amarbledesk.com
a not infamous place
| archive for June, 2005 |
The Lego Titanic
25 Jun 2005 20:10 EST
A scale model of the Titanic, done completely in legos by a early teenaged boy. COSI, Columbus, Ohio. Good stuff.
Stupid Google Calculator Tricks
18 Jun 2005 19:39 EST
Discover: June 2005 (II)
16 Jun 2005 01:27 EST
Next article up for discussion is about someone I’m much happier with: Roger
Penrose. (Although I don’t agree with everything Sir Roger has to say: I
disagree with his quantum consciousness-microtubule theory).
Basically, Penrose is saying he has a testable alternative to both major
current interpretations of Quantum theory. These interprestations attempt to
explain why things in the macroscopic world don’t exhibit quantum behavior.
The two major interpretations are the Copenhagen and the Many-Worlds.
Neither current interpretation is falsifiable or even testable, nor does
either have a theoretical explanatory basis. Not usually good signs, but
both have held out for a while.
Penrose says both are wrong, and that an “interpretation” is not what is
required, but an actual physical effect. In other words, macro objects
don’t exhibit quantum effects because of some as yet undiscovered physical
law.
Three interesting things about his hypothesis:
1 the quantum collapse is theorized to be due to gravity – for which there
is as yet no quantum theory for anyway
2 the theory is testable and falsifiable – doesn’t rely on tautologies and
consciousness
3 the theory and the test focus on the behavior of objects which are of a
size that just straddles the quantum scale and the macro scale – a scale
which has been ignored by quantum physicists and cosmologists alike
This one seems promising. Humans are too big and massive to exhibit quantum
effects. That’s why I’m not a blur of eigenvalues but rather a person who
you can see. Atomic and smaller particles are to small NOT to exhibit
quantum effects. But what about sizes in between – giant molecules, dust
motes, etc.? How do they behave? In Penrose’s theory, it depends on how
massive they are. How much gravity they generate determines how fast their
quantum waveforms collapse.
-Brain in a Jar
–Sent from my Blackberry wireless handheld.
Discover: June 2005 (I)
16 Jun 2005 01:27 EST
Moblogging Discover mag while on a flight to Phoenix.
An article that touched a sore spot with me was an interview with a “stem
cell researcher” (PhD in molecular bio and co-chair of Harvard’s stem cell
institute) named Doug Melton. Interviewer is David Ewing Duncan; the
interview is actually an excerpt from an upcoming book.
The article hits on such topics as fatherhood, Catholic teachings on
fertility and conception, government and private funding of scientific
research, creation of human-animal chimeras, killing twins, etc.
Dr. Melton has some very outspoken opinions on the above, which are his
right. But they are simultaneously egoistic, hypocritical, manipulative,
bigoted, and so over-the-top you have to wonder if he really believes them.
If he does believe them then his ethical and moral compass is pointing
somewhere very far from my own.
Samples:
—
“So I have actually educated myself on quite a lot of the various religious
views. I don’t really want to get into it, and the reason is I don’t think
it’s fundamentally interesting. It largely has to do with the trivial
concern of trying to put a tag on when life begins.”
—
On her college daughter’s goal of becoming an embryologist and lawmaker: “I
just hope she gets the chance.”. [The context in the article is that if
Daddy doesn't personally find an embryonic stem cell cure for Type I
diabetes, she will die before that.]
—
“[Human-animal chimera experiments] is a new kind of biology that I find a
million times more interesting than these specious arguments over whether
life begins at fertilization.”
—
“I started to speak out, particularly against bioethicisits, who I think are
self-appointed priests of certain political views, saying to them, ‘I don’t
know why you think you have the right to say what is ethical and what
isn’t', and that my own views should have as much validity as theirs. I find
that when most people say ethics what they really mean is morals, and that
it has to do with their religious beliefs.”
—
“People get the heebie-jeebies when you talk to them about puting a human
brain into a dog.”
—
Q: A human brain in a monkey that is conscious; it would be a horrible
freak.
A: “I’m not suggesting that this chimera would have human intelligence.”
Q: But how do you know it wouldn’t?
A: “It’s an interesting question; I find it highly unlikely that this would
happen. I don’t think it would. There would just be parts of the brain that
were human.”
—
“Of fertilization events, most of them fail. If that’s true, the Catholic
Church has a major problem that they fail to face up to if life begins at
fertilization. Let’s assume there are 10 million Catholic couples trying to
have babies for their families. This would mean there are tens of thousands
of fertilized eggs that do not result in the birth of a baby, and this poses
a problem in terms of the Catholic Church holding funerals for all those
fertilized eggs.” [Upon his saying this, I can almost imagine that he
expects the Catholic Church to evaporate in a puff of logic: "Oh my", says
B16, "you've got us there. We'll change our teachings right away."].
—
Props to Dr. Melton for being concerned enough about his kids to work for a
diabetes cure! Jeers to him for using melodrama about his children’s
condition.
Props to him for seeking private funding for stem cell research! Jeers to
him for thinking he also has some kind of entitlement to other people’s tax
money to do so.
Props for talking to religious leaders about stem cells! Jeers for
dismissing thoughtful religious viewpoints as “specious” and “trivial” -
especially for dismissing them _because_ they are religious.
Props for challenging professional bioethicists as sole arbiters of ethics
(indeed they should not have sole standing there)!. Jeers for promoting
himself as an arbiter of ethics while simultaneously ignoring the ethical
standing of 300 million others.
-Brain in a Jar
–Sent from my Blackberry wireless handheld.
Mechanical Gills for Human Divers
06 Jun 2005 21:46 EST
(via Slashdot).
New invention for underwater breathing. Instead of compressed tanks of oxygen (with other gases mixed in as appropriate) or electrolyzing oxygen out of seawater (a la nuclear submarines)this mechanism uses the same concept as the gills of fish. It extracts (using Henry’s law) the dissolved oxygen found in seawater, just as all fish do. There is enough dissolved oxygen in seawater to keep the largest fish and sea invertebrates alive…now this is being applied to humans.
Editorially: The main drawback seems to be a very common one — battery life. What humanity really needs are better, vastly longer-lived batteries. This will allow countless applications (like the one above) to become truly feasible.
Kid's Graphing Tools … but useful for adults too
03 Jun 2005 22:25 EST
Autism-related Quiz at the Guardian UK
03 Jun 2005 19:49 EST
I’m not sure that I buy in to the “extreme-male-brain” theory of autism yet (the jury is still way out and I don’t think the terminology is really helpful) but the quiz is interesting nonetheless. My results below. Obviously my brain type ended up as “Extreme Type S”.
My EQ-SQ “Brain Type” placement is indicated by the star. [Original graphic is from the Guardian UK.]
H/T To K.J Lopez at The Corner
Tags:Autism
Mutually opposing forces and the possibilities of reconciliation
02 Jun 2005 16:53 EST
Present vs. Future
Mind vs. Body
Us vs. Them
Family vs. Stranger
Anger & Fear vs. Love & Peace
Work vs. Home
Protection vs. Independence
Faith vs. Disillusionment
Responsibility vs. Procrastination
Solipsistic enclosure vs. Social interaction
Are the above all analyzable as “cases where the reconciliation lies in
extending the viewpoint to new dimensions”?
The tension between the demands of “now” and the needs of “the future” is
tremendous. But by adopting a 4th-dimensional point of view, the difference
between future and now is seen to be illusory.
Can this concept be extended to the other dichotomies explored above? Does
this mean the ultimate point of view which can resolve all dichotomies is an
infinite-dimensional “phase space” cosmos? And if so … How can we mere
humans contemplate this?
–Sent from my Blackberry wireless handheld.
Bob Evans, Down on the Farm!
02 Jun 2005 01:11 EST
Foodblogging. The next big thing.
Roast turkey with bacon, cheese, and tomato. A side of corn. So it goes.
about mark beadles
I write the things you read here. Polymath renaissance redneck. I build software, stories, and young men. More...on the desk
around the web
in the vault
-
