Dream come true...
Today, I just experienced what prolly many men could only dream of - waking up surrounded by hot women. XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Unfortunately....
1) They're cute, not hot - but hey, those of you who know me... XDDDDDDDDDDD (so yeah, maybe this shouldn't really go under unfortunate... alright, file it as fortunate :D)
2) They came to see the house, not me >D (I wonder what they were thinking when a grumpy, half-asleep guy came to answer the door...) Ah well, perhaps next time... I can still dream can't I?
Heh, on a more serious note - I also believe in the importance of "non-scientific" topics - but I disagree with a few things. Firstly, just because it's "true science," that doesn't mean it's predictable. In fact, there's a name for some theory about how you can't measure something without affecting it in quantum mechanics (I can't think of the name at the moment, but I'll ask Chris - he should know...) Even atoms have an electron cloud, not a known orbit - it's all probabilities... meaning you can't 100% certain. So yeah, I'd like to point out that in "true science" - there are also inherent unpredictability. Just look at forecasting weather - we've been doing that for how long now?
This leads me to my second point - that BECAUSE of all of these factors which results in inherent unpredictability in nature, we need to have the scientific method and need to make it "sterile and static" in order to have some tangible conclusions. I don't claim to be an econ expert or anything, but isn't that like what approximations are for? Like in "true science" - nothing is 100%, but it will most likely follow some distribution/probability curve and have a high probability of occuring in such a way. a.k.a approximations, if you will, since we know that it should end up being similar to so and so, given a condition. (Gaussian curve anyone?) To me, I view that was a way of making it "sterile and static" since we're approximating it to reduce the # of variables.
Anyway, I still fully agree with the importance of non-science or non-engineering fields. While I believe everything can be accounted for via science - we're bound to social science whether we like it or not. Successful inventions - why're they succcessful? Because of their technology? Perhaps... But also because society accepted them. (Software startup companies anyone?) However, if I can make a borg and assimilate the rest... screw individuality :D Figuring out the market will be so much simpler if we're all alike... Now I'm going off topic... Hrmm, on a side note, I found my "artsy" courses (anthro, psych, econ, society and technological values, etc) to be harder than my technical ones! I miss the days of 1+1=2. Ah well, back to prepping for symposium tomorrow...
Unfortunately....
1) They're cute, not hot - but hey, those of you who know me... XDDDDDDDDDDD (so yeah, maybe this shouldn't really go under unfortunate... alright, file it as fortunate :D)
2) They came to see the house, not me >D (I wonder what they were thinking when a grumpy, half-asleep guy came to answer the door...) Ah well, perhaps next time... I can still dream can't I?
Heh, on a more serious note - I also believe in the importance of "non-scientific" topics - but I disagree with a few things. Firstly, just because it's "true science," that doesn't mean it's predictable. In fact, there's a name for some theory about how you can't measure something without affecting it in quantum mechanics (I can't think of the name at the moment, but I'll ask Chris - he should know...) Even atoms have an electron cloud, not a known orbit - it's all probabilities... meaning you can't 100% certain. So yeah, I'd like to point out that in "true science" - there are also inherent unpredictability. Just look at forecasting weather - we've been doing that for how long now?
This leads me to my second point - that BECAUSE of all of these factors which results in inherent unpredictability in nature, we need to have the scientific method and need to make it "sterile and static" in order to have some tangible conclusions. I don't claim to be an econ expert or anything, but isn't that like what approximations are for? Like in "true science" - nothing is 100%, but it will most likely follow some distribution/probability curve and have a high probability of occuring in such a way. a.k.a approximations, if you will, since we know that it should end up being similar to so and so, given a condition. (Gaussian curve anyone?) To me, I view that was a way of making it "sterile and static" since we're approximating it to reduce the # of variables.
Anyway, I still fully agree with the importance of non-science or non-engineering fields. While I believe everything can be accounted for via science - we're bound to social science whether we like it or not. Successful inventions - why're they succcessful? Because of their technology? Perhaps... But also because society accepted them. (Software startup companies anyone?) However, if I can make a borg and assimilate the rest... screw individuality :D Figuring out the market will be so much simpler if we're all alike... Now I'm going off topic... Hrmm, on a side note, I found my "artsy" courses (anthro, psych, econ, society and technological values, etc) to be harder than my technical ones! I miss the days of 1+1=2. Ah well, back to prepping for symposium tomorrow...
posted by whoami at 11:33 PM
1 Comments:
heisenberg uncertainty principle
Post a Comment
<< Home