science

14334 readers

188 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

119

It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life (www.nature.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Review of 2023 book: How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology Philip Ball. ISBN9781529095999

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, you've internalized it in the wrong way. The mathematical model comes AFTER the real world. It is not related to the real world what so ever except in correlation. Correlation is not causation. ESPECIALLY with a human-made MODEL.

If the maths actually drove ANYTHING, you wouldn't be saying, "most likely" to work...

[–] Meowoem -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes that's a model, I'm not saying the model magically controls reality but that the underpinning reality is math - the reason you always have two apples in a bag when you start with one and add another is because of math, the human model of that isn't controlling it but if we want two apples in a bag and we currently only have one then we can use our model to determine how many apples we need to add into the bag.

The same is true of more complex systems, if we can accurately model the cellar interactions then we can derive solutions in the same way

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That's the thing: It's NOT math. Math is an expression of relationships. The underpinning of reality IS NOT math. Ever. Math is a simplification. Always.

[–] Meowoem -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You're using odd ways of describing things to try and win a pointless argument, even if everything you say is correct then it changes literally nothing about anything so whatever yeah use words like a weirdo if you like

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No, it IS important. Notice how you keep saying, "the math does it".

You would make a terrible experimental physicist because you'd just sit there adjusting your aparatus because it doesn't match the equations instead of actually learning something new... It is not the math doing anything. The math does nothing. The aparatus doesn't fucking care what you think it's supposed to do. It doesn't care what's written on the paper.

There is no underlying calculation to expose. What you are doing is pidgeonholing your thought process. You are narrowing the avenues in which you think, which absolutely can and does make people miss important crossroads all the time.

It may be an abstract concept I'm referencing when it comes to math, but the problem is real in human thinking. It shows up in programming all the time. People insist things MUST work a certain way... and are proven wrong again and again... and that's in a domain where humans DO have control over what happens and it actually is an equation!

How much worse do you think dogmatic thinking gets when it's far more abstract? How long did it take people to accept the concept of 'i'? Hell, how long did it take people to accept zero?! Humans are always. Always. Dumber than they think they are. That includes me. That's how I've learned these lessons over the years: by putting my foot in my mouth and not liking the taste.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

You just used a bunch of words to describe "arguing semantics". And I find it hilarious because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of.

But also, they're right, you should drop this pointless argument.