3 ms·

Fundamental physics or esoteric math are funded for several reasons, one of which is that they engender humbleness in society. These fields are among the most i

Fundamental physics or esoteric math are funded for several reasons, one of which is that they engender humbleness in society. These fields are among the most intellectually demanding of all, and by trying to do these difficult things, what we should learn as a society is that we are not done and we don't know it all, and can't do it all. SETI particularly has this extra humbleness benefit, because it reminds us as a society that the journey that began from earth at the center of the universe, and is currently halted at, humans are unique in this universe, is not over. If we stop doing SETI, as a society, our egos will flare. If don't stop, we will forever be in the shadows of possible alien intelligences who could be far more intellectually advanced than us. By doing SETI, we also are reminded that our science, and our viewpoint of the world is from a very human point of view, a very limited view, that could bear expanding.

mattkrause 7y ago
> Fundamental physics or esoteric math are ... most intellectually demanding of all Trying to rank the sciences by "hardness" is silly and counterproductive. Biology gets blown off as "stamp collecting", but it turns out to be frightfully hard in its own way. Look at this "map" of biochemical pathways from Roche: http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 It's a stupendously complicated dynamical system! This is just part of it, and measuring each arrow requires clever ideas and a heroic amount of work. Imagine how tricky psychology, which deals with the aggregate result of billions of these systems in the body and brain, must be--and the poor sociologists!
- Mike98345 7y ago
  Physicists study relatively simple fundamental particles. Biologists study the most complex structures in the known universe. Instead of understanding one particle, you're trying to understand structures of quadrillions of particles in an arrangements of mind boggling complexity. Yes you're right. In some ways biology is much harder than physics.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  I specifically said "_among_ the most intellectually demanding". Also, I was just listing too commonly known fields that are both difficult and economically useless. There are many other fields with problems as difficult as math/physics, but those like biology are economically useful. Which is why public+private funding for biology is, rightfully, many times that of fundamental (not applied) physics/math.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Hardness is useful bur in English is a misleading synonym. Hard science is more quantitative and has more rigor in terms of hard proof and mathematical models and less room for fuzziness. "Soft" science is fuzzier with more qualitative elements. It doesn't necessarily mean less difficult. Another distinction is that the level of tools limits things. Say studying color before and after the ability to analyze wavelengths.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    Can you explain the usefulness? From my perspective, it's a term, coined by a 19th century philosopher, that gets dragged out by people with physics envy. Modern biology, for example, is incredibly quantitative: molecular biologists collect massive genomics datasets, neuroscientists record from hundreds of sites in the brain, and ecologists, whom everyone thinks of as flannel-clad outdoorsmen, fit sophisticated statistical models. Psychology is getting there too, especially if you're willing to lump in related industries like advertising: Google and Facebook have massive datasets on people's activities and preferences. It's true that these fields have had less success with mathematical modeling, but you also have to look at the sheer number of interacting variables vs the ~10 terms in Maxwell's equations. It's possible that the underlying phenomena might often just be irreducibly complex, as this perspective argues: (preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 and was just published in Neuron).
hutzlibu 7y ago
"Fundamental physics" I actually believe that fundamental physic research is a more effective SETI programm, as with a better understanding of the universe we can also eventually understand potential technologies, that might enable interstellar travel and communication. And than actually communicate and meet with aliens. Because we have so far not seen a trace of traditional radio or light communication in space, so I guess the odds of finding one are very small. Or we get more and more disappointed that the bounds are indeed the speed of light. And if that is the case, establishing a contact with an alien race will be very hard, if merely pinging them takes several years.

mattkrause 7y ago

> Fundamental physics or esoteric math are ... most intellectually demanding of all Trying to rank the sciences by "hardness" is silly and counterproductive. Biology gets blown off as "stamp collecting", but it turns out to be frightfully hard in its own way. Look at this "map" of biochemical pathways from Roche: http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 It's a stupendously complicated dynamical system! This is just part of it, and measuring each arrow requires clever ideas and a heroic amount of work. Imagine how tricky psychology, which deals with the aggregate result of billions of these systems in the body and brain, must be--and the poor sociologists!

Mike98345 7y ago
Physicists study relatively simple fundamental particles. Biologists study the most complex structures in the known universe. Instead of understanding one particle, you're trying to understand structures of quadrillions of particles in an arrangements of mind boggling complexity. Yes you're right. In some ways biology is much harder than physics.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I specifically said "_among_ the most intellectually demanding". Also, I was just listing too commonly known fields that are both difficult and economically useless. There are many other fields with problems as difficult as math/physics, but those like biology are economically useful. Which is why public+private funding for biology is, rightfully, many times that of fundamental (not applied) physics/math.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Hardness is useful bur in English is a misleading synonym. Hard science is more quantitative and has more rigor in terms of hard proof and mathematical models and less room for fuzziness. "Soft" science is fuzzier with more qualitative elements. It doesn't necessarily mean less difficult. Another distinction is that the level of tools limits things. Say studying color before and after the ability to analyze wavelengths.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Can you explain the usefulness? From my perspective, it's a term, coined by a 19th century philosopher, that gets dragged out by people with physics envy. Modern biology, for example, is incredibly quantitative: molecular biologists collect massive genomics datasets, neuroscientists record from hundreds of sites in the brain, and ecologists, whom everyone thinks of as flannel-clad outdoorsmen, fit sophisticated statistical models. Psychology is getting there too, especially if you're willing to lump in related industries like advertising: Google and Facebook have massive datasets on people's activities and preferences. It's true that these fields have had less success with mathematical modeling, but you also have to look at the sheer number of interacting variables vs the ~10 terms in Maxwell's equations. It's possible that the underlying phenomena might often just be irreducibly complex, as this perspective argues: (preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 and was just published in Neuron).

hutzlibu 7y ago

"Fundamental physics" I actually believe that fundamental physic research is a more effective SETI programm, as with a better understanding of the universe we can also eventually understand potential technologies, that might enable interstellar travel and communication. And than actually communicate and meet with aliens. Because we have so far not seen a trace of traditional radio or light communication in space, so I guess the odds of finding one are very small. Or we get more and more disappointed that the bounds are indeed the speed of light. And if that is the case, establishing a contact with an alien race will be very hard, if merely pinging them takes several years.