Q: “But Mitch – why do you say science “journalism“ is a spiraling vortex of ignorance, credulity and stupidity?“

A: Oh, no reason in particular“

Bonus question: how will intersectional theory affect the thesis? Especially if you look at it post-structurally?

17 thoughts on “Questions/Answers

  1. I suspect a satirical gremlin wrote the original article. Gullibility is the driving force behind “science journalism.”

  2. I dont’ know, doc, they had me at

    RELATED Scientists say COVID-19 recovery plans should include climate change

  3. I looked up the physicist behind the claim and I’d like to agree with golfdoc50 but I can’t find anything indicating that the guy is anything but “for reals”.

    I’m at a loss to explain why he would write we estimate that after ∼350 years from now, the number of bits produced will exceed the number of all atoms on Earth. This is a nonsensical comparison.

  4. jdm, why are you at a loss? These are the same people who think they can control the weather.

  5. If scientists keep learning new things and saving the information in digital form, they’ll have to destroy the world to make enough electrons to store all the new information.

    Knowledge is bad.

    Kill all the scientists.

    Works for me.

  6. jdm, why are you at a loss?

    I get your point, jpa, and I agree, but this is worse than you realize because the comparison is nonsense and it’s coming from a physicist who has shown little or nothing weird or progressive or insane in his other writings.

    Unless I’m missing something – always a concern, I’ll admit – the comparison between bits and atoms is much the same as comparing apples and oranges… or, here, atoms and drawings on paper. First of all, bits are a mathematical concept that have no weight nor mass. Engineers have implemented them in silicon, the most abundant element on the planet, using transistors. A bit is represented in a transistor by one electrical position (0) or another (1). Each transistor is made up some few thousands of atoms, but there are also now, single atom transistors.

    Second, all electronic media comes with its atoms arranged in certain neutral “nonsense” patterns (say, all bits at ‘0’). Writing to that media, saving away data, simply rearranges those atoms to something that useful that can be read later. No atoms are consumed.

    Have more unwritten bits? Make more media. Many forms of media don’t even need power to continue to hold bits. CDs, tapes, flash, hard disks can all store data without needing any power or impinging on the production of new media. This means, in effect, that with these storage media that don’t need power, we may have already surpassed the number of atoms on the planet!

    This whole thing stinks of a huge practical joke.

    Sorry for the rant.

  7. Ok, ok… next time I’ll use the tag.

    mathematical concept that have no weight nor mass

    But concept is reality to logic-absent minded scinece™ acolytes. No? So if it “exists”, it must have mass. And if it has mass, it must have energy. And if it has energy, it must be generated, taking energy from somewhere else – see Newton’s conservation of energy law. Hence, we will run out of energy if we continue to amass bits of information. See how easy it is to justify anything if you use science™?

  8. So if it “exists”, it must have mass. And if it has mass, it must have energy.

    And if it exists, it can be taxed – and regulated! Now I’m waiting for mandates to use smaller fonts in digital communications to conserve space, unless you buy “bit credits”.

  9. You just need a better compression algorithm.
    Problem solved.
    You are welcome!

  10. Yea, but compressing bits will lead to critical mass and you now you have yourself a bomb with potential for blowing itself into bits. Mamm, you sound like you are a part of the military-industrial complex. You, war monger, you!

  11. How many properties does a simple atom, like hydrogen, have? You could encode more than one bit on one hydrogen atom.

  12. I was kind of kidding about the compression algorithm. But there is a thing called “information theory” that forms the foundation of compression algorithms.
    The article was nonsense. Every instant the earth contains information about the particles & atoms & molecules that make it up. That information changes every, what, 1/10^42 seconds? So all of the earth’s atoms could not contain enough info to describe the information encoded in the earth’s atoms. It’s a version of the paradox that a 100% accurate map would be as big as the area it mapped.

  13. Mamm, you are absolutely correct. current state of technology is only as advanced as the latest physical concepts and ways to implement them into reality. Who knows, maybe if e=mc^2 was known in middle ages, the nuclear age may have arrived that much sooner.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.