Some Fun Science Trivia

[Chesterton]

Hmm .. information technology has quite a specific meaning for what 'a word' is, and is based on the size of a given string measured in bits (and bytes). Word size there, refers to the number of bits processed, stored, or transmitted simultaneously by a computer's processor or memory. It determines the amount of data a processor can handle in a single operation, which impacts the system's overall performance, addressable memory, and data types it can manage. (Eg: Modern architectures typically use 32 or 64-bit words, built of four or eight bytes, respectively.

I'm not sure this is relevant to the points raised by @sesquiterpene, in as far as biochemistry, but the common language meaning of what a word is, falls a little short when dealing with the large amounts of coding information being discussed here(?)

As I noted in the OP, I'm concerned with what lexicographers consider the "common language meaning" of what a word is. The world of computing uses lots and lots of metaphors from pre-existing things - "buses", "frames", "windows". "menus", "icons", etc. You find some of that in other professions, too. But, I can pronounce all the individual parts of titin because they are actual words. I can't pronounce ACTG1P6. I mean, I could try, but I'd probably sound like I'm drunk.

 

[SelfSim]

As I noted in the OP, I'm concerned with what lexicographers consider the "common language meaning" of what a word is. The world of computing uses lots and lots of metaphors from pre-existing things - "buses", "frames", "windows". "menus", "icons", etc. You find some of that in other professions, too. But, I can pronounce all the individual parts of titin because they are actual words. I can't pronounce ACTG1P6. I mean, I could try, but I'd probably sound like I'm drunk.

Hmm .. well I just tried .. I said: 'Act' followed by 'G1P6'. Its an acronym really .. its a bit like 'C3PO', from Starwars.
Lots of acronyms are used as words .. I think they all drive us nuts until someone tells us what they mean when they're using that as a word. Once they've told us, I find I can usually understand their ensuing sentences.

Its a very interesting topic/thread .. thanks for raising it.
(I think I get your OP point about the word for tinitin too!)

 

[Chesterton]

Hmm .. well I just tried .. I said: 'Act' followed by 'G1P6'. Its an acronym really .. its a bit like 'C3PO', from Starwars.
Lots of acronyms are used as words .. I think they all drive us nuts until someone tells us what they mean when they're using that as a word. Once they've told us, I find I can usually understand their ensuing sentences.

Its a very interesting topic/thread .. thanks for raising it.
(I think I get your OP point about the word for tinitin too!)

Yes, lots of acronyms are used as if they were words, but some can't be. I've never heard the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the F.B.I. referred to as "fibbie", lol.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, lots of acronyms are used as if they were words, but some can't be. I've never heard the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the F.B.I. referred to as "fibbie", lol.

Well we're talking trivia, so I can trivially ask/nit-pick: 'Why should it matter that we might not be able to actually pronounce some acronyms, (etc)?'
Seems to me the meaning is more important than the consistency of its pronuciation?

Also, yet more trivia: I did a Google search for the name C3PO.
What came back was: 'C3PO was named after a post office which is located at reference C3 on a map of Lucas' hometown'.

I was on a roll .. so I pushed my luck .. and Googled R2D2:
'The name derives from when Lucas was making one of his earlier films, American Graffiti. Sound editor Walter Murch states that he is responsible for the utterance which sparked the name for the droid. Murch asked for Reel 2, Dialog Track 2, in the abbreviated form "R-2-D-2".

So, now we know a truth or two!

 

[Chesterton]

Well we're talking trivia, so I can trivially ask/nit-pick: 'Why should it matter that we might not be able to actually pronounce some acronyms, (etc)?'
Seems to me the meaning is more important than the consistency of its pronuciation?

I think the word word should mean word. Lots of things convey meaning, like a math equation, a bird's song or whale's sound, a facial expression or an obscene gesture, but they're not considered words.

Also, yet more trivia: I did a Google search for the name C3PO.
What came back was: 'C3PO was named after a post office which is located at reference C3 on a map of Lucas' hometown'.

I was on a roll .. so I pushed my luck .. and Googled R2D2:
'The name derives from when Lucas was making one of his earlier films, American Graffiti. Sound editor Walter Murch states that he is responsible for the utterance which sparked the name for the droid. Murch asked for Reel 2, Dialog Track 2, in the abbreviated form "R-2-D-2".

So, now we know a truth or two!

Interesting. I always kind of wondered about those name choices.

 

[SelfSim]

I think the word word should mean word. Lots of things convey meaning, like a math equation, a bird's song or whale's sound, a facial expression or an obscene gesture, but they're not considered words.

I'd agree that a math equation conveys meaning that we can understand because we know that humans wrote the equation and invented math.
I'd also agree that a facial expression, or an obscene gesture, both convey meanings we can understand, from one human to another.

I don't agree that a bird's song or whale's sound convey meanings we can understand from an animal's point of view (ie: from a bird or a whale to a human). We have no idea, other than our own, about what those animals are thinking, or even if they're 'thinking' at all .. we only have our interpretations of test results there. Those interpretations are models made by us, to make sense of the animals' exhibitions of sounds and actions. The meaning is invented by us, for the purposes of communicating and making sense, amongst ourselves about those exhibitions. (Which is a point often overlooked by humans and passed off as being a merely trivial point .. but it isn't trivial at all, really).

Interesting. I always kind of wondered about those name choices.

Yeah .. 'twas interesting trivia news for me too!

 

[Chesterton]

I'd agree that a math equation conveys meaning that we can understand because we know that humans wrote the equation and invented math.

Did we invent math, or discover it? There's a controversial question for another thread.

I don't agree that a bird's song or whale's sound convey meanings we can understand from an animal's point of view (ie: from a bird or a whale to a human). We have no idea, other than our own, about what those animals are thinking, or even if they're 'thinking' at all .. we only have our interpretations of test results there. Those interpretations are models made by us, to make sense of the animals' exhibitions of sounds and actions. The meaning is invented by us, for the purposes of communicating and making sense, amongst ourselves about those exhibitions. (Which is a point often overlooked by humans and passed off as being a merely trivial point .. but it isn't trivial at all, really).

I absolutely agree. Animal thinking is almost pure speculation. The only reason I said that was because we're in the Science forum, and I try to be diplomatic. Science types often like to think they know more than they actually know.

 

[SelfSim]

Did we invent math, or discover it? There's a controversial question for another thread.

Its not controversial for me .. there's tonnes of historical evidence that humans devised it over a very long time over human evolutionary history. Math is a language and not a 'thing' we found floating around in space, or something!
The notion that it was miraculuously discovered, is an unevidenced belief .. its used as a descriptive language both within and between, physical models and to keep consistent track of logical equivalencies therein.

I absolutely agree. Animal thinking is almost pure speculation. The only reason I said that was because we're in the Science forum, and I try to be diplomatic. Science types often like to think they know more than they actually know.

Nonetheless, we are related to other animals and share in similar anatomies .. the human brain is no exception in that regard.
Our models predicting behaviours of some animals are pretty accurate .. but that test evidence doesn't depend on any claim that we 'therefore must know what those animals are thinking'. What we do know there, is that our predictive models are useful for us, specifically when it comes to the model attributes concerning behaviours, which we assign to particular animals.

 

[Chesterton]

Its not controversial for me .. there's tonnes of historical evidence that humans devised it over a very long time over human evolutionary history. Math is a language and not a 'thing' we found floating around in space, or something!
The notion that it was miraculuously discovered, is an unevidenced belief .. its used as a descriptive language both within and between, physical models and to keep consistent track of logical equivalencies therein.

Okay, but if intelligent life had never arisen in the universe, two rocks and two rocks would still be four rocks, wouldn't it? Even if there were no one around to express the idea.

 

[SelfSim]

Okay, but if intelligent life had never arisen in the universe, two rocks and two rocks would still be four rocks, wouldn't it? Even if there were no one around to express the idea.

Well is it intelligent life that's posing that question?
Of course it is, therefore the notion in the following sentence, has been defeated by the presence of the intelligent life expressing the question.

 

[Chesterton]

Well is it intelligent life that's posing that question?
Of course it is, therefore the notion in the following sentence, has been defeated by the presence of the intelligent life expressing the question.

Hmm, that sounds a bit too post-modern for my taste. Let me try this: if no intelligent life had come to exist, could hydrogen have come to exist?

 

[SelfSim]

Hmm, that sounds a bit too post-modern for my taste. Let me try this: if no intelligent life had come to exist, could hydrogen have come to exist?

Same answer.
Its quite a trivial matter, actually.
PS: Post modernism has nothing to do with it .. Its science!

 

[Chesterton]

Same answer.
Its quite a trivial matter, actually.
PS: Post modernism has nothing to do with it .. Its science!

So hydrogen is a social construct?

 

[Chesterton]

Its quite a trivial matter, actually.

Well the thread title contains the word trivia, and you said the language aspect was interesting, so here's my point. Humans didn't invent math anymore than they invented apples. We simply assign words to the reality we observe. If I recall, observation is the first step in the scientific method. We see apples, we somehow come up with the word "apple". We see two objects and we come up with the word "two". We see four we say "four". And the reality of math plays itself out from there.

 

[SelfSim]

So hydrogen is a social construct?

No .. its an objectively testable model in science.

 

[Chesterton]

No .. its an objectively testable model in science.

Then why isn't mathematics? There are such things as proofs.

 

[SelfSim]

Well the thread title contains the word trivia, and you said the language aspect was interesting, so here's my point. Humans didn't invent math anymore than they invented apples.

Your point there is just your claim. Science seeks to test that claim. What's your test?

We simply assign words to the reality we observe.

What you're describing there, is (loosely) how we go about creating a model .. eg: like the model: 'hydrogen'.

If I recall, observation is the first step in the scientific method.

Umm speculation, followed by hypothesis formation, followed by testing, observing the results and forming a conclusion is the scientific (objective) method.

We see apples, we somehow come up with the word "apple". We see two objects and we come up with the word "two". We see four we say "four". And the reality of math plays itself out from there.

The 'somehow' part there, is what is done by a human mind, (as is the observation .. although what you're presenting is a circular argument .. because you haven't followed the method I outlined above).
Where we can see the fingerpints left behind by an active thinking mind, you have defeated/answered the query of: 'If there is/was no mind present(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Then why isn't mathematics? There are such things as proofs.

Mathematics isn't science and proofs are a part of mathematics.
Science uses math for tracking consistencies between its models. Eg: the hydrogen model is related to the electron model using math for ensuring that consistency between the two models is maintained.
Science doesn't use math to create its models. All of science's models have been already tested, or are testable in principle.

 

[Chesterton]

Your point there is just your claim. Science seeks to test that claim. What's your test?

I'm confused. You think humans may have invented apples? I don't have an actual test, other than some poetry:

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

What you're describing there, is (loosely) how we go about creating a model .. eg: like the model: 'hydrogen'.

Okay I agree with that, when it comes to really small things and really big things and really old things. But not apples or 2+2.

Umm speculation, followed by hypothesis formation, followed by testing, observing the results and forming a conclusion is the scientific (objective) method.

Well you have to observe something before you can speculate about it. I mean sure, you can speculate about unicorns or space aliens, but not when you're doing serious science.

The 'somehow' part there, is what is done by a human mind, (as is the observation .. although what you're presenting is a circular argument .. because you haven't followed the method I outlined above).
Where we can see the fingerpints left behind by an active thinking mind, you have defeated/answered the query of: 'If there is/was no mind present(?)

I don't know what you mean by "fingerprints". When I said you sounded post-modern, I wasn't kidding. There's this self-proclaimed post-modernist professor named Thadeus Russell who claims the Pythagorean Theorem isn't true, because it's just "something some guy made up".

 

[Chesterton]

Mathematics isn't science and proofs are a part of mathematics.
Science uses math for tracking consistencies between its models. Eg: the hydrogen model is related to the electron model using math for ensuring that consistency between the two models is maintained.
Science doesn't use math to create its models. All of science's models have been already tested, or are testable in principle.

Do you agree that humans make mistakes? If men invented math, and science uses math, then all of science could be a mistake.