7 ms·

Right. In other words, it has nothing to do with the human brain creating structures in 11 dimensions. It's a total misreading of the science. This particular

by wbhart 7y ago

Right. In other words, it has nothing to do with the human brain creating structures in 11 dimensions. It's a total misreading of the science. This particular claim has been making the rounds for quite some time. It's total rubbish.

fao_ 7y ago
> In other words, it has nothing to do with the human brain creating structures in 11 dimensions. I think you misread that. It means that the title is technically correct but relies on a different definition of the term 'dimension', not that the title is wrong.
- wbhart 7y ago
  I don't agree. The brain does not create structures in up to 11 dimensions, full stop. This is a popular science article. To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is misleading at best. And then to imply that the brain creates such structures is just compounding the problem. What about, "The amazing connectivity of the human brain", or "Researchers unravel the mathematics of connections in the human brain"? There's absolutely no need to confuse readers by conflating unrelated concepts. I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless. "Mathematician discovers that our brains live in a 276 dimensional universe".
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > The brain does not create structures in up to 11 dimensions, full stop. Except it clearly does, using the definition of the mathematics used to analyse connections. > I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless Just because we can make up words, all words that have different meanings in different contexts, are meaningless? I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous. The world does not revolve around you.
    - syrrim 7y ago
      Words are used for communication. The definition of a word derives from the mutually understood definition of the word between the author and the reader. >The world does not revolve around you. The GP was quite careful to speak from the standpoint of a reader from a general audience. A work of writing does in fact revolve around its audience.
      - fao_ 7y ago
        > The GP was quite careful to speak from the standpoint of a reader from a general audience. A work of writing does in fact revolve around its audience. So was I, otherwise I wouldn't have said: > I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous. Regardless, > The definition of a word derives from the mutually understood definition of the word between the author and the reader. Of course, and the word is defined in the article. So if the reader had actually read the article given, rather than just commenting on the title, then they wouldn't have been confused.
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    > To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is misleading at best. So are we trying to raise or lower the quality of public discourse? If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level. Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. Your first obstacle might be finding a better word to describe the mathematical shape of the structures other than 'dimension'. That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too?
    - matthewdgreen 7y ago
      I don’t know about re-writing the findings, but if I was to do so, I’d start with this statement from early in the article: “We're used to thinking of the world from a 3-D perspective,” Here 3-D clearly refers to our three spatial dimensions, and the article clearly abuses this definition of the term to contrast with the totally different meaning of “dimension” that is to come. It’s fine to use non-intuitive mathematical definitions in a work for a non-expert audience, but you must clearly define them from the start — and not lead the audience astray by deliberately referencing the most common definition to form a contrast at the start of your piece.
    - aeternum 7y ago
      Journalists of all people should understand the connotation of words. The title was likely picked to be confusing on purpose as click-bait. Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.
      - fao_ 7y ago
        > Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse. Misleading headlines only affect people who have not read the article. People who have not read the article, or can't bother to read the article, are essentially incapable of giving a proper high-quality response to the article. I don't see how you can lower the quality of discourse any further than someone commenting on an article that they didn't read.
  - ksaj 7y ago
    It does create 11 dimensional structures, in the same sense programs can have 11 dimensional arrays. Not at the quantum reality level. I think you probably object because "11 dimensions" sounds a lot like the 11 temporal dimensions of in certain space-time related theories. But this is a completely unrelated set of dimensions. The article describes what are most definitely dimensions, but ... of the array sort, and not of the String Theory sort.
iroeo0 7y ago
The author points this out explicitly in the article. “Just to be clear - this isn’t how you’d think of spatial dimensions...” Pretty great how from lack of gathering information (reading the article) you claim the author is peddling insufficient information. So tired of the “I am very smart community.” Go outside and act like a human being. No one cares one bit to read cranky grandpa opinions on every fucking forum post out there. Good for you, Mr Math. Hey, I got a degree in math. I get it. But knowing these things really means very little. We just know some things a lot of people don’t, and it makes us as special as a bus driver or a dog walker. It would really be great if there was a Reddit or HN with story and link votes, but no comment sections. Really do not care about everyone else’s hot takes.
usrlocaletc 7y ago
It's right up there with Lyme Disease bioweapon conspiracy theories and flat-earthers.

by wbhart 7y ago

fao_ 7y ago

> In other words, it has nothing to do with the human brain creating structures in 11 dimensions. I think you misread that. It means that the title is technically correct but relies on a different definition of the term 'dimension', not that the title is wrong.

wbhart 7y ago
I don't agree. The brain does not create structures in up to 11 dimensions, full stop. This is a popular science article. To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is misleading at best. And then to imply that the brain creates such structures is just compounding the problem. What about, "The amazing connectivity of the human brain", or "Researchers unravel the mathematics of connections in the human brain"? There's absolutely no need to confuse readers by conflating unrelated concepts. I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless. "Mathematician discovers that our brains live in a 276 dimensional universe".
- fao_ 7y ago
  > The brain does not create structures in up to 11 dimensions, full stop. Except it clearly does, using the definition of the mathematics used to analyse connections. > I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless Just because we can make up words, all words that have different meanings in different contexts, are meaningless? I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous. The world does not revolve around you.
  - syrrim 7y ago
    Words are used for communication. The definition of a word derives from the mutually understood definition of the word between the author and the reader. >The world does not revolve around you. The GP was quite careful to speak from the standpoint of a reader from a general audience. A work of writing does in fact revolve around its audience.
    - fao_ 7y ago
      > The GP was quite careful to speak from the standpoint of a reader from a general audience. A work of writing does in fact revolve around its audience. So was I, otherwise I wouldn't have said: > I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous. Regardless, > The definition of a word derives from the mutually understood definition of the word between the author and the reader. Of course, and the word is defined in the article. So if the reader had actually read the article given, rather than just commenting on the title, then they wouldn't have been confused.
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  > To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is misleading at best. So are we trying to raise or lower the quality of public discourse? If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level. Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. Your first obstacle might be finding a better word to describe the mathematical shape of the structures other than 'dimension'. That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too?
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    I don’t know about re-writing the findings, but if I was to do so, I’d start with this statement from early in the article: “We're used to thinking of the world from a 3-D perspective,” Here 3-D clearly refers to our three spatial dimensions, and the article clearly abuses this definition of the term to contrast with the totally different meaning of “dimension” that is to come. It’s fine to use non-intuitive mathematical definitions in a work for a non-expert audience, but you must clearly define them from the start — and not lead the audience astray by deliberately referencing the most common definition to form a contrast at the start of your piece.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    Journalists of all people should understand the connotation of words. The title was likely picked to be confusing on purpose as click-bait. Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.
    - fao_ 7y ago
      > Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse. Misleading headlines only affect people who have not read the article. People who have not read the article, or can't bother to read the article, are essentially incapable of giving a proper high-quality response to the article. I don't see how you can lower the quality of discourse any further than someone commenting on an article that they didn't read.
- ksaj 7y ago
  It does create 11 dimensional structures, in the same sense programs can have 11 dimensional arrays. Not at the quantum reality level. I think you probably object because "11 dimensions" sounds a lot like the 11 temporal dimensions of in certain space-time related theories. But this is a completely unrelated set of dimensions. The article describes what are most definitely dimensions, but ... of the array sort, and not of the String Theory sort.

iroeo0 7y ago

The author points this out explicitly in the article. “Just to be clear - this isn’t how you’d think of spatial dimensions...” Pretty great how from lack of gathering information (reading the article) you claim the author is peddling insufficient information. So tired of the “I am very smart community.” Go outside and act like a human being. No one cares one bit to read cranky grandpa opinions on every fucking forum post out there. Good for you, Mr Math. Hey, I got a degree in math. I get it. But knowing these things really means very little. We just know some things a lot of people don’t, and it makes us as special as a bus driver or a dog walker. It would really be great if there was a Reddit or HN with story and link votes, but no comment sections. Really do not care about everyone else’s hot takes.

usrlocaletc 7y ago

It's right up there with Lyme Disease bioweapon conspiracy theories and flat-earthers.