 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a random video I found on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Just a random video I found on YouTube.
>
> https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE
Ha!
I had to view sections of this several times, to understand what the presenters
were trying to say. My favorite part: "Free will could simply be quantum
fluctuations in our brains." Sounds about right. And the part about 'data
moshing'-- a term I hadn't heard before.
What bugs me about the video is the 'perkiness' of the presenters; seems like
scientists wants to be *actors* these days. (Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson
come to mind as well.) But they do a good job of explaining the theories, I
admit.
It's a good primer on entropy ---something I've always had difficulty in
understanding.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.01.2017 um 00:23 schrieb Kenneth:
> What bugs me about the video is the 'perkiness' of the presenters; seems like
> scientists wants to be *actors* these days. (Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson
> come to mind as well.) But they do a good job of explaining the theories, I
> admit.
I'd attribute that mainly to the guest, Vsauce, who has a rather unique
style.
As for contemporary scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, I don't see him
as trying to be an actor -- I see him as trying to inspire people. It's
difficult to capture an audience's attention for any meaningful duration
these days when you're just lecturing.
I guess Carl Sagan started this trend, and I think it's a good one as
long as it's not overdone. I think it's an important key to making
science accessible to the curious John Doe.
Also, your impression that scientists want to be actors these days is
skewed by the fact that -- obviously, I think -- scientists with this
trait are vastly overrepresented in popular media. Even on shows like
Brady Haran's YouTube channels (Periodic Videos, Sixty Symbols,
Numberphile etc.), where scientists are interviewed rather than acting
as the show's host, you probably have an overrepresentation of extrovert
scientists.
> It's a good primer on entropy ---something I've always had difficulty in
> understanding.
I also found this particularly good:
https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c
First time I could follow an explanation why science can rule out
"hidden variables" theories.
Again, pausing, rewinding and viewing a second time helps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2017 4:34 PM, clipka wrote:
> Just a random video I found on YouTube.
>
> https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE
>
The kitty was great. I rate the video 10/10.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.01.2017 um 23:26 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 1/8/2017 4:34 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Just a random video I found on YouTube.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE
>>
>
> The kitty was great. I rate the video 10/10.
No video about randomness is complete without a feline.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ha! Love the post title.
Hmmm, I am by no means anything of an expert on this, but some of the
points in that video seem either wrong or poorly described.
The main issue I think is that randomness or entropy are not properties
of a single chunk of data or matter, but apply only to probability
distributions of data/matter. If you don't have a probability
distribution, the appropriate concept is complexity (or
compressibility), which is related but not the same. The video tries so
hard to confuse these concepts it almost appears intentional.
I think this confusion is behind some strange claims in the video. For
instance:
claim: If information is constant, then since information is entropy,
entropy must be constant, which we know is false from the second law of
thermodynamics.
Contrary to the video's claims, as far as I'm aware the information in
the universe is actually believed to be constant, despite the second law
of thermodynamics. This is ok, since the second law of thermodynamics
is really about probability distributions of those states the universe
might have given our limited observations, but the information content
is about the state of the entire universe (independent of our
observations). So they're really two different things and there's no
conflict.
In fairness, the speculation at end about quantum mechanics is at least
semi-reasonable, as it makes it more sensible to really talk about the
probability distribution of the universe. Unfortunately I *think*
wavefunction collapse (presuming as the video does that it exists) would
actually decrease the quantum-mechanical (i.e. von Neumann) entropy as
opposed to increase it as the video claims. I'm a bit out of my depth
with this though.
All in all, interesting and fun, but I'd caution against trusting it
much (unless I'm totally wrong here myself, which is certainly possible).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/10/2017 7:17 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> All in all, interesting and fun, but I'd caution against trusting it
> much (unless I'm totally wrong here myself, which is certainly possible).
I would not buy anything from men that smiled with so many teeth.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/10/2017 11:17 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I *think*
> wavefunction collapse (presuming as the video does that it exists) would
> actually decrease the quantum-mechanical (i.e. von Neumann) entropy as
> opposed to increase it as the video claims.
>
After a bit more research it appears that I was totally wrong in my
understanding of what a "measurement" means in terms of the quantum
density matrix. As you can read here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_matrix#Entropy), wave function
collapse can only increase von Neumann entropy (which is good and makes
sense now that I better understand it). You'll also note that the same
link mentions that a measurement *decreases* quantum information,
contrary to the videos claims as to their equivalence. I don't pretend
to have a good understanding of this though, and will refrain from
further speculation since I feel I'm as likely to be wrong as correct.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/10/2017 11:23 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 7:17 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> All in all, interesting and fun, but I'd caution against trusting it
>> much (unless I'm totally wrong here myself, which is certainly possible).
>
> I would not buy anything from men that smiled with so many teeth.
>
Huh, now that you mention it, it does feel a little like a car salesman
is trying to get be to buy some science.
I vaguely recall seeing some of this guy's other videos that I liked
though, so I dunno, maybe he's ok overall.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/10/2017 7:34 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 11:23 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 7:17 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>> All in all, interesting and fun, but I'd caution against trusting it
>>> much (unless I'm totally wrong here myself, which is certainly
>>> possible).
>>
>> I would not buy anything from men that smiled with so many teeth.
>>
>
> Huh, now that you mention it, it does feel a little like a car salesman
> is trying to get be to buy some science.
>
You probably see so many of them that you don't notice them.
> I vaguely recall seeing some of this guy's other videos that I liked
> though, so I dunno, maybe he's ok overall.
Yes, I have too. They are just over doing the acting a bit. And his very
expensive teeth. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
