|
On February 18 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 23:46 JimmiC wrote:
I feel like it is more noble to adopt than it is to have your own kids. There are so many kids out there in need of loving parents. In a world with countless perfectly good (genetically speaking) children, breeding does seem inherently selfish. Though with how difficult it can be to obtain one I can understand people choosing breeding for practicality purposes. If people knew that because they chose to breed instead of adopt, that a child will suffer and they would get the updates on the child periodically, would they still choose to breed, for what reason that couldn't be reasonably deemed selfish?
Depends on who you are, but we are entering a very tired field of nature vs nurture. However, for the sake of humanity, it would almost definitely be preferable if e.g. Holger Bech had his own children as e.g. intelligence seems to be at least in part genetically hereditary. Similar arguments could be made for anyone excelling in a field. It all comes down to your moral convictions.
Disclaimer: the above doesn't reflect why I personally want my own kinds, nor does it particularly reflect my conviction. This question was part of one of many ethics questions I had answer during exams back in med school.
|
On February 19 2017 15:03 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
is food science/gastro stuff real or is it just some sort of thing cooks came up with to sound smarter?
Two different things. Food science is real. "Gastro stuff" ranges from real through pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo to outright nonsense.
|
For the most part, gastronomy is just the study of food and culture, so when used as a reference to this science-y thing chefs like Wiley Dufresne do, it's mostly a misnomer. However, even in the latter, misleading context, it isn't a "fake" thing so much as an attempt at utilizing basic chemistry and some unorthodox kitchen techniques in order to do something interesting with food. How gimmicky that ends up being is usually how one judges "molecular gastronomy" chefs in the first place 
|
Yeah, you need to be way more specific Karis. I think you can take almost any subject and you'll be able to find things from solid science often all the way down to malicious lies for personal gain.
|
On February 19 2017 19:49 Cascade wrote:
Yeah, you need to be way more specific Karis. I think you can take almost any subject and you'll be able to find things from solid science often all the way down to malicious lies for personal gain.
okay. so like the Culinary Food science stuff they would teach in college is pretty legitimate? Saw something with Yan talking about how UC Davis does a lot of that.
|
On February 20 2017 14:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2017 19:49 Cascade wrote:
Yeah, you need to be way more specific Karis. I think you can take almost any subject and you'll be able to find things from solid science often all the way down to malicious lies for personal gain. okay. so like the Culinary Food science stuff they would teach in college is pretty legitimate? Saw something with Yan talking about how UC Davis does a lot of that.
Should be. It'd probably be a lot of applied chemistry focused on cooking techniques. Stuff like how browning works, what frying vs deep frying does chemically, despite both being in oil, pickling/marinading, the science behind taste buds, etc.
|
On February 20 2017 20:39 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2017 14:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 19 2017 19:49 Cascade wrote:
Yeah, you need to be way more specific Karis. I think you can take almost any subject and you'll be able to find things from solid science often all the way down to malicious lies for personal gain. okay. so like the Culinary Food science stuff they would teach in college is pretty legitimate? Saw something with Yan talking about how UC Davis does a lot of that. Should be. It'd probably be a lot of applied chemistry focused on cooking techniques. Stuff like how browning works, what frying vs deep frying does chemically, despite both being in oil, pickling/marinading, the science behind taste buds, etc.
You can find their graduate program online foodscience.ucdavis.edu.
- mainly chemistry : what food contains, chemical reactions in food processing, specifics on proteins/lipids/glucids ...
- large biology part with some medecine: what/how do we taste and perceive foods, fermentations and microbial growth, food poisoning and allergies
- minor physics part: thermodynamics (heat transfers), fluid mechanics and physical characteristics for liquid/solid/viscoelastics
Solid science from the description
|
Food science programs at state universities tend to be well funded given the potential for cooperation with the private sector. On a related note, lots of people fulfilled one of their science GECs at Ohio State by taking a food science class taught by a dude who helped make the nutrigrain bar for Kelloggs. There's also a big beer science partnership with Budweiser given that one of their largest American breweries is in Columbus.
|
On February 20 2017 20:39 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2017 14:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 19 2017 19:49 Cascade wrote:
Yeah, you need to be way more specific Karis. I think you can take almost any subject and you'll be able to find things from solid science often all the way down to malicious lies for personal gain. okay. so like the Culinary Food science stuff they would teach in college is pretty legitimate? Saw something with Yan talking about how UC Davis does a lot of that. Should be. It'd probably be a lot of applied chemistry focused on cooking techniques. Stuff like how browning works, what frying vs deep frying does chemically, despite both being in oil, pickling/marinading, the science behind taste buds, etc.
There's an excellent book on many of these topics: https://www.amazon.es/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore-Kitchen/dp/0684800012
But yes, cooking is basically biochemistry, as is eating. So what happens in the kitchen and in your body can be (and is) studied scientifically.
Molecular chefs tend to go a bit overboard (imho) by saying "well, if all we need is for that chemical reaction to happen, then lets do [insert some shit with liquid nitrogen] to make it happen". Sometimes that results in pretty interesting dishes. Sometimes it results in a needlessly complex (and expensive) gimmick, and I guess it depends on both the quality of the chef, and the eye of the beholder what is what.
Finally, lots of people leverage "food science" in some pseudoscientific mumbojumbo to promote their product. For instance, the whole cold-press hype:
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/nobody-can-prove-cold-pressed-juice-better/
Gluten-free diet hype:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/signs-true-gluten-issue/
And I could probably drum up a few more "diet trends" that are based on shakey science at best, and outright unverifiable bullshit at worst.
|
If you want to simulate the entire universe, do you need all the energy it contains for it?
|
On February 24 2017 07:33 Uldridge wrote:
If you want to simulate the entire universe, do you need all the energy it contains for it?
I need more precise definitions.
|
What do you mean? Simulating the universe, as in, the entire potential to form literally everything. Every form of matter, every interaction, every element, every usage and manipulation of that matter, etc etc.
It's simulating the universe. Using, let's say, a universal computer.
|
You obviously don't necessarily need the same amount of energy to simulate something.
The question is accuracy. If you want to simulate the whole universe, with the accuracy of the whole universe, you would need a way to simulate particle interactions that is more efficient than just using the particles themselves. We are very far from having that. I don't know if there is anything that says that it is theoretically impossible.
But even if you did, you would, to our current knowledge, get a completely different universe from the one we inhabit rather quickly. Because as far as we know, there are legitimate random things happening in quantum interactions, that can not be explained by hidden variables.
|
On February 24 2017 08:26 Simberto wrote:
you would need a way to simulate particle interactions that is more efficient than just using the particles themselves
Why is this?
|
On February 24 2017 08:51 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 08:26 Simberto wrote:
you would need a way to simulate particle interactions that is more efficient than just using the particles themselves Why is this?
Its about completeness of the model.
If you are modelling 100% of the universe, then the only way to mimic every possible particle is to be able to have something that takes less matter than 100% of the particles of the universe.
|
Alright, I guess that makes sense
|
On February 24 2017 09:33 Uldridge wrote:
Alright, I guess that makes sense
Sort of--I have always personally believed that the point of models is to be close without mimicking. Miniaturization is not the same as modeling, in my eyes.
But its what I understood from his comment.
|
I was just thinking from a purely computing standpoint. You need electrons to visualize the attributes of energy, matter, space, etc. You'd also need more electrons than one electron to model an electron doing its stuff. So howmuch energy does one need to model one hydrogen atom, for example? What about Helium? What about space?
It's a pretty void question in a sense because absolute numbers for energy can't be accounted for..
|
I want to say the book how it ends talk about computing power specifically but I don't remember what it said
|
On February 24 2017 10:16 Uldridge wrote:
I was just thinking from a purely computing standpoint. You need electrons to visualize the attributes of energy, matter, space, etc. You'd also need more electrons than one electron to model an electron doing its stuff. So howmuch energy does one need to model one hydrogen atom, for example? What about Helium? What about space?
It's a pretty void question in a sense because absolute numbers for energy can't be accounted for..
Well, no. One electron is obviously a perfect model of an electron. Thus, the maximum theoretical amount of stuff you need to simulate the universe is a universe.
We are far worse than that. If you use our current known math and computers to describe even a moderately complex system (Basically, anything involving more than very few elementary particles, you will
a) not be exact, and
b) use many orders of magnitudes more energy.
Lets just say we are talking about something like a carbon atom. That means 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons. The C-12 atom has a mass of 12u, which means it has mass-equivalent energy of ~11.2 GeV. This sounds like a large number because of the "Giga", but it really is not. 1J = 6.24*10^18 eV, or 6.24*10^9 GeV. About half a billion times more.
Now, 1J is the amount of energy that you would require to power something that needs 1W for 1s. So, with the energy equivalent of a C-12 atom, you could power a 1W computer for around two billionth of a second. So if you manage to build a computer with 4GhZ, that only requires 1W of power, you could do a grand total of 8 calculation operations with the power equivalent of 1 carbon atom. You can not simulate a carbon atom with anything close to 8 basic operations. That shit is hard.
Which leads us to the next problem. The atom simply stays there. But to continue simulating it with a computer, you constantly require more energy.
So, from our current perspective, the best way to simulate a universe is to just build a universe (If you want togo down to the particle level). On the other hand, if you only care about big picture stuff, that shit is easy. You can simulate a solar system on a single pc easily, if you only care about gravitation and don't need to be too exact. The more exact you want to get, the harder it gets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
