Threads by creation - Page 2

No.7626896 ViewReplyReportDelete
I need help, i'm having troubles getting the intuition behind top to bottom causation. Just the existence of said process is controversial, but let's assume it does in fact exist. How does it work? I can't get a sense of this.

A paper about this:

>A key assumption underlying most present day physical thought is the idea that causation is bottom
up all the way: particle physics underlies nuclear physics, nuclear physics underlies atomic physics,
atomic physics underlies chemistry, and so on. Thus all the higher level subjects are at least in
principle reducible to particle physics, which is therefore the only fundamental science; as famously
claimed by Dirac, chemistry is just an application of quantum physics. However there are many topics that one cannot understand by assuming this one-way flow of
causation. The flourishing subject of social neuroscience makes clear how social influences act down
on individual brain structure; studies in physiology demonstrate that downward causation is
necessary in understanding the heart, where this form of causation can be represented as the influences
of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the
lower level processes; epigenetic studies demonstrate that biological development is crucially
shaped by the environment.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.2275.pdf

Thoughts?

Graph theory

No.7626869 ViewReplyReportDelete
Can anyone help me understand list coloring?

I get regular colorability but I'm really struggling with what list colorability means. Any good examples? Everywhere I look online has similar complicated definitions without any intuition.

No.7626861 ViewReplyReportDelete
. Is this truly a good book? I know it's held in high regard here, but for 150$ I'd rather it not be a meme.

https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/principles-of-mathematical-analysis/9780070542358-item.html?ikwid=Principles+of+mathematical+analysis&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0

No.7626840 ViewReplyReportDelete
how do i unfuck this shit up
7 posts and 1 image omitted

No.7626826 ViewReplyReportDelete
What does /sci/ think about quantum resurrection? Is it just pseudoscience?

It states that if time is infinite, and if the universe expands forever, due to quantum fluctuations, anything could pop into existence. It would take an extremely long amount of time, but given an infinite amount of time, you will re appear in the further (or at least a copy of "you" ).
4 posts and 1 image omitted

No.7626793 ViewReplyReportDelete
Electrical engineer undergrad here.

Next semester I'm going to have some free slots for extra classes, because of a pre-rec thing. My program requires Calc 1,2,3, and DE which I've already taken. Would it behoove me to take an extra math beyond that? And if so... which one?
6 posts omitted
!XNrUpG0pOE

Visualization

!XNrUpG0pOE No.7626779 ViewReplyReportDelete
Sup /sci/.

After having watched these two videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4sf__sv8os
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VQFvXkz-oQ

According to the girl in the video, she visualizes a word (that is, the letters of a word), then flips the word around so she can read it backwards. Before the pedants enter the stage: She doesn't change the pronunciation so that it would sound correct when recorded and played backwards, but I don't care about that.

Now, I discovered that I can't really visualize like that. Take for example the word "ostentatious". Obviously I can spell the word mentally, and if I break it up into groups of letters I can flip those groups around to produce the word backwards, but I can't actually see the entire word in my "mind's eye", so to speak.

I think my visualization ability is normal. I can visualize objects and rotate them in my mind, but I cannot do this with words.

This whole thing reminded me of one of the popsci videos in which Richard Feynman (in his student days) and a colleague learned to ascertain when a minute had passed without external references. They found that one of them could read while doing so, while the other one could talk while doing so. It turned out that one of them visualized a clock, while the other one talked (counted) internally.

This leads me to some questions. I would appreciate it if those of you that answer would be so kind as to enumerate your answers in accordance to the questions.

1. I find that most of the time when I'm thinking, I'm actually talking to myself internally. Is this the case for you?

2. Are you able to clearly visualize a somewhat long word in your mind (the word itself, not what it represents)? Are you able to rotate the word and read it backwards without breaking it up into parts?

3. Does having your eyes open or closed affect your ability to visualize? If so, how?

Not homework; genuinely interested. Tripfagging for this thread only.

Can you find x and k?

No.7626760 ViewReplyReportDelete
Hi
Can't resolve my math homework.
y = x2 + kx + 144

Can you find x and k? and draw graphic as well.

Thanks!
3 posts omitted