I made it about half way through that before giving up. I couldn't figure out what point the author was trying to make. It seemed to essentially be saying that 'time exists and stuff happens' with...
I made it about half way through that before giving up. I couldn't figure out what point the author was trying to make. It seemed to essentially be saying that 'time exists and stuff happens' with a lot of flowery, obfuscating language. And I'm an engineer. I can't imagine how a layperson is supposed to make heads or tails of anything here.
This seriously sets off my bullshit alarm, but I didn't dig deep enough to point to what and where exactly.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I appreciate @sqew posting this, but passages like simply made me question the point that the author was trying to make.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I appreciate @sqew posting this, but passages like
The roughly 10^29 elementary particles (quarks and electrons) that your body is made of form a tube-like shape through spacetime, analogous to the spiral shape of the Moon’s orbit (“The Moon’s Orbit”) but more complicated. If you’re swimming laps in a pool, that part of your spacetime tube has a zig-zag shape, and if you’re using a playground swing, that part of your spacetime tube has a serpentine shape.
simply made me question the point that the author was trying to make.
Most plants, really. Photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and combines that with water to fuel a plants growth. Other than trace minerals from the soil, by and large a plants...
Most plants, really.
Photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and combines that with water to fuel a plants growth. Other than trace minerals from the soil, by and large a plants mass is derived from the air.
This is also why forests are important in regards to mitigating climate change. Trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere, and mostly hold on to it.
Trees are mostly carbon by mass. They pull CO2 from the air, keep the carbon and release the oxygen. Trees are made of air. You either find that neat or you don't. Both are fine.
Trees are mostly carbon by mass. They pull CO2 from the air, keep the carbon and release the oxygen.
Trees are made of air. You either find that neat or you don't. Both are fine.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article! Personally, I imagine that the ideas presented in it are better described in the author's book - it is simply impossible to talk about red blood cells, Einstein,...
I'm glad you enjoyed the article! Personally, I imagine that the ideas presented in it are better described in the author's book - it is simply impossible to talk about red blood cells, Einstein, the Swedish word for an 'atom heap' and death disintegration all in a few paragraphs without sounding like you are simply throwing out random examples and anecdotes. The ideas themselves may be sound, but I guess what turned me off was the presentation - a rapid listing of seemingly unrelated phenomena which the reader is meant to piece together in an attempt to catch a glimpse of the author's point.
To me, the author is expressing his wonder at the complexity of life and suggesting a different way of looking at our existence. The idea of emergence - how inanimate objects can come together and...
To me, the author is expressing his wonder at the complexity of life and suggesting a different way of looking at our existence. The idea of emergence - how inanimate objects can come together and form sentient life - is fascinating. His visualization of life as a braid in space-time is interesting brain food. The article doesn't have a purpose, it's just musings from a physicist.
I'll agree that it's an interesting visualization, but it's really not written well. The same point could be made a lot more clearly in maybe 3-4 paragraphs.
I'll agree that it's an interesting visualization, but it's really not written well. The same point could be made a lot more clearly in maybe 3-4 paragraphs.
Perhaps it could be explained more concisely, but then it might risk being too information dense and hard to read. I actually like the scattered anecdotes and stories, it helped break the article...
Perhaps it could be explained more concisely, but then it might risk being too information dense and hard to read. I actually like the scattered anecdotes and stories, it helped break the article up and prevent it from being too dull and dry.
I made it about half way through that before giving up. I couldn't figure out what point the author was trying to make. It seemed to essentially be saying that 'time exists and stuff happens' with a lot of flowery, obfuscating language. And I'm an engineer. I can't imagine how a layperson is supposed to make heads or tails of anything here.
This seriously sets off my bullshit alarm, but I didn't dig deep enough to point to what and where exactly.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I appreciate @sqew posting this, but passages like
simply made me question the point that the author was trying to make.
It's neat. That's the point. In the same sense that 99% of a tree's mass actually comes from the air and not the ground.
I'm sorry, what? A tree's mass comes from the air, not the ground? What does that even mean?
Most plants, really.
Photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and combines that with water to fuel a plants growth. Other than trace minerals from the soil, by and large a plants mass is derived from the air.
This is also why forests are important in regards to mitigating climate change. Trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere, and mostly hold on to it.
Yeah, that's much clearer. I read the earlier comment the wrong way and got lost.
Trees are mostly carbon by mass. They pull CO2 from the air, keep the carbon and release the oxygen.
Trees are made of air. You either find that neat or you don't. Both are fine.
Ah, that makes way more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
I wouldn't say that means they're 'made of air', but now I get what you're saying.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article! Personally, I imagine that the ideas presented in it are better described in the author's book - it is simply impossible to talk about red blood cells, Einstein, the Swedish word for an 'atom heap' and death disintegration all in a few paragraphs without sounding like you are simply throwing out random examples and anecdotes. The ideas themselves may be sound, but I guess what turned me off was the presentation - a rapid listing of seemingly unrelated phenomena which the reader is meant to piece together in an attempt to catch a glimpse of the author's point.
I think it's just a matter of quite literally giving some perspective on the objective nature of reality.
I enjoyed it.
To me, the author is expressing his wonder at the complexity of life and suggesting a different way of looking at our existence. The idea of emergence - how inanimate objects can come together and form sentient life - is fascinating. His visualization of life as a braid in space-time is interesting brain food. The article doesn't have a purpose, it's just musings from a physicist.
I'll agree that it's an interesting visualization, but it's really not written well. The same point could be made a lot more clearly in maybe 3-4 paragraphs.
Perhaps it could be explained more concisely, but then it might risk being too information dense and hard to read. I actually like the scattered anecdotes and stories, it helped break the article up and prevent it from being too dull and dry.