In defense of the humanities
I have always found inspiration in reading, enjoy the pleasure it provides a work of art, listening all kinds of music. I feel that establishing a tacit and honest dialogue with the creator of the work. The hue of a stroke. A silence in the score. Learn the details, I enjoy the whole and, increasingly, I wonder the aesthetic sense that progressively educates each human brain.
Our time bonus no culture or science. I think it's a mistake, against which I always try to react. Happiness depends heavily facts that we raise, the ideas that inspire us. Banal consumption of media content predictable subtly leads to a sense of scam. However, few people consistently react and express their love for the humanities and the arts.
Recently, I attended the first meeting TED has taken place in Barcelona. TED provides a format for people who have something worth listening to talk openly, elevate and inspire an audience convinced of the need to exchange our ideas. In this event, TedxBarcelona , I heard a talk that caught my particular attention. I would recommend the presentation open Liz Coleman that was projected for all of us (you can turn on subtitles.) Disseminate
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Snowboard Track Blueprint
Disclosure IPTV
science is not an easy task because it involves finding the balance between good intentions that conflict. For example, a text can opt for the principles of honesty, depth and information are not trivial or, conversely, you can try to be accessible, understandable, informative and entertaining. A simulation illustrating the physical principle can be reliable or may be artistic. Each of the details of a text constitute a decision that not everyone judges alike.
In this intricate web of choices, many scientists prefer not to get involved and allow disclosure in the hands of people trained in the world of communication. It's a shame, because the voice of the scientist always brings a special value to any attempt to disclosure. This lack often makes science at the frontier of knowledge is neglected or misrepresented in the media.
In an attempt to propose something different, together with Prof. Maite Soto (Audiovisual Communication Sciences, UAB), we have initiated several outreach projects underway. The idea is to try to explain the science frontier way that is satisfactory to both scientists to the media. So far we Conclude a report on the telescope to detect lightning Magic range to reach Earth. We are also creating ua television (IPTV) that will have several channels and programs. We will complete the effort with a radio.
There is a brief introduction to the ideas in the folowing link:
advanced Disclosure 
In this intricate web of choices, many scientists prefer not to get involved and allow disclosure in the hands of people trained in the world of communication. It's a shame, because the voice of the scientist always brings a special value to any attempt to disclosure. This lack often makes science at the frontier of knowledge is neglected or misrepresented in the media.
In an attempt to propose something different, together with Prof. Maite Soto (Audiovisual Communication Sciences, UAB), we have initiated several outreach projects underway. The idea is to try to explain the science frontier way that is satisfactory to both scientists to the media. So far we Conclude a report on the telescope to detect lightning Magic range to reach Earth. We are also creating ua television (IPTV) that will have several channels and programs. We will complete the effort with a radio.
There is a brief introduction to the ideas in the folowing link:
advanced Disclosure
Saturday, August 29, 2009
38 Weeks Bad Headaches
minimum algorithm
The inteligilidad of the universe is, for many, incomprehensible. Why the universe is intelligible? Why the universe is governed by laws which we represent with mathematics? "They depend on the laws of the universe in our history, our culture, sex of the scientist who found them? Is it possible to conceive of an alternative description to the physical laws fully independent but as predictive as we use today? All these questions are implicit in the famous quote from Einstein in which he suggests that the most incomprehensible is that the universe is comprehensible. There is also a test of Wigner on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the universe. Intelligibility is certainly a mystery.
There are many interesting points that I would love to discuss. For example, it is necessary to define "intelligibility". It can also provide adjectives and objectives. One could analyze the concept of "depth" at different levels of understanding of the same phenomenon. Reserve this point for another entry. I would like here talk about a point of view (not mine, nor defend) bit darker and said: intelligibility is only a computational concept.
From the world of algorithmic computability is Gregory Chaitin of IBM who suggests that intelligibility is reduced to achieve a minimum algorithm describing a natural phenomenon. A good theory should provide the minimum prescription for computing a plethora of physical phenomena. A more concise the theory, the greater our intelligibility. This view welcomes the laws of Newton. They are concise, allow us to build bridges, calculating trajectories, create buildings.
Moreover, the intelligibility understood as obtaining an algorithm meets minimum number of paradoxes. On the one hand, we know that the minimum size of a predicate is incalculable. This is a concept associated with the Kolmogorov complexity, which is undecidable due to Gödel's theorem. We will never know if an algorithm is minimal. Is undecidable. Moreover, it is obvious that extensive algorithms that describe a physical phenomenon can have a great capacity for generalization. For example, the laws of general relativity are much more extensive and predictive than those of Newton. General relativity gives us a complex algorithm, not minimum, but vastly more profound than Newtonian gravity because the invariance under diffeomorphisms has penetrated theory and has provided a highly refined mathematical structure. Forgetting
already Chaitin, sometimes I think that intelligibility may be a foreign concept to our logic. If so, nothing can be said. Otherwise, if something makes sense, I bet that intelligibility is related to depth. Reserve this discussion for another entry. 
The inteligilidad of the universe is, for many, incomprehensible. Why the universe is intelligible? Why the universe is governed by laws which we represent with mathematics? "They depend on the laws of the universe in our history, our culture, sex of the scientist who found them? Is it possible to conceive of an alternative description to the physical laws fully independent but as predictive as we use today? All these questions are implicit in the famous quote from Einstein in which he suggests that the most incomprehensible is that the universe is comprehensible. There is also a test of Wigner on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the universe. Intelligibility is certainly a mystery.
There are many interesting points that I would love to discuss. For example, it is necessary to define "intelligibility". It can also provide adjectives and objectives. One could analyze the concept of "depth" at different levels of understanding of the same phenomenon. Reserve this point for another entry. I would like here talk about a point of view (not mine, nor defend) bit darker and said: intelligibility is only a computational concept.
From the world of algorithmic computability is Gregory Chaitin of IBM who suggests that intelligibility is reduced to achieve a minimum algorithm describing a natural phenomenon. A good theory should provide the minimum prescription for computing a plethora of physical phenomena. A more concise the theory, the greater our intelligibility. This view welcomes the laws of Newton. They are concise, allow us to build bridges, calculating trajectories, create buildings.
Moreover, the intelligibility understood as obtaining an algorithm meets minimum number of paradoxes. On the one hand, we know that the minimum size of a predicate is incalculable. This is a concept associated with the Kolmogorov complexity, which is undecidable due to Gödel's theorem. We will never know if an algorithm is minimal. Is undecidable. Moreover, it is obvious that extensive algorithms that describe a physical phenomenon can have a great capacity for generalization. For example, the laws of general relativity are much more extensive and predictive than those of Newton. General relativity gives us a complex algorithm, not minimum, but vastly more profound than Newtonian gravity because the invariance under diffeomorphisms has penetrated theory and has provided a highly refined mathematical structure. Forgetting
already Chaitin, sometimes I think that intelligibility may be a foreign concept to our logic. If so, nothing can be said. Otherwise, if something makes sense, I bet that intelligibility is related to depth. Reserve this discussion for another entry.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Simpsons Hitand Run Online
intelligibility as "Disclosure? The moment of discovery
Stunned, hear and read attempts to publicize the Higgs particle. It is natural that the most important in elementary particle physics monopolize the attention of journalists dedicated to the disclosure. A small fraction of these journalists know deeply the subject and yet, so autosificiencia present it as inconsistency. An even smaller fraction of them rave and uncontrolled mix scientific ideas with God, with mysteries and unimaginable catastrophes. The really funny thing is that it is the latter-degraded "version of the scientific publication which reaches a large television.
Funny, right? Are so few seconds devoted to science on television that you could imagine that those with the small privilege to disclose in a mass media should have an obsession with truth, for the fair valuation of the achievements and the presentation honest the objectives pursued. It turns out that the demand for visceral passions that supposedly requires television is a sufficient excuse to mislead, to distort, to trivialize the efforts of thousands of researchers.
strange thing is that nothing I say is neither new nor special. We have learned to live with scientific misinformation in the mass media. But I dare say, on this occasion, one thing was different. We are mired in an economic crisis. Many politicians talk about the need to replace an economy based on non-productive speculation by a knowledge-based economy. However, the same media group that advocates This idea is often responsible for the scientific disinformation program has left me stunned. Seeking a word for all this: desdivulgación?, "Antidivulgación?," Mediocrity? Surely any reader has any suggestions most appropriate.
promise never to write a negative tone input. Is useless.
To compensate, I want to say that in my heart, I hope with a passion difficult to define the results of the LHC. If we find the Higgs particle and the Standard Model is confirmed, we will have achieved a top intellectual. The theory of electroweak and strong interactions form a complex construction but accurate and consistent in the world of elementary particles. I think in a sophisticated and incredibly accurate clock. If, on the contrary, we find the Higgs, our theory would fail and should be modified (eg could face dimensions of triviality of the quartic interaction). A clock gear would not be right and we should understand what form it should be replaced. Both options are really exciting. And we know the solution within a very short time. 
Stunned, hear and read attempts to publicize the Higgs particle. It is natural that the most important in elementary particle physics monopolize the attention of journalists dedicated to the disclosure. A small fraction of these journalists know deeply the subject and yet, so autosificiencia present it as inconsistency. An even smaller fraction of them rave and uncontrolled mix scientific ideas with God, with mysteries and unimaginable catastrophes. The really funny thing is that it is the latter-degraded "version of the scientific publication which reaches a large television.
Funny, right? Are so few seconds devoted to science on television that you could imagine that those with the small privilege to disclose in a mass media should have an obsession with truth, for the fair valuation of the achievements and the presentation honest the objectives pursued. It turns out that the demand for visceral passions that supposedly requires television is a sufficient excuse to mislead, to distort, to trivialize the efforts of thousands of researchers.
strange thing is that nothing I say is neither new nor special. We have learned to live with scientific misinformation in the mass media. But I dare say, on this occasion, one thing was different. We are mired in an economic crisis. Many politicians talk about the need to replace an economy based on non-productive speculation by a knowledge-based economy. However, the same media group that advocates This idea is often responsible for the scientific disinformation program has left me stunned. Seeking a word for all this: desdivulgación?, "Antidivulgación?," Mediocrity? Surely any reader has any suggestions most appropriate.
promise never to write a negative tone input. Is useless.
To compensate, I want to say that in my heart, I hope with a passion difficult to define the results of the LHC. If we find the Higgs particle and the Standard Model is confirmed, we will have achieved a top intellectual. The theory of electroweak and strong interactions form a complex construction but accurate and consistent in the world of elementary particles. I think in a sophisticated and incredibly accurate clock. If, on the contrary, we find the Higgs, our theory would fail and should be modified (eg could face dimensions of triviality of the quartic interaction). A clock gear would not be right and we should understand what form it should be replaced. Both options are really exciting. And we know the solution within a very short time.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Vinod Pressure Cooker And Safety Valve
I honestly believe that one of the special
sensations that a person can experience is
the moment to discover or understand deeply
fact. Is a moment of epiphany
difficult to transcribe in plain words.
The best analogy I can find is the feeling that a gap opens
and vertigo invades the mind.
is common to find the story that make some scientists
moments when
perceived depth of an idea. For example, Einstein
speaks of an understanding of what we now call
Principle of Equivalence, sitting in his office
patents. Heisenberg, take a break from the overwhelming
Bohr, came up with the ideas of uncertainty
in the Danish countryside and went to the top of a rock.
Dirac understood the need to render your
equation (Dirac) facing the spark of fire. Roetgen
entered a frenzied state of excitement
of which his wife was a participant. All are examples of magical moments
different from the
abstraction that normally characterizes a scientist.
not introspection, if not excitement.
I invite anyone who reads these lines and know of
curious stories like these to share them with us.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Add On Speakers For Lcd Tv
Music provides an analogy to science always want to share and discuss with my friends.
accomplished musician, sometimes, to build a composition steeped in beauty. It is intangible, indefinable, unknown is the path that has taken her. But the result is clear:
everyone can enjoy your music. The musician can then transcribe their music on paper using a specific notation. Perhaps in centuries, the musical written language is different. The score will have a different notation, but music is the same. Music transcription is an artifice, but an important device because the musician must master to the last detail. The score represents the music, transmits, makes it comparable and reproducible. However, the emotion contained in the music and is independent of transcription.
Science tries to understand laws governing the universe and transcribe them as equations. These equations are the artifice necessary to communicate our findings to predict new phenomena, to settle our progress. Sometimes the equations, as the score, guided in part the investigation of each one of us. But the main principles, the deepest insights are a separate entity that goes far beyond its written representation. We can imagine worlds intelligent systems based on scientific knowledge different from our mathematical notation. However, both systems will agree to identify and understand the attraction of the masses, particle creation, the speed limits on them.
Science is language that is expressed, although there must necessarily be expressed in concrete language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)