Did life get started on planetesimals before Earth formed?
Robert J. Marks: Do robots make better decisions?
Sabine Hossenfelder on the flight from falsifiability
Philosopher: A multiverse underlies the ultimate vision of technocrats
How, exactly, do damaged or diseased cells “commit suicide” to protect the body?
Fun: Astonishing windup robots still work, centuries later
Researchers: Bacteria can make individual decisions
At least, that’s the implication of the results of a maze test: How do the ETH Zurich researchers know this? They constructed a downward sloping maze with either more or less nourishment (chemoattractant) at each junction and most of it at the bottom. Each bacterium (wild Marinobacter adhaerens) had to make an individual decision at each junction. But they didn’t all go with the stronger smell, as expected. Even genetically identical bacteria (clones) made different decisions which way to go. Those who followed the crowd toward the stronger scent found more food but also more competition; those who took the road less traveled found less of both. And what does it mean? Well, two things. First, the researchers say, individual Read More ›
Meerkats: Another classic Darwinian just-so story
Jonathan Bartlett and Robert Marks take on Elon Musk
Are Tesla’s robot taxis a phantom fleet? What’s behind Elon Musk’s sudden wild taxi adventure? Self-driving car entrepreneur Elon Musk is nothing, if not ambitious. Earlier this week, he promised to have a million robot taxis on the road by next year, taking dead aim at Uber and Lyft. But responses have changed in recent years from Wow! To “Oh. Really?” What’s going on?: “I’m actually quite amazed that Elon even made the suggestion. Not only is the car not ready for autonomous driving, the company has not even started work on the ride-hailing software needed to support it. Additionally, the numbers presented at the conference show a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of what it costs Read More ›
Kirk Durston: What do we do when Darwinism looks less like science all the time?
Logic & First Principles, 19: Are we part of a Boltzmann brain grand delusion world (or the like)?
In looking at time (no. 18) we saw how a suggested form of multiverse is one in which sub-cosmi are speculated — there is no observational base, this is philosophy dressed up in a lab coat — to pop up as fluctuations, exhibiting their own “big bang” events and timelines: However, it was not as simple as that. Wikipedia, speaking against known inclinations, summarised: a Boltzmann brain is a self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium [–> the predominant, statistically overwhelming group of accessible micro-states for a relevant entity in statistical thermodynamics]. For example, in a homogeneous Newtonian soup, theoretically by sheer chance all the atoms could bounce off and Read More ›
Researcher: “No rhyme or reason” to unexpected sea anemone genome
Did Neanderthals prize golden eagle claws for their symbolic value?
At Nature: Surviving the “reproducibility apocalypse”
Researchers, says an experimental psychologist, generally know what they should do: Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known). My generation and the one before us have done little to rein these in.Dorothy Bishop, “Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility” at Nature That’s interesting, considering how often we were ordered to see science as the relentless pursuit of truth. If we start with something as basic as giving up gimmicks, maybe we’ll get further. She offers some thoughts on suggested reforms. Follow Read More ›