Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Math Science

Science's 125 Big Questions 351

Posted by Zonk from the where-do-dorks-come-from? dept.
Shadow Wrought writes "To celebrate their 125th anniversary Science is running a series of articles on the 125 Questions of Science. The top 25 each link to an article exploring the subject of the question in depth. Included are such questions as: Are we alone in the Universe? What are the limits of conventional computing? How did cooperative behavior evolve?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Science's 125 Big Questions More

Science's 125 Big Questions

Comments Filter:

  • questions (Score:5, Funny)

    by drewfuss ( 872683 ) * on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:41PM (#12966033) Homepage
    Are we alone in the Universe? What are the limits of conventional computing? Why I can't I get a date?

    • Re:questions (Score:5, Funny)

      by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:48PM (#12966079) Homepage
      No. Wait and see. Take a a shower. :)

    • Re:questions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xXBondsXx ( 895786 )
      Why am I sitting here asking questions instead of solving them?

    • Re:questions (Score:5, Funny)

      by cmburns69 ( 169686 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:50PM (#12966084) Homepage Journal
      Are we alone in the Universe?

      Maybe.

      What are the limits of conventional computing?

      Undetermined.

      Why I can't I get a date?

      Because you got the first post on /.

    • Re:questions (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:08PM (#12966194)
      Dude, you should own all the boxes on the internet, script 'em them together into one kick ass rig, solve Seti and date some hot green chick.

      Hell, if there are no alien chicks, date the rig.
    • When you close the refridgerator door, does the little light stay on?

    • Re:questions (Score:3, Informative)

      by WormholeFiend ( 674934 )
      What are the limits of conventional computing?

      Well right now the limits of chess computing seems to be this Hydra cluster [com.com]

      Is it time to retire the "Beowulf" cliché?

    • Re:questions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why I can't I get a date?

      I feel ya man. It's hard to comprehend the reason for asking if we are alone in the universe when in fact many of us are alone in our own lives. The limits of conventional computing seem more finite when you realize that computers are more or less just conduits to other people who are alone as well. Questions about "cooperative behavior" and "quantum uncertainty" seem only to pick at the withering soul drowning in the sea of loneliness.

      Thanks for ruining my day.

      • YOur post deserves an INSIGHTFUL mod, so in case you don't get it, here's one "Damned Insightful" for you.

        Rather sad, all the energy and time spent on things that in the end mean nothing, while those around us are lonely or in pain, and it is within out power to help, but we do nothing.

        • Re:questions (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bonehead ( 6382 )
          OK, guys...

          Here's the answer to the "why can't I get a date" thing.

          All you need to do to get a date is to come across as a cocky, arrogant, rude asshole whenever you talk to women. I don't pretend to understand why, but women eat that shit up. (it doesn't hurt to lay off the computer talk, either....)

          Now, if you're looking for a quality, intelligent woman to fall in love with and marry, then things get a little more complicated. The above advice will, however, at least get you laid.

          (Yes, I know it's
          • All you need to do to get a date is to come across as a cocky, arrogant, rude asshole whenever you talk to women. I don't pretend to understand why, but women eat that shit up.

            Millions of years of evolution. It makes you look like an alpha male who will lead the tribe and be able to provide well for her children. Sadly while I understand this effect I can't actually pull it off, ergo my presence on Slashdot on a Friday night.
            • Yeah, that makes about as much sense as anything. I still can't help but laugh my ass off whenever I hear a woman bitching and moaning about not being able to find a "nice guy". It's not that there aren't plenty of nice guys out there, it's just that women don't give them a second glance...

              I should also mention that the strategy I laid out in my above post is much more effective if you can also make yourself seem really, really dumb as a part of the act...

              As far as being able to pull it off, that's easy

  • 125 Questions? What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Knight Thrasher ( 766792 ) * on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:44PM (#12966056) Journal
    We already know the answer to the ONE question... What we REALLY need to do is build a machine to figure out what that question is - who's with me?!
    • I'm more curious about "How can we predict when the Slashdot admins screw up and post this story again."

      Besides. You aren't going to like the answer the computer gives you. You really aren't going to like it.

  • Dark Matter (#1) vs Unified Physics (#5) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:45PM (#12966062)
    Really? I'd think swapping them round might be a good idea. I won't comment on the ordering of biology vs physics though, as it's hard to fairly rank the two.

  • How did cooperative behavior evolve?" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by team99parody ( 880782 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:47PM (#12966075) Homepage
    That seems to be an easy one.

    A preditor/parasite found that it's easier to keep eating if it doesn't kill off it's host completely. Small steps from there could make it benign to it's host; and further small steps can make it cooperative.

    • Re:How did cooperative behavior evolve?" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Shimmer ( 3036 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @08:18PM (#12966529) Journal
      It might seem to be an easy one, but your answer doesn't explain most cooperation.

      Cooperative behavior arises out of an evolutionary phenonemon known as kin selection [wikipedia.org]. The basic idea is that if you are related to another organism, you know that you are likely to share some portion of your genes. Thus, it's in your interest to assist your relative in surving to reproduce so that your shared genes are passed down.

      -- Brian Berns
    • If you RTFA you would have realised that they were not talking about parasites or corss species cooperation but infact the social organisation and development somewhat contradictory to darwins theory. Many animals from humans to penguins cooperate and group instead of competeing amoungst one another. It can also be seen as more evidence for darwin since it is logical to assume that over many thousands of years many species realised that What is be for themselves is generally best for the group and that they

  • You know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cpugeniusmv ( 828846 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @06:52PM (#12966106) Homepage
    42 * 2.9761904761904761904761904761905 == 125 Coincidence? I think not!

  • How did cooperative behavior evolve? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:00PM (#12966149) Homepage Journal
    Ultruism, while not a human specific trait, IIRC, Orcas will give their lives for the lives of other pod members, ultruism, as practised by our kinds is difficult to jive with the tenents of evolution. There have been attempts to define ultruism in terms of the mainstream theory of evolution, I know S. Gould took a stab at it in his seminal book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory [amazon.com] and Unto Others The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior [harvard.edu] by Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson, represents another attempt, but the bottom line is there is no clear answer (which explains why it's on the list :)).

    Generally answers seem to cluster around the idea of kinship and the furthering of an individuals gene pool.Perhaps the answer will come in tandem with the solution to another evolutionary riddle pertaining to our kind, why is it we have such relatively small canines? The males of most primate species have large canines especially for fighting, usually other males in order to win controll of groups of females. Some speculation has it that monogamy in our kind did away with the need for large canines, or maybe, in our kind females did away with the male perrogative of controlling breeding?

    !Happy Birthday Canada!

    • The idea of ultuism being tied to kinship has ties into the idea that our relatively, large brain developed to handle our complex social relationships.

      From a webpage on Molecular Insights into Human Brain Evolution [plosjournals.org] by Jane Bradbury, the following quote applies:

      "For natural selection to work, the costs of brain evolution must be outweighed by the advantages gained in terms of fitness. For many years, explains ecological psychologist Robin Dunbar (University of Liverpool, United Kingdom), "people thought th

  • Good questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:01PM (#12966152) Journal
    My favourite is why does time have an arrow? This is closely related to one of the listed questions "why is time different from the other dimensions?"

    Or to put it another way: Why does the entropy of any closed system always increase? Why do we take the 'causal' solution to Maxwell's equations when determining the field generated by an accelerating charge? Why does the evolution of a quantum system appear to involve an irreversible step - wavefunction collapse? These may in fact be the same question in different guises. I think it's the number one question in physics. Every fundamental law of physics has time reversal symmetry (or at least CPT symmetry) and 'future' and 'past' look as similar as 'left' and 'right' at a fundamental level. So the arrow of time we see so blatantly around us is in serious need of explanation. It's almost as if physicists live in denial about the fact that their fundamental theories clearly just don't seem to match up with reality. But there are some good books on the subject such as Zeh [amazon.com]'s.

    • Re:Good questions (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday July 01, 2005 @08:17PM (#12966528) Homepage Journal
      The arrow of time is a curious one. For photons, time must actually be frozen, as relativistic time at the speed of light is zero - even so, photons clearly experience events, otherwise there would be no photoelectic effect and the world would suddenly seem a lot darker - mostly because eyes wouldn't work.


      Now, this is only in relation to someone INSIDE the Universe. Someone from an external frame of reference (if such a concept exists) would see the entire of space/time as a single four-dimensional entity. There would be no "time", because time is a product of being on the inside of the system.


      This seems to answer the question. Your position along the time axis of space/time is your position relative to event zero, along the time axis. The Universe only expands, so the time arrow can only face outwards.


      Problem. Steven Hawking demonstrated that if the Universe were to contract, entropy would STILL increase on any kind of scale. In other words, there would still be some measure (which we can call time if we like) which can ONLY increase, never decrease.


      This complicates the picture, because if time can only increase (even when the Universe is contracting), then time is NOT a simple linear measure. Ok, then what is it? Well, simple logic suggests an answer, but simple logic can be wrong. The suggested answer involves taking the absolute value, which must always be positive.


      However, you can't just throw away the sign of a number and leave it at that, there has to be some reason why you would do this. Let us say that real time is, in fact, TWO dimemsional, and that the time we experience is along a vector in that space. Well, the length of a 2D vector can be calculated quite easily. Treat the end-point as a complex number and take the absolute value.


      Now, treating time as a two dimensional entity raises its own problems. Why two? Why not three? Or four? In fact, this leads me back to another post I did a while back, relating space and time as vectors, when discussing relativity.


      Let us treat space/time as a single four dimensional entity. A plain, ordinary four dimensional entity. Nothing special about any of the dimensions, nothing unique, nothing out of the ordinary - other than being four dimensional.


      Now, if subjective time is plotted as the vector we are travelling along in this 4D space/time system, then subjective time is (again) the absolute value of that vector and must always be positive as a result, regardless of the behaviour of "physical" time.


      Ok, does it make sense to regard subjective time as the vector we are travelling in? That one, I can't answer, but a very superficial glance would indicate that it would seem logical enough. The vector indicates a speed of some sort, so why not the speed of subjective time?

      • Once you're using tensor analysis [wikipedia.org] for your physics and engineering homework space/time is a four-dimensional vector. IIRC the spatial dimensions are real, the temporal dimension is imaginary.

  • Why so much bio? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jcorno ( 889560 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:03PM (#12966165)
    More than half of the top 25 were biology questions. You'd think physics would be a little more strongly represented. But I'm all for answering the evolution questions if it'll stop my in-laws from giving me creationist literature.

    • I think it's because (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      If you look, they chose to ask very specific questions about biology and very general questions about physics. That very first question on the list, "what is the universe made of?", could have been easily split into five to ten different specific questions; similarly the list in general contained a number of groups of five to ten biology questions that are in a similar enough category they possibly could have been in some way collated. If they'd done either of these things the balance of the list would have

    • Re:Why so much bio? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lelitsch ( 31136 )
      Probably because Science is mainly a biology magazine nowadays. APL would have a very different selection.

      And, as another of the respondents pointed out, the physics questions are much broader.

    • Re: Why so much bio? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @08:18PM (#12966530)


      > More than half of the top 25 were biology questions. You'd think physics would be a little more strongly represented.

      If you're interested in the physics questions you can cut out the journalistic middle-men and read John Baez's Open Questions in Physics [ucr.edu]. I found it informative, entertaining, and for the most part comprehensible to a moderately well informed non-physicist.

      Wikipedia has a List of unsolved problems [wikipedia.org] broken down by field, but the field lists I read didn't strike me as particularly well done. YMMV.

      > But I'm all for answering the evolution questions if it'll stop my in-laws from giving me creationist literature.

      Facts, answers, and explanations aren't going to make creationists blink an eye.



    • But I'm all for answering the evolution questions if it'll stop my in-laws from giving me creationist literature.

      Give them a banana in exchange. Worked for me.

  • Why humans have so few genes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:04PM (#12966173)
    The article on why humans have so few genes [sciencemag.org] does some nice hand-waving but fails to answer the core question. Sure, the genome can do some interesting combinatoric stuff to get more out of a given length of DNA, but that does not answer the question -- why should humans have fewer genes than something so simple as a mustard plant or rice?

    I suspect the answer is related to human (mammalian) mobility and thermoregulation. If a rice plant gets stuck in a hot place, all it can do is use a different part of its genome to make proteins suited for hotter weather. In contrast, people can move out of the sun while their body basically maintains a constant temperature. Similarly if the plant faces too much cold, too much water, too little water, to much sun, too little sun, too much salt, etc. it can do nothing but sit there and hopefully pull something out of its genome that can cope.

    The point is that plants must adapt to whatever their environment gives them much more so than humans. Human mobility and the ability to modify its environment means it is less reliant on gene-based adaptability.

    • Re:Why humans have so few genes (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rdwald ( 831442 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:21PM (#12966243)
      I would guess that we have so few protein-encoding genes because we have a large amount of non-protein-based regulatory machinery. In particular, the study of RNA-based regulation in mammals has exploded in the past few years, and it looks like a huge amount of regulation takes place without proteins. I would bet that many of the things which are done crudely in plants with proteins are done in extremely complicated fashions with RNA-based regulation in mammals. That isn't to say that proteins aren't involved; rather, I expect that we can get much more use out of a single protein when that protein's behaivor is affected by RNA in the cell.

      • In particular, the study of RNA-based regulation in mammals has exploded in the past few years, and it looks like a huge amount of regulation takes place without proteins. I would bet that many of the things which are done crudely in plants with proteins are done in extremely complicated fashions with RNA-based regulation in mammals.

        Plants have equally interesting RNA-based regulatory mechanisms. Some of the early RNAi-based gene silencing work was done in plants. And recently, there was a suggestion that

    • Gee, if the core question could be answered in THE ARTICLE do you really think it would be one of the top problems of our time ?
    • So humans are just a lean'n'mean RISC [wikipedia.org] version of rice?

    • In addition to lack of mobility, and ability to modify our environment, I think part of the reason we get by with such a small genome may be because we are intellegent. That seems backwards, but think about - plants have to have everything they do hard-coded into their genes. Therefore, they must have all sorts of conditions and exceptions in their genes to survive changing environments, and their existence is just the playing out of those genes. However, humans more than most animals, can learn and think.
    • Something I've wondered about...

      Would it be possible to tell (even an educated guess) from a creatures genome, whether or not that genome had been subject to engineering at some point in its ancestry?

      One thing that occurs to me is that if a genome were engineered from scratch, assuming that the engineer were not trying to conceal their handywork, the genome wouldn't be overcomplicated. I am assuming that the KISS principle applies to DNA.

      Just throwing it out there as a possibility.

  • There is only one real question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VividU ( 175339 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:14PM (#12966210)
    What is the nature and origin of the Universe?

    Now that is the real question. And I'm not talking Big Bang or Grand Unified Theory or whatever. I'm talking "Big Picture" here.

    What existed before our universe? What is the original nature of existence...of what we call "reality"?

    • Re:There is only one real question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rossifer ( 581396 ) * on Friday July 01, 2005 @08:23PM (#12966549) Journal
      What is the nature and origin of the Universe?

      It is and has been. (seriously, that's all the answer there is).

      What existed before our universe?

      Unknowable. "Before" the universe began is "before" the concept of time has any meaning. Alternatively, if we could observe things that were "outside of the universe", we would have to expand the scope of the universe to include those observations, meaning that they were no longer "outside of the universe".

      What is the original nature of existence...of what we call "reality"?

      This is a vague question. One possible interpretation is that you're asking about the "super-universe" in a different way from the "before the universe" question. It has the same problems as the "before the universe" question (if we could know, we'd have to redefine the universe).

      The other interpretation is that you're asking if the nature of reality has changed through the lifecycle of the observable universe, presumably though alterations of fundamental laws from some initial "ideal" state. This question, while clearly less "grand", is more relevant, because it offers a source of falsifiable assertions and possible experiments.

      Being able to classify questions as "irrelevant" and "not answerable" for various reasons is a part of "knowing what you don't know" and the rather tricky subset, "knowing what you can't know". Wisdom (and a lot of saved time) lies in a deeper understanding of how to determine the value of questions.

      I must admit that about 12 years ago, I got comfortable with saying "I don't know" along with the realization that people are capable of asking bad questions as if they were the most important questions around. My favorite is "Why are we here?" It's worthless because it begs about four other questions that have no objective answer.

      The interesting form of the question is, "Why am I here?" and it can only be conclusively answered by exactly one person: the same person who asked the question. What's really tragic is how many people are afraid of answering it themselves and accept someone else's answer out of fear of "getting it wrong". *sigh*

      Regards,
      Ross
      • This is a semantic problem. There are really two definitions of "universe". In the first, it is merely the collection of everything we currently see and know, our best guess. This "universe" definition can be expanded as we grow in knowledge and make more sophisticated observations. The second definition of universe is universal. It is the encompassing of all reality whether we know of it or not.

        So several points to make here. First, while I think a universal "universe" exists, it's possible that the axio

  • The article on why humans have so few genes [sciencemag.org] does some nice hand-waving but fails to answer the core question. Sure, the genome can do some interesting combinatoric stuff to get more out of a given length of DNA, but that does not answer the question -- why should humans have fewer genes than something so simple as a mustard plant or rice?

    Actually, it's mostly that evolution has created DNA sequences, mitochondrial DNA, and various fragments and editing/copying mechanisms that allows it t
    • You're answering "How can the human DNA sequence be so small?" but I think the question is "Why is the DNA sequence so small when that of rice isn't?" Your argument applies equally well to rice yet it has a long DNA sequence. Is this an accident? Or is there an fundamental 'architecture' difference between human and rice DNA?
  • ...What is conventional computing?

    Is it binary operations implemented with semiconductors? Is it the use of a monolithic computation device to perform generic tasks?

    Or is it something more nebulous, like the ability for an individual's performance to be improved through the use of a computer? The use of an extremely configurable tool to aid in specific tasks with real-world results?


    • > What is conventional computing?

      Probably means "what we do now, as opposed to quantum computing".

      However, after the summary of the P=NP question the article continues as a sort of fluff piece, where you don't know what the hell the author's point is.


  • Add Saturn to the queue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yohohogreengiant ( 719145 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:47PM (#12966394) Homepage
    Saturn is rotating slower: [bbc.co.uk] And Saturn is rotating seven minutes more slowly than when probes measured its spin in the 70s and 80s - an observation experts cannot yet explain.
  • A: 42
    Q: a/s/l?
    Now you know what the answer means.
  • That's one that I've wondered about and, last I heard, there was no good answer. It's been about five years since I heard about it, but back then nobody really knew why glass could be seen through.
    • Glass is transparent because the majority of its atoms are aligned so the photons of light are not reflected, absorbed or scattered.
      • Insufficient answer. Water is transparent, yet there is no molecular alignment at all. Carbon (diamond) is highly aligned, but it is transparent regardless of which direction the light is shining through it. If transparency were a function of molecular alignment, water would be black or white, and diamonds and other crystals would only let light through at certain angles.
        • Here's a snippet from a better explanation than I was going to write [madsci.org]:

          "A transparent material is one in which the charged particles can't permanently absorb any photons of visible light. While these charged particles all try to absorb the visible light photons, they find that there are no permanent quantum states available to them when they do. Instead, they play with the photons briefly and then let them continue on their way."

  • Superultimate question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shimmer ( 3036 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @08:33PM (#12966593) Journal
    Martin Gardner says that the superultimate question [nybooks.com] is: Why does the universe exist?

    Or, put another way: Why is there something rather than nothing?

    Perhaps this is more of a philosophical or metaphysical question, but I think it fits in well with the great scientific questions.

    If you think about it, you'll realize that things would be alot simpler if nothing existed at all. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? It's a pretty overwhelming thought -- a good reminder that we still don't know much about the fundamental rules of nature. As Gardner said, "the night is large".

    • Re:Superultimate question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @09:46PM (#12966894) Journal
      The fact that Gardiner can even ask that question is remarkable.

      400 years ago he would have been burned at the stake for posing the question since it was patently obvious that everything exists to demonstrate the glory of God. Anyone who would question that was a heretic. Today, he just has to watch out for F&Fs. (Fatwas and Falwells)

  • right... (Score:3)

    by t35t0r ( 751958 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @09:04PM (#12966723)
    What Is the Universe Made Of? No we don't know what dark matter is, that's why it's called dark.

    What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness? If you could solve this you would in essence be "God". The sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and because we tend to determine the workings of all the parts, it's difficult for any one person or persons to see the big picture.

    How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended? For as long as the brain can hold out.

    How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell? This won't be answered in the US ..probably in S. Korea.

    How Does Earth's Interior Work? Ever watch The Core?

    Are We Alone in the Universe? "If we were, it would be an awful waste of space"

    Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible? Not if the pharmaceutical companies have anything to say about it!!

    How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be? What you mean you can't tell right now?

    What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When? The US is the world's largest grower of corn. It can provide enough *biodiesel* for the entire US and then some. The oil cartels and the politicans (e.g. Bush) who have alot to lose if we switch to biodiesel fear this. So government pays corn farmers money (called subsidies) to underproduce or burn excess crop. Granted biodiesel does burn at a higher temperature and would require modification of engine components (probably would be more expensive initially), but in the long run this would be much cheaper for everyone. Currently companies such as Cummins [cummins.com] and its subsidiaries [fleetguard.com] are looking into biodiesel.

    ..just some ideas
    • "The US is the world's largest grower of corn. It can provide enough *biodiesel* for the entire US and then some. The oil cartels and the politicans (e.g. Bush) who have alot to lose if we switch to biodiesel fear this"

      Maybe someone can convince Dubbya that they could turn rainforests into biodiesel.

      But then countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Congo would end up in the same position as the gulf states today and US foreign policy would be *right* back where it started...

  • Are we alone (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rsynnott ( 886713 )
    Are we alone? Almost certainly not; there's no reason it should have happened here and not elsewhere in this insanely large universe. Will we ever find out? Maybe not... how many technologically sophisticated cultures are there actively broadcasting their presence, in the wavelengths we're watching, close enough that we can hear them?

  • Oh, come on. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @09:24PM (#12966803) Homepage Journal
    Dark matter and the biological basis of consciousness are well below the big question: What is knowledge? What is consciousness, and what is truth? This should be answered before the question of what the biological basis of consciousness can be known. We don't even know what consciousness is, so why do we look for its biological basis first?

    (The answer to the last question is: We didn't. But we haven't found any good answer yet, unless we believe in Plato et al. But science is, metaphorically speaking, a house of cards built in the air. And I'm saying that with no disrespect to science. (And yes, I'm a bit drunk, but I'm still serious.))
    • This is why I am skeptical of AI.

      In order to develop software, you either need an fairly exact idea as to what you are engineering or you need to engineer something that can find the solution for itself.

      In the latter case, you need to engineer something that can *recognise* the solution when it has found it.

      When it comes to consciousness or even *knowledge*, good luck on either one of those!

    • Re:Oh, come on. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jcorno ( 889560 )
      Dark matter and the biological basis of consciousness are well below the big question: What is knowledge? What is consciousness, and what is truth? This should be answered before the question of what the biological basis of consciousness can be known. We don't even know what consciousness is, so why do we look for its biological basis first?

      Those are philosophy questions, not science questions. You have to start with, "We are conscious. Animals are not. What's the difference?"

    • Re:Oh, come on. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FleaPlus ( 6935 )
      We don't even know what consciousness is, so why do we look for its biological basis first?

      Last I checked, not having a good definition of what "life" is didn't keep up from discovering the biochemical basis of it (DNA). 50-some years after DNA's discovery, we still aren't sure what life is.

  • 126, 127, 128, and ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @11:26PM (#12967216) Homepage
    They haven't even scratched the surface. How about:
    • Why do dogs have wet noses?
    • If oranges are called oranges because of their color, why isn't a banana a "yellow?"
    • Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
    • Did Adam have a belly button?
    • Gallagher: Do single people have dirty backs?
    • Gallagher, again: What kind of wood were George Washington's false teeth made of?
    • From South Park's Sexual Harrasment Panda episode - Skeeter: No! I wanna know something from Mr. Panda Bear here! If you pandas are from mountainous areas of China and Tibet, how come you eat bamboo which is prone to grow only in dryer more arid regions?
  • We all know that particles (i.e. electrons, protons) with opposite charges get attracted to each other.

    My question is...

    WHY? Yes, I know they're opposite charges, and the Coulomb's law and everything... but why? Any quantum physicist to enlighten me?
    • Science never answers to the question "why". Science proposes models (theories) that allow scientists to make predictions accurate to some degree, that is all.

      The Coulomb law is such a model, but it is as similar in accuracy with respect to the way electrons really behave as Newtonian mechanics is to the way gravity really works -- i.e. you can make very good predictions from the Coulomb law (Ohm's law, macroscopic electric fields, etc), but you can't predict lighwaves. The next level up would be the Maxwe

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close