>You have 2000 physicists at CERN and not one of them is famous because they haven't done anything originalHow do you respond without sounding like a CERN physicist?
I call you a nigger
>>16128939What you are saying is more profound than it seems at a surface level: globally so many people have been thinking about the same problems for so long and yet we've made so little progress in answering the fundamental questions of our existence. Why? Anyway it puts the monkey/typewriter kind of thinking to shame. Instead it gives more legitemacy to the prometheus/fire kind of thinking: we must somehow (metaphorically) be blessed with innovative insight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMN62SjXqZE
>>16128939give me money and i'll be famous
>>16129061>relaxed selection pressure permits mutation to increase rapidlynot how evolution works
>>16129061Your picrel is retarded.Evolution doesn't give a shit about whether you had advanced civilization, intelligence, technology, "traditions", etc.All evolution gives a shit about is whether you can able to reproduce or not. Your dead jew-worshipping traditions doesn't increase or decrease selection pressure, so does your intelligence. Intelligence is a tool to solve problems to increase your chances of survival and reproduction. All "meaning to life", "religion", "tradition", etc. faggotry is a cope to reduce stress and death-anxiety so that your chances of survival increases (chronic stress and anxiety directly proportional to mortality).
>>16129061also the concept of>genetic deviantsdoesn't make sense either and is rooted in some kind of outdated 1920s biological racism
>>16128939>famousfor what? Your endless fucktard world of predatory assholism? Stay on your place you subhuman and solve your own problems wich are in no way the one of the rest of the world.
>>16129161Evolution doesn't give a shit about anything actually, anon, because only living beings can do that. Want to be strict, then be strict.
>>16128939There's the Higgs guy, he's kind of famous, a little bit. Not that anything he worked on has led to any practical applications. But he basically guessed a thing and he got it right
>>16128939He is just jelly because he couldn't handle the math heavy EE topics and ended up being a code monkey lmfao
>>16129162There's plenty of people around these days who'd die without the help of modern medicine, which means they are objectively less fit yet are still reproducing. Wouldn't you call that genetically deviant?
>>16128939>You have 2000 physicists at CERN and not one of them is famous because they haven't done anything originalBecause usually its the chronically autistic people who, sometimes, don't even have degrees, that see patterns and make connections between things in insightful and creative ways. The average fuck at CERN is usually a smart but conformist faggot who will just do what they are told to get a fat cheque.>>16129569He built his own physics engine (SimStructure) and got a degree in EE you bioluminescent CIA nigger.
>>16129626nature is just as arbitrary of a selector as anything elseevolution occurs over tens of thousands of years, far longer than the small life cycles of civilizations
>>16128939https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Leetbf not a physicist, but physics is useless anyways except for materials research or actual groundbreaking theoretical physics (see higgs, who never worked at cern btw) and so there will be few inventions you would be aware of.Invention nowadays mostly needs cooperation (or a lot of luck/time/money). Terry is a real outlier and the majority of these lone wolves don't make it (like terry) in spite of their genius.
>>16128939They are studying the fundamental building blocs of universe from which everything including your gay interests consists of. Nobody took physics seriously until americans nuked hiroshima.
>>16128939Yet mathematicians and linguists are constantly going "you haven't seen the forest for the trees and all your shit adding to (-1/12) is because your symbolic language has made an error per it's computation (linguistically)".Firstly, decimalisation is a problematic method to use and can produce these errors.I bet they NEVER talk about this issue.Instead they built their entire theory on the error and for what?What meaningful conclusion can be made when the premise you use is built on sand?
>Anyone who does some original work is instantly famous
>>16131553Depends on how many light bulbs they sell while pretending they invented it.Actually... edison did genuinely improve the bulb so this isn't that fair to say to be honest. We wouldn't be using them without his input.But he certainty never invented the shitty first lightbulb.I'd rather be an edison than an inventor. I want to make shit that changes the world, not just claim an innovation. That's why proper entrepreneurship is intrinsic to good inventors in the modern age. Though that said, that can also become a problematic thing. Causing industries that try to kill people directly for money and lie about it.
>>16128939>You have 2000 physicists at CERN and not one of them is famous because they haven't done anything originalWell, yeah this is pretty much true. The LHC is testing the Standard model, which is early 1970s physics. There have been new measurements made but this isn't the kind of thing you get famous for.
>>16128939Because it's hard you need 2000 guys
>>16129569>Math heavyNo such thing. If you can pass calc 1, all math is open to you. It is by its essence logical.Discovering things in it is another thing, few can do that.
>>16128939Well, engaging physics at advanced level and not at popsci level is not as easy as writing a gay-ass operating system. So it is obvious that a very few people can actually advance physics and become famous. But your schizo ass should also know that just because you didn't see a particular physicist being mentioned on mainstream media doesn't mean he didn't have an original contribution to physics.
>>16131738That's a very funny joke. There are still quite a few filters left to go after calc 1 depending on what field you wish to go into.If you want to do the cutting edge of even the EE side of machine learning you now need to have graduate level measure theory and graduate level stochastic processes handy on top of the systems theory stuff that's more typical of those programs.
>>16129061>Picking the Romans as your example, a culture that famously produced no scientific insight beyond making better concrete in its over 400 year rule of europe
>>16129962You seem to love sucking your schizo friend's cock very much but what he did is nothing special and any 120-130 IQ person with bunch of free time can do what he did.
>>16129222>>16129161Evokutionary Biologist here, no.Just no, it does care, as technology has a direct effect of the organism and all of its functions, cryborgization already happened.......you slept through it, now youre in it.https://youtu.be/PFmAliV1lUA
>>16129160In a sense it is correct, though. Evolution and natural selection are always occuring, so you're right about that, and you're also correct that selection pressure don't effect mutation rates (although they certainly effect whether mutations are eliminated from a population). Even in the absence of ecological limiting factors or high mortality rates, selection can still occur. In such cases, the selection effects are primarily driven by differential reproduction rather than differential fitness. So even if everyone has all their needs met and all the resources they could desire, selection still continues to act - albeit as a result of differences in fertility and number of offspring, rather than a result of dying prematurely. That being said, Dutton's argument is also kind of correct for three reasons: (1) We have the fundamental theorem of natural selection which says that the rate of change in fitness in a population is proportion to the mean variation in fitness. This implies that a population with less variability in fitness will actually evolve at a slower rate. Relating this specifically back to human evolution, this implies that if all of our needs are met, we have simple easy live, and most people reach a relatively comparable level of achievement (what in socioeconomic contexts we might describe as something like "equity"), then the variance in fitness in such a population will likely be relatively small - few people are extremely unfit. In these circumstances, such a population would indeed evolve at a slower rate. That's not really speculation or opinion - just an immediate consequence of Fisher's fundamental theorem: a population with less variance in fitness will evolve at a slower rate. However, that still leaves open the question of how much "equity" or variance the human population really exhibits. . . . . . (continued)
>>16129160(Continued from >>16134114) (2) Dutton's argument could be stated somewhat more pedantically. Selection and evolution never stop occuring, and in fact selection is actually what drive the "mutants" to take over on Dutton's account. In particular, if a population is provided with a limitless supply of any resources they might want, then this can select for individuals that have a higher fertility rates and for loss-of-function mutations. These are very common and important type of beneficial mutation that occurs when a particular phenotypic trait is no longer needed. The reason such mutations are beneficial is that maintaining a particular phenotypic trait often require energy and resources, so if the trait is no longer needed it will be beneficial to lose the trait. This is very common when organisms develop new diets, e.g. Vultures, for example have very strong stomach acid anddigestive enzymes because they eating rotting carcasses. If, however, vultures start consuming another less unsanitary food source, then they will quickly acquire mutations that prevent them from producing these concentrated stomach acids and enzymes, since doing so is a large metabolic burden. Such loss-of-function mutations are well-documented and well understood, and have played a crucial role in evolution and ecology throughout the history of life on earth (I can provide more details and citations if needed). A more accurate way to describe Dutton's model is therefore that it involves not the absense of evolution or selection, but rather individuals being selected for loss-of-function and higher fertility. . .. . . (continued)
>>16129160(Continued from >>16134114 (You))(Continued from >>16134116)(3) Dutton's argument does NOT require an increase in mutation rates as you suggest. As you correctly point out, there is no reason to think that a change in selection pressure would produce a change in mutation rates. The mutation rate will stay the same. Rather, what changes is the probability that a given mutation persists indefinitely or even achieve fixation in the population. In the absence of selection, more mutants will survive to reproduce even if the mutation rate remains fixed. Just to be clear, I don't actually endorse this sort of "weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men" narrative simply because we don't actually have any prior example of technologically advanced civilizations to look to for evidence. My point concerns the feasibility of the model and the relationship between mutation and selection, not whether the model provides an accurate description of some of the contemporary social, economic, and psychological problems that have arisen in 21st century society.
>>16134114>>16134116>>16134128>Giant wall of text>Unhinged schizo rantNobody is reading all that. Take your meds.
>>16134114>>16134116>>16134128I need more details and citations.
>>16128947fpbp as any yt basedence fan claim it is a team sport with shrinking space for individual efforts.CERN is well known for its science and few institutes in its league are as renowned as CERN. Sure there's LHC and some other in the US... but did they find the Higgs field? No! Because it was - for all eternity- CERN.I believe thats a significant reason the US is terrible desperate for bringing fusion to the market but who knows what that would release.
>>16134948In relation to (1) the fundamental theorem of evolution, this is one of the foundation mathematical result of quantitative genetics. More can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_fundamental_theorem_of_natural_selectionRegarding (2), loss-of-function mutations often occur when maintaining a phenotypic trait is metabolically costly. In such cases, if the phenotypic trait is not longer needed, then it will be evolutionary beneficial for organism to lose this trait through so-called "adaptive gene loss" (which is someone of a misnomer - adaptive trait loss might be a better term). A good example of this involves the so-called Black Queen Hypothesis. Pdf related is the foundation paper on the black queen hypothesis. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Queen_hypothesisThe Black Queen hypothesis describes certain patterns in adaptive loss-of-function that we see specifically in microbial communities or ecosystens. Note that the black queen hypothesis is just one form of adaptive loss-of-function. Adaptive loss-of-function can occur in other settings outside of microbial communities, as well. Dutton's claim is effectively that adaptive gene loss is occurring in human communities due modern technological and social factors. In relation to (3) most mutations are likely selectively neutral, and the rate of mutation is probably relatively stable within species, and even across broader taxanomical groupings like genuses. In fact, the stability of mutation rates across time is the basis for so-called "molecular clock" methods in genetics and mathematical biology. These are techniques which count the number of mutations or SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) across different populations, and then combine this information with data on average mutation rates to produce an estimate of the most recent common ancestor between two populations.
>>16128939wasting fortune to create nothing of any value is a science tradition
>>16128939>How do you respond without sounding like a CERN physicist?They aren't famous because laypeople don't understand what they are doing.
i support research in fundamental physics because it could very well take centuries until some breakthrough is made. I give SCIENCE! a 400 year blank check to research on the basics of nature, they better bring something back. I seriously expect the white race to die out before the money runs out
>>16135625>laypeopleso science is a religion and the scientists are infallible priests
>>16131879>I will make up things about someone I know nothing about and when an anon who knows more corrects me I will just tell him he's a cocksuckerWow you are very cool anon
>>16129061hello hello hello!>>16129160it's poorly worded but the basic explanation of how civilization will civilization will collapse is good enough>>16129161>>16129162>t. niggernothing matters outside of what humans assign value, most humans realize complex civilization is good, thus traits that maintain or increase the complexity of civilization are "good". More dumb impulsive niggers doesn't help civilization, so are "bad".>>16131873each time civilization becomes particularly complex, technology is advanced. It only gets so far because what new technology is discovered depends on what already was. Lucky for us some technology gets left behind each cycle.I recon another cycle or two (<5000 years) and we'll implement eugenics via free market genetic engineering. Imagine a population of average 160IQ with today's tech or better, fictional levels of prosperity results.
>>16129160>>16129161>>16129162There we go leftists. Better?
>>16134930Die dysgenic vermin.
>>16128939All the low hanging fruit are gone. Now you have to collaborate with others to further science.There, now go away.
>>16137818it doesn't matter, what it posits about how civilizations emerge and thrive is still incorrectnoticeable evolution happens over tens of thousands of years, not in the comparatively small life spans of civilizationsit's more enriching to study the social and economic aspects of downfall instead of trying and failing to couch it in biological racism
>>16134948Use your brain and explain why the reasoning is wrong.>>16137825Low hanging fruit is just a case of feeling the end of the sigmoid curve of a particular tech being pumped dry. If we had an avg IQ of 115 this wouldn't be an issue. Also lots of faggots in government making regulations that ban anything new from being innovated.
>>16137827>noticeable evolution happens over tens of thousands of years, not in the comparatively small life spans of civilizationsWrong. Only group having replacement rate fertility are prize idiots. Our smartest men and women have virtually zero kids. Plug that into your evolution equation.>it's more enriching to study the social and economic aspects of downfall instead of trying and failing to couch it in biological racismAh, you're a leftist troll.
GROG SMASH ROCK TOGETHERTHIS SOMETIMES MAKE SMALLER ROCK NO YOU CANT SEE ROCKGROG VERY SMART
>>16137836you're stuck on the dichotomy of >the brightest visionary citizensand>the retarded horde of free riders and deviants that wreak havoc on society
>>16137831>Also lots of faggots in government making regulations that ban anything new from being innovated.They don't want anything to change because they're currently in power and they want it to stay that way forever
>>16138901I'm not, I've got disdain for people like you who think human genetics don't at minimum influence civilization, and beleive these genetics take millions of years to change.Evolution happens very quickly when the majority of the population have below replacement rate birthrates, with the only above replacement fertility being the dumbest impulsive people in society. Can you really not see this to be a problem?
>>16139742Due to selection pressures acting on who wins in democracy, the sorts of people who rise to power are always the ones you don't want in power. This is an unavoidable situation with government, stemming from the lack of consent e.g taxation inherent to governments.
>>16140274>and beleive these genetics take millions of years to change.but also out of africa happened only 60k years ago and the tremendous diversity amongst humans all was created subsequently
>>16141301This, the out of Africa timeline is impossible in terms of normal evolutionary timescales
>>16128939LHC has been a total failure, a massive waste
>>16143541And the people who wasted all that effort and resources are now demanding even more money for an even larger contraption which will be just as worthless
>>16129161Correct
>>16144713>>16143541Particle physics will change the world. It will open the way towards Baryogenesis and FTL travel. Just need a few centuries of funding. Otherwise settle for an eternal dark ages just to save 0.1% of global GDP
>>16145572>Particle physics will change the world.no it won't, its a worthless field of study
>>16128939>>16128973>>16129220>>16131432>>16135566>>16135974>>16145572Physics, particle, theoretical, nuclear, etc.. Has become too high-theory and has essentially exceeded it's ability for practical application with our current level of technology. To use a comparison: we're in the exact same situation as to when the Aeolipile was made. We have a lot of objectively brilliant people, making very expensive and highly advanced equipment, tools, and technology, that our current society reduces to a novelty - due to numerous social & economic factors.
>>16134128Define fitness. I don’t call what I see today as fitness at all, hopefully you can use that theory to fuck yourselves out of problems…
>>16146687This is bait. I know from studying lots of bait in my time. I was once using a bait just like this one.
>>16146689look deep enough into the bait and you become the bait
>>16146692A baiter, baited. Classic story of bait and baiter. Let the bait be baited by the baiter.Baiting now.
>>16146523people didnt make use of steam engines back then cuz they had slaves, labor was cheap so no reason to reduce needed labor via innovation.today we have a background of dysgenics combined with population collapse, which is being masked by importing cheap labor from third world shitholes, no reason to reduce needed labor via innovation.then you have moronic socialists in the EU demanding higher wages LMAO. only thing they innovate on is regulations
>>16134128>we don't actually have any prior example of technologically advanced civilizations to look to for evidenceCrock of shite. Romans, Muzzie empire mk1, basically anything that saw a rise in complexity to allow child mortality to drop. Aqueducts and large trade networks relax Darwinian pressures enough
>>16147339Slavery existed back when the steam engine was put to use in the early 1800s. They could have turned it into a major advantage in naval warfare and in navigation 2000 years ago, theres no rational reason for why they didn't
>>16146495>, its a worthless field of studyToday, but they are on the cusp of a breakthrough. Amazing wealth lies ahead with just a bit more funding. Dont be miopic.>>16146523>and has essentially exceeded it's ability for practical application with our cuMore funding will solve that. Dont be short sighted, a 40 year downturn is nothing against eternity.
>>16147339>s back then cuz they had slaves, labor was cheapThey just didnt have steam engines. No roman aristocrat was ever given the choice of investing in steam engines for his mining pit enterprises. It wasnt about cost, they just didnt have steam engines.
>>16148066"Slavery" is actually a subset of slavery. But for some reason if you get to choose your owner and where you sleep and what you eat that's not slavery anymore.Yeah I get it, means to an end. Sure.
>>16128939Doing something original doesn't imply you become famous. There are countless mathematicians physicists, computer scientists, etc. who have contributed original work (multiple times over) who will never be famous. Also, fame is overrated. Did fame save Terry? Does anyone really know the work the famous do? Probably not, and even if they do the vast majority will never understand it nor care too. Rise to the top and you'll find out it's lonely up there.
>>16148066>They could have turned it into a major advantage in naval warfare and in navigation 2000 years ago, theres no rational reason for why they didn'tWaste all your time managing your 72 IQ slaves, fail to mechanize. Many such cases.
>>16148526You don't need steam engines to relax harsh darwinian selection pressures
>>16148066>theres no rational reason for why they didn'tthere clearly is by virtue of them not using them
>>16128939People at CERN went there to be famous and/or original and failing to do so is their worst fuck up that eats them alive.Why do you think that?
>>16130893>physics is useless anyways except for materials researchask me how I know you're retarded
>>16148809>there clearly is by virtue of them not using themnope
>>16148933you're wrong about that, (((research))) which ends up producing nothing of any value is useless by definition
LHC is a massive failure, its worthless
I work at CERN. I ghink your opinion is full of shit, but it's yours. I also think all niggers calling it easy and useless are just tired of being fucked by calc 1 and prealgebra. Just because maths is too hard for you, it doesn't mean that you cannot have a living using it. Stop being subhuman, that's it.
>>161289391. Pioneering Magnetics engineering and subatomic detection2. Medical Science3. Proving or Disproving many particle physics theories4. Front-runner of Particle Accelerator experimentation5. Still one of the prime circular Particle AcceleratorsPicrel is where it all started, The Synchrocyclotron. It's a fraction to what CERN is now, which is the point of the whole project. It's built on generations of science and engineering to experiment with. And it's many different scientific projects done at once.
>>16128947Could still be a CERN physicist, I think.
>>16152364>Synchrocyclotronis this a gender?
>>16134116>4 similar looking houses 100 years ago>4 similar looking houses todayI know what this is trying to say, but what a retarded jpg
We need a bigger one.https://youtu.be/bCmwCkNY85g
>>16153571who's the wallmart keira knightley?
>>16128947the n word is racist
