LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+29 29 0
Published 7 months ago with 7 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • leweb

    Just because an explanation is simple and explains the observations it doesn't mean it's a good explanation. Here's an example: "Things are the way they are because God made them so, and he controls everything that happens". It's simple, isn't it?

    BTW this is the same university that has produced pearls like this paper arguing that the laws of thermodynamics are sexist and we need to replace them with a feminist theory (I'm not making this up).

    • AdelleChattre

      Yes, you do seem to be making things up. The linked paper sketches tentative ideas for a possible alternative way of understanding chemistry from a different perspective, hardly what you've claimed above.

      • leweb

        Nope. There's a follow-up paper also. She pretty much wants to do away with the idea of ideal behavior and models for deviations from ideal behavior on the grounds that the "ideal behavior" is sexist (the argument is longer, going throughout comparison of ideal models with Platonic ideals, etc.). There is no scientific reason to do any of this, unless she can provide a model that is objectively better based on physical reasoning.

        I'm not opposed to feminism in general, but everything has its place. The ideal gas model is useful because it's simple, not because it's some abstract embodiment of male superiority. This is seeing things where there's nothing.

    • kxh (edited 7 months ago)

      It's an idea I like. If all particles are "entangled" with many others, we are all connected with many other parts of the universe. Maybe it's that connection that gives us an "inner life". It's an idea I really liked from Stephenson's Anathem: the idea that our brains are a quantum computer. Heh!

      • leweb

        This article claims something even more radical, it attributes some sort of "inner life", whatever that means, to elementary particles. This doesn't have any basis, and is, strictly speaking, impossible, as an electron having an "inner life" implies the existence of some local hidden variable(s) that explains the electron's behavior, and that was proved impossible more than 5 decades ago.

        • kxh

          Bell's theorem? Not quite. There's still the possibility of super-determinism.

          If many particles are entangled that would give us a computer powerful enough to have consciousness.

          • leweb

            Superdeterminism is possible, but I'd much rather it not be true.

  • Psychologist

    Here's a question: if everything is conscious, what does it mean to be conscious? Wouldn't it be equally explained by nothing having consciousness? That there is no such thing as an 'internal' life, that everything merely arises as physical phenomena?

    Except we all experience and report an internal life (consciousness). This is part of what makes consciousness the 'hard problem' since it can't simply be ignored.

Here are some other snaps you may like...