean electrons are subatomic particles whose behavior can cause change in substance, well so are photons and protons. For instance if I could have it my way I would have the definition of chemistry changed to the scientific study of substances and their transformations, sadly though I don't hold such power.
  2. What would be the pure of heart? I can understand that nobody agrees totally, or that everything thinks the same, but that does not answer the question. I guess to get platonic its like a chair, what is the chair but a concept overall without any one absolute immutable chair:D We dont allow subjectivity to rule automobile production, at least not literal if you want. Why should anyone place any value on anything being true then about anything, or why does that word even have the definition it holds? To accept that literally as a law of nature means you might as well be a nihilist. I mean if everything is subjective how can we even agree to the fact we exist? I understand the question could easily be reduced to matter of faith or opinion, but I still fall back on the aspect that we are part of this world fundamentally, its not so mysterious to me as something supernatural I guess.
  3. I know, saying all of reality of human experience is subjective is a pretty objective statement.
  4. I like to think of frostbite in these conceptual contexts. Sure you can assign all kinds of human devised attributes to it, such as calling it frostbite, but regardless of the perception of it such occurs in specific environments. To me that states reality exists outside of whatever human observer interacting with it. If the universe exists, by some means this is made so I would wager, just as the action of frostbite. I will probably argue that humanity may never reveal the perfect natural state of it, but we do have to think in constraints placed upon us, like our brain organs, language, etc... I always got confused by something. Humans are part of the universe just as anything else is. So in a sense its still just matter operating on itself to a certain extent by means allowable in the universe. I think how the question is phrased sort of not only denies this existence, it sort of places us outside of a world that we are fundamentally apart of just as any atom that makes up our bodies. Also I think not every subjective conjecture could work, and after that is why would not every subjective conjecture work to describe something. I do eventually think humans could possibly come to understand the ultimate truth of everything, I just do not think such is possible right now.
  5. H2O2 as a mouthwash? Sorry to go off topic but cant that compound be viewed as a teratogen?
  6. Well for what I have to take chem wise I already will have to take chem every year until I graduate, organic for a year plus biochem for a year with labs. I was thinking that if I could just take a phys chem sequence I could pretty much grab an almost chemistry major along with way just going the minor route. I know biology is becoming incrasingly molecular is all, so I want to keep myself viable. Plus I like cell/molecular stuff, in a developmental sense its awesome to me, more so looking at cellular differentiation leading to any particular organism. I already know that I would become aggitated just doing chemistry solely, and from what I know I have to be careful really or I want be able to get certain classes, and trying to make majors and minors work for me is really something delicate as I have screwed around enough already:D My class loads are already going to be next to insane considering other things. Maybe its just a comfort zone thing also, as bio stuff to me makes more sense or comes easier then other fields due to interests over time. I think in a purely math/physical science field I would not fair as well to say the least.
  7. Viruses can also mutate. I am not trying to knock info theory, just that maybe biology currently has a working scientific framework, that can be used to further understanding. I mean if we look at it in a pragmatic way is all. Lets take each organism as a bit of noise then, thats a lot of noise right, so how would you try to determine then something empirical, physical and or real, or scientifically valid about life giving all organisms through time and everything used in the science of evolutionary theory like fossils or molecular avenues. Maybe current science in biology is working, and I don't see the need to wrap it in extraneous extra layers of abstraction. I have already seen all the stuff you can prove with math, and then there is reality and that whole conundrum that is talked about in many circles. I think it would be safe to assume that in time current physical models of things like gravity will change, using differing or various equations not used now, but in the end you still have to realize that the math is a layer of abstraction, and you have to empirically or lab experiment verify things. Else I would think modern books would say string theory is the scientific truth of things. To me and the reason I really like the field is biology is dogmatically empirical to the best extent it can be, from ecology down to molecules, its all been beaten to death in real world lab experiments and is not simply based on equations and philosophy behind them. I think such behavior is the hallmark of good science, and currently evolution has a mountain of such science as support. Even after how many years of basic denial, and or hatred really towards it from a variety of people and groups, even within science.
  8. I try to stay away from advisors, and plus talking to them I already know what they say, talk to people in the departments really. I thought about a physics minor, but for what coursework I would have in the other options, the classes conflict in terms of time and how many credits I would have to take plus I am human:D I about a year ago thought about abandoning the current academic course I am on for a biophysics option though, but again I thought that the coursework would just leave me lacking overall. I am trying to keep myself open also for continued education and possibilities. I think a lot of my difficulty in decision also stems from my romantic attachment to fringe sci fi like stuff that I should just ignore. There is a biotech option available on a biology degree that would allow me legally in terms of the college to take a variety of classes, that along with a chemistry minor would really hook me up. I am pretty sure it will be that, but again I am just out trying to get advice from the real world.
  9. Ok, so here is where I am at. I have about one term left of college before I have to make a definitive selection as to what I want to major in, yet after exhaustive efforts on my own I am left to still not having a decision made. I have reduced my choices down though. I like chemistry a lot, lots of fun in the lab, plus I don't mind all the equations with last names. The problem I have with chemistry for what its worth is what all can I work on, or in all reality will all I ever do is work with atomic chemistry. When it comes to chemistry I just want to think that I could eventually land a job smashing neutrons together if thats even possible, not just the periodic table is all. Biology, most likely were I will end up I am sure, most likely medical orientated. I enjoy medicine, or trying to help really, always have. When it comes to this field though again I am just worried that the scope of my career will be limited as to what I can do. I was thinking I could hook up a physical chemistry section to my education to also be able to apply for chemistry jobs. As the rest of my biology education will get into analytical chemistry methods like chromatography and the like. I would think taking math to differential equations would also help me being able to work either life sciences or just more or less chemistry jobs. I gave a lot of thought about being a medical technologist, as the scope of the work holds most of my interests in regards to both chemistry and biology, as in working at the cellular/molecular scale of life. I would think biochemistry would be a good option, yet I am worried that such an education would leave me lacking lots of biological knowledge up and beyond how something somewhere bonds that I could obtain in a biology education anyways these days. I also have various other interests, but in my mind from what I know the above two fields basically would take me into them if I truly wanted. I am sure many professionals frequent this site, and I would really enjoy if they could drop a little advice my way is all. Thank you for your time.
  10. sorry, my bad. The question is basically me positing that unless extinction occurs, and giving of course resources like the universe in total, that continued growth would eventually eat up the universe. From what I know, or at least think I know, the universe has a finite amount of stuff in it currently. So I would think constant population growth would eventually consume it.
  11. If life on Earth, or intelligent life on Earth never goes extinct, and continues to grow on forever, would it be safe to assume that over a long enough period of time that it would basically consume the universe? Not to evoke some kind of psychological line of thinking but in a sci-fi tone I could actually see at some point the entire universe having to consist of nothing but life if growth continues forever. What do you think?
  12. foodchain

    Shotgun?

    Thats my text, and 8mm is over doing it. In the actual reality of something like a zombie outbreak, all the moral goings on of daily life would basically cease. If some true pandemic like that were to break out, no one would be safe and existing structure like the government would be hard pressed to really help everyone, as anyone could be a potential carrier from contact. Its nice to think things would stay all happy and logical, but even in a bad natural disaster which is sort of limited in scope such ideas do not hold water. To carry something big and heavy would drain your body of nutrients and energy, plus if you had to walk 20 or so miles a day I doubt you could sustain it. Interaction would be something to avoid, and getting in larger groups could easily lead to your demise if everything is still chaos, more so with some communicable disease flowing about. Would you trust your loved ones safety to moral ideas in such a situation? Personally If I had to hold a home I would probably fire waring shots(if that) at anything that did not look to match the reality at hand in regards to understanding and a way out. Then again I would already be far from civilization and basically hiding, but in a prolonged situation any survivors would still need food and such. You would regret your morality if it truly caused something bad in such a situation, like you or someone you care about becoming infected because you did not want to be harsh. In the case of a single person, what about the first recorded case of HIV in America, and the countless deaths later?
  13. I thought you might be able to use a rubber band or something else elastic, but for three hundred seconds that would probably involve danger. I think what would be cool is a sort of waterfall if you could get a controlled drip, and that as the water pours down the initial drip could be timed to three hundred seconds. The rest of the time intervals could be process that go on below it, like one that overflows every ten seconds. I Also thought using a force to spin a coin would be cool, but then again no way to predict easily and 300 second spin would probably shoot it through a wall:D Do magnets count as electricity? I dont know what you could do but I am sure some kind of process could be rigged with magnets.
  14. Yes, but at the same time one could say that the universe is constantly observing itself, for every particle of its reality is in contact constantly with itself. Yet if you get down the the boundary between classical and so on why would that uncertain world produce stable reality like so many times questioned. Then you have time, which is what, only a classical concept, yet gravity is to be quantum. Relativity makes time along with gravity somewhat the same thing though in terms of spacetime. On top of this you have the MWI of QM. If we can have any number of possible worlds, does that include that our current world is on the verge of any of those possible worlds, as what makes it so any normal physical behavior persists past some static flicker of weirdness for a universe, how can we have time and QM in that context. I think the most simple answer is no one knows yet, followed by QM just for the subatomic scale, and on top of that its just current physical theory. Neither of which helps me stop thinking about questions like this.
  15. I would think information theory in context of biological stuff is at best extraneous. I mean an amoeba has a huge genome, and then again is this a question of a single gene, or at some other level like epigenetic. You also have to factor in egg laying mammals or Monotremata, the discoveries made in evo devo are also surprising. Why do amphibians have the amount of gene stuff that reptiles don’t, or why the need for a lungfish, or dinosaurs, or in all reality why the need for evolution period if its all just the work of some intelligent creator. You instantly fall into stuff that can’t be probed by science is all, and we end up with global warming being tied quantitatively to declines in pirate populations.
  16. Does dark matter or dark energy, or dark stuff in general actually interact with gravity? I know modern interpretations of it hold that gravity is the only way currently to determine the existence of such stuff, and that such stuff does not interact with any other fundamental force, but in all reality is there actual science to prove that dark stuff actually does indeed physically interact with gravity, or could such a correlation be explained away by other means?
  17. I got this idea from the MWI of quantum mechanics. What if in our own universe the future has already been selected. Basically that a future was selected quantum mechanically out of many possible futures that could happen, and the present is a reality that will eventually get to that point? I know this sort of implies deterministic stuff, but only to a certain extent and not totally.
  18. The fact that under enough scrutiny anything humans engage in can be viewed as insane.
  19. I would like to think that at the hardware level it would be possible to maximize a virtual machine running the java environment. This could be selective based on what java tools being used by the device. Basically that the architecture of the machine is designed for java. I would think start up could run a small bios like program that could get it up and running, and from there you could have one class that just loads and unloads beans based on user input, a gui. I just wonder if you could do away with having to make a registry. Instead just having user files, both by system and regular ones. Only the regular ones would be user visible. I would think hooking some usb ports to it, or card readers could improve what you could do with it. The idea is plug and play, for just general internet use, or for that matter being able to play games. Then of course if anything goes wrong the big idea is that formating would be super easy, maybe as easy as just plugging it into the net, possibly with just a different function. Like if you go to turn it on, maybe the switch could be on, off, and system fix. The last one would just format all data save for the beans and the OS. These parts of the software I would like to think could be made inaccessible by any other party.
  20. could you use programmable chips to emplace a Java based operating system in a small computer device, like handheld. My idea was maybe a bit of flash memory that could hold some roms to start up the OS. On the electronics itself start up or the on button would fire the roms into something like a CPU or what not. Then the Java program could start to run. I would think programs could be nothing but sets of nested beans if that is possible, or new stuff and or upgrades to it. I think this could be reflected in the electronics layout also for the same purpose. I would like to think of flash memory for a "bios". Some kind of hardrive hardware also, in which data for individual beans could be held in a different hardware area then files it generates. Not so much a software partition either, just different chips really for the purpose of formating or what not. Files made to support dynamic bean operation over time could be permanently hidden, and regular files like a .txt file or song could just be what is user visible. I think this could help user end programs along with possibly just being able to plug it into a USB for instant internet fix. I just wonder if you can get programmable chips that could improve just a java language environment, plus whatever kind of a board you would have to put together. I know java has massive built in functionality, even for graphics processing.
  21. foodchain

    Shotgun?

    Well in most zombie movies I have watched its usually a 12 gauge that gets used. I think that would do a lot of damage, but if you have to get head shots I think I would prefer a 9mm or some other smaller gun. I think a 9mm would be nice because of how much ammo you can have in a mag, plus how much you could carry, plus chance of finding more. Personally I would just avoid social interaction and choose not to be found in the case of some virus like the T virus, but if I did come into contact with people, I know I would think about escape. I found in earlier resident evil games that on the harder settings avoidance was better then confrontation, but thats just a game even if its the best of survival horror.
  22. ? 2s2, thats shell two in the first part right, with the associated subshell for it. I think right, I mean there is no p, or d in hydrogen.
  23. I don't know if its just a byproduct of cities but it seems most everything costs more in them. Can you by chance get statistics for major cities in the state of California. National Geographic has a neat tiny article on this in one of there more recent magazines. It shows expenditure plus life expectancy. I do not know how accurate the math is, but for what the U.S spends right now its not the best outcome in terms of longevity, but who knows how much was considered when making that. Maybe geography plays a role in this also is all, and to me I thought it might be better to allow states to have individual healthcare plans, or at least specialized attention from any government plans for total healthcare. State level politics happen to be a realm of their own like federal, and such can even be pretty evident if you look at county politics.
  24. With how widespread computer use is I would wager that most people can probably do a variety of tasks on them. To a different part of the topic. If you could accept phenotype pertaining to language, tools, computers and communications I think there is then some kind of selective pressure maybe. Having high speed communications that use less by being more efficient is something that could be applied to language itself. I don't know if it was in sociology or anthropology but a good deal of progress was made in understanding foreign language by analysis it in some abstract format. Point is language can change which I will charge with being self evident in the world today. Having a more compact language to say the same thing would to me mean less material has to be used when manufacturing such goods like signs, or books, or web content. That would mean a reduction of energy use in a variety of other ways too.
  25. I think computers should be diversified technologically if you want to talk about them. People should be able to purchase internet computers, much like hand held stuff. Instead people have the option of an entire computer when in all reality they may only use a small fraction of its total functions. I am sure this generates billions for software and hardware vendors, but is it really an environmentally sound policy? Think of a gaming computer, with hardware and software just built or dedicated for the sole purpose of gaming out over the internet. Then again who knows how much money is lost in waste plastic let out into the oceans. Such material could probably pay for a chunk of socialized healthcare if put to a better use.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.