EdEarl

Some fairy wasps, insects the size of a large amoeba, absorb the nucleus of neurons as they grow older; the nucleus is most of the soma (neuron central body). Essentially, some fairy wasps have neurons that consist only of an axon and dendrites that carry signals between synapses.

Beyond spacetime sounds like further than either space or time exist. Since spacetime is expanding towards infinity, beyond spacetime must be towards infinity. Moreover, spacetime define our dimensions, and outside spacetime is dimensionally ambiguous. Without time motion cannot exist; thus, kinetic energy cannot exist. Without space, matter as we know it cannot exist. IMO we can understand "beyond spacetime" about as well as we understand infinity.

I wish US politicians were this good.

Evidence that some dark matter is black holes, rather than being an unknown particle.

I think we need to learn to live together, rather than differentiating ourselves. The motivation for differentiation seems to be people believe they are getting too little, and can improve by changing their circumstance. But, these are emotional attitudes and actions, which can be the opposite of reality. I think these changes will not achieve the desired results, or achieve some and make others worse. Moreover, I think the coming changes from AI technology will be so profound that this kind of political bickering will be viewed as inconsequential by future historians.

Estimated 1011 neurons in a human brain. Estimated 1014 atoms in a human cell. About 60% of a human is water; thus, 1014 * 60% of the atoms are water molecules. The remaining 4*1013 atoms are other molecules of varying size, including DNA that contains about 2*1011 atoms, but most molecules are considerably smaller. Assumption (guess) 109 molecules per cell means the brain would contain 1011+9 = 1020 molecules. You want flow of sodium and potassium, which means a video not a snapshot. A single frame would need a minimum of one pixel per molecule in low resolution 16 bits per pixel. That is 16 bits/pixel * 1020 pixels per frame min * 102 frames/sec min * 10 seconds = 16*1023 bits. Our biggest disks at this time are about 8 terabytes (8*1012). Thus, it would take 16*1023/8*1012 = 2*1011 disks for 10 seconds of molecular video. I think that is a bit more than all the disk space sold to date. I'd guess your desired technology is at least 10 years away, based only on required disk space. I'm not an expert on scanners or microscopes, but the smallest things are imaged with an electron microscope that I believe would kill living tissue. An imaging technology such as you describe may never be possible, but there is always hope.

The weight of ice will be distributed throughout the oceans, instead of being on Greenland and Antarctica. What effect would you expect?

Slower memory makes everything run slower, but fetch times have often been considerably slower than processors, just the way it is. If they could make multi gigabyte memory with a short fetch time, they would.

My experience with running business data processing programs on parallel computers suggests about 10% additional code is necessary. Reducing that 10% by 1/10th is significant but not remarkable. Pipes per core for Multiple Instruction Multiple Data (MIMD) systems. I think the term core was invented because processors became faster than memory and one processor with two sets of registers can process two streams of data. If one processor works on two streams of data by time slicing, is that two pipes per core or one? A programmer doesn't need to know pipes per core; it is an issue that hardware designers manipulate to maximize processor performance. If a processor can run 10x faster than memory, then it can process ten threads of data per core (effectively ten pipelines per core). In addition, a processor may have one or more asynchronous processor to do floating point, which means there may be both integer and floating pipelines run by one core. Thus, one core may process several threads and multiple data types in parallel pipelines. Hardware can make parallelism decisions better than people, due to real time data conflicts, and the added complexity of parallel programming can be too difficult for people.

No, I don't have a link. Parallel programs process multiple streams of data through multiple pipelines; thus, data is spread through time (1st dimension) and across multiple pipelines (2nd dimension). Data conflicts when one pipeline is processing data that will shortly be saved into memory, and another pipeline asks for the data before it has been stored. It sounds like the time-stamp and priority-queue assure the conflict is resolved with accurate data. Need some time to think about it.

I think this is huge.

They don't say if this process is a hypothesis, has been done in a lab, or if it is ready for the big show. I suspect implementation will require significant engineering. With that kind of economic benefit, it seems at least one power company would be ready to sign a contract, and it might save some of the oil market. Some financier of climate deniers should be ready to foot the bill to bring this technology on-line.

If we understand their methods and motives, then we might be able to craft a good non-lethal response, preferably one that makes them good citizens. That someone has been accused, convicted and imprisoned for a crime does not make them guilty; many innocent people have served prison sentences. Even if a person does something illegal and immoral does not necessarily make them a bad person; desperate people do many things to survive. There may be some perverts, e.g., sadists, but it seems unlikely all are. I'd need a lot more information than I have from news media to make rational decisions about how to counter ISIS and others. When the CIA has house-flies among "terrorists" we might get enough info to make good counter terrorism decisions. Until then, our efforts are likely to be clumsy or inappropriate no matter how high tech. I feel like the US response to terrorism has exacerbated our problems, instead of eliminating terrorism.

Early philosophers believed earth, air, fire and water were elements that made everything. It is not reality. Philosophical thought does not always produce realistic conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is a process that is easy to document. State your premises and show us how you reached the conclusion that reason and difference are the same. If you cannot, you didn't use deductive reasoning.

What science did you use, specifically; reference at least one paper, please. If you can't give a reference, you didn't use science.

Clearly, reason and difference are not the same word. What do you mean by the same, same language (yes), same part of speech (nouns, yes), in what other ways are they the same, and in what ways are they different?

In other words, scientists are practicing a dangerous art, which is a nice way of saying they are incompetent. To remedy the situation they should follow your advice, and you have a few people who believe like you. Fewer than 1/3 of humanity are Christian. You said Catholics weren't Christian; thus, your beliefs are consistent with some part of protestants, less than 1/10 of humanity. There are about 6 million scientists in the US, and 2 million of them are Christian, which suggests that your beliefs are shared by considerably less than 1/10 of humanity. During the middle ages, people with your religious fervor terrorized the people of Europe by torturing and burning people for little or no reason. You, sir, and people like you are the dangerous ones.

Most of the world, being not Christian, think your beliefs are mistaken; in other words, a conses thinks you are mistaken. Science goes with consensus and wants to avoid mistakes. You have nothing to offer science.

@B.J.J Why Genesis? Why not creation of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhism, or another of the 4000-5000 religions on Earth?

They pumped C02 into subterranean basalt, which is common throughout the world. This method is the first time CO2 has been sequestered and turned to rock so quickly. They drilled wells and removed core samples to determine how quickly the CO2 combined chemically with rock. Previously, the consensus was that CO2 would take a very long time to solidify.

It is easy to criticize science by alluding to problems, but, as John Cuthber said, you haven't said anything to demonstrate danger or inappropriate scientific method. Moreover, you haven't explained how to improve the scientific process. You have nothing to offer but vague criticism.

So you want to pick where science has it right and doesn’t. Does modern medicine have it wrong and need additional help. Do you avoid doctors because they have medicine wrong? Or, does the modern electronic industry have it wrong and need help. Modern electronics is based on quantum mechanics; how would you improve electronics, what is needed in addition to the scientific method.

@B John Jones Scientific theory says that a body going at speed S for H hours goes H*S distance. Scientists can measure the distance with trigonometry, with an odometer, and with a tape measure (ruler). That's three different verifications of the theory. What would you propose? For example, R=50m/h for 2 hours = 100 miles.