Bahram Kheradmand

Someone is shy

Bahram hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
I would have to say human knowledge is now still too little for us to be able to talk about quantum mechanics in terms of big things as balls, tangible to human perception. I do agree that some materials might have characteristics that we are not yet familiar with, but you should always look at how science progresses, and although you are welcome to make smart extrapolations and hope to find something by designing smart experiments, you are not at all welcome to throw ideas (and insist on them without any proof) into the idea-space (literature, internet, whatever media) and expect to be regarded as legit. Andrew: True, but indeed human logic takes its raw data from human perception, or extended perception (high-tech). and the sentence about A being A and non-A at the same time is a semantically wrong. You could however say A is a system which could be in two states (s and s') at the same time. Semantics are very important because they determine how you think about stuff. The problem is that people think they understand the exact meaning of theories like Shrodinger's cat and then come to strange conclusions, which leads us to Michael : I have heard of it, but never observed it. Whenever I looked it was either dead or alive. The subatomic particles however were and were not there (and by "were" we mean "observable"). Assumptions are dangerous. Testable hypotheses are absolutely welcome.
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
When you say, then what is plasma, I believe you see a connection to the ball and the box metaphor. but I dont see it.But what is plasma? Plasma is a new way of thinking about matter and energy. It is exactly a disproof of all classical theories, which were all once proven fact to most people, until someone new came and claimed to have a better solution.
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
Hi, When we think, a series of activities have to build up in our brain, so that the combination of newly emerged patterns could lead to something new, which is our conclusion, or next step of thought. When we assume, we put too much certainty in one of the pieces of the series, which could be false. It means that our final results could always be wrong. They could be right, and by right, I mean useful, because our perception of the world is not complete. Now, if someone claims that their result is absolutely and undoubtedly true, and will never be disproved till eternity (well, the extinction of humans) then they are claiming that they have not only a perfect perception, but a perfect machinery to deduce, and a perfect framework of thought in that machinery. One thing that evolution has shown us is that almost everything could get better. So I ASSUME that it means that assuming will get better in time, and so will deduction.
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
Is there any way to prevent religious debates from turning into a big fight?
Dialogues must have people who doubt their ideas on both sides. If one side is 100% sure of what he or she thinks, even if it is incorrect, the situation we have could not be called a debate. Religion often sinks deep in people's way of thinking. So when they talk, they are thinking in a system of religious thought. It is consequently very hard to get to their core and show them that there is a tiny probability that god (broad definition) does not exist. Also, hardcore atheists, who insist on the nonexistence of god, and are sure that there is no god, are unable to debate. The worst kinds of fight are seen when both sides are inflexible, and opposing. Two people cannot be both sure and right if they are opposing each other. There are times we are after the answer to simple questions, like "what", which is gaining definitions or new words for new concepts. Sometimes we are after harder questions, like "how", which is gaining mechanisms and relationships between the definitions and concepts we already have. Some people, take it to the next level by asking questions in the form "why", which is actually not that different from "how", but demands a humane purpose behind the phenomenon. When we ask "why" question about nature, we usually have to dump our lack of knowledge in words like energy minimization, entropy, etc. which are by the efforts of some brilliant minds, partly formulated and somehow structured. Still people demand "why", not knowing that they are actually still demanding "how". Religion comes in and gives them an answer "why" and wins their heart (metaphor). Science says "I don't know" and people are disappointed. Now, most people cannot bear the weight of "IGNORANCE", and rather have some answer, than no answer, regardless of what the answer signifies, because it gives them peace of mind. So religion is actually a powerful tool to satisfy the thirst of knowledge, only temporarily.
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
but you cannot do it all the time. of course if you have a box and a ball, and your question is :"Is the ball inside the box?", you can look and if it is not inside the box your answer is "no". But you cannot look everywhere outside the box first, and if you didn't find it conclude :"well, the ball must be in the box then".
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
To prove means :"to show that something is correct and never to be falsified." In math, depending on what you are talking about, there are several kinds of proof, of which I have insufficient knowledge. In scientific point of view, we can "almost" never prove anything and that is actually the rule. What we can do, however, is to say: "we find that this model holds for more than 99.99 % of the cases." Now this is a good starting point and others can build on this, and make other observations and relate their own findings to this and expand the field of human knowledge. But the small amount of error that we might have had in our model could also expand when assumptions are build upon other assumptions and create big errors in the end. So everybody is supposed to be very careful about what they add to science, so others could also use the assumptions in their models. Also very elemental to scientific view is the open-minded-ness towards other models that could predict the same phenomenon. Scientists try to find what model works, knowing that every model is probably not 100% correct.
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
Tyler DeWitt: Hey science teachers -- make it fun
What I find missing in education of youngsters is the broad view of science, and math, and arts and humanities, as facets of our culture. I feel that people who have grown to do a specialized task often forget their own earlier years and thus complicate the fields by using a specific scientific language, which is not even shared between scientists of different fields as close as chemistry and biology. A systematic view of the world, including human culture, is an essential ground for higher education. All people should know how different fields of knowledge are interconnected, so when they specialize in one of them, they could easily approach others and use the methods available only in other fields with no difficulty. Also, as Richard Krooman said above, history of science, and art, could give much insight about how trends appear in these fields and help understand the progression much better.
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
Tyler DeWitt: Hey science teachers -- make it fun
Hi, I would have to disagree with you only on the "proper science terminology" part. Learning a new field of science, or math or humanities, is like learning a new language. You need a dictionary first. and you need time to feel comfortable in the new setting. Of course elementary schools must engage children's curiosity, but not necessarily with the exact terminology. This talk is exactly about the fact that learning needs mediation, and mediation needs both knowledge, and perspective (and hindsight also).
Noface
Bahram Kheradmand
Posted over 2 years ago
David Birch: A new way to stop identity theft
Great talk about everyday life. I have a few knots to untie though. The psychic ID idea is like having a virtual entity that represents you in a central data bank, and holds all the different information that define you, and allows specialists to get what they require and no more. In the real world, you as a body are that representation. If someone could hack your virtual identity in that given system, then you are truly a nobody,until you actually go down to the data center and somehow prove you are the real "you". But how could you prove that? they need authorization! So the only way should be to take something at birth, that would not change over time, and keep it alongside your virtual ID bank, and such a thing could only be your DNA, because fingerprints and retina patterns are not fully developed at birth, and also because DNA proves descent which is a very key information in our traditional social identity. So now we need DNA samplings, and sequencing, and many more sequencing events in case of thefts, and so on. The second problem would be the fake specialists who claim they need info from you. the central system should give all of them an anonymous "specialist" ID card. And this is yet another daunting task. The third problem is the central organization itself. If that organization is hacked by any means (because hacking it would be a very valuable goal for criminals) then everybody would lose their entire identity. Also, if a mobile phone is all it takes to identify any characteristic of you, then your mobile phone would be your identity holder. Anyone stealing it could be you. So its more dangerous to have every egg in a single basket. I don't think this kind of idea will become popular anytime soon, if ever. Maybe a better framework is needed. Thanks for the talk anyway.