You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve been playing around with this idea I have called “n-link civic literacy” it’s an unscientific measure of civic literacy (how good are you at extracting and understanding information from the news) that works by measuring the number of links it takes to successfully obscure bullshit from the reader.
Did you read a headline, form an opinion and react to it without reading the article? Then you are -1 link literate. Do you open the article but believe it’s claims without checking the source material? Then you are 0 link literate. Click through to the study cited by the article? 1 link literate.
Probably would not work for edge cases, but I think could work to get a rough measure of the civic literacy of a community.
I only read your first sentence and I agree with you.
deleted by creator
I only read your first sentence and I disagree with you.
I’m down with this.
I’d add ability to perceive bias and credible reporting.
I asked the AI to write a comment in my usual style for internet points and moved on to the next headline.
/s
Grated carrots are not food.
There’s a story here. I disagree but want to hear it.
It’s like eating wet sawdust.
Saw dust doesn’t crunch
Just psychological failings, self-confidence issues and such I know are wrong. Firmly held, but wrong.
…Otherwise it feels like an oxymoron.
I fully understand that it’s correlation, not causation, but I believe some inanimate objects want to work well, and others want to work poorly. In that same vein, there are people that inanimate objects respect and work well for, and there are people that inanimate objects dislike or enjoy aggravating.
Probably belongs in unpopularopinion, but: Chicken is a waste of spices an herbs.
“But you gotta season it, man!!”
I know. Put the same seasoning on any other meat, and it’ll immediately be a better dish.
Anything you can do with chicken can be done better with pork.Ok, maybe not wings if you wanna be pedantic about it.
See, this is where dark meat always seems to get left out. My hot take: dark chicken meat is superior to white chicken meat. Better balance of fat, more flavor.
Perhaps a qualifier: any meat that isn’t delicious with just salt isn’t worth other seasonings.
I gotta argue with you on your last point. Any meat that’s delicious with just salt should only be seasoned with salt. Anything more and you interfere with the flavor.
Nah, variety is the spice of life. I enjoy raw carrots, and I also enjoy cooked carrots with a light orange glaze.
If your spices are interfering with the flavor, you’re using spices wrong. They should compliment and feature the flavor. If the flavors are fighting, try other spices.
I’ll have pork wings… When pigs fly!
Will you be having those pork wings now, sir?
Sad tummy+lemon lime soda = healed
Not answering directly the post, but something in line with it: I believe not all (maybe most of) knowledge is scientific, but that doesn’t invalidate it. A lot of things can’t be studied by the scientific method, but people intuitively understood and learned about it along the centuries.
This should be common sense, but society has gone crazy about considering only science as knowledge and now ignores valuable learnings that sometimes are more right then science itself.
This should not be confused with negating science (like global warming deniers): when you can study something by the scientific method normally you will get deeper and with less mistakes with it. But when you don’t, you can still have knowledge by other methods
The universe was created. Not suggesting any particular creation account, just mathematically it makes more sense that it wasn’t random. And anyone who believes in things like a cyclic universe or infinite universes to explain it is just afraid of being associated with religion (as we have no real evidence to support those theories).
I recently realized that the concept of “before” is an assumption we try to place on the universe without any basis that it exists outside the universe.
Like we are used to deterministic phenomena. Effect follows cause, something followed from something else. But that’s only true from our perspective inside universe.
The universe might not change at all from an outside perspective. What if every moment exists simultaneously? Only from within a moment does the concept of before and after make sense, but outside the universe there’s no concept of before. Everything just is.
Maybe it’s a ring, maybe it’s a multidimensional volume containing all the possible moments that could ever happen, maybe it’s bounded “temporally” in certain directions, maybe all the moments chain together in a crazy space filling curve such that all possible moments/worlds would eventually be reached if you started in one and kept following the curve to the next. But nothing has to actually be changing. The paths don’t need to change, they didn’t need to be created or destroyed.
Point is that the “before” of the universe might not exist at all even if the timelines within it start and stop at defined points. We feel the need for things to have a reason because that’s what we’re used to experiencing, but we’re only used to that due to the rules within our part of existence.
The concept of “change” or “creation” or “time” might not exist at all outside our experience.
Physically speaking isn’t all ‘creation’ we expirence just transformation anyway?
Any change is a difference in between two states. Creation implies something changed.
However, if by transformation you mean that some property is conserved between all states, only when that’s true is creation a transformation.
If energy was not conserved, and some suddenly popped into existence that would be a change and creation but not necessarily a transformation (depending on your definition of transformation).
Time likely doesn’t exist outside our universe–at least not in the same way. I figure it might be like how we can write a book–the events in the story are all there on the pages at the same time, and yet there is a concept of time within the story that doesn’t restrict our own in any way. The reader can move through it freely, and in some cases, choose different paths through it.
That being said, I still think our universe had a beginning. The fact that everything here is bound to time suggests the universe itself is temporally finite. But it’s possible it originated from something outside of time, possibly without our concepts of beginnings.
In any case, my main point was on the origin of life within our universe. I believe, purely based on the math, that it’s more likely that life was planned than that it happened randomly.
I know the oc prompt was an unscientific belief that can’t be shaken, but I’m curious, what math makes you think the universe or just life was planned?
I was raised religious but when I first started programming and wrote my own evolutionary algorithm, I realized that life existing makes as much sense as entropy does. If a process can replicate itself efficiently will you have more or less of it later in time? If two replicators require the same resources, which is more likely to survive? It’s randomness that makes this process efficient.
So I thought that perhaps a god set the events in motion to create life by evolution, but then I learned about Conoways Game of Life and other cellular automata, and I wrote my own particle life simulations and I realized that life-like things can arise from almost any system of random rules. The only caveat seems to be that some form of “energy” must be conserved if you want to avoid the situations where the system dies completely or reach an unchanging equilibrium.
And now, as I’m learning about neural nets (specifically the more biologically plausible ones) and the structure of human brains, it all seems so natural that things would arise the way they have.
Given enough time and how vast the universe is, I’d be more surprised to find that sentient life hadn’t evolved naturally on at least a few of the sextillions of planets and other celestial bodies in the universe.
So I’m curious what math you’re basing your opinion on
All of the examples you’ve provided are predicated on a designer setting up conditions under which life can replicate itself. And that’s what I mean–any time someone talks about how life tends to naturally evolve, it’s always within the context of a set of rules that makes life evolving more probable.
Conway’s Game of Life is a great example. Note that there are relatively few combinations in the game that “spawn” more life–the vast majority of configurations go static rather quickly. And on top of that, you’re running this on an engine where “life” is even a concept.
I guess I see our universe more like a hard drive with random bits on it. Let’s say you can code a basic version of Conway’s Game of Life using 1MB of machine code. If you randomize the bits, you have a miniscule chance of getting a program that runs anything meaningful, much less a game like Conway’s that has a concept of “sustained life”.
I guess the fact that our universe is conducive to even the concept of life is the indicator for me. The way that particles interact with each other, the way bonds are formed, the way entropy is held off just long enough that a bag of 10^26ish atoms can examine itself and make cat memes… the laws of physics themselves suggest to me that something with some sort of a will or intellect set things in motion.
The other aspect of math that I base this on is the probability of random evolution, even within the bounds of our universe’s apparent bias for life forming. The chance of a beneficial mutation that propegates to a subset of a species seems unlikely to explain all of life as we know it. Is it possible that it’s all random? Yes, technically. Is it more likely that someone/something set this universe in motion such that life would form, much like we set up simulations and things like Conway’s Game where the system is biased toward supporting life? I say yes.
For what it’s worth, I actually sat down and did the math on this years ago. I don’t have it with me now, but it’s part of why I believe this so strongly.
I think I get what you’re saying, but if you’ve ever looked into particle life simulators, they are much less susceptible to the “going static” you talk about. The more properties that exist, even purely randomized, the more likely you’ll get extended chaotic behavior. (Also the current scientific outlook is that our universe is technically destined to “go flat” just like those scenarios you mentioned)
The real issue with your reasoning from a scientific standpoint is that we don’t know how many universes there are. Maybe there are an uncountably infinite number of universes holding every possible combination of physical rules. Then in these universes there would be infinite universes that evolve life like ours without needing a creator. You can’t say/prove/estimate the chances of a universe having life producing rules because you have no idea how many universes might exist at all.
Furthermore, the probability that we just happen to exist in one of the possible universes that is capable of harboring life like this is actually 100%. This is a fact because, if a universe couldn’t harbor life like ours, we wouldn’t exist in it.
Also on the note of random chance creating the complexity we see in life, have you heard the theory that life didn’t start on earth and actually might’ve started only a few million years after the big bang?
There was a period of time after the first stars had created the lighter elements (the ones life uses like carbon nitrogen oxygen) where the universe was much closer together, and with enough pressures/temperatures that the conditions for water to exist and remain in liquid form were prevalent.
We know from the old studies of trying to prove life could spontaneously emerge that if you add energy (like UV light from stars) to water and nitrogen and carbon, you do get organic compounds: amino acids, alcohol, ketones, etc. So the basic building blocks of life probably existed in relative abundance in parts of the universe at this time.
Now the universe would have been in this state for millions of years. A relatively dense, warm, wet universe for millions of years and have still larger than our galaxy. I’d imagine the chances of RNA forming viroid rings somewhere in a cloud that size are relatively high. And after that, well RNA + basic amino acids + energy + time is pretty much all you need to get evolution going.
That’s my favorite life starting theory, especially since it kind of fits better with our model of genome growth rate over time.
Anyway, the problem of not knowing how many universes there are/have-been/could-be is the real reason no one can actually say or “calculate the probability” of how likely a universe with life is. But I thought you might find it fascinating to learn that life could’ve started in much better conditions and a lot longer ago than you may have thought when you originally did your math.
Sidenote: if intelligent life must be created by some intelligent thing, where did that intelligent creator come from in your theory? Is there an infinite chain of creators creating universes? If not, if intelligent life can be created without needing a creator, then your main assertion must be false. If it does loop or go on forever, then the full set (universe) of these chained universes actually does either exist forever or loops indefinitely meaning it in total was not created by a creator, again contradicting your assumption that life must be created by a planned process.
The way that particles interact with each other, the way bonds are formed, the way entropy is held off just long enough that a bag of 10^26ish atoms can examine itself and make cat memes… the laws of physics themselves suggest to me that something with some sort of a will or intellect set things in motion.
You are not independent of your observation. The probability that you live in a universe cable of supporting life is 100%. It would be impossible for you to observe any other kind of universe. Any universe incapable of supporting life will contain no observers.
For all we know there are an endless number of universes, mostly with laws of physics vastly different from our own. The universe itself seems to already be spatially infinite, why not also have infinite universes? There may be a vast ocean of universes out there, and the vast, vast, vast majority are completely uninhabited and uninhabitable. Realms containing only black holes. Universes where only light exists. Spaces where the universe is born as a cloud of hydrogen gas, and simply never gets beyond that. Maybe for every one universe capable of supporting life, then there are 10^(stupidly large number) of empty universes.
It may seem strange or unscientific to postulate other universes, but it’s a lot more scientific than postulating an intelligent, conscious creator that set the universe in motion. In the latter case, you’re simply assuming more of something that we already know can exist - a universe. You’re just assuming universes with different physical contants or laws. In the latter, you’re assuming the existence of an entity that has no other parallel examples. We don’t seem to live in the world of Greek myth where there’s multiple deities running around we can all openly observe. If you assume a creator, you’re assuming something that has no evidence for any entity of its kind existing. If you assume multiple universes, you’re simply assuming more of what we already know exists.
It is telling that we don’t live in a particularly habitable universe. Sure, we can tinker with the physical constants to make life impossible. But for a universe so “fine tuned” for life, an astonishingly insignificant fraction of the universe’s space is habitable by life. An astonishingly small amount of matter is living or even involved in sustaining life.
And the best the universe can seemingly do? In our solar system? A thin slime of life on a single wet rock, maybe some bacteria in some ice shell moons or deep subsurface bacteria on Mars? And the jewel of the system, Earth? That thin shell of life requires an entire planet to give it a surface to live on. And then the mass of an entire Sun is needed to keep Earth’s surface habitable. That’s the best environment for life the universe can naturally create. I’m sorry, but from an engineering perspective? If you are writing the very laws of physics and reality? You can certainly do better than what we have.
The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Such a universe would be one where the vast majority of space, matter, or both were habitable. It would be one that can efficiently support life, not requiring entire astronomical bodies to support rounding errors worth of living matter. If the universe was designed for life, it was designed by a shit designer. Maybe God’s an apprentice deity and we’re his practice project.
What we live in is a barely habitable universe. Look around you. The stars seem mostly dead. Our own solar system is dead rock after dead rock (with some possible exceptions.) We live in the type of universe that most observers would live in if there were a huge number of universes with randomly assigned physical constants. In such a setup, there may be some hyper-local optima where universes could be superhabitable, but their total number of inhabitants would likely be swamped by observers in universes that were just habitable enough to get life going.
The seemingly-logical need for a creator disappears if you simply postulate multiple universes. And our observable reality really does match well with us living in a barely habitable universe, which is what we would statistically expect if there were a large number of universes in existence.
mathematically it makes more sense
Care to show your work?
Not really. I sat down years ago and actually did it, but it’s not something I kept. I elaborate on my reasoning in this comment, though.
I personally think there has to be a loop of some kind. It exists because it was made, and its creation results in the creation of its makers.
Like it’s all just a strange paradox.
Eating boogers strengthens your immune system.
I mean, it’s plausible, because the idea of building your immune system is exposure to some of those things. Not trying to invalidate the other methods because those should be a better alternative. Some studies suggested boogers can help.
I don’t care how many studies are done on food safe plastics I still don’t like the idea of using them on my kitchen. That’s not to say I avoid them 100% but I do what I can to avoid them within reason. Like I feel after the whole BPA scare and banning them from use in food applications is a temporary thing and that it’s a matter of time until we find a problem with the new BPA-free liners.
100%, I avoid using plastics as much as possible around anything that I ingest that involved heat somewhere in the production process. Not entirely possible, but I do what I can.
Ya, I don’t believe you can completely avoid it. I’m with you though, reduce the use of it in the kitchen and with food wherever possible.
Not only do I avoid plastic where heat is invloved but I also try and avoid plastic in places where mechanical friction or cutting is involved. Using steel mixing bowls and wooden cutting boards are two big ones for me to avoid adding bits of plastic to my food.
I don’t believe there’s a spoons worth of plastic in your brain. Ain’t no way. It’s suspiciously sensational, and confirms something we all believe to be true (plastics bad, humans reckless, etc.). I have zero evidence to the contrary but im pretty confident that in a few years to a decade it will be debunked.
Planted by big plastic so they can debunk it and say “SEE? THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS LIE TO YOU!”
it’s in your balls
Hey at least I put my ball-spoon there myself
Good news: it’s already been debunked! Or at least called into question.
https://youtu.be/MedC_v-dEbY?t=48 description of the myth
https://youtu.be/MedC_v-dEbY?t=111 calling it into question
SciShow on youtube is well worth a subscription, their videos are well researched and fact checked.
Oh nice! Yeah I’m a fan of the Green brothers they’re legit.
The soul is a thing, and it’s what gives you consciousness
Colds sometimes turn into coughs for me, so coughing makes my throat infections worse because it irritates the mucosa in the larynx. I have no evidence for this, but I’ve noticed that when I refuse to cough when I have a cold, I have fewer cough symptoms overall.
I have nasty cough for weeks after cold itself passes. The throat is irritated by cough, which leads to more cough. Sometimes can’t sleep because of this, and usually have to get codeine pills to stop the cycle.
Oddly, this has become a problem only in recent years — possibly because when I’m among people or occupied by physical work, I’m paying little attention to the irritation, but I’m working from home all day lately, so no such diversions anymore.
coughing itself does irritate the upper respiratory tract, and the aveloli. not so much for the progression of the infection, if you are coughing or coughing up phelgm already reached your lungs before you had symptoms. things make it worst if you have allergies or ashtma.
I am convinced that I will come down with cold/flu if I breath too much cold air. When I walk in the cold, I always wrap a scarf around my mouth and nose. If I don’t, the cold air will give me a sore throat. That sore throat will act as a Petri dish for illness to develop and spread into my lungs or nose.
I know plenty of medical professionals and all of them tell me that that is not how it works, but I have a datum of proof. In my first year of university, I had a nasty, persistent respiratory infection during the late fall/early winter. To keep my throat warm while it was recovering, I started wearing a scarf and my illness went away quickly. After that, I started wrapping up whenever I was walking to class in the cold and never got sick again.
I am now used to wrapping my face in the cold and feel wrong without it. When I don’t, it seems like I am more likely to come home with a scratchy throat. I can definitely say that many of my flus start in the throat (though it could just be that the first flu symptom I tend to notice is the sore throat).
When I drop something on the floor and then blow on it in short soft bursts, it’s suddenly clean enough to consume.
