h a l f b a k e r yLike gliding backwards through porridge.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Being bombarded by so much progress, technology and specialization it often feels like that there is not much interesting science left to discover (other than perhaps some obscure scientific curiosities, or things requiring exotic scientific apparatus to study)
Uncyclopedia is collection of all important
questions that do not have a satisfactory scientific answer yet. It is important to note that it's written in a approachable manner that doesn't demand specialization in the field to understand (just like an encyclopedia)
When I was a kid I was fascinated by the concept of "white" undiscovered areas on a map. When I grew up and realized that thanks to satellites, most of the world has been mapped in great detail. I was disappointed. That is only after I stumbled across additional "white" regions in our collective knowledge.
Instead of stumbling across them randomly, uncyclopedia is a curated list of these far off undiscovered lands.
Uncyclopedia entry on "knowledge"
https://uncyclopedia.ca/wiki/Knowledge
[pocmloc, Jun 18 2021]
[link]
|
| |
I'm not sure the sea floor has been mapped in full.
Especially not in the Arctic. |
|
| |
When I was an undergraduate, professors would
frequently give advice about exams: "Answer the
question, don't just write down what you know". Which is
good advice, except they don't follow it themselves,
papers & textbooks are full of what we DO know and are
spectacularly bad at highlighting gaps or open questions.
I've been a research scientist for over a decade now and
in my specific area of interest, I can tell you a lot of what
we don't know. I'm missing things though, and in other
disciplines, I haven't a clue. Physics is much better at
this, they have fewer opportunities to experiment and
lots more time to refine questions. |
|
| |
A book of what we don't know would be a real treat to
read. I could do a section on mitochondria if you like: |
|
| |
Mitochondria tethered physically by proteins to other
organelles like the endoplasmic reticulum. We don't know
how many different proteins are involved and only have
vague clues as to the identity of one of them, maybe. |
|
| |
Mitochondria undergo fusion and fission. We don't know
anything about the machinery that divides the inner
membrane into separate compartments. No idea at all. |
|
| |
Mitochondria squirm about randomly inside cells, we
know what stops them (calcium and oxidation) but we
have no idea why they bother in the first place. |
|
| |
Despite decades of measurements and multiple
techniques, we're not sure what the actual concentration
of calcium (ionized or otherwise) ranges to inside the
mitochondrial matrix. |
|
| |
Mitochondria randomly depolarize, then, turn back on.
We have no idea why. |
|
| |
In some cells, mitochondria align their cristae perfectly
with the adjacent mitochondria. No idea why. |
|
| |
The outer mitochondrial membrane is full to bursting with
proteins called "Voltage-dependent anion channels". They
are, as the name suggests, functionally dependent upon
voltage/membrane potential. Yet, no-one has measured a
Voltage, and calculations suggest it's not possible to
generate a sufficiently high Voltage to affect the protein,
so what's going on? |
|
| |
Some non mitochondrial stuff: Intracellular Ca2+ release
is a fundamental signaling mechanism conserved in most
eukaryotic life. There are thousands of Ca2+-regulated
proteins in almost every conceivable pathway and a
complex system of buffers/channels/pumps & exchangers
to organize it. Yet, you can knock out 3 proteins required
for Ca2+ release, and the cells live + grow just fine.
What's going on there? |
|
| |
There should also be a large section in the Uncyclopedia
on the placebo effect. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, there are 2 "groups" of things we don't know:
1: Things we KNOW we don't know
2: Things we DON'T know we don't know
This book only covers group 1, as there is no way to collect
group 2. |
|
| |
you're missing the known knowns, and the unknown knowns. |
|
| |
I like it. Some questions:
1. Is it possible to actually build a cannon big enough to
launch stuff into orbit? Specifically (learning from Project
Babylon), is it politically possible for the lead engineer to
survive long enough to finish the project?
2. What is the answer to the hard problem of consciousness?
In other words, why am I not simply a meat robot without
conscious awareness? In other words, what if anything will I
experience after physical death? Is this scientifically
testable?
3. Is it possible to actually build a self-replicating robotic
mining and manufacturing operation that would consume
terrain and turn it into machinery, with a net-positive
efficiency? (i.e. the tooling will last long enough without
wearing out to produce more than one complete copy of the
machinery?) What is the mass and cost of a somewhat well-
optimized system of this type, and what is a financing
structure that would enable building one and dropping it
from orbit onto Mars?
4. Is it possible to use an optical system to perform
quantum computations substantially faster than a digital
computer simulation of the quantum process? Specifically,
by using some polarizing filters and delay lines to create
laser beams with electronically controllable amplitude and
phase, then adding those together, then using a camera and
interference with a reference beam to sample the
amplitude and phase of the beam and store it in computer
memory...could this run quantum algorithms? (My guess is
that it's not useful unless it can store and add actual qbits
i.e. complex-valued memory elements, due to resolution
limits inherent in trying to produce a laser beam that
matches the state of some qbit stored in computer memory,
but I have not checked this.)
5. Does modern communication technology (a natural
monopoly) inevitably lead to a single globe-spanning
monopoly? (Think a cable telecommunications monopoly,
but everywhere.) Is this a realistic concern, and if so is
there other
technology that would shift the equilibrium in a different
direction or at least prevent regulatory capture?
Specifically, is there a way to combine cryptocurrency
mining, secure hardware, and mesh networks, to make a
new internet that pays users a monthly dividend?
6. Does real life follow some set of narrative rules in
addition to the physical laws? How can I distinguish between
luck, divine intervention, and madness? How can I reach the
frontiers of human experience?
|
|
| |
//1: Things we KNOW we don't know
//2: Things we DON'T know we don't know |
|
| |
When a thing goes from 2->1 sometimes that's very significant. |
|
| |
I wonder if this project could spiral uncontrollably, in that the process of compiling known unknowns generates a faster transfer of unknown unknowns to known unknowns than of known unknowns to known knowns. |
|
| |
+ super! this should also include things that we
think we know but are definitely wrong! or possibly
wrong. You know how they find out 20 years later
that they were wrong about some thing… |
|
| |
//When a thing goes from 2->1 sometimes that's very
significant.// |
|
| |
You can get funded for 1. |
|
| |
//things that we think we know but are definitely
wrong!// |
|
| |
Which is likely an awful lot. Again, physics is ahead of the
crowd on this one. Relativity is neat! Doesn't explain
small stuff though, so is definitely a bit wrong. Quantum
physics is neat, doesn't explain big stuff though, so
definitely a bit wrong. Galaxies are neat, but we don't
know what 95% of them is, just the shiny bits. |
|
| |
sample Uncyclopedia entry on STORY: |
|
| |
Everything is made of stories. DNA is a story. Every thing is telling a story to itself through others' stories. Even the stories tell stories. Buncha physicists recently (re)discovered that the Universe is conscious(ness). Whatever is outside of the Universe is also conscious. When you die, you are not gone as long as you are part of a story. |
|
| |
[addition to the entry for HBers Edition] Douglas Adams, Sir PTerry, [Max], [8th] are part of this feedback loop from the other side of the Möbius Strip of Time. |
|
| |
Three Universal Laws of Uncyclopedia* (all true entries will conform to these laws and be internally consistent): |
|
| |
1. Paradox [eg: All colours combined equal both black and white: black (combine all the colours...of pigment) = white (combine all the colours...of light). Ha. Hmm.] |
|
| |
2. Humour [the tickly, life-affirming not-funny/funny 'Hmm' and 'Aha, interesting' kind, not the 'Ouch' kind which is funny/not-funny] |
|
| |
3. Change [eg: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Aha, true. Change reminds me of the Buddhist hotdog cart joke**.] |
|
| |
*Paradox, Humour and Change are the Three Universal Truths. Corollary: If a proof is not beautiful, it is not true. Discuss. |
|
| |
**short version: $5 hotdogs. Customer asks Buddhist monk hotdog vendor to make him 'One With Everything', ha ha' and pays with a $20. Gets hotdog, no change for the $20. Monk says 'Change comes from within'. |
|
| |