Paolo Pangrazi

Freiburg, Germany

Someone is shy

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

Comments & conversations

Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
We are talking about 2 different topics. For instance consider mathematically the possibility that the event "perfect human DNA" comes from a semi-perfect human DNA that comes from something else and so on back for millions of years till to reach the first original bacteria. Consider all the possible events there. I would not like to do the exact calculations but it will surely approach 1E-some trillions (at least). Now in one of the mathematics courses i attended years ago at the university I remember well that 0,999........ is equal 1. The same reasoning can be applied the way around, namely 0,00000000000000000000000.........1 = 0. We can indeed write that as: 1E-some trillions = lim(n => infinity) 1/10^n = 0 Mathematics clearly speak against the evolution theory.
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
The lotto/casino examples are independent events. Every lotto run is not linked to the past lotto events. Mathematically: P(A) = probability of an event A. The complexity of life consists instead of billions or trillions of events perfectly correlated. Each single step needs the event before in order to exist. This is called "Conditional probability". In Mathematics is rendered as P(A|B) = the probability of A, given B Well, given the tremendous number of dependent events needed in order to have life and nature as we know, the conditional probability calculation leads clearly to a ZERO.
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
"I am sorry to inform you about this, but, if it is not, "speciation" naturally leads to "macroevolution" > Speciation is actually a synonym for micro-evolution and this is undeniable. However micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution. It cannot. It is just a philosophical supposition not yet proved furthermore masked as scientific law. If not the evolution theory should/must be called evolution law. But it isn't. "We might not see enough changes in the lab for you to accept it (how much do you need?)." > changes we are able to see are showing only and exclusively the micro-evolution process. We see such micro-changes constantly indeed. However Peter put a simple but powerful question: did anyone of us see an orchid become an non-orchid? Or to extend the question: an ape becoming a man? There are too many missing links to simply state: "macro-evolution exists". If a lot of people believe in that, they are free to do that. But they cannot force other ones to consider that a "scientific law". Because it isn't. "Yet, we have not found any barriers there that would stop populations from diverging so much that you would then put them into different genera, more time and events and you would put them on different families..." > populations, genera and families diverge a lot. Biologically it is quite impossible that a perfect frog cell in course of the time become a perfect ape cell. A frog is a frog. An ape is an ape. A man is a man. Forever. If we are really now living the n-th millionth iteration of the macro-evolution process where are all the families/species between the man and an ape? Between fish and spiders? The planet should be full right now of this sub-families/species. But i do not see all that. Why? Simple: they do not exist at all. "There's plenty of proof that this happens by just putting together the evidence in nature." > Plenty of proof? Which ones exactly? All the best-selling Dawkings books? No, thanks. They are not.
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
Faith and science CAN coexist. Scientists are usually labeled either "creationists" or "evolutionists". Why it must be so? And who has the right to insult the other party just because of his beliefs? Science is based on mutual respect. If any so-called scientist lacks of it, it cannot be considered as a real scientist since he does not accept openly any other divergent point of view. Science involves questions, tough question marks, possibility to lose or to win. Faith as well. I think there are a lot of intelligent scientists (and normal people) out there having doubts with the evolution model but being scared to be expelled by the scientific community they have to believe in evolution. Unwillingly. At times a part of them takes courage to raise the hand and ask such uncomfortable questions. The video is actually stunning. The replication of the DNA is a perfect machine of cooperation, coordination and elegance, no matter what people beliefs. And this is just a tiny part of our organism. I have personally enormous doubts that the question "where does such beauty come from?" can be fully answered only by the evolution model without any driving intelligence behind that. Let put the question in another way: How can beauty AND functionality coexist perfectly only and exclusively within the evolution theory?
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted over 3 years ago
Gabe Zichermann: How games make kids smarter
Interesting talk. However: - "kids are multitasking". Yes and no. It is true they are faster to "switch" than the older generations. But the brain has not been made for real multitasking. We (adults and kids) are able to concentrate on single thoughts only. Try to think 2 things simultaneously. You cannot. - "times with a cup of tea while reading a book are over". False. Such moments are physiological/psychological needs of every human being. We cannot be in constant "multitasking" the whole day/week/year/life. It is not natural. Additionally I foresee a talk on TED 2030. It will be titled: "Back to the past. Enjoy life better as your grandpa did." :)
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted about 4 years ago
Mikko Hypponen: Fighting viruses, defending the net
This is indeed a great talk. Easy to understand (even for no nerds) with very good and entertaining content. These are my personal observations after reading several comments. 1. Security has a lot to do with the user. I spent days, weeks cleaning up Windows systems just because the user clicked on 'yes'. After explaining the issues thoroughly the users are then less inclined to press again 'yes' after that. But eventually it happens again. This kind of user is usually a Windows user. Statistically people using UNIX/Linux systems are a bit more conscious how the systems run and they can solve their problems alone. 2. Security has a lot to do with the system itself. We can spend weeks discussing the weaknesses and advantages of any given OS. The Microsoft security model is bad designed. Period. Since decades they promise they solve everything with the next fix/patch/upgrade/release. I do not believe them anymore. I use Windows, Mac and Linux/UNIX systems at work and home. UNIX/Linux systems (including OSx) are more robust, safe and reliable. Period. Sorry to say, but Microsoft in comparison cannot compete. They are still not able to deliver a stable, secure systems after so many years and being so rich. It is just my personal opinion, but i wasted too much time of my life installing, patching, cleaning, fixing, restarting, reformatting, watching perplexed before a blue screen, deleting manually registry entries and so on. Time is precious and i do not left them anymore to rob it. Suggestions for all that: 1. Users must be trained. 2. Buy or download and use other operating systems rather than Windows. 3. Let's create a post credit card era. No credit card information forms anymore saved/sent through Internet. 4. let's encrypt/decrypt every single stroke on the keyboard with a sort of dynamic AES hardware algorithm that change key every some seconds to fight the keylogging software. A sort of https for keyboards.
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted about 4 years ago
Jonathan Drori: The beautiful tricks of flowers
Of course the iPhone had its own "evolution". You said "many factors" decide it. Exactly. Many factors = real actors. Steve Jobs mind joined to the market demand, namely the desires and needs of other people decided consciously which pattern to follow. Every action performed for that needed an intelligent actor on it. Many now would reply: "Hey, the evolution is intelligent!". I simply ask: How can something without life and brain be intelligent? And above all, why? The theory is based on trial and adaptation concepts, reiterated million of times. Great. If now we are living in the n-th iteration of that process, the whole system should be tremendous unstable. But it is not the case. Apes are still apes, bees are still bees, and flowers are still flowers. Additionally the natural system we are living in is extreme stable. Everything matches perfectly with the surrounding. Take for example following: the cycle of water, sun rays, moon magnetic fields causing oceans tidals, the right amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, the perfect distance of the earth from the sun and the nearby planets, the flowers/bee symbiosis (as shown by this fascinating talk), the physics laws, the replication process of the DNA. (The list can go on for long). If only one piece of this masterpiece is missing, the system will collapse immediately or at least life on the earth would be not possible as we know. Yes, the bees are extinguishing, and if it really happens, not only flowers will perish, but also the human race will be swiped out within some years according recent studies.
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted about 4 years ago
Jonathan Drori: The beautiful tricks of flowers
Please read some books. > I have read tons of books. Included the Origin of the species and part of the Dawkings literature. Do you really think that evolutionary theory depends on the idea of the random combination of elements? > Evolution is for a great part based on the concepts of "mutation" and "genetic drift" that are based on randomness. You are cutting your self off from one of the most beautiful, elegant, and deeply predictive ideas that we have ever been lucky enough to experience. > It is really a very fascinating theory. But just recently many believe in it because it is trendier rather than proved. About 2000 Years long people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong. The evolution theory is around for ca. 159 Years. I would be very cautious considering that as law and fact.
Noface
Paolo Pangrazi
Posted about 4 years ago
Jonathan Drori: The beautiful tricks of flowers
Nobody of us believes that the iPhone has been conceived through evolution. Nobody. Everyone knows and accept the fact it has a manufacturer, a designer, a scope etc. Same reasoning can be applied for computers, chairs, houses, doors, buildings, whatever. Who believe they have no designer, no manufacturer, please raise the hand. Now, let's make a simple test. Let's gather some screwdrivers, some circuits and then mix them up for the next millions of years. Then let's see if the iPhone version Infinity will come up suddenly in the environment. It will not only just work but it will be also gorgeous. Mathematically and statistically the chance that it really happens in such a way is equal to zero. We believe already daily (everyone of us) that everything around us has a designer. But when we are stroked from the beauty of the nature/universe, we love/want to be blind, and say :"Yes, it's gorgeous, it works perfectly, it is in the whole ecosystem beautifully integrated, but i believe it has no designer."