Some dates are being discussed in a May 18th 2019 Phys-dot-org article: “The Moon is the proving ground for our eventual mission to Mars,” NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said at a conference this week. “The Moon is our path to get to Mars in the fastest, safest way possible. That’s why we go to the […]
A recent news item suggests that AI may help bring fusion power to the table on the long used but challenging Tokamak toroidal reactor architecture. This would be a major positive use of AI technology, if it proves sufficiently reliable: Artificial intelligence (AI), a branch of computer science that is transforming scientific inquiry and industry, […]
George Musser, a science writer reviewing a new book on the subject, thinks it will force free will skeptics to become more sophisticated in their arguments
Many biologists claimed to have written code to simulate evolution. But the popularization of the No Free Lunch theorems showed that the computer programmer must infuse guiding information into the evolutionary program to make it work. To explain the diversity of creativity, an evolution process must be directed.
Moonquakes happen, and they are shaking up lunar geology, Also, SkyNet reveals, “NASA announced earlier this year that it wants to send the first woman, and the next man, to the moon by 2024.” They can call in at the Chinese lunar base for tea… ;
My, my. A commenter formed the correct impression and suggests, “Could you please answer the very valid questions raised by Sabine [Hossenfelder] instead of smearing her like this?”
Strings: Loop-Q-G: Food for thought. END
A TED Talk Second vid on observing a black hole: Apart from a notice, there will be no comments. END
Every so often, for whatever reason, a US conservative thinkmag steps on Darwin’s rake.
Holloway: Intelligence, like randomness, is mathematically undefinable.
He recognizes that present AI displays the creativity of its creators and not that of a machine-based intelligence but why let that get in the way of a promising theory?.
Just because it’s not clear that the hypothetical particle she studies exists. Okay. But perhaps some physicists will still choose to research particles for whose existence there is actually evidence.
Gelernter is HOW likely to read Coyne’s diatribe and conclude he must be all wrong? But then Darwinians tend not to notice what others do. Presumably, it’s an adaptation.
Well, if genetics isn’t that important, what is heredity? Maybe epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer also shape the lives we live and live among. So then Darwinism is right but unimportant. It explains some things, not most things.
Well, they will just have to keep looking for that early, really simple bedbug, below which there is nothing but sub-bedbugs.